Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hreg] America Under Attack

Expand Messages
  • jclem412@aol.com
    In response to Claude s fostering of his interest in Nuclear by excluding objections from the HREG list, I say that a discussion group about renewable energy
    Message 1 of 27 , Sep 26, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In response to Claude's fostering of his interest in Nuclear by excluding
      objections from the HREG list, I say that a discussion group about renewable
      energy is absolutely proper in discussing the costs of existing forms of
      energy production. And the direct and indirect costs of nuclear energy,
      including from waste products or terrorists attacks, fall under the scrutiny
      of this group.

      Subsidies of conventional energy sources have been a formidable barrier to
      incorporation of RE and alternative energy technologies. If we can not talk
      about the unfair practices (of
      lobbied-for-special-interest-gained-tax-breaks-and-direct-government-spending-

      on-fossil-fuel-and-nuclear-energy), then we have, in effect, sold out to the
      conservative right wing corporate types who already (literally) own the media
      - TV, newspapers, and magazines. Please note how the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan
      supports advancing nuclear energy storage capability. Mmmm, that means
      subsidization, and that means RE is treated unfairly.

      I can not help but think that so many tragic and pitiful events are allowed
      to occur in this world because not enough voices are heard from the
      tax-paying-and-ruled-to-death citizens. There will be NO restriction to what
      is discussed on this list, as long as discussion is not vulgar, personally
      attacking, or intended merely to inflame.

      Jonathan

      (NOTE, the last transmission was inadvertently sent without my comments. We
      have had problems with the use of the mouse and the Reply button in our
      e-mail.)
    • William M. Bell, Jr.
      Jonathan: It is comments like yours that alienate many who support solar, wind and renewable energy, but who are conservative politically and morally. By doing
      Message 2 of 27 , Sep 27, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Jonathan:

        It is comments like yours that alienate many who support solar, wind and
        renewable energy, but who are conservative politically and morally. By doing
        so, you are limiting the base of support for renewables to only those
        persons who support renewables for the same reason that you do. Your
        reference to "conservative right wing corporate types who already
        (literally) own the media - TV, newspapers, and magazines." is out of line.
        I believe that it is also naive to believe that conservatives do not love
        the environment and that they control the media.

        As I have said before, I will say again: Keep your political jabs to
        yourself. Keep this discussion group on the issues.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <jclem412@...>
        To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 1:19 AM
        Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack


        >
        > In response to Claude's fostering of his interest in Nuclear by excluding
        > objections from the HREG list, I say that a discussion group about
        renewable
        > energy is absolutely proper in discussing the costs of existing forms of
        > energy production. And the direct and indirect costs of nuclear energy,
        > including from waste products or terrorists attacks, fall under the
        scrutiny
        > of this group.
        >
        > Subsidies of conventional energy sources have been a formidable barrier to
        > incorporation of RE and alternative energy technologies. If we can not
        talk
        > about the unfair practices (of
        >
        lobbied-for-special-interest-gained-tax-breaks-and-direct-government-spendin
        g-
        >
        > on-fossil-fuel-and-nuclear-energy), then we have, in effect, sold out to
        the
        > conservative right wing corporate types who already (literally) own the
        media
        > - TV, newspapers, and magazines. Please note how the Bush/Cheney Energy
        Plan
        > supports advancing nuclear energy storage capability. Mmmm, that means
        > subsidization, and that means RE is treated unfairly.
        >
        > I can not help but think that so many tragic and pitiful events are
        allowed
        > to occur in this world because not enough voices are heard from the
        > tax-paying-and-ruled-to-death citizens. There will be NO restriction to
        what
        > is discussed on this list, as long as discussion is not vulgar, personally
        > attacking, or intended merely to inflame.
        >
        > Jonathan
        >
        > (NOTE, the last transmission was inadvertently sent without my comments.
        We
        > have had problems with the use of the mouse and the Reply button in our
        > e-mail.)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • jclem412@aol.com
        Mr. Bell, I am puzzled as to why anyone would be alienated (as you say) by my comments. My commentary is in response to someone (Mr. Foster) wishing to
        Message 3 of 27 , Sep 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Mr. Bell,

          I am puzzled as to why anyone would be alienated (as you say) by my comments.
          My commentary is in response to someone (Mr. Foster) wishing to unilaterally
          restrict commentary on this HREG list. I have insisted that no such
          objections and limitations should apply to this list.

          You have presumed quite a bit in your latest comments. You have
          re-interpretted and ascribed my commentary as "political jabs". Do you
          really think that my comments were political jabs?

          My reference to "conservative right wing corporate types who already
          (literally) own the media" was part of a conditional if-then clause. If you
          prefer to take such a comment out of context (a context relating to unfair
          restrictions on the list), too bad, for it would be you who might be
          alienating the conservatives on this list.

          You presume that I am attacking ("jab"ing) conservatives (who also love the
          environment). I have been on this list for over two years and have never
          been accused of mistreating or dishonoring those with conservative
          viewpoints. There are conservatives who own media publications and there are
          those who do not. Correct me if I am wrong - Westinghouse, General Electric,
          and Disney own the three major TV networks - CBS, NBC, and ABC. Murdoch owns
          Fox TV. Time Warner owns CNN. These owners are corporations. Their sole
          purpose is to make profits for the shareholders. They all do a lot of
          advertising for other corporations. I personally believe that large
          corporations are typically conservative, since liberal or opposing
          philosophies usually mean cuts into their profits. I also know Westinghouse
          and GE have long time vested interests in the nuclear and electricity
          generating business.

          A fair question might be - have these corporations controlled or filtered, or
          attempted to control or filter the content of their programs on the networks?
          Mmm. I would wonder why Public TV exists, if not for the concern that the
          public may not be afforded their just due (programs covering the interests of
          the public realm) by Private TV. The fact is, these corporations CAN, by
          virtue of their board or directors and self-appointed management, dictate any
          viewpoints they want. I would not wish to get into all that on this list.
          Suffice it to say, we have guidelines and common decency for all to follow
          here, but do not have overriding power to bias the conversations in favor of
          one viewpoint over another.

          Thank you for expressing your opinions. I have faith that your intentions
          are good and that you have a certain understanding of what I said or what I
          meant to say. I only ask (of everyone on the list) that everyone be allowed
          to clarify their positions, as I have done here, if viewpoints seen
          contentious or improper.

          Jonathan Clemens
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.