*Steve Culley is a friend of mine and sometimes offers me articles and sometimes I use them, whether they reflect my views or not, since they address something that needs discussion*
I think it’s time we had a truth in editorial writing law. One aspect of this law could be the substitution of “Population increase” for such terms as “immigration” Guest workers” or “refugees.”
I predicted several months ago that the turmoil in the middle east would eventually end up as a call to let in more “refugees”. The Oregon today, Monday, July 9th, called for the first 70,000 Iraqi “refugees”. The Capitol Press is pushing an “ag jobs” bill and of course “immigrants” still stream across our borders.
Keeping in mind that problems such as the Klamath basin water problems, salmon kills on the Columbia River, dirty air in our cities, crowded freeways, paving of farm land, destruction of wildlife habitat, mercury in the water, species extinction, over cutting of forests, green house gasses, shortages of electricity, gasoline or a long list of what many people call environmental problems are a direct function of the things we have to do to the environment to feed, cloth and house people. It stands to reason that the more people you have means an increase in these problems.
There fore I propose that editors and pundits substitute “population increase” whenever they refer to “immigrants“, “guest workers” or “refugees“ When ever environmental groups talk about land use laws, regulations protecting the environment, restricting private property rights, saving farm land, forests and rivers and open space they could refer to and clarify why all the problems exist in the first place. A good editorial should start off,….” since we have a national policy of constant, rapid, never ending population increases because of “immigration” , ”guest workers” and “refugees” we need to modify away hard won land use rights. Or “since we have too many people and are adding more “refugees” “guest workers” and “immigrants” and swelling the population we are going to have to ban ATV’s, only permit river rafting for some, restrict country living cut back on gas use, electricity, recycle and more stuff. The list is endless of the freedoms and quality of life you might have to give up is endless to accommodate all the new people but that’s just the way it is.
Maybe some inconvenient truths could emerge and then maybe a true discussion on how to save the world solution could get under way.
Steve Culley
8 comments:
Read in The Oregonian today that Earl Blumenauer has a Blackberry and he monitors websites automatically that post his name (Blumenauer)
Think it is time some of these guys who see no relationship between liberal immigration and environmental destruction are made to answer. Read my post Earl then go to Central Sanity.
Earl you are a good planning and zoning Oregon lefty. Explain what you have in mind for my kids and grand kids. Another India or China?
With Blumie's driving record and skills, I see why he is a bicycle enthusiast for you and me...not him. His idea of the world of movement is big buck low-ridership rail. I wonder if the rail people donate heavily to his campaign chest?
Good rant Steve. Though I suspect we may find ourselves on the opposite side of the environmental fence, I completely agree that population increase is at the root of most of our environmental problems (NumbersUSA tells this story well). You're right that enviro groups are loath to acknowledge this obvious fact. Most are so thoroughly dominated by white-guilt liberals that any mention of immigration immediately elicits howls of racism and xenophobia. The Sierra Club vote on immigration a couple years ago was a crystal clear example of this unfortunate fact.
I'm with Ed Abbey, who wrote in a delightfully non-PC essay called "Immigration and Liberal Taboos" that "the United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped."
Things might be looking up. Lou Dobbs has started covering the population boom and its implications.
We can support a certain amount of immigration, but certainly not the uncontrolled flood currently happening. Birth rates nation wide are down so some replacement is not a bad thing and neither is a certain "freshening" of the social fabric.
BTW Steve, Earl rides bike a lot including DC.
We are far surpassing anything that resembles a stable population. I've asked the question of Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith, now it's time to add Earl to the list. Where do you plan on stopping? Is there any limit? And I really don't give a damn what Earl Rides. I want to know if both democrats and Republicans plan on pushing our population to something that resembles and India Or China. If so, why all the environmental restrictions? In the end, with a constantly growing population it makes no difference. That raod leads to destruction and some kind of mega urban ghetto where no independence is possible.
Speaking of Blumie the dimmo great of Portland Chuck this out:
http://www.davidsirota.com/
David Sirota is my kind of Democrat, not afraid to speak out when they have no clothes on. The you tube is funny but the message is scary. Chuck this is what you have essayed many times. Trains, planes, and bicycles are more important to Blumie than jobs.
Post a Comment