If ever you wanted a primer on the nature of the political debate we’re all engaged in, it is uncovered here. That thread has it all – declared enemies, Trojan horses, agents provocateur, collaberators, stooges, spear chuckers and a few who want to die with sword in hand.
The stakes a very high. When the roadless lands are gone, even if we come to our senses, they are still gone.
We are in Connecticut for a few days, and it is indeed a beautiful place. There might be roadless lands here for all I know, but it is civilized and there is no danger anywhere. As Ed Abbey reminded us, wilderness ought to be dangerous, a few people ought to die there every year. Sleeping on the ground there ought to be a a frightening experience. Montana ain’t Connecticut. Parts of it still cause nightmares for collaberative souls.
Piece of Mindful 
For far too many Montanans, familiarity with wild, untrammeled country breeds contempt. I have often offered plane fare to those who, for whatever reason, cannot see the inestimable value of wilderness and freedom. Las Vegas is usually my opining offer, but Connecticut would do nicely.
Connecticut also produced one of the finest congressional representatives I have ever known in Christopher Shays. He’s now running for the U.S. Senate (Republican ticket). Democrats had a better idea, as always, another unremarkable Democrat. Party first.
LikeLike
So, to be clear, Shays, who was an ardent supporter of the Iraq War, going so far as to deny what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture, is an acceptable politician?
Fascinating.
LikeLike
How many democrat politicians were ardent supporters of the Iraq War and denied what happened at Abu Ghraib (or Guantanamo, or Bradley Manning… etc.) was torture?? And yet you still find all of them acceptable?
Your selective indignation, if it weren’t so predictable, is quite fascinating, also.
Actually, why don’t you just spell out what makes an acceptable politician for us Don. Then we can avoid voting for him/her.
LikeLike
I’m not the one who goes around saying I won’t for someone because of single issues, nor am I one of the people who acts like politicians need to be in 100% agreement with us to get our votes.
I find it fascinating that Senator Tester’s clearly not acceptable because of his position on wilderness, but that Steve finds an apologist for torture and the war in Iraq to be “one of the finest congressional representatives” he has known.
I think it probably shows that we need to judge the entirety of the politician and the person, not just get so fixated on single issues that we lose all perspective.
LikeLike
Chris Shays has over the years has led republican support for NREPA by introducing it into Congress.
I know that doesn’t fit with your nice meme about single issues and all. But then again, nobody has ever accused you of understanding the radical extremist view of wilderness protection… and how those same people can be you neighbors and friends, and not vote for Tester, and be against the Iraq war and torture.
Your problem Pogie, is that you’ve got a pocketful of ideas everybody needs to ascribe to in order to be taken seriously–or as Krugman would call them: VSP (very serious people). Your world is black and white: you’re either with the dems, or you’re not. There’s no room for freedom of thought and expression in your political universe.
I have about a hundred single issues I’m passionate about and involved in. And not a single one, or group of them, would sway me one way or the other about any politician. If one of my single issues — like NREPA (which I helped to craft) — gets support from a republican, I’ll take it. Not allowing wilderness or roadless lands fall to hard release, or weakening the Wilderness Act, is the goal.
LikeLike
That you, of all people would accuse someone of “black and white thinking” makes it quite clear that further discussion will go nowhere.
You don’t know anything about me. You don’t know anything about what I believe or what I’ve written about Democrats.
It’s fine that you believe what you do, because I honestly don’t care, but for your own sake, I hope you’re a bit more reflective about your own tendency to create simplistic dichotomies when complex answers exist.
Good luck.
LikeLike
Can’t judge in ner thought processes by your words? Oblique? Deceptive? Kaileyism? Autism? What’s the problem?
LikeLike
Pogie,
Funny you would ask. It was actually Shays’ handling of impeachment proceedings v. Pres. Clinton that impressed me most. He went home to Connecticut and convened meetings at high school gyms and let the people speak. He listened.
On Iraq, Congress abdicated. I did not know about his position on Abu Ghraib. On this matter I disagree strongly. I’m pretty sure I could have an honest conversation with him on the subject and leave still liking and respecting the man, while abhorring the position he may have taken. I’m sure there are others. I have never met a perfect congressman, and none finer than Shays.
Shays is an impressive representative of the people of Connecticut.
So, Pogie, do you have an opinion on wilderness, or will our encounters be limited to endless rematches with political daggers. It’s always a pleasure to exchange thoughts with you on the burning issues of our time.
LikeLike
The truth is that we’ll probably never have much of a discussion on wilderness because I’m in the “collaborator” camp. Ideologically, I believe in preserving wild areas. Politically, though, I think we have to be careful. Republicans who believe in far more destructive policies than moderates like Senator Tester already use wilderness as a wedge issue to win votes.
Can we do better? Sure. Could Senator Tester be closer to my position? Absolutely. But, at least in the short term, we’re stuck with the system we have–and Republicans and developers are killing us on wilderness messaging right now.
I think you guys are more likely to blame moderate environmental organizations like MWA and I am more likely to blame Republicans. I think the former is counterproductive and it seems you think the latter is naive.
I’m not sure we get past that impasse.
LikeLike
“Politically, though, I think we have to be careful. Republicans who believe in far more destructive policies than moderates like Senator Tester already use wilderness as a wedge issue to win votes.”
One, I see no basis for your claim, objectively based on his behavior, that Tester is a moderate. That is your perception, but it seems to be merely based on his being a Democrat.
Two, your statement has fear-based politics written all over it. If there is no upper limit to evil, then there is no such thing as lesser evil. Simple algebra.
LikeLike
Well Dennis Rehberg and most House republicans seemed to oppose the FJRA so objectively speaking Tester’s position is moderate as compared to theirs.
LikeLike
[sigh]
Don’t play poker much then?
LikeLike
Kidding. Right?
LikeLike
huh? Nah dont play poker I only gamble with other peoples’ money. I read your post before bout there being no upper limit to evil than there is no such thing as lesser evil. I duly note it. My point was not that deep and not a comment about the existence of lack of existence of a long term right ward shift in enviro discussions. It was simply that Tester’s position is objectively moderate when compared to those of the Koehlers /Tokarskis etc. of the world and the far right extremists. Clearly we differ on whether the substance of his position is truly “moderate”, but you can’t really disagree that he and the bill have detractors to the left and right.
LikeLike
Hello “Jack Ruby:”
Could you please give specific examples of where the positions of my organization, the WildWest Institute, are supposedly so far outside what you’ve termed “objectively moderate?”
Our organization’s mission is to protect and restore forests, wildlands, watersheds and wildlife in the Northern Rockies. We help craft positive solutions that promote sustainability in our communities through jobs restoring naturally functioning ecosystems and protecting communities from wildfire. We also ensure that the government follows the law and best science when managing our public forests by fully participating in the public decision process and through on-the-ground monitoring.
Furthermore, we believe that the remaining old-growth forests and roadless wildlands on our federal public lands should be protected from further development. You can learn more at: http://wildwestinstitute.org.
Since I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of Americans support these key concepts, I’d be curious to know what part of our mission, or which parts of these goals are as crazy or extreme as you anonymously make them out to be. Thanks.
LikeLike
Matt I would take the time to parse your website to give you an answer or spend the rest of the week studying the minutiae of the FJRA but I’m busy right now earning a living as well as being a champion of the internet. I’ll take your word for it that you are not exteme, but I’m wondering how you can lament the far right shift in the parameters of the environmental dialogue and yet still claim that your organization’s viewpoint has not been relegated to the outliers of the debate? Has the far right shift actually taken place or only when it is convenient for your arguments?
LikeLike
I’m so sorry the kitchen got too hot for you here “Jack Ruby.” Way to avoid the substance of the public lands policy issues at play here…I’d expect nothing less, or is that nothing more?
I’m also not sure that there has been too much of a “far right shift in the parameters of the environmental dialogue” as far as the American people are concerned. Yes, I’d agree this has taken place at the political level in DC and on the state-level in many parts of the country; however, objective polling continues to show beyond any doubt that the American people are strongly supportive of protecting public lands, clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, etc.
You may want to add these to your reading list:
New Survey Finds Voters in Key Western States Believe U.S. Does Not Have to Choose Between Environment and Economy: Support Protections for Air, Water and Parks (January 2012):
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/01/survey-western-attitudes-shows-strong-support-national-parks-clean-environment9390
Majority of Western Voters Believe Environmental Protections, Strong Economy Can Co-Exist (Feb 2011):
Click to access WesternStatesPoll_Release_02_20_11ev1.pdf
LikeLike
So when you said that I, the illustrious Jack Ruby, was helping to shift the entire debate to the right because I stated that Tester’s position was objectively moderate, you must have been mistaken because clearly the highly intelligent American public is not falling for my shenigans according to your surveys. I take it you just now found these surveys because clearly they do not comport with your earlier statements. I trust you will be issuing an official apology on your website I would hate to have to consider taking legal action regarding your untrue statements.
LikeLike
Nice, try “Jack” but I think you’ll have to keep digging.
You wrote: “I take it you just now found these surveys because clearly they do not comport with your earlier statements.”
Nope, I didn’t now “just find these surveys.”
As you can clearly see, I wrote about the Feb 2011 survey, back in Feb 2011
New poll shows western voters support environmental protections
by: Matthew Koehler
Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 12:17:00 PM MST
http://www.leftinthewest.com/diary/4579/new-poll-shows-western-voters-support-environmental-protections
You’re also confusing my statement, or intentionally twisting it all around. To be perfectly clear: While I believe the political rhetoric, and some of the political “solutions” regarding public lands management or environmental issues in general, has slid to the right, I also believe that the American people are strongly in support of various environmental protections. In other words, this is an example of where the politics and the politicians are far to the right of the majority of Americans. Hope that clears up my views on the matter. Thanks Jack.
P.S. Hey, Jack, good to see that on one hand you claim you’re too busy to respond to specific, substantive questions we pose to you…but at the same time you’re apparently not too busy to keep on commenting. Which is it “Jack?”
LikeLike
Come on Don, you don’t have to be afraid of defending wilderness. It’s all good. There is no downside.
Actually, MWA causes nothing to happen, or to not happen. Somewhere in the neighborhood of irrelevant. Pew is another story. I do, and will continue to, respond to threats to wilderness — designated and undesignated. I will respond to threats to wildlife, wildlife habitat, water quality and native fisheries. I realize that’s sounding like a long list, but it’s all connected. I believe groups and individuals have choices: Lead, follow or get out of the way.
The Partners are in the way. They live in the way. I thought they knew that. I never considered they didn’t know. Aren’t they paid to lie down like pennies on railroad tracks for (partner) timber corporations and politicians who carry water for the timber industry? Isn’t that why they’re so shiny, and why they’re paid the big bucks?
Camping out on the double-yellow, failing to get out of the way of oncoming traffic is not necessarily just cause for claiming you’re a victim. Has anyone seen what that semi did to my Sierra cup?
LikeLike
“…objectively speaking Tester’s position is moderate as compared to theirs.”
It’s always sort of amusing to watch people who’s understanding of public lands policy issues could be generously described as very casual come into conversations like this with very experienced public lands policy activists like JC, Steve, Mark, Etc.
Speaking objectively, Senator Tester’s FJRA would, for the first time in America’s history, have members of Congress simply mandating the level of logging they want to take place on federal public lands back in their home states….science, ecology, legal requirements, fiscal resources and other priorities be damned.
“Objectively speaking” this would open the door for more politicians in DC simply mandating the level of logging, oil and gas development, mining, grazing, motorized use, on federal public lands back in the states or districts.
“Objectively speaking” Senator Tester’s FJRA releases Wilderness Study Areas protected from development in the late 1970’s by MT Sen Lee Metcalf. These WSA’s that Tester’s bill would release are to be opened up to activities like motorized use, roadbuilding, logging, etc.
Senator Tester’s FJRA also would allow, for the first time, motorized access to designated Wilderness areas for sheep ranchers whenever they see fit. The FJRA also includes a number of other non-capable uses in Wilderness.
“Objectively speaking” the head of the US Forest Service had this to say directly about FJRA during the Congressional hearing: “We would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill’s requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions….My concern [with FJRA] is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different Forest Service regions in the country. Those [National Forests] who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country.”
I bring all this up to point out the absurdity of Jack Ruby’s claim that Tester’s FJRA is a “moderate position” by any objective or sane look into the matter.
Jack, I get it that to some of you the word is all about R’s v D’s and everything fits neatly into a two-party system, that’s funded largely by the same corporations.
However, can you understand that when you take the position that any policy position that Tester or other Dems come up with is automatically “moderate” (because, I suppose it didn’t come from a GOP’er) you help shift the entire policy debate wildly to the right?
LikeLike
Awesome I have been deigned enough of an annoyance to merit an attack by the illustrious super hero Matt Koehler. Its pretty simple Matt. Tester’s position is “objectively moderate” compared to the positions taken by those of you in the environmental extremist movement on the left and those of the knuckle draggers on the right (you know the ones who killed the FRJA in the House and who you can objectively thank for the fact it is not law). Tester is obviously far to the right of you and there are others far to the right of him. I didn’t say that any position taken by Tester is moderate by definition I said that its objectively moderate in comparison to positions currently held by others. And it is. I also made no comment about the shifting in the policy debate to the right. I agree with you that it has shifted to the right. You are probably a big part of why that has happened. Sorry if that makes you all hurt and sad inside.
LikeLike
Yeah you guys really screwed the pooch on this one.
LikeLike
Hey anonymous-posting “Jack Ruby.” You may need to grow some thicker skin if you believe that my substantive response to you regarding the substance of Tester’s FJRA is an actual “attack.” Many of us have pointed out more than enough examples of where the substance and specifics contained within Tester’s FJRA is anything but “Objectively moderate,” especially if you’re measuring it against our current federal public lands legacy.
LikeLike
Did I get you all up in a lather Matty? I realize anyone who disagrees with you cannot be a moderate in your mind and the substance of the FJRA could never be seen as a moderate position in your mind. But given the rightward shift to the current state of public discourse on the subject and the backlash against the wild eyed environmental extremist obstructionists it actually is a moderate position.
LikeLike
Does money that is behind Democrats have any play here?
LikeLike
Sure. The money that politicians receive frequently impacts their decisions. Why did you remove your earlier comment? Now it looks like I was talking to myself when I said you guys screwed the pooch.
LikeLike
Sorry bout that. I felt it was too much a put down. You’re not clueless.
LikeLike
As I wrote you above “Jack” you want to add these to your reading list, as I’m not so sure you’re statement about the “rightward shift to the current state of public discourse on the subject and the backlash against the wild eyed environmental extremist obstructionists” is actually taking place among the American people. Sure, it might be part of modern day politics, but I think Americans are smart enough to know that they enjoy clean air, clean water, public lands and wildlife habitat for critters. Thanks.
New Survey Finds Voters in Key Western States Believe U.S. Does Not Have to Choose Between Environment and Economy: Support Protections for Air, Water and Parks (January 2012):
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/01/survey-western-attitudes-shows-strong-support-national-parks-clean-environment9390
Majority of Western Voters Believe Environmental Protections, Strong Economy Can Co-Exist (Feb 2011):
Click to access WesternStatesPoll_Release_02_20_11ev1.pdf
LikeLike
This serves as general evidence that, because of the political power of concentrated wealth, the political class exists far to the right of the public, only stopping by for a visit during elections.
LikeLike
Very well put Mark.
LikeLike