Information on working terriers, dogs, natural history, hunting, and the environment, with occasional political commentary as I see fit. This web log is associated with the Terrierman.com web site.
In 1981 the Portuguese Water Dog was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the rarest breed of dog on earth. It was just about that time that an American vacationing in Portugal discovered the dog, brought a few back to the U.S., bred them, got them registered with the America Kennel Club, and their number skyrocketed.
What happened next is predictable: the dogs became deeply inbred, and a doubling down of recessive genes resulted in congenital defect and disease bubbling to the surface.
The first disease to rear its head was Gangliosidosis, or storage disease, which attacks the nerve cells of young puppies and causes a loss of coordination and body functions which kills the dog.
No sooner was this recessive gene discovered, than Addison's Disease reared its ugly head -- an endocrine disease in which the dog loses weight, energy and muscle mass.
As bad as these two problems are, more health care problems lie in wait for the Portuguese Water Dog as inbreeding within the American Kennel Club's closed registry system is required for a dog with so few numbers.
Will Portuguese Water Dogs end up being big puppy mills dogs?
No.
They are too large for commercial breeders and, to be honest, they are not a very attractive dog.
The bread-and-butter of puppy mill producers are small dogs like Cavalier King Charles Spaniels (Nancy Reagan), Toy Poodles and Maltese (Jacques Chirac) and small terriers (George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, FDR).
More folks need to read BarackObama's first book, in which he talks about the fact that when his white mother, from Kansas, married his black father, from Kenya, such a marriage was illegal in more than half the states in the Union.
In that book, Barack also writes of his grandmother's fear of black men, the sacrifices his white mother made to put him in a very good school in Hawai'i, the marginal economic situation of his white grandparents (who raised him for 10 years), his own service organizing poor black communities in Chicago, and his personal conversion to Christianity while attending Trinity United Church of Christ.
The book is entitled Dreams From My Fatherand is available, in paperback, in any book store or library in the nation. It is an excellent read, and though it was written 13 years ago (right after Barack finished graduating from Harvard Law School), no one who has read the book, or heard it, would find a note out of place from the speech he gave today.
This is not a politician recutting his jib. This is not a politician who has any fear of controversy, or who is confused about who he is, or what he wants to say to the world.
Instead of diving for cover, Obama used the Ferraro-Wright flap as a moment to reaffirm his message and how he came to it.
Instead of assuming Americans are fools, he spoke as if most Americans are smart, honest and looking to build a better America.
Of course, not everyone is going to get to the promised land. There are some who are too angry, too scared, or too vested in the politics of division. Is Reverend Wright one of those? Maybe. Are Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly? Maybe. Time and action will tell us who is most interested in dividing the nation along race or religious lines. One thing for sure: it's not BarackObama. .
This is not a new speech -- this is an old speech, given in 2006. It is a speech about personal faith in a modern America.
What's funny about this speech is that it is summarily ignored by Rush Limbaugh and the Clintonista's who are more interested in dredging up old "funny hat" pictures of Obama humoring his hosts in foreign countries, and old sermons by the Reverand Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama has repeatedly denounced in no uncertain terms.
Yet, these same folks manage to miss the story of Barack's very personal story of religious conversion (a story told in his first book written 13 years ago), and they manage to ignore this easy-to-find video of him talking about his own faith, and why morality matters in politics.
These same folks, of course, simply ignore the crazy stuff from John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, Jerry Falwell, Robert Tilton, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, Benny Hinn, and Joyce Meyer (to name just a few of the lunatic preachers out there).
At least two of these preachers have endorsed the current Republican candidate for President who, to his credit, has moved to distant himself from their more profound idiocies.
Of course, politics is politics, and so there are those on the left who are not giving John McCain a break, just as there are those on the right who are not giving Barack Obama a break.
Never mind the Christian Coalition, and Ralph Reed who went on to take gambling payola from Jack Abramoff. Never mind those ministers who justify slavery, spousal abuse, and even child abuse by quoting the Bible. Never mind those churches, dripping in hate, who shun homosexuals and who verbally abuse teenage mothers faced with difficult decisions.
Never mind the right-wing-religiously-rationalized destructionof 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina which, we are told, was caused by a confluence of queers, kikes, abortionists, feminists and people who believe in the First Amendment.
Instead these folks seem to get their lessons in morality from the drug-addicted Rush Limbaugh and the lecherous and lying Clinton's. Nice.
Which brings us back to the fundamentals of God and Government.
The bottom line, is that the constitutional principle behind separation of church and state has served this country well for more than 200 years.
Yet, we have some on the far right who want to throw it out.
Just this campaign season, we saw a leading candidate for President suggest we needed to change the U.S. Constitution in order to conform to the Southern Baptist convention.
Never mind that the U.S. Constitution is what separates America from becoming Afghanistan or Pakistan .... or the Vatican or Israel for that matter.
Barack Obama, at least, gets it --ministers are flawed and fallible people too, and as a consequence, some of what is said in Church is wrong, some of it is crazy, and a significant amount of it is controversial, blasphemous or insulting to someone, somewhere, at some time.
And while most Americans want our politicians firmly grounded in the bedrock of common-sense morality, we do not want them marching lock-step to one faith, one denomination, or one preacher (not even Billy Graham).
The good news here is that you do not have to be a member of a church to know right from wrong, good from evil, truth from lie, or compassion from hate.
You just have to use common sense.
That is not always found in church, just like it is not always found on talk radio, or Capitol Hill.
Use your brains, your heart, and your gut. When all three bits of your anatomy are in sync and pointing in the same direction, you are not likely to be wrong.
Watch Barack talk about God and Government, above. What does your heart, head and gut tell you? Act accordingly.
Barack also won Wyoming by 20 points on Saturday, and he won Mississippi by about 24 points tonight
So what has Hillary's response been to all this?
To tell the truth, she has grown increasingly irrational. By twists and turns she has praised Obama, and threatened him, thrown mud on him and then set herself out as the arbiter of what is clean and proper political discourse. She has said Obama is not fit to be Commander in Chief, and then she has turned around and said she would welcome him as a Vice President.
What is going on here? Does Hillary have Alzheimer's? Is she clinically insane?
Bill Bradley simply chalks it up to mass delusion on the part of the Clinton team. "The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they’ve got. That’s been their whole approach" he told the Times of London.
To his credit, Barack has not fired back. He has only laughed.
How, he has wondered, can the second place candidate be offering the Vice Presidential slot to the first place candidate? It's like offering to sell the American people a bridge you do not own.
But, of course, Hillary thinks she might be able to get away with it, because she thinks the American people are really stupid.
She thinks she can lie with impunity. She thinks she can have her surrogates race-bait, doctor photos, and spread lies.
Today, Clinton surrogate and treasurer Geraldine Ferraroactually said Barack Obama was only doing well in the race because he's black. Ms. Ferraro says Barack is "very lucky to be who he is."
Luck.
Right.
Of all the candidates in the world, a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama was sure to get a leg up over anyone named Clinton, who had her ex-President-husband ready to campaign for her, and who The Washington Post, only 9 months ago, told us was the "inevitable" candidate.
Right.
In American, being black has always been the ticket to the Oval Office (cough cough).
Having a funny last name that rhymes with "Osama" and that has "Hussein" as a middle name chaser is a double blessing. Yes-siree-bob, that's a sure-fire recipe to unearned power and wealth in America.
What luck. What unearned and entirely accidental ... luck.
Geraldine Ferraro: What a moron. A racist moron. A friend of Hillary.
Now the question is a simple one: Will Hillary repudiate and denounce Geraldine Ferraro?
That, after all, seems to be the test she demands of others.
If Hillary fails to do so, can we reasonably assume that she is giving a big thumbs-up to continued race-baiting?
Can we assume this is a Hillary Clinton-sanctioned campaign tactic?
After all, Ms. Ferraro is not just a private citizen; she is a key member of Hillary Clinton's Finance Committee.
The not-so-subtle message of Ms. Ferraro, is that she was entitled to higher office. Never mind her failed candidacy for Vice President. Never mind her twice-failed candidacy for Senate. She is owed. She should be up there, not Barack.
And if not her, then Hillary Clinton.Can't these idiotic voters see that??!! Hillary is entitled!
If all this sound laughable, then be advised that this is no laughing matter. The anger that this older, shoulder-padded cohort of women feels, is very real.
And the situation has not been made better because a woman is losing out to a black guy.
In fact, it's worse.A black guy??!!
Sure he's smart -- brilliant really. And yes, he's had a life packed with accomplishment, and his speeches are inspirational, and yes he is as emotionally stable as a rock, and yes he does know the issues front and back .... But how could America choose a black guy over Hillary? I mean COME ON, he's a BLACK GUY. Can't you see that America? He's a schvatza, a nigger, a jigaboo, a jungle bunny. He's no different that Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, or OJ Simpson.
And to remind us of what is at stake, Hillary and her aggrieved campaign workers show us this marvelous old-school "3 am" ad with beautiful blond children sleeping soundly in their bed.
And the subtext is not subtle if you are a communications professional: Do you want a black man named Barack Hussein Obama in the house taking care of these children?
Or do you want Nanny Hillary there, her glasses on, reading a smart bit of non-fiction in an over-stuffed chair, a glass of warm milk at the ready and the night light on?
Chose or lose people. And remember your children. Those beautiful blond children.
But of course, God is a comic, and so it turns out that those beautiful blond children are grown up now.
It turns out that Hillary's staff went out and bought 10-year old stock footage off-the-rack in order to make the campaign commercial.
And, best of all, it turns out that the little girl in the television spot -- still very blond and beautiful -- is now a precinct captain for Barack Obama's campaign. And she has not been shy about telling the media how "low brow" the Clinton commercial is, and that she wishes her image were not being used like that.
Did I not tell you that God was a comic?
There is enough irony here to start a nail factory.
And then, to top it all off, it turns out that the American people are not quite as stupid as Hillary had hoped.
Despite all the sturm und drang evinced by the press corps, Obama has always been ahead in the race this election season.
Always ahead. But no one told you, did they? Not once.
But Barack has always known. And because he has known, he has not been too quick to come out swinging against Hillary.
Why should he? Remember, he is so far ahead of Hillary right now that she cannot catch up.
For Barack, the game at this point is not about beating Hillary;she is already beaten.
The game ahead is to prove to the American people that he is a different kind of candidate for the 21st Century.
Yes, Barack will defend himself, and yes Hillary may slip and fall in the mud she is throwing. A judo move or two may yet be seen.
But Barack Obama will not play to base emotions. He is not going to call us to be smaller, meaner, and uglier. He is not going to try to shave the dice and cheat.
He is going to call us to be better than we have been. He is going to act like we are smart and assume that we are fair.
If Hillary Clinton or John McCain want to provide comfort and solace to the racists, the war-mongers, and the fear-mongers, then he will cede that ground to them. And they can offer shelter and sanctuary to the liars and cheaters as well.
They can have that sordid country, and rule it as king and queen.
The rest of us, Barack Obama is pretty sure, will seek still waters and green pastures.
"The Texas Democratic Party says Obama's wider caucus margin will probably give him a 37-30 break in the delegates allocated from the caucuses. The primary had almost twice that many delegates at stake, but Clinton's primary margin there was much narrower. So when the two steps are all done, the projection is for Obama to emerge with 98 delegates to Clinton's 95."
Hmmm .... When this becomes official sometime in the next few weeks or so, does this mean Hillary will drop out? Will Bill have an intervention?
Or will Hillary now say Texas does not count because it's suddenly become a "fly over" state like Virginia ... South Carolina ... Maryland ... Wisconsin ... Minnesota ... Hawaii ... Washington ... Illinois ... and all the rest.
Hillary can keep moving the goal posts, but she's already run out of field.
Magical thinkingis fine when you are age eight, but at her age they normally prescribe a pill.
For those wondering why Texas Democratic Party officials are not calling these the "official" numbers yet, that's because the final results from Tuesday's caucuses won't be certified, under Texas state law, until county-level conventions convene on March 29.
That said, the last batch of "unofficial results" have been released and these are the true numbers.
Hillary lost Texas, and Barack won it.
And for those who want to read what really happened in Ohio, see Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie? by Paul Loeb, where he details who really said what, to whom, and when.
Welcome to the revolution. This is the future. This is why "We are the ones we have been waiting for."
And yes, it really is about that phrase and those computers, as I have noted in the past. See "Why the End of Groundhog Day is the Beginning of Hope" to get the rest of that story. Somewhere out there in the ether, the Marquis de Condorcet is smiling. And so too is June Jordan. .
What Will Barack Obama or John McCain mean for hunters and wildlife?
Good question, but let me start with another question: What did the Bush administration mean for hunters and wildlife?
How about the Clinton Administration?
How about the Reagan, Ford or Carter Administrations?
You see?Nothing.
As odd as it may seem, hunting, wildlife and guns are not really Presidential issues.
They are local issues and state issues. Very occasionally, they are national legislative issues which may devolve into litigation issues. But the Executive Branch? That's not where hunting, wildlife and gun issues typically play out for 99 percent of all hunters and anglers.
When Ronald Reagan was President, breakfast was not served with a "State of America's Wildlife" report next to the orange juice and a BATF "Second Amendment Report" next to the eggs.
Which is not to say that such obvious truths have too much to do with the kind of nakedly partisan discourse we are likely to hear this year. The folks at the Sierra Club are not staying up nights thinking too deeply about the Second Amendment, and the folks at the National Rifle Association don't give a damn about public lands, clean water, clean air, or whether the population of whitetail deer or redhead ducks is rising or falling in your area.
Now, here's the good news:The country is in pretty great shape no matter what anyone says.
Whether you want a rifle or a shotgun, a crossbow or a derringer, a .50 caliber Desert Eagle or a Smith and Wesson kit gun, a black powder rifle, or a laser-sighted Remington that fires saboted ammunition, you are free to buy it and own it.
And whether you want to hunt deer or elk, rabbit or ducks, geese or coyote, you are free to do it, and there's plenty of game to be had as well. Nearly everything is at 100-year record levels of abundance.
Well, OK, some may say, "But you know, Obama is not a hunter." Right. And neither is John McCain. And isn't that a breath of fresh air! I, for one, am pretty damn tired of all this Elmer Fudd stuff coming from our politicians.
It all started with George W. Bush. I don't remember Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton trotting out into a field for a shotgun photo-op.
The funny thing here is that George W. Bush is not a real hunter. He's just a beltway frat boy who borrowed a shotgun in order to strike a redneck rural pose.
Karl Rove figured most National Rifle Association members would not care, and that many would not know the difference, never mind all those pictures that showed George W. Bush to be a walking gun safety violation.
I am happy to say Al Gore took a pass on this nonsense, but John Kerry did not, and so we have him shooting a few geese to show his bonafides. Mitt Romney figured he could claim the mantle of a "lifelong hunter" because he shot a few rats with a pellet gun back when he was 15. Two weeks ago up in Wisconsin, Hillary Clinton claimed she once went duck hunting with her father "100 years ago."
I think it safe to say you won't find Barack Obama or John McCain standing in a field clutching a borrowed shotgun. Obama is not a hunter, and he has never claimed to be one. Neither is John McCain. Neither one of these guys is going to pretend to be something they are not.
Some would count that as a liability; I count that as integrity.
OK, but what about guns?What about them?
Both Obama and McCain believe in the Second Amendment, and both John McCain and Barack Obama believe the Second Amendment is an individual right.
Neither one thinks guns are just about hunting. But neither John McCain nor Barack Obama are oblivious to the kind of world we live in, and so both quite reasonably believe that insane people should not have guns, and criminals should not have guns.
Both politicians think terrorists should not be allowed to walk through airports with loaded bazookas on their shoulders.
Do these common-sense positions endear either candidate to the National Rifle Association? No, they do not.
But so what? The National Rifle Association is a direct mail fear factory of the same stripe (albeit catering to a different demographic) as the Humane Society and PETA.
Most gun owners see them for what they are; a useful wrench to grab and twist the gun-grabbing nuts on the far left, but not the kind of organization they actually care to support with membership dues.
More than 85 percent of hunters are not NRA members, and the percentage of personal-protection gun owners that are NRA members is even lower.
Besides, name one time in your entire life when a President's position on gun legislation, one way or another, mattered a damn. Guns are not a presidential issue; they are a state issue and a legislative issue and a litigation issue, but the influence of the Chief Executive is pretty minimal.
If Sarah Brady were made President of the United States, we would have the same gun laws eight years from now as we do today.
What do John McCain and Barack Obama think about conservation and environmental issues?
John McCain likes to beat the Teddy Roosevelt drum, but in truth his interest in environmental issues is generally weaker than Barack Obama's, and this is reflected in the rather anemic amount of environmental material on his campaign's web site. Obama's web site has over 20-pages of single spaced position papers on energy and the environment. McCain's has zero.
Having said that, John McCain and Barack Obama agree on quite a lot.
For example, both think the U.S. should have signed the Kyoto Treaty, and both support capping greenhouse gases to fight global warming, which they both think is real and man-made.
Both oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Both supportexpansion of nuclear power as a way to generate more electricity with little greenhouse gas pollution, and both support expansion of liquefied coal and ethanol energy technology.
Of course, there are some differences. While McCain supports greenhouse gas reductions, his proposal is far weaker than Barack Obama's, calling for only a 30 percent reduction by 2050 (from a 1990 baseline), rather than the 80 percent reduction called for in the Obama plan.
McCain is also weaker when it comes to energy conservation. For example, McCain opposes mandating improved vehicle fuel economy standards by 2020, while Obama supports such measures.
Now stop there for a minute.
Think about that in the context of the current world in which we live.
How can anyone oppose mandating fuel economy standards on car manufacturers (who are capable of making a good 90-mile-per-gallon carright now with existing technology) while being FOR waging a 100-year war in Iraq that will inexorably result in more kids dying, more terrorists coming to our shores, and many more trillions of our tax dollars going down a rat hole in the sand?
There is no good answer there.
McCain is similarly out of touch, and politically shifty, when it comes to wildlife issues. For example he has run television ads mocking a $3 million appropriation to study the DNA of bears in Montana, suggesting Uncle Sam is running some kind of weird Yogi Bear paternity test. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey is engaged in classic rub-pad hair-sample research of the kind usually used to determine grizzly bear population densities.
And though McCain mocked the research in a political ad, he actually voted to fund it. I will let others figure out what that means; loveable lying maverick, insane megalomaniac, or teachable ignorant -- your choice.
McCain shows more shaky logic when it comes to National Forest issues. For example, he would repeal the Clinton Administration's executive order banning new road construction in more than 58 million acres of National Forest. McCain's argument is that such things should not be done by executive order, which sounds good until you realize he is simply ignoring the more than 3 million public comments received during the rule-making period, 99 percent of which were were in favor of forest protection. How much more public input does he want? Who other than the public would he have decide the future of America's public forests?
It turns out that John McCain is also a little shaky as to what a National Forest really is; he thinks timber harvest issues should be decided by local residents. Never mind that forest service personnel, road maintenance, campgrounds, hiking trails, and docks are paid for by ALL of America's taxpayers. Never mind that the the U.S. Forest Service loses more than $400 million dollars a year selling National Forest timber off of public lands. He wants the locals to decide what happens, and never mind if America's taxpayers get sacked with financial, as well as environmental, loss while a few thick-thumbed dropouts get the world's biggest subsidy to run a skidder or feller-buncher ripping down our national heritage.
OK, what about Barack Obama? How does he do on these same issues?
Unlike John McCain, Obama supports the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which would keep 58 million acres of National Forest lands in pristine condition.
Obama also supports strengthening the Conservation Reserve Program and the Conservation Security Program which would create additional incentives for private landowners to protect and restore wetlands, grasslands, forests, and other wildlife habitat.
Much of this land is now open to hunting.
The rest of Obama's environmental positions can be read on the rather impressive Energy & Environment section of his campaign web site which features a 9-page single-spaced backgrounder on the environment (sections include: climate change, clean water, clean air, healthier communities, encouraging organic and sustainable agriculture, support for local family farmers, partnerships with landowners to conserve private lands, and protecting national parks and forests).
Be sure to also check out his 11-page single-spaced backgrounder on energy (sections include: cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emissions, investing in clean energy technology, investing in biofuels research, investing in developing clean coal technology, safe and secure nuclear energy, renewable energy goals, making the federal government an energy conservation leader, creating incentives to improve building energy efficiency, investments in developing advanced vehicle technology, and increased investment and incentives for public transportation).
OK, fine. But isn't all this just Washington gobbley-gook? I mean, what evidence is there that Obama or McCain really care about the environment at all?
Good question.
To tell the truth, there is not much evidence to suggest John McCain cares about public lands, energy issues, or wildlife.
This is not to blame him; born on an airbase to a military family, he was often uprooted as a child, and raised in the concrete-and-lawn world of naval bases enclosed by guarded perimeter wire fences.
Barack Obama's childhood was quite a bit different. Though he was raised by his apartment-living grandparents in Hawaii, he spent a few early formative years in Indonesia where he learned that the chickens in the backyard were destined for the family meal pot, where he had a monkey and a pond full of small alligators as pets, and where wild and domestic animals of every type were sold as food and were sampled by a curious youth from America.
Later, fresh out of college, Barack worked as an organizer at a public housing development in Chicago that had a sewage treatment center on one side, the City landfill on the other, and a toxic-poisoned river running across the back. The development itself was shot through with asbestos contamination -- a situation he helped correct, and which left him a firm believer in the value of clean water, clean air, and recreational space for youth -- and not just because one of his own young daughters has asthma herself.
Obama sees environmental issues as a thread which can tie us together as a people. As he noted in a recent speech:
"Environmentalism is not an upper-income issue, it's not a white issue, it's not a black issue, it's not a South or a North or an East or a West issue. It's an issue that all of us have a stake in. And if I can do anything to make sure that not just my daughter but every child in America has green pastures to run in and clean air to breathe and clean water to swim in, then that is something I'm going to work my hardest to make happen."
John McCain's relationship with wild places and wild life is a little less clear. We know he loves Sedona, and the rugged beauty of that countryside, but not much else. Is it the wildlife habitat he loves, or is it scenery? And yes, there is a difference.
As previously noted, the environmental section of John McCain's web site is as austere and empty as the desert, and there is no energy section at all.
In this silence, it is hard to think John McCain is not telling us quite a lot.
But, of course, as I noted at the beginning, it's easy to overstate the role of the President when it comes to hunting and fishing issues. The President can suggest legislation, can veto legislation, and can water or prune things to make them bloom or wilt, but Congress has to pass a bill for a President to actually sign it.
And, of course, a lot of hunting and wildlife issues (as I have said before) are not federal issues at all; they are state or local issues.
The bottom line is that no matter who wins in November, your hunting access is less likely to be determined by Washington politicians than it is by remembering to shut all the farm gates, keeping your truck out of wet fields, and thanking the farmer at Christmas with a bottle of his favorite beverage.
Which is not to say the President has no impact on conservation and environmental issues. In fact, quite a lot is done through administrative action by cabinet-level appointees and lesser associates.
The problem here is that until an Administration is in power, we cannot guess who will fill any particular cabinet-level slot.
That said, while past is not prologue, that's generally the way to bet at the track. In that sense, what we've gotten from each political party in the past is probably a little bit like what we will get from each political party in the future.
So what can we learn by looking at the environmental appointees of George W. Bush (the last 7 years) and Bill Clinton (the previous 8 years)?
In both cases, there is a tendency to fill posts with former politicians, corporate lobbyists, professional administrators, academic experts, and public interest group representatives.
For example, Christine Todd Whitman, a former Governor of New Jersey, was put in as the head of EPA under Bush II, while Carol Browner, the former head of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, was put in as head of the EPA under Clinton. Neither EPA administrator did much to distinguish themselves in my opinion.
A more interesting comparison can be seen by looking at the Secretaries of the Interior and the Under Secretaries of Interior for Natural Resources and Agriculture. If you have an interest in what goes on in our National Forests, our National Parks, and on BLM land, these are the two jobs where things happen, for better or for worse.
At the U.S. Department of Interior, Bruce Babbitt (a former Governor of Arizona and former head of the League of Conservation Voters) was put in as head of the Department of Interior under Clinton, and Jim Lyons, a Yale-educated professional forester and wildlife policy expert was put in as Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Agriculture in charge of National Forest issues.
During the Clinton-era, these two gentleman, along with U.S. Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck (a former fishing guide and fisheries biologist who was actually raised in a National Forest) pushed through the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to protect 58 million acres of pristine National Forest land.
With encouragement from Babbitt and Lyons, the Clinton Administration also created the Giant Sequoia National Monument in California's Sierra Nevadas (a 328,000-acre monument protecting 34 groves of ancient sequoias and the surrounding forest), the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (1.9 million acres of astounding scenic desert in Utah), the Sonoran Desert National Monument (496,000 acres), the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument to protect 149 miles along the Upper Missouri River in central Montana, and the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (53,000 acres of forest) in southwestern Oregon.
With the end of the Clinton Administration, there was a changing of the guard at the Department of Interior. Gale Norton, a former Attorney General of Colorado, and a lobbyist for a lead company and other mining interests, was tapped as head of the Department of Interior, and Mark Rey, a paper and timber lobbyist, was made Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Agriculture in charge of National Forest issues.
From day one, the Bush Administation sought to reverse the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, but they have been unsuccesful so far thanks to protracted litigation which is likely to outlast the Bush Administration itself.
Gale Norton's contribution to the debate was a Washington Post editorial in which she claimed that the forests needed to be "thinned" for the forest birds -- an editorial which was roundly laughed at by the National Audubon Society which sent her a letter noting that the birds cited were not forest birds at all, and perhaps she might consult an Audubon Field Guide next time?
In the end, Norton got herself wing-shot out of the sky in a swirl of corruption charges when the "Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy," an industry front group she created prior to her tenure in the Bush Administration, was found to be receiving large donations from now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff on behalf of Indian gambling interests (note that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is part of the U.S. Department of Interior).
Though Norton herself managed to avoid jail, J. Steven Griles, the number two person within the U.S. Department of Interior, and himself a former mining industry lobbyist, went to jail on public corruption charges as part of the Abramoff scandal.
As for Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Agriculture Mark Rey, the latest news is that he is waiting to see if he goes to jail for deliberately skirting the law so that the Forest Service could use a flame retardant known to be toxic to wildlife. The result of Rey's actions and inactions was a massive fish kill in Oregon that left a creek totally lifeless, and 20,000 fish dead.
So where does that leave us, the hunter-voter?
The same place we were before -- alone with our conscience and our vote.
Which is OK.
This is a great country and a free country, and the more we all know about the issues, the options, and the trade-offs, I think the better off we will all be.
As always, vote as you see fit.
I think if you are reading and asking questions about these kinds of issues, you are on the right road. And in my experience the right road rarely leads to the wrong place.
Carry on.
Bruce Springsteen does Woody Guthrie: "This land was made for you and me" .
The next 11 days will be the most crucial of the campaign to date. If Obama can compete favorably in Texas and Ohio, he will probably get the Democratic nomination.
Obama getting the Democratic nomination is good for the nation no matter who wins in November.
If Obama wins in both states, it’s all over for Hillary.
In fact, if Obama wins in just one state, it's probably over for Hillary.
The good new is that Obama is on the move in both Texas and Ohio. But time is short, and he still has a way to go. The Texas and Ohio primaries are only 11 days away.
Because Texas and Ohio are so big, a lot is dependent on the advertising buy in those states.
Whenever voters have been educated about Obama, his numbers have only soared. That is why your donation is especially critical at this point in the election cycle -- so the Obama campaign can get out the word and put Hillary to bed once and for all.
Check out how far we have come already by simply going to this web site and dragging your cursor across any state to see the latest polling data and election results >> http://www.electoral-vote.com/ .
Like that link? Then say "thanks" by making a donation (any amount is fine) to the cause of getting the best candidates competing in November. Who knew truth to suffer in a free and open fight? .
In Wisconsin last night, Obama did not just win by 17 points, he got twice as many votes as McCain, Huckabee, Ron Paul and Romney combined. In fact, he got a higher percentage of Democratic voters (58%) than McCain did Republican voters (55%) even though McCain has no credible opposition at this point.
It's not just that Obama won; he gained double digit ground with white men, white females, independents, union workers, folks with incomes over $50,000, folks with incomes under $50,000, while Hillary lost ground in double digits with every single group.
In Hawai'i, things simply got unhinged, with 20,000 people showing up to vote in a caucus that normally has about 5,000 people voting. The results: Obama got 76 percent of the vote.
The push now is to end it in Ohio and Texas. Obama is tied in Texas, and rising in Ohio, but money is needed to push on to victory.
One thing is certain: the Clinton folks will say anything and do anythingto win at this point. They have trashed things so badly up to now that there is not much of a political legacy to salvage, so they figure they might as well go down flinging mud and rocks as it's all they've got left.
No worries; we can expect the same thing from John McCain no doubt. This is kind of politics America is rejecting, and Hillary and McCain simply remind us of why we reject it.
Heads up however: The press wants to sell newspapers and TV commercials, and they will invent a story if they have to. Look for contrived crisis and carefully edited video devoid of context. They will do this to Obama, and they will do this to McCain too. Do yourself the favor of researching the context of everything. and discount any "scandal" that breaks 36 hours or less before a vote in Ohio and Texas. I say this because I have danced (closely) with some of the folks on the Clinton team before, and I know how they operate.
This is how it is with political animals; they are most dangerous when they have nothing left to lose, and just before they die.
Who knows, but I suspect Hillary is not leaving Wisconsin early because she thinks the news is going to be good.
So what does Hillary do? Does she change her message? No, she attacks, because unable to lift herself up, she is content to pull her opponent down.
And she attacks with a lie.
A lie is standard operating procedure for a Clinton. We are supposed to believe her campaign manager suddenly left because of pressing family matters, and that Obama's health care plan is defective, never mind that Ted Kennedy and Robert Reich say it is not. And never mind her 8-year track record of failure in delivering health care reform.
Hillary continues to act as if we are stupid, assuming we will not realize there have been 18 debates to date, and the 2 others are scheduled over the next two weeks. She whines that it's not fair that there are not debates every day. After all, long-winded bitch-fests are her stock in trade, while inspiring speeches are not. How can she compete if she is supposed to act Presidential and communicate directly with the people she seeks to govern?
Hillary continues to cheat, pushing to break the rules in Florida and Michigan, and actively opposing the idea of holding a new caucus in those states, fearful that in a real electionafter a real campaign, she would slide straight into the tank.And no, Hillary is not for democracy. Hillary is for letting the election be decided by unelected "Super Delegates" whom she thinks she can bribe, brow-beat and bamboozle into going her way. Democracy for Democrats? Surely you are joking! We don't need any stinking voters!
And to cap it all off, she is a poor sport. Obama has won two-thirds of the primaries and caucuses, but she never offers a congratulations. She is too bitter, and is too wrapped up in her own victimhood to give a nod to the better player.
And of course she never mentions the Big Thing -- the fact that poll after poll shows she would lose to John McCain. Hillary would organize and empower the Republican party, while Obama's nomination would result in some Republicans crossing the aisle in order to vote Democrat for the first time in their lives. The same polls that show Hillary would lose to John McCain show Obama would win.
Mrs. Obama, talks about her husband, the kids, and what the kids want most of all: a dog.
Can we recommend a terrier? No other dog say "Yes, we can" quite like a terrier, and no other dog is more likely to get it done when the odds are stacked against it.
And, of course, we would recommend ignoring all the nodding know-nothings and their paper pedigree fixations. The true test of a dog -- and especially a terrier -- is what is in its mind and in its heart.
Obama's winning margins were substantial, ranging from roughly two-thirds of the vote in Washington and Nebraska to nearly 90 percent in the Virgin Islands.
On Tuesday, in Maryland, D.C. and Virginia, he is going to win again.
Barack is now winning the vast majority of the states, is up on total votes cast on his behalf, is winning on committed delegates, and is winning the race for money as well.
Barack is winning the white vote, the black vote, the men's vote, and the women's vote.
Join the campaign to send a message to both parties that we want a different kind of campaign and a different kind of candidate.
The primaries are about half over, with eight states, territories and districts planned for the next four days -- Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana, Maine, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
This blog is also half way there in terms of our goal of raising $1,000 for the Obama campaign.
Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's speech writer, notes that Barack Obama is the real thing, and she asks when (and whether) Hillary will have the good sense to save face and her party by stepping down with her own grace and dignity intact. "Can she recognize the line between burly combat and destructive, never-say-die warfare?" Good question!
"We know [Hillary] is smart. Is she wise? If it comes to it, down the road, can she give a nice speech, thank her supporters, wish Barack Obama well, and vow to campaign for him?
"It either gets very ugly now, or we will see unanticipated--and I suspect professionally saving--grace.
"I ruminate in this way because something is happening. Mrs. Clinton is losing this thing. It's not one big primary, it's a rolling loss, a daily one, an inch-by-inch deflation. The trends and indices are not in her favor. She is having trouble raising big money, she's funding her campaign with her own wealth, her moral standing within her own party and among her own followers has been dragged down, and the legacy of Clintonism tarnished by what Bill Clinton did in South Carolina. Unfavorable primaries lie ahead. She doesn't have the excitement, the great whoosh of feeling that accompanies a winning campaign. The guy from Chicago who was unknown a year ago continues to gain purchase, to move forward.
"For a soft little innocent, he's played a tough and knowing inside/outside game."
Conservative, Rick Moran doesn’t like Barack Obama’s politics and “devoutly” hopes that he is not elected President of the United States.
And yet, he can’t help but feel inspired by a story that “reminds us that America is still the land of opportunity for those willing to embrace the dream and live it to your fullest potential.” Looking at the Georgia election returns, he notes:
"An extraordinary statistic jumped out of the jumble of numbers and percentages that pulled me up short and caused me to reflect on the past as well as the future. In the exit polls from the Democratic party primary in Georgia, nestled in with indicators of age, income, and religion was the vote cast by white males. When you think about it, this is startling:
Vote by Sex and Race Clinton Edwards Obama White Men (16%) Clinton – 48% Edwards – 6% Obama – 45%
Within Obama’s lifetime, a black man in Georgia has gone from being prevented from exercising his right to vote to capturing a near majority of the sons and grandsons of his former oppressors in a run for the highest office in the land."
Yep, it is pretty amazing and very positive.
That said, before America starts congratulating itself too much, let me point out that this was a vote of Democrats. For the last 60 years, most of the folks holding Klan membership cards in Georgia have been voting Republican. I'm just saying what we all know to be true. .
Hillary used up a year's worth of fundraising in January, under the theory that she would soundly beat Barack Obama and John Edwards on Super Tuesday, and seal up her "inevitability." Replacement money, she figured, would then flow like water.
Nice plan,except that it didn't happen that way.
Barack not only won more states than Hillary, but when the dust finally settles, he may have won more delegates too. One thing is for sure: In the week ahead, the Obama campaign is going to beat Hillary like a pair of bongos, winning (I expect) in WA, NE, LA, MD, VA, and ME.
Which is a problem for Hillary, because apparently she has has no money left.
The first indication of serious trouble came this morning when Hillary challenged Obama to weekly debates (normally the tactic of someone who is behind and running out of funds).
Now comes word she is borrowing $5 million from herself to self-finance her campaign (see article below). That money is reportedly already gone and nearly $2 million is owed to pollster Mark Penn.
Ouch.
Now the report is out that members of Senator Hillary Clinton's senior campaign staff have agreed to work without pay for the month of February. To show "solidarity."
Right.
Will the lying never cease? Barack treats us like we have a brain. Hillary treat us like we are all idiots.
I had expected Hillary to to hit the wall around the first week in March. Apparently I miscalculated the burn rate of having so many high-paid staffers on payroll.
A note to printers, travel agents and TV and radio stations: most political candidates stick their vendors with unpaid bills. Try not to be one of them!
In the interim, I am giving more money to Barack Obama to make sure he goes over the top.
Join me!You do not have to be a Democrat to donate; all you have to be is someone who is saying NO to Hillary. She's a fine Senator. Let's keep her there.
Clinton Loaned Campaign $5 Million
February 06, 2008 3:45 PM
ABC News' Kate Snow and Teddy Davis Report: Late last month Senator Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million dollars of her own personal money, ABC News has learned.
At a press conference at her campaign headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, Clinton, D-N.Y., said, "I did I loaned the campaign $5 million dollars of my money. That's where I got the money. I loaned it because I believe very strongly in this campaign. We had a great month fundraising in January, broke all records, but my opponent was able to raise more money, and we intended to be competitive and we were. And I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment."
The loan came in the same month that Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised $32 million.
Clinton's campaign reportedly raised about $13 million dollars last month. The campaign says that amount does not include the $5 million loan.
"The loan illustrates Senator Clinton's commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy," said Communications Director Howard Wolfson.
Obama won Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Kansas, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Georgia and Utah, and he is leading in Missouri, while New Mexico remains too close to call.
As expected, Obama lost New Yorkand Arkansas -- home states for Hillary, and though he also lost Massachusettes, New Jersey and California, he did so well in those states that the delegate loss is not going to be too bad and should be obviated by the wins in the next week -- Washington State, Louisisana, Nebraska, Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.
Looking at delegates, the count so far is that Clinton won 471 delegates Tuesday to Obama's 437 (a difference of just 34), but the count is far from finished and some say Obama may end up winning more delegates than Hillary. We shall see. Since Obama was going in with more delegates than Hillary, and may pick up a few more delegates as results become clearer, and is certain to win six states in the week ahead, he should be a narrow front runner by this time next week.
While Hillary raised $13 million in January, Obama raises $32 million -- a clear sign that momentum and a ground war favor Obama, as does the rising number of women, whites and men who are voting for Obama. The only demographic group Hillary seems to "have" for now is Hispanics, and even here I expect Obama to begin to cut in quickly and deeply within the next few weeks.
Hillary is now calling for weekly debates, which is the kind of thing you do when you are short on money and cannot compete head-to-head in paid media with your opponent. It is not the kind of thing you do when you are winnnig.
Since no one reports the important races, let me do that: Hillary won the American Samoa caucus which had a record-shattering 285 caucus-goers. Clinton got 163 votes and Barack Obama 121 (one person voted for Mike Gravel), which means Hillary will get two caucus votes and Obama one. If you do not think this is important, then you are not Rudy Giuliani, who spent $50 million for his one caucus vote. .
February 9th: Obama will win Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska.
February 10th: The Maine caucus could go either direction, but I think with the energy coming off the February 9th win, it may tip Maine to Obama. Either way, it will be very close.
February 12th: Obama will win Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. John Edwards will endorse Obama at this point.
February 19th: Wisconsin and Hawaii will come down hard on the side of Obama.
March 4: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont head to the polls, but it's too far to guess which way those states will break.
Around the middle of March (just 6 week from now), Hillary will begin having money problems (she may be having them already).
The election today is going to be close. Very, very close.
Which means your votes counts. Get out there, pull a lever, take someone to the polls, email and call three others and ask them to do the same.
People die for democracy. We can at least participate in it.
When the dust settles, no one will be politically dead other than Mike Huckabee who suicided himself by talking about changing the Constitution to fit the Southern Baptist convention.
Moron. A nice moron who would be very fun to go fishing with, but if this is his campaign, best to avoid his presidency.
Romney looks to win in California, which will keep his hand in it.
As for Hillary, her lead has eroded like snow in June, and a knockout blow (what she was hoping for on Super Tuesday) is not going to happen.
Obama is doing too well in California (he may win it) and he is likely to win a lot of Southern and Western states as well, so by the end of the evening, I think the map will probably look pretty good for him.
My prediction: Obama wins California, Idaho, Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, Kansas, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota, Illinois, Alaska, and American Samoa. It's a toss up for New Jersey, Connecticut, New Mexico, and Massachusettes, but I think Obama will get about half either way it falls (as will Hillary). I think Hillary will win New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Arkansas and Arizona.
The good news for Obama is that in the week ahead Washington State, Louisiana, Nebraska, Virginia, D.C. and Maryland will do their bit, and I think Obama will win in all of these states. If so, the momentum will appear to have clearly slipped to Obama, and Hillary will be seen as beginning to fade.
Of course, I could be wrong, in which case, we can always ask Ann Coulter to speak in Hillary's behalf at the Democratic National Convention.
Update: There is no reason for Ann Coulter to be alone on stage to tell us about Jon McCain. Rush Limbaugh has said if the McCain is the nominee he would rather see the Democrats win the White House. "If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit ... rather than a Republican causing the debacle. And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative." Oh, OK, Rush. Thanks for your support.
Other possible keynote speakers for the Democrats if McCain wins: Rick Santorum, Bob Bennett, David Keene, Tom Delay, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, George Voinovich, and Paul Weyrich who have all come out against McCain. Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) told The Washington Post that “the thought of [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine." .
Back in January, I wrote a post entitled Obama Is on the Edge of a Canine Mistake:
