Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
That does sound us win. Eu agrees to buy stuff, us reconsiders. What if trump says "naha we still keep them". Wouldn't even be breaking deal. Reconsideration can end in original result as well
You're assuming that the EU didn't intend to buy that stuff anyway. If the US doesn't drop the tariffs, the EU can just go ahead with the planned tariffs.
The deal was for soy beans and liquid natural gas. Both items the EU would very much like to have on the European marlet, especially the LNG. So Juncker basically put a nice bow around something we already wanted and presented it as doing Trump a favor. In return Trump has backed down over car/carpart tariffs and a vague promise to look at steel and alumimium tariffs. The EU and US both have tariffs running now, but the EU got things they wanted anyway and got Trump to take future tariffs off the table in exchange for basically nothing. The best part is that Trump himself is selling the deal as great in the US
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 12:10:55
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
It's not that bad a deal for Trump because getting some soya off to Europe will help save his midwestern farmers from the consequences of China's retaliation tariff on US soya beans.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not that bad a deal for Trump because getting some soya off to Europe will help save his midwestern farmers from the consequences of China's retaliation tariff on US soya beans.
China is (was?) a major importer of US soya.
Its not a bad deal, but yesterday Trump already put aside a 12 billion dollar subsidy budget to save those farmers. He was saving those farmers regardless, but now the EU swooped in and secured a good deal in which it didn't have to give in anything while looking very helpful.
Yes China is a major importer of US soy beans. The issue currently is that more farmers than ever had invested in soy beans because of the Chinese market demand and then Trump started his trade war, kind of a double whammy for his base. But as I said before, he was saving those voters regardless.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 12:17:42
Just heard on the radio this morning that the trade war will soon have an effect on me. Coca-Cola will be raising their prices to cover the increased costs of the imported metal in their cans.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its not a bad deal, but yesterday Trump already put aside a 12 billion dollar subsidy budget to save those farmers.
So when government money is used for healthcare and education it's filthy socialism, but when it's used for a politically motivated bailout of your base from a problem you created it's totally fine, right?
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: The more automated pieces of crap out there, the more people you need to fix them because some halfwit didn't know what needed to be done in the first place.
The problem is that those jobs will be skilled labor and many people simply won't be able to qualify for them. You're replacing a bunch of factory workers with a bunch of machines and a maintenance tech to keep them running. The kind of person that is ability-wise limited to simple labor on an assembly line is going to be unemployed forever, the higher-skill jobs will not be an option. And, worse, automation means much more complexity in machines. It's like how things are with cars now. You used to be able to have your local mechanic fix pretty much anything on your car because the systems were all simple mechanical ones. Now if, say, the engine computer has a problem all you can do is pull the entire box out and buy a replacement. That's a great situation if you're a software engineer in charge of your factory's automation systems, it's not such a great thing if you aren't.
Now, our xenophobe draws the exact wrong conclusion here by assuming that illegal immigration is the problem when it really isn't. The kind of post-capitalism system that can cope with the majority of the population being unemployable has no concept of "not being able to afford welfare for immigrants" because financial cost is no longer relevant. But they're right about the threat of automation being a massive one. Broken clocks and blind squirrels...
Your statements fail basic logic tests. How does adding more mouths to feed that contribute nothing to society benefit a society with limited resources?
"financial cost is no longer relevant"
We aren't talking about a post scarcity society here. Resources are still limited. It's not going to be Utopia ether. The experts who really understand the problem say it's going to be a real struggle and what's worse is most people are completely in denial about it. Good for you being optimistic - I'd prefer to be a little more cautious.
It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 15:32:44
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its not a bad deal, but yesterday Trump already put aside a 12 billion dollar subsidy budget to save those farmers.
So when government money is used for healthcare and education it's filthy socialism, but when it's used for a politically motivated bailout of your base from a problem you created it's totally fine, right?
Got to preserve them voters! Its not socialism when you bail out the ones who have money!
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
Idk whether this is a call for a culling, forced sterilization or a one child policy Its a bold strategy, I wonder how its working out in Japan or China, oh yeah gakky...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/26 15:45:19
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
You've got it backwards. Prosperity leads to population booms.
I'd only need to refer you to Japan and China to prove your theory wrong. Japans population is decreasing and they have practically 0 immigration. China's population is shrinking and will have the largest economy in the world in the next 10 years.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
And massive future economic issues as a result, but that can be handwaved away? Modern economies rely on at least a steady population number or they start shrinking and government gets into problems as well./
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/26 16:03:10
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense
I'd only need to refer you to Japan and China to prove your theory wrong. Japans population is decreasing and they have practically 0 immigration. China's population is shrinking and will have the largest economy in the world in the next 10 years.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its not a bad deal, but yesterday Trump already put aside a 12 billion dollar subsidy budget to save those farmers.
So when government money is used for healthcare and education it's filthy socialism, but when it's used for a politically motivated bailout of your base from a problem you created it's totally fine, right?
Got to preserve them voters! Its not socialism when you bail out the ones who have money!
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
Idk whether this is a call for a culling, forced sterilization or a one child policy Its a bold strategy, I wonder how its working out in Japan or China, oh yeah gakky...
Yeah - Not suggesting a culling or a purge. That is absolute insanity you would even suggest such nonsense in a civilized discussion. Making policy decisions that benefit your country financially is completely rational. Murdering people is obviously irrational.
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense
I'd only need to refer you to Japan and China to prove your theory wrong. Japans population is decreasing and they have practically 0 immigration. China's population is shrinking and will have the largest economy in the world in the next 10 years.
These graphs are complete trash...what am I even looking at?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/26 16:07:44
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: The more automated pieces of crap out there, the more people you need to fix them because some halfwit didn't know what needed to be done in the first place.
The problem is that those jobs will be skilled labor and many people simply won't be able to qualify for them. You're replacing a bunch of factory workers with a bunch of machines and a maintenance tech to keep them running. The kind of person that is ability-wise limited to simple labor on an assembly line is going to be unemployed forever, the higher-skill jobs will not be an option. And, worse, automation means much more complexity in machines. It's like how things are with cars now. You used to be able to have your local mechanic fix pretty much anything on your car because the systems were all simple mechanical ones. Now if, say, the engine computer has a problem all you can do is pull the entire box out and buy a replacement. That's a great situation if you're a software engineer in charge of your factory's automation systems, it's not such a great thing if you aren't.
Now, our xenophobe draws the exact wrong conclusion here by assuming that illegal immigration is the problem when it really isn't. The kind of post-capitalism system that can cope with the majority of the population being unemployable has no concept of "not being able to afford welfare for immigrants" because financial cost is no longer relevant. But they're right about the threat of automation being a massive one. Broken clocks and blind squirrels...
Your statements fail basic logic tests. How does adding more mouths to feed that contribute nothing to society benefit a society with limited resources?
The US is the wealthiest, richest, and most powerful nation in the history of planet Earth and human civilization, with a GDP approaching twenty trillion dollars and a gdp/capita of almost 60k, with 20% of yearly global GDP but only about 4% of the global population.
If there is a problem supporting people, it's not because the resources just aren't available.
We arent doomed to a Malthusian apocalypse, if we encounter one itll be the result of poor governance, not fundamental resource constraints. Such has been the case in most famines and similar hardships of recent centuries. The Irish potato famine, the Holodomor, etc.
It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
Except its one of the primary drivers growing the US, particularly relative to other developed economies that are rapidly aging and unable to replace their populations and shrinking and fave economic crisis far sooner than the US over it.
Additionally, the US sucks up many of the best and brihhtest from around the world, disproportionately consuming doctors and engineers and the like from other nations, resulting in brain drain from many competitors. Immigrant farm labor meanwhile keeps your supermarket prices substantially lower than they would be otherwise and allows for US agriculture to be much more export competitive than it otherwise would be.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [Idk whether this is a call for a culling, forced sterilization or a one child policy Its a bold strategy, I wonder how its working out in Japan or China, oh yeah gakky...
Yeah - Not suggesting a culling or a purge. That is absolute insanity you would even suggest such nonsense in a civilized discussion. Making policy decisions that benefit your country financially is completely rational. Murdering people is obviously irrational.
I'm just taking the above to its absurd conclusion. If you want to make policy decions that benefit your country and less people=more money (according to you) then its not irrational from a financially focussed policy.
Culling the 'herd' is exactly what the CCP did, but hey, it made economic sense back before they considered the long term issues.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/26 16:17:22
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
You've got it backwards. Prosperity leads to population booms.
...
You've got it wrong. Prosperity leads to a reduction of the number of children per adult woman. This is well documented in advanced societies and has economic research underpinning the reasons why.
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
You've got it backwards. Prosperity leads to population booms.
...
You've got it wrong. Prosperity leads to a reduction of the number of children per adult woman. This is well documented in advanced societies and has economic research underpinning the reasons why.
Xeno is right, if we are talking about an agrarian society.
America is not an agrarian society.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
You've got it backwards. Prosperity leads to population booms.
...
You've got it wrong. Prosperity leads to a reduction of the number of children per adult woman. This is well documented in advanced societies and has economic research underpinning the reasons why.
If the conclusions you are drawing from that were accurate. The US population wouldn't have rissen in the past 70 years but it's more than doubled and it's economy has grown massive. There are so many factors that go into birth rates you can't make general statements about it it like that.
Religion and culture are the biggest factors in birth rate not economic status. However - economic prosperity lays the ground for people to do whatever they want to do - if they want to have big families - they are fully capable of doing so. Healthcare is well funded so people live longer. Nutrition is high so less people get sick and die. It's complicated. It is in fact very true though that econmic booms will correspond with population increase through out history. That may very well change in the future as secularism and environmentalism gain prominence.
"Prosperity leads to a reduction of the number of children per adult woman"
This is true no doubt. With distribution of wealth not being equal though - it's no surprise populations continue to grow.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/26 17:24:30
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: If the conclusions you are drawing from that were accurate. The US population wouldn't have rissen in the past 70 years but it's more than doubled and it's economy has grown massive. There are so many factors that go into birth rates you can't make general statements about it it like that.
Religion and culture are the biggest factors in birth rate not economic status. However - economic prosperity lays the ground for people to do whatever they want to do - if they want to have big families - they are fully capable of doing so. Healthcare is well funded so people live longer. Nutrition is high so less people get sick and die. It's complicated. It is in fact very true though that econmic booms will correspond with population increase through out history. That may very well change in the future as secularism and environmentalism gain prominence.
They are accurate man. The US fertility rate has plummeted in the last 70 years, back in the 50's it was almost at 4 children per couple, its now at 1.75. A population needs a rate of 2.1 to remain stable. Immigration is literally why the US population hasn't started shrinking. This is demographics at its most basic level. The only population group in the US that even manages 2.1 is the South American group.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 17:27:56
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Xenomancers wrote: If the conclusions you are drawing from that were accurate. The US population wouldn't have rissen in the past 70 years but it's more than doubled and it's economy has grown massive. There are so many factors that go into birth rates you can't make general statements about it it like that.
Religion and culture are the biggest factors in birth rate not economic status. However - economic prosperity lays the ground for people to do whatever they want to do - if they want to have big families - they are fully capable of doing so. Healthcare is well funded so people live longer. Nutrition is high so less people get sick and die. It's complicated. It is in fact very true though that econmic booms will correspond with population increase through out history. That may very well change in the future as secularism and environmentalism gain prominence.
They are accurate man. The US fertility rate has plummeted in the last 70 years, back in the 50's it was almost at 4 children per couple, its now at 1.75. A population needs a rate of 2.1 to remain stable. Immigration is literally why the US population hasn't started shrinking. This is demographics at its most basic level. The only population group in the US that even manages 2.1 is the South American group.
And to bring Japan up again, they have nearly non-existent immigration, and that's why their population is sinking. This is actually a huge issue for them, they won't have enough people to work a lot of jobs but will have to take care of their retired population.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Xenomancers wrote: It really is very simple - Increasing this countries population does not benefit me or the country in general - in any way. It's not Xenophobia - It's just common sense.
You've got it backwards. Prosperity leads to population booms.
...
You've got it wrong. Prosperity leads to a reduction of the number of children per adult woman. This is well documented in advanced societies and has economic research underpinning the reasons why.
If the conclusions you are drawing from that were accurate. The US population wouldn't have rissen in the past 70 years but it's more than doubled and it's economy has grown massive. There are so many factors that go into birth rates you can't make general statements about it it like that.
Religion and culture are the biggest factors in birth rate not economic status.
I get what your saying but I think there is more to it. It's also about the age demographic of the population. Who's working, who's using benefits like social security. (Which as I understand it is running dry. I don't expect I will ever get any.) The issue is the growing pains between arriving till tax payer. Seems to me any way. There are other problems that I think need to be addressed which if they were might ease the growing pains a little. But who knows. I forgot to mention that I was under the impression that the us population stopped growing in, I want to say, the 50's. Not sure where I got that from so disregard if it's not true.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
warhead01 wrote: I forgot to mention that I was under the impression that the us population stopped growing in, I want to say, the 50's. Not sure where I got that from so disregard if it's not true.
The US population went below the tipping point for sustaining the current population level during the first half of the 70's.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Xenomancers wrote: If the conclusions you are drawing from that were accurate. The US population wouldn't have rissen in the past 70 years but it's more than doubled and it's economy has grown massive. There are so many factors that go into birth rates you can't make general statements about it it like that.
Religion and culture are the biggest factors in birth rate not economic status. However - economic prosperity lays the ground for people to do whatever they want to do - if they want to have big families - they are fully capable of doing so. Healthcare is well funded so people live longer. Nutrition is high so less people get sick and die. It's complicated. It is in fact very true though that econmic booms will correspond with population increase through out history. That may very well change in the future as secularism and environmentalism gain prominence.
They are accurate man. The US fertility rate has plummeted in the last 70 years, back in the 50's it was almost at 4 children per couple, its now at 1.75. A population needs a rate of 2.1 to remain stable. Immigration is literally why the US population hasn't started shrinking. This is demographics at its most basic level. The only population group in the US that even manages 2.1 is the South American group.
Indeed. To quote the late Prof. Rosling, "This isn't up for debate. I am right and you are wrong." As you said, it's stuff you learn in Demographics 101.
Naturally, Xeno doesn't know this, because of course he doesn't. Dunning-Kruger effect at work.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Xenomancers wrote: If the conclusions you are drawing from that were accurate. The US population wouldn't have rissen in the past 70 years but it's more than doubled and it's economy has grown massive. There are so many factors that go into birth rates you can't make general statements about it it like that.
Religion and culture are the biggest factors in birth rate not economic status. However - economic prosperity lays the ground for people to do whatever they want to do - if they want to have big families - they are fully capable of doing so. Healthcare is well funded so people live longer. Nutrition is high so less people get sick and die. It's complicated. It is in fact very true though that econmic booms will correspond with population increase through out history. That may very well change in the future as secularism and environmentalism gain prominence.
They are accurate man. The US fertility rate has plummeted in the last 70 years, back in the 50's it was almost at 4 children per couple, its now at 1.75. A population needs a rate of 2.1 to remain stable. Immigration is literally why the US population hasn't started shrinking. This is demographics at its most basic level. The only population group in the US that even manages 2.1 is the South American group.
And to bring Japan up again, they have nearly non-existent immigration, and that's why their population is sinking. This is actually a huge issue for them, they won't have enough people to work a lot of jobs but will have to take care of their retired population.
It won't be an issue - because robots.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I wonder how people are going to buy robots to take care of them when those same robots have made their jobs obsolete. Is it magic money or socialist reform?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 18:34:34
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Is this the immigration version of that moment where someone says that climate change doesn't matter because Jesus is about to take all the good people to heaven in a couple years anyway?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Just heard on the radio this morning that the trade war will soon have an effect on me. Coca-Cola will be raising their prices to cover the increased costs of the imported metal in their cans.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
My Coke
What ever shall I do
Also to everyone in this thread if you post the article, post the entire thing into a quote. And then put a spoiler around it. Some people are at work and cannot open other websites.
On July 11, a man named Nathaniel Pryor Reed died. He was 84 years old. He’d fallen immediately upon having hooked a salmon in a river in Quebec and never regained consciousness, which is perhaps the most wonderfully prosaic way for him to have died because, without Nat Reed, this country would have been a much different, and a much more ruined, place.
He was one of the first prominent members of the environmental movement that rose in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. He probably saved the Everglades from being just another part of Florida’s landscape buried underneath strip-malls and an airport. He got garbage dumps banned from the Everglades so they would no longer attract bears, so he helped save the Everglades not only from predatory capitalists, but from actual predators as well. From The Palm Beach Post:
In helping create the Big Cypress preserve, Reed also helped kill what would have been the world’s biggest jetport, a sprawling complex envisioned for the middle of the Everglades. Would the Big Cypress have happened “if the propaganda for developing the site into a major supersonic jetport had not raised the environmental issues at a time in our nation’s history when environmental issues were national news?” Nat Reed asked in a recent essay. “The answer is an emphatic ‘No.’ ”
But his greatest achievements came as an environmental activist within the halls of government. He was an environmental aide to several Republican governors and, in 1971, he was named the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The president at the time told him that he didn’t really know or care much about environmental issues, but that he wanted an environmental legacy bigger than his predecessors—one predecessor in particular—and that he didn’t care how Reed did it, as long as it didn’t get the president in trouble. Reed went to town.
Florida Scales Back Everglades Sugar Land Deal
The Florida Everglades
Getty ImagesJoe Raedle
He stayed on at Interior for six years, which was two years longer than the president stayed in his job. He was instrumental in shepherding the Clean Water Act through Congress and, in 1973, Reed co-wrote the monumental Endangered Species Act, which one historian has called the “Magna Carta of the environmental movement.” There were only four votes against it in the House, and the Senate passed it unanimously. It consistently polls in the 70s and 80s across both party lines. The president who signed it said,
I congratulate the 93rd Congress for taking this important step toward protecting a heritage which we hold in trust to countless future generations of our fellow citizens. Their lives will be richer, and America will be more beautiful in the years ahead, thanks to the measure that I have the pleasure of signing into law today.
The president in question was Richard Nixon, who was a Republican.
So was Nat Reed.
This is because environmentalism was an article of faith for Republicans ever since Theodore Roosevelt set down a marker for it. It was a bipartisan article of faith for almost as long. Back when it began, it began as “conservationism,” and hunters and fishermen were on board, too.
Sixteen years before he wrote his seminal Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold, one of the founders of the conservation movement,
Control comes from the co-ordination of science and use. This book attempts to explore the possibilities of such coordination in a single, limited field-the conservation of game by management. Its detail applies to game alone, but the principles are of general import to all fields of conservation. The central thesis of game management is this: game can be restored by the creative use of the same tools which have heretofore destroyed it-axe, plow, cow, fire, and gun. A favorable alignment of these forces sometimes came about in pioneer days by accident. The result was a temporary wealth of game far greater than the red man ever saw. Management is their purposeful and continuing alignment…We seem to have two choices: try it, or hunt rabbits.
Just as Nat Reed was hooking that 16-pounder in Quebec, the administration of another Republican president* was poised to gut Reed’s masterwork, the Endangered Species Act. From CNN:
Among the proposed changes announced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Thursday is allowing officials to consider economic impact when enforcing the ESA. "We propose to remove the phrase, 'without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination'" the proposal states. Another suggested shift in the policy would also end the service's practice of providing future "threatened" species with the same protections as endangered species automatically. Instead, protections for future threatened species will be determined by "the species' individual conservation needs."
(That last sentence is rather a hoot. How do they propose to identify “the species’ individual conservation needs”? Invite some sage grouse to the House of Representatives to testify? Louie Gohmert would be unfairly overmatched.)
GUNNISON, COLORADO, APRIL 11, 2007- During the March to May mating season, Gunnison Sage Grouse males display their filoplumes (topknot), bulging air sacs, white breasts and spiky tail feathers. Their exotic attire and spectacular display draws the attent
The sage grouse.
Getty ImagesHELEN H. RICHARDSON
And the most recent effort to hobble the ESA, well-funded by the usual suspects, also was snuck into the National Defense Authorization Act, much to the consternation of the Pentagon, which couldn’t seem to make up its mind on the issue. From The New York Times:
In a one-paragraph position paper made public Wednesday, the Pentagon said the GOP provision was "not necessary to protect military testing and training" and said the department "urges its exclusion" from the defense bill being negotiated by House and Senate leaders. Lucian Niemeyer, assistant secretary of defense for energy, installations and environment, said Wednesday that military installations are "not experiencing significant mission impacts related to the management" of the sage grouse, lesser-prairie chicken or the American burying beetle, another threatened species targeted by the GOP bill.
Giambastiani, in his email Thursday, challenged the accuracy of Niemeyer's statement."The administration, the Defense Department and the Interior Department support the provision in question and believe that it could help the department avoid any negative readiness impacts on military facilities should the species be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act," he wrote. "Importantly, several vital military installations are impacted by sage grouse populations in, around or underneath the airspace used by the Department of Defense on a daily basis."
But, as it turns out, and as anybody would have guessed, the Lesser Prairie Chicken and the Sage Grouse are threats not to national security, but to the ability of some wealthy corporate vandals out west to make a buck.
The birds have become flashpoints in an ongoing battle over whether they warrant federal protection that hinders mining and other development from Kansas to California.
Second only to its deliberate courting of the remnants of American apartheid in the middle of the 1960s, the modern, movement-conservative Republican Party’s abandonment of its long history of environmentalism is a profound betrayal with profound consequences for us all.
(And it didn’t start with this president*, either. It started when, at about the same time that the Republicans absorbed the resistance to the civil rights movement, it also married itself to the money interests in the south and west. That helped give us President Ronald Reagan, who gave us Interior Secretary James Watt, and attached Republican policy to the extremes of the Wise Use movement.)
Extinction to own the libs. This is not what Nat Reed, a great man now gone, would have thought a Republican was.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I wonder how people are going to buy robots to take care of them when those same robots have made their jobs obsolete. Is it magic money or socialist reform?
Yes I think so. I think we will hit a tipping point were that subsistence allowance becomes very necessary because such a large percentage will need. Then it'll just be tacked onto the national debt or something.
I don't know if that will count as socialism or not. But that change will probably be something no one can argue against at that point. I would say that there are a cross section of jobs that when they are fully automated, it'll be time. Which is where it gets strange. If we have this influx of labor and those labor jobs go away, granted a lot of them probably wont, then what? If I recall the next job to worry about is trucking.
If we had a government that was more trustworthy I would encourage more Americans to join the military until that was out given profession. (Just something I have thought off an on over the years.)
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
