Stephen Johnson defends Bush as ‘pro-environmental’ 8

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Trebuchet Posted 12:02 am
   09 Dec 2008

   Oh, that's a good one!HAHA! Thanks, I needed a laugh today.
   But it just goes to show that is what they mean when they say "pro-environmental". Since in their mind economic development trumps all, the fact that there was economic growth without completely destroying the environment means they are "pro".
   Their goalposts for using that term are set very very close. Basically on their shoes as far as that metaphor is concerned.
   And of course Bush always "uses phrases". But they don't actually mean anything as far as his actions are concerned. He has almost never said what he means nor means what he says.

   Permalink

2. 

   archigeek Posted 2:19 am
   09 Dec 2008

   Feh...Stephen Johnson is nothing more than what a Soviet dissident-citizen would call an "apparatchik". He's just an operative of the Party, whose loyalty is to the Party, and not the Republic. Both the Dims and Repukes contain these tools: Rahm Emmanuel is one of these. Probably a few thousand others, too. Now many of them are in Mr. Obama's cabinet. Not good.
   
   The mellotron is your friend.

   Permalink

3. 

   BillS Posted 11:50 am
   09 Dec 2008

   CluelessThe funny thing is that Bush probably meant what he said.  But I doubt that the man has any grasp of one of the core principles of environmental protection - that regulation has to force new technologies and economic change and growth.  His thinking probably was that Johnson could issue whatever policies or rules he wanted as long as industry was allowed to keep doing what it wants.  It just doesn't work that way.  It's also hard to imagine that Bush had any direct involvement in sending down pivotal decisions to EPA such as rejection of the California waiver request and not regulating perchlorate.  That has the fingerprints of Cheney, the CEQ, OMB, DOD, and the industrial powerhouses all over it.  I can just imagine Bush shrugging and saying "Sounds good to me."  In terms of the environment, Bush's legacy will be how much damage you can cause by being clueless.  

   Permalink

4. 

   Sam Wells Posted 12:17 pm
   09 Dec 2008

   Aw common naw!Bush sucks for the environment and even when he tried fish policy he got it all wrong, poor fella. I don't blame Mr. Steve "Who Me?" Johnson or "got drugs?" Levitt before him for being proverbial turds, as their major achievement in life was to be political cheerleaders. Claims of them being "political apparachniks" are way over-stated, as they are fairly shallow and daft people with nothing other than being crafty & wily weasels as a strategy.  Ain't this a great country or what?  
   The only comeuppance is that on January 20, 2009, these folks will be fired, laid off, and sent to the broom closet.  Sssssweet!  
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

5. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 2:27 pm
   09 Dec 2008

   Says Johnson out of the side of his mouthwhile kissing W's butt.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

6. 

   caniscandida Posted 5:31 pm
   09 Dec 2008

   self-sacrificeOdd use of "philosophically."  Of course we know how Johnson is using it, in a thoughtless, boring, conventional way.  But it bears insisting that there is nothing especially "philosophical" about either what Johnson has to say, or what he repeats W. as saying.
   Is sacrifice simply an impossible option?  Are the American people simply another Master Race, such that "maintaining our nation's competitiveness," economic or otherwise, is our obligation and our destiny (?!; and in that case, which divinity is writing the Books of Fate?), and allowing ourselves to slip backwards into a kinder, gentler state is out of the question?
   Well, there are indeed some great goods which require the support of American wealth.  E.g., here close to home in NYC, the Metropolitan Opera (Natalie Dessay singing Bel Canto is alone a treasure), the Metropolitan Museum (a visit to the Cloisters is as beneficial as a religious pilgrimage), and Columbia University (one alumnus of which is the President-Elect).  But does the maintenance of such goods require ever-increasing wealth, founded in competitiveness?
   The maintenance of goods internationally, i.e. in places other than the US, may indeed require American wealth, too.  But there especially, isn't competitiveness/competition counter-productive?  Why is the creation of an international class of losers a good thing?
   Perhaps we can divide humanity (yet again!) into two categories: those who consider competitiveness/competition to be a mother of virtue; and those who consider competitiveness/competition to be a mother of suffering and death.
   Possibly George W. Bush is correct, that Americans, of course!, must always do what they can to maintain their economic competitiveness.  But why? -- if we are to claim to speak philosophically, we must ask that.
   And, possibly, it would be political suicide for any prominent American to suggest anything different, than that American competitiveness, and subsequent supremacy, must be maintained.
   Nevertheless, is it not the case that within environmentalism, there has always been a vocation to recession, and surrender, and abnegation, as a truer path to salvation than that offered by the promoters of competition?
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

7. 

   spaceshaper Posted 12:41 am
   10 Dec 2008

   Which direction?Caniscandida asks whether "allowing ourselves to slip backwards into a kinder, gentler state is out of the question?"
   How about letting ourselves slip FORWARD into that state. I see little that is kinder or gentler about our racist, genocidal past.
   
   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

8. 

   caniscandida Posted 5:06 pm
   12 Dec 2008

   Sorry, SpaShYou are right; and that apparent sentimental moment of nostalgia was quite unintended.  There was never any such thing as "the good old days."
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink