Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Thirty day comment period for new Interior policy to cut out independent, scientific reviews under Endangered Species Act

LA Times:

The clock has started ticking down for anyone who wants to comment on the Department of Interior's proposed overhaul of the Endangered Species Act, which could cut out the independent reviews of whether a government decision will affect species in danger of extinction.

The notice was posted in the Federal Register on Friday, giving anyone who wants to weigh in on the changes until Sept. 15.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will accept comments through the eRulemaking portal but won't accept e-mail or faxes.

Independent scientific reviews have been a mainstay of the Endangered Species Act and are meant to provide more input into policy decisions and avoid conflict-of-interest charges that might occur when an agency appears to rubber stamp its own decision.

No doubt just one of thousands of ways the Republicans are trying to destroy the government's ability to function before they go.

As I've said, one real reason to vote for the Democrats is that the civil service will be better off; the Democrat leadership does have a residual belief, however flaccid, that government should, like, actually work. This is just one example of the issue.

0
No votes yet

Comments

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

so they can be undone by the next administration - if it is headed by a president who gives a damn, and that would not be John McCain.

BushCo will likely ram this through, and then it will get tied up in the courts for months at least. These changes run counter to everything the courts have ruled regarding environmental law for decades, so odds are they will be eventually rejected even if a Republican is president. Give Republicans another 4 - 8 years of VRWC appointments to the federal bench, though, and you can kiss the judiciary good-bye forever along with the environment.

Fail to elect a Democrat as president, and Homo sapiens sapiens will be the endangered species.

Sapiens; could any species name be more unintentionally ironic?

Submitted by lambert on

Sure, Republicans are evil, except, apparently, when they become Democrats, or at least sign checks to the Democrats.

Actually, I think you make a good point. The only problem is that the Democratic platform, and the putative Democratic nominee, don't agree with you.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I avoid digital like the plague. To my mind, all things considered, in terms of a likely policy agenda, Obama and McCain rate thus:

Photobucket

I could be wrong, McCain could be worse than this and Obama could turn out to be better, but regardless there is no topic on which Obama and the Democrats are as bad as any Republican – especially McCain.

Agreed, all Republicans are evil, but their cash is morally neutral; it doesn't have an opinion. Why not take it, and put it to a good use? I surely would.

The only problem is that the Democratic platform, and the putative Democratic nominee, don’t agree with you.
I made several specific assertions; tell me to which one you are referring, so I can correct you.

Submitted by lambert on

The distinction -- at least at the leadership and policy levels -- between D and R is no longer nearly as sharp as you suggest, as the Democratic platform shows, that million dollar check shows, and Obama's post-partisan rhetoric shows.

For the SCOTUS argument, I'd like to see a list of potential Obama nominees. McCain gave one; I'd like to see Obama's.

The cash argument is clever, I grant. And if a prominent Democratic donor gave a million dollars to the Republican Convention Committee, would your reaction be as sanguine? I doubt it.

Hey, remember when we were talking about Iraq as the big differentiator? Happy, happy days.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Dunno about sharp, but they are clear. Haven't seen the Republican platform for point-by-point comparison, do you have an advance copy?

As to distinctions at the leadership level, Obama may be close to some Republicans, say for instance Lincoln Chaffee, but Chaffee quit the Republicans so even he couldn't stand any further affiliation with this criminal gang. Absolutely no way Obama is anywhere near McCain, on anything of importance. Please identify somewhere you think they are identical and yes, FISA, but if McCain had had his way it would have been even worse.

SCOTUS nominees, are you kidding? McCain is happy with the worst of them, and opposed to the moderates; Obama says he wouldn't have done Thomas or Alito. It is McCain who is behind, so he will have to be bold and take some chances. Obama is in the lead, no reason for him to announce who he likes for SCOTUS; nothing can come of that for him but downside.

Big checks from Republicans to Democrats is, IMHO, a very good sign for the Democrats' chances. This guy isn't spending a million bucks on somebody he sees as a loser. If it were the reverse with money, I would be sad to see the money go to no good end but happy enough to have the rotten bastard who did it exposed. When Zell Miller spoke at the GOP convention I was pleased, and I will be too if Joe Lieberman does the same; be very good for everyone to see Joe for what he is.

Obama's rhetoric is just that in large measure; I don't feel comfortable that I can say with certainty what Obama will do on any specific issue, but I am confident that what ever the decisions might be he won't be nearly as bad as McCain.

Yes, those were happy days, before all the complexities inserted themselves. Now we have bad option, worse option; have the leg amputated or die from gangrene. For me, the choice is clear.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

20 years ago, heck even 10 years ago, I still thought as you do. Chalk it up to age, but I can't do it anymore. Wrong is wrong, and I'm damned if I'm going to reward it anymore because somebody else is wrong-er.

It's a moot point in my case, just my own personal moral dilemma about my vote, since my state will vote for Obama in probably a higher percentage than any other state, so I have the luxury of agonizing about it.