Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Nov. 04, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Getting rid of the Navy, then mining ...

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ
MORE COLUMNS

Received a pleasant call from Marilyn Paige, widow of the late Marine Col. Mitchell Paige, in response to my column of last week about the plans of Paramount Pictures to produce a "G.I. Joe" movie that would transform the American World War II hero into some kind of Brussels-based co-educational U.N. task force.

I believe it would be fair to say we found ourselves in agreement about the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups now suing the U.S. Maritime Administration, urging the federal government to get the battleship Iowa and other mothballed naval vessels out of San Francisco Bay.

Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror
  • LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well
  • LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?
  • LETTERS: Senator just trying to kiss up to Harry Reid
  • EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'
  • LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada
  • EDITORIAL: The time is right
  • LETTERS: America should try terrorists in open court
  • EDITORIAL: Religious freedom




    • The groups are concerned that oil, asbestos, lead paint and other pollutants may be entering the waters of Suisun Bay from the rusting ships.

    Now, if many of the transport ships in question are obsolete and Congress wants them scrapped, fine. But what can any American be thinking who refers to the battleship Iowa as nothing more than one of a group of vessels that "have long ceased being useful for transportation and are now just floating junkyards"?

    Just like the numerous "Guns are icky; they're good for nothing but killing and they should all be banned" ladies who suffered sudden short-term conversions, asking if I was armed and could I escort them to their cars on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, how quick would these eco-freaks be to shout "Where's the Navy? Where are the Marines? They're supposed to protect us!" if an enemy task force suddenly hove into view off San Francisco, unchallenged and threatening to misbehave?

    "You are so right," Mrs. Paige laughed.

    She did offer one correction, though. I had reported Mitchell Paige agreed to have his face featured on the original G.I. Joe "action figure" only on condition the doll would always be a United States Marine.

    "I remember you talking to him about that," she said. "Originally Hasbro was going to make one for each of the services: a Marine G.I. Joe, one for the Navy, a Merchant Marine one. Well, they made the Army G.I. Joe and the Marine, but then something happened at the company and they dropped" plans for any additional figures, Mrs. Paige recalls.

    "So he never said he objected to having an Army G.I. Joe, or one for any of the other services. He was just concerned that the Marine figure have the right clothing and equipment, that the Marine figure not be wearing Army equipment. ... Two or three times he put a big 'X' on the clothing and wrote back 'This is wrong; this is Army.' The one that came out was finally right."

    So Col. Paige had no objection to Army or Navy G.I. Joes, and I apologize to all those swabbies and dogfaces out there for giving the impression the colonel was unwilling to share the glory.

    But a multi-national task force based in Brussels?

    "Mitch hated the United Nations so much that he's probably rolling over in his grave," Mrs. Paige laughed.

    -- -- --

    Make no mistake, there are forces that want to shut down virtually every American lumber, mining, and ranching operation in favor of turning this nation back into a giant buffalo preserve and United Nations Heritage Area. (Ask the Southern Californians burned out by the recent wildfires in areas where the government has forcibly removed the cattle that used to graze off all that undergrowth before it could dry to tinder. That plus 60 years of Smokey the Bear insisting "Only you can help us stamp out the little forest fires, so when one finally does get away from us it's guaranteed to be a whopper" ... and then they blame it on global warming!)

    I see where these characters are now applying the full-court press to Nevada's congressional delegation, implying the congresscritters must be on the mining company payrolls if they're opposed to the "modest, sensible reform" of the 1872 Mining Law now proposed in Congress.

    Now, if this is "modest reform," then "modest reform" is also a good name for the process that turned Petunia the pig into the slab of bacon currently keeping cool in my refrigerator. The list of outfits backing West Virginia Democrat Nick Rahall's H.R. 2262 reads like an honor roll of the anti-capitalist branch of the environmental movement, their Web sites full of glowing references to how this "reform" will allow federal land managers to consider other uses for these "special places."

    To really grasp the change proposed here, let's return to the horse's mouth. Bob Hopper, who's operated the Bunker Hill mine in Kellogg, Idaho, for the past 14 years, says the 1872 law "is probably the law that has served the American public the best of any law ever created." And that's because of the law's underlying principle -- which is what the greens really hate.

    Not only does the 1872 law "make it easy to locate a claim and who owns what and where, but it established that the American citizens owned the minerals, not the government ... the right to pursue minerals upon the king's land ... without permission from the king's minions, and that's what's in jeopardy today," Mr. Hopper explains.

    Did you get that? Behind all the nonsense about "selling off 'your' land for five dollars an acre" -- as though it doesn't cost millions to find and dig a mine, with most claims turning out to be worthless, making that supposed "five bucks" a mighty expensive lottery ticket -- and moaning about how old the law is (not as old as the Bill of Rights or the Christian religion; shall we dump those next?), this is the real heart of the matter.

    My friend Lew Rockwell calls the greens "watermelons" -- they're only green on the outside; red inside. What he means is they're collectivists who hate the very idea of private ownership and private profit. As in the "former" Soviet Union, their goal is that the government should own and control everything, "for the good of all the people."

    Right now the default setting is clear: Find a valuable mineral deposit and the government has to let you claim and mine it. It's the system that produced all the copper wire that lights our houses, all the metal and mineral wealth that made this nation -- yes, all of us -- rich.

    But under this "reform," Ranger Rick will get to spend years sifting through the "Endangered Species" lawsuits wanting to turn that piece of mineral-rich land into a lizard preserve, just for starters.

    In addition to which, a new 8 percent royalty on gross receipts -- not on net profits, mind you -- "would put most mining folks out of business," Mr. Hopper predicts. "Very few companies and very few deposits could stand an 8 percent royalty. It would ... actually devalue the value of everything, including the right to sell a developed property.

    "If someone would sit down and read this outline that's going through Congress, it's absolutely terrifying. They have dictated complete, total control of the American mining industry.

    "It would actually start shutting down many companies. It would instantly reduce any exploration or continued exploration on property that this was to effect, which is a good portion of the West," including Nevada.

    And they call it "reform."

    Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the novel "The Black Arrow." See www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=arrow&vci=51238921.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 43 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Jeremiah wrote on January 14, 2008 10:50 AM: Well, Mr. Keegan, here is the link in case you were unable to find the history section for the toy. G.I Joe was initially based on a movie. There was no mention of any particular person on whom the dolls were based.

    http://www.hasbro.com/gijoe/default.cfm?page=History


    Patrick Keegan wrote on December 07, 2007 11:34 AM: Why am I not surprised?
    As suggested by Mr. Jeremiah on November 08, I went to the Hasbro web site and looked up what they had to say about GI Joe. On the web page entitled "The History of GI Joe" The only thing it said was "Coming soon". I have yet to figure out how this is in conflict with anything Mr. Suprynowicz wrote.

    Oh, by the way: The last time an enemy fleet showed up off the coastline of the United States unopposed I was nine years old. If you have studied history, you will know that was not the first time. I suspect it will not be the last time, either.


    Bob Robertson wrote on November 11, 2007 10:38 AM: John F., you might want to take my advice in order to learn something. There have been numerous books and scholarly articles on the subjects of the loss of liberty through repeated crisis. That you do not believe in them does not make them magically go away.

    It must be that you are confusing me with someone else. Government serves no purpose but the perpetuation of government. Like a broken clock it might accidentally do good, but that is not its purpose.

    Until or unless coercion as a legitimate choice is removed from interpersonal interaction, there will be no peace. Government is the institutional structure of coercion. Government causes war.


    Jeremiah wrote on November 08, 2007 08:54 AM: madmiralkurt,

    You can make your point without insulting the character of the poster. All I said is that Vin will twist the facts to make his point. Tell me I'm wrong about that and show me where. He has completely misrepresented the origins of the G.I Joe line of toys made by Hasbro (in China, BTW). He did this in order to pander to sycophantic readers. By doing so he insults the intelligence of his reader base, including you, by assuming we can't find the real information which is readily available on Hasbro's own website. Did he even call them to ask? Probably not. To do so would have have made his column less inflammatory because the truth is far less interesting than his fiction on this issue. How does my expectation of intellectual honesty mean I am, as you say, a "greenie weenie?" Now that's mature. And how exactly does that make me an atheist?

    I have nothing but respect and admiration for those who serve our country. But a writer can make that point without lying to his readers. Well, a good one can. With your final paragraph you seem to even agree with my point. I wasn't denigrating the rest of the article, although I really don't think the West Coast is in any danger of invasion, as the story seems to imply. Are obsolete WWII ships all we are defending the bay with? Please. Instead maybe he could have suggested an intelligent alternative use for them, instead of just saying it's either get rid of them or keep them as is.


    madmiralkurt wrote on November 07, 2007 07:54 PM: I just love reading the comments-the propaganda machine is working overtime-

    SUBSTANTIATION is in order here-

    "unsubstantiated and incorrect conclusions whip readers into frenzy generally panders to sycophantic base of readers believe never question what he claims as gospel....parrot his takes without seeking real information."

    I would say that I have never seen such blatant obfuscation of the facts at hand as this comment, by 'Jeremiah'.

    I would say that, but my educational skills are below par, and I am in a religious frenzy, whipped up by reading this!

    There are no atheists in foxholes, Mondt and Jeremiah, and when the chips finally fall, Mondt and Jeremiah will come crawling to the armed citizenry of the United States of (the Republic) of America to save their green,tanned arses-and their views will be remembered by those such as us-
    I hope that they enjoy life under Communist Totalitarian rule, and I don't want that, myself.

    Free enterprise is all but gone, and these greenie weenies (how's that for propaganda?) want to take what's left, and destroy it!

    How dare they denigrate this nation, in favor of the Bush agenda, and the New World order, in favor of taking mining rights away from those with the cajones to go out and work the land? I believe the term 'Commie Pinko Treehugger Leftist' applies to those such as this!

    Oh, bother. The G.I. Joe "facts" are wrong. Oh dear, well, I guess the rest of the article is subject to destruction, through carefully placed mind-control words THAT MEAN NOTHING, and are unsubstantiated attacks on the characters of the readers, as well as the author!
    The FIFTH COLUMN is alive and well, and lives next door---


    ralphingone5 wrote on November 07, 2007 05:45 PM: John F... The concept that an 8% royalty will somehow be "mitigated" is patently wrong. RT and ALL other companies simply do not "aborb" higher taxes-- that tax gets "paid" in higher product costs to the consumer. Period.

    If you think the "foreigners" will just eat it you are wrong about that as well. Perhaps they could just shut Kennecott down and fire all the workers (it's been in bankruptcy before). Rio is entitled to whatever profit they are currently making. They took the risk, bought the company (Kennecot), and have AT RISK capital. You going to have the government give the 8% back if they start to lose money in the future?

    The economic concept you are so interested in implementing is called "forced income re-distribution" and there is no other way to describe it.


    Jeremiah wrote on November 07, 2007 08:55 AM: Sorry, "twists the facts," not "face!"


    Jeremiah wrote on November 07, 2007 08:54 AM: Mr. Mondt,

    You are absolutely right. For another example of how Vin twists the face, or otherwise doesn't allow them to get in the way of a good story, click on the link for "GI Joe was just a toy, wasn't he?" He has the origins of the toy completely wrong, but his unsubstantiated and incorrect conclusions sure whip his readers into a frenzy. I think he generally panders to a sycophantic base of readers who would believe and never question what he claims as gospel. They just parrot his takes without seeking out the real information.


    John Sinlee wrote on November 07, 2007 07:53 AM: Dear Sir
    What a Bounce of Theives and Soul Sellers there politians are that vote for this!Their afaid of the Real Money coming true and thats Gold my freinds!
    They want to control the future price and end up stealing those mines!


    John F wrote on November 07, 2007 07:18 AM: Mr. Robertson,

    This will be my last comment on this matter. You may have the last word if you wish.

    Why would I want to take your advice? Your initial post on this matter did not posit a working theory, you merely told me to go read a book and called me "clueless" and "ignorant." I am neither, nor are you. We simply disagree.

    If you go back to the beginning of this page or look at other pages on this blog, you will note that my posts are almost always courteous and respectful of other people's opinions. This page is the rare exception and if you read it from the beginning you will notice that I started out being reasonable. I became somewhat hostile only after being attacked on a personal level. For the record, I regret my initial response to Patriot1953; it was written out of anger, and that's never a good idea.

    Forgive me for thinking that you believe that government serves no good purpose. From your postings you can understand how a reasonable person might come to that conclusion.

    Whatever our government may have evolved into, it still does function to safeguard some of our liberties. That it has overstepped its bounds is patently obvious. I think you and I may actually be closer politically than you think. Read my post from yesterday; you'll find I'm a liberal in the classical sense. I believe that government has a purpose and can act for good, but it's powers should be severely limited.

    Finally, I'm willing to be convinced of the rightness of your opinion. But if you want me to listen, don't start by calling me stupid for not already seeing things your way.


    Read All Comments