Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces To Overhaul the Endangered Species Act (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The Endangered Species Act, which for 45 years has safeguarded fragile wildlife while blocking ranching, logging and oil drilling on protected habitats, is coming under attack from lawmakers, the White House and industry on a scale not seen in decades, driven partly by fears that the Republicans will lose ground in November's midterm elections. In the past two weeks, more than two dozen pieces of legislation, policy initiatives and amendments designed to weaken the law have been either introduced or voted on in Congress or proposed by the Trump administration.

The actions included a bill to strip protections from the gray wolf in Wyoming and along the western Great Lakes; a plan to keep the sage grouse, a chicken-size bird that inhabits millions of oil-rich acres in the West, from being listed as endangered for the next decade; and a measure to remove from the endangered list the American burying beetle, an orange-flecked insect that has long been the bane of oil companies that would like to drill on the land where it lives. [...] The new push to undo the wildlife protection law comes as Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, and is led by a president who has made deregulation -- the loosening of not only environmental protections but banking rules, car fuel efficiency standards and fair housing enforcement -- a centerpiece of his administration.

Comments

Brace yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Overhaul is double speak for nothing is endangered.

Re:Brace yourself

[Opportunist]

Species will now be not endangered or already extinct. Finding a specimen of a species that's defined as extinct is a temporary statistical error.

Damn bees

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn bees always buzzing and biting. I wish degubernment would do something about dem damn bees.

I blame Obama for loving bees too much.

Bastards

[tsa]

Stupid Reps. Go find your own planet to destroy, but leave mine alone.

Re:Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, that one's Mars, won't have all you pesky environmentalists messing up, literally EVERYTHING! This one is just to get them there. The meek will get what they deserve.

Re:Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Republicans don't have children and grandchildren, otherwise they would want a planet that supports life.

Re:Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as they're concerned, this one literally IS theirs.

The longer they can keep people believing that violent revolution is never the answer, and that everyone should just bend over, wait till November - and if we cross our fingers really hard the GOP will pull out and apologize - the closer they get to their dream of turning their planet into nightmarish hellscape where they as the new American oligarchs rule atop the dying masses of the suffering in their golden trump towers.

Re:Bastards

[Joce640k]

More buildings and golf courses! Pesky animals just get in the way.

Re:Bastards

[Opportunist]

Not to mention that global warming would actually be a GOOD thing on Mars.

Re:Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to leave their children and grandchildren enough money that they don't need a planet to support their life.

That thing with the money you cannot eat has not really sunk in with them. It's enough for them that they will be the last ones able to afford anything to eat, assuming that they haven't been beaten to death by the part of the mob they haven't gunned down breaching their defenses.

Re:Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Well once the earth no longer supports life, they can sell you and your children earth life-support systems. Win-win-win.

Re:Bastards

[jwhyche]

To the person that gave me some grief over a joke in another thread. Still think we shouldn't party like its 1789?

Re: Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is going to have a violent revolution? The apartment dwelling tree huggers and anti second amendment blue state refugees? An army composed of tide pod eaters, and those who get confused when faced with the decision of which public restroom to use?

Re: Bastards

[datavirtue]

Three. Point. Dunk.

Re:Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans aren't people. It's time to stop treating them as such.

Is there anyone who trusts this admin with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's one person we KNOW is a liar who cannot be trusted to represent his obligations honestly, it's "Russia is a hoax" tweeting Donald J. Prison.

Ryan Zinke should also be hung for treason alongside Herr Fatass.

Overhaul is not the word you're looking for

[rsilvergun]

The word your looking for is "gut".

Re:Overhaul is not the word you're looking for

[Anonymous Coward]

republicans gotta sneak all this shit in now, while they can. the hell with the environment, the hell with healthcare, the hell with everything. the only thing that matters is the cash under the table and what their "donors" want.

Re:Overhaul is not the word you're looking for

[Green Mountain Bot]

Did we say "Overhaul"? We meant "Keelhaul".

Re:Overhaul is not the word you're looking for

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd laugh if I weren't screaming inside...

May God bless Trump and the Republitards

[Anonymous Coward]

American democracy my ass.
It's more like a one party state than any viable democracy you can think of.

Re:May God bless Trump and the Republitards

[Anonymous Coward]

Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Get your facts straight before whining

Re:May God bless Trump and the Republitards

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you could learn your own facts before making a fool of yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative republic, representative government or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[2] Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, France is a unitary state, and the United States is a federal republic.[3]"

Re: May God bless Trump and the Republitards

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the old âoenun uh look they are related conceptsâ argument. Athens had a democracy. We have a republic. Get over it.

Re:May God bless Trump and the Republitards

[cayenne8]

American democracy my ass.

It's more like a one party state than any viable democracy you can think of.

Were you complaining about this topic just as heatedly when on Obama's first term, the Dems had the presidency and majority in both house and were ramrodding Obamacare (we have to pass it before we know what's in it) through the system with no ability to check by the other party?

I"m just wanting to know if you're being fair....

Re:May God bless Trump and the Republitards

[Anonymous Coward]

One helped people, this one hurts the environment that we all live in so conservative politicians can get some more donations.

They are getting their way at last

[AlanObject]

I read this and I just can't forget the Leonard Cohen song:

Take the only tree that's left. Shove it up the hole in your culture.

I don't know what else to say, except to point out that when they say "this will create jobs" what it really means is that some large corporate interests will make billions ravaging without any restraint the already-stressed ecosystem and some minor percentage of it will be paid out to workers with the least amount of benefits they can manage and no job security.

So a beetle is gone. Who cares it was totally totally worth it.

Re:They are getting their way at last

[Anonymous Coward]

So a human is gone. Who cares it was totally totally worth it.

FTFY.

Re:They are getting their way at last

[Anonymous Coward]

It means that the large corporate interests will continue to fund the Republican campaigns and offer cushy lobbying jobs to retired politicians.

Re: They are getting their way at last

[mapkinase]

Take that song and shove that up your ass. How's that for argument?

Those pesky animals...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tut, tut, tut!

Re:Jobs in the US again

[Anonymous Coward]

Craftsmen's children die of bad water, we don't have to cover the worthless takers health care!
Win-win.

gray wolves?

[iggymanz]

conservation status is "least concern" and they're in europe and asia besides the USA.

great grouse, threatened or near threaten, okay lets watch out for that one.

but the burying beetle? world can live without it, we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter (and we're not going to lose it anyway, even with drilling, the land area its on is huge)

Re:gray wolves?

[mentil]

Burying beetles feast on chaos butterflies. Do you really want to cause tsunamis in the pacific?! Think of the poor Asian children!

Re:gray wolves?

[Frank Burly]

I don't remember the particulars of the law, but I can see a case for making the local, rather than global population determinative. For example, if Grey Wolves are occupying keystone spot and killing all of them will give you a rampant deer population, and that will eat all of the rare lilies that some butterfly needs to reproduce . . . and so on. But instead we get lobbyists writing: "Dear Mr. President, there are too many species nowadays. Please allow us to eliminate some via stack ranking to eliminate the least economically valuable."

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter

I'll go further, there are plenty of bug species we should be actively trying to genocide. Mosquitos are the most obvious. Probably most wasps, too.

If that all goes well, we can start looking into higher forms of animals the world would be better off without.

Re:gray wolves?

[habig]

I'm not familiar with the rest of the list, but in MN and WI, the wolves certainly aren't endangered anymore. The state DNRs and the Federal Fish & Wildlife services have taken them off the list for valid "they're so many of them, we have to manage the population" reasons a couple times now: under Obama's watch, not Trump's. Anti-hunting activists sued to put them back on, over the objections of the experts.

It's certainly possible that the conservation officers snuck a reasonable, as-requested-by-the-scientists thing into a list of dodgy requests. But that's not the way it's being reported, so it makes me wonder about the rest of the things being complained about.

Anybody here know the particulars of the other species in the story, or is everyone just going to get wound up to the left or to the right in a partisan tizzy? The article was remarkably free of facts about the animals, just quotes from politicians on both sides

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cave this treasonous retarded faggot Iggy's head in with anything nearby, do the world a huge solid. He loves extinctions, give him what he deserves. There's nothing at all rare or valuable about him, unlike having wolves around.

Do it for nature. The planet can win this one, you won't even miss the daft cunt.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

>but the burying beetle? world can live without it

eco systems are complex. removing 1 or 2 species probably won't matter. But we have already killed so many that we can expect plagues/swarms.

Re:gray wolves?

[quantaman]

conservation status is "least concern" and they're in europe and asia besides the USA.

great grouse, threatened or near threaten, okay lets watch out for that one.

but the burying beetle? world can live without it, we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter (and we're not going to lose it anyway, even with drilling, the land area its on is huge)

Maybe, but you're looking at the most corrupt (and lobbyist riddled) department in one of the most corrupt administrations in US history, and a congress that has been at best enabling, and at worst (healthcare, tax cut) encouraging.

Are they really the ones you're counting on to make wise decisions about endangered species?

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there should be a system level metric of biodiversity that would indicate if the ecosystem should be protected, instead of the current species by species protection. Here, on the other side of the world the single species protection causes issues for various important projects while the animal habitats and green areas improving air quality and health of the people and reducing road kill in and near cities keep on shrinking due to continuous construction. The traditionally environmentally active political parties have moved on to social issues, only to occasionally wake up for a single insect in far away from the densely populated areas.

Re:gray wolves?

[TechnoCore]

Yeah! lets make that piece of land into an unlivable wasteland as well. Lobbying oil companies must really know the best! We really need to pump all that oil, because we haven't got enough C02 yet. /s

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

"but the burying beetle? world can live without it, we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter"

I take it you're an expert?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180201085800.htm
https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters
and etc.

People like you make me ill.

Re: gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they should definitely be hunted until nearly extinct, as that should be the natural state of species.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many? Give us a number. You say;

But we have already killed so many

So how many is that? How many species have we killed?

Re:gray wolves?

[jandersen]

but the burying beetle? world can live without it, we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter (and we're not going to lose it anyway, even with drilling, the land area its on is huge)

Is this something you know - as in being able to present clear, convincing data on? I suspect this is yet another case of "don't know, don't care" - or perhaps "don't wanna know, don't wanna care". I too don't know if this is an imporant species for the ecosystem, but my attitude is different; I care, and I want to know before I make a decision that I will potentially regret later. And I don't think lining the pockets of the already extremely wealthy is more important that protecting vulnerable species and habitats. If there weren't so much welath in the pockets of a very few, perhaps the rest of us would be a little better of, and much happier.

America and even capitalism, although I hate to admit it, have brought many good things to the world (although not as many as some of you guys like to think); but it has also brought with it a surge in narrowminded and shortsighted egotism that taints everything. As long as "I" am successful, nothing else matters - society, the environment, the next generation, they can all go and screw themselves, as long as I have what I want. I don't think most Americans are like that, actually - the ones I know, colleagues and friends, are kind, generous people, who care a lot about things, even if we disagree about nearly everything else; they aren't rats and weasels. But somehow it has become unacceptable to disagree with the "me and only me first" ideology - if you do and talk about it, you are branded that lowest of low creatures, an "SJW", as if that wasn't something to be proud of.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

The sage grouse's status is questionable as well. With Utah and Nevada alone being 70% worthless mostly sage covered land owned by the government, it's forage and terrain is not exactly limited. Nor are they that uncommon when out hiking in said sage covered hills. Me thinks they did a count one year at the bottom of the population cycle in one area and decided the low count meant the species was at risk. Both states have an active bounty program for their biggest predator the coyote trying to bring that population down as well (more to help the deer but it'll help the birds too.)

A few widely scattered oil rigs isn't going to wipe out the species. The area I see them most often isn't even being sought after for oil.

Anonymous to retain moderations.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you visited the deserts of the west. Much of the land is empty and owned by the federal government because it is basically unlivable wasteland. The land was free for the taking for decades under the Homestead Act but it can't produce crops and takes a lot of land for cattle to graze on compared with more verdant areas.

And a multi-well oil platform every few miles doesn't bother the wildlife. We don't sink another well every 10 feet, one platform now hosts multiple wells covering a large area.

Re:gray wolves?

[The Cynical Critic]

we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter

History is full of examples where causing a single species to become extinct has caused very significant and completely unintended consequences for whole ecosystems.

Saying that driving a few species into extinction won't cause any problems is like saying that deleting a few lines of code from an application won't cause any problems. Sure, there's a decent size chance you may be fine, but would you actually take the risk?

Re:gray wolves?

[Opportunist]

The problem with "what's $species good for" is that we probably don't even know. The Chinese killed off sparrows during the Four Pest Campaigns in what's dubbed the Great Leap Forwards (also known as the Great Leap into a fucking Mess) because they allegedly ate grain and fruits. They did, but what they ate even more were locusts.

I leave it to the reader to ponder just what the very unintended consequence was.

You are allowed to learn from the blunders of others. In this case, that eliminating a species without knowing what this entails is stupid.

Re:gray wolves?

[houghi]

Was there not an explanation somewhere that introducing wolves had indirect impact on the flow of the river, resulting in less overflowing downstream and thus economic gain?

Re:gray wolves?

[f3rret]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... And that list might not be complete.

Re:gray wolves?

[AndrewBuck]

This video is probably the one you were thinking of. Very interesting video.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:gray wolves?

[Waccoon]

I'm pretty sure environmental damage isn't terribly selective. You're simply rationalizing that if you kill off 80% of the wildlife in an area in the sake of progress, it's no big deal, because only that one, bitty, insignificant endangered species will be killed off first.

Re:gray wolves?

[Gilgaron]

Index species like apex predators are a good measure for protecting an ecosystem, because you can see them easier than, say, mice, and they have large and complex habitat requirements, so if they're doing well you're maintaining a healthy environment. If you are only looking at crickets... you can't tell so well if you're doing a good job or if you're going to be looking at some sort of Dust Bowl disaster. .

Re:gray wolves?

[drinkypoo]

And a multi-well oil platform every few miles doesn't bother the wildlife.

Until the inevitable spill during transport.

Re:gray wolves?

[penandpaper]

it has also brought with it a surge in narrowminded and shortsighted egotism that taints everything. As long as "I" am successful, nothing else matters - society, the environment, the next generation, they can all go and screw themselves, as long as I have what I want.

Created environmental protection. Donates more to charity. Has actually lowered CO2 emissions. I think you, like others, can't see the forest for the trees. There is a cost to everything and negotiating that cost is not shortsighted. Blindly accepting any cost is very narrow-minded.

I don't know why you and others think that the the narrow-minded and shortsighted egotism is unique to the US. We have seen that kind of human behavior everywhere that had nothing to do with the US or capitalism.

The White-Rhino isn't going extinct because of American superstition and shortsightedness. Or is it the fault of the US because the US traded with China creating wealth for the Chinese so they could afford that superstition? However, I do see Americans setting up some very successful environmental protection that flies in the face of "narrow-minded and shortsighted egotism". They even come from "Trump country that hates EPA regulation"! Unless Idaho is a liberal bastion I was unaware of that also voted to have "the right to hunt, fish, and trap".

The only difference is that the US values private property and views it as a right. If "I" am successful then my children will have a better life. My children are more important to me than you. If I am successful enough I can donate $40 million to save the environment when the government is too crippled by Civil War. Not every millionaire will do that just like not every government will either.

I do not fault the hunters of bushmeat to feed their families when that is their only choice. There are serious environmental and conservational problems with bushmeat but until those people can be successful to help their children then conservation is a lofty idea for the rich and fed. Most people would burn the Mona Lisa to feed their family. It's easy to say you wouldn't with a full belly.

Be cautious how you spread your complaint of contemptible human behavior when also bemoaning the most efficient means of resource distribution that created the most successful country that values private property. It seems rather shortsighted and narrow-minded.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is America. If the deer population gets out of control due to no wolves in the area, we'll just introduce more rednecks.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't object to oil companies doing this, but I want them to be required to buy the land first--and the BLM should negotiate a price that reflects what the company stands to make.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

The scheme of your thinking is erratic... HOW have you arrived at this point (about "beetle")? Have you any knowledge of interdependencies in ecosystems? Beside,. it is a template for other erratic thinking...

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

One possible flaw in your argument: There is no such thing as "private" property in the US.

There is "Exclusive license to pay property tax on and prevent occupation by foreign powers" paperwork.

Go look it up in the fundemental territorial laws of your county and state... Why do you think it is so easy for "eminent domain" to work, even for "private" to "private" conversion?

You have an exclusive license to occupy the land until someone/something more attractive to the government comes along at which point your exclusive license will be canceled and you might be compensated in some minor way.

Re:gray wolves?

[penandpaper]

Would it matter for non-native species?

Re:gray wolves?

[HornWumpus]

Give out more deer tags. Rednecks aren't naturally limited to any number for deer/year.

Re:gray wolves?

[iggymanz]

you really think that every square mile of burying beetle soil is going to be drilled?

no, that's silly. the majority of bugs and everything else will be left alone. irrational "protections" that are "symbolism over substance" and "mere horn tooting" should be eliminated

Re:gray wolves?

[aquacrayfish]

"Dear Mr. President, there are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot." -- Abraham J. Simpson

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance executives?

Re:gray wolves?

[Nidi62]

you really think that every square mile of burying beetle soil is going to be drilled?

no, that's silly. the majority of bugs and everything else will be left alone. irrational "protections" that are "symbolism over substance" and "mere horn tooting" should be eliminated

So I guess they just airdrop in the already constructed drilling rigs and have the rig workers come in by helicopter every day. Or, you know, they build roads, have construction areas with footprints larger than the footprints of the oil rigs, build support buildings, install pipelines (which need their own roads, construction areas, and support buildings), etc.

Re:gray wolves?

[iggymanz]

since we have oil pumps toiling away in farm fields here, I'd say you're exaggerating the hit.

  even so, the roads are minor too, they're not going to pave over all the land where they beetles live. you are buying into hysteria for a "feel good" emotion when reality has nothing to do it.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't actually know which species dying out/temperature/level of ocean acid/etc., or combination of all/some that may be a tipping point, do you?

But you're clever, you take something most people find disgusting and use it to make the case for ending the ESA.

You must be in marketing.

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think of the poor Asian children. I think of them all the time.

That's why I'm now in prison.

Re: gray wolves?

[mapkinase]

Is that all they wrote in that bill? Must be the shortest bill in history?

No numbers? Tst, tst, baaad republicans

Re:gray wolves?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not familiar with the rest of the list, but in MN and WI, the wolves certainly aren't endangered anymore. The state DNRs and the Federal Fish & Wildlife services have taken them off the list for valid "they're so many of them, we have to manage the population" reasons a couple times now.

Yeah and before that they said "There are no wolves in MN, those are wild dogs, shoot as many as you like.". The DNR also knows how to play the game.

Re:gray wolves?

[jandersen]

Ah, suddenly I remember why it is I can't really be bothered to take part in the debate here, for the most part. You choose to ignore the fact that I recognise the genuinely good of the American people and instead prefer to take offence where there is none to be found; if this was just something that occurred once in a while, that would be OK, but it seem that most of the time people don't even make the effort to read posts before starting the rant.

You seem to have missed (or just ignored) that I recognise that capitalism has brought us much good. Why is that? Any mature person with a nuanced outlook on life knows that nothing is either good or evil - capitalism has good sides, but it also has its flaws. It gives us incentives to improve our lives and reach higher - but it also encourages selfishness; that's hardly open to debate. "Englihtened self-interest", isn't that the phrase they use? And that is not necessarily all bad, except that so very often the "enlightened" part gets left behind, and we have the sort of capitalism that I was talking against: the CEOs that focus on short-term gains, that will give them a higher bonus, even if it harms the company's long-term prospects. The corporations that consider "barely legal" equivalent to "morally right". And so on. These people have far too much influence, not least because people like you don't stop to think and understand, but just go with whatever your "gut instinct" tells you - without realising how easy it is to manipulate you with the right soundbites.

I don't think I need to be more careful than I am already about my opinions, because I do in fact stop an think and make sure I understand. It is a shame that most people don't.

Re:gray wolves?

[penandpaper]

You said it brought "a surge" in shortsighted and narrowminded egotism. I disagree with that because as mentioned that is not unique to capitalism or America and any "surge" can be attributed to the size and impact of both on the world stage. There is no evidence for any change in human nature under capitalism or America. The only evidence is the success that has been built that enables more participants to enact their desires.

You choose to ignore the fact that I recognise the genuinely good of the American people and instead prefer to take offence

Your post continues on the path of self flagellation built on a faulty premise. I don't take offense to your faulty opinion or the need to flog a system that has done more good than harm. A pity concession before the ritual flogging is hardly praise nor offensive to the non-believer.

I do in fact stop an think and make sure I understand. It is a shame that most people don't.

You are very special and unique that does not fall for the same pitfalls in thinking that everyone else does. Congrats. Get a psychological paper written about you that explains why you are different.

Ah, suddenly I remember why it is I can't really be bothered to take part in the debate here

Judging by your post history it seems like the debate around anything political is the issue. It's a shortcoming for most people.

Farm exports

[AHuxley]

Going into a US forest and finding the products for 100% US made Turtle Jelly.
With the 100% US herbs, fruits, bark, flowers. Exports and winning local jobs.

Frontiersmen style hats as a must have fashion accessory?
US forests can support so many innovative cultural, fashion products and foods.

Re:Farm exports

[PopeRatzo]

Frontiersmen style hats as a must have fashion accessory?

Whenever I travel overseas, the thing I hear most is people from other countries complaining that they're not able to buy products from American craftsmen and artisans. After that, they say they wish they could contract herpes.

Re:This is an outrage but ...

[DogDude]

I'm a biology nerd. This is news that matters to me.

Drill Baby Drill

[mentil]

I have a feeling 'gasoline' can be added to 'bread and circuses'.

Re:This is an outrage but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Go hide your head in the sand somewhere else, we're all full up on cowardly whiner shit around here with all the Trump supporting traitorbots.

Loss of species and habitat is a bigger issue than just "US politics" obviously dumbass. This is a selling out of the food chain, the science upon which our system of life on this planet depends.

Conservatives....

[meglon]

fucking over this country every chance they get.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Most ideas are worthless.

Re:Conservatives....

[Waffle Iron]

Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*.

Not if they're factually incorrect.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Mr Brett Buck, I'm not hoping to insult you sufficiently to change your opinion (as another AC has attempted). However, I'd like to point out that this idea that everyone's opinions, thoughts and ideas are equally valuable is bogus. I could say that more forcefully, but all the rude words have already been said.

There are opinions, thoughts and ideas that contradict known facts. I'm talking about "known facts" as in "physical reality", not just who is winning politics at the moment.

Those opinions, thoughts and ideas that are known to be bollocks can be listened to, but then the right response is to correct them and move on. It's not the right response to legislate those bollocks ideas into law.

So, sure, other people exists. But they have some amazingly stupid ideas in their heads. We should fix that rather than just accept them at face value.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*

People have an equal right to their opinions, but it does not mean their opinions are equally right. The opinions of a flat earther are not as valuable and worthwhile as those of a cosmologist, for example, with regard to how the universe works, for example.

Re:Conservatives....

[JaredOfEuropa]

Still objectively better than flat earther delusions.

Re:Conservatives....

[Freischutz]

Low-information democrats have poorly formed thoughts and opinions.

Yes, but Low-information democrats, by definition of the term 'Low-information democrats', have at least some data to back up what they are saying. While sub-optomal, 'low-information', still compares positively with non-information Republican Trumpkins who operate on 'truthiness', i.e. emotionally generated facts that are not backed up by a shred of empirical data.

Re: Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some things that are objectively true. Someone may have an opinion saying gravity is caused by midichlorians, but it doesn't make it true. We should respect the right for people to have contrary opinions, but some are not worth listening to. There's no right, or sense, in giving equal weight to opinions if objective facts show an opinion to be wrong. Of course, there are many opinions where there isn't such objective evidence, or it is predicated on other facts or principles. It would be nice to see more evidence-based policy making, although often evidence is conflicting or hard or unethical to gather, so it's not likely to emerge any time soon.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I am going to tell you something unsettling, you should sit down

OK?

Other people exist. They might have other ideas than you do, and opinions and thoughts different from yours.

Unfortunately, they don't use them as a handwaving front for laying waste to a planet different from mine. I don't really get why it's the ultra-religious types who consider it a good idea to recklessly destroy God's creation. I don't get the presumed inherent logic in their philosophy. To me it seems more like they use their religion as an excuse for intellectual laziness (refusing to learn the details of how God's creation works) and practical laziness (refusing to invest work for preserving the value of the world they received and are going to pass on to their heirs).

Re:Conservatives....

[cascadingstylesheet]

Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*

People have an equal right to their opinions, but it does not mean their opinions are equally right. The opinions of a flat earther are not as valuable and worthwhile as those of a cosmologist, for example, with regard to how the universe works, for example.

What about the opinions of those who think that there are 57 genders? (That would be the self-described "party of science", BTW.)

Or the opinions of those who think that human fetuses are not human? (Or believe that they are "growths" or "tumors", instead of genetically distinct humans?)

Political questions not solvable by mere appeals to "science". As much as you might wish it, your political tribe (whichever one it is) is not the side of sweet, simple reason.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe that conservatives are interested in debating the merits of the endangered species act and enacting reasonable reforms. I read the NYT article and this seems incredibly sketchy.

The GOP is planning to attach amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that make significant changes to the endangered species act. It's necessary to pass a version of the NDAA to fund defense spending. The endangered species act has very little relevance to the NDAA. This unrelated legislation is being attached to the NDAA as an amendment because of the necessity of passing the spending bill. The NDAA is a lengthy piece of legislation at several hundred pages in length. This is incredibly sketchy. If you want to reform the endangered species act, propose separate legislation and debate it. Instead, if Democrats refuse to pass a version of the NDAA with this unrelated amendment included, they will be accused of not supporting our military.

I'd be open to the idea of compensating landowners when they can't use a portion of their property because a protected species lives there. When your property is taken by eminent domain, you are compensated. Even though the property isn't being taken, the principle is basically the same. I have no problem with this proposed reform, even though I disagree with virtually everything else that's being proposed.

You say that these ideas should be debated and all opinions should be valued. Propose these reforms as a separate piece of legislation and debate them in the Congress. Don't try to sneak them through by attaching them to a must-pass defense spending bill.

Also, not all opinions are equally valuable. Some opinions are supported by facts while others are not. That's particularly true with environmental legislation, where the basic laws of physics and a huge amount of observations show that humans are responsible for nearly all of the global warming in the past few decades. That's relevant because many of these reforms are being proposed at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, which goes to great lengths to deny that humans are causing global warming.

Republicans have a history of protecting the environment. The endangered species act and the EPA were created under Nixon. Reagan and Bush 41 deserve a lot of credit for the Montreal Protocol, which reduced CFCs and has helped to restore the ozone layer. Reagan and Bush 41 were advised that the economic costs of not acting on CFCs were far greater than the costs of phasing out CFCs. The policies of today's GOP seem to be more in line with what lobbyists want than analyzing the real economic impacts of environmental legislation.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the classic "My ignorance is just as valid as your knowlege" defense. Bullshit.

Re: Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

*their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*

What is truly shocking is when apologists believe that conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and magical thinking are on the same level as reason and scientifically reproducible results.

So no. Not every idea is valid. Some people are dumb shits and we don't need to spend time listening to their crazy, harmful, and ignorant ideas.

Unless you like anticancer and flat earthers. Is that the legacy you wish to leave for future generations? A fallen civilization that has devolved and decayed?

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*

People have an equal right to their opinions, but it does not mean their opinions are equally right. The opinions of a flat earther are not as valuable and worthwhile as those of a cosmologist, for example, with regard to how the universe works, for example.

What about the opinions of those who think that there are 57 genders? (That would be the self-described "party of science", BTW.)

I have no Idea how many "genders" there are. If people want to differentiate between gender and birth sex, as a straight guy I have no real perspective on how right or wrong they may be.

Or the opinions of those who think that human fetuses are not human? (Or believe that they are "growths" or "tumors", instead of genetically distinct humans?)

Of course humant foetuses are human. The same way steaks are cows.

Political questions not solvable by mere appeals to "science". As much as you might wish it, your political tribe (whichever one it is) is not the side of sweet, simple reason.

If one side of a political question is based on factually incorrect assumptions, then science can help decide. That may or may not coincide with a particular person's "political tribe", and if you include every issue under the sun then nobody's political party will always be objectively correct even on the issues where science can make a call.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the opinions of those who think that there are 57 genders? (That would be the self-described "party of science", BTW.)

Silly, but ultimately harmless.

Or the opinions of those who think that human fetuses are not human? (Or believe that they are "growths" or "tumors", instead of genetically distinct humans?)

This one is certainly more problematic.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*. To succeed in the world, you need to be able to deal with this reality.

No, the people who refuse to accept reality and evidence need to be the ones to get the fuck over it ... someone's idiotic opinions which are provably false do not get to have those opinions treated as just as valuable as ones which are true.

If someone thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, I have no intention of respecting their opinion, because they're morons and need to be told their opinion isn't worth shit.

This idiotic notion we have to support everyone's opinion no matter how stupid it is is ridiculous.

If you believe things which aren't based on facts, that's your fucking problem, because your stupidity isn't my problem.

Re:Conservatives....

[HornWumpus]

Delusions aren't necessarily harmless. Especially once they get the power of law behind them.

Re:Conservatives....

[penandpaper]

You can just as easily apply that 'truthiness' to any position for any low/non-information person.

Take climate change. "The ozone is being destroyed by toxic waste dumps that must be fixed by a carbon tax." Is fundamentally wrong on all levels even if the idea they support, climate change, may have empirical evidence to support it. FWIU, there is no correlation between understanding the science of climate change and supporting the "democrat solution".

Finding a low information voter that uses 'truthiness' to virtue signal to their tribe is not new thing. Splitting hairs between "low-information" and 'non-information' doesn't underpin this idea and it just emphasizes the tribe you are signaling with your "virtue".

Re:Conservatives....

[penandpaper]

Let's be fair to Flat Earthers. They live in a world that could be legitimately described as a "space pizza". Flying through space on a pizza with a disk of cheese "orbiting (is that what the moon does in Flattarida?)" sounds... delicious.

Now if you will excuse me, it's dinner time and there is a pizza that is about to be sucked into a black hole.

Re:Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fret, you've found the dittohead, repeating what Rush told him when in fact the term "low-information voter" he co-opted was actually talking about conservatives manipulated into voting against their own interest.

Re: Conservatives....

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely disagree, there are quite a few people who absolutely know nothing. These people are happy to have nothing and lack the will to power. They view others who have things with contempt and an attitude that generally boils down to the fact that they lack a bunch of things so you can do without some of your luxuries.

These people always have to have a say whenever it comes to the distribution of something motivated people work towards. They believe it's wrong for one person to accumulate wealth even if it's only because that person works way harder than them. Their favorite thing to do is to assume that wealth came from the parents without realizing that actually the wealthy parents taught their kids the correct ways to obtain wealth. Many rich people don't give their kids a dime.

These people are kind of like a roadblock. After all they are so happy to have nothing what is wrong with you? They supposedly have a natural ownership of everything and shares of the resources but only if someone is profiting.

They absolutely demand that the smart people share anything that they discover with them. They act as if there is no consequence to this, but once the smart people share with them, they gobble it all up, demand more while simultaneously denouncing the smart person as a bad human being.

They're similar to mob rule. To them your intelligence does not actually exist and they are all exactly equal to you, until you compare how many things you've acquired in your life compared to them. There's no way to really exist around these kind of people without giving them their share. Modern conservatives are basically all about telling these freeloaders to fuck right off.

Re: Conservatives....

[mapkinase]

I would always take an opinion of a flat earther over an opinion of a cosmologist when it comes to driving directions.

Re:Conservatives....

[meglon]

You are a fucking idiot.

Re:Conse....

[Anonymous Coward]

rvatives fucking over this country every chance they get.

Aren't they meant to conserve it?

A new show.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean the start of a new children's propaganda show like Captain Planet? I'd love to see what passes as entertainment for these nitwits.

Re:AHuxley is a retarded faggot of no value.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've spent a lot of time on 4chan, and even by their standards that was a frosty diss! lmao man...

Roll-back

[Anonymous Coward]

... banking rules, car fuel efficiency standards and fair housing enforcement ...

The question is; will the Democrats roll-back this laxness now that Republicans have made such behaviour, acceptable governance?

Democracy is kicking-out the biggest arsehole but the US-ian habit of voting for the second-biggest arsehole, isn't working. It means the shadow party just has to wait until the voters are pissed-off or politicians fuck-up their primaries.

of the people, by the people

[PopeRatzo]

Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces

Everything you need to know about the state of the union, right there.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces

Just as it's been done for decades. Yawn. This continuous double-standard is getting boring.

Re:of the people, by the people

[blindseer]

Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces

Everything you need to know about the state of the union, right there.

I agree.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...

Bald and golden eagles may be legally killed or injured in the thousands by high-speed turbines (reaching speeds up to 170 miles per hour), under new regulations released Wednesday by the Obama administration. The rules, which affect individual wind-energy companies that plan to operate the technology for up to 30 years, allows up to 4,200 of the birds to perish.

Those evil capitalists just want to have government subsidies to kill endangered species.

Oh, I've brought up the problems of windmills killing birds before and a common reply is the far greater number of birds killed by domestic cats. If your "domestic cat" is hunting bald eagles then I suspect your "domestic cat" is also on the endangered species list.

Re:of the people, by the people

[PopeRatzo]

Oh, I've brought up the problems of windmills killing birds before and a common reply is the far greater number of birds killed by domestic cats. If your "domestic cat" is hunting bald eagles then I suspect your "domestic cat" is also on the endangered species list.

If you're so bothered by that, then why aren't you more bothered by the gutting of species protection under Trump?

Or are you just playing games?

Re:of the people, by the people

[PopeRatzo]

I agree.

Good, then we can also agree to stop the hundreds of millions of birds that are killed by hunters in Texas every year? Not to mention what the metals in the birdshot are doing to the water and land there.

See? We're finding common ground left and right today!

Re:of the people, by the people

[q_e_t]

How many eagles have actually been killed by wind turbines as compared to pollution, or even in total? It may be an unfortunate, but acceptable, trade off if renewables lead to less overall damage, and assuming we don't want to go back to living in huts. Wind farms are subject to approvals, which take into account potential damage that may be done. If you look at the numbers, and we assume that about 50% of those killed are bald eagles then that's about 0.1% of the bald eagle population being killed by wind turbines per year - not very significant. The population decreased dramatically in the 150 years before 1918, from habitat loss and other factors. Wind turbines are an insignificant risk to bald eagles overall, even if each loss of such a majestic bird is a tragedy.

Re: of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

These "majestic" birds are mostly carrion eaters, stink accordingly, and aren't particularly intelligent or interesting. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of mindless appreciation of symbols.

Re: of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're just like humans then...

Re:of the people, by the people

[93 Escort Wagon]

Good, then we can also agree to stop the hundreds of millions of birds that are killed by hunters in Texas every year?

I am compelled to point out that it was a conservative - Dick Cheney - who tried to solve this very problem by shooting his bird-hunting friend in the face.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't compare to the *billions* killed annually by cats in the States. Let's protect the birdies..kill all cats.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Solandri]

This is a common error in reasoning I see, typically among animal rights advocates. Concentrating on the number of deaths, rather than the effect of the deaths. From the standpoint of survival of the species, the fate of an individual bird does not matter. The only thing that matters is if the number of birds killed is sustainable. That is, is the overall population declining? Or is it remaining steady or increasing? As long as the overall population is not declining, it does not matter if hundreds of millions of individual birds are killed. The take is sustainable, and the species is not at risk.

Mathematically, it's the first derivative of the species' population which is most important from a conservation standpoint. To a second order, the current population compared to historical population levels can be considered, although that gets clouded by things like changes in the environment and amount of available habitat as compared to decades ago. Unless the population is extremely low (like only in the hundreds), the fate of any individual member of the species is fairly irrelevant to the goal of preserving the species.

So the number you should be most concerned with is the rate at which the species' population is declining, not the number of individuals killed. You see, nearly every animal in the wild is killed. Dying of old age is something only commonly experienced by humans and the domesticated animals we protect. The vast majority of wild animals live short lives before they're snuffed out in an often gruesome death caused by another animal. Whether that animal happens to be a human using his hands, or a wild animal using claws and teeth is irrelevant (other than how it improves the sustainability of that animal's population)..

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it I need to know? That the NYT is in full campaign mode for the Democrats?

Re:of the people, by the people

[blindseer]

How many eagles have actually been killed by wind turbines as compared to pollution, or even in total?

An excellent question. How many eagles have been killed by coal? How many by wind? How many by nuclear? I did some research and I'm quite certain of the answers. What did you find?

A quick look on the internet tells me that the population of protected eagles is in the hundreds of thousands. The federal government is willing to issue permits to kill up to 4,200 eagles per year per wind power company. How many wind power companies are there? Ten of them? That's 42,000 eagles they can kill per year without having to pay any fines. There's only about 40,000 golden eagles in the USA.

Wind turbines are an insignificant risk to bald eagles overall, even if each loss of such a majestic bird is a tragedy.

That may be true now but what about in the 30 years for which these permits have been issued? I see estimates now of about 500 golden eagles lost to impacts with windmills, electrocutions on power lines, and other causes by human made structures. If the goal is to have half of our electricity from wind power, and it produces less than 10% now, then this could be a serious problem real quick for the eagles.

This is just one of many problems for wind power. First, it kills birds. Second, it kills people. More people die from windmill accidents than nuclear power accidents, and wind produces 1/4 the power in the USA compared to nuclear. Third, wind power is a proxy for natural gas. There was a German study that found for every 4 megawatts of wind power capacity installed there needs to be 3 megawatts of natural gas turbine capacity to make up for when the wind does not blow. Gas turbines are half as efficient in turning natural gas to electricity compared to combined cycle natural gas plants. The gas is burned half as often with the windmills, but twice as much gas is burned when they are running. There is no CO2 savings from wind power, not yet anyway. Maybe in the future with more batteries or something we'll actually see a reduction.

Should I care if birds are killed by windmills? I don't know. I don't much care. Birds are jerks. If you want me to get behind wind and solar power then stop lying to me. Stop lying to yourself. Nuclear power is safe and we should be using much more of it. Again, if the goal is to reduce the deaths of protected species of eagles then which should we choose? Coal? Wind? Nuclear? Something else? If the goal is to save the lives of people then which should we choose? Turns out the answer is the same for both.

Re:of the people, by the people

[blindseer]

Cats aren't hunting eagles. Eagles hunt cats. Windmills kill eagles. If you want cats killed then you don't want windmills.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Birds being killed by windmills was the excuse Ted Kennedy came up with to protect his family's multimillion dollar view/personal sailing playground in Nantucket Sound. Countless experts proved him wrong but the lie has lived longer than he did.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, is the overall population declining? Or is it remaining steady or increasing? As long as the overall population is not declining, it does not matter if hundreds of millions of individual birds are killed. The take is sustainable, and the species is not at risk.

Look, it's OK and even desirable to kill babies but not birds, as birds are much more valuable than babies. That's why almost all animal-rights activists are pro-abortion.

Birds are pretty and make pretty sounds while occupying an important ecological niche. Babies grow into adult humans who pollute and destroy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that bird's lives (and almost all other species of life on the planet) are vastly more valuable than the lives of humans.

As long as humans insist on using technology to alter their environment to adapt nature and the environment to humans instead of humans adapting to the natural environment like every other species they will be a clear and present danger to all species.

Re: of the people, by the people

[Opportunist]

These "majestic" birds are mostly carrion eaters, stink accordingly, and aren't particularly intelligent or interesting.

So ... perfect as the bird to represent the US?

Re:of the people, by the people

[blindseer]

If you're so bothered by that, then why aren't you more bothered by the gutting of species protection under Trump?

I'm not bothered by dead birds. Birds are jerks.

Or are you just playing games?

The Democrats are playing games. They've screamed and yelled about saving the birds but said nothing when Obama signed an executive order allowing for the killing of protected eagles, or for holding up nuclear power expansion. If Democrats were honest about saving the birds then they'd not allowed for more kill permits on eagles and would have allowed for more nuclear power plants to be built.

The gray wolf population is doing fine, and I don't much care about an insect. Let's at least be consistent here. If the killing of protected species is wrong then Obama deserves "credit" for killing them as much as Trump. If energy is important enough to the national security of America then we can relax some rules on protected species for windmills, oil drilling, and uranium mining.

I've seen a lot of games played in the media. Homelessness has always been a problem, but nothing is said about it when there is a Democrat in the White House. When unemployment insurance collections are up this is the government helping the disadvantaged when Democrats are in charge, but a sign of a government failing the people to find work when Republicans are in a majority. We saw Trump get drilled before the election on if he'd honor the results of the election. When Clinton loses then the election was rigged and Trump is in office illegitimately. Where's the consistency? The election was honest because Obama assured us it would be. If it wasn't honest, as Democrats now claim, then who is at fault? Trump? He wasn't in any political office at the time.

The Democrats are playing games and I'm tired of the Jurassic media covering for them.

Re:of the people, by the people

[stealth_finger]

Doesn't compare to the *billions* killed annually by cats in the States. Let's protect the birdies..kill all cats.

Because eagles and pigeons are the same thing. If your cat is bringing home eagle corpses then you might want to check if you actually have a cat.

Re:of the people, by the people

[serviscope_minor]

I think the best bit was the apology he issued: "sorry you shot me in the face".

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop lying to yourself. Nuclear power is safe and we should be using much more of it.

Stop lying to yourself. Nuclear power is not safe. Cherrypicking statistics doesn't change that.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing games. They're here to defend Trump and Republicans at ALL costs. They will make any argument in service of that, these people have no actual values

Re:of the people, by the people

[gtall]

"Those evil capitalists just want to have government subsidies to kill endangered species." Hardly. A more accurate statement is that the evil capitalists want to generate profits regardless of what it does to endangered species.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Waccoon]

Only in America is it illegal to put lead in our electronics, which when disposed will likely end up going to China for "recycling", but when it comes to guns, we'll happily skip the middleman and dump lead pellets directly into our own backyard.

Re:of the people, by the people

[L. J. Beauregard]

Coal mining brings wholesale habitat destruction through mountaintop renewal, coal ash and chemicals spilled into the rivers, and don't get me started about actually burning the stuff. But a windmill kills a bird and you Hundred Percent Red Blood Americans are suddenly outraged.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the math, the human population isn't at risk of decline, despite abortion, pollution and war, etc.

Re:of the people, by the people

[L. J. Beauregard]

That's removal, not renewal.

Re:of the people, by the people

[bluefoxlucid]

The Democrats are playing games. They've screamed and yelled about saving the birds but said nothing when Obama signed an executive order allowing for the killing of protected eagles, or for holding up nuclear power expansion.

Of course. It's one of the things I intend to fix with the party, although that's going to be a rough ride.

I intend to move our voting system to a Smith method (Schulze or Ranked Pairs) with STV using Meek transfers for multiple-winner elections, selecting two nominees per party by Primary. This allows the American People to elect someone representative of the population as a whole, or proportionally representative in the case of multiple representatives. As well, I intend to bring back fusion voting, which the Republicans pushed to eliminate back in the 1800s as they realized coalitions would grind them into dust.

This raises a problem: the Democrats would likely gain total, unending control. In fact, should California divide or Puerto Rico enter as a State, the Democrats will likely gain total, unending control anyway.

These Smith-restricted methods are tended to elect candidates more fitting the American people as a whole. That does temper what the Democrats might become as a party, increasing the significance of candidates; yet identity draws voters to a party, and draws elected officials to something called "party unity". I worry the sheer label will encourage them to operate as a whole body more than individual representatives, and to compromise their representation.

It is still better than the alternative, and brings one important factor to our government: stability.

As it stands, we elect by plurality vote from a two-plus system--essentially a majority vote between two parties--and the party nominates the candidate. That means the Democratic candidate excludes the input of Conservative voters and will skew toward the median of Liberal Democrats; while the Republican candidate excludes the input of Liberal voters and will skew toward the median of Conservative Republicans.

Under this situation, candidates gain an advantage by becoming more-extreme. They excite their voter base and do not have to deal with the opposite party's voters. They get the nomination, and then only have to coax out a slim margin of swing voters to take the election. Party loyalists fill the bulk.

This system self-perpetuates: the political dialogue draws more voters from the center and to the extremes; and the extreme politicians win. Power shifts back and forth until one party manages to maintain a winning margin, leaving us with an extremist government. Instability first, then something even worse.

Smith-restricted voting methods and proportional representation both ensure stability.

Proportional representation spreads the candidate views across the electorate, and makes sense for delegates and Representatives in Congress: they can argue differing views to compromise.

In the second house--the Senate--and the Executive races, Smith-restricted voting always elects the Condorcet candidate, or a candidate who falls into a set which independently defeats all not in the set (the Condorcet candidate appears when this set is one candidate). While one house must come to an agreement between parties, the other must come to an agreement befitting broad representation of the electorate.

This eliminates the extremes from those single-seat races and brings us a more-stable government, whereby parties must shift the electorate as a whole to shift the nature of the country. The differences in opinions are more tempered, and utter alienation of large portions of the voting base simply do not work for the concentrated power of Senators and Executives.

We still need to clean up the mess that makes these major parties. The Republicans are completely-broken from an idealistic standpoint; the Democrats have the right ideals, yet their execution is corroded by politics. Democrats further also alienate the American people by behaving as elitists, rather than elites: they expect voters to get in line and let them handle all the complicated things without question. Our democracy cannot survive like this; we must do better.

Re:of the people, by the people

[PopeRatzo]

Only in America is it illegal to put lead in our electronics, which when disposed will likely end up going to China for "recycling", but when it comes to guns, we'll happily skip the middleman and dump lead pellets directly into our own backyard.

In America, we allow MAGA hat-wearing goofballs on psychoactive meds to dump lead directly into our schoolchildren, because some 18th century amendment said well-regulated militias should be armed.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

citation please

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool! We found the volunteer to accept all the nuclear waste to be deposited into their back yard because, after all, "Nuclear power is safe".

Might be more inclined to agree IF the argument was for MSR Nuclear, v.s. dumbass light water Nuclear currently used, and a more realistic attitude than "Nuclear power is safe!" was put forward. Thanks to Fukashima, your people dying stat might be in trouble... When Fukashima fallout can be found in California wines of the same vintage, there probably is a long term issue that will hit in a few years...

Also, the 3MW doesn't necessarily come from natural gas turbines; might come from coal, dam, gravity systems, other stored energy systems, etc.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Ichijo]

Obama signed an executive order allowing for the killing of protected eagles, or for holding up nuclear power expansion.

You are a bit of an alarmist.

Homelessness has always been a problem, but nothing is said about it when there is a Democrat in the White House.

Would you support allowing the market to build affordable housing by restoring the rights of developers to build more densely than surrounding properties, or are you just playing games here?

Re:of the people, by the people

[aquacrayfish]

Oh that's not fair - the hats are optional.

Re:of the people, by the people

[aquacrayfish]

Yes, yes, turbines kill birds. Tell you what, I'm all for protecting birds. Let's start by eliminating the major causes of bird deaths and, you know, eventually we'll hit turbines. Just a warning though - getting rid of cars and power lines might have a negative impact on society.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in America is it illegal to put lead in our electronics, which when disposed will likely end up going to China for "recycling", but when it comes to guns, we'll happily skip the middleman and dump lead pellets directly into our own backyard.

Lead pellets are illegal for shooting birds. You are required to use steel or copper pellets for that.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in America is it illegal to put lead in our electronics, which when disposed will likely end up going to China for "recycling", but when it comes to guns, we'll happily skip the middleman and dump lead pellets directly into our own backyard.

In America, we allow MAGA hat-wearing goofballs on psychoactive meds to dump lead directly into our schoolchildren, because some 18th century amendment said well-regulated militias should be armed.

Better 10,000 children dead every year than have my life, even slightly, become less fun.

Re:of the people, by the people

[blindseer]

You are a bit of an alarmist.

I claim that the threats posed to gray wolves and beetles from these changes to the endangered species act is also alarmist. I'm just asking for consistency here. If Trump just signed a death warrant for gray wolves then Obama did the same for the golden eagle. If Obama did nothing wrong then Trump did nothing wrong. If we can't develop land for windmills and oil wells because it threatens protected species then we need energy from something, I propose that something is nuclear power.

Would you support allowing the market to build affordable housing by restoring the rights of developers to build more densely than surrounding properties, or are you just playing games here?

Yes. I also support the rights of developers and property managers to set their own rates. Rent control and subsidized housing does not help the homeless, it only drives up prices. A city can force a developer to offer a percentage of rental units to be under a certain rent but that just forces the rent higher in the units that remain. High taxes to fund subsidized housing isn't helpful either. Prices need to reflect the market, that includes rent and wages.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the math, the human population isn't at risk of decline

Neither is the bird population.

Now, if you want to break it down to individual bird species, then we have to break down the human population as well and guess what? There are plenty of humans at risk, including Coptic Christians in the ME who are currently enduring an attempt at genocide by the Arab-Muslim population but that's not newsworthy or a great concern because they're Christians.

Baby-raping, misogynistic, LGBTQ-killing, 6th-century savages are A-OK to the Left and are not to be criticized for their murderous savagery as long as they're helping to destroy the Judeo-Christian based West in their pursuit of their self-hating agenda of societal suicide for the Judeo-Christian West and the principles established during the Age of Enlightenment as the Left plunges happily into the chaos of Post-Modernism and revel in the prospect of all the human suffering that will surely result.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. It's one of the things I intend to fix with the party, although that's going to be a rough ride.

I intend to move our voting system to a Smith method

Sounds great! Do you have a date in mind for your unilateral authoritative action so I'll know that my democratic vote will finally be represented?

Re:of the people, by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

"Games" heh.

You've decided what you want to believe but anyway...

Hillary never claimed anything was rigged, in fact she conceded the night of the election...and...you know...honored the results of the election without question. trump is the one who in front of thousands of people and video cameras and microphones that record what you say and do said (paraphrasing) "I said it was rigged but I won so now I don't think its rigged". trump is the one who said 3-5 million people voted illegally and will release evidence "soon" but 2 years in, how many people have been charged with voter fraud? I only know of one so far in Texas.

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+homlessness

There were plenty of reports. They all showed that homelessness decreased significantly. There was criticism that it didn't decrease significantly enough!

Question: What if your guy who was born rich, spent his life stiffing people, made a career out of saying anything (i.e. lying) to get attention or further his own goals, sells out anyone he perceives to be disloyal (Jeff Sessions, etc)...just so happens to be a liar who only cares about himself? How long are you going to "stay tuned till next week!" to find out if all these self inflicted bullshit catastrophes are part of some 3289 layer super genius plan or...just self inflicted bullshit?

Re:of the people, by the people

[penandpaper]

Couple questions. Why not try to win in local elections before moving to the federal level? Have you tried to win office in your state legislature or was challenging an incumbent congressmen your first try for public office? The states control the elections so if you wanted election reform the state would be a logical start.

It doesn't bother me to disagree with you on many issues if you want to enact those changes in your state but when you advocate at the federal level then it becomes a different ballgame. I may not like the Republicans but what the Democrats are doing now is even more unsavory. So when I see you posting ideas that, in your words, " the Democrats would likely gain total, unending control". I get anxious about your proposals even if you acknowledge there are problems and one consequence could be one party rule. I would rather you lead by example and risk your political power before you risk mine. I have to admit, my state legislature is doing well enough and the few problems we have are being discussed and worked on. I don't really think election reform is necessary for me and my state. That's the point and I do not what you meddling in my state through the federal government because you think you know what my state needs or wants.

Our government has stability. The problem is when you want to change something you have to convince people across the nation not just in your city. Inaction is a feature not a bug and is the default status of the government.

Republicans are completely-broken from an idealistic standpoint; the Democrats have the right ideals, yet their execution is corroded by politics.

I think you have that completely backwards. Democrats are unsure whether the future of the party is socialism or not. And no not the Nordic Model of socialism but a rejection of private property such as the DSA and A.O. Cortez. They are giving illegals the power of voting in the Bay Area while advocating open borders. Hardly good ideals since they amount to the dissolution of the nation. What do the democrats stand for? What was their platform for 2016? What is their platform now? If all they have is "against Trump" then I don't think they have a good solid platform with a firm ideal.

The Republicans have their ideals but they are bad at politics and they don't have a spine to stand up to democrats like the recent example of Ryan Bounds confirmation to the 9th circuit. Democrats were and are always going to complain about judges as they have demonstrated and what Bounds said in college hardly was damning. Yet, Democrats made a stink and Republicans folded. The GOP has the ideals but fail at politics.

Re:of the people, by the people

[Ichijo]

Good answer.

Re:of the people, by the people

[blindseer]

The choices we have are not limited to wind or coal. I'd like to see more nuclear power. Nuclear power kills far fewer birds than wind or coal.

It's not like mining ends with using windmills. Those windmills use a lot of metal, concrete, and even coal, to make. The coal is used to refine the aluminum and steel. Maybe alternatives could be found but that won't be easy because the carbon in coal is part of the chemical process, not just burned for heat. That carbon would have to come from something.

Also, I wish to be absolutely clear. I don't care about the birds. Birds are jerks. If the concern is saving the birds then the choices for our energy should be what has the least impact on birds. That's nuclear power. If the concern is to lower CO2 then we should choose the energy source with the lowest CO2 released per energy produced. That's nuclear power, wind, and hydro. If the concern is not relying on foreign sources of energy to maintain national security then we need to source as much energy as possible domestically. That means drilling for oil inside our borders, wind, hydro, and nuclear power. If the goal is to improve the quality of life of Americans by reducing pollution of air and water, reducing risks to the public from accidents, and providing inexpensive and reliable energy then that means using energy sources that provide this. That means nuclear power needs to be a part of that solution.

Again, birds are jerks. I don't care about the birds, but I'll pretend to care if it gets me more nuclear power.

Re:of the people, by the people

[q_e_t]

An excellent question. How many eagles have been killed by coal? How many by wind? How many by nuclear? I did some research and I'm quite certain of the answers.

I somewhat doubt there are good figures for the numbers killed as a consequence of coal (e.g. pollution) or nuclear (side effects of mining ore) as it would be very hard to determine exact attribution, but just because attribution is hard, doesn't mean the number is zero.

That may be true now but what about in the 30 years for which these permits have been issued? I see estimates now of about 500 golden eagles lost to impacts with windmills, electrocutions on power lines, and other causes by human made structures.

Lumping together a series of unrelated causes seems odd. Which of them is the most significant?

In terms of wind turbines we see:

"Between 1997 and June 2012, researchers identified 85 combined bald eagle and golden eagle fatalities attributed to wind turbines, or roughly 5.6 deaths per year in the entirety of the contiguous United States. Moreover, of those 85 total eagle deaths in a 15-year period, only six were bald eagles. The remaining 79 deceased birds were golden eagles. Those findings were illustrated in a state-by-state table:"

So whilst permits may be issued for 4200 (which is per year, I thought it was over 30 years, as that would still be massively more than the observed number of deaths), it is highly unlikely that wind turbines will kill that many eagles.

If the goal is to have half of our electricity from wind power, and it produces less than 10% now, then this could be a serious problem real quick for the eagles.

Permitting a number to be killed does not mean that that many will be killed. See above.

This is just one of many problems for wind power. First, it kills birds. Second, it kills people. More people die from windmill accidents than nuclear power accidents, and wind produces 1/4 the power in the USA compared to nuclear.

Are you talking about major circa 1MW windmills, or including small ones on farms? If the latter, then that is a dishonest comparison compared to nuclear power plants, which are large, well-maintained facilities, much as wind farms are.

Third, wind power is a proxy for natural gas. There was a German study that found for every 4 megawatts of wind power capacity installed there needs to be 3 megawatts of natural gas turbine capacity to make up for when the wind does not blow.

And when the wind blows, those peaking plants are not on. If they are half as efficient as combined cycle, but are on less than half as often, then overall the CO2 output is reduced.

There is no CO2 savings from wind power, not yet anyway.

Citation needed.

Re:of the people, by the people

[blindseer]

So whilst permits may be issued for 4200 (which is per year, I thought it was over 30 years, as that would still be massively more than the observed number of deaths), it is highly unlikely that wind turbines will kill that many eagles.

If there is no expectation that the eagle kill rate would exceed more than a few hundred per year then why did the wind energy lobby ask for a quadrupling of the existing levels to reach an allowed 4200 kills per year? Seems to me that they expected to exceed prior limits or they would not have asked for the limits to be raised.

There is no CO2 savings from wind power, not yet anyway.

Citation needed.

https://blog.oup.com/2017/10/s...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The YouTube video goes through more than the problems of greenhouse gasses, CO2 and methane. It also discusses costs in dollars. The CO2 impact really gets going about 18 minutes in.

Wind and solar need storage to work. Right now and for the foreseeable future that storage is fuel. Fuel is storage. We have inherent energy storage now in the form of fuel tanks, coal piles, and uranium pellets.

And when the wind blows, those peaking plants are not on. If they are half as efficient as combined cycle, but are on less than half as often, then overall the CO2 output is reduced.

Then when natural gas leakage is taken into account, because no pipe is perfect, the greenhouse gas effect exceeds that of using coal. This is mentioned in the video. You also assume a best case scenario where wind blows half the time. Germany found out that this cannot be relied upon. They made a big deal about the wind energy they produced one year only to see a significant drop the next when the weather did not produce as much usable wind. Germany has admitted they will be unable to meet agreed upon CO2 reductions even with their past and planned investments in wind and solar.

Re:of the people, by the people

[bluefoxlucid]

Why not try to win in local elections before moving to the federal level? Have you tried to win office in your state legislature or was challenging an incumbent congressmen your first try for public office?

I started on economics policies, and the policies I designed are not possible at a State level. I went straight for Congress because I couldn't do anything else. It's long and complicated to explain; to be short: restructuring Federal social insurances and welfare programs on top of a Universal Dividend--a type of fully-egalitarian social insurance evolved from Universal Basic Income--lands you with a modest tax cut and a self-correcting economy (no recessions, collapsed local economies build to middle-class in short order, reliable full employment, and generally an end to homelessness and hunger), along with making Social Security permanently-solvent.

Trying to do this at the State level lands you with a 10% income tax increase at all levels and on businesses, with a smaller impact. It's like trying to do emissions control and fuel efficiency on a car by bolting something to the tailpipe: sure you have a catalytic converter in the back; but there's an EGR valve feeding back to the intake manifold, variable valve timing, fuel injection, drive-by-wire, cylinder redesign, and an entire engine management system up front. Do you know how much energy you'd have to expend to scrub and react away all the toxic emissions of a dirty engine at the tailpipe? You'd fail anyway.

I have since broadened my policy goals to include a great many issues about which I learned on the campaign trail. Healthcare is still a Federal issue (many states can't pay for their own; it has to be Federal). Criminal justice reform and election law are both, and State-level reforms build pressure to force a Federal-level change.

The states control the elections so if you wanted election reform the state would be a logical start.

Not entirely true. The Federal government currently prohibits multi-member Congressional district and proportional representation; and the Constitution controls the election of the President. To change these, we require a Constitutional amendment.

As I stated above: we can approach this from a State level. States have a House of Delegates and a Senate, as well as a Governor (President). By implementing a model of representation, we can demonstrate that model's merits. As this becomes commonplace, people will then demand a Constitutional Amendment requiring the same model for US Congress and the President.

I may not like the Republicans but what the Democrats are doing now is even more unsavory. So when I see you posting ideas that, in your words, " the Democrats would likely gain total, unending control". I get anxious about your proposals even if you acknowledge there are problems and one consequence could be one party rule.

No arguments there. That seems an inevitability, however, given the push for California to divide, for Puerto Rico to become a State, and for DC to gain representation. These are Democratic strongholds.

This only highlights the importance of election methods which reflect the will of the people: we must make candidates more-important than parties, and pressure the party ideals. Fusion voting and ranked ballots, for example, allows weak third parties significant influence over elections; while proportional representation gives us Delegates with diverse ideals and views representing the variations across the electorate. This gives us the distinction between Bernies and Hillaries, and between McCains and Ryans, while essentially averaging everything out for Senators and Executives.

Parties can guide voters, but they also provide a toxic fraternity between elected officials rather than between voters and their representatives. While this fraternity does tend to hold the

Re:of the people, by the people

[penandpaper]

I want to make a note that I am not trying to demean you or your policy when I ask about whether they should be pursued at the state vs federal level. Not many people put their money where their mouth is and run for office, including me.

As far as Federal vs State, I could agree that (particularly on the restructuring of welfare that may increase taxes) that those necessitate a federal initiative to accommodate the potential tax increase. There are two arguments that could be made. 1) any welfare program (restructuring included) must be at the federal level. 2) the federal government taxes too much and has taken too many roles that were normally fulfilled by the state that leaves the states powerless to enact the changes they want for their citizens. Personally, I find #2 more palatable.

As far as elections go, I like how the President is elected. I do not want that changed. You have to convince me that smaller states should give up their say in the only election for the executive branch. That is a tough sell. Although, I applaud your thoughts for changing your state election and leading by example. I like to see a political plan working before the rhetoric. Too often we see rhetoric before action. if you change your state election and demonstrate feasibility. I think you are correct to assume that many others will be more favorable to go along with your change. Prohibition didn't start at the federal level. It was a political fight across the nation across every local election before amendment.

The only way California will be split is if it creates a solid red state and a blue state. However, I find this trend of thought troubling from democrats and more and more I see it when they are out of power. SCOTUS going the wrong way? Pack the court. Senate the wrong majority? Split California, add new Democrat states to swing it. House of Reps wrong? Change the elections. President wrong party? Change the system.

Talk about undermining confidence in the system. This type of attitude is rather destructive and necessitates me and other GOP to be defensive and stonewall any democrat because of possibility they get in power, like 2008 and force their agenda. I trust democrats less because of garbage rhetoric like that. The democrats are not the "good" people and the GOP is not the "evil" people. Any attempt to conflate it as such is a lie and propaganda.

This only highlights the importance of election methods which reflect the will of the people

You miss the important part that democracy isn't the end all be all of civics. There are reasons to not fall sway to the "will of the people" and why we have a Senate and an Electoral College and a House of Rep. A republic is many orders of magnitude better than a democracy. There are good reasons to hear the will of the people and good times to temper that will. Sometimes "No" is the correct answer to people. The Senate was supposed to be a bulwark of that will yet it has been corrupted by that will because of 17th amendment. The 17th failed on every promise that was made and it has only made the Senate worse by all measures and needs to be repealed. Want support for election reform? Repeal the 17th.

That's why Bush tore down a lot of Clinton's work; Obama reversed much of what Bush did; Trump is tearing apart Obama's policies; and the next Democratic President and Congress will spend much of its time turning over the Administration and putting the tax laws back where they were in 2016, right?

Because congress isn't doing its job. Because it is politically easier to use a pen and phone than convince people that you are right. That is more of an example of executive overreach than instability. The laws passed during those times are still the law, mostly. As it takes law to undue law. Yes, ignoring the law (separation of power) for expedient outcomes results in instability.

scapegoating all current problems on poor people, government, and a break from trad

Re:of the people, by the people

[bluefoxlucid]

As far as Federal vs State, I could agree that (particularly on the restructuring of welfare that may increase taxes) that those necessitate a federal initiative to accommodate the potential tax increase.

It's actually possible to build the American Citizen's Dividend without a tax increase. The restructuring changes how taxes are taken and allocated in interesting ways.

The tax rates increase, and this acts as a transfer between a stable program and the general fund. Basically, the Dividend pays twice each month, so offsets any Federal taxes taken. If tax rates increase and the Dividend is a flat benefit paid to all adults, then we add the two to find the benefit. Paid $250 more in taxes and the benefit is $500? Your taxes went down by $250, basically.

That's essentially moving $250 of the benefit into the general fund--a scheme so designed so as to build the Dividend as a stable program not requiring human intervention at any point in the future (future generations must protect it from unnecessary meddling). Social Security's OASDI programs, on the other hand, are structured in a way requiring constant tax program adjustment, and so face a constant assault by those with differing political ideals attempting to under-adjust, over-adjust, or otherwise distort the program.

Here's the rub: if you structure the Dividend to break apart the Federal income taxes on corporate and personal incomes into general taxes and a 12.5% Dividend FICA and then discount any of that FICA paid back to the same person from the program cost, you end up with a tax cut.

My model restructures $1.1 trillion of programs into a new $1.5 trillion program. While housing assistance, food stamps, and the like remain as-is and face the simple impact of people being less-poor to begin with (lower cost for greater effectiveness), Social Security's OASDI programs are built directly on top of the Dividend and require a further $0.5 trillion. Thus $1.1 trillion of programs becomes $2 trillion.

Much of the population pays quite a lot into a 12.5% income tax. In 2016, the benefit was $6,000, and so you could discount $6,000 per-adult from population above a certain income level, and a portion of that on the way down. You end up putting over $1.2 trillion directly back into the hands of the taxpayers who paid those taxes--meaning you've converted $1.1 trillion of programs into $0.8 trillion.

No single-adult household with an income under $23,000 nor two-adult earner under $55,000 is paying any Federal tax of any sort at that level. The overall tax rate is negative. The tax rates among higher incomes are, when including the Dividend as a sort of tax refund, lower than current, right up to the top earners. Households with no income are getting a sub-minimum-wage income--one that, unlike their food and housing assistance (which they still receive, albeit factoring in this new income in the means test), doesn't go away when they get a job, reducing the sting of the employment-discouraging welfare trap.

In areas where industry has collapsed, this forces the economy into stability. Heavy poverty draws a heavy stimulus, and much of that keeps coming as employment grows and welfare leaves. As it stands, when people become employed, welfare cuts off and removes the support for those menial jobs created first, dumping the economy back into poverty as unemployment once again rises. It gets stuck.

You can't do this at the State level. Rather than a tax cut, it's a massive tax on the wealthy, the middle-class, and businesses to provide a small concession on the order of a few hundred dollars each year to the poor. At the Federal level, there's no tax increase when you're giving each adult six thousand.

There are two arguments that could be made. 1) any welfare program (restructuring included) must be at the federal level.

Welfare programs are mainly operated at the State level, although soc

Re:of the people, by the people

[penandpaper]

The more I read your politics the more I don't like it. It seems you are more concerned about pushing any opposition out of the way to force your ideas on others than working toward a consensus and federalism.

The Electoral College does not protect small states. It ensures that a slim majority controlled by a small set of swing votes can choose the President and trample over the large minority.

That is quite that double-speak on an institution that protects the minority in the country. "slim majority" can trample over a "large minority". The majority lost. The minority won. That is protecting the minority.

Re:of the people, by the people

[bluefoxlucid]

That is quite that double-speak on an institution that protects the minority in the country. "slim majority" can trample over a "large minority". The majority lost. The minority won. That is protecting the minority.

And when it turns the other way?

What if the complete and total opposition by the 49% of voters who vote against a particular President--a President who will exercise the law in ways permissible by Presidential power, yet with no care for the damage caused to that 49%--actually mattered? What if that opposition said, "You can't have Bernie or Trump; you can have Delaney or LeSasse, who at least put some consideration into the rest of the Nation's needs"?

What if that opposition could, in fact, influence the outcome even though they lost?

You know what's going to happen. A candidate's going to win, and is going to make an entire industry illegal. They're not even going to buy them out; they're going to force them into bankruptcy and failure while creating a Government agency to do it all.

Despite the majority voting for that candidate, the minority could instead have some say in this, instead electing a candidate who brings services and regulations but not a complete take-over. That minority may want no such thing--they may want less regulation and the Government to stay out of it--but they have been overruled. They don't need to be cast aside and ignored.

An institution which shifts us back and forth between 100 and -100 doesn't protect the minority. It doesn't factor the minority in--at all. It's not a consensus; it's a tug of war.

Re:of the people, by the people

[penandpaper]

What if...

> A candidate's going to win, and is going to make an entire industry illegal
Like Obama and coal? Regardless what you think of coal, he did what you fear in a hypothetical. Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot and now it's a problem? I don't even like coal but it seems that Obama did what you were fearful of. Disregarded fly over states. Ignored their needs. Attacked their industry. Outsourced their jobs. Without congress. Without consent. Without due process. Through legislative fiat. All because they were expendable to the Obama political machine. A new Democratic alliance that excluded white working males because they are no longer needed in the shifting demographics of the US... Go figure people were upset.

What if... we acted through federalism instead of forcing your ideas on others? Nah, fuck that. Easier and more expedient to change the elections and system to favor me and use the courts to force my agenda. That'll show 'em! If you can't beat 'em change the rules.

Re:of the people, by the people

[bluefoxlucid]

Like Obama and coal? Regardless what you think of coal, he did what you fear in a hypothetical.

I spoke with a small business owner who used coal to heat his factory. The equipment to meet the new environmental compliance was too expensive for his budget, and he couldn't move to gas due to coal costing $1,000 and gas costing over $5,000 per month to provide the same heat.

That roll-out should have accounted for this and included things like on-site solar installation aid, subsidies to install commercial-scale heat pumps, and so forth. Many far-more-liberal candidates would look at such a thing and simply decide the factory owner shouldn't come crying to the government for a bail-out.

Easier and more expedient to change the elections and system to favor me and use the courts to force my agenda. That'll show 'em! If you can't beat 'em change the rules.

You seem to have issue with the rules working against your favor half the time, yet don't seem to want the system to stabilize something other than an extreme.

Do you know what happened in 2016? A lot of Democratic voters were ready to vote Bernie. Yes, that's right: Bernie Sanders. They'll get behind Cortez if she runs, I'd wager. Here's the trick, though: those far-left progressives? They have a habit of taking their ball and going home when their candidate loses.

That's right: if it was Bernie-Trump, the Democratic party loyalists would have voted and the Bernie progressives would have voted. Trump would have been crushed. Can you imagine how that would have panned out?

Now, if each party had nominated two candidates by STV, the strong Bernie supporters would have been essentially tossed out in the first round: the Democrats would have nominated Bernie by a slim margin through the progressive vote, and those progressive voters would have lost all voting power for the next round. The remaining Democrats would have nominated Hillary.

The same would have happened with the Republicans, likely nominating Donald Trump (who got 42% of the votes!) plus Kaisch or Rubio (I'd assume Rubio).

Why two? Why not a Condorcet primary?

The primary represents those registered to the party. That mean the middle-Democrat versus the middle-Republican. A double- or triple-nomination elects the farther-extreme and more-centrist candidate, or the distribution three ways. Independent American voters and those in the swing set thus have nominees closer to their own views, and can vote for them in the General Election if they so choose.

There's a large span of "Never Trump" Republicans.

Do you know what that means?

It means a lot of middle-ground Republican votes went to Hillary. Given the span of candidates, those may very well have voted Rubio-Hillary, with others voting Hillary-Rubio, and others voting Bernie-Hillary or Hillary-Bernie. Hillary would have still defeated Bernie in the Condorcet election; Trump would have lost.

The question, then, comes down to this: Can Marco Rubio beat Hillary Clinton under those circumstances?

All of Trump's voters would have likely voted Trump-Rubio. Many of Rubio's voters may have gone Rubio-Trump or Rubio-Hillary, but that still puts them down as a vote against Hillary and for Rubio. Many of Hillary's votes were, in fact, the Rubio-Hillary set who went absolutely against Donald Trump--which means Hillary is losing those votes in the Condorcet model, but more Democrats would have turned out to vote Bernie-Hillary and so would have made her a stronger candidate as well.

I would most estimate that Hillary would have won, simply by gaining the Bernie votes in the Condorcet general to replace those lost to Marco Rubio; although I could be underestimating the number of less-extreme Conservatives who pitched for Hillary just to avoid Trump. Polling suggests Hillary would have gotten 265 votes ag

Re:of the people, by the people

[penandpaper]

You seem to have issue with the rules working against your favor half the time, yet don't seem to want the system to stabilize something other than an extreme

My state politics are not extreme and the extremists get booted out pretty quickly. That may change but for the last few number of years has been ok. I don't mind my congressmen. My 3 federal votes seem working fine for me. Although, I wish I only had 2 federal election votes. I want the Federal government to have less power over what happens in my state so that I don't have to care about the Cortez's or Sanders of the world. Your ideas seem to give more power to the government which forces me to care and fight against it.

I have an issue with others using the Federal government as a club to get their way. I have no problem with the system you proposed. I want you to risk your political power and prove that it works instead of interfering with my state elections. Trump winning is not reason enough to condemn the whole system to the whims of political expediency to "make sure it never happens again".

Don't like the primaries? Neither do I. However, they are a private organization and freedom to assemble is not restricted because the goal of that assembly is to elect someone. I do think there is a case to be made of state resources being used for a private parties primary election. But again, until you demonstrate in your state, risking your power, and convince people in your state it works I have no reason to care. Your problems are not my problems.

The problems I have had lately with the federal government is overreach and a renunciation of power from the Congress. The reason fro that is because too many think political expediency is more important than proper governance.

Re:of the people, by the people

[bluefoxlucid]

My state politics are not extreme and the extremists get booted out pretty quickly. That may change but for the last few number of years has been ok. I don't mind my congressmen. My 3 federal votes seem working fine for me. Although, I wish I only had 2 federal election votes.

Fair enough. The big one is the Federal election. States tend to have a lean that holds them in place, but that's started to shift too.

I want the Federal government to have less power over what happens in my state so that I don't have to care about the Cortez's or Sanders of the world. Your ideas seem to give more power to the government which forces me to care and fight against it.

Not really. Voting in Federal elections is the jurisdiction of the Federal government. So is Federal welfare--and the Dividend is essentially a matter of reducing policy-guided control over welfare, among other economic policy actions. Decreasing the amount of action needed decreases the amount of action the population tolerates, so long as you can make the politicians stop meddling for a few terms and let people get used to them having their hands off the controls.

I want you to risk your political power and prove that it works instead of interfering with my state elections.

Implementing state-first won't affect how the State elects Federal seats; that can only happen at the Federal level. That's right: Federal law prohibits implementing this as the way States select their own representation.

Implementing state-first, on the other hand, will tend to do a number of things. First, it won't tend to shift the power balance in states, which have geographic segmentation such that localized elections turn out...similarly. In Maryland, for example, you may trade some three-Democrat delegate jurisdictions for two Democrats and a Republican; and you may trade the other way as well. It won't affect the Senate elections because...well, because they're also localized and tend to win by simple majority, which IS the Condorcet candidate.

The example tends to bleed over. With high voter satisfaction, it becomes both a political strategy and a movement. Neighboring states get pressure to implement similarly. Doing it state-by-state is a better way to impact your state elections than doing it Federally.

Trump winning is not reason enough to condemn the whole system to the whims of political expediency to "make sure it never happens again".

The issue isn't Trump; it's that a large part of the electorate hates Trump. You know the other side is coming as well as I do; and we should never be able to elect a candidate everybody dislikes. If there is a candidate who, if placed one-to-one against all other candidates, would win the majority in every such race, that candidate should win. A Trump or a Bernie, or perhaps a Cortez, should be impossible to elect unless the electorate largely feels satisfied--not most-satisfied, but not largely opposed.

Even the Schulze method was designed because Ranked Pairs wasn't good enough. Ranked Pairs tends to elect a Smith candidate who has a really bad loss, and Schulze elects someone who is also a Smith candidate but who has less of a bad loss--at the expense of sometimes electing one less-favored overall. In other words: Schulze avoids a candidate that more people hate--a lot--even if that candidate is overall better-supported. Of course, they both elect the Condorcet candidate if there is one.

Don't like the primaries? Neither do I. However, they are a private organization and freedom to assemble is not restricted because the goal of that assembly is to elect someone.

They can still elect someone. The point is you allow them to nominate two candidates each, instead of one--if and only if those candidates are nominated by a proportional process. Give a span of options.

Imagine what wou

Re:of the people, by the people

[q_e_t]

If there is no expectation that the eagle kill rate would exceed more than a few hundred per year then why did the wind energy lobby ask for a quadrupling of the existing levels to reach an allowed 4200 kills per year? Seems to me that they expected to exceed prior limits or they would not have asked for the limits to be raised.

I have no idea. It baffles me too. The study I noted found that the numbers killed were about triple the number reported by the energy companies, but still tiny. And the kill rate, even then, isn't even hundreds a year - nowhere close.

https://blog.oup.com/2017/10/s...

That's a blog post from someone whose professional career is not in the area of energy policy. Do you have a peer-reviewed source?

Then when natural gas leakage is taken into account, because no pipe is perfect, the greenhouse gas effect exceeds that of using coal. .

Pipes aren't perfect, but the real issue is leakage from reservoirs, depending on how they are tapped. With conventional drilling and distribution, I'm not convinced that you assertion is correct. Do you have a decent citation (not a youtube video)? Yes, I have looked at peer-reviewed sources on this.

Re:Jobs in the US again

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

JUst like skilled IT closet cleaners will always prevail!
--
Dwayne Johnson's Rampage As A Kaiju ("Weird Beast") Monster Movie

Companies owned country

[Anonymous Coward]

This tells everything about who is the boss in US. Indeed it's not the president. I hope this generation learn to vote right, because the only way to change the country for better still is via voting, excercising the so talked democracy.

Yeah, messing up what you need to live!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which really sucks, cause you definitely need to die quicker.

The only problem is that it kills us too!

So please go sit on a large blender and be done with it.

Re:Conse....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the only thing they conserve is the power of the few wealthiest people.

Re:Jobs in the US again

[Actually, I do RTFA]

"craftsmen and artisans" who work with rare woods is not even a rounding error, either in jobs, exports or anything else. Esp. not in first-world countries.

Donald Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

nald Donald Donald Donald
ald dOnald dOnald dOnald
ld doNald doNald doNald
d donAld donAld donAld
  donaLd donaLd donaLd
donalD donalD donalD

ump Trump Trump Trump
mp tRump tRump tRump
p trUmp trUmp trUmp
  truMp truMp truMp
trumP trumP trumP

Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[Anonymous Coward]

Now before you blindly vote this down, hear me out. I am not a vegetarian or anything, but I do think it's ethically-wrong to kill animals just for sport. HOWEVER, from a purely ECONOMIC perspective, privatization and the legalization of trophy hunting does MORE to protect endangered species than the current laws.

If you lean left, you may find this persuasive:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YUA8i5S0YMU

If you lean right, then this may be more up your alley:

https://mises.org/wire/privatize-governments-have-failed-preserve-endangered-species

Either way, property rights and market freedom provide the solution.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[Nocturna81]

So, that's why the northern white rhino has been hunted to near extinction? As a recent example....

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[Joce640k]

Actual extinction, I think you'll find.

(technically there's two left but they're both females so extinction is now guaranteed).

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[Stephan Schulz]

HOWEVER, from a purely ECONOMIC perspective, privatization and the legalization of trophy hunting does MORE to protect endangered species than the current laws.

This is an old claim by libertarians, but it fails as soon as it contacts reality. First, it only can work for animals that have a direct local economic benefit. It does nothing to protect something like the American burying beetle mentioned in the article. Secondly, while there may be mechanisms of self-interest that coincide with protecting animals if they are all privately owned, those very same mechanisms also hold for companies - and yet, a large number of private companies fail every year.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[houghi]

They said that before, but nature finds a way.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[houghi]

And even IF hunting is better than the _current_ laws, it does not mean that hunting is good in any way for the species, just less worse than the current laws.

If current laws are bad, that means in general two things: it is badly written and needs adaptation to reflect the current situation or there is no accountability, i.e. no follow up on the law.
One does not exclude the other.

Example: If it would be forbidden to hunt children, but nobody does anything if you do, it will be de facto legal, even if not in writing.
You see this also with other things, like the constituation of the US.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[sycodon]

This is the result of poachers.

Not Dentists paying $50k for a Trophy Hunt.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost got it.

This is the result of people wanting to snort Rhino horn.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll??? Holy crap, are there people on here who have never seen Jurassic Park?

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[nomadic]

Know what provides more protection than hunting and privatization? Hunting and privatization, plus endangered species laws.

And it's kind of crazy how so many libertarians don't understand that some of us really aren't as obsessed with money as they are.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[Anonymous Coward]

Layer of Lies,

i have not been able to buy a woolly mammoth steak yet.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[HornWumpus]

Too valuable to snort.

They make them into cups, which somehow are supposed to infuse the drinks with boners.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[painandgreed]

This is the result of poachers.

Not Dentists paying $50k for a Trophy Hunt.

Indeed. I believe BBC did a study after some outrage issue and found that much of the conservation money comes from those dentists and other great white hunters. Also, that $50k is just for the license for that one animal. That doesn't include all the other costs the host country typically requires like hiring guides, rangers, gun holders, etc. Even then, the creatures they hunt are usually the ones that need to be culled anyway.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[pots]

Yes, the problem with the sport-hunting argument isn't so much that it's ineffective. It certainly can be effective in the right circumstances. It's a useful tool. The problem is the idea that this is the *only* viable approach, a lot of proponents of sport-hunting environmentalism treat it as though it's the only kind of environmentalism.

Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species

[Agripa]

Indeed. I believe BBC did a study after some outrage issue and found that much of the conservation money comes from those dentists and other great white hunters. Also, that $50k is just for the license for that one animal. That doesn't include all the other costs the host country typically requires like hiring guides, rangers, gun holders, etc. Even then, the creatures they hunt are usually the ones that need to be culled anyway.

In Africa it comes down to people or animals and if the animals have no economic value because of hunting restrictions, then there is no reason to conserve them.

Or would tourists be willing to pay $50,000 for authorization to *photograph* an animal?

Re:Conse....

[Narcocide]

They conserve their pride first and foremost.

Just when you though...

[Anonymous Coward]

the trump couldn't do anything more cunty we get this...

Shoot and Shovel

[Anonymous Coward]

As written, the current endangered species laws promote "shoot and shovel" over actually protecting endangered species. Assume a farmer runs a family farm that has been in the family for generations and finds out that some endangered species of minnow is living in the pond that has been used to irrigate this farm for 100+ years. If a wildlife official ever learned of that minnow in that pond that farm is history since they will no longer be allowed to operate in any way that could endanger the lives of a handful of small fish. The farmer has every incentive to kill those fish as soon as possible before anyone else learns of their existence.

Or assume you own a few acres of woodland next to a thriving suburb and are going to subdivide it and build a small housing development. Partway through the process of clearing the land and paving sidewalks and cul-de-sacs you discover owl pellets from an endangered owl species you've never heard of. If the wildlife officials learn of this bird nest you're done with your development project and are out the tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars you've already spent. If that nest were to disappear before anyone official learns of its existence you're free to build and sell the 20 houses you originally planned.

Re:Shoot and Shovel

[Gilgaron]

It does seem like it might be better to set aside some funds to compensate land owners impacted by protecting species, we subsidize farming is so many other ways you could probably wrap it into those bills.

Re:Shoot and Shovel

[drinkypoo]

Or assume you own a few acres of woodland next to a thriving suburb and are going to subdivide it and build a small housing development. Partway through the process of clearing the land

You already shouldn't be allowed to clear the land. We need more mature trees. There's lots of places without trees where you can put people. If they want trees around their homes, they can plant them.

Re:Shoot and Shovel

[SuricouRaven]

But people don't want to live just anywhere. There are clear requirements as to where people want to live:
1. Near other people, because people mean jobs, services, social recreation, good infrastructure and local shops.
2. Not too near, because then property values get too high, and other people are only pleasant to be around when you don't have to be around them constantly.

Modern society invented the perfect solution: The suburb, made possible by the car. A city at the core surrounded by mile upon mile upon mile of sprawled-out living space, which must constantly expand by consuming the nature at the edge.

Re:Shoot and Shovel

[drinkypoo]

"Here the Mexican is saying "you shouldn't be able to do what you want with what you own, but I can do what I want with it because I'm better than you"

Not better, just smarter. Not smarter than everyone, but certainly smarter than you. And I'll go ahead and throw in braver, and better-looking, since you're indistinguishable from the legions of trolls that infest these waters.

Re:Shoot and Shovel

[drinkypoo]

"Modern society invented the perfect solution: The suburb, made possible by the car."

Sure, if you don't care about commute times, or quality of life, or the future of mankind. Otherwise the arcology is superior.

Rapists

[Anonymous Coward]

The right is for rape. They rape the Earth. They rape women. And even rape children.

Good! Partially, at least...

[Kokuyo]

You people seem to assume that this act's list of endangered species actually is built upon sound science.

So a review of this is certainly a good idea.

That being said, we all know what interests drive this so I don't expect a sensible outcome either...

Re:Good! Partially, at least...

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a review. This is targeted specific species and areas that have been under attack by Oil and Ranch lobbyists for a decade (or more in some cases like the gray wolf.) This isn't some 'oh the data has changed, lets keep up' - which happens every day, all year long as field workers count the species and sightings and make esitmates.

This is a sell out of your and your children's potential legacy to a short term profit so a few guys can get rich and say 'hey we brought 200 jobs into an area and only destroyed 10 species in the process!'.

Re:Good! Partially, at least...

[cascadingstylesheet]

You people seem to assume that this act's list of endangered species actually is built upon sound science.

So a review of this is certainly a good idea.

That being said, we all know what interests drive this so I don't expect a sensible outcome either...

Of course it was!! Heretic!

One party is the party of sweet reason, the other is the party of eeeeeevil. Didn't you know that?

(The sweet reason party is the one that doesn't believe that a sexual species actually has distinct sexes, BTW. Or that the brain is affected by genetics. It can get confusing ...)

Re:Good! Partially, at least...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who actually thinks the Trump Administration will be reviewing anything using science is completely insane. I'd be impressed if he consulted a witch doctor. That would be far more science based than anything else they've done so far.

Re:Good! Partially, at least...

[Shotgun]

The people responding to you have obviously had a drink from the plastic Koolaid pitcher, Kokuyo. I just watched an episode of Penn and Teller's show "Bullshit" about this law. What is clear is that Democrats like to create laws that totally ignore science as long as they can feel good about themselves.

From what I can see, the ESA is used almost exclusively as a tool by NIMBYers to block construction projects.

Re: Jobs in the US again

[Anonymous Coward]

The rare woods tend to come from outside the USA, so for artisans in the USA to build using them requires other nations to export them, so it is even more of a red herring.

we must protect eco-systems, not species

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is one thing we have learned, it is that any single specie does not stand on its own, everything is connected, every plant or animal depends on other plants or animals. Therefore you cannot just protect "a specie". To do that you must protect a complete eco-system. And knowing how mankind operates, the only option to have a long-term, realistic chance of success with that is to pretty much forbid any "development" by man for large area's of this planet. If you don't, someone will come along, find a loophole, exploit it, and cause irrevocable damage.

why is this on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I cone to slashdot to get away from the politics and read about tech stuff. I know sometimes they overlap, but i cant see how this overlaps with the scope of what slashdot is supposed to be.

Re: why is this on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

This has long ago stopped being a place to learn about anything important. Also it is probably just a propaganda site now for big government statists who believe in centralized control over everyone and everything. The left and right are really the same authoritarian assholes just pushing different social agendas. But they are all full of crap. You want change do not vote Democrat or Republican this fall.

Re:why is this on slashdot

[AHuxley]

So people can think about why the US is keeping entire ares off limits to new farming, grazing, mineral exploration and rail, roads, forestry.

Bald Eagle, the other white meat

[istartedi]

Manatee. It's what's for dinner.

Re:Bald Eagle, the other white meat

[houghi]

Well, I must disapoint you on one thing. White spotted owl just tastes like chicken and Panda is a bit tough.
On the plus side, Canned Tuna can hold Dolphin now, so that pisses of the non-meat eaters who now can't eat it anymore and that will save the tuna, right?

Re:Bald Eagle, the other white meat

[Anonymous Coward]

... Canned Tuna can hold Dolphin now, so that pisses of the non-meat eaters who now can't eat it anymore and that will save the tuna, right?

Wait a minute.. what do you think dolphin-free tuna comes from?

Re:Bald Eagle, the other white meat

[Anonymous Coward]

Pescetarians do not eat mammals.

Your children and grandchildren will thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

You voted for this. Let's make it cheap for us to ignite a few more hundreds of thousands of years worth of forest-sequestered carbon and make sure that in the deserts we'll leave them their children will not need to fear being eaten by wolves.

"Preservation" sounds like an active measure while it merely means refraining from things that can never be undone. A single generation messing it up has effects for eternity, a single generation with a perfect score does not make a difference. Which is the best humanity can strive for with regard to ensuring long-time usability of our planet.

Taking nature withour paying for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what this is.

The planet is owned by all living things equally. If one wants to take some of it, one has to compensate all of them.
That is not hard. Just recycle things a 100%, no exceptions. No, it can't be repaid with money. Money is a humabn currency, not exactly recognized by e.g. beetles.

So IMHO, everything else is simply robbery. From you and me too. And should be punished with the usual prison sentence. So if corporations are "people", then they shall go to prison like people too. The whole freakin staff, building, assets, everything.

Yes, I'm a maybe hopeless idealist.
But unless I repeat what is *right*, it will definitely never change.

Re:Taking nature withour paying for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you want to get rid of borders too, and let all the mexican cartels into the US

Re:Taking nature withour paying for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You made 'em. Why shouldn't they come home?

Hot tip. Stop training soldiers overseas to fight your proxy wars and maybe they won't turn that training back on you. Fix your ridiculous prohibition and maybe the black market that surrounds them won't be as lucrative for the organisations the profit from it - like the private penitentiaries, security forces etc. Oh, and the cartels. And if you'd stop subsidizing corn maybe Mexico would be able to maintain more maize farmers at better than poverty level, incidentally maintaining the genetic diversity that was essential the last time a blight threatened the 2-3 strains in the US.

Or you could just put your finger in the dike.

Re:This is tech related how?

[Joce640k]

It's becoming clear that this sort of deregulation was what he meant when he talked about "draining the swamp".

The burrowing beetle

[Misagon]

If the burrowing beetle is "the bane of oil companies", then why don't we breed more burrowing beetles? That could become an effective method to fight global warming, now, wouldn't it?

No, seriously. Do proofread and edit submissions before posting!
Don't just copy and paste.

Re:Is there anyone who trusts this admin with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh God I am the american cream
But now I smell like vaseline
An I'm a miserable sonofabitch
Am I a boy or a lady... I don't know which...
--
Balena!

Re:Is there anyone who trusts this admin with this

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 interesting!

creimer sometime pretends that they are a 30 year old women from New-York City.
CROFLOL!

LOL eagle time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahaha, I'm going to massacre every bald eagle I see on or near my 10 acres. This is going to be goddamn glorious.

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when it didn't for all those species that died off.

Re:This is tech related how?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's becoming clear that this sort of deregulation was what he meant when he talked about "draining the swamp".

No, he was just saying what the audience wanted to hear, as always. Don't overthink DJT, it is not worth it.

Re:Is there anyone who trusts this admin with this

[Anonymous Coward]

CROFLOL! In is last video, creimer shares that they have never been farther east than Hoover dam!

So, the whale apparently never swum in the Atlantic yet! But they are so delusional that they imagined being a girl from NYC!

CROFLOL!

 

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when it didn't for all those species that died off.

If God had wanted them to survive, he wouldn't have given us the means to hunt and kill, kill, KILL, KILL, KILL, BLOOD, MURDER, KILLLLLL!!!!!

Sic transit gloria americana

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said

Re:Sic transit gloria americana

[Anonymous Coward]

Sed magna veritas est, et praevalebit.

Weaponized ESA did this

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of the ESA was to protect species from extinction.

The current list of protected species is long.
The sublist of these that seem significant is short.
The sublist of species that the act has been able to bring back and remove is even shorter.

I see two logical sides to this argument.
One is that protecting this biodiversity is good for our survival because you never know which species you kill might be critical to everything else.
The other is that the act doesn't work and that due to SSS it may actually make things worse.

Unfortunately, neither of these is the reason the ESA is in review.
The ESA has been used as a powerful weapon for stopping things unrelated to its purpose.
If there is a development proposed which someone does not like, and they can find some slightly strange thing living there, then the development can be stopped, no matter how insignificant the strangeness. The power of the current ESA does not appear to permit reasonableness or property rights to prevail.

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered speci

[Anonymous Coward]

If the species commits suicide by anthropomorphic climate change, while all the while waging war when the commandment was given "Thou shalt not kill" and when Jesus said "let ye who has not sinned cast the first stone" when questioned on punishment, how can anyone have faith they are going to heaven?. Because that whore was admonished "go and sin no more." Yet those who claim allegiance to the faiths cannot seem to comprehend their corruption of justice. While there isn't peace no one's getting saved and real people will continue to burn in fire. Logic does not seem to be religions strong point.

Re: This is an outrage but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is difficult to argue with the religiously motivated, such as yourself.

USA faces

[Anonymous Coward]

I am from Europe, 43 years old. I cannot believe what is going on in US.. you have the worst president pushing nations to pay for weapons and who is not giving a shit about the climate. What is wrong with you guys? Why did you elect this guy?

Re:USA faces

[HornWumpus]

Because the alternative was even worse! Duh. She was openly and notoriously crooked, her supporters didn't care, because vagina. Open corruption is a line that should not be crossed.

You should be paying for your own defense, we were fine doing it in 1946, you nation is no longer flattened. Be grownups, stop being leeches. You might have to cutback on 'bread and circuses' for your parasite class.

Re:USA faces

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the alternative was even worse! Duh. She was openly and notoriously crooked, her supporters didn't care, because vagina. Open corruption is a line that should not be crossed.

The baseless allegations about Hillary I will just ascribe to Fox brainwashing, but how can you possibly say with a straight face that 'corruption is a line that should not be crossed' with the most openly corrupt president you've ever had in power? Or are you going to argue that DJT didn't cross the line because he was always on the wrong side of that line?

You should be paying for your own defense, we were fine doing it in 1946, you nation is no longer flattened. Be grownups, stop being leeches. You might have to cutback on 'bread and circuses' for your parasite class.

Now you're just channeling Trump. We stopped laughing at him about half a year ago, it has become too embarassing.

Re:USA faces

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not baseless and nothing to do with Fox news.

DJT didn't have decades in public office highlighting the depths of corruption willing to partake in. It was a "could" be vote instead of "known" to be vote.

Trump wouldn't have a case to make if NATO members paid their fair share.

Re:USA faces

[HornWumpus]

Baseless my ass.

I have still not heard a reasonable, non-corrupt explanation for why the bribe flow into the Clinton global fund dried up just when Hillary had time for her charitable work. Do you have one? If you don't, you need to accept that she _was_ 'openly and notoriously corrupt'.

It's possible that an honest person could have believed what you say, until the day after Trump won and all the brides going to Clinton went away.

Re:USA faces

[Nidi62]

Because the alternative was even worse!

I must have missed where Hillary was the only other person on the ballot.....

Re:USA faces

[HornWumpus]

Who else was electable?

Living in CA my vote was wasted anyhow, so I did vote for the best of the available choices, Vermin Supreme!

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered speci

[Type44Q]

If God had wanted you to be an ignorant Fundamentalist, he wouldn't have given me the ability to knock you in the fucking head with a copy of the Old Testament. ;)

Buy the land

[Anonymous Coward]

Form an organization. Ask for donations. Buy the land and don't sell it to oil companies.

There are two worlds.

[bill.pev]

All these attempts to hasten the demise of the world as we know it in the name of... I don't really know what... are so utterly contemptuous that I sometimes wonder if they aren't just bold faced crimes against humanity. I believe history will regard them as such.

Never mind the environment, and the endangered species.. the last thing we need is more petrochemical production! Especially while we allow the rest of my world (abroad) to claim the control of alternative energy. It's time for Big Oil to realize that the party is over, and they need to stake a claim in the new world before they get hauled away for public disturbance. Or get a figurative ASBO.

I live in a different world. One that has a future, if the other world's inhabitants don't destroy it first. It's actually painful to watch.

Re: Jobs in the US again

[AHuxley]

AC think of rare woods allowed to be imported back into the the USA. Then skilled people in the USA making something of value out of a raw product. eg a musical instrument.
Then selling that value added product to the world. Factory work for generations.

A review of sound science

[rsilvergun]

from an anti-science administration is going to end exactly the way you think. And no, it's not inappropriate to call them anti-science. They're climate change deniers for Pete's sake. Trump called it a Chinese hoax. And don't get me started on their flagrant disregard for hard data in economics. That tax cut of theirs was the exact wrong thing to do. The Treasury is currently bumping interest rates and inflation to reign the effects of it in.

And we propose...

[Anonymous Coward]

A very thin layer for the 6th extinction.

Stupid...

[fish_in_the_c]

The definition of which is 'intentionally ignorant'.

I dislike so many things about both the Republicans and the Democrats. The Rupukelicans just make me sick, with ugly ,disingenuous and downright dangerous responses to environmental issues, utter lack of love when it comes to desperate people trying to escape the country they live in and total disregard for the what's actually good for the bulk of the people living in the middle classes. In general I like the Deamoncrats less because they undermine true human freedom at every turn , from centralizing control, to promoting an environment where people use each other ,especially vulnerable women and children on a sexual level and promoting the killing of children.

Any body else want a law making it illegal to create a entity that has as it's purpose getting people elected unless it is associated with a specific candidate and is disencorporated at the end of the campaign? ( I know fat chance of getting it passed, but it's on my list of wouldn't it be nice).

Re:Stupid...

[DogDude]

In general I like the Deamoncrats less because they undermine true human freedom at every turn , from centralizing control, to promoting an environment where people use each other ,especially vulnerable women and children on a sexual level and promoting the killing of children.

What in the FUCK are you talking about, specifically?

Enjoy your shithole ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the loosening of not only environmental protections but banking rules, car fuel efficiency standards and fair housing enforcement

I hope you Americans are going to enjoy the shithole of a country as envisioned by the Republicans and implemented by Trump the Idiot.

Deregulation like this isn't going to make your country better, just make rich assholes even richer.

Zombie Jesus and getting while the getting's good

[Rick Schumann]

Haven't you all heard? The Earth is only 6000 years old, and why should any of you silly people care about some dumb animals anyway? God gave them and the Earth to us to do with as we please, and the Apocalypse and the Rapture and shit is all coming Real Soon Now, so Zombie Jesus will return from the dead a second time to take the Faithful home, so the Earth, it's environment, and all living things on it that aren't humans won't matter! So FUCK 'endangered species', we all need to just make as much money as we can while we can so we can weather the Apocalypse and the Rapture, keep ourselves and our families safe from the ravening hoardes of Unbelievers, so that when Zombie Jesus shows up we can pull up in our armored personnel carriers, all ready for Him to take us back to Heaven! Haven't any of you been paying attention?

You think I'm kidding. You think I'm making this shit up. These idiots are REAL, they really believe in the Second Coming, they really believe the Earth is going to be destroyed anyway, and by itself you could dismiss them as nutjobs, but they have accumulated wealth and socio-political power, and they'll use it to hurry along the Apocalypse, because they actually believe that'll trigger the Second Coming, so they can bug out and be taken back to Heaven, or whatever the fuck it is they think they're getting out of it -- and they don't give a shit about us plebian average people, only them and their own people, and silly nonsense like 'endangered species' is just a drain on their profit-making ability.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Your dad came in your mom's shoes, let the flies do the work.

Re:This is an outrage but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservation is not a left-wing plank. Try talking to some hunters about that.

Re:Zombie Jesus and getting while the getting's go

[Anonymous Coward]

Womp. Womp.

Fine with me

[Anonymous Coward]

If they throw in kicking the Northern Spotted Owl off the endangered list, I'll vote republican in november

You First

[Anonymous Coward]

You first. Go extinct first I mean.

Since we're apparently acting on opinions here, with no "experts" (those dirty elites!) required, then my opinion is as good as yours. And I find that the faceless, nameless posting entity known as iggymanz provides no value to me. There are 7 billion replacements for you and one is quite as good as another, when it comes to that.

So kindly go extinct first and then we'll see just how you face the grey void with no one to mourn your absence or defend your presence. After all, that's what you just did to a whole species, and I only condemn a single individual...

You Keep Using That Word,

[Anonymous Coward]

Overhaul "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means".
It means to completely Repair. Not do destroy eliminate, or Cripple.

Re:This is an outrage but ...

[Powercntrl]

Because "everything is political" and /. editors are pushing left-wing politics all the time.

This is a science and technology oriented website. The current Republican party has been pushing many anti-science and anti-environmentalism agendas. Perhaps you should stick with Faux News, if all you want to hear is how killing off the last of a species is going to create tons of jobs and put 'merica back on the path to WINNING.

Re:Worst. Puppet. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Destroying alliances throughout Europe
Pulling the rug out from under NATO
Bestowing legitimacy on Kim Jong-un
Reaching out to far-right leaders worldwide
Crimea should be Russian because they speak Russian
Lots of good people in the Nazi parade

Putin couldn't have hoped for more if he had gotten himself elected President of the US

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie

[datavirtue]

Not if you bring in creimer.

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered speci

[Lead Butthead]

If God had wanted you to be an ignorant Fundamentalist, he wouldn't have given me the ability to knock you in the fucking head with a copy of the Old Testament. ;)

No, the Ten Commandment, original stone copy :-}

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie

[datavirtue]

...not if you bring in creimer.

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered speci

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I understand why you have so many seriously fucked up and compassionless ideas. Thanks for not posting AC. I'll bring this up again in the future, to knock you in the fucking head with it, I'm certain.

The bigger pictures

[Ogive17]

I'm looking at the bigger picture. Species go extinct, new ones come into existence. I realize humans have had way too much impact on the extinction side of things.

The narrow view is looking at a few species of animals to decide what can be done with the land. My big picture view is "why the fuck do we keep allowing corporations to pollute the environment to make a quick dollar?"

I hate that Republicans only care about "right now" and not about those of us that plan to live another 40-50 years.

Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie

[datavirtue]

Im witnessing a massive deer overpopulation spawn despite a strong hunting culture in my state. Should we let them die of old age while they grow so prolific that people can hardly drive around without hitting them? Should we ramp up the hunting season? Should we introduce wolves or some other predator? There are literally 10 deer in every field every evening...it is crazy. It looks like we are farming them.

Re: Worst. Puppet. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you arenâ(TM)t even American. How how has he pulled the rug out of NATO..? And how is what heâ(TM)s done hurt America?

Unbelievably bad reporting - Shame on NYT and /.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is some of the sloppiest reporting I've read in a long time.

a.) The grey wolf is recovered in the parts of the great lakes areas. The targets proposed on introduction have been met. The way the ESA is written, state biologists cannot manage that population until the grey wolf is recovered in 90% of its original territory. That will obviously NEVER happen, its original territory was the entire US. The ESA prevented state biologists from properly managing the wolf population based on counts and carrying capacity in those areas for a decade, it *should* be touched up.

b.) The Spotted Owl is brought up, for some unknown reason because it doesn’t really help their case that this should be opposed. The Spotted Owl was used as a proxy by "environmental" groups to stop logging in the Pacific Northwest far, FAR outside of the Spotted Owl's range. The owl continued to decline and is still not doing well. Stopping logging may have appeared to be a great idea, until you realize that we magnified the forest fire issue with these edicts. There is a smart way to manage these things, and "ban all logging" wasn’t it. This was not good conservation management and not good science.

c.) The article mentions that the Republicans are opposed to Grizzly reintroduction in the Cascades. This is because AFTER the previously agreed on Grizzly numbers were reached in the Yellowstone basin, environmental groups sued the state agencies to stop the state biologists from managing the bear population. I wouldn’t want bears introduced if the state biologists weren’t going to be allowed to manage their number either.

d.) There is this idea that we can just leave wildlife alone and it will all work itself out. That just isn’t so, the greater ecosystem is too badly tilted and requires management. Almost all state biologists and federal rangers will tell you this.

e.) There probably is a great deal of nastiness in a Republican bill altering the ESA, but the NYT decided not to report that and make an emotional and ignorance based partisan hit-job instead.

f.) Don’t forget item e when you click the next NYT link.

Long overdue restoration of sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

The Endangered Species Act was long ago weaponized by the left.

In addition to the laudable goals everybody supports of protecting truly endangers species from going extinct, multiple administrations have used the act as a weapon to stop numerous policies they did not like and attack industries and property owners they opposed.

The spotted owl was used to attack logging, with claims these owls were very rare and only could live in certain stands of trees. Both claims were false.

The Delta Smelt has long been used as the excuse to suppress water supplies to the citizens of California even though (a) these fish are not rare (b) they are not native to the delta and (c) millions could easily be farmed in any fishery or commercial aquarium. We could easily pay Sea World a stipend to keep the species alive in large tanks at their parks every year and then open the taps for large quantities of water in CA far mo0re cheaply than getting the same volume of water from desalination, for example.

Several species have been used to block the southern border wall/fence over the past decades.

Property owners have been forbidden to build on their own land because they were told it MIGHT be home to an endangered rat/mole/slug/spider and sometimes the government had no evidence these creatures had ever actually been on that land.

The abuses of that act are nearly endless.

Ridiculous deregulation nonsense

[IanMcConnachie]

This is filthy business, greedy, fat monsters who obviously have NO conscience and could care less about the world they leave for their kids & grandkids ! May the Gods shit on each and everyone of them for eternity.

Yee Haa

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until the Cuyahoga River catches fire again.

Now that's a sign of greatness!

Long Overdue

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of bad problems with the current law.

In many cases, fundamental rights such as the right to roam and the right to ethical practice of law are routinely infringed in the name of environmental stupidity. It's illegal, it's a Bill of Rights violation, and as such it's infringement of fundamental rights "under the colour of law", a criminal offence under long standing federal law.

Reform is long over due. So long as the law as written gives the illusion of legitimacy to unethical, illegal and criminal government actions, it needs to be fixed.

Not sure the current clowns will do the right thing here, of course, but the need for reform is real. Congress has NO legal authority to violate the Bill of Rights - the Supreme Court can NOT give them that authority, it's a violation of their oaths and 'good behaviour' requirement - and the Bill of Rights is open-ended.

Protecting the environment is extremely important - but it needs to be done in an intelligent and reasonable way and that isn't the case right now.

Re:This is an outrage but ...

[ebvwfbw]

I'm a biology nerd. This is news that matters to me.

Good. So talk about it. Talk about how Greenpeace pulls bullshit to put things on the endangered list by looking for animals where they don't go because of altitude or other factors. Talk about the abuses of the other "environmentalist" groups that are just out there to make money for themselves by duping stupid California people.

Now let's talk about how the last administration would fine oil companies for killed eagles, yet not a dime for a fine if a windmill killed an eagle or anything else.

(Sound of impatient foot taping)