Re: Such Nonsense!

[Edward McGlinn <mcglinn@ix.netcom.com>]

Dottie:

First, I want to say that flaming is not my style, but I guess that's 
what I'm guilty of, and I don't like to do it. 

If I sense that the majority of correspondents on careerpro believe we 
should defer to the military when it comes to environmental law then I 
will resign my subscription. I don't walk away from disagreement and 
argument, but the views expressed by Don and those that I hold dear are 
separated by a chasm that can't be bridged by negotiations, compromise, 
or whatever you do to reach "agreement." 

I'm approaching seventy and I can't waste the time I have left on such 
"nonsense." 

Dottie Marron wrote:

> Flaming on CareerPro. Wow, that's a first. I agree with Don and to a
> certain extent, Edward. The clean-up of the environment is vital and
> should continue unless the clean-up action significantly impacts
> defense preparedness.

I don't see how you can agree with anything said by Don and still agree 
with me "to a certain extent."

> 
> At North Island we have a restoration site that is located adjacent to
> the weapons storage area of the base. Part of the the site is in
> the blast zone should there be an accident in the weapons area. The
> people doing the site determination studies must receive special
> permission to enter the contaminated area to do their analysis. This
> special permission is not because the weapons officers are being
> militaristic jerks, but for the clean-up workers own safety.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with what Don was talking 
about.
> 
> Let's be realistic. Whether we like it or not the armed forces have a
> responsibility to
> keep themselves in a state of war readiness. Sometimes that
> responsibility is going to run up against environmental cleanup and
> the cleanup is going to be set aside temporarily.

If this ever happens, and I think "responsibility for a state of war 
readiness" running "against environmental cleanup" is the kind of 
sophistic nonsense that is so upsetting, at least to me. 

Don was not talking explicitly about "cleanup." He was talking, I think, 
about polluting, about the kind of irresponsible behavior that has made 
the U.S. military the number one polluter in the country, and possibly in 
the world. He was talking about giving them the option of whether they 
could continue to pollute or not, about suspending environmental law on 
the whim of a general, admiral, or defense secretary, without any 
recourse for reversal by private citizens who would then be aggreived. 
All this would be done by "executive action," not by congressional 
action. 

Why do you think the generals would act any more responsibly in the 
future then they have in the past? 

Dottie also wrote:

> I think we need to
> strive for a balance between our military needs and our environmental
> needs. In most cases, those needs can be met simultaneously. If not,
> we should try to find ways to work with the military to continue
> cleanup on a slower or reduced pace until the military crisis is over.
> 

If and when there is any "military crisis" it should be so declared by an 
act of Congress, not the opinion of someone with stars. And if there is, 
I don't believe environmental law need be suspended, or should be, 
although Bush did it in the Persian Gulf "crisis." (Such euphemisms!)

Eisenhower, in his farewell address as president, warned against the 
military-industrial empire. You should dig up this speech and read it 
carefully.

Again, I promise I will not "flame" again. I will simply resign.

Ed McGlinn
The Riverwatch
http://www.mich.com/~anglers