Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama administration issues Grand Canyon uranium mining ban (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "few"? (12+ / 0-)

    I'm not that much of a policy wonk, in terms of following all the gory details of every legislation and action.

    No doubt there have been many shortcomings, while they are subject to a dictatorship of right wing majorities...since day one of this administration.

    But it seems to me that the positive actions have Not really been so "few".  I seem to recall numerous more or less good moves, environmentally, as on other fronts, making some good hits.

    All insufficient, no doubt.  All wrought with onerous compromise, no doubt.

    That's the realpolitik of rightwing majorities holding you hostage, with a gun to your head, over every little detail.

    Just saying, if the tables are turned in 2012, we'll be able to kick right wing ass all up and down both sides of the aisle, and really roll out the new green paradigm, all the way, put everyone back to work, bring the troops home, have health care, prosecute the traitors, etc. etc. etc.

    So...I see no problem with accentuating the positive, and blaming any negative on the right, from whom virtually all obstacles ultimately emanate, ya know?  


    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

    by Radical def on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:49:51 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You might have noticed from the diary to... (11+ / 0-)

      ..which this comment is attached mentions that it was I who first wrote about the Grand Canyon move last week, giving it the praise it deserves. You might also notice that I was not referring to all environmental action by the administration, but specifically to the purview of Ken Salazar, who has a decidedly mixed record leaning toward the ungreen side of things.

      I realize that you would like there never to be any criticism whatsoever about the administration, all of it being in your view helpful to the "oppositionalists" as you (and others) label them, and "counter-revolutionary" to boot. Some of us don't agree.

      If you can come up with more than a few good things Ken Salazar has done regarding the environment, more than a few that haven't pissed off the environmental community, please feel free to drop a list off. In your research, I believe you will discover that not everything he has done that fell short did so because of the right, unless you wish to include him in their number.

      The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:50:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have there been any diaries on the health effects (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radical def, Lucy2009, Onomastic

        on uranium mine workers and the percentage of workers who are Native American, etc. ?

      •  Excellent reply, MB! (3+ / 0-)

        Ken Salazar has generally been no friend of the environment and it's a joke that he holds the position that he does.....  

        On the other hand, halle-fuckin-lujah for this decision.  The Grand Canyon and our environment needs all the help it can get at this point, so this is very good news.

        Personhood Advocates, Forced Birthers, and GOP policies, ensure that for many, quality of life begins at conception and ends at birth...

        by Lucy2009 on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 01:40:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama/Salazar to expand oil, gas drilling (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          off Alaska and in the Gulf

          MSNBC Nov. 2011

          Interior Secretary Ken Salazar unveiled a proposal to hold 15 lease sales for areas in the Gulf of Mexico, including two in the eastern Gulf, and three off Alaska's coast in 2012-2017.

          "This five-year program will make available for development more than three-quarters of undiscovered oil and gas resources estimated on the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf), including frontier areas such as the Arctic, where we must proceed cautiously," he said in a statement....

          An environmentalist who served on the BP oil spill commission created by President Barack Obama questioned the approach.

          "Green-lighting more oil drilling under inadequate safety measures is a reckless gamble we cannot afford," Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. "The President’s Oil Spill Commission put forth a gameplan to improve the industry’s safety, but it has yet to be realized. Congress has failed to pass a single law to better protect workers or the environment."

          •  Really, really sad and disappointing. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            southof, Ed in Montana

            I'm just happy to give a bit of credit when/where it's due. I don't like this President, his Administration or too many of the decisions they've made across the boards.

            At the same time, we have to give praise where due, and with any luck they will be slightly more sensible, and moral in a second term.

            Personhood Advocates, Forced Birthers, and GOP policies, ensure that for many, quality of life begins at conception and ends at birth...

            by Lucy2009 on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:15:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Call me...sensitized to oppositionalist approach (0+ / 0-)

        I must defy you to cite a single example, let alone a tendency on my part, Ever to condemn "any criticism whatsoever".

        I'm tempted to HR that remark, LOL, because it's such a damned lie.

        I maintain that there is a real, material, and significant difference between legitimate criticism, and unprincipled, subjective, hyperbolic, oppositionalist attack.

        For you to pick up and wield that kind of "obamabot" insinuation is not surprising, though, considering your notable rec's on some pretty harsh anti-Democratic screeds, and your several criticisms of my position that people should HR such trolling.

        Indeed, I do tend to think that handing any power whatsoever over to the right is a serious counter-revolutionary error, at best.

        Re: Salazar I have noted many complaints about him, and recognize that he's far from optimal in theory and practice.

        However, I think many of Obama's appointments, like everything else that he does, and virtually every word out of his mouth, has required tortuous negotiation, back room meetings, arm twisting, bribe offers and threats, over every little detail of his administration, severely constraining his potential and options, in all regards.

        So yeah, Salazar may suck, pretty bad, and I'm not saying he doesn't, or that it shouldn't be pointed out, either.

        Just saying, when a remark seems to just be an attempt to impose negatives, on what is clearly a very positive development, it kinda triggers my Oppositionalist Alarm, heh.

        I have always respected your journalistic writing hugely, MB, Because you don't usually take a staunch oppositionalist postion, Nor pull punches in your analysis, when criticism is called for.

        Not having studied your body of work sufficiently, it's hard for me to judge, except to say that, alas, you do seem to be going over to the dark side, moar, lately, especially as reflected in what seems to be very lax moderation of the venue, which now seems very substantially swamped with a lot of more or less blatant anti-Democratic trolls.

        You guys knock off the right wing "DEMS SUX" crowd pretty quick, but I think you cut way too much slack in that regard, from the purported left.

        It makes me wonder whither you, and dkos, may end up...drifting.


        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

        by Radical def on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 01:56:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Going over to the dark side? I've been critical... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ed in Montana, rbird, navajo

          ...of certain Democrats ever since I did my first canvassing for Democratic candidates 48 years ago, well before I could even vote. That's nothing new. I praise when I feel it's deserved and criticize when I think it's deserved.

          This seems to frustrate some people who think criticism of someone "on our side" is never appropriate in public — like those leftists who said we should shut up about the behavior of the Soviets or the Fidelistas or Sandinistas because criticizing them would advance the objectives of the imperialists. Would, indeed, be "counter-revolutionary," a term you like to offer up on occasion.

          As for "lax moderation," you'll have to assign that criticism elsewhere because I have not engaged in moderation here since August.

          Please feel free to HR me any time, but spare me the phony outrage, eh? My reference is to the insinuations in your body of work, this being a recent example:

          Does everything I say apply to "everyone" who brings "any" criticism?

          Perhaps not, but it definitely is the basis for much of the most ruthless, subjective, hyperbolic oppositionalist attack from the "left".

          That's my bold face. I took it to also mean "perhaps so." And it matches your view that administration here should itself be ruthless about banning people you disagree with, people who you think do not follow the site's mission statement.

          The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:35:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, you bring this false meme... (0+ / 0-)

            Trying to conflate "criticism" with subjective, opportunist, oppositionalist hyperbolic attack...they are Not "the same", any more than the Democrats and Republicans are "the same".

            AS IF I have Ever said criticism is "never appropriate", or that your stretch, to distort my meaning in those few words, in isolation from context, "proves" otherwise.

            Oh yeah, I forgot about your red-baiting me so much, too.

            You've made it clear that you don't like my "pamphleteering" style of writing, nor the fact that I use some old-school rhetoric and terms.  

            Oh well, I am a communist (small c), heh, and I make no bones about it.  To me, though, all that means is that I want real, actual democracy, which is all communism has ever really been about.

            I haven't discussed here the examples you cite, much, if at all, so I see little basis for your extrapolation of what my views might be re: those countries.

            But I do tend to take a far more critical line toward US policy against those countries, than I do about whatever errors they may have made...most of which have been grossly exaggerated and twisted beyond reason, I think, in many regards, for propaganda purposes, and have been largely caused, or exacerbated to a very substantial degree, by the extreme pressures brought to bear against them from the US.

            When a country is forced to resort to martial law, to prevent being overrun by imperialism, such conditions are not exactly conducive to optimal social, economic or political development.  

            Call me an "apologist", but if I have to take "sides", I will tend direct my fire to the right, first, mainly, as the real source of the contradictions, and not so much at those who are struggling valiantly for their very survival as a nation.

            And that doesn't mean automatically being "for" whoever the US is against, lol.  

            The Sandanistas, for example, have at least tried to maintain a principled popular democratic practice (somewhat successfully, it would seem, lately), unlike, say, those right wing reactionary conservative fundamentalist freakin' Taliban (you know, those former CIA clients "we" contrived, to sic on the Russians, just like Hitler on Russia, or Chiang Kai Chek on China, or the "contras" in Nicaragua?)

            When the US fails to utterly destroy a nation, the next step is to maim and cripple them as much as possible, with the deliberate intention of forcing the most desperate and draconian results, which can then be pointed to, to "prove" that socialism (such as it is, in those countries, under those conditions) "doesn't work".

            So, yeah, call me a commie, lol.

            But that doesn't "prove" that I'm some kind of fascist Stalinist authoritarian, who wants to suppress "all" criticism, here and now, in the US, going into the 21st Century, or on dkos.

            Nor is this about mere "disagreement" over "opinions", bringing us right back to yet another attempt to deploy what is essentially the same false meme that you started with, that I am supposedly against "any" criticism, or "any" "disagreement", whatsoever.

            But yes, there does seem to be a fundamental disagreement, as to whether anti-democratic trolls should have a "right" to be "free" to troll us.

            Fuck that noise.

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

            by Radical def on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:33:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I most certainly did not "red-bait" you... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ...I was making a point about criticism and some people's inability to accept it. You say you don't reject all criticism of the President; fine. I hope you make that a lot clearer in your future comments. Because, imo, you haven't made it that clear in the past, and your direct use of words like "emoprog" make rather laughable your concern that I allegedly insinuated you are an "Obamabot." I don't think you are. I don't think you agree with a lot of what Obama has done. I just think, again, based on the body of your work, that you think anybody should raise criticisms of him because it will hurt his reelection chances, not because the criticisms are mistaken. I understand the rationale behind that tactic, but, except in the last couple of months before an election, I don't agree with it.

              As someone who has been on the left all my adult life, I have had plenty of occasion to engage in principled conversation, including crit/self-crit sessions, with other leftists, some of whom argued that anyone who publicly criticized the political systems of the Soviet Union, Cuba or Nicaragua (as it was developing under the Sandinistas) were, in fact, "counter-revolutionary" and underdeserving of being part of the movement to bring socialism to America. Deserving of being purged, in fact. I find that kind of authoritarianism obnoxious wherever I run into it. Many of your comments contain loads of that kind of rhetoric. But my criticism has nothing to do with your being a communist. For the record, my own criticism of the Sandinistas (and I spent nearly a year, all told, in Nicaragua from 1983 to 1986) was from their left.

              Also for the record, since some people seem to think otherwise, advocates for the candidacy of Ron Paul will not survive long here. Many have been banned over the years and will continue to be.  

              The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

              by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:06:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again, you exaggerate, and misrepresent... (0+ / 0-)

                I've used "emoprog" ONE freakin' time, more as snark than as a mere adhominem...but it's true, I did say it, once, and got a donut for it, lol, inappropriately, I think, but oh well.

                Nobody's perfect, heh...but to point to that single instance, again completely out of context, "proves"  nothing, except that you are reaching, to try to cast a false meme about my practice.

                Oh well...I have noticed the Paulbots and their right wing ilk getting the axe, quickly, and do appreciate that, alot.

                Just saying, if "TEH DEMS SUX" line from the right can and should be prohibited, why not the exact same kind of mirror image evil twin doppelganger equivalent from the left?

                And pleez, let's Don't decide to lighten up on the right wing trolls, just to be "fair" about cutting the "left" wing trolls so much freakin' slack, mmmk?

                That would be too...bourgeoise a notion of "free speech", I think.

                Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

                by Radical def on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:29:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site