Manipulation of science remains the same or worse.
In the first year and a half of the Obama Administration nothing has really changed with regard to environmental policy across several agencies. In fact, I think it has gotten worse for two reasons. One, things haven’t changed, and two, people just want to believe that Obama cares about the environment. The BLM and USFS still willfully break the law in their grazing decisions, the MMS issued categorical exclusions for deepwater oil drilling, and now it appears that biologists are still being pressured to manipulate science surrounding salmon to protect dams.
Obama, like Bush, seems to be stifling salmon science.
Crosscut.com
Comments
“”Of course, Kenney said, “science doesn’t dictate policy,” (and it shouldn’t, although it should inform policy), so “policy decisions may differ from scientific findings.” “”
Why the hell not? Why shouldn’t science dictate policy? What should? Pandering to special interest groups? Bowing to the wishes of corporate lobbyists with fat checkbooks? Groveling to the blissfully and intentionally uninformed electorate to make sure you get elected? WTF?? This country and world would be in a hell of a lot better place than it currently is if science DID dictate policy.
++This country and world would be in a hell of a lot better place than it currently is if science DID dictate policy.++
No doubt the natural environment would be in a lot better place. The problems are:
– Economics (expectations of better quality of living as measured by output and consumption of material things that supposedly make our lives better, and the jobs that produce them);
– Growing world/US population (that wants these material things from a world that cannot sustain it),
-Defense (the fear of being invaded/dominated/anihilated by another country),
-Control of POWER at so many levels; and last,
-GREED.
So that,unfortunately, pretty much sums up the human condition at the end of the first decade of the 21st Century. Yeah, I know that is a bummer, but what will change any of the above – scientific proof and warnings of irreversible global warming? Economics, Power and Greed. It is what makes the world go round ……..or, stop.
WM
So true, So true. And it is not going to change. When I am in treking Nepal and the cost of my boots are a year’s income or fishing in Mongolia and my rod and reel are a year’s wages, those who don’t have want.
Science cannot “dictate policy” because it only provides a process for answering questions, and the answers are couched in terms of the probability of an outcome.
For example, some ecologist’s modeling effort might show that a species has a 10% probability of going extinct in the next 100 years. Does that information help in managing a species? Sure! But it can’t answer the more fundamental policy question: what, if anything, should be done to protect the species. That is a policy question, NOT a scientific question.
– – – – – –
The Obama administration’s environmental policy ignores western politics, which is why it pisses off so many who post here. Nevertheless, there is no equating this administration (which has been negligent), with the Bush administration, which purposefully did everything it could to weaken standards and put extractive industry in charge of environmental regulations.
Obama is a president that hangs his hat on social issues like immigration reform, entitlement expansion, health care reform, etc. He has supported green initiatives and spoken plenty about global warming, but those issues ar tied into his social agenda.
Purely environmental issues, where some members of the population would be adversely affected economically for the sake of the environment, he has no passion for.
Just recent issues that have come up in this blog provide good examples. Salmon, the Sage Grouse, and Tsongass just for starters, which are issues he has strong indirect influence on.
That about sums it up. Wouldn’t be so bad if he had appointed folks who had a passion for the environment instead of fence sitting.
These comments are spot on. Obama comes from an urban environment and talks a good environmental story, but doesn’t have the passion to follow-up with action.
I’ve said this many times before, once Salazar was appointed, I knew the Obama Administration would be no better than the Bush regime. In fact, it is on a path to be worse than Bush. Obama is a great orator and that is it. I have found no real leadership on what was in his campaign rhetoric. Corruption seems to be throughout the entire federal government and there is little hope for change unless we rid ourselves of private campaign spending and reform lobbying (given the benefactors are the ones who get to decide on both, neither is likely to happen). Add to that a Supreme Court that views corporations as having same rights as individuals, the future of our democracy seems quite bleak. Sorry to be such a downer…
“Obama comes from an urban environment and talks a good environmental story, but doesn’t have the passion to follow-up with action.”
One has to have a clue about the west to make decisions about it, lets see he’s been bad for business, bad for the west, bad for the enviroment, and no better for ethics or pay offs. WTF is he good at again?
We are getting out of Iraq which has been a death and money pit….
I also got hold of the BLM memo on the next 25 years of that institution called Treasured Landscapes. I sent it to Ralph but he has not posted it. This is an internal working document and is as environmentaly aggressive as one could expect. If anyone wants a PDF copy, send me your email.
Really, doesn’t seem like it.. Oh wait and don’t we have a bunch more troops in Afgainstan.
But atleast were only loosing about 600K jobs a month.
WTF is he good at? Arrogance and spending money.
If you want to make some specific complaints about policy or specific decisions, then do it. But if you are just going to bitch and moan about how things are not what you would prefer, then just shut it. Bush was as much if nor more arrogant, he also likes to spend money, he created virtually no real wealth and the only jobs he created were pseudo jobs that vanished at the first sign of a weak economy. yeah, I know, McCain//Palin would have solved all of these problems in the first sixty days….
jdubya…are you talking about those pseudo jobs in the auto industry, construction, manufacturing? But I’ll stop complaining and just support President Obama’s platform because he is obviously better than any Repuglicon. Hopefully those 1 million new jobs from solar and wind power come through soon…ooops, those types of jobs are frowned upon on this Blog. Well, I’m sure the 200K jobs in health care will open up pretty soon…oops, those jobs might appear in 2014. But I’m still hopeful just like you and at least the environment is better protected now that oil well in the Gulf is capped. Bush really blew it!
I am sorry, but I don’t like Obama as president one bit. George Bush jr. was a worse president than Obama. mccain/palin would have been a disaster as well. Honestly, we really haven’t had a decent president since Reagan. Reagan is not by any means a perfect president, but I consider him to be a better president than any of the people we have seen who came after him. I am hearing that Palin might run for office in 2012 and maybe even Mitt Romney and Newt gingrich. The future looks real scary.
Let’s see, the new healthcare plan has put 40 of my friends out of business. The stimulus funds are being wasted at an alarming rate, and the vast majority of them have gone for union pay offs. Its crap at best, his policies are killing jobs, and when the new taxes take affect. Were fucked.
“Just Shut it!”
LMFAO!!!
40? Really? And you can trace them directly to healthcare? That is remarkable! I suppose it had nothing to do with the shitty economy this administration inherited from the previous? You remember, the guy who increased the income inequality in this country to an all-time high with your beloved tax cuts?
If federal taxes are “raised” it will be because the Bush tax cuts expired (which, I’m told, is not a foregone conclusion); moreover, the current pledge is to keep the tax cuts in place for individuals making under 200,000 and households making under 250,000, which is about 98% of Americans. Essentially, the rich will return to the tax rates that were in effect at the end of the Clinton years, and the aforementioned 98% won’t be affected: http://www.alan.com/2010/08/11/wealthy-still-get-tax-cut-under-obama-proposal-on-bush-tax-cuts/
All of the recent administrations (especially Reagan and Bush II) grew the size of the government. The difference between Republican’s and Democrats is that Republicans emphasize military spending and Democrats social programs. I wrote about that during the election: http://wolves.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/jb-republicans-and-small-government/.
– – – –
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for holding Obama accountable for his failure to change the culture at USDA/USDI, but the Fox News-style spin is beneath you, Ryan.
The only thing in the healthcare bill that will be enacted this year that MIGHT have a bearing on someone’s job is a 10% tax on indoor tanning salons.
The small companies have already began pulling out of the market, my friends agence serviced small businesses with small health insurers. they pulled out of our market this year in anticipation. Putting him and his 40 employees out of business.
JB,
You ever worked for a poor person? I never have had one write my check.
“You ever worked for a poor person? I never have had one write my check.”
Interesting. And yet, that poor person must be spending all the money he has, else he would not be poor. We know that Reagan’s “trickle down” economics didn’t work. It only increased the wealth disparity (the rich buy stock, bonds, save, etc.). On the other hand, you put money into the hands of those who have little and they spend it…almost immediately. Now who do you suppose owns the companies where said poor individual spends all of his hard-earned (or otherwise) cash?
FYI: Your friend may have been smart to pull out during an economic downturn (who knows?), but to turn around and say a health care bill that hadn’t even taken effect caused him to go out of business is, to be frank, a load of crap.
No, certain portions of the health care bill took effect in september of this year that ham strung small insurance providers.
“On the other hand, you put money into the hands of those who have little and they spend it…almost immediately. Now who do you suppose owns the companies where said poor individual spends all of his hard-earned (or otherwise) cash?”
And who do they work for. As for money flowing through poor peoples hands like water, thats an american trait now. Saving and investing seem to be a lost art
Yep. So we can give money to the rich and hope and pray that they decide to invest it in jobs, or give it to the people who really need it and know that they will spend it–i.e. give it to the rich people. Either way the rich end up with the money, but using my way, the poor people get to eat.
JB,
Either way the poor people get to eat and the same people pay for it..
Here is Obama’s dilemma:He could chose to reduce taxes for everyone, but this requires either (a) reducing government benefits (very unpopular), or (b) increasing the deficit (which was Bush’s path, but is also increasingly unpopular); or he could increase taxes, which is also unpopular. He decided to take the middle road and try and hit the “sweet spot” by letting an existing tax cut expire, which only increases taxes for a small percentage of folks. But these folks have money, power, and are savoy about the media, so the spin has ensued. For his trouble, he has been called communist, socialist, Nazi, and practically every name in the book.
– – –
Back to our debate….
Let’s say we keep those tax breaks for the rich. Give a million dollars in tax relief to a multi-millionaire and what do you think the probability is that the money will get spent locally? Oh, I’m sure someone will decide to start a new business, but a fair number will decide that foreign markets look pretty good, or they may decide that it is time for that second home in the Bahamas.
Now spread that same million over 1,000 residents with a median income of 35,000/year. What do you think the probability is that these monies will be spent locally. I’ll give you a hint. It’s a lot greater than in the first scenario I described. More to the point, as wealth is increasingly concentrated within the rich elite, they will have a decreasing incentive to create businesses that cater to poorer classes–this is because the poor have comparatively little wealth to spend, making these investments more risky.
I fear the country you would create for us.
I don’t, I’d choose option A and start slashing. The Goverment has become to big and there is now a hand out, make poor life choices, no problem Big Brother is here to bail you out. No need for personal responsibility, no need for accountability, no need for common sense, have a problem, they’ll always be a place on the goverment tit for you. I’ve done work within the Social agencies, both federal and state, and a bigger example of mismanagement/pork barrell waste I have not seen. The same work could be done for 1/4 the amt of money that is spent now in most cases.
“The Goverment has become to big and there is now a hand out, make poor life choices, no problem Big Brother is here to bail you out.”
Substitute “business” for “life” and you’d be half right.
All your arguments can be easily boiled down to one: poor people deserve their lot in life because they’ve made bad decisions. I say bad decisions are far more likely to be made by desperate people who lack the resources to make better decisions. The US you would create would be one with a perpetual class system, with nearly all of the resources controlled by a few people (who, because of their resources, would have a greater influence over government) and little opportunity for upward mobility in the underclass.
“I say bad decisions are far more likely to be made by desperate people who lack the resources to make better decisions.”
This is where I disagree with you. Birth control, college is not that hard to go to and the financial aid options for poor people are vast, for that matter pushing hard to succeed working at your local retailer will get you out of being poor. Its all about work and in some cases personal sacrifice to get ahead in life. Living on the goverment Tit promotes neither of those traits that our country was founded on.
Ryan,
And those bankers who manipulated the system aren’t sucking on the public teet? Those ranchers, oil companies, and other industries that manipulate the system to their ends while the Republicans are ginning up some mythical “Ground Zero Mosque” to distract the country away from real solutions aren’t sucking the public teet?
I think you’re delusional if you think that isn’t what is really going on. The Republicans, and many Democrats, have turned this country into an idiocracy and are sucking the system dry for the benefit of their big business cronies. It’s rather sick.
By doing this they leave those less fortunate no choices but to ask for help which is not forthcoming. I think you’re sick for blaming their misfortune solely on them when many are truly trying to do the right thing.
Essentially you seem to be saying, “I’ve got mine so screw you.”
I rarely comment here anymore but Ryan’s callous attitude towards those less fortunate than himself begs to be challenged. Yes, there are many flaws in the system and yes there are those who take advantage, but to think somehow that the wealthy are carrying themselves free of any help in this system is a joke.
Democrats: Welfare for the poor and needy
Republicans: Welfare for the rich and greedy.
Guess you’ll not be signing up with Gates and Buffet in their efforts soon, ay Ryan?
“Think of the poorest person you have ever seen and ask yourself if your next act will be of any use to him” Gandhi
Ken and Skyrim,
I agree there is a fair amount corporate shennanigans going on, that doesn’t have anything to do with personal accountability, which seems to be lost on todays society. The fact that you don’t think its possible for a poor person to better ones self through hard work and decent life decisions is sad. The same can be said for the bailouts, I believe that the goverment should have let those industries crash instead of handing out corporate welfare to them as well. Let the inneficient fail and new smarter ran businesses take their place.
“Essentially you seem to be saying, “I’ve got mine so screw you.””
Basically I work hard to take care of my family and I’m proud of that, and I did it on my own. (i have the school loans to prove it)
So should I say, I work 60 hours a week, would you like half my check so you can sit on your at home?
“but to think somehow that the wealthy are carrying themselves free of any help in this system is a joke.”
But to think that the wealthy don’t pay a much larger portion of the tax budget than the poor is false too. If it was an equal use/equal payer system this country would completely fail.
“Think of the poorest person you have ever seen and ask yourself if your next act will be of any use to him” Gandhi
Nope… and I ain’t sorry either.
What bullshit, it has everything to do with personal accountability because, as we now know, the corporation has all the rights of an individual.
Did I say that I don’t think that poor people can’t better themselves through hard work and decent life decisions? No, I didn’t. I do, however, think that the rich (generally), who you say pay their fair share (also bullshit), have no interest in supporting necessary social functions, such as education or any other social safety program, and have worked diligently and systematically over the last several decades to undermine and suck them dry.
In other words, the system is set up to keep people down so that there is a cheap, and ignorant workforce that can easily be manipulated and exploited by those with the political power to do so. You’re delusional if you can’t see it. And yes, there is a class war going on and the rich are winning hands down because they control the media, money, and politics.
Ryan:
I don’t even know where to begin… If you think for a second that poor people have the same access to education then you are absolutely hopeless. Even in states that have “school of choice” options, your choice only gets you into local public schools. Sorry, no access to the high-end private schools. At the university level, when education was subsidized by the state, it used to be relatively affordable (California once had no tuition for state residents). However, as state governments have changed priorities (e.g. building roads for people who want to live in the latest suburban development) there are fewer and fewer dollars for state universities. The land grant university I work now gets less than 13% of its funding from the state. Universities have made up the difference by raising tuition, further reducing access for poorer people.
FYI: I collected unemployment in California for 6 months after I was laid off when the dot-coms went belly-up in 2001. I can assure you that we were not living high on the hog. I received about 1/4 of my normal salary and we had to take out loans and work odd jobs to make ends meet (we lived in a 1 bedroom apt. in Oakland). Without that social safety net, it would have met bankruptcy for us. As it was, there was so little money from the government that we barely made it until I found a job 6 months later. Had we had a child or if one of us had been struck ill, it would have bankrupted us for sure. Both my wife and I work hard (I had been working 70 hours a week) and had bachelor’s degrees at the time.
You can continue to rationalize your lack of empathy for those less fortunate if you’d like (I have no doubt you will), but you are wrong.
JB,
I’ve never had an issue with unemployment as it is paid for equally by all who work and doled out at the same rate. No one is getting rich off it.
What about FASFA, Sallie Mae, etc, these are all programs that allow the less fortunate to go to school.
Ken,
What is the fair share then? Why should people who make more pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes, seeing as how typicially they tend to use less of the public resources (schools, social programs, etc) than other classes?
There is more than a class war going on in my opinion, and its only going to get worse.
“What is the fair share then? Why should people who make more pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes, seeing as how typicially they tend to use less of the public resources (schools, social programs, etc) than other classes?”
What do you mean they use less of the public resources? That’s bullshit too. They benefit more from the system they put into place. You think they don’t benefit from these stupid wars? You think they don’t benefit from the bank bailout and TARP? You think they don’t benefit from deregulating virtually everything so that they have no accountability? You think they don’t benefit from raiding the investment and savings of the people who you say aren’t making good decisions?
WTF? The whole economy has collapsed because the rich look at taxpayers, investors, and consumers as their own personal slot machines. Hell yes they benefit from this f’d up system and they should pay more than their fair share to fix what they f’d up.
Ryan:
Federal financial aid for students hasn’t even come close to keeping pace with the increases in tuition and fees. Sure, you can often get loans to cover part of the costs, but loans are hardly government handouts, and the accumulation of loans students need to get through a 4-year institution can saddle them with an insurmountable debt (it is relatively common for students to accrue debt in excess of the cost of a home). In fact, I met with a financial planner recently who told me to expect tuition and fees for 4 years of PUBLIC university to cost one-quarter of a million dollars (planning 16 years ahead for my son, aged 2).
– – –
Consider the word “fair” has many meanings. Yes, people with higher income levels are taxed at a higher rate. However, the well-off have also have a greater access to resources, including influence on the government. Is that “fair”? More importantly, they can afford to “hide” their income through various tax-sheltered mechanisms and pay high-end accountants to make sure they get back every dollar they can. Poor people can’t afford H&R Block and don’t generate enough income that they can afford to shelter any.
You seem to think the rich are being cheated, when nothing could be further from the truth. A small fraction of people hold the wealth in this society and an inordinate influence over our government (remember, he who has the gold makes the rules). And the disparity between rich and poor is increasing, NOT decreasing.
Ken,
Bullshit. All classes are equally there to blame for the current situation. Shitty borrowing practices, no matter what your income level is, is bad.
Seriously the war, your fucking kidding right.
I guess your right, people who’ve worked hard to get ahead are the devil…
As for my public resources comment, Lets see private schools, private colleges with tuition not paid by the goverment, Higher amount of property, sales, capital gains, state, and local taxes paid.
Every benefitted from TARP (which included the banks), it allowed for struggling homeowners to get lower rates, GM employees to keep there jobs and benefits at their current levels, and other middle class job savings. (yeah I’m aware of the executive bounuses 🙁 ). Also, in less than 2 years nearly 2/3 of the money spent has already been paid back. Not that I agreed with it, but to say that only the rich benefitted is bullshit.
Nobody is stopping anyone from reading books for taking the initiative to get smarter, but unfortunately I see us ending up like the movie idioacry and if people couldn’t afford to breed…. they wouldn’t. Instead Natural Selection and Evolution are becoming lost on the Human race.
“I see us ending up like the movie idioacry and if people couldn’t afford to breed…. they wouldn’t.”
Ryan: Using that logic, the countries with the biggest social safety nets should have the highest birth rates (because everyone can afford to breed), and the countries without nets should have low rates. Yet, just the opposite is true. The Scandinavian and western European countries actually have negative population growth and low birth rates, despite having much larger welfare systems. Conversely, African countries, with almost no social support system have among the highest birth rates.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/world-total-fertility-rate-map.html
No, Ryan, I am not kidding about the war. Haven’t you heard about all of the war profiteering done by the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater/XE and all of the others or hasn’t Faux News covered that garbage?
Ken,
Thats a few companies, look at all the profiteering done by Al Gore selling Carbon credits.. To find bullshit and profiteers, one does not have to look far.
There are 4 companies in the world that could handle the Iraq rebuilding efforts, Haliburton happens to be the only US based one.
BTW, people will profit from any disaster, I’m sure that one does not have to look far to see people profiteering from the oil Spill. To say that it is all rich people profiting is a stretch at best, whatever makes you happy Che..
++No, Ryan, I am not kidding about the war. Haven’t you heard about all of the war profiteering done by the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater/XE and all of the others or hasn’t Faux News covered that garbage?++
Bertolt Brecht’s “Mother Courage and her Children” is timeless, whether set during the 30 Year War (1618 – 1648) or Iraq and Afganistan, today. If the CEO’s of Habibuton and others would loses all of their children, then, then maybe things would be different. But blindness of the war profiteers will never change.
“The same work could be done for 1/4 the amt of money that is spent now in most cases.”
That’s total rightwing BS…..if you’re serious about cutting gov. then you have to talk defense, soial security, and Medicare…everything else is window dressing.
We spend more on defense than all other countries in the world combined. We are addicted to endless wars to keep feeding the war machines and the jobs and fortunes that they create (and the lobbyists they support). Look for the war talk to escalate about Iran once Iraq is truly on the back burner and we wind down in Afghanistan.
Moose,
Have you ever worked at all with social services. I worked as a private contractor placing people with DVR (Voc rehab). As one example, there was a client of mine with 9 different case managers, under 8 state, federal, and local agencies jurisdictions. Same stuff in dealing with social security.
So what you basically saying is that we shouldn’t look at the whole picture, only the big parts.
Jdubya,
How many times have we been invaded in the last 200 years? Compare that to statistic to our enlightened eruopean counterparts and its a pretty blatant statistic. That being said we should have kept the hell out of the middle east.
And touch social security and Medicaid and people start howling and screaming bloody murder :-/ Talk defense and OTHER people start howling bloody murder.
I work in social services as my day job and YES there are abuses, more than I thought there’d be by far (to the point I’m looking at alternative jobs because I feel like I’m aiding people in avoiding taking responsibility for their lives, or dealing with consequences for piss poor choices). TARP is horrible too, as were the bailouts, but I view them as an extension of the death of personal responsibility.
If I recall correctly, something like one in seven people works for the “government.” In fact, I would guess at least half of the people who post here are now or at some time have been employed in middle class jobs with good wages, health care and retirement benefits, by government as scientists, administrators, academics or military. These are just the direct employers. Government employment is a HUGE contributor to the middle class in this country. I will submit government, as inefficient as it sometimes is, is still an effective means of redistribution of wealth in this country.
Then there are the contractors who are paid from the public trough. Whether at the federal level it is building defense products, or transportation projects, they still take federal dollars. And, not to be forgotten, there are the less obvious federal contractors, for example how much space do you suppose across this country the Dept. of Ag., Dept. of Interior, IRS and Postal Service, and EPA lease from private building ownership, especially in the small communities and big cities where regional offices of some of these agencies are in the downtown high rent districts?
Likewise public colleges and universities – also creatures of government- are huge government employers, and many get lots of federal dollars to do research. In some communities these colleges are among the largest and most stable employers, again of middle class people. And, then there are the special district governments (water, sewer, electrical, transportation, fire, solid waste), who are also employers of the middle class.
“”How many times have we been invaded in the last 200 years? Compare that to statistic to our enlightened eruopean counterparts and its a pretty blatant statistic.””
Really? That is the best you can do? Weak shit.
Ryan,
Yeah, I spent 20+ years in a state Soc Services Dept..you are the one missing the forest for the trees…its easy to point out inefficencies in large bureaucracies (sp.), but again if you are at all serious about bringing the cost of government down – which it doesn’t appear you are – then let’s start discussing the areas I listed above. From your previous writings it seems you just like to focus on bashing the poor and powerless, and dissing people who live in cities.
Take a look at a globe or map of Europe…compare it with where the US is located…might have something to do with a history of invasion…but, Yeah I know it isn’t about facts, its all about emotion and ideology with you.
Moose,
I live in a Major Metropolitan area in the PNW, I’ve also lived in the country most of my life. Most people in the city don’t know shit about rural life or nature around it.
As for the poor and the powerless, its a pattern of piss poor life decisions that have gotten most of them into that situation and a system of entitlement that continues to keep them there. This is the land of opportunity. This system of entitlement only continues to grow, now with the healthcare bill which will surely top the three mentioned above as far as innefficiencies and costs go within the next 15 years.
Tell me where I am wrong again, we haven’t been significantly occupied in the last 200 years. Other countries, even on our continent have been,