H.R. 2016: 26 million acres in jepordy

This just came in from Pete. It looks like it legalizes the Yellowstone to Yukon project but it isn't described as such. This also looks like it establishes more LA21 levels of government.

DO WE STILL OWN OUR OWN CONTRY?

Liberty Matters ACTION ALERT
http://www.libertymatters.org/

26 Million Acres in Jeopardy
HR 2016 Up For Vote This Week

The House Natural Resource Committee has sent HR 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System bill, to the House floor and could be voted on as early as today. The measure would place 26 million acres under jurisdiction of the National Park Service in the 13 Western States, and could lead to the end of multiple-use on much of those lands. {bold emphasis mine}

The legislation codifies a system that former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt initiated in 2000. It includes 17 National Conservation Areas, 15 National Monuments, 38 Wild and Scenic Rivers, 161 Wilderness Acres, 5203 miles of National Scenic and Historic Trails, and 604 Wilderness Study Areas -- all in the 13 Western States. Not surprisingly, the bill sponsors are predominantly from the east, and no member from Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Utah or Wyoming is cosponsors. These five states alone have 82% of the Wild and Scenic Rivers, 62% of the National Historic Trails, 45% of the Wilderness Study Areas, and 33% of the National Scenic Trails. Specifically, HR 2016 will:

1. Codify by statute the NLCS, adding an additional layer of bureaucracy to traditionally multi-use BLM lands in the restrictive fashion of the National Park Service.

2. Elevates “protecting the values for which the components of the system were designated,” above existing management requirements, placing a higher value on “landscape preservation” than what the existing law provides.

3. Elevates the purposes of “conserve, protect, restore” above other purposes.

4. Management requirements set forth in the bill are vague, opening an invitation for environmental groups to unduly influence how the lands will be managed.

5. Authorizes land managers to trump access rights and productive uses if viewed to conflict with “protecting the values” for which the land was designated.

6. Contains no provision where local governments can raise and address local impacts.

The Bush administration has shown no interest in protecting the multiple-use status of the 26 million acres either, as Interior Secretary Kempthorne’s staff was sent to testify in favor of the measure. The Senate has already passed the companion bill out of committee, where it is also waiting for a floor vote.

It is imperative to contact your Representative immediately asking them to vote against HR 2016. Any Congressman can be reached by calling 202-225-3121. Don’t delay. Remember, the bill could come up for a vote anytime this week, including today, so call immediately.

Then somebody from our neighborhood made a very interesting search for terms that led them to my blog, and led me to this:

http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol8/takis_transitional.htm

DEMOCRACY & NATURE: The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY

vol.8, no.1, (March 2002)

Transitional strategies and the Inclusive Democracy project

Takis Fotopoulos

Abstract: The aim of this paper is twofold. First, to critically assess the various transitional strategies for radical social change which have been proposed in the past, as well as some recently developed strategies, like the civil societarian approach, the Libertarian Municipalism strategy and the ‘lifestyle’ strategies. Second, to propose a new transitional strategy which aims at the transition to a confederal Inclusive Democracy. In this context, the emancipatory subject in present society is discussed, a new type of politics and political organisation is suggested, and a series of steps for the transition to a political, economic, ecological democracy, as well as a ‘democracy in the social realm’ is proposed.

The collapse of actually existing socialism and the parallel failure of Western social democracy and its replacement by today’s neoliberal consensus in combination with the rise of the ideology of postmodernism[1] and the decline of antisystemic movements[2] have inevitably led to a corresponding decline of a discussion which was still flourishing a few decades ago: the discussion on a transitional strategy towards an alternative society. This was inevitable, because the abandonment by the Left (Old, New, and Green) of any vision for an alternative society in effect made such strategies redundant. A basic criterion which we may use in distinguishing between the various transitional strategies which have been proposed in the past and the few being proposed today is whether a strategy aims at reforming the present institutions without proposing any alternative institutional framework, or whether, instead, it aims at replacing the present society’s institutional framework, that is, the system of the globalised market economy and the complementary institution of representative ‘democracy’, as well as the corresponding system of values that constitutes the dominant social paradigm on which the present society is based. On the basis of this criterion we may distinguish between ‘non-systemic’ and ‘anti-systemic’ strategies.

This is a very long scholarly presentation that I need time to review, but here's their conclusion:

Finally, the transitional strategy should involve steps in the development of institutions and values which aim at the reintegration of society with Nature and the elimination of any human attempt to dominate the natural world. This implies, apart from participating in struggles against the activities of the political and economic elites which have resulted in the present ecological crisis, the initiation of moves for the establishment of alternative ‘eco-friendly’ institutions and renewable forms of energy. In fact, as I showed elsewhere,[94] the establishment of the new political and economic institutions itself and particularly the drastic decentralisation that the new institutions involve is a crucial step in this direction, as it allows the development of new lifestyles , new patterns of work, production, energy use and consumption, which are perfectly compatible with the aim of an ecological democracy.

In conclusion, no one should have any illusions that the establishment of democracy will be a swift process or that the implementation of a transitional strategy program will not have a hard time from the elites controlling the state machine and the market economy. This process is bound to be a long one involving a huge popular movement and will extend over an entire historical period. However, without underestimating the difficulties involved in the context of today’s perfected methods of brain control and economic violence, which, in fact, might prove more effective methods than pure state violence in suppressing a movement for an inclusive democracy, I think that the proposed strategy is a realistic strategy on the way to a new society.

Foot note #36 is: "see also Takis Fotopoulos, ‘Social Ecology, Eco-Communitarianism and Inclusive Democracy’, Democracy & Nature, vol 5 no 3 (November 1999), pp. 561-576"

Eco-Communitarianism? Gee...what's that?

Now the real "people" who live on the land and want to own what they legally own have become the "elites" standing in the way of inclusive democratic progress. I find it interesting that the conclusion affirms the concept of "brain control aand economic violence." Definitely worth studying... but I won't be able to get to it for months. We're moving into our new office this week and getting ready for summer tourist season. We have a major book editing project that will take our course of thinking into the more spiritual realm of ACL research. I need to contemplate what motivates me. I don't often consider what role my beliefs play in my devotion to exposing the communitarian lie, knowing as I do how twisted up it is with false patriotism and new age Christian religion. Who are the new breed of Christians who practice snobbery and condemnation of others as a daily ritual? How can people do so much meddling and manipulation, while spreading gossip and lies, always claim to go to "church" and use THAT as their justification for their rudeness and evil acts toward others? My childhood experience with Jesus taught me to be kind, above all other things. Yet, to my sister Judy, and her growing clique of "church" affiliates, kindness is reserved for above poverty level members only. So what "God" do they pray to in their oft cited claims to superior morality? It's incredibly painful to see the communitarian church's influence on our family and friends. Wasn't "brother against brother" something predicted for the end times in their Bible?