Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Poor PW
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You haven't actually made any point. You have only alluded to it and threatened to elaborate on it.
On to the next thread.
-
The problem, Elephantperson
[Read the article: Chris Wallace: Probing, hard-nosed journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that you confuse normal Americans with the "far left." Look closely at the concerns of those people you label lefties and you will see that what you really meant is that they are not rightwingers. They don't agree with you.
And they talk about art and theater and film and so on instead of about killing the Islamo-zombie armies that haunt your mind.
This disturbs you, natcherly.
-
Counting wars
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well hold on there, Walter.
Some of those wars were necessary. At least I hope so.
Just a couple?
Thanks for doing the counting for the dingbats though. They can't say now that we don't answer argument A with answer A.
-
I'm trying to follow along, PeeWee
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But I got stuck right away. Maybe it's because I'm a fuckwit.
Who's the "righty of obvious intelligence, wit and good-breeding"?
-
scooter
[Read the article: Chris Wallace: Probing, hard-nosed journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Didn't you mean to say, "Clinton did it"?
Go have your morning coffee, then come back.
-
Typical right-wing "noise"
[Read the article: The WSJ editorial page lies about our surveillance laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is precisely the goal of the left, which has failed to get Congress to ban such wiretaps directly but wants to use lawsuits to do so via the backdoor.
The latest previous case of this anti-litigation/anti-trial lawyer rhetoric I've seen was just last week:
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/scitech/2008/02/08/D8UME4HO1_pro_owl_ruling/index.html
Habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl to Stand
By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN Associated Press Writer
Feb 8th, 2008 | TUCSON, Ariz. -- A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8.6 million acres in four western states as critical habitat for an endangered owl will stand, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix upheld the designation of critical habitat in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico for the Mexican spotted owl despite an effort by the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association to overturn it.
Just under 4 million acres of habitat affected by the ruling is situated in Arizona, mostly in the northern part of the state. Also included is 2.2 million acres in Utah, 2.1 million acres in New Mexico and more than 322,000 acres in Colorado.
The designation is aimed at protecting the habitat from activities that remove forest cover, including logging, cattle grazing, urban sprawl or power lines, said Noah Greenwald, a conservation biologist for the Center for Biological Diversity, which intervened on behalf of Fish and Wildlife.
"We were disappointed, obviously," said association spokesman C.B. "Doc" Lane. "It's pretty bad, actually, that all of the endangered species stuff is done by litigation now. It isn't done rationally. But I suppose that's the way it has to be.
"The Mexican spotted owl habitat was established very hurriedly last time because of a court ruling, and we had to respond." He said association officials have not decided yet whether they will appeal Bolton's Feb. 1 ruling.
"This was a complete victory for the Mexican spotted owl," Matt Kenna (Ken-AY), attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, which represented the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
"The Mexican spotted owl will continue to get the habitat protection it needs to survive and recover," Greenwald added. "To save endangered species, we have to protect the places they call home."
All the cattle growers' arguments were rejected, he said.
A critical habitat designation requires federal agencies to make certain that projects which fall under their purview do not imperil endangered species or negatively change their most vital habitat.
"The environmental community has figured out that when an agency doesn't do something — crossing the T's or dotting the I's — they can always win in court," Lane said. "So that's the way it's functioning now."
But Greenwald said the ruling means the spotted owl, listed as endangered in 1992, has a chance at recovery.
"Critical habitat provides an absolutely essential tool to save the owl and the forest habitats it depends on," Greenwald said.
Having critical habitat will ensure that U.S. Forest Service logging does not limit the bird's recovery or drive it into extinction, the center said.
In a published study, it found that the likelihood of a troubled species' status improving more than doubled with critical habitat.
The 2 boldface passages basically add up to the same point as Glenn makes about telecom immunity, and the cattleman even admits it: an agency that doesn't consistently do its job got a push from a lawsuit filed by some bunch of owl-lovers, and it did its job. This is what the EFF seeks---enforcement of existing law.
Note: "Why can't we do these things rationally?" means "Why can't we solve this with money? I propose that whichever side has the most money, wins."
-
@Raymund
[Read the article: The WSJ editorial page lies about our surveillance laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Major, is that you?
Have you finally left the 30%?
-
PW is capable of arguing?
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's clearly true that PeeWee is a smarter and more independent ape than Scooter. I'm happy to see better trolls. And I'm as much for diversity as anyone else, but lying is not just another flavor of opinion. Nor is it a political stripe, though it can be a platform.
When has PW done anything in the direction of "argument" but threaten to argue and fail to follow through?
When he's not having a tantrum, that is.
I'd be happy to see his arguments. I'd read them, and respond to them according to their merit.
-
And what does the WaPo have to say about all this today?
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nothing.
Ooh, look! Obama!
-
Excuse me, anon
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but 9/11 needs to be a false flag op to explain the rape of FISA no more than Pearl Harbor had to have inside help to explain the Pacific War and the double nuking of Japan.
Let's focus, here.