MasterBates
Well-Known Member
At least I based my worldview off the classics.
Sabbath, Motorhead, Metallica, Zeppelin, Star Wars..
Oh, and I took History of the World, Part 1 in college.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Navy Sonar useage Banned in California
- Thread starter Flathatter13
- Start date
At least I based my worldview off the classics.
Sabbath, Motorhead, Metallica, Zeppelin, Star Wars..
Oh, and I took History of the World, Part 1 in college.
WishICouldFly
UO Future Pork Chop
I did like Green Day...before they started wearing mascera.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Badass Mofo vs EMO fag.
My paycheck is on Lemmy, even though he is old enough to be Emo-Mans dad.
My paycheck is on Lemmy, even though he is old enough to be Emo-Mans dad.
This is a pretty old battle.
I haven't kept up with it since I left Washington a few years ago, but the major issue revolved around the Marine Mammal Protection Act relating to the wording in the act and the use of the sonar.
One of the bigger problems that was run into was actually the sensitivity of the animal-rights type folks. Their sonar to look at the underwater critters has become so sensitive that they can see the animal turn their heads, of make some other bodily reaction to the Navy sonar. This sort of made the old wording of the bill (and similar bills) not fair. That wording was often a word like "affect" or "disturb." So now the issue became, "Well it turned its head, was it really affected?"
Or the big argument about what actually constitutes being disturbed.
Then.....further down the line....there were loooong arguments about what word to put before it. Likely, could, very likely, probably will, etc.
Amazingly through all this the people who were the most rational were the actual animal rights scientists. The guys who actually knew the most about the animals were very willing to say they didn't really think the sonar was necessarily affecting the animals in an adverse way. They could point to specific instances where the animals were adversely affected, but for the most part those guys thought the animal didn't enjoy the sounds, but would avoid the area when it was too much for them.
The "tree huggers" who didn't really have a whole lot of facts were the ones adamantly against the sonar. Some went so far as to say it should never be used (vs. the scientists who thought it should have some limitations). They clearly had little knowledge other than loving animals, but somehow were given just as much floor time as the well informed. Amazing, and frustrating to watch.
At the time I was a spectator as a civilian representative of the Navy. I was amazed at how reasonable the "liberal scientists" were, and how the politicians would allow the other idiots to spout of all kind of stuff with ZERO facts to back it up with.
These proceedings are literally the reason I don't want to be in politics. It was that bad.
I haven't kept up with it since I left Washington a few years ago, but the major issue revolved around the Marine Mammal Protection Act relating to the wording in the act and the use of the sonar.
One of the bigger problems that was run into was actually the sensitivity of the animal-rights type folks. Their sonar to look at the underwater critters has become so sensitive that they can see the animal turn their heads, of make some other bodily reaction to the Navy sonar. This sort of made the old wording of the bill (and similar bills) not fair. That wording was often a word like "affect" or "disturb." So now the issue became, "Well it turned its head, was it really affected?"
Or the big argument about what actually constitutes being disturbed.
Then.....further down the line....there were loooong arguments about what word to put before it. Likely, could, very likely, probably will, etc.
Amazingly through all this the people who were the most rational were the actual animal rights scientists. The guys who actually knew the most about the animals were very willing to say they didn't really think the sonar was necessarily affecting the animals in an adverse way. They could point to specific instances where the animals were adversely affected, but for the most part those guys thought the animal didn't enjoy the sounds, but would avoid the area when it was too much for them.
The "tree huggers" who didn't really have a whole lot of facts were the ones adamantly against the sonar. Some went so far as to say it should never be used (vs. the scientists who thought it should have some limitations). They clearly had little knowledge other than loving animals, but somehow were given just as much floor time as the well informed. Amazing, and frustrating to watch.
At the time I was a spectator as a civilian representative of the Navy. I was amazed at how reasonable the "liberal scientists" were, and how the politicians would allow the other idiots to spout of all kind of stuff with ZERO facts to back it up with.
These proceedings are literally the reason I don't want to be in politics. It was that bad.
Yeah....this was the worst I saw it out there. Except for the interns using google to research their congressman's position on issues.
I actually asked them, "You know the library of congress is like a block away, right?"
Reply, "Yeah, but this works."
So when you hear politicians say things that don't make sense, remember where they might have received their information.
I actually asked them, "You know the library of congress is like a block away, right?"
Reply, "Yeah, but this works."
So when you hear politicians say things that don't make sense, remember where they might have received their information.