Bush, and anti-environment piece of pondscum

Yesterday, this administration cancelled outthe protection that the Clinton administration gave to over 58 million acres of federal forest. It is now open to development. Mining, logging, oil etc…,

Read more here

I am no great fan of Clinton, he was a long way too far right for my tastes. But this is just fucking incredible.

First we have the decision that will open up untouched parts of Alaska for oil drilling. On the pretext of weaning the nation off foreign oil. Of course at best the Alaskan reserve will only be a minute fraction of America’s oil needs. And the environmental cost is likely to be astronomical.

Now we have this. Apparently state governors will be able to petition the federal government to allow forest land to remain pristine. Their petitions will go to a committee of groups “interested in conservation.” No doubt that will be composed mostly of oil, mining and logging interests. You think Greenpeace will be on it? Methinks not.

Now, I know Bush has absolutely zero respect for the environment or anything outside enriching his corporate fucking cronies. I expect nothing but anti-poor, anti-environment policies from him. I have never been disappointed in my expectations. I just cannot fathom how anyone can be this fucking stupid, this fucking mindless, this fucking greedy - on behalf of his shithouse mates.

Here’s to you, Mr Shithouse President. hope you have a shitty day.

I don’t know why people take the environment so lightly. We all have to live on this planet and try to keep it livable for future generations. But isn’t this the same group who doesn’t believe in global warming? You would think having air to breathe and non-contaminated food would be a something our politicians would want to ensure for us. Just look at pollution, the numbers of children with asthma are astounding. The new cases of child asthma have doubled in the last twenty years.

It’s heartbreaking that they’re not trying to save our lives. At the end of the day, they don’t care who they’ve hurt, just as long as they have more money for more stuff.

Who gives a fuck about the future generations? They’re a possibility.

Fact of that matter is that such policies could lead to 99.9% of the world having asthma. Why wouldn’t they care? Because they, and their pointy-headed little offspring will be in that .1% that can afford to live in conditions that let them avoid the bad consequences of their actions.

I think so people don’t realize how centered these people are on themselves, themselves, and themselves.


As much as I hate the SOB, Bush does some good stuff every once in awhile. Now we can thin out the fire hazzards and drill some natural gas wells. I hope everything is regulated well, especially mining with hazzardous chemicals (gold-cyanide). But digging/drilling holes or cutting trees can be done with a minimum amount of damage to flora and fauna. Heck, I live in the middle of an oil patch, and except for buffalo and wolves, most every animal is here in as good a number that were here at the turn of the century. Besides, human jobs are more important than some almost extinct species or plant ( and that nixes the anti-poor nonsense ).

Asthma? Logging causes asthma? Actually, the rising levels of airborne particulate matter—dust—is widely thought to be source of the great increase of asthma being noted in U.S. children. And China’s recent rapid industrialization is the largest contributor to dust floating over, and falling into, North America.

See: The Secret Life of Dust: From the Cosmos to the Kitchen Counter, the Big Consequences of Little Things by Hannah Holmes.

Well, it’s nice to know that the animal population hasn’t declined since 2000. Well, except for buffalo and wolves.

Matter of opinion. To say any human job is more important than any animal is simplistic.

Reading Collapse by Jared Diamond has softened my views on oil drilling. When done carefully, the environmental impact can be minor. That said I’d much rather the emphasis be placed on new technologies and not looking around for a last oil fix like some sort of petroleum junkie.

I’m not to big on logging and heavily against mining. There are very few ways to log without impacting the environment and I’ve read very few positive things about the companies involved. Mining is practically lethal and the environmental impact is huge.

Mr. Bush can take this position because many people that voted for him believe the proper balance between business development and environmental protection is quite different than you believe it is.

I am one such person. Faced with two Presidential candidates, one who said he’d open Alaska for oil drilling and one who said he would never do such a thing, I’d vote for the first guy. I think Greenpeace are a bunch of fucking lunatics.

There are enough other people like me that this decision is politically popular.

It’s a very simple process, really.

Please note that “the Clinton administration” only gave these protections during the final days of his Presidency - he no more gave a shit about the woodlands than Bush does.

And as always, might makes right.

So, the political popularity of this decision (combined with animosity towards people who feel differently) is enough justification for decisions of this sort?

On that note: hands up all who wouldn’t mind pay caps for lawyers! I mean, everyone knows that it’s paralegals who do all of the real work anyways, and I’m sure that the evil, greedy, amulance-chaser is popular enough to rally support for it.

Note: the above was meant to be a thought exercise to drive home the disconnect between what is popular and what is right, and is not an actual reflection of my views. That being disclaimered, how would you feel about such an initative, Bricker?

Heh. What if I think that the government is driving up the price of lawyers by hogging too many of them and I believe that the government should free thousands and thousands of these lawyers to the private sector? Is that close enough? :wink:

Shoot, I was coming to the pit to complain about how gutless and worthless Bush’s rollback of the horrible Clinton “midnight” roadless rape of the Rockies. The Clinton rule was a horrible, knee-jerk, backroom deal made with little regard to those of us who it would hurt the worst, and done in such a way that prevented us (or anyone else not in his little cabal) from having input while he was slinking away from office. The roadless rule made fire-fighting more dangerous while simultaniously making fires more likely during one of the worst droughts in the history of the west. It cut off economic development, no matter how it was done, for whole communities. It cut off any discussion of local needs, and even the local “on-the-ground” environmentalists (you know, the guys who are trying to do the research to keep the environment healthy) were cursing the rule because it made their jobs difficult. It made a few people who like to look at pictures of forests and feel warm and fuzzy who live nowhere near here happy, while endangering our jobs, our health (after a summer of living near a forest fire cluster and trying to breath), our enjoyment (sorry, you can only really camp or hike in the designated areas where all the tourists are), and our lives (to my friends who work at fire suppression or search & rescue with little or no resources [here’s to you Hawkins & Powers]). No wonder the Democrats seem to have no real success in the inter-mountain west despite our general blue-collar make-up.
[Sorry about the rant].

Now Bush comes along, and after 4 1/2 years the gutless wonder simply adds a level of expensive & time-consuming paperwork to give the locals the illusion of input. The “change” he made is meaningless.

It’s mostly about the money. We have an enormous reserve of wild lands compared to nearly any other industrialized democratic society: the loss of some of them could be balanced somewhat by jobs or lowering the public debt.

I would be far less against allowing logging and mining if the companies were to not only preserve the environment to the best extent possible, but also pay a fair price for their activities. I see the former as a slim possibility, but I don’t see the latter as ever happening, under any president we’ve ever had in America, period. (The concept of “environmentalism” was too weak under even populist antebellum presidents to get a fair price for the land, and postbellum presidents have all been friendly to big business.)

According to you, YOU make right.

At least my proposed standard has the virtue of paying heed to our traditional notions of self-goverance. You simply declare that your standard is right, period; it matters not what the uneducated masses say. They’re dumb Joe Six-Packs, not urbane intellectuals such as you. What do they know? Better to have you and your ilk in charge, so that the smelly morons can be told what’s good for them. Keep them happy with NASCAR and pro wrestling; that’s all they need to distract them.

Is that about right?

The market controls these things just fine. You cap salaries of a profession; you send false signals to the market. People chose diffrent careers based on the lack of compensation available to them. The quality and competence of those entering the profession goes down. Faced with that problem, higher salaries must be offered to entice qualified practioners to enter to remain.

The market wins, every time.

I agree, which is why I disclaimed, but I note that you didn’t actually answer my question. Given that popular support could probably be drummed up for capping the pay of lawyers (with a corresponding decrease in the number of qualified members of the field, but hey, lots of people think there are too many lawyers anyway), do you concede that something’s political value does not correspond to its actual or moral value?

Not my standard in particular, but to a certain extent, this is an true statement. I believe someone who is educated and knowledgeable in a certain field is more likely to be right than the uneducated masses. If I have a question about law or Catholicism, I would ask you, not Joe Schmoe on the streetcorner. If you have a question about programming or baseball, you’d ask me, not Joe Schmoe on the streetcorner. In this case, I’ll listen to the ecology and environment experts; you are of course free to listen to Joe Schmoe.

You lately only seem to be able to support your positions by referencing how many of your fellow Americans agree with you. I fear for you when your positions become the minority - how will you cope?

Who said that??

On that note, trees produce oxygen. Without them, we could be in trouble.

Yes, because dust causes allergic reactions, which leads to asthma. But I think pollution from factories, etc. are causing a big portion as well.

You know me. I oppose Bush on certain issues and support him on certain issues. I’m certainly not someone who knee-jerk opposes him on everything or believe that, because he is a Republican he ‘must’ be wrong.

But I have GOT to tee you up on this one, Bricker. This is, by most standards, a ludicrous statement.

You are assuming that, because people voted for Bush, they agree with him (and you, in your statement) on all issues. Worse, you’re assuming that a majority of American’s march in lock step with you and the President. And that’s got fallacy written all over it.

Voting behavior is such that it is inherently impossible to determine what sort of universal sort (vs qualified support) a candidate has out of his voting supporters? Many MANY voters are single-issue voters who will support a candidate because he supports an issue that is of overwhelming import to them even if that candidate disagrees with them on other issues.

So for you to say that, because Bush won the election, the majority of the electorate agrees with him on any specific issue is foolish. I know you’re smarter than that.