Sunday February 1, 2015
Jump to content
Might I suggest that there is a very valid reason for the Mexican Gray Wolf to be "endangered". Apex predators do not cohabitate well with human beings. They have each their own priorities. Using your logic, we would have bison crossing/standing on our highways and grizzly bears roaming through our neighborhoods. Only that these wild things would simply stay in their "wild places", all would be fine. They do not.
As to accurate and valid "data", it is those who's religion is providing for animals over human beings that are continually demanding better and greater studies. Those people absolutely will not accept "estimates" and "calculations" from those who oppose their very transparent agenda.
Without the concerns of ALL affected by such a reintroduction being adequately addressed and dealt with, those here in the West will most likely do what they have always done regarding predators of all stripes, shoot, shovel, and shut up. Those in the "Bambi" camp will simply have to deal with it. Humans are the ultimate predator, hence there is no longer any such thing as a "balanced ecosystem" in the lower forty-eight. Any that might even come close are artificially sustained.
This debate reminds me of the lady that complained to the Roundup that the AZ G&FD should do something about "their elk" which were eating her flower garden. Welcome to rural America.
I know you are aware of my military background. Since my step father was Air Force, I am more than keen on the differences of our two services. As a Marine, who's sole purpose for even existing was to wreak hell and damnation on our designated enemy, we were always told about the Geneva Conventions and the US Military Code of Conduct. After very thorough indoctrination of those two, those that were our mentors, almost to a person personally experienced combat vets, would tell us in reality " Give no quarter and expect none". "We know what it says in "the book, and now you do as well. But now we are going to tell you about the "real world". And from their experience, we were advised to always save that last round/bullet for yourself. The stories are legion and most have been historically documented and affirmed and we knew more than well, that we did not want to fall into the hands of our enemy, at any cost. So, with that understanding, I can appreciate why you and I and others might have differing views regarding "torture". Such is the nature of differing personal experiences.
Not my intent to take this thread down another rabbit trail, but:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."
Please note that it does not say that you have to be an American citizen to have such rights. It says they are universal and that they derive from a Higher Power. I believe that. It is the very foundation of our nation, namely that all men and women, everywhere are endowed with rights that cannot be abridged or taken away from them. It lies at the very roots of everything we hold sacred."
That is the very same position taken by the "open borders" folks regarding "illegal aliens".
You have spoken before regarding "created equal" versus actually "being equal". The implication in that portion of the Constitution is that "all men" are equally endowed with the same unalienable rights. The same for EVERYONE! " It is the very foundation of our nation,". I think the key word there is "our nation". Not ALL nations agree. In that vein, how dare we tell some poor soul from Mexico, Latin America, or any other place in the world that they DO NOT have a "right" to be in this country or a "right" to the largess of this nation. The current candidate for the US Attorney General's Office has as much as said that very thing in her appearance before Congress. She has taken the position that even those in this country "illegally" have the "RIGHT" to work here. It can be assumed she means the "unalienable Right" to do so.
When it comes to "rights" as regards "torture", I am still not of a mind that we should be "self defeating" by holding ourselves to some higher moral belief/position than those who would eradicate us off the face of the earth. I am uncomfortable with equating "torture" as unacceptable in a time of war, when carpet bombing, drone strikes, and other such lethal means are used without regard for "arbitrary moral" position. After all, as you quoted from Slim, " the purpose is to kill the enemy". Are we not splitting hairs when we debate the "method" of doing just that?
One of the things I value as high as anything is trust. Now the term "trust" has a very broad meaning and understanding. But at it's most basic on a human level, if someone says they will do a certain thing and lead people to believe they are honestly committed to doing it, then they have garnered the trust of another/others. If that same someone then fails at following through on their commitment to see that what they said would get done actually gets done, then they have violated that trust. Perhaps their failure to follow through was due to circumstances beyond their control. That isn't what we are referring to here, if so then your "forgive and forget" would be an appropriate response. We ALL make mistakes. But if someone violates another's trust simply because they chose to renege on their commitment for selfish and personal gain, then one MAY forgive, but I doubt that they will forget. Trust between individuals and governments is a very fragile thing. Once violated for spurious reasons, I doubt that true trust can EVER be regained.
There is a lesson in that for everyone. Individuals as well as governments. In the context of the current discussions, if someone tells me they are "down and out" and in need of some help, and my instincts don't tell me otherwise, I will most likely offer what help I can (freely allow my taxes to support the EBT program), give to charity, etc. If after the fact I find out with certainty they were simply taking advantage or abusing that compassion, I will most likely never trust that person's word again, and with hold any future assistance regardless of their hue and cry. The situation with the now discredited United Way is an example. The Susan Komen Foundation is another. There are a LOT of "snakes" out there. It falls to us to be able to identify them. Collectively and individually. Sorry for the ramble. Just my 2 cents.
I'm going to wade in on this topic although my intuition tells me not to.
First, as to the Constitution. I for one personally DO NOT believe anyone other than an American citizen has a right to one shred of OUR Constitutional "rights". Appreciate that the Constitution does not provide "rights", it simply limits OUR governments abuse of those determined "inalienable rights". Now we enter the realm of "Human Rights". I would challenge anyone to provide a definition of those "human rights" that is acceptable in all nations, governments and cultures. Literally impossible to get such a consensus. As has been adequately proven time and again by the abuses of Geneva Convention "rights".
Also, define "torture". Is sleep deprivation a form of torture? How about denying someone access to their religious books? How about not providing them only food that fits into their particular religious beliefs? Or requiring of them certain sanitary habits even if they choose otherwise. Is force feeding someone who is determined to starve themselves to death, torture? Is subjecting them to music they find offensive, torture? I suppose torture is like pornography. You know it when you see it. Beyond that, the currently acceptable "definition" as utilized in this country itself, is rather fluid and dynamic. By necessity, as I see it.
Currently there is this large hue and cry, predominantly from those on the Left, about the "morality" of snipers in the military. Those that bring forth such moral questions are enjoying the fruits of liberty provided/protected by those that will undertake such a nasty and necessary business. I honestly do not know if one lowers themselves to the level of those who would apply barbaric approaches to furthering their agenda, makes them as bad as the barbarians themselves. I do know that in war or armed conflict between two opposing interests, that only one will prevail. This isn't parcheesi we are talking about here. It is about the survival and continuation of our culture and very lives. When it comes to that, are there ANY rules one side or the other would NOT violate. In my experience with human nature, the answer would be a flat out , hardly none!
I think you misunderstood the context regarding the "judging" of others conduct. As you indicated, we make judgements all the time. It's not that kind of judgement I was referring to when I made that comment in my post. Of course we have every right to be critical of how someone might be abusing the welfare/EBT system or any other support services. What I was inferring was how a person might find themselves in that position in the first place and the circumstances surrounding how they arrived at that position. Personally, but for God's grace there go I.
And I think you know me well enough to appreciate how I feel about system abusers of any type. It's one thing to be down and out. Quite another to have that approach become the pattern of one's life. A hand up, not a hand out is a Christian approach. Although it is sometimes difficult to ascertain if you are being caring and of help, or you are being taken for a sucker. I rely on my instincts in that regard. But when I do offer a hand out, once the money leaves my hand and is accepted by another, it falls to them to use it in the manner it was given. If they do otherwise, then they don't have to answer to me, but to a much higher authority. My act of giving was appropriate regardless of their actions afterwards. They have to deal with that.
I suspect you are using "calculations" just such as are argued/cautioned against in this article:
If I read that study and others of similar effort correctly, it appears that you are really "guessing" at your projections which would be just as egregious as you imply Mr. de Vos's are. I suspect we will hear a litany of explanations as to the differences between the Northern Gray Wolf and the Mexican Gray Wolves, the differences in the elk patterns Arizona vs Yellowstone region, and of course the environmental differences. Once you and your group have had enough time to actually put forth ACCURATE information of the impacts of wolf reintroduction on the ungulate population (which even after all this time is still unsettled in the Yellowstone case) then perhaps you might find that credibility you are seeking. In the meantime I sense you will find that majority support for your efforts is still very thin and will most probably remain so until such time as true data from long term studies is available from OBJECTIVE sources. "Bambi" emotionalism is of little value in the long term resolution of this issue.
That's the way I view progressive/socialists. They want to continue to bring forth ideologies that have historically proven not to work. Yet, that doesn't stop them and I suppose they will still be promoting "socialism" with all it's abject flaws long after I return to dust.
It seems now days one is simply "not in" unless they have a Facebook page, and that goes for governmental agencies as well. I certainly am "not in" since the time several years ago I actually established a Facebook account. I immediately started getting requests to "be friends" with people I never heard of, second, third and fourth cousins coming out of the woodwork, and even people sending me hypothetical farm animals via Facebook. Needless to say that lasted about I week and I bailed, swearing never to cross that threshold again.
I would tend to agree with Pat. To allow someone "after the fact" to simply state "I didn't understand what I was signing" would pretty much give anyone who enters into a contract a easy way out of their obligation/agreement if they have second thoughts at a later time. Heck, I recall a time when a man's word was "contract" enough and he wouldn't violate that for hell or high water. Too many attorneys involved in EVERYTHING these days. Then that's why they drive Mercedes, BMWs and make the big bucks.
Last login: Saturday, January 10, 2015