thinksinpictures's blog

I might have been able to gloss over Reuters' latest ignorance-fest on global climate change if it hadn't been for the following paragraph:

Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all.

This is the stock disclaimer that you'll see in just about any article about climate change. I assume it's mandated by Rupert Murdoch and his corporate peers. It is also only the beginning of the inaccuracies that characterize this article.

Since Christmas is the time of year that we cut down trees, the Bush administration has decided to celebrate by pushing through an "administrative rewrite" of Forest Service regulations regarding habitat protection and environmental impact statements.

The first [change] drops the 25-year-old requirement that managers prepare environmental impact statements — a cornerstone of public involvement in environmental decisions — when they develop or revise management plans for individual national forests.

The new rule directs forest managers to involve the public in the planning process but leaves the "methods and timing of public involvement opportunities" up to forest officials.

The argument for such a change is based on the assertion that environmental impact statements (EISs) are so much red tape, and that they "don't get used or don't get read and are rapidly obsolete" (to quote Fred Norbury, associate deputy chief of the national forest system). This is patently false -- while EISs are almost never read by the general public due to their density and length, they are regularly pored over by private environmental interest groups seeking to delay or halt federal actions that might violate environmental statutes (such as the Endangered Species Act).

Three Forest Service employees are being sued by a would-be developer under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for doing their jobs.

[The developer's] project came to a halt last May when a federal judge in Riverside issued a preliminary injunction saying that two activist groups, Friends of Fawnskin and the Center for Biological Diversity, had demonstrated that the development had "the potential to both harass and harm the bald eagle," which is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs have shown that "a violation of the Endangered Species Act is at least likely in the future," U.S. District Judge Robert Timlin said in a written ruling.

Frank Fraley, a Los Angeles lawyer representing the Forest Service employees, said the suit against his clients was filed in retaliation.

I find it ironic that both RICO - the law under which the Forest Service employees are being sued - and the ESA - the law that they were trying to uphold - were authorized by Congress under the constitutional power of the Commerce Clause.

My parents don't subscribe to the L.A. Times like the rest of our civilized metropolis, but rather to the Daily News, which is a more "fair and balanced" newspaper, if you catch my meaning. As such, I usually try to avoid reading the paper while I'm home, but some mornings when I sit down at the table with my Apple Jacks™, I really need something to look at.

This morning I read that a Cornell University study showed that 44% of "Americans" favor curbing the civil rights of all Muslim Americans. I couldn't find the article on the Daily News website (which seems to be on par with the physical paper in terms of quality), but it's an AP piece, so here it is on USAToday.

The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.

I woke up this morning to the news that activist judges in Canada's high court ruled this morning that the country's constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriage, opening the door for Canadian lawmakers to pass legislation redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. A measure like this would be a joke in America, simply a gesture by Congress to flagrantly dismiss the gay community. "Hey guys, look at this! Nobody but Dennis Kucinich wants to let you get hitched! And he's an elf! Ha!"

In Canada, well:

One top Liberal predicted the legislation should pass easily after its introduction, likely early next year. It already has the support of the 38-member Liberal cabinet and virtually all the 54 Bloc Quebecois and 19 New Democrat MPs.