"The threatened polar bear has become an icon for the potentially devastating effects of global warming. The animal depends on sea ice for its survival, and this ice is disappearing..."Reporter Anne Feidt had followed federal Fish and Wildlife Service biologists studying polar bears in Alaska, and after the requisite crunch of ice under boot and the breathing of a sedated bear, she gave a basic rundown of global warming threats to polar bears. She paraphrased one biologist as saying that "the future for Alaska's polar bears is grim, and he's already seeing one potentially troubling sign — very few females with cubs."
Here's the weird thing: The article completely ignores the most glaring, recent, and newsworthy part of the story. Last week U.S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar announced his decision to continue the Bush administration practice of withholding Endangered Species Act protections from the polar bear. Bush had issued a "special rule" that said, although the polar bear's habitat is melting due to global warming, the government may not protect that habitat. Congress had given the Obama administration specific authority until May 9 to undo the damage done by Bush, and Salazar decided not to act on it.
This happened just last Friday, affecting the very polar bears whose breath Feidt was recording, announced by the boss of the researchers she was interviewing, and it was not even mentioned in the article.
It's not like it was just some small administrative technicality that was noticed only by politicos and treehuggers. The story was covered by all the usual suspects. However, NPR somehow managed not to mention it in their story about federal biologists studying the impacts of global warming on polar bears.
8 comments:
Very observant you are, MTW.
You are like a scientist and/or detective in that regard.
"Bush had issued a "special rule" that said, although the polar bear's habitat is melting due to global warming, the government may not protect that habitat."....because, of course, that would require them to actually act to mitigate climate change.
"Congress had given the Obama administration specific authority until May 9 to undo the damage done by Bush, and Salazar decided not to act on it"That clearly was not Salazar's call. It was Obama's or that of someone advising him.
Like Clinton, Obama seems to be avoiding commitment (and I'm not talking about relationships here).
Obama does not want to commit to takin gall the troops out of Iraq because people could criticize him for it if things go south(er).
He does not want to commit to pulling out of Afghanistan for the same reason.
he does not want to commit to closing insolvent banks and putting them into government receivership because he is afraid some will call him a "socialist" for "nationalizing" the banks.
This stuff is all part of a calculated PR campaign (compliments of Rahm Emanuel) to make sure that Obama does nothing that can threaten his chances of getting re-elected.
yes, i said "re-elected". Unfortunately, it's clear that Obama is already worried about winning a second term.
Sad, but true.
If he keeps it up, Obama is certainly not destined for greatness. He's not a JFK who takes chances and transforms the landscape. He's a Gerald Ford who plays it safe and stays in the Green Zone.
Unfortunately, it's clear that Obama is already worried about winning a second term.Tim Geithner just said "the President explicitly rejects the notion that Social Security is an untouchable politically," to which I say...We Shall See.
With all this mealy-mouthed, rethug lite crap, including blocking torture investigations and threatening the British over it (see Glen Greenwald), I sure won't be voting for Obama again.
Tim Geithner just said "the President explicitly rejects the notion that Social Security is an untouchable politically," to which I say...We Shall See.
Actually, they can touch it and pretend not to at the same time.
Whether Obama acknowledges it or not, by financing the initial $700 billion bailout of banks AND a $1+ trillion backing of toxic assets (for which the tax payers may end holding the bill), Obama is effectively already impacting the future solvency of Social Security.
Our government acts and talks as if the Social Security fund is some stash of cash somewhere that exists completely separate from the rest of the money used by the government. it is total nonsense, of course. Every time the government throws away a trillion dollars or more, that is money that it will not have in the future to pay for things like Social security. It's even worse, of course, because if they borrow the money (as they are doing in the case of the bank bailouts), they have to pay interest as well.
Bush was a master of the "compartmentilization game". He did it repeatedly with his "supplemental funding" for the Iraq war, claiming that that was not part of the budget and therefore not part of the budget deficit.
These accounting gimics are so obvious that I am surprised that anyone buys into them. but it seems that a lot of people do.
I also voted for Obama because i thought he would change this CORRUPT accounting and replace it with HONEST ACCOUNTABILITY.
I was clearly seriously mistaken.
Worst of all, Obama is starting to talk about We the people who got him into office as if we are some sort of fringe nuts (just as Bush talked about us). I think this is really going to come back and bite Obama in 2012, perhaps even to the point that he does not get the nomination.
On 'On Point', Jack Beatty delivered a blistering commentary on Timmy the G, in effect, branding him a toxic abomination.
Thanks, MTW, for putting your finger on the cognitive dissonance I could feel but not quite articulate. The breathing of the sedated bear and the crunch of the ice could have been done without leaving the NPR studio - so could that honest reported on the elephant in the room: coal"The World Coal institute says 5,543,000,000 tons combusted globally in 2007. This means that 5,543,000,000 x 3.6 = 199,548,000,000 CO2"
I watched about 10 seconds of a video of Geithner testifying before Congress and that was all it took to confirm (to me, at least) that he is a weasel.
This is the kind of guy who gets "failed up" the chain of command because none of the competent people in the organization can stomach having him in the same room with them.
Eventually, of course, he ends up at the top and no one can figure out how he got there. It appears to be magic when in fact, there's nothing magic about it at all. It happens in businesses ALL the time.
I have worked in engineering for many years and we once had a Harvard business grad forced on our R&D group for two months. It was two months of hell. This person had no clue about high technology (the area of the business) and would put up graphs on the board that were totally unrelated to what we were talking about. Eventually, (after two months) my immediate boss said enough is enough and got her promoted out of our group (thatk the lord)
This is the guy who campigned on the promise of change??!
Obama Tries to Block Release of Detainee PhotosPublished on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 by The New York Times
by Jeff Zeleny
President Obama is seeking to block the release of photographs depicting American military personnel abusing captives in Iraq and Afghanistan, an administration official said Wednesday.
///////////////end NY Times quote
Hell, forget waiting until 2012 to oust Obama.
Impeach Obama now for violating his oath of office and also breaking the law (UN Convention Against Torture, a treaty signed by the US).
Obama has refused to abide by the conditions of the UN Convention Against Torture, namely Article 7, which requires investigation and possible prosecution of individuals who may have committed torture,
Article 7
1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
where torture is defined as follows
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,
Breaking a treaty almost certainly falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors", although I realize a Democratic Congress would never admit as much. And republicans would also side with Obama on this one, so there is virtually zero chance of impeachment.
BTW, the Polar Bear post was written by "Occasional Contributor Brian," not MTW.
Post a Comment