If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
AJC wrote:
http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=ne...action=article If they're closing the air fields (and turning the islands into national parks) how will people be able to even get to those islands? Boat? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:50:28 -0400, Fly Guy wrote: AJC wrote: http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=ne...action=article If they're closing the air fields (and turning the islands into national parks) how will people be able to even get to those islands? Boat? Well surely the idea of at least some national parks is to keep people away from them! --==++AJC++==-- There are those who would perceive that perspective as arrogantly elitist. "We're going to buy and maintain this park, see, but you can't go. It's reserved for the bigwigs/butterfly enthusiasts/friends of the golden throated bobolink." There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers". TMO |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
TMOliver wrote:
AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled: Well surely the idea of at least some national parks is to keep people There are those who would perceive that perspective as arrogantly elitist. "We're going to buy and maintain this park, see, but you can't go. It's reserved for the bigwigs/butterfly enthusiasts/friends of the golden throated bobolink." There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers". You don't see that there's a benefit to keeping people from tramping over at least some spots on the planet? I don't think there would be a problem with using whatever method you found most egalitarian to determine who got to go. Lottery? Fee? Written exam? miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:22:08 -0500, TMOliver
wrote: At what point does the protection of Mother Nature from the depredation of crass humans pass the threshold of justification? When do you shoot the tiger? After the first villager is dined upon? The tenth? When people start moving to places where they need to drive 20 miles in their 400 horsepower machomobiles and never-taken-off-road SUVs to get a roll of toilet paper or to take little Ashley to a soccer game? ;-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
Fly Guy wrote:
AJC wrote: http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=ne...action=article If they're closing the air fields (and turning the islands into national parks) how will people be able to even get to those islands? Boat? Yes. How do you normally get to the Channel Islands (Calif) or Fort Jefferson in the Tortugas? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
TMOliver wrote:
AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled... There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers". Can you point out this clause in the constitution? Do you not know people that couldn't afford to go there even if there was an airport? I didn't see anything about banning visitors, just closing the airport. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
mrtravel wrote in message igy.com...
TMOliver wrote: AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled... There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers". Can you point out this clause in the constitution? [snip] He's probably referring to the equal protection clause. There was also however the 10th amendment. (Is a "right to travel" clause too although that is really more of a restraint on states being able to prevent state to state travel). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
assuming you make the access difficult enough (so you want to go to midway,
you need to go by boat) people won't go (or at least the ones who go will have spent a lot of money to do it) "Miguel Cruz" wrote in message ... TMOliver wrote: AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled: Well surely the idea of at least some national parks is to keep people There are those who would perceive that perspective as arrogantly elitist. "We're going to buy and maintain this park, see, but you can't go. It's reserved for the bigwigs/butterfly enthusiasts/friends of the golden throated bobolink." There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers". You don't see that there's a benefit to keeping people from tramping over at least some spots on the planet? I don't think there would be a problem with using whatever method you found most egalitarian to determine who got to go. Lottery? Fee? Written exam? miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
me wrote:
mrtravel wrote in message igy.com... TMOliver wrote: AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled... There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers". Can you point out this clause in the constitution? [snip] He's probably referring to the equal protection clause. There was also however the 10th amendment. (Is a "right to travel" clause too although that is really more of a restraint on states being able to prevent state to state travel). And the right to travel doesn't mean you have the right to have a government (taxpayer) funded airfield at the destination. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|