(Note: This entry was originally posted on Friday, March 17, 2006)
Hooray! We have yet another sterling example of political obfuscation!
Actually, your humble blogger here is quite likely late to this particular party---H.R. 3824---but having heard a part of the NPR program Talk of the Nation today, I felt like I had to comment. You see, it may not be news to you, but I hadn't realized that Congress was trying to fundamentally re-write The Endangered Species Act. Well, that's exactly what's happening, and that provides yet another opportunity to focus on one of my personal pet peeves: the intentional misuse of the English language. In this case, the misrepresentation of proposed changes to an established law.
To wit: Congressman Richard W. Pombo is feeding us excrement, and calling it chocolate. How does it taste, my friends?
The nature of the changes proposed in H.R. 3824 shouldn't surprise anyone. Congressman Pombo has been a fanatical opponent of the Endangered Species Act his entire career. The congressman believes that a person should have the right to use his or her land in whatever manner seems best to him or her, and how that land usage impacts either the environment or any indigenous species is just not relevant. Property rights trump all others.
Fair enough. I don't agree with Congressman Pombo's stance, but he has a right to promote it. Insofar as he has managed to be elected and re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives several times, we have to presume that there are a fair number of people in his home district that agree with him. Pombo's obligation is to serve his country and his constituency to the best of his ability, and he has both the right and the duty to use his congressional platform to do so.
All he has to do is persuade a majority of his colleagues to vote with him.
It is there that the Honorable Mr. Pombo has heretofore run into a brick wall. The Endangered Species Act is, for many excellent reasons, a very popular law. By and large, the people of the United States believe in its importance, and agree with the general manner in which the law is applied. Any vote to repeal the law would be seen as opposing the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Congressman Pombo may not mind being perceived as opposing conservation, but a great many of his congressional colleagues find that stance untenable. Their constituents would blow a collective gasket, and the various congresspeople who had cast such an unpopular vote would find their positions imperiled.
Realizing this, Congressman Pombo initially attempted to re-write the act in such a way as to render it meaningless. He openly explained the businesses and land owners were being inconvenienced by the law, and they should be freed from its constraints. Alas, that view proved equally unpopular. Those of us who like the idea of having (for example) wild populations of Bald Eagles or Brown Pelicans just don't want to see the law watered down in any way. In fact, many of us would prefer to see the Endangered Species Act given new and more formidable teeth. Frankly, the law just doesn't go far enough in protecting the flora and fauna that is the true heritage of this country.
Undeterred in his obsession, Congressman Pombo finally saw the political light: it is far easier to fool the electorate than it is to persuade them. The voters want an Endangered Species Act, and a significant percentage of them would like to find ways to make the law even more effective. This was the opening that the esteemed congressman has chosen to exploit.
"Why not," he must have thought, "present my ideas for emasculating this annoying law as suggestions to improve it? If I can shout loudly enough about efficiency and effectiveness, I can probably pull the wool over a great many ecologically sensitive eyes..." And he has, has Mr. Congressman Pombo.
In presenting the bill that the House has since passed as H.R. 3824, the congressman twisted various facts and statistics in such a way as to demonstrate that the Endangered Species Act is broken, and requires fixing. His reasoning? That many species identified as endangered have remained on the list for many years, and show no signs of achieving natural sustainability. Obviously, if the law worked, all of these species would have recovered, and been removed from the list. The very fact that there are species that have been listed as endangered for more than 20 years and remain so today is Congressman Pombo's rationale for concluding that the Endangered Species Act is a failure.
Of course, the changes the congressman wants to apply to the act to "fix" it are suspiciously similar to the changes he once proposed render it pointless. They are, in fact, fundamentally identical, and that is his aim.
He just can't sell that idea.
And so the congressman positions himself as an environmental activist of sorts, argues that what he wants to do is make an ineffective law more effective, and sets out to fool the country. In the process, he intentionally misrepresents both his actions and his aims. In other words, he lies.
I wonder if it has occurred to the congressman, were it not for this flawed and ineffective act, just how many species would now have transitioned from "endangered" to "extinct?"
I am tired of this. More than that, I find that I am coming to truly hate people like Congressman Pombo. Certainly, I have no respect for what he has chosen to do. I would fight against his proposals in any case, but if he was open and honest about his intent, I would at least have some respect for the man.
This is a bill that is designed to make it easier for businesses and land owners to damage or even destroy local ecologies. It's about making money by raising land values and opening the door to currently proscribed ways of using and developing undeveloped land. That is Pombo's aim, and he has no other motive. That is the aim of those who support this bill, and they have no other motive. The heck with the damage we may cause...this is our land, and we have a God-given right to use it in the most profitable way we can.
Well, the House has passed the bill, and the Senate will likely pass its own bill. The good news is that the Senate seems less inclined to follow Congressman Pombo's lead, and the Endangered Species Act just might be safe for the time being. The Senate resolution will almost certainly repudiate most of what is included in the House resolution. Still, using language as a fig leaf, a fanatical legislator has managed to get the ultimate anti-environmental bill through the lower house of congress. Our media had little to say; there was no public outcry. Pombo's strategy worked that far.
Are we, as a people, this stupid? When a politico tells us that left is right, that down is up, that being against something is really being for it, are we going to continue to mutely nod our heads and go one about our business?
God I hope not...
No comments:
Post a Comment