Arkansas Blog

Never fear, the Ledge will save us from the "environmental whackos!!!" AND I hear Foxy Loxy is actually Bob Johnson in drag...
|

The best thing about Sanders's column is his photo. So serious! So prissy! So bloated!

When Sanders appears on my TV - usually thru PBS, my first thought is always the same. Why doesn't someone do something about his hair?

He's about as interesting and informative as a leaky faucet.

The "environmentalist whackos" usually just want a kickback. There is a strong correlation between extorted donations to environmentalist whacko groups and legal challenges to the businesses. It's not uncommon for environmentalist extortionists to threaten legal challenges to any new project, unless of course a huge donation is made to their "cause". I guess that's one of the many reasons there's an incentive to send all production jobs overseas.

The problem with a lot of environmentally friendly policies is they are NOT wallet friendly.

As government tries to tax us out of using a little thing called energy, who is hit hardest? THE POOR!

We continually get tax increases on our energy bills, now does this hurt the Stephen's? The Walton's? The Harding's? Nope. But it does hurt those making minimum wage.

So it seems we are being told to feel bad for people that don't have "enough" money, but the same liberal governments telling us we have to pay higher taxes to go toward government programs, want to also increase the taxes on items that ALL people have to have.

While many people care about the environment...I use to recycle EVERYTHING until recycling centers starting shutting down because with the cost of energy and ever raising taxes they are not making any money. My family is one of minimal consumption, but being told we HAVE to do this-or-that -you have to use light bulbs full of mercury (don't worry they are safe cause the gov't says so, except we don't know what is going to happen in 10 years when the landfills are full of these mercury bulbs) but that's okay use him cause the gov't says so. You have to pay higher taxes to get to your job because gas is bad....etc, etc, etc.

The far left can yell and scream that little tiny people have the power to destroy the Earth, but people don't like being told how they HAVE to live their lives by government. Especially, when it is going to come out of our pocket books. And that is the problem with us evil, anti-environmentalists.

"The "environmentalist whackos" usually just want a kickback. There is a strong correlation between extorted donations to environmentalist whacko groups and legal challenges to the businesses. It's not uncommon for environmentalist extortionists to threaten legal challenges to any new project, unless of course a huge donation is made to their "cause". I guess that's one of the many reasons there's an incentive to send all production jobs overseas. "

I'd like you to provide some substance to these empty claims. Which environmental groups hold off on legal challenges in exchange for contributions? Specific examples, please?

I know that Sierra Club, as a matter of long-standing policy, does not accept corporate contributions. That makes fundraising more difficult, but it also avoids messy entanglements or the appearance of impropriety.

You know..there for a while David Sanders was kinda sliding over our way. But looks like the foreskin has rolled back up over his head. Tsk tsk.

MAK

I am an environmental wacko and I am not concerned if keeping someone from polluting me costs them more than allowing them to pollute me.

There are many ways to lower energy prices which could lower costs but the trade off is not worth it.

Shorter power poles could probably save money but tall suckers like me probably don't mind not getting electricuted. Hell just lay noninsulated power lines on the ground could save on towers and rubber insulation.

There are many ways to lower cost but the trade offs are too high.

A cattle rancher neighbor called me a "godless environmentalist" because I opposed DEQ letting him spread chickenshit on his pasture right up to the stream upstream from my place. Luckily the National Park Service was against him polluting me and then the Buffalo River after it flowed past.

In my memory, most times I have heard someone calling anyone an Environmental Wacko was when they were pissed that they were being stopped from poisoning the person being accused of wackoness.

Money was always the reason.

The rancher claimed he could not afford to raise cattle on his marginal at best steep pasture. My response was that no he couldn't afford to raise cattle on his margina,l steep sloped pasture land. Either buy some land where it was feasible to rasie cattle or find something feasible to do with his hillside. It wasn't my fault the dumbass bought land not suited for ranching but he can't poison me because of his poor business sense.

The fact the incredibly smug disciple of the Ouachita Baptist Middle School Mafia headed by the Huckster and Tweety Bird Rex Nelson, aka David Sanders; is provided a voice to air his painfully ignorant opinions qualifies as one of life's mysteries. He has proudly trumpeted Bush's economic
achievements, McCain's Palin choice as pure genius, Stanley Reed as the new Arkansas GOP savior.
Sanders never lets facts get in the way of his incessant GOP cheer leading and his unending distorting of reality.

" .. being told we HAVE to do this-or-that .." MAK

Why, MAK, may I suggest the next time you walk across a busy street you don't look both ways? After all, the government probably told you as a kid that you 'HAD to do that'.

The problem with such things as coal-fired power plants, which may 'seem' like cheaper sources of electricity, is that their hidden costs (for example, higher health care costs due to more people getting sick after breathing or ingesting a coal plant's toxic emissions) don't get included as part of the cost of coal generated electricity. If we honestly included all the health costs, coal would be a much more expensive source of energy. More than wind or solar panels? I don't know the answer to that question, but that's the question we should be seeking an honest answer to.

OMG - Severus's whacko cousin MAK is amok!!! More wingnut bloviating, fact-repelling, of course. I'm W/C1, Roym & SP - says it all, quite well - THANKS!~!~!~!
|

"Why doesn't someone do something about [Sanders'] hair?

If you think it's bad on teevee, you oughta see it in person. Enough grease to deep-fry a turkey.

The problem with a lot of environmentally friendly policies is they are NOT wallet friendly.

by MAK

LMAO Neither is health care, quality safe healthy foods, clean water, treated sewage, education, etc. etc.
And of course you are wrong again. Wind and solar for example.. are both clean and basically free.

Not burning coal for the Texas wholesale market... is clean and costs nothing. Not dumping benzine and a myriad of other toxins into our groundwater.. is MUCH cheaper.

I find no solace in pointing out to you.. you or your Kool Aid kin will also suffer the end results of coal smoke, coal ash, natural gas drilling in water... or the fact a new virus comes along and spreads like wildfire due to tens of millions without even basic preventative, or readily available treatment - health care.

You get what you pay for .. buy Wal Mart Chinese goods or Mexican auto parts... and you buy the end of American labor (at almost any wage level).. while supporting sweat shops on a global scale. Deny society as a whole basic healthcare to cut costs.... Deny living wages and the lower and middle income folks wont be able to maintain a decent economy overall.

It's like single stitch clothing, MAK.. just because it's placed on a label as a feature.. it's really just a cheap low quality bug which means you look like crap and come back for another garment much sooner.

.

>>There is a strong correlation between extorted donations to environmentalist whacko groups and legal challenges to the businesses.<<
Serveus

Is this another fact-free Serv post of do you have any facts and sources to go with it?

.

So let's just keep raising taxes on energy....those poor folks don't really need heat for their homes, fuel to get them to work...
Makes no sense! It makes no sense to increase the price on goods that all people (meaning even the poor folks you liberals "claim" to care about so much) have to have.

I am quite certain that the government never told me to look before I crossed the street, but I am not a liberal so I did not need the government for stuff like that. My parents took it upon themselves to raise me..novel idea eh?

The government suggests I follow certain laws, like not speeding and if I do I may get a ticket. But, when you have to start letting the government into your home telling you what temp to put your thermostat on or what light bulbs to use...that's a problem.

What is the prediction on how many mercury light bulbs will be in the landfills in 10 years? Keep this post. I promise you (just like the ethanol crap) there will be backlashes. Regarding these mercury filled light bulbs...one of a health concern... when you have thousands upon thousands laying around, but the all powerful government has not thought that one through.

I have bought boxes of regular light bulbs so that when they quit being made I will have them to use...maybe the government will fine me for using them? Maybe the government should fine me for having the temp of my 3,000 sqf home set on 77 degrees. Maybe I should be fined for sending Christmas cards this year....waste of precious trees and all.

But, I get what guys like el and ES are saying.....
It is okay for the cost of energy to make poor people even more poor, because the government will just increase other people's taxes (maybe the hamburger tax...again detrimental to the poor because health food is more expensive than the less healthy foods) to give them more handouts.
GREAT IDEA!!!! Keep it up guys. The Democrats are going to tax and spend us right out of economic crisis!!!! Yay! All smart people know that works.

Wow- I love these kooks and I got to say that I'm a bit surpised that the AR Times has so many uneducated readers. What's wrong with you guys. For the love of God, educate yourself! When friends of the old school energy mongrels can't disprove the science of global warming and climate change, they resort to conspiracy theories and "liberals" who have taken over! What a riot- the deep pocketed energy czars of Arkansas have found themselves on their heels. And this "reporter"? Isn't it amazing that over 20 states have been duped by CCS. The Climate Strategies Watch is a regurgitation of the discredited Heartland Institute. Paul Chesser is as crazy as they come and not only is he supported by the Heartland Institute, but also the Locke Foundation. If you're not familiar with their work, you might goggle them and have a good laugh. Geeze, what's happened to journalism? Can I have David's job so I can make up conspiracy theories of my own? The energy companies, like the US auto industry, are grasping at anything to avoid innovation and move from 19th century technology to 21st century energy supply technologies. Most energy companies around the nation have come to the table to support climate change policy, but not our good ole Arkansas energy companies like the AR Electric Coops. I will not be surprised when in a few years the energy companies will be coming for a bailout.

fish,

MAK will still be claiming it's democratic party conspiracy to irritate him and make rich people pay to keep the poor from getting poorer.

It's a toss-up on how easy it will be to breathe then or if he's paying more in property taxes to remove mercury and heavy metals to acceptable levels in his public drinking water.

>>

Did David Sanders go to college? Some place that might teach him the difference between "affect" and "effect?"

David Sanders has succeeded in reprinting a cookie-cutter hit piece we've seen before in other places under Paul Chesser's byline. Alas. Chesser is well-known as the misinformation guru of state climate policy whose entire mission in life is to attack earnest efforts on both sides of the aisle to grapple with energy and climate realities. It's a socio-pathic obsession and shame on Sanders for carrying his dirty water. He and Sanders knows that in cyberspace, you repeat lies over and over and you can make them have the appearance of truth.

Two examples of many here. The AP erroneously reported that CCS receives funding from the ACLU, and issued an immediate correction. But here Sanders repeats the claim in order to buttress his false case with a lie. He needs to because the truth does not lend itself to his writerly crime.

He also cites "peer-reviewed studies of CCS's similar recommendations in North Carolina and South Carolina," but they don't really exist. He's referring to biased reports written by the Beacon Hill Institute, paid for the by the John Locke Foundation and which claim to be "peer-reviewed." But they are not and have been thoroughly repudiated in North Carolina and Florida and everywhere else they trotted out the template critique which has no merit.

This is the coward's way. They are too chicken to directly attack the governors, both Republican and Democratic, who have ordered these planning processes; and too chicken to participate directly in public processes. They'd rather deal in innuendo - smear, attack, lie, cheat - anything! - as long as they can make a mess of anything to do with wise stewardship of the earth, responsible government and alert and aware citizenship.

Man....you've reminded me of this good looking tall girl from Southside High named Nancy Fish. She drove a little boxy Fiat and was much woman. Haven't thought of her in years....she was super yummy. Hope she's had and is having a nice life. Yum Nancy Fish!

RE: That Photo and That Hair

David, that Photo and That Hair screams something I don't think you intend to be quietly screaming unless you were visiting a certain type of bar without the wife and kids in tow...think about it!

In response to Polecat, who I understand from another post to be Rob Fisher (whoever that is), he does identify a couple of errors while using them to leap to inaccurate conclusions. One, Sanders did not get any claim that CCS is funded by the ACLU from me -- his column was the first I'd heard of that. Sanders likely found the AP story without knowing a correction followed, which I would say is an understandable mistake.

Second, I nor anyone else at the Locke Foundation have claimed Beacon Hill's reports for NC and SC were peer-reviewed. That was not something that came from me either, but I assume in the deluge of information I discussed with Sanders that he may have gotten some of it confused. Nevertheless nowhere under my byline will you find such claims. What you WILL find are a number of BHI "peer reviews" of CCS's work, NONE of which CCS has had peer-reviewed (as far as their work for the states goes). In fact, CCS hides their work -- withholding their datasets used to arrive at their conclusions, claiming they are proprietary. Yet they claim great "transparency" in all the work their climate commissions do.

As for critiquing the governors, I have done so on many occasions. Here are a few examples:

http://spectator.org/archives/2007/07/23/republican-governors-who-wilt
http://climatestrategieswatch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=101&Itemid=1
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2663

As for participation in public processes, that's a fool's errand when you've got a fixed process designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Not interested in wasting my time when I can spend it better revealing the problems, activism, and bias behind these dog-and-pony shows. As for "misinformation," "innuendo," "smears," and "lies," I'd like to see Polecat produce any examples of such from my own work or else refrain from engaging in his own smear tactics.

Sorry I screwed up -- the poster I responded to was "Fish," not "Polecat."

Looks like I may be guilty of my own jumping to conclusions about Fisher's claims on the AP having run a correction about the ACLU in their story. And if so I owe an apology to David Sanders.

That article was actually a Wichita Eagle article that AP picked up, and the way the story is written it looks to me like reporter Jeannine Koranda obtained that ACLU information directly from Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius's people. So I'd like to see evidence of that correction, which I should have requested before I assumed Sanders missed something. Here is a link to that Eagle/AP article:

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/062308/sta_293915811.shtml

If there actually was a correction it would be almost impossible to find that out unless you were looking for it, so for Fisher to hold that against Sanders is pretty slimy.