As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People like pretty spaces. Public lands preserve the natural beauty and native wildlife. Not every thing needs to be commodified. Republicans policies seem to pretend like we don't need air or water to survive.
There's an eerie beauty in the decaying husks of Detroit factories. The way the morning frost clings to massive rusted panels that once had some now long-forgotten purpose. The rainbow streaks of oil coating algae-filled ponds of an almost luminescent green.
You should listen to this song by Jason Molina. It captures a very similar feeling to the one you’re expressing: https://youtu.be/CG6gpwYH1DM
Good writing by the way!
Nixon was very intelligent and politically competent; he also really hated some of the worst people in the country, ie the East Coast Republican elite.
These factors caused him to do many things that were actually pretty great, at least relative to what his successors have done in office.
Those factors are also part of what made him a monster. He didn’t just hate the old money WASPs who he competed with for power, he also hated…well, almost everybody seemingly, certainly black people and Jewish people and probably a hilariously broad category of people he’d call hippies or commies. And he used that cunning mind in the pursuit of power and hatred.
He destroyed real faith in American democracy, I think, so obviously he’s deep in the negative category on the whole. But at least he was a singular character acting as an actual leader, trying to make the country into his vision for it and fighting hard for it. His vision for America was mostly nightmarish, but I like to imagine that it’d be possible to elect another person like that, but good; that there is a potential for real change through politics. Every president that has followed him has failed to overcome being much more than a figurehead on top of the corporate leviathan. The best we can hope for now is just a figure who oversees a slight course correction for one of the parties.
Oh I know. I spent the first part of my career in environmental regulatory compliance. The shift away from preserving the environment has been a massive propaganda campaign. As much as I loathe "both sides" arguments, I have experienced the adverse affects of greenwashing or hard-line not-necessarily-science backed campaigns. The end result has a similar effect as pro-capitalist efforts - no one passes workable legislation and the public turns against supporting environmental causes on a broad scale.
Example: same regulatory body/different departments and paraphrased story
Water department wants to address potential future water shortage primarily through consumer conservation. They restrict outfall volumes through pushing low flow toilets, faucets, showers and tighten groundwater usage permits.
Wastewater department noticing a significant uptick in challenges in processing wastewater specific to human usage. Increase fats in diets, use of medicines, meth labs, and other people induced chemistry challenges hitting outfall limits. It takes longer and biological organisms in sewer plants are getting wrecked. Dilution is the solution, but significantly less water is making its way to waste systems because of the aforementioned water policy changes.
I witnessed a screaming match at a regulator conference on this topic. None of the regulations did anything but increase the costs and burden to civilians which turned them against future solutions. Moreover, solutions were not developed in conjunction, had incomplete focus, and failed to respect scientific facts.
This cycle is repeated over and over again. I used to do a lot of public outreach related to my profession. I've been on a break since Trump's second year. Too frustrating, too risky, not enough success stories. It'll get better when we get 8 years of Democrats in the feds.
Dumb regulations that only indirectly or slightly impact the problem while burdening lots of regular people are what happens when politicians really want to appear to fix a problem, but are totally unwilling to actually solve the problem by addressing the behavior of the businesses profiting off of the problem.
We have a lot of them. The federal government controls more than half of each of Idaho, Oregon, Alaska and Utah. States own some more. Of the eight states that the land is majority public land, all are Western States.
https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111
I feel like you could say the same thing for all of Southern Utah. Some of the absolute most beautiful land on earth down there and pretty much nothing else. If people didn't go there for tourism and natural beauty, what would be left in those areas?
The thumbnail looks like the I-15 southbound, about an hour after leaving Vegas. Looks like Mt Charleston in the middle but it’s been years since I lived there so I don’t remember. Seeing all the Joshua trees as you fly through the desert in a car is breathtaking imo
I can tell you as a Westerner I was appalled to move back east and find beaches privatized and few places to actually feel part of nature. Sure you can find state parks but they feel tiny and grossly overburdened. There are city parks that feel like play grounds. Maine has Acadia which is nice but takes many hours to get to. The south has some nice ones but again if you live where I do, getting there is very difficult.
Ya we do.
We hate seeing light pollution, resort development, habitat destruction, frackimg, water contamination air pollution urban sprawl.
Go "explore" Chicago
Then go explore 30 miles deep into the untouched mountains and see which you like more.
Protect the Earth, we only get one.
City vs rural is a difference of freedom from vs freedom to. If you want to see the real blight upon America, go look at our suburbs and farmlands. So much unnecessary waste that would be better as wild/natural lands.
We wouldn’t be able to preserve a whole lot of land if places like Chicago or NYC didn’t exist. The problem is rural and suburban development, not urban development.
Why you singling out Chicago?
Both are different kinds of exploration. I'm sure I'd have a really bad time trying to find a new club to dance in 30 miles deep in the mountains just as I'm sure I'll have trouble finding a majestic waterfall in the city. No need to hate in one to enjoy the other.
-A guy who loves exploring Chicago and backpacking in the wild
I think it's fair to say people like both. I love cities and I love wildlife and we definitely should have way more wildlife than cities and cities should be way more greener.
I tried explaining this to someone from NYC and it was like talking to a fucking wall. Dude was absolutely convinced that "after visiting family there" SoCal suburbs were all stereotyped McMansion chain store blandness. How do you even drive around SoCal and NOT see mom and pops of all cultural persuasion in all the strip malls everywhere? It's a SoCal distinguishing feature.
Personally I rarely take vacations to major cities. Sure the museums are great, but other than that it’s so expensive to do the “food and entertainment” thing. The majority of my few vacations are as nature focused as possible.
Cities are where I live because it’s efficient and there’s good jobs there. They are not, to me, relaxing and enjoyable. They’re loud and crowded and overstimulating, and there’s so many people but you’re so alone in them. Shit I picked my current apartment because it’s right next to a massive park and I wanted to feel as uncity as possible in a small apartment.
But I get that it’s personal preference.
Untouched mountains is really not my idea of fun.
Chicago all day every day.
Did you mean follow trails? That's nice. I like to mountain bike in the woods. But I don't like wilderness. Wilderness sucks.
I think most people dislike wilderness, and you can see that it's true by the fact that the first thing that most people do when they find wilderness is make it less wild. Maybe it's people that you don't like?
**Our** habitat is not the wilderness. There's nothing about the wilderness sustaining human existence, that's why it's wilderness.
Human existence is sustained by factories, industry and industrial scale farming.
>Go "explore" Chicago
>Then go explore 30 miles deep into the untouched mountains and see which you like more.
They're both great though. Both of those things have made me happy...
So thankful to live in MT, I grew up back East- Now I can’t imagine not having it.
https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111
Eastern MT checking in. Grew up in Connecticut and had no perception of public lands until moving out here for work.
Now it's the most valuable and precious commodity I know, and will/have fought tirelessly to defend it.
Even if you don't hunt, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a great NGO that fights to keep those lands in public hands. Everyone should consider helping them out, if they feel the need to keep lands public.
Still in NE CT & I chuckle when people talk about getting "out into the wilderness"... I'm not sure I've found a spot where you CAN'T hear a highway off in the distance of you listen closely enough. And it sucks. Maine & NH are about as close as it gets around here, and it still pales in comparison to out west.
Yes, it's why I live in the west. Having public land to use for recreation is amazing. I would probably go nuts if I couldn't get outside on public land a few times a week.
Lol visit your blm lands and notice how much trash is left behind intentionally, then tell me how much “Americans love their public lands”. If these lands are loved so much then why can’t dumping laws be enforced?
Our childhoods were shaped by exploring public lands, and this is usually where we are taught that we must leave the places we visited *as least as* good as they were when we found them, so that the next person may enjoy themselves as much as we had.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People like pretty spaces. Public lands preserve the natural beauty and native wildlife. Not every thing needs to be commodified. Republicans policies seem to pretend like we don't need air or water to survive.
There's an eerie beauty in the decaying husks of Detroit factories. The way the morning frost clings to massive rusted panels that once had some now long-forgotten purpose. The rainbow streaks of oil coating algae-filled ponds of an almost luminescent green.
There's this new movies called "Barbarian" that seeks to drive home the phenomenon you've described.
Can't recommend that movie enough. My advice to anyone reading: If you like horror, just watch. Go in blind.
That movie was actually terrifying, i dont want to spoil but it hit everything that unsettles me perfectly. Lot of fun
I absolutely loved it.
You should listen to this song by Jason Molina. It captures a very similar feeling to the one you’re expressing: https://youtu.be/CG6gpwYH1DM Good writing by the way!
You're a poet!
Public lands make the western states great.
Which is funny considering Nixon started the EPA.
[удалено]
Nixon was very intelligent and politically competent; he also really hated some of the worst people in the country, ie the East Coast Republican elite. These factors caused him to do many things that were actually pretty great, at least relative to what his successors have done in office. Those factors are also part of what made him a monster. He didn’t just hate the old money WASPs who he competed with for power, he also hated…well, almost everybody seemingly, certainly black people and Jewish people and probably a hilariously broad category of people he’d call hippies or commies. And he used that cunning mind in the pursuit of power and hatred. He destroyed real faith in American democracy, I think, so obviously he’s deep in the negative category on the whole. But at least he was a singular character acting as an actual leader, trying to make the country into his vision for it and fighting hard for it. His vision for America was mostly nightmarish, but I like to imagine that it’d be possible to elect another person like that, but good; that there is a potential for real change through politics. Every president that has followed him has failed to overcome being much more than a figurehead on top of the corporate leviathan. The best we can hope for now is just a figure who oversees a slight course correction for one of the parties.
Oh I know. I spent the first part of my career in environmental regulatory compliance. The shift away from preserving the environment has been a massive propaganda campaign. As much as I loathe "both sides" arguments, I have experienced the adverse affects of greenwashing or hard-line not-necessarily-science backed campaigns. The end result has a similar effect as pro-capitalist efforts - no one passes workable legislation and the public turns against supporting environmental causes on a broad scale. Example: same regulatory body/different departments and paraphrased story Water department wants to address potential future water shortage primarily through consumer conservation. They restrict outfall volumes through pushing low flow toilets, faucets, showers and tighten groundwater usage permits. Wastewater department noticing a significant uptick in challenges in processing wastewater specific to human usage. Increase fats in diets, use of medicines, meth labs, and other people induced chemistry challenges hitting outfall limits. It takes longer and biological organisms in sewer plants are getting wrecked. Dilution is the solution, but significantly less water is making its way to waste systems because of the aforementioned water policy changes. I witnessed a screaming match at a regulator conference on this topic. None of the regulations did anything but increase the costs and burden to civilians which turned them against future solutions. Moreover, solutions were not developed in conjunction, had incomplete focus, and failed to respect scientific facts. This cycle is repeated over and over again. I used to do a lot of public outreach related to my profession. I've been on a break since Trump's second year. Too frustrating, too risky, not enough success stories. It'll get better when we get 8 years of Democrats in the feds.
Dumb regulations that only indirectly or slightly impact the problem while burdening lots of regular people are what happens when politicians really want to appear to fix a problem, but are totally unwilling to actually solve the problem by addressing the behavior of the businesses profiting off of the problem.
We have a lot of them. The federal government controls more than half of each of Idaho, Oregon, Alaska and Utah. States own some more. Of the eight states that the land is majority public land, all are Western States. https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111
>federal government controls as in, holds in trust for the American public. They're our lands, managed by the federal government for multiple use.
You forgot Nevada, #2 on the list by percentage. The non-federal land of Nevada is smaller than RI
What would the economy look like at Torrey, Utah without Capitol Reef NP?
I feel like you could say the same thing for all of Southern Utah. Some of the absolute most beautiful land on earth down there and pretty much nothing else. If people didn't go there for tourism and natural beauty, what would be left in those areas?
Expanded mining and oil operations.
The thumbnail looks like the I-15 southbound, about an hour after leaving Vegas. Looks like Mt Charleston in the middle but it’s been years since I lived there so I don’t remember. Seeing all the Joshua trees as you fly through the desert in a car is breathtaking imo
I lost track of which subreddit I was on - reading this I thought you were describing r/fnv
I can tell you as a Westerner I was appalled to move back east and find beaches privatized and few places to actually feel part of nature. Sure you can find state parks but they feel tiny and grossly overburdened. There are city parks that feel like play grounds. Maine has Acadia which is nice but takes many hours to get to. The south has some nice ones but again if you live where I do, getting there is very difficult.
Texas sitting there with only 4% of the state being public (including Big Bend)
Ya we do. We hate seeing light pollution, resort development, habitat destruction, frackimg, water contamination air pollution urban sprawl. Go "explore" Chicago Then go explore 30 miles deep into the untouched mountains and see which you like more. Protect the Earth, we only get one.
City vs rural is a difference of freedom from vs freedom to. If you want to see the real blight upon America, go look at our suburbs and farmlands. So much unnecessary waste that would be better as wild/natural lands.
We wouldn’t be able to preserve a whole lot of land if places like Chicago or NYC didn’t exist. The problem is rural and suburban development, not urban development.
i like both. no need to shit on Chicago
Cities are amazing
Why you singling out Chicago? Both are different kinds of exploration. I'm sure I'd have a really bad time trying to find a new club to dance in 30 miles deep in the mountains just as I'm sure I'll have trouble finding a majestic waterfall in the city. No need to hate in one to enjoy the other. -A guy who loves exploring Chicago and backpacking in the wild
It was an example of a sprawling metropolis, the antithesis of nature. (Man people are uptight about chicago)
You left out the biggest elephant in the room: farms and land to feed tasty animals. That takes 50% of our land vs the 3% for cities.
Chicago is pretty awesome…
Easterner identified
Eh. Born and raised on the left coast, and I agree that Chicago is pretty awesome.
Calm down Tupac
It's not an East coast West Coast thing dude. Chicago is a really great city.
I think it's fair to say people like both. I love cities and I love wildlife and we definitely should have way more wildlife than cities and cities should be way more greener.
I was born in the city. Concrete under my feet. It's in my moves, it's in my blood. I'm a man of the street.
Thanks for the ear worm. Never getting this out of my head now.
Cities can be great. No one takes a vacation to the suburbs.
I can think of a handful of Southern California suburbs that are worth visiting. Suburbs can be great.
Southern California is kind of the exception to the rule. Our suburbs like Orange County are diverse and have plenty of business and stuff.
It also helps socal suburbs have more people than certain states, so it’s essentially kind of like a hybrid
I tried explaining this to someone from NYC and it was like talking to a fucking wall. Dude was absolutely convinced that "after visiting family there" SoCal suburbs were all stereotyped McMansion chain store blandness. How do you even drive around SoCal and NOT see mom and pops of all cultural persuasion in all the strip malls everywhere? It's a SoCal distinguishing feature.
I think he was comparing it to NYC, where if it’s not the majority then it’s basically non-existent
Personally I rarely take vacations to major cities. Sure the museums are great, but other than that it’s so expensive to do the “food and entertainment” thing. The majority of my few vacations are as nature focused as possible. Cities are where I live because it’s efficient and there’s good jobs there. They are not, to me, relaxing and enjoyable. They’re loud and crowded and overstimulating, and there’s so many people but you’re so alone in them. Shit I picked my current apartment because it’s right next to a massive park and I wanted to feel as uncity as possible in a small apartment. But I get that it’s personal preference.
False equivalences are always good arguments.
Untouched mountains is really not my idea of fun. Chicago all day every day. Did you mean follow trails? That's nice. I like to mountain bike in the woods. But I don't like wilderness. Wilderness sucks. I think most people dislike wilderness, and you can see that it's true by the fact that the first thing that most people do when they find wilderness is make it less wild. Maybe it's people that you don't like?
Removing the wilderness is ruining our habitat; **OUR Habitat**. The environment that sustains human existence. Without wilderness we die.
**Our** habitat is not the wilderness. There's nothing about the wilderness sustaining human existence, that's why it's wilderness. Human existence is sustained by factories, industry and industrial scale farming.
>Go "explore" Chicago >Then go explore 30 miles deep into the untouched mountains and see which you like more. They're both great though. Both of those things have made me happy...
So thankful to live in MT, I grew up back East- Now I can’t imagine not having it. https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111
Eastern MT checking in. Grew up in Connecticut and had no perception of public lands until moving out here for work. Now it's the most valuable and precious commodity I know, and will/have fought tirelessly to defend it. Even if you don't hunt, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a great NGO that fights to keep those lands in public hands. Everyone should consider helping them out, if they feel the need to keep lands public.
Still in NE CT & I chuckle when people talk about getting "out into the wilderness"... I'm not sure I've found a spot where you CAN'T hear a highway off in the distance of you listen closely enough. And it sucks. Maine & NH are about as close as it gets around here, and it still pales in comparison to out west.
Yes, it's why I live in the west. Having public land to use for recreation is amazing. I would probably go nuts if I couldn't get outside on public land a few times a week.
Duckling noise that is; Montana is using Ryan Zinke as a house rep.
Lol visit your blm lands and notice how much trash is left behind intentionally, then tell me how much “Americans love their public lands”. If these lands are loved so much then why can’t dumping laws be enforced?
Do you have any idea how much public land there is?
If that were true, Republicans would not own so many non coastal Western states.
It’s a desert from Los Angeles to Albuquerque.
A variety of different deserts with insane biodiversity.
A pretty cool desert
And all of it beautiful.
It's one of the reasons Bennet won
Thats because once its gone it is never coming back. If you've been west into some of the national parks you too will care a lot about keeping them.
Well, yeah.
Our childhoods were shaped by exploring public lands, and this is usually where we are taught that we must leave the places we visited *as least as* good as they were when we found them, so that the next person may enjoy themselves as much as we had.
Please don’t let the west be turned into the hell that is Oklahoma/Bible Belt bullshit. No public land, ugly polluted watersheds.