baomo

how about a social liberal and fiscal conservative?

Thor29

Does it really work that well? I'd be surprised if there weren't lots of people who get upset when brown bears are wandering around town, especially near schoolyards. In any case, the only reason the bears can co-exist with that many people at all is that there is abundant wild land nearby for them to live in. I would love to see the grizzly re-introduced to California, but the salmon runs are almost extinct here so they would probably have to eat people to survive. That might be a good thing, but I'm guessing that most people would prefer not to be eaten.

Sure Cosmoline, us granola-crunching tree huggers don't want you greedy Alaskans to drill in ANWR because we're a bunch of hypocrites. That's right - we all suck. You just want bigger checks from the state of Alaska from oil profits and we just want one place on earth to not be ruined. Yeah, yeah, yeah, new oil drilling technology is less invasive, blah, blah, blah. I'm not convinced. I'm sure if anybody worried about massive oil spills prior to the Exxon Valdez they were reassured by the oil companies that it would never happen. But it did.

Cosmoline

It's all about educating people. Case in point. I remember a few years back some school in the UK closing down because there were reports of a LYNX in the area. And I don't mean some weapons system, I mean the cat. At about the same time, a brown bear took a moose in a schoolyard near here. School continued as usual, though students were warned not to go into the area where the bruin was eating. We are surrounded by large wild animals here. It's not unusual to come face-to-face with a fifteen hundred pound moose in the morning when you go out to get the paper, or to dodge a cow guarding her calf on the trails. Indeed I avoid several local bike paths in the winter and during rut to keep from wrapping around a moose.

The bears keep a low profile, but they're there. A recent study by the air force showed that far more than previously thought migrate right into Anchorage proper at night to hunt and fish, but there haven't been any maulings in the city itself in living memory.

https://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story...-7249123c.html

This fellow made national news when he got too curious about a high power line at Kincaid Park just a mile from here:

https://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildl...-7958666c.html



To put this in perspective, Kincaid Park is an urban park, surrounded by dense urban development, with dozens of winding trails that's popular year round and gets tens of thousands of visitors.

Yet for all this bear activity, the closest fatal attacks were down the road at McHugh in '95 where two joggers ran into a boar and were killed instantly. Turnagain and McHugh trails are still closed from time to time due to bear activity. But nobody gets too panicked. There are far more DLP (defense of life or property) shootings along salmon streams by tourists and nervous anglers than in the Anchorage bowl or nearby trails.


That's the key. The animals can do well if the wild lands are preserved. If they're given over to mass suburban sprawl there's no hope for them. But bear don't have to survive on salmon. They're a remarkably adaptable species, and the overpopulation of deer and elk in many western states would be a fine food source.

That was a spill on WATER. A spill of crude on LAND, which is the concern at ANWR, is a whole different matter. It's just crude. It's an easy matter to suck it back up, and it doesn't do any serious damage to the wildlife. Indeed in a thin layer it's a fertilizer. I just wish enviornmentalists would be more realistic and start focusing on what's going on their own back yards instead of obsessing about some oil drilling on the slope. I'm sure the a-hole developer who wants to pave over the last remaining bit of wild land in your neighborhood would love you to worry about Alaska. It takes the pressure of his plans. Plus, I suspect a lot of folks are operating under bizarre assumptions that the porcupine herd is the last of the caribou There are still a lot more bou than humans in this state, so no worries.

I think we need to start opening minds and re-thinking the assumptions, including the assumptions made by the "green" community. Too many in those ranks still think the resolution will come through some massive new federal program. The only long term solutions are individual and community-driven. We have to decide to build a world we can live in with the wild. It's not impossible, not by a long shot. Chosing to build smaller, denser cities with less reliance on cars an sprawling suburbs makes that a lot easier. What I detest is this notion that everything is kosher just so long as there's this remote place called Alaska where we don't even let villagers build a road or a bridge.

kevink159

Cosmoline, I think you are kind of missing the point. Envroinmentalists know the lower is screwed up beyond repair, we do not want the same to happen on every square inch of the planet. You are also either being naive or disengenuous when you claim liberals and conservatives drives SUVs at the same rate. And finally, we are trying to clean up the lower 48 but all the silly repubs won't allow it. In case you missed it they have been in power at the federal level for awhile now. If you vote for a repub that is your choice, but you can't then claim to care about the envrionment as much as other issues. Speaking of other issues, in your first point you claim liberals are more invasive than repubs. I see it exactly the other way. In every social issue I can think of like abortion, gay marraige, the entire patriot act, all of this war on terror nonsense, the repubs are trying to infringe on our rights as citizens more than the dems. I realize a minority of dems made some noise about tighter gun control a decade ago, but no national democrat has ever advocated tighter gun control than the Brady Bill, and I suspect any alaskan candidate didn't either.

After re-reading the text of this post, I thought I might sound a bit condecending. That was not my intention, but I don't know how to phrase it any better. My personal political belief is that people should be free, corporations should be regulated.

vidiir

Ah, a question that has plagued me lo these many years! I am one of the most conservative people I know and try to do just that: conserve. I believe in liberty of action and responsibility in accepting the results of that action (good or bad). It seems to me that so many cyclists view business as bad and evil and reprehensible that they must be liberal or leftists, progressives or whatever nomenclature they prefer to be described as.

Without these businesses and the self interest that comes with them though, our beloved bicycles would still be ancient, heavy monstrosities that were a chore to ride. If business is choked to death by government regulation there is no impetus to improve. Look at any given soviet industry.

I agree that many businesses are poorly run and exist for no other reason than to part a fool from his money. Too many people look for a quick fix and they just dont usually exist. This is the case with the entire political left wing of cultures (American, British, Israeli, Western Europe, etc). They want the quick fix for problems and issues that have been a lifetime (sometimes lifetimes) in the making.

I hope to improve the world. My first step was to quit driving a car that only got 15 mpg. My Toyota Celica went out and in came a newer Crown Victoria. Did it look as though I was being harsh on the environment? You bet. But at 23 mpg and less maintenance costs (only one set of tires every few years instead of 2-3) I made less impact on the environment and therefore felt as if I was conserving and thus fulfilling my political mission.

Those who deride people that ride around in SUV's of luxury cars are in the throes of childish thinking. They are in the very same boat as they proudly burnish the badge of 'cyclist' that they wear. The very cycle they ride would, transported to a third world country, be considered a luxury. Are they supposed to give it up for some rattling, rolling deathtrap just to salve their conscience? If not, why then should those in this country be belittled for following the dictates of their conscience?

I realize that it will take many long years for people to think again in terms of what is truly important to them. My hope is that my example will teach my children to carefully pick those things that clutter up their lives. The liberal platform is no solution. Only a return to personal responsability and the long view will help us.

I hereby step down from my soapbox and cease my rambling.

Cosmoline

Partisan nonsense. The situation has continued to get worse and worse through administration after administration. If you keep looking to some federal savior to fix the environment you'll never live to see it. Destruction does not happen in DC. It happens inch by inch, yard by yard as concrete is poured. And I've seen as much damage under liberal mayors and govs. as conservative ones. You have to stop what's happening right in front of you rather than getting distracted by distant issues like ANWR.

Well most of the dems voted for Patriot, to set up the DHS and TSA, and to give the Presiden authority to invade Iraq, in case you missed that. And when they had a chance what did they do with a bill like ENDA? They SUNK IT and voted for DOMA. So there's your Dems. They're the flip side of the same coin. Moreover, they have a positive fixation on stripping citizens of the right to keep and bear arms. Why, I don't know. But it gnaws at the back of their tiny minds, night and day.

We don't need to derail this thread, but suffice it to say you're wrong. I've heard Teddy Kennedy push to have .30-30 hunting rounds outlawed as "cop killer bullets" and Feinstein say she'd like to be able to tell "Mr. and Mrs. America" to "turn them in." They can't let it go, even with Dean's efforts to declare a truce. They're still pushing to renew the Assault Weapons Ban.

That said, I vote for a lot of Alaskan Dems and I was intensely proud to see our own legislature pass a law denouncing Patriot I and refusing to allow any state resources to be used to assist in investigations under it. It was of course symbolic, but it was interesting to see how few "blue states" with Democrat controlled governments followed the example of one of the most reactionary legislatures in the nation.

dee-vee

I am a hardcore libertarian. I dont like liberals or socialists.

Artkansas 

Interesting finding another person who realizes that both left and right go to anarchy. But I think there is an important difference between left and right anarchy. To me it seems that right wing- anarchy is the classic anarchy, every man for himself and no government is possible. But I see left wing-anarchy being that everyone realizes their personal responsibility to care for others and does so, so that no government is necessary.

My conservative friends use the term, "enlightened self interest" describing that the only way they help others is by doing things that help others, but also promote that person's self interest, because if they do not benefit, what possible reason is there to motivate them to do it?

I think that the liberal equivalent is "enlightened group interest". Like some christian mystics and buddhists, there is knowledge that the self is essentially finite and thus any work for "self interest" is pretty short sighted. So that working to help the suffering of others is really the most enlightened.

On another topic, the OP noted that they were conservative because they preferred time tested ways. As a left-wing soul a little past liberal, I have to say that liberal is also very time-tested. It's why I do not adopt the label of progressive. Liberal values are not "progressing"; they uphold time tested values of valuing the welfare of others.

kevink159

I think we all need to work on a local level to do what we can in our immediate area, but also keep an eye open to the big picture as well. Being from Wisconsin, it is nearly impossible to find a natural, intact envrionment. Nearly every acre of the state has been logged at one point. We have some very nice peaceful places, but nearly everything has been impacted sopmehow.

The repubs in power pushed for the Patriot Act, and the dems were to cowardly to vigorusly oppose it. Patriot Act 2 was opposed by a vast majority of dems, but passed because repubs controlled all branches of federal gov. I am not sure what ENDA or DOMA stand for, could you give me a give me the full name? I do agree, dems are basically the flip side of the same coin. They are the lesser of to evils except for the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act, my very own Russ Feingold.

I was wrong in my terminology, I meant no nationally elected Dem advocatted tighter gun control. You are correct this is a new thread, so I'm going to start one in politcs and religion.

Chris L

From what I recall of the results, most people ended up only on one side of the scale, and those who crossed over only just managed it.

Roody

Burning fossil fuels, whether it's oil from Alaska or coal from Wyoming, is literally threatening all life on the planet, including mine. That's why I feel it's my business to tell Valvoline what to do with "his" oil:

Leave it in the ground or it'll end up in the air!

Cosmoline

If that's the official argument, fine. But don't feed people this BS about endangering the procupine herd.

dynodonn 

When visiting friends in the Kenai/Soldotna area, I had the uneviable pleasure of meeting a cow and her two calves face to face in my friends front yard, and when mama ain't happy, ain't nobody going to be happy. I was fortunate enough to only get a good growling at, and once she saw that the calves had run off into the woods, she followed them likewise.

Roody

Around here the porcupines are solitary critters. They don't form herds. (In fact I think it might be dangerous for them to get too close to one another.) We do have big herds of mosquitoes, but they have migrated to Belize for the winter.

austinguy

Amen brother! I agree whole heartedly. I always try to explain to people that the terms "radical" and "conservative" have lost there true meaning. I always think it's odd that so called liberals or conservatives always have certain values that conflict with each other. When determining what to do (not that I always do the right thing) I think of what my grandparents would do. They raised their own fruits and vegetables, organically. Raised beef, pork, and poultry, also organic. They always used as little energy as possible, Recycled virtually EVERYTHING. Taught their kids to work hard, respect others, respect the land. Yes, I do consider my self conservative in terms of energy use, materialism, even buying locally and avoiding confrontaion in the world.

The war in Iraq certainly seems like a radical thing to do, not in any way possible was that a "conservative" thing to do. But yet it was planned by the so called "conservatives" in power. I know it may all sound like sematics but people use these terms to manipulate the electorate.

Roody

How will the stron will of individuals ever begin to solve problems such as global warming and other pollution issues?

Individuals, and corporations acting as individuals, have no natural incentives to reduce pollution. Time after time--almost universally--corporations and individuals have chosen to pollute, when they could have chosen not to. They have no sense that it is their personal responsibility to refrain from poisoning their neighbors. Obviously they will not stop polluting on their own and some external authority is required to make them refrain. There is no authority other than government to force irresponsible individuals to act responsibly.

Furthermore, pollution (particularly global warming) is a very difficult and complex issue. Individuals (persons or corporations) lack the knowledge and resources to tackle these problems. We must work together and pool resources and expertise. These cooperative efforts will require the supervision of some authority. Again, there is no authority other than government which can effectively manage the enormous battle against pollution and global warming.

Obviously I agree that the feds have dropped the ball when it comes to conservation--especially the current administration and Congress. And I do agree that change can--and must--come from the grass roots. However, ultimately only governments are big enough to handle these problems, but they're going to need a big push from we the people.

PSYCLONE

I'm no fan of unions, so I'll be passing on the 8 ball.

kill.cactus

While your definition of conservatism is similar to American conservatism, I think the poster meant conservatism in the American Republican Party's version. That includes many specific principles like foreign policy, energy independence, and stuff like that.

The reason a lot of people assume car free people are more liberal is that it is stereotyped that conservatives are, well, people who like power and care less about the environment than liberals. Though this is true for many conservatives, you don't have to be in love with oil to be a republican.
Also, the republican party has generally put energy either behind other topics or has had outdated and/or inefficient and/or inactive energy policies.

I'm not car free, not even car lite. I am conservative. I am also a minor, meaning that I am heartless according to that old saying - "If you're not liberal by 18, you're heartless, and if you're not conservative by 50 you're brainless."

cooker

In countries like Britain and Canada where we actually have parties naming themselves "The Liberal Party" and "The Conservative Party", people use terms like "small-'c' conservative" or "small-'l' liberal" if they want to talk about the concept, not the party.

jamesdenver

No, I am not.

Chris L

Yeah, and here in Australia the conservatives actually call themselves the Liberal Party. Try and work that one out.

Brian Sorrell

A lot of responders seem pretty edgy -- high strung even. Are you really cyclists? Personally, I find that the more I bike, the calmer I get.

Roody

I'm feeling edgy. I think I'm gonna snap! WhereTF is my bike? I need to ride my bike!!!! I'm gonna blow like St. Helens!!

Speaking of conservatives, I just rode through Grand Rapids on the Greyhound as they were burying Gerald Ford on the banks of the Grand River. There were thousands of people just standing on the streets and overpasses. Five fighter squadrons flew over in the missing man formation just as the sun set. It was beautiful. I am very far from conservative, but I respected Ford. He was honest and sincere, even though he was often wrong.

margoC

Well I am gay and a women and I happen to agree (with the left being more oppressive). If you go to a "conservative" webboard, like a gun one, and disagree you will merely be argued with, if you go to DU (demacratic underground) and disagree you will be banned.

Liberals seem like the bigger hypocrites to me. Just last week we (my "women" and me) were over at our liberal hetero neighbors when the subject of recycling came up. They were appalled that we do no have curbside recycling, therefore they do not recycle. I pointed out how there are recycling bins all over the place, they pass several every day when they are driving around in their big SUV's, and they could drop the stuff off everyday, I also pointed out how the curbside thing makes it more expensive to recycle and that's why a lot of cities quit doing it. They said that they did not want to put the dirty stuff in their vehicles.

Also the liberals I work with live closer to the hospital than I do, less than a mile in fact, yet they drive to work every day.

I could go on and on but I don't want to bruise my fingers typing.

CommuterRun

I'm not gay, nor a woman, but I agree with Margo. Liberals want control over every aspect of each individuals lives through socialism. Conservatives want people to make choices and succeed by their own efforts through capitalism.

As a microcosm take SUVs, for example.
Liberal standpoint: Ban them all.
It doesn't matter if someone has a legitimate need for the features this vehicle provides. It is evil and the people that drive them are evil people, ban it.
Conservative standpoint: If that's what you choose and you can afford it, go for it.
It can be seen as a reward for working hard and a person making themself successful.

But typically, the things that liberals want to see come to pass, they want to apply to everyone but themself.

Another microcosm:
Take Rush Limbaugh's radio show, for example.
I don't make it a point to listen, but I sometimes catch part of it under the right circumstances. I agree with most of what I hear him say, but not everything. Generally, I find his show amusing.

A liberal acquaintance of mine hates him. Not his show, but him personnally. She doesn't know him. She doesn't listen to him. She only parrots what her liberal friends tell her. If you disagree with these people you are wrong and derided, but they lack the ability to engage in bebate without attacking.

It's much like talking to religious radicals. Muslim, Christian or Liberal; a radical is a radical. There is their way and everything else is evil.

Here's something liberals don't want because it empowers the individual: By making people be responsible for themselves, they are uplifted. When someone works they are a productive member of society, when they don't they are a burden. Why should my tax money support Desmona and her six kids when it could go toward something I can use? Like better roads.

This is where I side with the liberals and am Pro-Choice, but with a caveat. In order to abort a pregnancy, a person would have to prove they are too dumb to understand birth control.