DRAINING THE OCEAN
The United States is the only first world nation that directly butts up against a real, genuine third world country; in our case, Mexico. Most of Western Europe is buffered and insulated by the former Soviet Union (which might be charitably called second world) from the dire poverty of Asia. Other First World countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Japan are islands with healthy moats of ocean between them and their nearest "problem". (The only apparent exception, North and South Korea, is not really an exception as they are divided by the most heavily fortified and defended border in the world and contact between the two populations is negligible to the point of zero.)
It would be nice if Mexico had the economy, infrastructure, and civil service of say, Switzerland. This does not seem likely anytime soon. With Mexico and the US separated by a semi-permeable membrane of a border, you have a classic demonstration of osmosis, complete with osmotic pressure. There is going to be movement in one direction.
About one fifth of the US border with Mexico is national park land some of it so spectacular and/or biodiverse that it is regarded as World Heritage terrain by UNESCO. The problem is that the desert vegetation, even the desert soil is very delicate, one cannot venture off the trail without doing some damage.
Naturally, if you are a Guatemalan Indian desperate for the promised land of "El Norte", you are not going to worry overmuch about disturbing cryptogametic soils in Organ Pipe Cactus National Park.
Equally naturally, if you are a Mexican dope dealer, you are not going to concern yourself about bowling over the occasional barrel cactus with your SUV as you contemptuously crash through the pathetic four strand barb wire fence that separate Mexico from the US. ("Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints")
So, as a result of our demand for dope and cheap labor, the border country, including the national parks, gets pretty torn up and pretty dangerous.
Can the Mexican border be sealed? Certainly, anything is possible. Piece of cake, as a matter of fact, but itšs going to cost you.
The former Soviet Union was able to hermetically seal a border that was more than ten times the length of our border with Mexico. In the 74 year hey day of the Soviet Union, only a handful of people got in or out, but it required 200,000 special border troops, billions of rubles for barbed wire, watch towers, land mines, planes, dogs, flood lights, search lights, electronic sensors, and so on.
It also required a great deal of totalitarian paranoia, which we fortunately don't have at the present time. (Ah, but wait awhile!)
So, lacking a Stalinist imperative, our southern border (and our southern park land, Fish & Wildlife refuges and Bureau of Land Management land) will remain relatively porous for the foreseeable future.
In fact the situation reminds one of the story of the Little Dutch Boy that you remember from your childhood. In that story, a Little Dutch Boy is walking home from school beside one of the great dikes that protect Holland from the North Sea. Happily skipping along, the Little Dutch Boy spies a small rivulet of water, coming from a tiny leak in the dike. He is enough of a junior hydrologist to understand that the tiny leak will soon become a raging torrent that will destroy all of Holland. So, he does the only thing possible; he sticks his finger into the hole and yells for help. At first, no one came, but eventually villagers find the brave little boy and summon up an army of volunteers to shore up the dike and Holland is saved.
But what if instead of villagers, the Little Dutch Boy had been found by a Department of Interior Study Group.
The DOI Study Group assesses the situation (A. a little boy and finger, B. a dike, C. an ocean.
They inform the Little Dutch Boy that they would study the problem in depth and issue a White Paper, analyzing the problem and listing possible solutions.
In the interim, the Little Dutch Boy is told to stand firm and maintain the status quo and they will get back to him.
The Little Dutch Boy protests that his finger is getting cold and that he has to pee, but the DOI Study Group is already on their way back to Washington.
Some time later (much later) the DOI Study Group returns with a 3 pound White Paper on Little Boys, Dikes and Oceans. (A member of the Study Groups courteously holds the White Paper and turns the pages as the Little Boy's finger is famously involved in the primary task.)
Although, there is considerable background information and padding, the White Paper has come up with five possible solutions to the problem of the Little Dutch Boy, the Dike, and the Ocean:
1. MORE LITTLE DUTCH BOYS. The White Paper suggests that thousands of Little Dutch Boys be rotated past the problem hole, each sticking his finger in for a prescribed length of time, so that no one was unduly inconvenienced or endangered
2. BIGGER FINGERS A special cadre of Little Dutch Boys be trained to develop large fingers that could be stuck in holes of varying sizes and equipped with a bullhorn to summon additional help, if needed.
3. WATERPROOF DIKES Self-explanatory, but ruinously expensive and would obviate the need for other DOI study groups
4. DRAIN THE OCEAN See number three
5. ALL OF THE ABOVE For C.Y.A. purposes and to avoid hurt feeling, we are including this option.
(At this writing, the White Paper has been duly filed, the DOI Study Group has gone on to other things, and the Little Dutch Boy is still waiting with his finger in the dike.)
Now neighbors, if we were to apply the findings of our imaginary DOI White Paper to the problems along our border with Mexico, logic would force us to concur that choice # 5, "All of the Above" is the correct solution.
"All of the Above?" you ask incredulously.
Well yes. Let us translate the Little Dutch Boy solution to the present US and NPS problems on the border.
1. MORE LITTLE DUTCH BOYS A Personnel problem. All agencies are going to have to put more men and women on the border. There is simply no getting around this if a modicum of backup, safety and efficiency are to be maintained
2. BIGGER FINGERS This translates as more equipment and more training. Many of the dope cars are being escorted by support vehicles carrying more up to date automatic weaponry than Saddam's Republican Guards.
3. WATERPROOF DIKE This translates as a relatively impermeable border fence. "Relatively" is the operative word. The fence must be porous enough to allow the migration of large mammals such as cougar, javalina, jaguar etc. and still sieve out SUV's trucks, and other unwanted machinery. (It's park and refuge, remember?) Clearly a NEPA will be required and it will be a hard contract to write. One possibility would be used railroad rails, with a single rail embedded in sturdy concrete pylons, the rail placed exactly at that exquisite height where it will take SUV in the windshield or peel back the hood.
4. DRAIN THE OCEAN Remove the incentive for illegal migration of workers or the importation of dope across the border.
Illegal labor immigration through Organ Pipe and other DOI holdings causes heavy environmental damage due to unrestricted "social" trails and trash (empty water bottles,etc) and destruction of vegetation for fires and concealment.
The illegals, many from southern Mexico or Central America, with no conception of the desert, often suffer and die horribly in the border country. However, due to inequality of income, no fence short of a Stalinist Iron curtain and suspension of civil rights, will stop this flow of humanity (though there are some fascists who would like to try this remedy.)
The answer of course is a type of guest worker program, complete with papers, so a worker, after presenting proper identification, can cross the border in a safe and dignified manner, with access to workmen's compensation, protection by OSHA and eventual access to social security payments in his own country.
Sooner or later, this will come to pass due to implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which will result in a de facto Republic of North America, stretching south from Ellesmere Island to the Darien Gap, speaking three major languages and scores of Native American tongues. For reasons of common sense and common decency, it is better that the guest worker program be implemented sooner than later.
Such a program is endorsed by both species of Republicans (The Greedhead Republicanss because of cheap labor; the Bullmoose Republicans because it is the right thing to do) and most Democrats.
The guest worker idea is opposed by a curious amalgam of out and out racists, unions, population control advocates, and radical Edward Abbey type Greens who fear Brown people may start hiking the trails in national parks as well as cleaning the rest rooms in the lodges.
Population Control Advocates fear that "these people" will come pouring into the U.S.
That they will, but they will also go pouring out after they have made their pile and taken it home to start their own business or farms (Actually, when you think of it, it's the very best kind of "foreign aid", eliminating corrupt or inefficient bureaucratic middlemen and benefiting the grassroots.)
Then there is the somewhat embarrassing point of just who is the immigrant to this continent. Most of "Those people" are variations on Aztecs or Mayans and antecede you and I in North America by 12,000 to 20,000 years. Terms such as "Mexican", "Guatemalan", "Honduran", "Salvadoran" and so forth are European constructs and have no reality in human geography. (Nor does the Mexican American border itself, being a line drawn in the sand to benefit Southern slavocracy after a war which we largely instigated.)
Ironically, the vast pool of North American Indian labor upon which the U.S. depends upon to do much of its heavy lifting may not be as permanent or as available as we might like to think.
According to the United Nations, the world birth rate is dropping at an unexpected rate. Russia has the sixth largest population in the world. In a few decades, it will be the 17th largest, due to the fact that the average Russian woman has 1.3 children in her lifetime, far below replacement rate.
Italy now has the lowest birthrate in the world. It is estimated that Italy will require 130,000 immigrants a year just to maintain it's present population. (You don't have to be Oriana Falachi to prefer that these immigrants be named Juan or Pedro rather than Abdul or Mohammed)
Although there would be a certain humorous irony for the homeland of Christopher Columbus to benefit from a friendly invasion of today's Aztecs and Mayans, Rome and Genoa would also be competing with London, Stockholm, and Berlin for the labor of the apolitical North American Indians for whom religion is not an issue.
This competition for labor could very well leave U.S. employers high and dry when it comes time to hire seasonal labor. The North American Indian may soon have a continental choice where he looks for work.
All the more reason for the U.S. to speedily implement a guest worker program that will safely and humanely funnel workers to work, protect them on the job and assure the safe transfer of themselves and their savings back home
Such a program would assure that the borderland parks and refuges would not be vandalized or littered or become scenes of mass death.
Such a program would benefit everybody and drain half the Ocean.
So, what about the other half of the ocean, the flow of dope across the borderlands?
The obvious way of draining this half of the ocean is to decriminalize the use of drugs in the United States. As one dyslexic Republican (not the President!) put it; "This ain't rocket surgery!"
While decriminalizing drugs may be a "no brainer", it may require Republicans to get the job done.
Why Republicans?
Not because people love us or even trust us (particularly the Greedhead variety of Republican), but because Republicans have a reputation for non-sentimental, non-idealistic, "if you're in a hole then stop digging" approach to a problem. (Unless its subsidies to Big Agriculture or Big Industry, but that's a whole 'nother issue)
People believe that Republicans are tough on crime and any sort of moral deviation and therefore, if a Republican says "hey, wait a minute! Maybe we were wrong! Let's think this thing through!" people tend to listen up. (One good example was Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois who actually did what sniveling liberals have been whimpering about--He went out and commuted death row sentences and imposed a moratorium on state sanctioned killing!)
The pioneering Republican drug decriminalization maven is William F. Buckley Jr. Author of many conservative books, founding editor of the NATIONAL REVIEW and all around supporter of conservative causes.
Some thirty years ago, he became curious about those government claims that smoking a joint would cause you to rape your grandmother, drink boiling water, or whatever. A famous sailor, he sailed his boat out beyond the jurisdiction of American law and lit up a joint. (Buckley does not reveal if the Archangel Gabriel lowered the dope onto to his boat or how it got there, but it was there)
Buckley did not experience anything beyond mild euphoria and concluded that the government, as usual, was not telling the entire truth.
Buckley then spent the next decades warning the public about addiction to government lies about drugs. You can look up his efforts on the internet under William F. Buckley Drugs (Probably not the way this arch conservative would like to be remembered!).
Another Republican decriminalization advocate is Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico.
Johnson was a self-made multi-millionaire businessman before becoming governor. Before that, by his own admission, he had smoked "a ton of pot" and had snorted cocaine. Then he stopped.
Did he find Jesus? Well no. (Republicans are better at finding money than finding Jesus, neighbors.)
It seems that Johnson, a type A, found the drug scene a bit boring, so he just stopped. (He also stopped drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco.) No rehab, no clinic, no melodramatic soul searching, he just stopped.
He has said "Americans should not take drugs" but it should be a voluntary decision on the part of a free person. According to Johnson "The war on dugs is an absolute, miserable failure: I don't think there is a bigger issue facing us today...1.6 million people are arrested each year for violating drug laws... Sentences for drug crimes are discriminatory with Blacks and Hispanics seven times as likely to go to jail as Whites... An ounce of Marijuana sells for more than an ounce of gold; have you thought about that?"
Johnson has a point. Although we spend 20 billion a year on drug suppression, it is still the most profitable business in the world.
Possibly, we should remove the profit by changing the dealer into Uncle Sam. Drugs would still be "controlled substances˛ (far more than alcohol) but they would be decriminalized and they would be cheap.
Heroin and Cocaine costs about 2% of the present street market to produce. That is, a $1,000 a week drug habit should only cost about $20, something that could be handled by the addict without robbing a convenience store or prostituting themselves.
Who would supply these drugs? The answer is that we would.
You see, dope production causes world wide environmental damage. The drug plants are often grown in remote wilderness areas, such as national parks or wildlife refuges. Often these forests are sprayed with defoliant which kills endangered species as well as the drug plant. Hardly a day goes by, that the MORNING REPORT of the National Park Service does not report interdiction of some form of drug activity, either the growing, transporting, or dealing thereof in what is supposed to be a pristine natural area.
It is important that we have complete control over production, distribution, and sales of these controlled substances--Just like the Cali Cartel--whom we could put out of business within five years.
All of the controlled substance needs of American addicts can be met by crops grown within the United States, under USDA and Department of Interior Supervision. Marijuana rather famously grows anywhere, even in Alaska, so who would grow it?
As suggested in an early issue of THUNDERBEAR, that since the American Indian was cheated out of royalties on tobacco, that the various tribes be given a monopoly on the growing of marijuana. The various tribes could specialize in different varieties of Marijuana, which would be packaged in chewing tobacco sized cans and sold through the US government dope store to the user for use as tea, smoke or ingredients in brownies (No, there would not be advertising or brands of Marijuana cigarettes.)
Opium poppies are a temperate zone crop and could be grown roughly anywhere you can grow tobacco. Coco for Cocaine, is a tropical crop and could be grown in Hawaii or Puerto Rico by anyone who could claim Hawaiian or Native American industry. (The depression of the sugar industry in both Hawaii and Puerto Rico would make dope production an attractive alternative crop.)
Now the Native Americans and Hawaiians are not going to get rich off these crops, as the idea is to eliminate the artificially high prices for these drugs. (There is a persistent demand for cucumbers in the U.S, but no one tries to smuggle them into the country.) The prices at Uncle Sam's Dope Shop would be automatically adjusted to 10% below the going street price for illegal drugs. The Indians will make a good middle class living on an easy to grow crop that would be a monopoly for which the government guaranteed a subsidy.
The dope user would be offered free counseling and rehab every time he droped in at Uncle Sam's Dope Shop to pick up his can of marijuana or heroin or cocaine fix. (Such counseling not offered at your unfriendly liquor store or the beer and wine section of your supermarket when you pick up a bottle or six pack of your favorite wife beating juice.)
"But how are we going to pay for all this socialistic coddling of these degenerates"? you ask.
Well now, there's that 20 billion a year that we are NOT going to be spending on dope interdiction, extra police and judges, crop eradication, prisons and so on; should buy a lot of therapy (Then there is that hidden dividend of the cost of fewer murders, robberies, environmental degradation , corruption of entire countries etc. etc.)
"But how are these varmints going to stop doing dope if you just lay it out in front of 'em, like meat before a dog?" You inquire uncharitably.
But you see, the Governor of New Mexico was correct. Most substance abusers stop doing it when they themselves are ready to stop doing it; when that proverbial light bulb goes on in their head. Judicial sadists always believe that the light goes on when the substance abuser is clapped in irons and thrown through the door of the slammer. That usually is not the case. We cannot stop people from getting their "controlled" substance of choice, but we can help them to voluntarily choose not to.
THE HONORABLE CHUCK AND THE RANGERS
Friends, you will remember that in issue # 249 of THUNDERBEAR, the Department of Interior was faced with a real cliff hanger.
You see, the honorable Chuck Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa and one who does not suffer bureaucrats gladly, had his request for information from NPS Director Fran Mainela blown off in a form letter that one would not normally use in a reply to a congressional inquiry if one valued one's career.
The exchange of correspondence dealt with the now famous career of long term Yellowstone seasonal Robert Jackson.
Frustrated, like many a taxpayer before him, Senator Grassley decided to go right to the top, and query Ms Mainelašs boss, Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton.
Senator Grassley asked Secretary Norton to reply to a list of questions concerning Jackson's future with the park Service (Jackson is a Grassley constituent) Senator Grassley's letter, cold as liquid nitrogen, requested that Secretary Norton reply in full, no later than November 18, 2002.
Now November 18 has long come and gone, so I decided that it would be a good idea to look in on Senator Grassley and see what sort of reply he had gotten from Secretary Norton.
I was referred to the voice mail of Senator Grassley's aide, John Drake. His machine promised me that John would get back to me at the earliest possible moment, but I soon recognized the truth of the old Chinese proverb "A peasant will stand on a hill with his mouth open for a long time before a roast duck flies inside."
Apparently, Senator Grassley's office could not be reached for comment on the Jackson matter.
However, not to worry, there are other matters.
Senator Grassley, as head of the Senate subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, has become something of a lodestone for at least some of the law enforcement rangers of the National Park Service.
Morale is not a high as it could be in the protection ranger ranks. Why is this so?
In order to outline the reason why, one of the protection rangers sent a letter to Senator Grassley.
We have obtained a copy of the letter and wish to share it as a point of departure in discussing this morale issue.
We have removed the names of the combatants for reasons of privacy.
(If you are really nosey or are an inveterate gossip monger and are a resident of Iowa or have relatives there, you can ask Senator Grassley to fill in the blanks.)
Dear Senator Grassley:On behalf of members of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) I want to thank you for our extraordinary efforts to affect critical reforms to the law enforcement program of the National Park Service (NPS).
Unfortunately, as you know, the management of the National Park Service continues to offer determined resistance to any meaningful implementation of reforms recently directed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) as first recommended by the DOI Office of the Inspector General in their January 2002 `report "A Disquieting State of Disorder". The culture of the NPS as perpetuated by its "National Leadership Council" and the many park superintendents and other managers who are part of that fraternity is simply too vested in the current structure that affords them nearly complete autonomy to arbitrarily manipulate programs and funding, and to avoid any meaningful form of accountability.
Therefore, we respectfully request your support and action to initiate hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, designed to meticulously examine not only the Service/s law enforcement program, but its overall structure and organization that has for decades been so successful in avoiding accountability and behaving with disgraceful autonomy through the complete absence of a credible internal system of checks and balances.
Broad categories of topics that we believe warrant particular examination by the subcommittee include:
- The systematic obstruction of critical law enforcement program reforms directed by the Secretary's Office, including the establishment of a centralized and credible internal affairs program and protected systems for reporting misconduct.
- The widespread practice of diverting appropriations targeted for NPS law enforcement activities and programs to fund the pet projects of local and regional managers. This same practice is replicated in other critical program areas, compromising the overall protection of park visitors and resources.
- Ongoing efforts by members of the Service's National Leadership Council as well as area managers to lobby members of the House Subcommittee on Interior agencies and other Congressional oversight committees. Of additional concern is the widespread practice of expending operational funds and assigning park staff (including law enforcement personnel diverted from their public safety responsibilities) to "wine and dine", chauffeur, and tend to members of the media, celebrities, and other powerful public figures in an attempt to affect legislation, gain influence, and acquire funding and "donations" for "discretionary funds" and other pet projects sponsored by local and regional managers.
- The widespread and accepted management practice of reprisal against agency "whistle blowers", designed to protect Agency-ingratiated managers, discourage reports of management misconduct;, and simultaneously drive whistle blowers into isolation or out of the agency. Nowhere is this practice more evident than within the Service's Intermountain Region at both Yellowstone National Park and Grand Canyon National Park, where whistle blowers have been openly targeted for harassment and intimidation. Senior managers both within the regional Office and superintendents _________ and _________ have all demonstrated a disregard for programmatic integrity and honest management practices and should be held accountable.
- The widespread management practice of affording "protection" to loyal managers who engage in misconduct. A clear record exists within the Agency of actually creating new positions for managers who "screw up" and even promoting the "party loyal" who find themselves compromised as a result of detected misconduct and criminal activity. Once again, these practices have recently been most evident within the Intermountain Region......Once again, these same individuals, even after retirement, reap benefits and maintain influence over the Agency through receipt of lucrative contracts as paid agency"consultants". Meanwhile, entirely separate standards and practices exist for those employees who not enjoy a close relationship with park superintendents and members of the National Leadership Council.
As you may already know, a huge body of documentation exists and has been turned over to the Office of the Inspector General, validating the need for sweeping reforms to the NPS management structure, and particularly to the management of the Service's law enforcement program. This documentation is referenced within the report "A Disquieting State of Disorder" and was the basis of many of the recommendations made by the Inspector General. We urge your staff to review those materials and utilize them as a starting point for a comprehensive public examination by the Judiciary Committee into a longstanding pattern of misconduct, obstruction of justice, and other unethical and even criminal conduct by senior NPS managers empowered to oversee what should be one of the nationšs premier law enforcement programs. Included within the volumes of materials available for review at the Office of the Inspector General are reports and records documenting:
This is only a partial list of the broad categories of issues and activities that fatally compromise the integrity of the NPS law enforcement program, and of the Service itself. The incidents that are documented span a period of nearly thirty years, wherein the senior management of the NPS has perfected this management style into an art form, and has remained immune to scrutiny or accountability, and absolutely no change in management practices and implementation of safeguards has occurred. Meanwhile the vast majority of managers responsible for these practices and activities have never been held accountable. Many remain in power to this day in even more senior roles and positions than when their transgressions were detected, all the more successful and powerful because of the sheer audacity exhibited in their climb to power.
- A pattern of management obstruction of criminal investigations
- A pattern of management obstruction and manipulation of internal investigation and program audits, including cases referred back to the NPS from the OIG for "self investigation"
- A pattern of management obstruction of investigations into NPS violation of environmental law and standards.
- A pattern of management of obstruction of law enforcement response to incidents of threatened "work place violence"
- A pattern of management misuse of government equipment and funds, including violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act
- The illegal use of electronic eavesdropping equipment, scripted "white papers" and press releases, prohibited personnel practices, manipulation of background investigations and adjucations ,and other tactics for political purposes.
- A pattern of resistance and non-support for nationa; initiatives responding to the September 11 attacks and related Homeland Security Efforts.
- A pattern of retention (and promotion) of park and program managers suspected and/or convicted of criminal offenses such as child sexual abuse, voyeurism, falsification of official records and reports, illegal drug use, sexual harassment, public intoxication while on duty, etc.
Senator Grassley, the National Park Service is blessed with a work force that is remarkably ethical and dedicated to fulfilling their duties to the highest professional stands. This same work force is also remarkably patient and resilient . However, there are limits to the patience and resilience that can be asked of any group of people, and the commissioned Rangers and Special Agents of the National Park Service have very nearly reached their limit of endurance for the management structure under which they must work.
We urge you to intervene on their behalf, convene hearings into these issues, and help introduce a modicum of integrity back into the NPS by holding mangers accountable for their actions.
Thank you for your time, support and consideration
Sincerely,
----------
Well now, neighbors, what to make of this letter? It is surely one of the most interesting in the administrative history of the National Park Service.
If the situations described are only partially true, then the NPS begins to resemble the civil service of a particularly corrupt third world country!
However, there is a silver lining. The cash strapped NPS may be able to make a little money off this crisis.
I refer to possibility of offering the Inspector General Report "A Disquieting State of Disorder" as a sale item in the various NPS cooperating association bookstores. (It has a catchy title already, and with a sufficiently lurid cover, it should be a best seller.)
Then there are the television possibilities. There must be some way for the NPS to copyright this disaster as, in a sense, we own it. It sounds like a script made for Fox TV: Sexual harassment! Voyeurism! Malfeasance! Perversion! Drug Use! Drunken officials! Work place Violence! and my favorite, Violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act! We need choose only between producing it as a soap opera or as prime time drama! There is also the "reality show possibility in which the various parks vie to see which park has the most weirdly dysfunctional management! There is no end to the opportunities!
MID TERM REPORT CARD
How is President George Bush doing environmentally? I mean what would his report card be if he were taking a degree in Environmental Science at a reputable university?
Now there are those who beg the question by asking if George Bush would even be admitted to an environmental program at a reputable university.
As I say, this is begging the question; President Bush did indeed matriculate at a reputable university (Yale) though not in Environmental Science. He was able to get into Yale by virtue of a pioneering Affirmative Action Program (one of the first in the nation) known as the Legacy Program. This wonderful bit of progressive thought allows children of Alumni to get into Yale no matter how "slow" they may appear to prejudiced outsiders.
Such is the case with President Bush. My heart always fills with pride as I watch my fellow Republican and fellow dyslexic amble across the stage to make a speech. (Always, there is fear in the back of my mind that he just might keep going past the podium and tumble into the orchestra pit, embarrassing himself and the rest of us dyslexics.)
Then, at the podium, there is the strange "What am I doing here?" look on his face. This will sometimes go on for uncomfortably long seconds, leading observers, particularly nasty liberal and foreign observers to conclude that the president is a bit "slow".
This is not true, Bush is not stupid, but like most dyslexics, he is wired a bit differently than the rest of the population. Most of the population carry their thoughts and ideas wedged rather unimaginatively between their ears. Not George.
We dyslexics allow our thoughts and ideas to gambol about like friendly little puppies, chasing friskily after us, nipping at our heels, jumping into our laps, licking our faces, wagging their tails, barking at strangers and dashing madly away only to return unexpectedly. Makes us a bit unpredictable, which in a politician is not a bad thing.
Now that we have established that Bush processes learning and ideas differently than the bulk of the population, what sort of a mid term grade can we give him in Environmental Science?
Now that would depend, neighbors.
Professors are often prejudiced. The liberal bias in Academia is well known. It is unlikely that president Bush could get a fair shake at UC Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard, University of Chicago, even his alma mater, Yale, would be suspect. I'm afraid we would be looking at Bob Jones University for an impartial evaluation.
The environmental organizations are no better, having been infiltrated by liberals for decades. The President can expect no cutting of slack from the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Greenpeace and so on.
So, with the deck stacked against him by the liberal intelligencia, how can the President get a fair and impartial grade in Environmental Science?
The best we can do is to turn to our fellow Republicans; that is Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP).
As you know, there are two sub species of Republicans, the Bullmoose species as represented by Theodore Roosevelt and the Greedhead subspecies as represented by Dick Cheney. REP represents the Bullmoose subspecies.
REP publishes a quarterly newsletter called THE GREEN ELEPHANT.
The Winter, 2003 issue of THE GREEN ELEPHANT has published an Environmental Report Card for the George W. Bush Administration for the school year of 2001-2002 and here it is:.
| Subjects | |
| Energy policy | F |
| Climate Change | D- |
| Air Quality | D |
| Water Quality | D+ |
| Public Lands | D |
| National Environmental Policy Act | D- |
| Farm Policy | B- |
| Appointments | D- |
Now neighbors, if you do the math, you will regretfully find that poor George is not even pulling the proverbial "gentleman's C" in his environmental course work. As he is making a solid "D", his school advisor might suggest that he change majors or even drop out of college.
As concerned sponsors of the Bush Administration, who are paying billions in tuition and room and board to keep his administration in school, we too might wonder if young George is truly cut out for a career in Environmental Science and that, possibly, we might all be better off if George went on to something else.
THE GREEN ELEPHANT, being a responsible conservative journal, dissects the logic of its grading system. For example:
- Energy Policy. The reason for the failing grade in this mega important subject is that "The administrations National Energy Policy--developed in secret and under the disproportionate influence of energy industry lobbyists--would increase and prolong America's dependence on fossil fuels, especially coal and Middle Eastern oil....Increased dependence on oil means increased dependence on foreign oil, perpetuating U.S. entanglements in alliances with unstable, despotic regimes that support terrorists and with corrupt "Kleptocrats", crooked regimes whose leaders line their pockets with oil revenue while their countrymen are destitute....There would be "degradation of pristine areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Rocky Mountain Front and many Coastal Areas that the administrations seeks to explore for fossil fuels... This vital subject merits an F.
- Climate Change. The president broke a campaign promise to seek caps on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants,which account for one third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. On the plus side, the EPA was finally allowed to post an acknowledgment on its website "that the science documenting global warming is clear and compelling.... On the other hand, "allowing greenhouse gases to accumulate might lead to an irreversible "tipping point" that could lead to disasterous climate change that could last for centuries." D- is the best that the REP professors can award.
- Air Quality. "With the exception of strong programs to reduce harmful diesel emissions,the Bush administration has promoted policies that would needlessly delay pollution reductions necessary to protect public health, while resisting policies that would encourage comprehensive, cost-effective pollution reduction strategies." A grade of D is required.
- Water Quality. "The administration's policy on toxic waste cleanup is to shift the financial burden from responsible parties that created the problems to the taxpayers . A special chemical tax that had funded the Superfund cleanup program expired in 1995. The fund is being spent down to pay for clean up projects. Unless the tax is reauthorized, taxpayers will shoulder the entire burden of cleaning up toxic waste sites that endanger surface and ground water."
In fairness REP did note that the Bush administration ordered General Electric to quit stalling and clean up PCB pollution in the Hudson River and President Bush reauthorized the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (Both Bushes seem to have a soft spot for wetlands--I'll tell you an amusing story about that sometime--Ed.) These modest achievements provided the President with a D+ for the course.
- Public Lands. Not one of the President's strong subjects. REP deducted points for industrializing public lands, particularly wildlife refuges, a system founded by the Republicans sainted Theodore Roosevelt; the most egregious case being the attempt to "develop" President Eisenhower's "finest environmental legacy", the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
REP also red pencils Bush administration plans to make the de facto roadless one third of our national forests considerably more roadfull to favor loggers and merchandisers of off road vehicles. REP points out that roadless national forests are a fiscally responsible strategy, as the Forest Service currently has an 8 billion dollar backlog on road maintenance (By simply walking away from this 8 billion liability, the USFS should have no problem in obtaining a much smaller amount for forest recreation from congress and not have to lay guilt trips and fines on the public with spurious "fee demonstration projects"--Ed.)
REP notes that these "de facto" wilderness areas "provide vital services including clean water for 60 million Americans, plus clean air, carbon storage, fish, wildlife, and recreation opportunities (Actually, a whole potful of money could be saved throughout the government by simply doing nothing! That is employing "The Green Scissors" to nip environmentally damaging pork barrel boondoggles that constitute socialism for the well-connected--Ed.)
REP was particularly upset by the Administrationšs resurrection of an 1868 law that "could result in 19th century wagon roads, burro tracks and even dry stream beds being legally sanctioned by the federal government as highway rights of way, opening the door to an onslaught of off-road vehicles and development in the nationšs most prized wildlands." REP also noted that the proposed ban on snow mobiles in Yellowstone National Park was a thing of the past with the Bush administration who merely sought a technological fix with quieter, four stroke engines.
Again the president spoke with forked tongue by failing to deliver on his campaign promise to enact the Conservation and Reinvestment Act which would have provided generous funds for willing selling acquisition of critical addition to public lands.
REP was particularly incensed by the Administration's rather terrifying attack on the career staffing of the national parks, in which some 11, 807 jobs would be "examined" for possible contracting out to the lowest bidder. To add insult to injury, the "examining" is to be done by a private firm, using NPS funds ($3,000 per job). In addition, there is a possible conflict of interest down the line as the firm, CH2MHill, provides contract staff to operate federal and military facilities.
REP noticed some silver lining. Bush signed four wilderness bills, expanding California's Ventana Wilderness, preserving desert lands in southern Nevada, protecting Colorado's James Peak, adding acreage to a preserve in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The NPS benefitted by having a buy-out of oil leases in Florida's Big Cypress Preserve. However, these effort did not push the President's grade beyond a solid "D" in this subject
- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA is the Republican contribution to environmental law. Passed in 1970 with strong Republican Congressional support and signed by the Republicans' environmental president, Richard Nixon, NEPA requires the Federal government to study the environmental consequences of its actions. (Cynical liberals might inquire why the private sector is not so ordained, but the practical matter is that since there is federal money in most large projects, NEPA does have far reaching consequences for environmental good--including squelching a few misbegotten NPS projects--Ed.)
However, the Bush administration believes it has found a way around NEPA with the "Healthy Forests Initiative in which if a logging project is advertised as "A thinning project to reduce wildfire risk" then a full scale NEPA review would not be required. (One would think that if the project was such a win-win deal then the administration, agencies, and logging companies would like to wave their NEPA document at a press conference--Ed.)
In addition to this end run, the Bush administration, would like to make the land use agencies more "efficient" (Ah! that great weasel word "efficient!--Ed.) by "loosening" up some of those restrictive, inconvenient regs involving logging and fossil fuel production on public lands, particularly by not requiring NEPA.
The attack on NEPA and environmental regs was so egregious that ten Bullmoose Republican congress persons signed a letter publicly questioning the proposals and asking for an independent scientific review.
Bush's class work has been so dismal in this subject that he is lucky to get a D- from REP.
- Farm Policy.Possibly because George Bush has plenty of hands on experience (A ranch in Texas) Bush has not done too badly in farm policy, according to REP. There has been increased funding of land, water, and wildlife habitat conservation programs for farmers and expanded projection on non fossil fuels and electricity from crop and livestock materials.
However, Bush has not been able to stamp out socialism in his farm policy and indeed added to welfarism by adding big increases in commodity crop subsidies, bloating the bill into a $180 billion monster that will cause environmental harm as well as enlarge the federal deficit. Market distorting commodity crop subsidies encourage crop overproduction, which in turn results in soil erosion, water pollution and lost wildlife habitat (Time for "Green Scissors" here, fellow Republicans!--Ed.)
"On the plus side Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman released a remarkable report calling for significant farm policy report including more support for conservation."
REP was perhaps a bit overgenerous (grade inflation, you know) in giving Mr. Bush a B-
- Major Appointments. This course is an important one, as if one cannot learn to choose good environmental leaders then you cannot expect good environmental results.
All in all, REP has applauded the efforts of Christie Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency (Best smile and easily the cutest of Bush appointments--Ed) Fish and Wildlife Director Steve Williams (No adverse comments from my contacts with the Duck Factory--Ed) and Fran Mainela, first female Director of NPS (Generally, a bearer of bad news rather than an instigator of bed news--ED)
HOWEVER, according to REP, most of the key environmental appointments (a) worked for industries that actively exploit our nation's resources, creating clear conflicts of interest or (b) came from organizations hostile to environmental protection, and/or (c) compiled poor records on environmental issues in other positions.
REP helpfully provides the following examples: Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, whose close ties to the auto industry make it unlikely that he will ever support substantially strong auto-fuel efficiency standards: Interior Secretary Gale Norton, a protege of James Watt who built a career working for organizations hostile to environmental regulations; ( Mr Watt gleefully claims to have planted a number of "sleeper agents" throughout Interior, to be activated at the proper time; Ms Norton's time may have come--Ed.) This may also be the case of Norton's deputy, Stephen Griles, a former coal industry lobbyist, and Assistant Secretary Rebecca Watson, a former mining industry lobbyist. Other REP suspects are Agriculture undersecretary Mark Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist, John Graham, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who led a risk analysis center funded primarily by chemical, auto and other manufacturing corporations with a financial stake in regulatory policy (An almost classic fox-guarding-the-house scenario--Ed.)
REP also questions the evenhandedness of Allen Fitzsimmons, head of wild fire prevention for the Interior Department who believes that ecosystems "exist only in the human mind." (Strictly speaking, Mr. Fitzsimmons is philosophically correct, but his statement is true of all of our human measuring and classification systems, from the metric to the Linnaean, which we have found darn useful--Ed.)
REP also wonders about Stan Suboleski, who was appointed to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review despite the fact that his coal company dumped 300 million gallons of coal slurry into creeks and rivers in Kentucky and West Virginia, ruining or polluting water supplies and imposing a hugely expensive, years long cleanup (might say he has experience for the job--Ed.)
All in all, Bush gets a D-for his major appointments; not looking good from a managerial standpoint.
As remarked, this puts George Bush into the "D" grade category. Can George get into Graduate School (A second term) with grades like this? (Although not mentioned by REP, Bush did get an "A" in ROTC and was voted "Most popular boy in class" and Homecoming King, but should he be allowed to major in Environmental Studies?
REP obviously has its doubts.
But, you ask, why are there Republicans for Environmental Protection? Aren't Republicans simply into making money for themselves and their friends?
This is true of Greedhead Republicans, but not Bullmoose Republicans.
The Bullmoose Republican can wax as poetic as an liberal Democrat about Nature, but he/she is also backed up the pragmatic view that if you can't breathe the air and drink the water, then you can't spend the money, so you must save the environment.
Now most NPS permanents are conservative due to small town or suburban backgrounds, heavy law enforcement responsibilities (Liberal cops exist only in the minds of liberal TV and Movie producers) and the need to constantly interact with the reactionary county and local officials that surround most national park units. However, we are assuming that most NPS superintendents are Bullmoose Republicans and are yearning for some way to answer the rhetorical questions thrown at them by "wise use" advocates at the weekly Rotary Meeting.
Quotes from "Liberal" publications such as the Sierra Club, THE NEW YORK TIMES or NEWSWEEK will do no good as these organizations are known to have been infiltrated by Communists who fled the Soviet Union after the fall of Communism. You will not convince anyone otherwise.
However, THE GREEN ELEPHANT, the voice of Republicans for Environmental Protection, will be just the ticket! You will find great quotes by such Republicans as John Muir, Gifford Pinchott, John D. Rockefeller Junior, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John McCain, Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. You will find environmental outrages that demand immediate bipartisan attention. You will find these problems presented without the hysterical rancor that is so off putting among other environmental journals
In short, you will find environmental protection presented with the logic and gusto of Theodore Roosevelt who remarked "Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation"
So ignore the FOG (Friends of George) and join REP. A subscription to THE GREEN ELEPHANT will cost you $25 sent to 3200 Carlisle NE, Suite 228, Albuquerque NM 87110. You can e mail them at info@repamerica.org or check out their website at www.repamerica.org.