Does MOFOE have a platform?
 

If so, what is it? I'd like to know what kind of group I was joining up with before, you know, joining up. I mean, theres "for the environment" and then there's "for the ENVIRONMENT".

o

that's what we need to work on. we have no platform.

Any general sense of what it should stand for?

Is it like a relatively-rabid Greenpeace-style organizations for Mormons? Or a somewhat more pragmatic "for the environment, but there are limits to what we'll sacrifice for the environment" situation?

More national parks? Or should they be privatized?

Oil or ANWAR?

Anti-SUV?

Advocating more government intervention/spending? or more public awareness?

I'm not sure how I feel about any of this myself. I worry that there is no study anywhere in the world that doesn't bear the biases of its creator, whether pro-environment or pro-industry, wherefore it's hard to get a grip on what the *actual* situation is. As such, I think it's hard to be specific in one's ideologies in this regard -- you end up believing what you want to believe. Oh well. Maybe it'd be easier to try and identify the future ideal than the specific, more-immediate platform planks.

Ideals:
1. Nothing goes extinct.
2. No humans starve.
3. The world's climates remain stable.
4. Human quality of life allowed to continue improving.

My greatest concern is that 1 and 3 necessarily conflict with 2 and 4.

My $.02, FWIW, IMHO, and all sorts of 4-character disclaimers.

o

I want to join!

Seriously, though, environmental outlook is one of the areas where I identify very strongly with the Democrats.

Problem is, I drive an 8-cylinder car - is that grounds for disqualification? I guess in mitigation, it is named after an animal.

I want to be counsel for MOFOE
 

reasons:

I represent a lot of jerks, just kidding.

I represent diverse persons most of which don't identify with Mormons.

I like the environment, just don't like extremes on either side.

Hmm, let me think, as in my environment I'm frequently discouraged from thinking or using my brain.

Technically a gremlin is a creature, not an animal.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But, man, can that thing fly! Except I keep outrunning my hubcaps.

While I'm not yet sold on the platform-less MOFOEs, I do believe I will join Archaea's group. Each of us will proudly be one of those
Against Sexual Slavery by Conniving Ladies Only Wanting their Needs Served.

Will you join us in this great crusade?

(We do not discriminate among the shackled and unshackled.)

As Charter Members, Parrothead and I invite you all
 

We stand for many things to many people.

Re: As Charter Members, Parrothead and I invite you all
 

Ah -- it's like a consulting firm!

Anonymity
 

Ragin'! I didn't know I could do that...

I want to be an assclown

Well, I have great news for you then........ :P

Hey! I already am an assclown! Except what if I want to be subject to a little sexual slavery? Can I be against it at the same time I'm for it?

The first requirement to being FOR the environment. . .
 

is being AGAINST George W. Bush. You cannot support someone that would appoint an assclown like Mike Leavitt as head of EPA, and seriously say that you care about the environment. Leavitt is the guy whose first act as governor was to fire the official from the Division of Wildlife Resources who had fined the Leavitt family's commercial fish hatchery for bringing whirling disease to Utah. When Leavitt was governor, Utah ranked dead last in enforcement of the Clean Water Act (this according to reports by the EPA. Maybe as head of the EPA, Leavitt can do something to get rid of those annoying reports).

The fact that Bush would appoint someone like Leavitt to head the EPA is more than a slap in the face to those that care about the environment. It's Bush's way of telling us all to "squeal like a pig."

Sorry for the rant, but when I hear people talking about whether they are "for the environment" or "FOR THE ENVIRONMENT", it makes me laugh. There is not a lot of middle ground. If you only care about the environment so long as it doesn't inconvenience you personally or so long as it doesn't inconvenience the corporations and political interest groups that support your presidential candidate, then you really don't care about the environment.

I'll get off my soapbox now and go home.

Saw a Gallup Poll Thursday that said Dubya's approval rating was down to 39%.

This is slightly off-topic, but does anyone know of a website that lists approval ratings of past presidents? I wonder how 39% compares. If memory serves, Clinton's approval ratings were their highest during his sex scandals.

Sex good.
War bad.

I'm definitely with you there. One of the reasons I voted for Gore in 2000 (gasp!) was his environmental policies. Bush is dismal on environmental issues. I only hope he doesn't cause irreversible damage.

Re: The first requirement to being FOR the environment. . .
 

I disagree. I think there's a lot of gray area involved, especially given the lack of hard data to support, really, anything. From my own observations, I'm pretty sure we're damaging the environment at a faster rate than it can repair itself. But it seems like the earth may be capable of accepting a certain level of pollution. Therefore, there's a difference between someone who says ALL POLLUTION IS BAD and someone who says that it's okay to pollute up to the point where the pollution is actually damaging the environment.

It's one thing to be against the whaling industry and something altogether different to chain yourself to every white tail deer in the Rockies and throw blood on my grandmother. Most people who self-identify as "environmentalists" aren't ready to live without electricity, but others are adamant that everyone should go that extra mile. I'm not ready to stop eating beef, but I am willing to find occupations that require no commuting. Another person might go the other way around. Various shades. Gray area. Just as there is ENVIRONMENTALISM and environmentalism, there's also inconvenience and INCONVENIENCE. Various shades.

Further, it's easy to say you're in favor of the environment in a hypothetical sense, but when trying to bridge the gap between hypothesis and practice, things often get dicey. You start understanding more of that gray area when the absolutist ideals start coming down on you personally. I don't like the trucking industry which pollutes and damages roads to an extent that wastes resources. Am I willing to pay $x more for everything in order to get rid of it? I can't even answer that until I know what x is and no one can really *know* what x is until we outlaw trucking. Huh. Uncertainty. ENVIRONMENTALIST or environmentalist. I don't think most of us are even able to answer that question accurately for ourselves.

At the risk of quoting George Lucas, anyone who deals in absolutes -- well, they probably haven't considered enough of the possibilities.

Being "for the environment" is not a platform. Unless we want to define further and offer up sure-fire litmus tests, being an environmentalist isn't a yes-no thing. And even if we did start testing, then we're really just playing semantics games. Being an environmentalist isn't like being pregnant. There are tradeoffs in everything.

o

(Sorry, I gotta stop doing that.)