text:
But the most compelling reason is why should you write an opinion piece? Is it just trolling, getting attention for a cause you don't care that much about, but will give you at least some exposure for your bruised ego? Is it because you want to convince people, change something?
If you ask me, I've been contemplating this for some time and the reason is very clear to me. Comments simply didn't give the cause I hold so dear enough exposure. I was sick and tired of FOSS bloggers and commenters taking a defensive position. I wanted to attack, turn the barrel around. But most of the time I don't even have to act, I react, as you can clearly see for yourself if you go through my posts.
At first, it was because of Microsoft, their business practices and their abysmal products. A little further down the line, it was because of attacks from "inside" the community. I've always loved the basic principles of FOSS, openness (also where communication was concerned), the bazaar, the blunt honesty, the variety and the freedom. I think these are basic values which have to be preserved. Ethics, if you really want to use that word.
Nothing infuriates me more than violation of these basic principles, whether it be "there can be only one" attitudes, FUD (or blatant lies, if you want to) and dishonesty, not living up to your own principles. The latter one forced me to define my own commenting guidelines, which I'm happy to reproduce here:
- Don't spam;
- Don't be obscene;
- Don't break the law;
- Don't attack people on their acts and thoughts, if it doesn't have to do with the issue involved or can't be substantiated;
- Don't wander off, keep focussed. I'm sure your recipe for Buffalo wings is very tasty, but that's not the issue right now.
People have asked me why I allow myself to be attacked so viciously, but frankly, that is in my own interest. If my reasoning is flawed I can only gain from someone exposing these flaws, or – as my old mentor put it – "If you win a discussion, your ego is stroked. If you lose a discussion, you have learned something". Since I'm a very curious guy I prefer learning something. That is more important than my ego. As a matter of fact, fooling myself by removing good comments would bruise my ego much more. But that is just me.
My opponents in this case use a weird multitude of arguments why it is correct to cut off a line of commenting or simply delete comments. The first is that if you want to comment on their opinion piece, you can create a blog of your own. Although that is completely right, the connection between what you have written and the other side is written is somewhat lost. You're still in your own realm of righteousness, where your ego is safe and discussion is impossible. I know of a blogger that applauded the discussion that came from an article of her, while her own commenting guidelines made it impossible to discuss the issue in the first place because every single opposing view is eradicated.
The second is, that since it is their own personal blog, they have the right to do that. Well, that is an ambiguous statement. I do not dispute the fact that they have the power to do that. But the right, that is another matter. Does a vicar have the right to visit a titty bar? There is no law preventing him to do that, still most people do not agree, because he does not live up to his own principles. So it quickly becomes an issue of a moral right. And since morals differ, so does the outcome of that question. It will only result in an unhelpful "I have - no, you haven't".
That brings me to the next point where they tie in the statement that "freedom of speech is not absolute". That's like kicking in an open door, but why should that apply to you? If you make clear guidelines, you're already restricting "freedom of speech". And that's exactly what the government does. But those guidelines are and should be there to preserve the open discussion, not to make it impossible! A clear indication of that they don't want to be tied to their own guidelines is that they do not define any guidelines, as I have. And for the record: "Everything opposing my view" or "I do as I please" can hardly be called "guidelines to preserve an open discussion". Or be a man, don't beat around the bush and clearly state that you don't want an open discussion. That's not the purpose of your blog, you just want to be applauded - like the chairman of a Chinese party congress.
Finally, they state that it is "just too much work" to comment every comment. Well, if your reasoning was sound in the first place, people won't be able to find any significant holes. And if they come up with additional arguments that you have not covered, make a followup. I've done that in several cases. "Rufus" was one of my favorite commenters, because he was able to force me to make a followup several times. In short, I try to refrain myself from commenting my own blog as much as possible. "Some people have howled in outrage. Their anger makes them nearly inarticulate." Well, since when it that my problem? They just prove my point.
The fact simply is that people who write an opinion piece and don't have a liberal commenting policy are like rascals throwing in a window and then running away very quickly before the owner comes out. They can't face the music, afraid that their fragile reasoning is exposed and consequently their equally fragile egos are bruised. Am I taking the moral higher ground here? If you put it that way, I suppose I am. But you're welcome to test me. Comments are open.


text:
Coloradans will vote on a ballot initiative in November that requires new oil and gas projects to be set back at least 2,500 feet from occupied buildings. If approved, the measure — known as both Initiative 97 and Proposition 112 — would mark a major change from their state's current limits: 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from schools.
As sociologists who have researched oil and gas drilling in the communities that host it for the past seven years, we think this measure would provide local governments and Coloradans more say over where drilling occurs and enhance the rights of those who live near these sites.
Fracking Boom
Domestic oil and gas production has soared over the past decade, leading the U.S. to become the top global producer of those fossil fuels.
Technological innovations, especially the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, commonly called fracking, have fueled this growth. So has federal deregulation.
Partly because fracking and related industrial processes often occurs close to homes, schools and other occupied buildings, the debate over Proposition 112 is contentious.
Opponents, especially those funded by industry groups, argue that stricter rules will mean less state tax revenue, job losses and weakened private property rights. Proponents express concerns about air pollution, earthquakes, water well contamination and explosions to explain why they want the public to have more sway.
But many state governments have tried to stymie the attempts of communities to gain this power. For example, Colorado's Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that local communities have no right to regulate where drilling occurs.
And industry-funded groups and the Colorado Farm Bureau, which represents farmers, ranchers and other agricultural interests, are countering this electoral effort to restrict drilling with their own measure. Known as Amendment 74, it would force any city or county government that limits drilling to compensate property owners if new setback rules were to lower property values or reduce revenue from fracking leases.
Regulations and Leasing
Members of the public and local governments have successfully challenged limits on local control over fracking in court before. For example, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court affirmed the power of communities to regulate the oil and gas industry locally when it ruled in 2016 that parts of a law known as Act 13 were unconstitutional.
In that instance, the court ruled against a provision that barred doctors from sharing information about possible toxic exposure if they were given access to industry information about the chemicals used in fracking. It also blocked the enforcement of a measure that allowed the use of eminent domain to site natural gas storage facilities.
But as far as we can tell, Colorado's ballot initiative marks the first time voters can potentially control the set-back distances of oil and gas facilities from rivers, homes, schools and other buildings in their communities.
Negotiating Terms
Regulating oil and gas leases on private land is hard partly because they are privately negotiated contracts between companies and landowners. To learn more about what happens during these negotiations, we interviewed more than 100 Coloradans and Pennsylvanians about their experiences negotiating these drilling leases.
In our recently published study, we found that these people feel inconvenienced at best. Most told us they felt exploited and mistreated due to the leasing experience despite having made money off of leasing their land or mineral rights.
Some scholars who look at how drilling affects local communities argue that this process empowers private property owners because they play a direct role in deciding the terms of these negotiations. And some of these folks can even get rich from fracking lease earnings.
Certainly, landowners — including some of the people we interviewed — have earned income from these contracts, though the amounts can vary from a few dollars to thousands of dollars per acre. But the overwhelming majority of the Pennsylvanians and Coloradans who met with us in their kitchen tables, backyards and farms described feeling disempowered when they signed fracking leases.
"I knew zip about gas production," explained a man who operates a small-scale dairy farm in northeastern Pennsylvania and we are calling "Anderson" to honor our promise of confidentiality. "We had no time, we either made a decision to do it or not do it."
During private negotiations, landmen — the company representatives who try to convince people to sell or lease their land and mineral rights — discouraged neighbors from teaming up to get a better deal or even talking with one another about the terms they're considering, interviewees told us.
In some situations, when residents negotiated for better-than-average lease terms, landmen made them sign nondisclosure agreements that legally forbade sharing information.
Same Land, Different Owners
Occasionally in Pennsylvania and almost always in Colorado, these fracked properties belong to two or more parties. One owns the surface and someone else possesses the rights to whatever minerals lie beneath it.
And, in Colorado, surface landowners are legally required to provide mineral owners access to their resources.
Many people we interviewed owned land but not the rights to the minerals below it. With limited power to stave off drilling in their backyards or on their farms, the surface rights owners we interviewed said they felt like "sitting ducks" and "unprotected." They told us that they saw attempting to keep an oil and gas company off their land as "futile."
"John," a farmer who lives south of Denver, tried to fight the placement of a pipeline that split his farm into two less usable pieces. When he tried to fight the pipeline placement, he told us, he overheard industry representatives speculating that they simply needed to outspend his opposition.
Mineral Rights
When the people we interviewed owned the mineral rights tied to their property but did not want to lease them, an energy company could pursue them through a state statute allowing a practice known as "forced pooling" in both Pennsylvania and Colorado.
It makes leasing mineral rights mandatory, leaving landowners with no way to say no when a company wants to frack their property.
We also heard about the personal costs participants experienced after they signed leases. Ranchers explained they lost productive pastureland. Other residents believed they became ill because of air pollution. And many farmers described lasting damage to idyllic homesteads.
Even when these factors violated their leases or laws governing oil and gas practices, nearly all lease signers we interviewed told us they had a hard time getting oil and gas operators with whom they'd signed leases to address any violations of those contracts.
To "Connor," a homesteader in southern Colorado, the negotiation process felt "like having a second job." At times," he told us, "it was absolutely overwhelming. I think we did absolutely everything we could as private citizens to try and mitigate the impacts and in the end, it was futile."
Tara Opsal is Associate Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University and Stephanie Malin is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Main image: In Colorado, fracking often occurs right next to where people live. Credit: WildEarth Guardians, CC BY–NC–ND 2.0
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Home Psoriasis UVB Treatment Beverley
Using our home hire UVB treatment beds allow you to safely and effectively treat psoriasis from the comfort of your own home.
Beverley UVB Treatment for Psoriasis at home
Our treatment beds offer a safe and effective method of treating psoriasis at home within Beverley through the use of UVB.
All of our psoriasis UVB beds are fitted with genuine Philips UVB Narrowband TL/01 UVB lamps [link]. These lights are proven to be more effective for Psoriasis treatment when compared to the other specialist psoriasis UVB lamps available.
If you would like to see results of how effective UVB treatment can be in tackling psoriasis, please check out our before and after gallery [link] or feedback from our customers [link].