@Red-The Polite Thread

[Red]

There you go again, in every wrong direction.

My point in starting this thread is to focus on what I think are the underlying issues, rather than argue all the experts on everything with their "facts". Facts seen in a particular biased framework of ideological purposes. "Ends justifies the means" sort of pushing things around.

I could do a conservative evaluation of virtue-signaling groups for this or that, but it's a waste of time. Soo many little groups like that. When they all act on the same premises, many duplicate organizations funded by the same small group of interests.

No I'm not going to argue with the NY Times and other "news" sources I've despised and disbelieved for a thousand false reports since I was a newsboy. That's why I dismiss those sources as "garbage". I have a hard time believing anyone really believes they are credible.

People who see the government as beneficial in expansive undertakings have to disregard the difficulties of a powerful organization with relatively ineffective self-limiting "controls". Our Federal government is a complete disgrace to anyone who thinks that's where to go to fix anything.

Democrats and the mainstream media just ignore the problems with their people, but hammer opponents viciously, imo. I think people are largely discounting that sector of our national politics as having lost credibility. well, obviously we are a deeply divided nation, but it seems to me that there are some folks who aren't realizing what the 2016 surprise votes meant.

Trump is an "elite" in my book, and willing to play ball with establishment folks, but his rhetoric brought in a lot of voters and changed the equations. A lot of people don't believe 'government' is the fix for much, and in fact want a lot of stuff ditched.

I don't know how you reach a conclusion that anyone is "one of the leading authorities on Early Man sites" if the field has been thrown open recently in a scramble to explain a lot of stuff that has not been accepted before.

What evidence do you have that there are grants coming down to investigate anything in the "Bears Ears"? Surely, if you know one of the leading authorities you could mention a few new projects that are coming along.

Funny you thinking I'm ideological. What ideology would that be? I don't believe you?

If you think I am going to finish you off, you are indeed a senstitive soul. It's ideas I argue with, I hope, and I don't really expect finish off any ideas either. Ideals of community and common purpose will never quit being attractive to humans. Neither will ideals of individual choice and opportunity. I think real "progress" would utilize the best of each, and keep extreme applications in check somehow.

OK, then let me tell you how I really feel....

I've always loved Southwest archaeology, and been fascinated and deeply attracted to the cultures that inhabited the mesas and Canyonlands of that region. Reading Frank Water's The Book of the Hopi changed my life. The migration stories of the clans, the prophesies, the realization that there was a connection to the Mesoamerican civilizations to the south, a connection that existed with the Hohokam as well, this lost history attracted me like no other. It still does. I can't put what that has meant to me in a forum comment. It's been 40 plus years now. Since Water's book introduced me to that ancient world. And two trips to visit the region. Whatever best protects the sites of the Ancestral Puebloan, what I'm still more used to calling the Anasazi, is what I want. I never want to see the relationship still in place between Hopi and Bears Ears, the still living remnant of that distant time and place, when that culture of Pueblo and cliff dwelling and high civilizations to the south existed, in jeopardy ever.

That's what I want. You don't always get what you want, and I am admitting to a lot of personal investment with just this subject. Call it progressive, or liberal, or socialist, or whatever is a foul epitaph in your lexicon, I'll likely always side with historic preservation and protection anyway. That's me, I don't have to apologize for that. I know it's easy for me to say, and local concerns are not meaningless to me, but I will not apologize for my opinion here. Nobody has to join me on my journey through the past, nobody has to love what I love, nobody has to agree. Whatever best protects Anasazi sites wins in my world. Nobody has to root for my team here. But nobody is going to blame it on being "progressive" either. It is as I've described, for the reasons I've described.

On one end of the scale, we have ISIS destroying the past. I'm on the other side where the past is concerned. I have this thing for deep time, and the things of deep time. Meteorites, deep time of the solar system. Fossils, deep time of life. Artifacts, deep time of man. And a landscape replete with some of the best preserved Anasazi sites in the SW? I want whatever is best for those sites. I'm selfish. That's what I want. It pleases me no end that Bears Ears received that particular status where public lands are concerned. I'm pleased the tribes, especially the Hopi from my point of view, had a say and will continue to have a say.

And if all of the above somehow makes other posters here angry, for some reason, I don't care. That's my opinion, and the reasons behind it. What are you gonna do about it? Order me out of the country? Put me on trial for "being a progressive"? Feel free to call me, label me, anything you want. I will not apologize for my opinion or the reasons behind it. It takes all kinds after all, even kinds like me.

Is that clear now, babe? Understood? It's my life, my opinion, you have no say in it whatsoever. It's essentially none of your business.

 

[babe]

OK, then let me tell you how I really feel....

I've always loved Southwest archaeology, and been fascinated and deeply attracted to the cultures that inhabited the mesas and Canyonlands of that region. Reading Frank Water's The Book of the Hopi changed my life. The migration stories of the clans, the prophesies, the realization that there was a connection to the Mesoamerican civilizations to the south, a connection that existed with the Hohokam as well, this lost history attracted me like no other. It still does. I can't put what that has meant to me in a forum comment. It's been 40 plus years now. Since Water's book introduced me to that ancient world. And two trips to visit the region. Whatever best protects the sites of the Ancestral Puebloan, what I'm still more used to calling the Anasazi, is what I want. I never want to see the relationship still in place between Hopi and Bears Ears, the still living remnant of that distant time and place, when that culture of Pueblo and cliff dwelling and high civilizations to the south existed, in jeopardy ever.

That's what I want. You don't always get what you want, and I am admitting to a lot of personal investment with just this subject. Call it progressive, or liberal, or socialist, or whatever is a foul epitaph in your lexicon, I'll likely always side with historic preservation and protection anyway. That's me, I don't have to apologize for that. I know it's easy for me to say, and local concerns are not meaningless to me, but I will not apologize for my opinion here. Nobody has to join me on my journey through the past, nobody has to love what I love, nobody has to agree. Whatever best protects Anasazi sites wins in my world. Nobody has to root for my team here. But nobody is going to blame it on being "progressive" either. It is as I've described, for the reasons I've described.

On one end of the scale, we have ISIS destroying the past. I'm on the other side where the past is concerned. I have this thing for deep time, and the things of deep time. Meteorites, deep time of the solar system. Fossils, deep time of life. Artifacts, deep time of man. And a landscape replete with some of the best preserved Anasazi sites in the SW? I want whatever is best for those sites. I'm selfish. That's what I want. It pleases me no end that Bears Ears received that particular status where public lands are concerned. I'm pleased the tribes, especially the Hopi from my point of view, had a say and will continue to have a say.

And if all of the above somehow makes other posters here angry, for some reason, I don't care. That's my opinion, and the reasons behind it. What are you gonna do about it? Order me out of the country? Put me on trial for "being a progressive"? Feel free to call me, label me, anything you want. I will not apologize for my opinion or the reasons behind it. It takes all kinds after all, even kinds like me.

Is that clear now, babe? Understood? It's my life, my opinion, you have no say in it whatsoever. It's essentially none of your business.

"progressive" would not be an insult if the word was not a political handle, a part of a sort of stone ax or a skull-cracking ten pound rock with a carved handhold. The word was a good word.

I have been thinking that you're a sort of a visionary, a missionary of a sort, and this post pretty well demonstrates it.

I'm not objecting to preserving archaeological remains from the past, or tracing the history of people with what evidence we can find. Even the collectors of indian artifacts would want to preserve those things in terms of their own thinking and understanding of what that means. That's why they pick up stuff and store it in their barns or living rooms. They don't understand why you would call it a crime, or want them off the land.

To my estimation, professional archaeologists are no better. Sure they have skills and methods of study that are clearly superior in terms of science, but at some level they are just as ignorant as the collectors, really. That's the point of why the best archaeologists will not destroy a site, like they destroyed the sites near me, with their wholesale excavations and no careful dissection of the site to leave a portion undisturbed for future study.

That's why I won't idolize a contemporary scientist who basks in the presumptions of others about how he is a "leader' in the field. I look to a humbler sort of thinker who can do solid research without putting on airs, who can stay objective and open to better methods, better ideas. Once we think we know, we sorta die intellectually.

That's the problem with being a missionary, Red. When you must secure at whatever cost the intellectual victory of forcing your point, people turn away and don't believe you.

I think the Bear's Ears designation is a sham. The real purpose is coherent with a range of other programs that worldwide are removing resources from the reach of ordinary people, and making access to those resources dependent on a very high-level sort of influence with the government. Cartels thrive on limiting competition. The oil and uranium that is removed from the markets is the real point to this exercise.

If you are sincere as you state, which I don't care to dispute, you are nevertheless a pawn in the hands of a set I recognize as fascist/corporate cartelists, people who want the control of government, through influence peddling, and higher prices obtainable by eliminating competition. All the archaeological rhetoric is window dressing.

The sites could be better protected by a better plan, and without actually denying access to the resources located on the public lands. The better plan would give more archaeologists jobs, and fund more study of the remains.

You have bought yourself a pig in a poke, and you don't know a damn thing about politics.

 

[babe]

Phony innocents in politics

It's easy to pretend you don't know stuff, and just make the talking points sound good.

For anyone who is honest about Obama's actions in declaring 1.9M acres a "National Monument", especially someone who follows the Smithosonian site or practically any other liberal cause site, to say it's about the environment, the birds, the ancient artifacts or archaeological sites, or wildlife corridors, or wetlands, or stopping AGW or climate change, here's something to consider.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...lly-set-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/

https://goodnature.nathab.com/half-...ercent-of-the-world-for-wildlife-really-work/

https://www.unep-wcmc.org/featured-projects/mapping-the-worlds-special-places

https://www.protectedplanet.net/

you can google stuff like this yourself. Just don't try to tell me there is nobody who wants to "progress" towards a very hefty percent of earth's land(and sea) "protected" under government authorities. Just don't try to tell me this isn't something unstated in many specific moves to advance some specific cause for protection/reserves which of course require cessation of exploration and exploitation of reserves.

And it is linked with ideals for population reduction, by hook or by crook, by restricting human access to life-sustaining resources and services. Here's a nobody who thinks "outta the box" :

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162685-if-i-were-reincarnated-i-would-wish-to-be-returned

yah, I've heard about the exponential population bomb all my life, and of course it's true of mosquitos too. So we banned DDT, and malaria has exploded across the tropics and subtropics, killing million of humans, maybe over a hundred million in the past twenty years.

Obama wants to stop the use of air conditioning in the tropic and subtropics ,too. And the use of smoke/mosquito repellent products that burn and release. Too much CO2 in the air already.

Next thing is just make electricity too expensive for us to have refrigeration or freezers or air conditioners. That ougtta help a lot.

no, part of the Trump phenomenon is public rejection of such do-gooder concerned folks who think anything deserves better care than us.

 

[babe]

The New Progressive---badge or hatespeech?

The word "progressive" has had some very positive connotations generally, before it became the self-labeling choice of reformed communists and others who embrace a set of ideological axioms sometimes including "secular humanism", "materialism", "socialism", and perhaps other subgroups. When conservatives use the term, it may or may not really be the equivalent of calling someone a "jerk", that depends on the level of intellect involved in the remark. If anyone thinks I used the term as an equivalent of any vulgar or crude insult, it is because they do not understand the accurate use of the word for what it means in polite society. A lot of "progressive" people don't understand the how it accurately applies to themselves and may resent it because some people use it as an insult. Commonly, today, the word is used to make a connection with a view expressed that invokes the current trend in politics to empower government more in some way. I don't agree with the "progressive" idea that our government should be restricting anyone from access to mineral and oil resources on any land, public or private, because, believe it or not, some people benefit themselves by getting us to do that, to our detriment.

As I've stated before, I have talked to "communists" of varying stripes. Some detest the Russian/Chinese/Cuban brands as "Statist", invoking a brand of hate in that word indistinguishable from say Mark Levin's usage of the term. A "Statist" is someone who sees Government "The State" as the chief problem solver. Like a "Religionist" might see a particular religion as the cure of all ills in the world. Or as a "Scientist" might think science/technology is the answer to life's problems. ? "Better living through Chemistry" was a saying when plastics were the revolution in dinnerware, and meds were being advanced as solutions to all life's health malaises. All kinds of new ideas or ideologies or political persuasions have been called "progressive" in hopes of getting better acceptance from the people. In general, they all have some consequences people might not really find good. Humans, for example, have been adversely affected by the use of plastic foodware and can liners due to BPA being used as a "plasticizer" and adding, along with soy formulations, to a hormonal inbalance that affects sexual and brain development. Makes men less masculine and women more susceptible to some forms of cancer, for example.

Trout might think "Progressive" is a good word for car insurance. I might agree.

Generally speaking, I question our fantasies about "progress" when it comes to giving government another sledge hammer to whomp down on say, some rancher somewhere pushing cows through the sage.

I don't think it was really "progress" to put the American natives on reservations, and make them dependent on government grain handouts because if they strayed off the reservation and got caught with some fresh meat they'd be jailed for years. I harbor questions about whether our blacks have been helped with welfare designed to keep people coming back for more instead of helping to move out and get a job. I harbor serious concerns about the modern reservations for all of us called "urban corrals" by some, and ideas of restricting new exploration/mining/oil claims on any "protected" land, where there are plenty of ways to make sure development of resources does not do harm to wildlife or archaeological sites.

BLM, of whoever we assign the task of preserving antiquities, needs to hire more archaeologists, contract more professionally-qualified help like Dr. Jones in finding sites not yet known, and such. That's all. Well, and of course, any mode of ownership/management/administration, whether state or county or city or federal or private can be required to conform to good policies on the advice of professionals in whatever field of science.... environmental, archaeological, geological, whatever.

what concerns me is organizations whose funding is derived largely from "corporate" or politically-recognizable "interests" whose stated ideological view is that man is bad, too much, or too stupid to be left in control of their own government........

Un-American.

I don't see our nation's founding values as incompetent in the hands of educated citizens for either developing economic resources or protecting any aspect of our heritage or historical/anthropological sites, but the key word there is "educated" as in not "indoctrinated" or "brainwashed" or "propagandized".

well, some people can not take a challenge to their settled passions. Gotta let this thread go. Or not.

 

[Jason]

Closing this thread after moderator vote. Thanks!