Slashdot Mirror


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.

131 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Brace yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Overhaul is double speak for nothing is endangered.

    1. Re:Brace yourself by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Bastards by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Bastards by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Bastards by jwhyche · · Score: 2

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

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    5. Re: Bastards by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Three. Point. Dunk.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  3. Overhaul is not the word you're looking for by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The word your looking for is "gut".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  4. They are getting their way at last by AlanObject · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. gray wolves? by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:gray wolves? by mentil · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:gray wolves? by Frank+Burly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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."

    3. Re:gray wolves? by habig · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    4. Re:gray wolves? by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:gray wolves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:gray wolves? by jandersen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:gray wolves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:gray wolves? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    9. Re:gray wolves? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:gray wolves? by houghi · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:gray wolves? by f3rret · · Score: 2
      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    12. Re:gray wolves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    13. Re:gray wolves? by AndrewBuck · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

    14. Re:gray wolves? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:gray wolves? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      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. .

    16. Re:gray wolves? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

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

      Until the inevitable spill during transport.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:gray wolves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:gray wolves? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Would it matter for non-native species?

    19. Re:gray wolves? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

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

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:gray wolves? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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

    21. Re:gray wolves? by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

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

    22. Re:gray wolves? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    23. Re:gray wolves? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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.

    24. Re: gray wolves? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

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

      No numbers? Tst, tst, baaad republicans

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    25. Re:gray wolves? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      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.

    26. Re:gray wolves? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      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.

  6. Re:This is an outrage but ... by DogDude · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  7. Conservatives.... by meglon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    fucking over this country every chance they get.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:Conservatives.... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Conservatives.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Conservatives.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Conservatives.... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Funny

      Still objectively better than flat earther delusions.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Conservatives.... by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Conservatives.... by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re: Conservatives.... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    8. Re:Conservatives.... by meglon · · Score: 1

      You are a fucking idiot.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  8. Roll-back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... 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.

  9. of the people, by the people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces

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

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:of the people, by the people by blindseer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:of the people, by the people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:of the people, by the people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:of the people, by the people by q_e_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:of the people, by the people by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:of the people, by the people by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)..

    7. Re:of the people, by the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    8. Re:of the people, by the people by blindseer · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re:of the people, by the people by blindseer · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re:of the people, by the people by blindseer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re:of the people, by the people by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    12. Re:of the people, by the people by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:of the people, by the people by gtall · · Score: 1

      "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.

    14. Re:of the people, by the people by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:of the people, by the people by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    16. Re:of the people, by the people by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      That's removal, not renewal.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    17. Re:of the people, by the people by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:of the people, by the people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:of the people, by the people by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    20. Re:of the people, by the people by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

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

    21. Re:of the people, by the people by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:of the people, by the people by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:of the people, by the people by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Good answer.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    24. Re:of the people, by the people by blindseer · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    25. Re:of the people, by the people by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      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.

    26. Re:of the people, by the people by blindseer · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    27. Re:of the people, by the people by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      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

    28. Re:of the people, by the people by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      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

    29. Re:of the people, by the people by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      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

    30. Re:of the people, by the people by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      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.

    31. Re:of the people, by the people by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      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.

    32. Re:of the people, by the people by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      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.

    33. Re:of the people, by the people by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      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

    34. Re:of the people, by the people by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      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.

    35. Re:of the people, by the people by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      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

    36. Re:of the people, by the people by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      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.

  10. Re:Jobs in the US again by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    "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.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  11. Re:Conse.... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    They conserve their pride first and foremost.

  12. Shoot and Shovel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Shoot and Shovel by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Shoot and Shovel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Shoot and Shovel by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Shoot and Shovel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Shoot and Shovel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Good! Partially, at least... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Good! Partially, at least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!'.

    2. Re:Good! Partially, at least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Good! Partially, at least... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  14. Bald Eagle, the other white meat by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Manatee. It's what's for dinner.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Bald Eagle, the other white meat by houghi · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  15. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by Nocturna81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  16. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actual extinction, I think you'll find.

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

    --
    No sig today...
  17. Re:This is tech related how? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

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

    --
    No sig today...
  18. The burrowing beetle by Misagon · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  19. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Stephan

  20. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by houghi · · Score: 2, Funny

    They said that before, but nature finds a way.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  21. Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  22. Re:This is tech related how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  23. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the result of poachers.

    Not Dentists paying $50k for a Trophy Hunt.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  24. Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered speci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  25. There are two worlds. by bill.pev · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. A review of sound science by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by nomadic · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. Stupid... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    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).

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re:Stupid... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  29. Enjoy your shithole ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  30. Zombie Jesus and getting while the getting's good by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    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.

  31. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Too valuable to snort.

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

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  32. Re:USA faces by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  33. Re:USA faces by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Because the alternative was even worse!

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

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  34. Re:USA faces by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    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!

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  35. Re:This is an outrage but ... by Powercntrl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  36. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by painandgreed · · Score: 2

    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.

  37. Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Not if you bring in creimer.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  38. Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered speci by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    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 :-}

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  39. Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    ...not if you bring in creimer.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  40. The bigger pictures by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  41. Re: Legalize poaching to protect endangered specie by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  42. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by pots · · Score: 1

    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.

  43. Ridiculous deregulation nonsense by IanMcConnachie · · Score: 1

    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.

  44. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by Agripa · · Score: 1

    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?

  45. Re:This is an outrage but ... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 2

    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)