Forest Service Allows Human Waste to Spray on Sacred Site

The Forest Service has approved a measure to allow the expansion of the Arizona Snow Bowl on Arizona's tallest mountain, San Francisco Peaks, a site sacred to 13 Native American Tribes.

The expansion will include the cutting of thousands of ponderosa pines and aspens to make room for ski slopes. Under the proposal, the expansion will include the installation of snow making equipment that will spray reclaimed sewage water containing unregulated chemicals all over the sacred site. Moreover, the inner basin of the mountain is the watershed for the city of Flagstaff and contains its clean water supply.

San Francisco Peaks is a popular destination for hiking, camping and hunting and is the home to black bear, goshawks, deer, elk, prairie dogs, peregrine falcon and the endangered Mexican spotted owl. The Peaks are still the site of numerous traditional religious ceremonies by the Native Americans that hold the site sacred.

The natural condition of the mountian is sacred to the Native Americans and any development is offensive, but spraying human waste on the sacred site, treated or not, is downright disgraceful.

Sharks? -- or last vestige of the govt's checks and balances?

You can't make this stuff up.
The White House refuses to talk about the one thing the people of America want to know about -- the credibility and integrity of its leaders and its leader's advisers. And if you are not wondering about that, you really should be.
On a good note, former WorldCom head honcho Bernard Ebbers received 25 years in prison for his role of overseeing the largest corporate fraud in American history -- to the tune of $11 billion. Finally a white collar sentence with an actual deterrant quality has been handed down.

Below is a transcript of a portion of Press Secretary Scott McClellan's press conference of July 13, 2005.

[from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050713-7.html]
snip

MR. McCLELLAN: And with that, I'm glad to go to your questions.

Q Scott, some White House advisors expressed surprise that the President didn't -- did not give a warm endorsement to Karl Rove when he was asked about him at the Cabinet meeting. They had expected that he would speak up. Can you explain why the President didn't give a -- express confidence?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. He wasn't asked about his support or confidence for Karl. As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the President. This was not a question that came up in the Cabinet Room.

Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again.

Q Well, why doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was not asked that specific question, Terry. You know that very well. The questions he were asked -- he was asked about were relating to an ongoing investigation.

Q But, Scott, he defended Al Gonzales without even being asked --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll come to you in a second. I'll come to you in a second. Go ahead.

Q Yes, he defended Al Gonzales without ever being asked. (Laughter.) Ed brings up a good point. Didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was asked about the Attorney General.

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.

Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --

Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.

MR. McCLELLAN: I look forward to talking about it once the investigation is complete, as the President does, as well. And you heard from the President earlier today.

Q Can I ask for clarification on what the President said at Sea Island on June 10th of last year, when he was saying that he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved in the leak of classified information? What were the parameters for those consequences? Was it --

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate your question.

Q Was it a knowing leak with the intent of doing damage? I'm just wondering when he talked about that, what those parameters were?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've nothing to add on this discussion, and if we have any other topics you want to discuss, I'll be glad to do that.

Go ahead, David.

Q Scott, when the President asked that question at Sea -- was asked that question at Sea Island, and, in fact, when you made your statement that Karl had had nothing to do with this, was there an ongoing investigation at that time?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been through this for two days now, and I've already responded to those questions.

Go ahead, April.

Fish kills result of improper procedures and administration bullying

The National Marine Fisheries Service did not follow its own procedures or have all the necessary information it needed when it decided to divert water to farms and southern California cities thereby endangering threatened fish populations in the northern part of the state, according to an audit by the Commerce Department's Office of the Inspector General.
Allegations that the administrators and the Bureau of Reclamations pressured biologists at NMFS to OK the diversion in order to fulfill 200 water contracts caused congressional leaders to demand the investigation that produced the audit.
Native fish populations in the Delta and in coastal rivers have seen a dramatic decline since last year, when fisherman and fish activists complained that low water releases caused river temperatures to rise killing huge numbers of salmon before they spawned.

Merriam-Webster Makes for Bad Policy

Remember the word Bullshit the next time you're swimming in a freshwater lake that you thought the government was protecting from pollution.
Funny how the role of government has changed from protecting the people of the country to protecting the corporations of the country, at the expense of the people.
Yes, very funny.

"Word to the Unwise"

"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) are getting creative. They're
rewriting the definitions of everyday words -- and letting
their imaginations run wild.

"Everyone knows what "waste" is. According to Merriam-
Webster, it's "damaged, defective, or superfluous material
produced by a manufacturing process; an unwanted by-product
of a manufacturing process, chemical laboratory, or nuclear
reactor." The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA
have no use for dictionaries. Historically, both agencies
classified toxic mine tailings as "waste" and prohibited
mining companies from dumping the stuff in lakes and rivers
under the Clean Water Act. With a simple rule change, they
redefined the polluted by-product as "fill," for which
there are fewer restrictions for dumping.

"Thanks to this simple word change, the mining company Coeur
Alaska will now be allowed to dump 4.5 million tons of
chemically processed tailings into Lower Slate Lake in the
Tongass National Forest. It marks the first time since the
Clean Water Act became law in 1972 that a mining company
will be permitted to discard its toxic waste into a
freshwater lake. Other mining companies are already
looking to exploit this new loophole and dump their waste
into public waterways.

"Clearly these agencies have a knack for looking at words
through rose colored glasses. If they keep it up,
"pollute" will soon mean "to help an elderly woman onto the
bus" and "smog" will be "a bubble-gum flavored treat every
kid can enjoy."

"Read the Reuters article, "Controversial Alaska gold
project gets OK" at:
http://info.sierraclub.org/ct.html?rtr=on&s=arz,dvjp,o7l,cq4o,a3hw,c7it,3ojx


***

Want to do more and help spread the word about the Bush
administration's assault on the environment? Here are a
few things you can do:

1) read RAW and stay informed
2) forward this edition of RAW to your friends, family, and
co-workers or use our online form to encourage them to subscribe
to RAW themselves at:
http://info.sierraclub.org/ct.html?rtr=on&s=arz,dvjp,o7l,ldxe,kehy,c7it,3ojx
3) write letters to the editor of your local newspapers
4) join the Sierra Club's Take Action Network at:
http://info.sierraclub.org/ct.html?rtr=on&s=arz,dvjp,o7l,7bpf,3vup,c7it,3ojx
5) support the Sierra Club's efforts by donating much-needed
funds at:
http://info.sierraclub.org/ct.html?rtr=on&s=arz,dvjp,o7l,9vnm,86o8,c7it,3ojx "

post taken from:
http://lists.sierraclub.org/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A2=ind0507&L=raw&D=1&T=0&O=D&F=&S=&P=186

The Age of Bullshit

--excerpted from "Mother Jones", July/August 2005, "L'Epoque Bullshit", by Dave Nuttycome, a review of Harry G. Frankfurt's recent book, "On Bullshit".

"Frankfurt makes an important distinction between bullshit and lies, which is that while bullshit does not have to be untrue, it is always phony. Bullshit is a process, the byproduct of a person’s uncaring attitude toward the facts at hand. And what makes bullshit the “greater enemy of the truth than lies” is that a liar actually knows and cares about the truth. He needs to know which facts he’s trying to hide. The bullshitter just wants to get over.

The person who lies on a resume is in danger of not getting the job. But the person who bullshits effectively in the interview has a pretty good chance of getting hired. (That’s how I got all my jobs. And that’s pretty much how I keep them.) The bullshit artist cares more about what people think about him than the veracity of his own words; he values the appearance of “sincerity” over “correctness.” That we can even use the seemingly honorific term “bullshit artist” without blinking is a dispiriting example of how we’ve come to privilege spin over substance."

I'll let you contemplate this on your own after pointing out, in case you hadn't noticed, that damn near everything you've heard from the Bush Administration from day one has been bullshit. Everything you hear on FOXNews is bullshit. Most of what you hear from the mainstream news media is bullshit.

Mistaken Identity

The following exchange, as well as the post before this, are illustrations of the types of 'conversations' that occur between me and others who have mistaken my identity. 'Chuck' is a common name in the South. And I reckon 'Baldwin' ain't that uncommon. Fortunately for me I was the first to nab the domain name www.chuckbaldwin.com. You would think someone with a political radio show would think to buy it, but likely in a penny-wise pound-foolish decision, another decided to buy chuckbaldwinlive.com.
Nonetheless, I am happy with my name and have no intention of changing it or selling it.
So, if you are trying to contact a Chuck Baldwin, make sure you are emailing the right one. I cannot be held responsible for replies I make to unsolicited email. Well, at least I don't think I can -- I haven't checked with my lawyers.

As a courtesy to the other side of this conversation I have x'd out his name and website where it appears.

From: "XXXXXXXXX"
To: "'Chuck Baldwin'"
Date: 04 Jul 2005, 09:03:02 PM
Subject: RE: unsubscribe

Yow! You ARE a different Chuck Baldwin! Mind you, I don't think he is a
total nut case, but he does get tiresome...and repetitive...and off the
wall...and.....well, maybe he IS a total nut case.

I glanced through your web site quickly and saw that you are clearly one
hell of a lot more intelligent than Chuckwagon Chuck.

Click on the following for my latest, which went to my list today:
http://www.XXXXXXXXXl.com/columns/XXXXXXX.htm

You might find me to be more of a nut case than Chuckwagon, though I doubt
it.

I don't know how you're gonna do it, but you've got to sue him for divorce,
or something...too bad you can't force a name change on someone else. Hey!
Since the Supremes now say they can take your home and give it to a
developer to turn into a strip club, maybe next up would be the forcible
taking of names, going to the highest bidder.

-XX

-----Original Message-----
From: On Behalf Of Chuck Baldwin
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 8:50 PM
To: XXXX@XXXXX.com
Subject: Re: unsubscribe

I'm a different Chuck Baldwin, one without confederate flags flying on my
website. But as the owner of chuckbaldwin.com I get a LOT of nutcases
writing to my email address in error. Some I respond to, most I ignore.
Sorry to bother you. I was trying to get rid of this "chassieman" who seems
to be writing you too, and hit Reply All to be as thorough as possible. I
thoroughly enjoyed your response, though I'm not familiar with your writing.
But based on your reply I am quite interested to see what you do.

Please add c h u ckb lo g @ chuckbaldwin.com to your weekly missives' list. If in fact
I find it as repulsive as the Reverend Doctor's I'll unsubscribe in earnest.
In the meantime consider it a case of mistaken identity.

Chuck Baldwin

On Jul 4, 2005, at 3:44 PM, XXXXXXXXXX wrote:

> You're not on my list, Chuckie.
>
> I find it odd that someone like yourself, who sends me about sixteen
> copies of every single little thought that seems to cross your fevered
> brain, has the effrontery to write all of us and demand that WE remove
> YOU from OUR lists. Not only that, but you do it via what can only be
> described as genuine SPAM!
>
> If, indeed, somehow you get my weekly missives directly from me, then
> do something more thoughtful than this and provide me the actual email
> address that needs to be removed. Trust me, it will happen...
>
> -xx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Chuck Baldwin
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:24 PM
> To: chassieman
> Cc: john francis; jerry martin; gary meade; steele; tom tear; don
> linda r.; lady home sch.; jack F; doug browning; kerry edwards; melanie
> elsie; jerry c.; cindy bob; brenda ?; mark g.; ralph blowers; mike castle; federal
> observer; bill f.; barb ketay j.veon.rad.frnd; ed c.; russ westfall; scott jackie;
> Randy Rose P; diane d.; ed kaminski; charlie albert; jim
> royle; fredd; alex jones; afp editor; ABC News
>
> Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
>
> Please remove me from your lists.

I also got a stark "lol"; a "Sorry, I don't have you on any list..."; and a "Please un scribe me from YOUR lists."

Well, all in a day's work defending the name Chuck Baldwin. I had my fortune told to me last night by a mystical typewriter at the Musee Mecanique on the Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. It said that my "behavior is beyond reproach."

As G.W.'s god is telling him to bomb Iraq, mine are telling me to keep on track, too.

-cb

Iraqi Bait

Mr. Baldwin,
Can you explain to me why Hal Lindsey who claims to be a prophetic scholar is supporting Bush's lies on iraq? I am disappointed.
I read this article on WND, by Hal Lindsey,'Iraq not part of war on terror'?
Exclusive: Hal Lindsey pounds Pelosi for delusional comments on Iraq war
--WND
I do believe now that Hal Lindsey is a false prophet as was warned in the bible. He is pandering to the Bush Admin. and lacks discernment. I would like to remind Hal Lindsey that the original text of Bush was to throw Saddam out and bring democracy and freedom to iraq. The rhetoric or lies of Bush is constantly changing and now Iraq had connections to 9/11. I do believe the insurgencies are coming from Bush Admin. to keep our boys and girls busy and linger the war for another 12 years so they can wipe out the early iraqi civilization and keep the oil fields guarded.
Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

My belief is that anyone who claims to be a prophet likely isn't. Real prophets have that title thrust on them after they are dead. Since the Bush Administration's bizarre popularity with born-agains, I've seen people coming out of the woodwork claiming to be Christians and Fundamentalists--it's en vogue. If you want to believe someone is for real, seek out an agnostic or a liberal for an argument.

This Hal Linden looks especially hypocritical . He just plain looks swarmy. (see photo)Lindsey (3k image)

Lindsey

But let's get to his commentary:

Now it has a representative government, an independent judiciary and is no longer a threat to anybody except terrorists. Which brings us to part two of Rep. Pelosi's second complaint. Now it is a "magnet for terrorism because the president invaded Iraq ..."

Evidently, Rep. Pelosi thinks that is a bad thing for America. Where would she prefer to locate the "terrorist magnet"? New York? Washington? Los Angeles? I thought that was the strategy – fight them in the Middle East instead of fighting them in the Midwest? Maybe I am missing something about the nuances of politics.

This is not why we went to war in Iraq. Never have I heard an Administration official say that we are in Iraq to attract the terrorists there so they are not fighting us here. That is using the innocent citizens of Iraq as bait. Where is the Christianity in that I ask? If it is our fight, why bring other innocents into it? That is just plain evil. Yes they were living under a horrible dictator. We went to war solely, we were told by Bush, to disarm Saddam Hussein. Well, Hussein had no weapons yet we are still there evidently to lure the terrorists there so they can blow up our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters, American and Iraqi.

Maybe I am missing something. If al-Qaida has concentrated its forces in Iraq, doesn't that limit its ability to concentrate its forces elsewhere? Like Philadelphia? And if al-Qaida is bound and determined to bring war to Americans, isn't it a good idea for them to run into the U.S. Marines instead of a civilian office building?

What has she been smoking?

And this is exactly what the 'prophet' Hal Lindsey is defending. Al-Qaeda has been shown to not have had many operatives in Iraq before 9/11. In fact the Al-Qaeda leadership had been at in complete disagreement with Saddam Hussein. How could they support him after all? He was a hedonist surrounded by whores and booze and tortured people for fun. We may not have very much in common with fundamentalist Muslims, but we know that sort of behavior is strictly in conflict with the Koran.

I do not believe anything coming from the current Administration's government, from Defense, to the FDA, to the EPA. They are spewing nothing but lies with their facts manipulated to support the Administration's agenda. The whole Terry Schiavo issue is a prime example of how corrupt our governing process has become in such a short time. And now with two journalists being threatened jail time if they do not give up their sources, our last avenue of checks and balances is coming to an end, with the great Time, Inc. corporation dropping the blade of the guillotine.

Too upset to go on,

Chuck Baldwin

Mr. Baldwin,

After much thought, I do believe that Pelosi was saying that inspite of having a new government body in iraq, the country after the invasion has become - a magent for terrorism.
If Hal Lindsey is saying that the war was not against iraq but the 9-11 terrorists in iraq, I would like to remind Hal Lindsey that Bush then should have attacked Saudi Arabia, since most of the terrorists of 9-11 were from S.Arabia and not from iraq.
Even a four year would conclude that the insurgents are placed by America to fight a war with our troops since iraqis are under training, right? I realize there was a resistance from the Sunnis earlier on, after all they feared that U.S. was going to steal their oil (and they did according to the Brit official, Galloway) and invade. Justified.
I do agree with Nancy Pelosi's argument. She was also reacting to Rumsfeld's analysis of the war to continue for another 12 years. Remember, iraqi government is a puppet one - totally controlled by Bush & Co.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

While I certainly agree that we are fighting the wrong war and on the wrong front, I do not think that the insurgents are planted by the US to extend the war indefinitely. Our simple act of being there and fighting a jihad with the Muslims is creating the insurgents and future generations of terrorists. There is no need to artificially create them, despite our country's previous history of training bin Laden and his cohorts.

This is the number one reason I have been against the invasion from before it started -- us attacking them creates the very hostility we are allegedly trying to put down. Bush, Rumseld and Cheney have accelerated and fueled a very vicious cycle of violence. Unless we plan to stay in a constant state of war indefinitely, which might very well be their plan, we have exposed ouselves to the sort of ongoing terrorist attacks that have plagued Europe and the much of the rest of the world for years. We had long escaped such activity until 9/11. And rather than negotiating with and pacifying our attackers, we attacked out of revenge and stoked the flames of discontent for millenia.

And as far as the "magnet for terrorism" goes, we are fooling ourselve to think we are rounding them all up in Iraq and "hunting them down". The plans for 9/11 went on for years before the event occurred. The people we should fear are hiding and waiting and gathering their strength. We won't feel their bite for a long time, but when we do it will likely be mighty. What we are doing in Iraq has almost no effect on the war against terrorism. Iraq is insignificant, except in its slaughter of man and waste of billions of dollars that could be spent helping mankind.

Chuck Baldwin

Mr. Baldwin,
Thanks for the email. Anything is possible with Bush since he has lied several times. My mother had always warned the family, that never to argue with liars, and that we would be defeated. You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe that Bush & Company planted those insurgents. May God reveal this to you and the others. Remember, there are good guys and bad guys in every country. If Bin Laden was the prime suspect initially, where is he now? Under the protection of Saudi royals?

Elizabeth