Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations EPA Power grab, gone!

How did the EPA become involved ewest?

I think this discourse is constructive and am grateful it's remaining civil.

On another note...I love that response to the EPA letter...gets me every time. Thanks for posting again!

Seeing as we've kept it pretty simple, what you you all think about "Freedom of the Press" in this day an age?

I ask from the angle of what exactly is the 'press' these days? Most any kind of media or 'news' is from for-profit institutions, and some organizations are about as large as they can get.

Por ejemplo, CNN is owned by Time Warner.

Okay, since Sunil asked..

In my opinion, impartiality is a thing of the past. It's all about an agenda these days, and furthering that agenda takes precedence over accuracy and/or non-biased reporting. And the tendency to over dramatize and sensationalize the most mundane event is almost nauseating. A two inch snowfall is not a winter storm, people!

But what concerns me the most, is how so many people are aligning themselves and taking sides, without ever searching out the facts or attempting to uncover the whole story. I don't understand that? What you read on the net, or hear on the news, is most likely slanted to elicit a particular response. You can find anything on the internet, supporting any belief or any opinion. But c'mon people, that doesn't mean it's correct! If it sounds so outlandish and ridiculous that you
can hardly believe such a thing, and it fires you up and makes you angry, well, you've probably just allowed yourself to be manipulated by the modern media. Chances are, there's another whole side to that story that the media conveniently left out.

And if you're getting your news from a site that agrees with your particular philosophy and is frequented by folks who are of a similar mindset as yourself, you're absolutely not getting the entire picture. We need to get our news from a variety of sources, not just those who share our own ideology. Then, we can examine the thing from every angle and make up our own minds, rather than becoming a pawn on some media chessboard.

I'm pretty sure that a few minutes of searching would turn up a news source proclaiming that the earth really is flat, and that Aristotle had it all wrong. Doesn't make it correct, though.

I do think the media should be held accountable for their reporting, and be required to validate before taking it public.

As a scientist, I was trained to fight the bias that we all have, and let the evidence do the talking. Some say they are not biased, but that is the trap. We all bring bias to the table. If one really wants the truth, one needs to recognize the bias, and fight to interpret the evidence (all the valid evidence) fairly. Picking and choosing what evidence to consider is a sure sign that reason has been left behind. Science is clearly under assault in the current administration. However, much of the controversy is actually over what policies we should adopt to combat what science tells us is happening, but the policy controversy should not make some ignore the scientific facts and conclusions.

Nice post, RAH. And as if learning to recognize and account for own personal biases wasn't bad enough, I think we also need to learn to identify when those biases are being manipulated externally.

I used to flip the channel when I wanted news to get both sides. But, there was so much bias on the cable when it came to the three different channels. So, I just watch the fair and balanced one. Seams like they are the news channel most watch, and their ratings prove it to be true. I will say I am not a righty nor a lefty, kinda down the center of the road until I see a pond out the window and then I may drift a little as I look it over.

"Manipulative bias". I wonder how many recognize it? It's everywhere. Both conscious and subconscious attempts at influencing opinion.

I think many folks know that others are often selling something, even if it only their point of view. The internet is so crazy, that those that grew up with probably learn to filter things pretty well.

If I was to use the same logic as progressives use for the 2nd Amendment, I'd guess we'd have to say the 1st Amendment is outdated, right?

We are told that the founders didn't have semi auto firearms, there was no smokeless powder, they did not have magazines...

Well the founders didn't have internet, radio, TV...

Using this nonsensical form of logic, free speech should only include the newspaper and the spoken word, poppy cock!

Free speech is free speech and the right to bear arms is the right to bear arms. If the founders had wanted limitations on these rights they were plenty smart enough to have written limitations in for the times they existed in. If some of us disagree with these limitations on the Federal Government then we can gather the votes and Amend the Constitution just as it was designed to be Amended. Those votes don't exist though so people twist twist twist the meanings of words.

My concern are not just the specifics, but the concept that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and should not be bent. As indicated, there are provisions to change it if the people think it needs changing. While I do not like some laws, I recognize that a country ruled by law is still the best thing going. Unfortunately, a friend lamented that we have a legal system, not a justice system...

Post 465728 on page 3 in this thread. First complete sentence....did you catch it?

Not trying to imply anything, just observing how ingrained and entrenched, even subconsciously, the manipulation of emotion has become.

I guess that I don't things have changed much over the years in that regard.

The issue is one of Charlie digging some post holes in his yard in order to construct a fence, and the EPA becoming involved and trying to tell him he cannot do such a thing.

Of what relevance is the fact that Charlie owned a simple, three bedroom home? We don't give it a second thought, but the seed is planted: Charlie lives a modest, non extravagant lifestyle. Like many of us, he probably isn't well off. He's a little guy, being bullied by the much larger and powerful epa.

So already we are moving away from just the facts, and allowing emotion to influence our judgement. Not saying that Charlie didn't get a raw deal and treated unfairly, not at all.

Just pointing out how widespread and easily overlooked manipulation and bias can become. Even subconsciously.

I give these things a second thought. I can recount my own experience that priced me out of a pond/wetland complex on my land. The plan was to use 100 acres of tilled agricultural ground as watershed (not my fields). NRCS said it would work. My ponds and wetlands would have kept water from these fields from flowing directly into a creek considered impaired by the EPA. In my case, the county surveyor and "studies" he wanted were the impediment. Yup - I have some bias! We all want a clean environment, but IMO, the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Now it will likely swing too far in the other direction.

Post 465728 on page 3 in this thread. First complete sentence....did you catch it?

Not trying to imply anything, just observing how ingrained and entrenched, even subconsciously, the manipulation of emotion has become.

What is this and what is your point ?

465728 is not on pg 3 which do you mean ?

I made 465728 on pg 8. The first sentences are :

Sure snrub. Charlie (fictitious name to protect the innocent)owned a simple 3 bedroom house in a subdivision bordering a bayou. He wanted to build a fence across the back of his yard. Because it was near a wetland (bayou ) it had hydric soil. He dug postholes (dredge and fill material)to put up the fence. EPA told him no. You can guess the rest.

I agree on the pendulum effect. We are a nation of extremes.

Well, for me, this thread only has 4 pages? Not sure what the difference is, ewest?

Science has benefited mankind since before the discovery of rapid oxidation, but when the scientists are on the payroll of a governing body, the validity of their conclusions should be questioned.

All science should be questioned, but not abandoned when scientists from all types of backgrounds and employment pretty much agree.

All science should be peer reviewed and unbiased. What topic is agreed upon by most all scientists ? Recall that at one point in time all the best scientists thought the world was flat.

I see my question a couple of posts above was not addresses.

One can Google the Pew survey that compares the opinions of the AAAS scientists and the public to see specifics. This thread will get shut down if we discuss them here.

This thread has already broken a few forum rules as is. I will not delete it but someone should. Now you can see why political threads should never be made.

It was. I suspect you might have been typing and missed it. Post # 465825. At this point, not sure what page that is for you.

When science gets folks mad, it is a sure sign that ideologies are involved that conflict with the science. I find this is a heads-up for me to question why this is happening and why the evidence gets me upset.