Give away public lands? What?

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, I have read all of your new posts, RI, including the one just above this. I need to step away and think about this before I comment further or ask questions.

Baby steps.

[_Maksutov]

Okay, I have read all of your new posts, RI, including the one just above this. I need to step away and think about this before I comment further or ask questions.

Baby steps.

If you're going to be scientific and rational about this it will probably embarrass the rest of us. Just sayin'.

[_Res Ipsa]

RI,

I haven't read your new replies yet, but let me try to frame this another way. And I will tell you right up front as I have stated on the board many times, I am a very slow yet methodical learner. It takes me a very long time before the lights actually come on.

What I am getting is crosstalk that doesn't make sense to me. I'll try to articulate it.

1. One line of thinking on this is that this new action that reduces the value (on paper) of public/protected lands, makes it easier for the Fed Gov to give it away to oil companies for a song to do what they will with it.

2. One line of thinking is that this is a move to ultimately give states control over public/protected land.

If this is a move to transfer control of the land to the states, then how can the Fed Gov sell it off for a song?

I'm not understanding where one line of thinking intersects the other.

I'm posting from my tablet, so I'm struggling to keep up.

I'm not sure those lines of thinking do intersect. So I think you are right to be confused.

I don't think the GOP is trying to give federal lands directly to oil companies for free. The ideology is that the federal government should not own lands that are inside of state boundaries. It's partly a sovereignty argument and partly a limited federal government argument. I think the plan is to transfer a significant portion of federal lands to the states for no cost. This rule makes it mechanically and politically easier to do that. So I don't think point one represents what will happen.

I don't think the states will give land to oil or coal companies either. But they will either sell them or increase mining, drilling, fracking, etc. They really can't afford not to.

by the way, I'm happy to go at this stuff slowly and from different angles. Helps me figure it out, too.

Okay, I have read all of your new posts, RI, including the one just above this. I need to step away and think about this before I comment further or ask questions.

Baby steps.

Baby steps is good. It helps me spot and re-evaluate my own assumptions, which is always a good thing.

I'm interested to hear what you think after doing some noodling.

Republican's know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. How much did Yellowstone cost? Not much of anything really. How much is it worth? Priceless.

I really don't expect the Congress to sell off Yellowstone. I think the starting place would be BLM land in the west and, perhaps, some of the national monuments created by Obama.

Okay, I have read all of your new posts, RI, including the one just above this. I need to step away and think about this before I comment further or ask questions.

Baby steps.

If you're going to be scientific and rational about this it will probably embarrass the rest of us. Just sayin'.

Yeah, what do you think this is: Mormon Rational Discussions?

[_Maksutov]

If you're going to be scientific and rational about this it will probably embarrass the rest of us. Just sayin''.

Yeah, what do you think this is: Mormon Rational Discussions?

Ha!

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, I have read all of your new posts, RI, including the one just above this. I need to step away and think about this before I comment further or ask questions.

Baby steps.

If you're going to be scientific and rational about this it will probably embarrass the rest of us. Just sayin'.

I'm reeeeeeeeeeeeeel slow.

You might recall that my main concern about Trump's policies (and please let's not drive this thread off topic because it's all I can do to keep my mind attending to it) was his position on climate change. While I realize there are other issues of great concern, the environment is tops on my list and that's just me and my passions talking, what I want for the well being of humanity (I'm not just talking about clean air)and the children who are going to inherit our choices. I see other additional concerns coming up right now in the news with regard to what he is signing off on. The man is moving too fast for my brain. I'm going to stick with this one issue before moving on to the rest because while I had too full a plate during Obama's administration, I don't now and I'm going to watch Trump like a hawk.

I'll probably end up commenting about my positon regarding children and the environment here, because that's the point where all of my concerns converge, on the well being of children.

Republican's know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. How much did Yellowstone cost? Not much of anything really. How much is it worth? Priceless.

I really don't expect the Congress to sell off Yellowstone. I think the starting place would be BLM land in the west and, perhaps, some of the national monuments created by Obama.

I only used Yellowstone as a quick and handy prominent example.

[Guest]

I'm reeeeeeeeeeeeeel slow.

You might recall that my main concern about Trump's policies (and please let's not drive this thread off topic because it's all I can do to keep my mind attending to it) was his position on climate change. While I realize there are other issues of great concern, the environment is tops on my list and that's just me and my passions talking, what I want for the well being of humanity (I'm not just talking about clean air)and the children who are going to inherit our choices. I see other additional concerns coming up right now in the news with regard to what he is signing off on. The man is moving too fast for my brain. I'm going to stick with this one issue before moving on to the rest because while I had too full a plate during Obama's administration, I don't now and I'm going to watch Trump like a hawk.

I'll probably end up commenting about my positon regarding children and the environment here, because that's the point where all of my concerns converge, on the well being of children.

Sticking to a topic you are passionate about and spending time on that makes sense to me. Trying to digest everything Trump feels to me like trying to sip from a firehose. And I think keeping this tread on topic will be well worth it.

[_Some Schmo]

I'll probably end up commenting about my positon regarding children and the environment here, because that's the point where all of my concerns converge, on the well being of children.

This is my primary concern over Drumpf presidency as well. We do not have 4 more years to waste on whether climate change is real arguments.

I was talking to my brother the other day and he mentioned that he couldn't, in good conscience, recommend his grown kids to have families of their own. He thinks the future of the planet is too uncertain to selfishly want grand-kids who will suffer our choices.

Hard to disagree with that.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'll probably end up commenting about my positon regarding children and the environment here, because that's the point where all of my concerns converge, on the well being of children.

This is my primary concern over Drumpf presidency as well. We do not have 4 more years to waste on whether climate change is real arguments.

I was talking to my brother the other day and he mentioned that he couldn't, in good conscience, recommend his grown kids to have families of their own. He thinks the future of the planet is too uncertain to selfishly want grand-kids who will suffer our choices.

Hard to disagree with that.

Just looked back in for a moment. I'll pick up the dialogue with RI when I've had more time to think about, probably later in the day or this evening.

I said I would likely end up trying to articulate my position on children and the environment but I'll give you a taste right here in reply to your comments. It is not just the future of the planet, Schmo, and it's not only about clean air and clean water. I contend that we are seeing the psychological impact of a disconnect with nature in our children right now, in news reports we see almost daily. I believe we are also seeing it in specific diagnoses in children. It may be just one piece of the disconnect puzzle, but there is no doubt in my mind that a major issue is the lack of connectedness children have with the environment. And I might as well include adults in that.

There's your hook.
;-)

On second thought, we probably should have critiqued the articles. For example, what is that bit about giving away the Pentagon about?

I mean, come on.

We also need to see a document on this, otherwise we're spitting in the wind.

[_Res Ipsa]

On second thought, we probably should have critiqued the articles. For example, what is that bit about giving away the Pentagon about?

I mean, come on.

I don't read the article as saying someone want to give away the Pentagon. I think it was an example (like using Yellowstone) to show that the rule applies to all federally owned property.

We also need to see a document on this, otherwise we're spitting in the wind.

What documentation do you want to see? The text of the rule?

[_Jersey Girl]

This is why we need to lay eyes on the rule.

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed a rules change this past week by a vote of 234 to 193, that would allow Congress the ability to essentially give away federal lands and buildings for free

What definition of public land are they talking about? Buildings, too? That's why that one guy is floating the idea that the Pentagon could be given away.

We're reading all this stuff without knowing what the rule actually says and if it defines exactly what type of properties it applies to.