News of the day

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You can argue for expediency all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it has nothing to do with being principled. A principled person does not sell out their morals to achieve a little bit of success. Abolitionists were principled, not the ones drafting compromises. Ghandi was principled, not people who are against war, but they'll do their duty if they're drafted. I just don't understand what you're saying. Defend the guy all you want, but don't call him principled it just doesn't make any sense. What you're saying is just ignoring the issue. Presidents unilaterally went into these wars, they can unilaterally get out. Obama decided unilaterally to extend our military action in the middle east. There was no compromise that needed to be worked out. The only thing he compromised was his principles. I'm not insulting you. You're just stating two words together which are essentialyl antonyms. It just doens't make any sense.

You made the blanket statement that he had no principles.  I wouldn't expect anything I say to make any sense to you.  I was expecting too much of you.  And I'm not insulting you or calling you a fool or anything.  Let me rephrase even though I'm pretty certain it will be too difficult for you to comprehend.  Sometimes you have to yield some on ideological principles and compromise to achieve the best results possible when you have to deal with real people in the real world.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 22 2011 at 18:30

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: You can argue for expediency all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it has nothing to do with being principled. A principled person does not sell out their morals to achieve a little bit of success. Abolitionists were principled, not the ones drafting compromises. Ghandi was principled, not people who are against war, but they'll do their duty if they're drafted. I just don't understand what you're saying. Defend the guy all you want, but don't call him principled it just doesn't make any sense. What you're saying is just ignoring the issue. Presidents unilaterally went into these wars, they can unilaterally get out. Obama decided unilaterally to extend our military action in the middle east. There was no compromise that needed to be worked out. The only thing he compromised was his principles. I'm not insulting you. You're just stating two words together which are essentialyl antonyms. It just doens't make any sense. You made the blanket statement that he had no principles.  I wouldn't expect anything I say to make any sense to you.  I was expecting too much of you.  And I'm not insulting you or calling you a fool or anything.  Let me rephrase even though I'm pretty certain it will be too difficult for you to comprehend.  Sometimes you have to yield some on ideological principles and compromise to achieve the best results possible when you have to deal with real people in the real world.

Let me rephrase. That's not being principled. That's being a politician.

timothy leary wrote: You assumed wrong.Most controlled burns are on clearcut area on steep slopes where they have left vast amounts of waste on the ground and then done a burn which merely chars the outside of the wood they left. When they clearcut everything goes whether they want it or not. Slash and burn. As for what Obama is an expert at.......coming out of chicago politics he is an expert at making deals which compromise his principles if he has them. I t would be sad to see another 4 years of chicago style politics.

Okay - as I say, no argument from me - I assumed that any government involvement would be for property and life reasons and no other - surely the Forestry Agency (or whatever the organisation is called in your country that manages the forests) doesn't require government intervention to do its job efficiently and ecologically. In areas where life and property are not at risk then why would the Forestry Agency (or whatever it is called in your country) require the government to legislate. I assumed the government intervention was solely to circumvent any uninformed public opinion or other localised or state-wide interference that prevented the Forestry agency (or whatever it is called in your country) from doing whatever it is they do, because (again an assumption, which formed the basis of the original assumption) I assume it was that body of experts that called for the government to legislate for controlled burn, and not a whim of the current administration or of some ill-advised non-governmental committee or just public/media opinion, and that it was on the advice of that body of experts, together with opinions canvassed from other equally knowledgeable experts (such as the fire departments and whatever academic faculties that supplies such experts when needed) that the government made their decision. And therefore based upon the advice of those experts from wherever, a policy of controlled burn to reduce wildfires in areas close to human habitation should be a sound and perfectly valid one, so I must also assume that controlled fires really do prevent wildfires, unless another expert (you) tells me otherwise.  

Here's some November data and a report from a US government agency that some would assume that the private industry would just take over even without there being any profit in doing it:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/

And a newspaper article:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/forest_and_brush_fires/index.html






Edited by Slartibartfast - December 22 2011 at 20:04

Padraic wrote: Why would there not be any profit in it?

Feel free to explain how it can...

NOAA is an agency of our government of the people coming together to gather and provide information for the common good.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 22 2011 at 20:30

Sure it could be run for profit.  Only the people who could pay for it would get the information.  It might trickle down or something.

I am honestly curious about what you'd propose as alternative, not generalities.  NOAA is not a theoretical generality.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 22 2011 at 20:36

Imagine having to pay a private company for hurricane warnings.  That sounds like Utopia to me.

In local news wild coyotes are eating loose pets and we are manufacturing and exporting chopsticks.

Cheetah died today at 80 years old. R.I.P.

File it under WTF.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/pictures/111013-shark-albino-one-eyed-fetus/

^ Moved to News of the Day from it's own separate thread (Admin Edit)