Big Bend to get wilderness protection?

I totally support the idea of getting federal wilderness protection for a big chunk of Big Bend National Park, but that's not the only thing that needs addressing.

There's light pollution from increased gas flaring at the southern end of the Permian leading into the park. The last time I was there was Christmas 2019, and it was ridiculous. Wayne Christian (or Wayne-o NOT) at the Railroad Commission says his org is cutting the problem, but, yeah, sure. 

Also, based on my most recent previous visit, there's the risk of increased light pollution across the river at Boquillas (no, really) with reliable regular electricity and night lighting. Big Bend itself, as well as Big Bend Ranch State Park, have International Dark Sky designation, but none of the Mexican preserves across the river do.

Why Congress never adopted the original 1978 NPS recommendation within the park, that said, I don't know. Actually, per the story and my own knowledge of NPS, I do know. It was apparently just a pro forma ask that NPS never pushed further.

At Olympic, as I noted last year, the Park Service, and not just local staff, opposed wilderness designation for much of that park. (Fortunately, creosote bushes aren't eyeballed for commercial logging.) Meanwhile, when we do get wilderness designation, the NPS wants to de-wild it as much as possible. That's why Carsten Lien, the author of the book about Olympic's woes that was behind the first link, wanted a "U.S. Wilderness Service" to be formed — the NPS was too much of a sellout. And, per that second link, we don't need more cellphone towers being built in designated wilderness areas.

And, seeing the expansion of cellphone towers in national parks, and other things, "pristineness," more than "just" wilderness, is what's needed. Beyond wilderness, we also, as part of pristineness, need to cut way back on the whole issue of corporate sponsors of and partners with the NPS.

Did Obama set a new progressive agenda? (Updated)

So claims BuzzFeed, in part based on these quotes:

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law –- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Obama said, going farther than ever before in support for gay marriage.  

"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," Obama said. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms."

And, pre-Inauguration, his list of executive actions on gun control.

Well, pardon me if I hold my breath until we see action, not words.

Will the Obama Department of Justice file an amicus brief when gay marriage hits the Supreme Court? If not, how will he explain himself?

Will he propose climate legislation, and do it smartly by starting with the Senate? And, who will replace Lisa Jackson at EPA and Kenny Boy Salazar at Interior? Those two Cabinet positions will be clear "tells." So will be any split in reaction to them between more conservative, establishmentarian "Gang Green" environmental groups and more aggressive ones like the Center for Biological Diversity. And, no, just because he spoke a lot about climate change doesn't mean he will be able to get much done, or even try to.

On gun control, in case you've not read what I've already written, here's a summary:
1. He never hired someone to run ATF, a vacancy he inherited from Bush;
2. He's prosecuted 1/10 of 1 percent of gun purchase violations;
3. Getting CDC, NIMH, etc. to look at mental health/gun violence connections requires money. Unless Obama wants to redistribute the current budgetary pie for those agencies, money requires Congressional action.

On voting rights, the real action would be to nationalize voting laws, at least for federal-level offices. States would have to adjust laws for state-level offices rather than have dual ballots. Combine that with giving the Federal Elections Commission more powers. Then, nationalize the Voting Rights Act. It placates Southerners, addresses discrimination against American Indians and Hispanics outside the South, addresses GOP-controlled Northern states attempts at inner city anti-black voter discrimination and more.

Are you holding your breath over anything even close to that?

So, while not to put too much a damper on dyed-in-the-wool Democrats' parties, I'm not holding my breath. This man has had more liberal yearnings psychologically projected on him, and in my opinion undeservedly so, than anybody since Jack Kennedy. If only Chris Hitchens were still alive, and still alive without having jumped headfirst into the shallow waters of neoconservativism, he could be writing away.

So, if "speak" = "set" then Obama (although he didn't mention gun control today) theoretically set a a new progressive agenda. But, since he referred to "We the People" enough, let's look at the paragraph, the prologue to the Constitution, that made those words famous:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

See all those "action" verbs? None of them is about "speaking."

And, via another blog, the whole speech is here. Kind of panders to Lincolnisms, doesn't it? On the written word, it looks kind of ... long, too.

Finally, as a secularist, one who has noted Obama's occasional references to secularism in the past, but also his religion-only moral compass at times like his post-Newtown speech, I find the speech is a bit God-heavy. Five references, and with the male pronoun after the last one, all clearly aimed at the traditional (Judeo fig leaf)-Christian one.

Update, Jan. 22: Per White House spokesman Jay Carney, Dear Leader, aka Compromiser-in-Chief, is already backpedaling.

(I)n the White House briefing room a day later, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said he couldn't speculate about future actions. He said that while climate change was a priority for the president, "it is not a singular priority."

On gay rights, the president had declared that the nation's journey is "not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

But Carney said the president was speaking about his personal views and would not take federal action on same-sex marriage, which he continues to see as a state issue.

So, get a clue, Obamiacs.

There will be NO amicus brief in the Proposition 8 case. Other than playing around the edges, there will be no new actions on climate change and global warming. (Nor on other environmental issues, sadly, including no wilderness designation in an area around Canyonlands National Park that really needs it.) There will be no requests for Congressional funding for any of his so-called "executive actions" on gun control that need money.

Beyond that, the address had nothing about trade issues, nothing about financial regulation issues, basically nothing about economic liberalism.

Besides, Harry Reid has no balls and won't get any real Senate filibuster reform, despite his claims.

One more push for wilderness bills in Congress

First, a caveat: This is the same Congress that just voted to remove Endangered Species Act protections from Greater Yellowstone wolves. So, why will it even barely consider passing a wilderness bill?

That said, the actual talks show that if it does, it will be a "wilderness" bill, not a wilderness bill. Gimmicks such as permanently removing some lands from wilderness consideration, for example, show that compromises to get a "wilderness" bill rather than a wilderness bill just aren't worth it.

Wilderness Act lies of omission at the NYT

The old gray lady runs a guest op-ed by a person who, oh so innocuously, argues that the intent of the Wilderness Act was never to ban mountain bikes.

His tagline? "Ted Stroll is an attorney."

What the NYT doesn't tell you is that Stroll is an active, even activist, member of the International Mountain Biking Association. But, if you Google, you'll find other articles like this.

Legally flawless on narrow analytical ground? Perhaps.

Well-written, as far as legal argumentation? NO.

Forced analogies, and omissions of things such as how mountain bikers deliberately alter trails in nonwilderness areas make for a poor column.

Nutbar Tom Coburn still huffy on wilderness bill

One of the Senate’s top GOOP nutbars, Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, is leading the opposition to the first major wilderness bill in years. That said, he’s joined by fellow nutbar Jim DeMint and others in opposing a vital bill to protect more western land.

Coburn’s objections are primarily to non-wilderness portions of the bill, which would put areas such as Oregon’s iconic Mount Hood under wilderness protection:

Coburn said the bill includes $3 million for a "road to nowhere" through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; $460 million for a water project designed to save 500 salmon in California; and $3.5 million to help celebrate the 450th birthday of St. Augustine, Fla., in 2015.

I don’t know about the “road to nowhere” (funny how Coburn didn’t worry about that in Alaska – maybe Harry Reid needs to go Ted Stevens on him), but the anniversary money for St. Augustine, the first permanent European settlement in the U.S., is not at all out of line. And, given salmon problems in California, while I’m sure the water project is not the best long-term solution, it is something.

As for the wilderness areas, if Mound Hood doesn’t say enough, go here for a complete list of wilderness areas in the bill. Beyond Mount Hood, major high desert land in eastern Oregon gets protection, as do significant chunks of Zion and Rock Mountain national parks.

BLM sells out southern Utah

New Bureau of Land Management proposed resource management plans would severely lessen protection of both environmental and archaeological beauty in places like Cedar Mesa.

As drafted, per High Country News, the plans open about 80 percent of this land to energy development. Nearly half a million acres would lose their status as areas of critical environmental concern.

That means ORVs tearing up more fragile land. It means fragmenting wilderness study areas to deliberately make it harder to make them into protected wilderness. And it means more oil and gas drilling.

“It’s the Bush administration’s last stand to make sure Utah’s public lands are open for development,” says Liz Thomas, attorney at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

To make matters worse, the BLM is rushing the changes through.

“We really need to get these wrapped up because we’re running out of money,” explains Don Ogaard, lead planner for the Utah BLM. The fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, and the Utah BLM cannot suck any more money out of the national coffers for the plans, he says. All of the records of decision will be signed by the end of October.

Uhh, yeah, right. Nov. 4 is the date on your calendar, Mr. Ogaard.