March 28, 2001

6:28 AM

Head of National Forest Service resigns.Mike Dombeck was actually "protected" from replacement by the Bush administration but chose to step down and retire when it was obvious Dubya aims to open thousands of acres of national forest to logging as well as new oil, gas and mining operations. What's next? Will Bush lift regulations on how toxic and nuclear waste are disposed of? His new policy appears to be an environmental nightmare.
posted by bkdelong (39 comments total)

As if it isn't already a nightmare. Nevermind that the sale of timber from public lands means us taxpayers lose millions in the transaction (we pay to create logging roads, sell the timber at an exceptionally good price, etc.).
posted by fleener at 6:33 AM on March 28, 2001

Dubyah's environmental policies, combined with his horrific foreign policy, continue to demonstrate just was an incredibly short-sighted narrow-minded moron we have in the white house. Give me the ethically challenged (but otherwise intelligent) Clinton any day.
posted by DeBug at 7:19 AM on March 28, 2001

"horrific foreign policy"? what has he done? IMHO, leaving countries (Israel) to solve their own problems w/o sticking our noses in it is not a bad idea. as far as his environmental policies, i'll concede that he isn't going to bend over and grab his ankles for the environmental wackos.
posted by jonny rook at 7:49 AM on March 28, 2001

As The Onion put it last week in their horoscopes: "Look on the bright side: After the next four years, they probably won't elect another Republican in your lifetime."
posted by binkin at 8:13 AM on March 28, 2001

environmental wackos

I love those Rush Limbaugh catchphrases; there's nothing like a pre-packaged ideology.
posted by harmful at 8:13 AM on March 28, 2001

jonny rook says "i'll concede that he [Dubya] isn't going to bend over and grab his ankles for the environmental wackos."
Nope, jonny, Dubya's just going to pass the buck from the corporations and make the US taxpayers and the environment "bend over and..."
posted by gen at 8:15 AM on March 28, 2001

He's alienated Russia and North Korea already. Does Dubyah understand that the cold war is over? I can just see him saying "I'm still a bit worried 'bout dem commies" in a cabinet meeting.

It's hardly a matter of bending to environmental "wackos". (But, if it makes you feel better to use inflammatory non-constructive name-calling then so-be-it.) It's more of a matter of making the common-sense assessment that the billions of people and cars on this earth are going to have SOME negative impact on the environment. Have you ever breathed the air in smog-filled areas such as Los Angeles? Wake up.
posted by DeBug at 8:15 AM on March 28, 2001

Dubya will, however, bend over for the petroleum industry.

(Semi-resisting the urge to make really coarse joke about lubrication.)
posted by anapestic at 8:21 AM on March 28, 2001

[environmental wackos

I love those Rush Limbaugh catchphrases; there's nothing like a pre-packaged ideology.]

I don't suppose it has ever crossed your mind that maybe that's the way some people genuinely feel rather than blaming it on mass brain washing?

Trashing the guy for using the term "environmental wacko" is a pre-packaged ideology in and of itself, no?
posted by revbrian at 8:23 AM on March 28, 2001

It's not much of a consolation, but it seems that most people realize Dubya's priorities.

From the Washington Post (3/25/01):
...do you think Bush cares more about protecting the interests of (ordinary working people) or cares more about protecting the interests of (large business corporations)?

Ordinary people - 31%; Large corporations - 61%; Both - 3%; Neither - 1%; No opin. - 4%
posted by quirked at 8:27 AM on March 28, 2001

For those supporting the Bush moves against environmental controls and their necessity, and who believe that only environmental crazies oppose his views, try reading what those outside our country are saying:

http://www.newscientist.com/editorial/
posted by Postroad at 8:31 AM on March 28, 2001

Every Limbaugh fan I know seems to keep using the same handful of catchphrases over and over whenever they talk politics. I am still perfectly willing to listen to those who can find their own words to discuss the same ideas.
posted by harmful at 8:33 AM on March 28, 2001

Trashing the guy for using the term "environmental wacko" is a pre-packaged ideology in and of itself, no?

No. Using the term "wacko" is an ad hominem attack. It says that a person is insane because of his political views.

harmful did not trash anyone. He was responding to the statement, not the person. In any case, harmful did the packaging by himself.

What you're suggesting is that all disagreements with opinions are the same. They're not. Some are more logical and measured than others.
posted by anapestic at 8:33 AM on March 28, 2001

"he isn't going to bend over and grab his ankles for the environmental wackos"

First of all I'd like to know what "wackos" you're talking about.

If you mean people who spike forests, live in trees, and destroy logging equipment, I don't think any president has ever supported them.

If you mean people who like undeveloped forests, clean water, clean air, etc. I'd like to know why those people are "wackos."

And while you're working on that one, how about addressing my outrage that Bush is asking the country to bend over and take it in the ass from oil companies, right to life groups, religious conservatives, and deficit spending extremists?
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:41 AM on March 28, 2001

i formally withdraw my "environmental wacko" terminology and replace it w/ "earth protection enthusiasts". i apologize for not having an original thought, unlike my liberal MetFi bretheren. i must confess that my ultimate goal is to live in a country devoid of trees and clean water.

seriously, do we live in a free country when the government is permitted to seize private property because a guy happens to have a marsh that is considered a protected wetland? this is the typical environmental policy of the past. one point that the media has failed to cover is that Bush didn't come in and reverse all of the executive orders like many hardcore conservative wanted.

btw: it is way too easy to push your buttons.
posted by jonny rook at 9:02 AM on March 28, 2001

It all just makes me want to cry. I mean, I guess I hoped hoped hoped that eveyone was overreacting about how devastating a Bush win was going to be for the environment. I thought, hey maybe he'll end up being a moderate or actually being in a position to help environmental causes, coming from the right and all. Now there's the most conservative cabinet in recent history...CO2 empty promises, forest roads, ANWR drilling, never mind even thinking of suggesting that SUV-driving-power-guzzling-short-sighted American consumers need to just stop STOP, and change their lifestyles. The planet can't take it anymore. It can't sustain the American way of life. Just because you have more money does not mean that you are entitled to more natural resources. Forests will not grow back.

And what is there to do? Vote my conscience, demonstrate, boo whenever the motorcade drives by, ride my bike instead of driving, recycle...

I just feel powerless and sad.
posted by eileen at 9:02 AM on March 28, 2001

hey eileen, hate to break the news to you, but the computer you are using is made from OIL!!! even you are a pawn of the evil oil empire.
posted by jonny rook at 9:14 AM on March 28, 2001

I know, I know.
posted by eileen at 9:20 AM on March 28, 2001

I wasn't saying that I'm not a part of the problem. I guess it just all seems so big. I do believe that technology has a place in a world where humans take a responsible approach to protecting the environment. I just wonder where the balance is. When I talk about recycling or riding my bike I offer these up as things that I do but which seem so small to the larger issue of the way I live my life, simply by residing in a major U.S. city. That is where my hopelessness comes in. So many Americans, myself included, just can't conceive of how their very way of life, the things they were raised to believe are normal, are just not sustainable over time.

Where does your trash go? if we keep building more suburban-tract-mansions out in what used to be the middle of nowhere, aren't we going to eventually run out of room? isn't it ridiculous to drive a car which gets 16 mpg to work, and then circle around for a place to park at the gym to work out on a treadmill or exercise bike? how can people eat food when they don't know where it came from?
posted by eileen at 9:33 AM on March 28, 2001

I didn't realize there were were any actual Limbaugh "fans" out there. Wow. Now I am *really* sad.
posted by fusinski at 9:34 AM on March 28, 2001

yeah, we are a small group of about 20 million people.
posted by jonny rook at 9:39 AM on March 28, 2001

Thank you: Ralph Nader, Jeb Bush, and Kathleen (that dirty bitch) Harris...
posted by owillis at 9:49 AM on March 28, 2001

Ralph Nader, Jeb Bush, and Kathleen (that dirty bitch) Harris...

owillis, that is entirely unfair: you left out Antonin Scalia.
posted by anapestic at 10:00 AM on March 28, 2001

I have to agree about Bush being much worse for the country than I thought. I honestly thought that w/ a heavily divided senate things (as Executive Office things) would be moderated enough that it wouldn't make a big difference if it were Gore or Bush -- environmental or otherwise.

For The Record: I Was Wrong. Really Wrong.
posted by daver at 10:11 AM on March 28, 2001

If you're really worried, Ironminds ran a piece about how to properly defect a while back.
posted by OneBallJay at 10:25 AM on March 28, 2001

jonny_rook... I always thought people listened to Rush just because he's so retarded it's amusing. But then again, I hear there's people out there who actually enjoy the Real World as well, so I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised...
posted by fusinski at 11:07 AM on March 28, 2001

All you liberals make me laugh, although I should be crying because there are so many of you. But I'm a REAL man and REAL men don't cry. Anyway, I think its pretty ridiculous to think that forests won't grow back. Give me a break.

You know what could solve all of these so called environmental crisises? A space colony! We could let all of you libs stay here on Earth and stagnate in your backward thinking ways while the rest of us colonize the galaxy and use up as many resources as we want. Too bad it won't happen in my lifetime. In the meantime, I guess I have to put up with your emotional, irrational, and pathetic ideas.
posted by rightwingextremist at 11:56 AM on March 28, 2001

uh, Matt, RightWinger/Private Parts/Free Speech is back
posted by OneBallJay at 12:00 PM on March 28, 2001

rightwingextremist, haven't we seen you around here recently by other names? Private Parts, FreeSpeech, etc. It's not even challenging to spot you any more.

By the way, the plural of "crisis" is "crises."
posted by anapestic at 12:00 PM on March 28, 2001

I tell ya what, rightwingextremist. You go off and colonize the galaxy. We'll miss ya.
posted by fusinski at 12:02 PM on March 28, 2001

rightwingextremist: Does that mean that you'd support increased funding for NASA? 'Cause NASA could use some support right now.
posted by iceberg273 at 12:03 PM on March 28, 2001

Hispanically speaking, Bush Junyah will never be his father. I am not a supporter of any of the Bush Klan but it seems to me that Junior has a chip on his shoulder that he can walk in the footsteps of his father. No such luck. If he wasn't a Bush he would have been beat in an alley for all of the slick ones he has pulled in the past. Well, we need someone to blame for the coming recession...Don't get me started on Harris. She looks like some used prostitute.
posted by Stretch at 12:12 PM on March 28, 2001

Wow, I thought that you were banned, RightWingWacko. Perhaps you should go live on the Falkland Islands with Johnny Rook.
posted by donkeymon at 12:15 PM on March 28, 2001

Because I just can't let things go, and because it's related:

Anyway, I think its pretty ridiculous to think that forests won't grow back.

Tell that to the Israelis. They are planting trees to combat desertification because the trees didn't grow back. Tell that to the people suffering from drought in West Africa, where the trees didn't grow back and the monsoon pattern changed. Tell the survivors of Asian floods that occurred when the trees didn't grow back. Finally, remind the American farmer about how trees (and other native plants) grow back when water loss (due to runoff) causes water shortages that preclude irrigation.

Anyway, I think it's pretty ridiculous that people make statements about ecology without even an introductory understanding of the topic.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:00 PM on March 28, 2001

The sky is falling!
posted by revbrian at 1:28 PM on March 28, 2001

revbrian: I though you said that it wasn't.

At any rate, I'm not suggesting that the sky is falling, rather that trees don't always grow back . . . and that there are consequences of that fact. The world is a complex place, and what you do in one place often has effect that you didn't foresee: this is especially true when it comes to ecology (which is different from environmentalism: scientific discipline vs attitude/lifestyle/political viewpoint). I was suggesting that the rightwingextremist (the individual, not the group. tee hee.) position that we need not worry about our effect on the environment was an unsupported opinion. So I gave several examples.

Then again, it's easy for me to say the sky isn't falling. I'm not currently suffering from disaster, famine, or pestilence.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:52 PM on March 28, 2001

[revbrian: I though you said that it wasn't.]

I'm being facetious. As you so aptly put it in a previous conversation.. Shit Happens.

[Are you on drugs?]

No, but what does that have to do with anything?
posted by revbrian at 5:31 AM on March 29, 2001

I know how you feel.

I'll be under my desk, rocking and singing softly to myself, if anyone needs me.
posted by jennyb at 6:03 AM on March 29, 2001

As you so aptly put it in a previous conversation.. Shit Happens.
[Are you on drugs?]

(gently) You've got your threads mixed up, revbrian. quarsan and I are two different people. I've never even been to Tasmania.

(btw - I was being facetious as well, when I linked to your comment. I just forgot to include Semantic/Pragmatic Markup Language.)
posted by iceberg273 at 6:28 AM on March 29, 2001