Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[Jarhyn]

Repeating it does not make it better.

the Native Americans were given sovereign land with which they could do as they pleased.

Perhaps that was the case in the 19th century but is not really the case today. Indian reservations do not have standing of states for example. They get all services paid for by states they are located in (but do not pay taxes).

It wasnt very good land, but they were given the rights to determine how it was used. They object to having a big fat fucking pipe spewing disgusting crap on their land and making it hard to get around,

So many things wrong with this.
1. It is not their land. The route of Dakota Access Pipeline goes just north of the Standing Rock Reservation.

2. "big fat fucking pipe" may be a correct, but it is not (unless there is a leak) spewing anything.
3. The pipeline is not making it hard to get around. What do you think these pipelines look like? In reality they look something like this for most of their run:

What are the Indians worried about? bumping into the sign?

and in addition pose it in reference to a religious conviction to not sound so NIMBY, even if they are perfectly justified; people seem to respect religion in this country more than they respect the environment that provides their biologocal necessities.

Religion should not be able to prevent projects from getting completed. It has nothing to do with "respect", but with the fact that their religious ideas should not infringe on the freedom of others. You'd think people on an atheist forum should get that.
As far as "biological necessities", nobody is proposing that environment should be endangered. In fact, pipelines are safer than other forms of moving oil. New pipelines are better than old ones.
And what about non-biological necessities? This is a photo of the Standing Rock administrative building. Notice all the cars parked in the front? Do you think they run on spiritual energy?

This is the photo of the protest site.

Notice all the cars parked there? Or plastic tents? What hypocrites!
Some chick named Winona drove 2,100 miles to the protest side, all the way from Maine. That's almost twice the length of the pipeline (and she has to go back home at some point).

Winona, who did not give her last name, is Penobscot. She left Maine on Monday and drove 2,100 miles to put together a recycling program for the hundreds of new residents of the protest camp.

How many times did she stop to fill up and did she ever reflect on the irony/hypocrisy of it.
With echoes of Wounded Knee, tribes mount prairie occupation to block North Dakota pipeline
Also note, protesting is 1st amendment right. Trespassing for the purpose of "occupying" and "blocking" activity of others is not.

So what this amounts to is a states rights advocate advocating against a state's rights.

I am certainly not a "states right advocate", at least not as the term is commonly used (i.e. an advocate of weak federal government).
And this is not a states rights issue. North and South Dakota, which are states, support the project.
Standing Rock does not have state status. And even if it did, the pipeline would go just north of its territory. And note, if Standing Rock were a state, paying its own way, and a major pipeline were to go through its territory, I am sure they'd think twice before rejecting it (and forcing a reroute rather than them having veto power over the project as a whole, as they demand here).

The irony is, the pipeline and the environmental damage it produces, in addition to fossil fuels in general freeing too much carbon, could indeed cause that apocalypse they fear.

No, it really cannot. Pipelines are very routine technology.

Pipelines 101: pipes leak. This pipe crosses the Missouri River, which borders their reservation. I wonder what impact it is going to have on the ecology of the river.

As to the apocalypse, yes, this is already happening, and it is very routine. The fact that people have been doing it doesn't make it any better. Just because it is routine for a serial killer to murder people on a schedule doesn't make it less bad. Pipelines are routinely destroying the environments they are built on, and around.

What I have a hard time understanding, largely because I think it has something to do with an irrational belief, is the willingness to destroy a world we still need in order to leverage a technology that sucks ass in almost every way.

We can get the energy we need; we don't lack for houses, workers, or food. We have everything it would take to commit to doing more work on better forms of energy. We would have stuff to do for decades. I suspect the problem with this is that would mean releasing the stranglehold big business has on the economy.

 

[KeepTalking]

We know how oil companies recoup their :contributions". How does Tom expect to get his money back, Derec? Your false equivocations are barely worthy of response.

I just said there is big money on the anti-pipeline, anti-oil side. I did not claim he and others like him seek to "recoup their contributions". Steyer might just seek to influence politics. On the other hand, he may be invested in companies that stand to gain by oil sands and/or KXL pipeline getting the axe. Whether or not he has a monetary interest does not change the fact that he is quite open in his opposition to projects like Keystone XL and that his campaign contributions were in pursuit of that goal.

What it does change is the motivation he has for making those contributions. We know that Big Oil is making those contributions for profit. They have no other motivation, no the people, not the environment, just making money. If there is no evidence that Tom Steyer stands to profit from his efforts, then his motivation is most likely protecting the environment, and /or the lives and well being of people. I think it is pretty obvious that Tom Steyer does not stand to profit from his involvement, otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to statements like "he may be invested in companies that stand to gain by", you would already have that information on hand, taken from the same right wing big oil backed sources that you get the rest of your information.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

1. There is precedent in federal government paying monetary compensation for a portion of treaty lands. So there is precedent.

There are precedents in the federal government doing all sorts of abuses towards "Indians" as you call them; from genocide to slavery. Doesn't make it right.

I explicitly said that I would not deny them a bid for independence. I just don't think it is a good idea.

So if a tribe demands its independence, you would support it? I thought you said you would not. Must have misread you. Would you then support them using the resources on their land as they see fit, forming their own military, requiring you to have a passport to visit them, etc? It seems to me that neither they nor you should have the cake and eat it too. I agree with you that they should not get free stuff from the US government paid for by your tax dollars just because they are native, but I also think they have a good case for asking to go their own way. If you won't allow the latter, it becomes hard to complain about the former.

 

[bleubird]

This is moot.ND oil boom is bust. Fracking created a flood of oil on the market.The supply and demand.
Again,unbridled capitalism fosters the boom and bust cycle.Greed,short term gains,and testosterone fuel this.

 

[Derec]

This is moot.ND oil boom is bust. Fracking created a flood of oil on the market.The supply and demand.
Again,unbridled capitalism fosters the boom and bust cycle.Greed,short term gains,and testosterone fuel this.

The bust may be over, but there is still a lot of oil being produced in Bakken. So, the pipeline is very much needed and not "moot".

But let's say that you are right and the pipeline is "moot". Then all would happen is that the companies involved would lose a lot of money because all they would have is a dry pipe.

 

[Derec]

There are precedents in the federal government doing all sorts of abuses towards "Indians" as you call them; from genocide to slavery. Doesn't make it right.

Past wrongs do not render what is done today wrong either.

So if a tribe demands its independence, you would support it? I thought you said you would not. Must have misread you.

It has to do with the multiple meaning of the word "support". I would support their right to do it, but I would still think it's a bad idea and would not support the effort itself.
It's like one can support the right of an EU country to leave the union, but still not support the Leave Campaign.
It's like one can support the right of Colin Kaepernick to protest the US anthem but still not support his protest.

Would you then support them using the resources on their land as they see fit, forming their own military, requiring you to have a passport to visit them, etc?

As long as they also have to pay their own way, sure. Independent is independent.
It's easy playing pretend at "sovereignty" as long as federal and state governments are paying for all the infrastructure and social services. And having to pay their own way would force them to take a different look at development, including oil pipelines.

It seems to me that neither they nor you should have the cake and eat it too.

Exactly.

I agree with you that they should not get free stuff from the US government paid for by your tax dollars just because they are native, but I also think they have a good case for asking to go their own way. If you won't allow the latter, it becomes hard to complain about the former.

It's not that I "would not allow the latter", but I do not think these Indian States would be viable economically. I think the best outcome would be to distribute compensation to individuals and treat them as regular citizens, no better or worse than anybody else. If they decide to stay, the tribes should not have any special legal standing.

 

[Derec]

What it does change is the motivation he has for making those contributions.

So?

We know that Big Oil is making those contributions for profit. They have no other motivation, no the people, not the environment, just making money.

Yes, they are companies, and thus the profit motive is important. But these companies are still run by humans that have their own opinions. Nobody is a villain in their own story (George RR Martin).

If there is no evidence that Tom Steyer stands to profit from his efforts, then his motivation is most likely protecting the environment, and /or the lives and well being of people.

I would say that whether or not Steyer stands to profit from his efforts, he believes he is doing the right thing. So do the Koch brothers.

I think it is pretty obvious that Tom Steyer does not stand to profit from his involvement, otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to statements like "he may be invested in companies that stand to gain by", you would already have that information on hand, taken from the same right wing big oil backed sources that you get the rest of your information.

I do not think it is "obvious" at all. I just do not think it is terribly important to our discussion here, and thus I have not bothered to research his investment portfolio, if that information is publicly accessible at all.

 

[Derec]

Pipelines 101: pipes leak.

Yeah, nothing is perfect. So what?

This pipe crosses the Missouri River, which borders their reservation. I wonder what impact it is going to have on the ecology of the river.

Just because there might be high probability that this pipeline will have a leak does not mean it is likely at all that it will leak below the Missouri. The likelihood of leaks (often just a minor one) applies to its entire life span and its entire length. The length of the segments going under the Missouri are less than 0.1% of the whole.
This is a map of major pipelines in the US:

If the anti-pipeline propaganda was correct, most of US water supply would be contaminated at all times.
And ask yourself what will happen if this pipeline is not built? Will the Bakken operators just give up? Or will they use trains, trucks and existing (older) pipeline network, increasing risk compared to a new pipeline? This "protest" is really counterproductive.

As to the apocalypse, yes, this is already happening, and it is very routine. The fact that people have been doing it doesn't make it any better. Just because it is routine for a serial killer to murder people on a schedule doesn't make it less bad. Pipelines are routinely destroying the environments they are built on, and around.

Yeah, that's why US, with its many pipelines, is such an uninhabitable wasteland.

What I have a hard time understanding, largely because I think it has something to do with an irrational belief, is the willingness to destroy a world we still need in order to leverage a technology that sucks ass in almost every way.

Because you have been bamboozled by some bad propaganda.

We can get the energy we need; we don't lack for houses, workers, or food. We have everything it would take to commit to doing more work on better forms of energy. We would have stuff to do for decades. I suspect the problem with this is that would mean releasing the stranglehold big business has on the economy.

Evil big businesses, sure. Where do you propose getting all the energy we need if fracking or construction of new pipelines is banned? Renewables and EVs will take decades to have sufficient market penetration.

And yes, I put "protest" in scare quotes. I think people have the right to peacefully protest. They do not have the right to occupy an area they do not have the right to be at or to chain themselves to excavating equipment.

What utter and complete morons. Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to impede others by chaining yourself to their property?
These idiots should be charged with the full cost of delay of construction. Maybe they can build one of those monopoly casinos to pay off their debt or they can just let George Soros bail them out.

P.S.: No comment on the hypocrites who drive thousands of miles just to protest this pipeline?

 

[KeepTalking]

So?

You really don't see a difference between the motivation of profit above all else, and the motivation of saving lives and preserving the environment?

We know that Big Oil is making those contributions for profit. They have no other motivation, no the people, not the environment, just making money.

Yes, they are companies, and thus the profit motive is important. But these companies are still run by humans that have their own opinions. Nobody is a villain in their own story (George RR Martin).

George RR Martin is an author of fantasy fiction, what he has to say about his own fictional characters has little to do with anything in the real world. I really don't care if the dirty frackers think that heroism is encapsulated by unbridled greed. They are causing real harm to people and the environment just so they can make a buck, in my book, that makes them villains.

If there is no evidence that Tom Steyer stands to profit from his efforts, then his motivation is most likely protecting the environment, and /or the lives and well being of people.

I would say that whether or not Steyer stands to profit from his efforts, he believes he is doing the right thing. So do the Koch brothers.

What any of them believes does not matter. Their actions show what they are. I don't remember you showing much respect for the beliefs of the Lakota, so why so much deference to the beliefs of the dirty fracking Koch suckers?

I think it is pretty obvious that Tom Steyer does not stand to profit from his involvement, otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to statements like "he may be invested in companies that stand to gain by", you would already have that information on hand, taken from the same right wing big oil backed sources that you get the rest of your information.

I do not think it is "obvious" at all. I just do not think it is terribly important to our discussion here, and thus I have not bothered to research his investment portfolio, if that information is publicly accessible at all.

You fracking brought him up! I don't even know who the frack he is. You obviously think it is important to the discussion, or you would never have mentioned Tom Steyer in the first place. Now show that he is only in it for the money, like the Kochs, or shut the frack up.

 

[Derec]

You really don't see a difference between the motivation of profit above all else, and the motivation of saving lives and preserving the environment?

Just because somebody profits from an investment does not mean that they don't also believe they are doing the right thing.

If Steyer is invested in energy companies he believes in (and why wouldn't he be?) does that automatically invalidate his position?

George RR Martin is an author of fantasy fiction, what he has to say about his own fictional characters has little to do with anything in the real world.

Quite the contrary! Fiction is the mirror to the real world, even fantasy fiction.

I really don't care if the dirty frackers think that heroism is encapsulated by unbridled greed. They are causing real harm to people and the environment just so they can make a buck, in my book, that makes them villains.

In your book perhaps. In my book they are doing a lot of good producing energy we need, reducing our reliance on coal and foreign oil and also creating jobs. That countries like Russia and KSA are hurting with $44/bbl oil prices is an added bonus.

What any of them believes does not matter. Their actions show what they are. I don't remember you showing much respect for the beliefs of the Lakota, so why so much deference to the beliefs of the dirty fracking Koch suckers?

I believe both groups act in accordance with their beliefs. The reason I am showing no respect to Lakotas' beliefs is because they are ridiculous. The belief that pipelines are safest way to transport oil on the other hand is based in fact. As is the belief that we can produce oil in the US in an environmentally responsible fashion.

You fracking brought him up!

To show that your side is spending big bucks against oil and against pipelines. Spending a lot of money to affect politics is not the sole domain of big oil.

I don't even know who the frack he is.

Then I am glad I could educate you.

You obviously think it is important to the discussion, or you would never have mentioned Tom Steyer in the first place. Now show that he is only in it for the money, like the Kochs, or shut the frack up.

He is obviously important to the discussion because he spent millions to kill the Keystone XL pipeline. Also, where do you get the idea Kochs are only in it for the money? You do not think they have actual opinions about things?

 

[Arctish]

Man-made earthquake rattles 7 states

A 5.6 magnitude earthquake struck Saturday morning near Pawnee, Oklahoma, and rattled through at least six surrounding states in the US heartland, according to the US Geological Survey.

The earthquake was also felt in Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Nebraska, and Iowa, according to the USGS

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission, a regulatory agency that examines the state's fuel, oil, gas, public utilities and transportation industries, is "reviewing disposal wells in the vicinity of the earthquake near Pawnee," Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin said via Twitter...


...A recent report released by the USGS showed that people in parts of Texas and Oklahoma now face similar ground-shaking risks from human-induced activity, such as fluid injection or extraction, as residents face from natural earthquakes in California.
The agency outlined the risk of these so-called "induced" earthquakes, noting that Oklahoma City and the surrounding region face a 5 to 12% chance of damage from an earthquake in 2016.

 

[Juma]

And in the meantime we will need oil and gas.
.

No we dont. But some idiots wants to earn money by destroing the planet.

 

[Derec]

No we dont.

That is blatantly false. You have the right to your opinions, but not to your own facts.
Even these "protesters", many of whom have driven 1000s of miles from places such as Washington or Maine to be there, need oil, and a great deal of it.
By the way, the "protests" have turned violent yesterday when construction workers were attacked. The police wasn't there to ensure order and security tried to hold the attackers back but were forced to retreat. Mind you, that was on private property where they had an easement to construct the pipeline. These radicals attacked people who are just trying to do their jobs. The governor should really mobilize the national guard to deal with this shit.

But some idiots wants to earn money by destroing the planet.

The protesters (Indians and ecomentalists) are the idiots, and irony-challenged as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Man-made earthquake rattles 7 states

Which has fuck-all to do with Bakken and this pipeline.

 

[Juma]

That is blatantly false. You have the right to your opinions, but not to your own facts. .

And the fact is that we dont need it. Today here are all sorts of viable alternatives. Its only a question of priorities,

 

[JonA]

That is blatantly false. You have the right to your opinions, but not to your own facts. .

And the fact is that we dont need it. Today here are all sorts of viable alternatives. Its only a question of priorities,

So if I set up a thread for you and others of like mind to lay out - in detail - a modern world independent of oil, you would participate?

 

[Arctish]

Man-made earthquake rattles 7 states

Which has fuck-all to do with Bakken and this pipeline.

It has everything to do with the problems associated with fracking.

If there was a way to frack oil that didn't contaminate groundwater, or dispose of water used in fracking that didn't pollute aquifers or cause earthquakes, or build pipelines that didn't leak, you might possibly allay the objections of the Lakota protesting this particular pipeline. But there's still the issue of burning fossil fuels contributing to climate change, so the objection to fracking in general still stands. It's a dirty business that pollutes essential resources and significantly contributes to a worldwide problem whose costs already outweigh any benefits it produces.

 

[JonA]

... a worldwide problem whose costs already outweigh any benefits it produces.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.kare11.com/news/oil-pipeline-protest-turns-violent-in-southern-north-dakota/313475585

Morton County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Donnell Preskey says four security guards and two guard dogs were injured after several hundred protesters confronted construction crews Saturday afternoon at the site just outside the Standing Rock Sioux reservation.

Tribe spokesman Steve Sitting Bear says protesters reported that six people had been bitten by security dogs, and at least 30 people were pepper-sprayed.

 

[untermensche]

And the fact is that we dont need it. Today here are all sorts of viable alternatives. Its only a question of priorities,

So if I set up a thread for you and others of like mind to lay out - in detail - a modern world independent of oil, you would participate?

You mean a world that magically transformed to another energy source?

Or a world devoted to using as little oil as possible and looking as hard as possible for workable alternatives?

Are you saying the latter is impossible?

We are using oil as fast as possible and not looking for alternatives with much of our resources.

There is a lot that can be done. It takes political will. The willingness of people to do something about it.

But doing nothing but playing word games about magical transformations from oil is worthless.

 

[Jarhyn]

So if I set up a thread for you and others of like mind to lay out - in detail - a modern world independent of oil, you would participate?

You mean a world that magically transformed to another energy source?

Or a world devoted to using as little oil as possible and looking as hard as possible for workable alternatives?

Are you saying the latter is impossible?

We are using oil as fast as possible and not looking for alternatives with much of our resources.

There is a lot that can be done. It takes political will. The willingness of people to do something about it.

But doing nothing but playing word games about magical transformations from oil is worthless.

Not only that, but we have a housing surplus, agricultural surplus, and a fairly high unemployment rate. It seems fairly straightforward to offer grants to people seeking training in solar installation, construction and repair. Not to mention the implications of vantablack to concentrated solar.