BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
Jason Segel Sings His Phone Number at the Swell Season Last Night
Video of the Day: Your East Side Moment of Zen
-thumb-110x110-459458.jpg)
Bouchon Amuses Our Bouches
Sobriety Checkpoint in Sherman Oaks Tonight
A bill that would have added around one million acres of land to the National Wilderness System, including 280,000 acres in California, failed to pass the House of Representatives Wednesday by two votes. Republicans felt it had too many unnecessary earmarks. But the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 could head back to congress for another vote giving it one more chance.
When congress specifies land as part of the National Wilderness System, it gives it some of the highest protections. Even land within the already protected national parks gets protected from the National Park Service building roads, visitor centers and other infrastructure. Two parks in California would have had larger protected areas if the bill was passed and then signed by the President.
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks would have had 90,000 acres added to the system, including "the redwood Mountain Grove, which is the largest stand of Giant Sequoia trees in the park," according to the blog National Parks Traveler.
Closer to Los Angeles, Joshua Tree National Park would have expanded an additional 190,000 protected acres adding parts of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and 31 miles of river.
*Updated Post
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
That's a shame, because this kind of project is exactly the sort of thing we need right now to stimulate the economy (creating all sorts of jobs / envir. sci. research projects / etc.)and protect our natural treasures. Those two things need not come one at the expense of the other. The sooner the Republicans in Congress can wrap their heads around that, the better off we'll all be. Write to your representatives. Why should this be a partisan issue? I don't get it. Don't we all want to protect California's Gold (as Hewell Hauser might say)?
I think you need to read a bit closer - the parks aren't growing, just the acreage of congressionally-designated wilderness within the existing park boundaries. Your title is misleading and incorrect.
Thanks, I got some clarification from The Wilderness Society and updated the post.
I'm all for adding acres to our national parks but this bill is a lot more complex than that.
For one, CA cattle ranchers are extremely concerned about possible restrictions placed on property rights, not to mention removing millions of acres from oil and natural gas exploration.
Secondly, all of these new government projects are going to cost, yannow, money...which unfortunately doesn't grow on the trees included in this bill.
Republicans aren't against National Parks, they're against wasteful spending at a time when we can least afford it.
It always troubles me to hear it repeated, over and over, that the fact that these projects will cost money which, we are frequently admonished, does not grow on trees, is an argument against it.
1) because as the cliche goes, it takes money to make money. This is of course a simplistic way of saying that you have to actually have enough capital to invest in the beginning of your business or it's going to fail. The principle applies to governance too, or to put it in terms republicans like, "the business of the American people."
2) money may not grow on trees, but it does pop into existence thanks to the magical power of fiat, which is a fancy way of saying that the money exists because government says it does. Frankly, if the government decides to print more money, they have the power to do that.
3) Also, unlike the individual states, the Feds have the power and the authority to engage in deficit spending.
4) Even if you're opposed to deficit spending, it's a bit rich considering that, as we saw during the Bush years (and sadly, during the sellout Clinton years), mysteriously, all of these republican and blue dog budget scolds were just too busy, or perhaps they had laryngitis, preventing them from pitching a fit about the billions and billions of dollars wasted in Iraq, or thrown away in tax cuts to heiresses, or thrown away because FDIC didn't collect insurance dues from the banks the insurance fund is designed to protect!!! In fact, even people like Alan Greenspan argued that paying down the debt could be dangerous. Funny how you people didn't seem to mind all that money thrown away then, and now, lo and behold, they're now the world's biggest skinflints.
5) I have a suggestion to fund this stuff - let's make Rich people pay their fucking share instead of existing as essentially the world's biggest parasites. It isn't like they proved they've earned the right to be let free of their responsibilities when Bush essentially allowed them to turn our economy into a giant ponzi scheme.
6) but here's the truth - Republicans aren't opposed to spending. They're just opposed to spending on anything that doesn't disenfranchise gays, women, minorities and liberals, or doesn't kill a bunch of people needlessly.
Fortunately, they're also not in power anymore and when they were, let's be honest, they indisputably fucked the entire country up like a frat boy with an infinite supply of rohypnol. So why, pray tell, should we give even one solitary flying fuck what they think now? We don't ask pedophiles what the best options are for counseling their victims.
Hell, why am I even bothering to argue wabout this like Republicans are engaging in good faith? They're just opposed to this shit because it's Obama. So from now on, I'm only going to humor conservatives when I need to talk about science fiction novels like the bible.
Ah, classic enumerated screed mode. ::swoon:: Thanks, Ross!
What is it about Republicans that makes them incapable of wrapping their minds around the idea that "economic stimulus" = gov't investment (yes, spending!) in new infrastructure (including expansion of National Park acreage and other "pet projects")? Geez, it's like trying to have a conversation with pre-programmed parrot.
As someone who's in favor of alternatives to fossil fuels and anti-large-scale cattle farming, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the "rights" of those ethically-challenged industries.
Declaring land a national resource (park) is NOT an earmark. Those idiots have wrapped their arms around that word like it's a cheap drunk whore.
>Secondly, all of these new government projects are going to cost, yannow, money...which unfortunately doesn't grow on the trees included in this bill.
Actually it grows on silkworm caccoons and cotton plants.
>Republicans aren't against National Parks, they're against wasteful spending at a time when we can least afford it.
Funny how the "hands off business" folks continue to declare that the market will fix itself now that it has tanked...and tanked largely due to the "hands off business" attitude.
Here's a real shocker for the deep thinkers A.K.A. knuckle draggers. Greed trumps good intentions. That's why there needs to be federal oversight...you know to keep greedy assholes from ruining the economy.
Kudos to the author for updating the story.
>>For one, CA cattle ranchers are extremely concerned about possible restrictions placed on property rights, not to mention removing millions of acres from oil and natural gas exploration.
Bullshit. Nothing in that bill would have affected property rights. Ranchers are pissed off because they can't abuse *public* property anymore, which is still owned by all of us despite what those ranchers seem to think when they allow their cattle to destroy those ecosystems. The vast majority of public lands are still open to oil and gas drilling, though frankly, that shouldn't be the case in this age of global warming.
>>Secondly, all of these new government projects are going to cost, yannow, money...which unfortunately doesn't grow on the trees included in this bill.
Yes, it costs some money to manage additional acreage, though let's be honest, it probably reduces (or has no effect on) costs if you're adding wilderness protection within a park, as there will be far less mitigation required due to less development & motorized disturbance.
>>Republicans aren't against National Parks, they're against wasteful spending at a time when we can least afford it.
They shouldn't be, but they certainly have been. However, I'd hardly consider it "wasteful spending." Wasteful spending is throwing more money at the Defense Department in the face of all reason, whose budget is literally hundreds of thousands of times larger than that of the National Park Service. The Parks play a key role in the American economy, whether that's in maintaining a safe drinking water supply, acting as carbon and pollution sinks, maintaining healthy wildlife populations, supplementing educational experiences and providing fertile grounds for new scientific discoveries, as well as keeping our citizens healthier (both physically and emotionally). Oh yeah, and there's that little thing called tourism, which generates far far far more government revenue and local, regional, and national economic activity than any resource extraction industry (like oil & gas drilling). It's simply a much much smarter way of managing our resources - good for us, good for the environment, good for the govt, and really good for business.
@BingosDingo and @rscottjones: nice responses to the silly clap-trap above from The Ugly American.
Now, can we get a little Ross A. Lincoln action in the comments section on this one?
As you wish. (but said like I'm being pushed down a hill. Trust me, it's quite thrilling.)