BIOSOCIOPATH BUSH Weighs Endangered Species Delay

Bush's tax cuts were statistically insignificant. Less than a percentage of the total tax revenues. Spending has not gone down at all. So, because a fraction of a percent of taxes were reduced, you claim that everyone will die? Silly liberal, you know even less math than those silly conservatives.

People who want liberty must be thought controlled? Do you think that nobody wants liberty on their own and must be brainwashed into wanting it?

RSR - As usual, you're a worthy intellectual opponent on these issues.

I stand by my comment about the Bush tax cuts, poor children, and the underfunding of government environmental programs, including FWS expenditures on enforcing the Endangered Species Act. I think it's pretty clear that the anti-regulatory crowd is promoting a program of excessive tax cuts for the wealthy, coupled with higher military spending, partly with the aim of defunding federal government programs they don't like - including environmental programs.

However, you make a good point about no Congress ever funding the FWS at the level necessary for it to designate critical habitat for all listed species in any reasonable rapid period of time. It's been awhile since I did any reporting and writing on endangered species issues, so I don't know the details of just how bad the Fish and Wildlife Service backlog is, but it's quite serious.

If I remember rightly, it isn't just a matter of the government not designating critical habitat for already listed species, is it? Isn't it also the case that there are something like 1,000 - 2,000 species that have been proposed for listing but not acted upon yet, because FWS just doesn't have the financial or staff resources to do so?

I want to challenge some points in your post below which I'm pretty sure are a bit slanted, to say the least. As for what you write about the environmental groups, via lawsuits, helping to engineer the financial crisis at FWS that they're now complaining about - I don't have the information right now to comment on that one way or another. It doesn't seem inconceivable to me, but on the other hand I haven't kept up with the latest developments.

Anybody else have an informed comment on this point?

If you're saying the majority party is pressing for tax cuts and a stronger military, I don't know who would be likely to disagree. That any politician of either party would advocate pursuing those priorities by defunding endangered species protection is, frankly, pretty ludicrous. Alf Landon figured out how that game is played a long time ago: 'Nobody shoots Santa Claus.' The Bush administration's FY 2004 budget for Fish & Wildlife is *$1.3 billion*. Let that number sink in for a second.

Something in that neighborhood. The real problem is not with listing, which is a pretty simple process, but with critical habitat designation, which the environmental activists have now managed to get the courts to require within 12 months of each new listing. That's what can't be done with the existing (or any previous) budget, and indeed would require more resources than will ever be appropriated for FWS under any conceivable scenario.

The key decision is Sierra Club v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001)

No, because suing the government is in some ways similar to what Mark Twain said about feuding with newspaper editors. Left-wing paranoia notwithstanding, there is no 'well-financed' conspiracy out there trying to bring the regulators to their knees through litigation. A rancher, for example, may find it economically rational to fight a listing and designation process that will adversely affect his property by getting his own expert studies, testifying at hearings, etc. But when the day is done, if FWS has really done its job and put together a solid, scientific case for the proposed designation, it would just be stupid to file a lawsuit you'd be sure to lose. It's risky enough even when the designation is obviously bogus; most judges lean heavily toward the government's side regardless. So the bottom line is, an occasional farmer or small business owner may be so frustrated at seeing his livelihood wiped out that he will go ahead and throw the rest of his resources down the drain with a futile lawsuit. But it's not the general rule.

No, for the above reason.

There is always a 'best available science,' although sometimes it takes a judge to decide what it is.

Disputes over what is the best available science aren't uncommon.

I think the situation is different in this case because the scope of the issues is much narrower. Where do fairy shrimp actually live? Where do they *have* to be able to live in order to maintain viability? Those are much more precise and manageable questions than, is greenhouse warming leading to the termination of life as we know it, and the relevant science is less open to dispute.

You're assuming the benefit of delay will exceed the cost of litigation. This will seldom be true unless you're talking about something like shutting down a hospital.

See above; delay for its own sake is seldom the object of litigation in the examples you mention. Certainly it's more often the primary objective of environmental groups than property owners.

I think my point, that there are more lawsuits when habitat designations are rushed and shoddily done, should be self evident.

One man's buffoon is another man's savior of the universe. I never heard Babbit open his mouth without saying something that was either purely for dramatic effect, idiotic, or both. Certainly the fact that he was the only human being other than Arthur Goldberg to believe he could accomplish more in an inconsequential administrative post than on the Supreme Court speaks to this quality. But hey, strike 'buffoonish' if it bothers you.

That's just common knowledge

bulb? A1: None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself.

A2: None. If it really needed changing, market forces would have caused it to happen.

A3: None. If the government would just leave it alone, it would screw itself in.

A4. None. 'There is no need to change the light bulb. All the conditions for illumination are in place.

A5. None, because, look! It's getting brighter! It's definitely getting brighter !!!

A5. None; they're all waiting for the unseen hand of the market to correct the lighting disequilibrium.

Economics is the painful elaboration of the obvious.

One day a man walked into the main library of a major research university. He stopped at the reference desk and asked the librarian if she had any current books about economics and the economy. She answered that she did, and led the man to the reference shelves where the economics and economy books were.

To the surprise of both the librarian and the man all of the books were off the shelf being used.

''That's OK,'' the man said. ''I'll just go to another library. You see, I'm a very busy man, and I set this weekend aside for studying economics and the economy.''

The librarian said she understood and gave the man directions to the nearest research library. But her interest piqued, she asked: ''Why are you so urgent to study economics and the economy?''

The man replied: 'I'm an economist. I've been teaching at this university for the past ten years. I'm attending a business meeting on Monday, and I figure the economy has changed in the past ten years.'

LOL! Bullseye, Psalm 110.

There is no evidence that you want 'liberty'. You have never presented an actual case where 'liberty' is threatened by environmentalism, although you have frequently parroted mind-control phrases created by the 'wise use' anti-environmentalist propaganda subversive movement from people whom are on record as against 'liberty'.

There is no evidence?

I guess it is because of the question you ignore.

Why do you say I am defending Bush when I call him a milito-sociopath?

I said 'He's not a Bio-Sociopath, he's a Milito-Sociopath.'

If I were defeinding him, you would be right.

Why do you say I am defending Bush when I call him a milito-sociopath?

I'm not defending him. I argue against government action whether it is from the right (milito-sociopathy, religo-sociopathy) or left (bio-sociopathy, welfare-sociopathy).

Why do you say I am defending Bush when I call him a milito-sociopath?

Perhaps if I ask that question many times in one post instead of many times in one thread, you might actually see that quesiton. You've been blind to it every other time it's been asked in that thread, and then repeatedly accused me of defending Bush.

Why do you say I am defending Bush when I call him a milito-sociopath?

How's this

No reply. No surprise.

Your messages are not taken as isolated from your history.

Your history is to post 'wise use' propaganda statements which are not supported with verifiable facts (who, what, where, how, why).

You make assertions about environmentalists and about environmentalism which cannot be determined to be true by using the normal regular tools of truth testing: books, libraries, search engines, web pages.

Since the 'wise use' movement is funded by anti-liberty billionaires whom oppose liberties, and you have aligned yourself with their propoganda, I continue to accuse you of being anti-liberty and demand you produce proof that 'liberty has any importance to your crusade on usenet.

Furthermore, you very recent seperation from the figurehead of Bush in no way separates you from his puppetmasters, and the propaganda machine which controls both him and the 'wise use' movement. Bush is a master liar, so why should I believe you very recent, very weak claim to be independent of his subversive network of very anti-liberty 'libertarians. The Bush Regime is establishing a Stalinist-style secret police stazi even as you read this message.

I say the body of your life's work speaks more clearly about you than any sentence, or any recent tiny change in your messages. You have shown nothing positive, only negative objection to criticism of your life's work