So, the way to accomodate the vast, and vastly profitable gas-and-oil companies who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the 1600 Crew and all their predecessors every step of the way into power is to gut the science and conservation efforts surrounding the regulation of the gas and oil fields.
The Bureau of Land Management, caretaker of more land and wildlife than any federal agency, routinely restricts the ability of its own biologists to monitor wildlife damage caused by surging energy drilling on federal land, according to BLM officials and bureau documents.
The officials and documents say that by keeping many wildlife biologists out of the field doing paperwork on new drilling permits and that by diverting agency money intended for wildlife conservation to energy programs, the BLM has compromised its ability to deal with the environmental consequences of the drilling boom it is encouraging on public lands.
...
"The BLM is pushing the biologists to be what I call 'biostitutes,' rather than allow them to be experts in the wildlife they are supposed to be managing," said Steve Belinda, 37, who last week quit his job as one of three wildlife biologists in the BLM's Pinedale office because he said he was required to spend nearly all his time working on drilling requests. "They are telling us that if it is not energy-related, you are not working on it."
Gee, how amazing that this could ever happen...NOT.
Washington - The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years.
New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
Based on the administration figures, the government will give up more than $7 billion in payments between now and 2011. The companies are expected to get the largess, known as royalty relief, even though the administration assumes that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period.
So a quick check of the history of the last 100 or so years reveals that hmmmm...another Preznit was willing to let a thief or two in the house connected to the oil industry, and with more tenuous ties directly to the president than is currently enjoyed by Bunnypants, Inc. After all, our beloved leader, who fancies himself as an "oilman" couldn't have found petroleum if he drilled in a service-station parking lot. Teapot Dome affected President Harding because the Senate was willing to perform it's constitutionally-mandated function of oversight.
As a result of Teapot Dome, Harding's administration has been remembered in history as one of the most corrupt to occupy the White House. Harding delegated his power, and ultimately delegated it to the wrong people.
Something unlikely to happen today, without some serious House (and Senate) cleaning.
posted by Jo Fish on 02.22.06 at 07:41 AM
Comments:
Red Herring Port Security Issue:
I'll do you all one better. This whole thing is a red herring and the dems are falling for it. This is going to be the "big issue" where the Republican house shows its independence against this miserable failure polling at below 40%.
The biggest danger the Republicans have in 06 is that they folow the president like a lost puppy, too weak to even challenge him on domestic spying, the war, etc etc etc etc etc etc. when he throws it in their face by saying..."thanks for the suggestions, but no thanks". Bottom line, Rove is throwing them a bone here, they can "have a showdown" with Bush so he changes his mind here, or they can enact legislation and override his bogus veto. In the end, this is about one thing...them being able to tell the voters how much they are looking out for their districts or State in 06 and 08. They need seperation right now, and the WH is throwing them this bone. bottom line. Also gives the wingnuts an issue they can disagree with Bush on.
I would never say listen to a scientist blindly. After all, a couple started the ID Creationism craze. But when a majority of CLIMATOLOGISTS have looked at the data and have come to the same consensus, it's a good idea to listen. Scientists examine the best evidence, and argue over the evidence until a consensus is established in the subject. True, they sometimes get it wrong, but it is always other scientists with a better CONVINCING argument based on evidence that moves science forward. Again, science isn't a democracy. Opinions (of say nonscientific trained politicians) don't count for much; evidence (empirical data, recorded trends for example) are/is the sole determinant. And the only opinions that really matter on what is really happening to the Earth’s climate are the scientists who closely examine the evidence, climatologist. Sounds harsh, but if you have serious heart problems do you want a dentist, a veterinarian, a politician, or a cardiologist to treat you?
