Although I suppose there would be some benefit from keeping mature (large) trees, this is a benefit that can be achieved fairly easily on an individual basis. This is not a problem where pooling risks or resources creates an advantage, nor is this a situtation where the interests of many are impacted by the decisions of one or two developers (as may exist in commercial development).

However, I say "lean" because there is much I do not know. Despite your belief, I do not believe that every single aspect of life should be subject to regulation; and when there is only marginal net benefit, I tend to opt for status quo, particularly when dealing with areas that relate to fundamental rights (property).

It is simply determination of where we draw the line.

Once again you construct a quote and then proceed to knock down your straw man. I am not open-minded because I am Democrat; I am a Democrat because I am open-minded. Moderate? Sometimes. Conservative? Sometimes. Pragmatic...always. There are lots of open-minded folks and lots of Democrats who ideas are not well-thought out...this is not the point. Once again, your black and white view of the world causes you to generalize and miss the point; I am simply making a statement about my personal approach to problems.

Bite size incrementalism seems to be as bi-partisan as it gets. Perhaps, the all-or-nothing anarchists could learn something about method progress, but it seems their faith does not permit such an approach.

Finally, a useful tool? I hope so. Sometimes, I wonder how useful I am in furthering my ideas, some of which are shared by Upstate Forever. Unfortunately, I fairly certain that characterizing you or your comrades as "useful tools" would not be appropriate. I still hold out the hope that you folks will add a bit of common sense to your ideology, because a third-party that promotes freedom would indeed be useful.

Seriously, I do know these folks, and they are well-intentioned and honest people who believe that unrestrained growth causes harm to the environment, and that there are some simply strategies that might mitigate this impact. I am a member of Upstate Forever, although I do not agree with all of their proposals and honestly, lean against this latest proposal. However, I have really not considered the pros and cons nor thought through a cost-benefit.

To complete this response to your first reply, what is the unfair generalization about Ralph? Ralph has declared the existence of hidden agendas (faith is defined as belief in things not seen) and you call Upstate Forever nuts and that they are not true environmentalists. I started with cliches, and I will end with one: Seems the pot is calling the kettle black.

Will return momentarily to address your second post.

Do people really buy this stuff about "I must be an open-minded moderate because I'm a Democrat and therefore all my ideas are well thought out?" If it works I need to try that strategy. If it doesn't it's really getting old.

Why am I not surprised you know the people of Upstate Forever, and ostensibly know them well enough to know they have no ulterior motives?

I am not surprised, becaue I don't think their agenda is all that hidden, but it meshes quite nicely with other folks who do desire to dole out their agenda in nice bite-size, incremental pieces while keeping their ultimate goals secret.

Do I accuse you of hiding your agenda? No. But your explanation for Ralph goes the same for the company you keep as well. You are in danger of being a useful tool.

Ten Point Plan for Sensible Growth In The Upstate from the Upstate Forever site _________________________________

1. Protect open space and natural resources.

2. Prepare and implement land use plans.

3. Promote and encourage sustainable development practices.

4. Require communication and coordi-nation among counties, cities and special purpose districts and the consolidation of some services.

5. Concentrate roads, schools and sewer and water services in areas where growth is desired.

6. Continue and expand community revitalization
efforts.

7. Adopt and enforce strong ordinances to control design and appearance.

8. Promote and support affordable housing.

9. Promote and fund alternative methods of
transportation.

10. Control storm water through innovative strategies.

Appreciate the nod, but don't worry. We can handle your light work.

W. Andy,

First, you have a mucked up definition of ideologue. My definition is that of people who ignore facts and push their view over other despite reasonable objections and common-sense alternatives. That is the definition of the green mob at a county council meeting.

Secondly, these people can't even be called environmentalists. They just want to tell people how many trees they need to have, regardless of what impact those trees may have on the environment, or the people for which the environment exists. I live in a lower middle class subdivision. The trees were clearcut because these houses need to be cheap and affordable and having trees all over the place adds to construction cost. Now there are plenty of trees. In upper middleclass subdivisions there are plenty of original trees because the owners prefer it that way. What's on God's green earth is the problem?!?

Thirdly, it is a darn sight ideological of you to make a generalization towards Ralph, especially when you know better. Ralph discusses his views every day. As far as I can tell, he takes all the calls and all the points of view while the tree nuts prefer to use county council to force their opinions on people. He has had some of the most outspoken liberals on his show!

As for Democracy and freedom versus ideology, the tree nuts are't fit to carry Ralph's trash bags.

For example, left-wing ideologues see dismantling of Social Security (as opposed to saving Social Security) as the hidden agenda behind private accounts, or dismantling of public educuation (as opposed to improving public education) as the hidden agenda behind vouchers.

Of course, even the paranoid have enemies, and so, I suspect that ideologues find enough boogy men to support casting their suspicions so broadly. Knowing the folks behind Upstate Forever, I think they are just as upfront about their agenda as Ralph. Every faith must have the dark side, and Ralph's faith is no different. But Upstate Forever? Disagree with them, but to accuse them of some ulterior plot to abolish private property or whatever you believe their evil intentions maybe is simply foolish.

As is evident, most ideologues do not feel embarrassed about deciphering the intentions of those that they do not know. It amazes me the blind spots that intelligent people succumb to once they have adopted a faith which constitutes a theory of everything...I suppose that is what they mean by blind faith.

So when will you go into syndication so that we can hear your views, rants and 'agenda' over a lowcountry (Charleston) radio station?

I know of one or two talk-jocks here in town that really NEED replacement!

I guess I should just wait a few moments as Clear Channel's talk format station seems to be going through 3-6pm drive time talk hosts 'like crap through a goose' trying to compete with Citadel Communication's afternoon drive guy. Maybe if Clear Channel would simply broadcast YOUR show, someone could give Andy Thomas a run for his money in presenting a show with statewide appeal.

:- )