Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Credit Where Credit is Due

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted June 22, 2006.


By declaring the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands a national monument -- which will help protect its marine life -- Bush has made at least one good decision lately.
Ivins

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Molly Ivins

Molly Ivins AlterNet Archive
An archive of the great progressive columnist's writings.
Jun 21, 2007

Stand Up Against the "Surge"
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders and we need to raise hell.
Jan 12, 2007

Now They're All For Bipartisanship
Apparently, the people of this country did not elect liberals to Congress last week. Nope, they elected populists!
Nov 15, 2006

More stories by Molly Ivins

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Yea, Bush! Way to go! I realize this is last week's news, but I'm a great believer in giving credit where credit is due. By designating the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as a national monument, Bush has put one more level of federal protection around a vast spread of islands and irreplaceable marine life.

As he rather touchingly insisted, this IS a big deal -- 140,000 square miles of water that contains more than 7,000 rare species. Word is the president decided to declare the area a marine sanctuary after watching a documentary by Jean-Michel Cousteau. The thought that it might be possible to move George W. Bush to action by something as simple as watching a movie came as a new thought to many who are dying to try it on other issues.

But the environment is an area in which a simple plea often moves Bush. For example, Ol' Ernie Angelo, who used to be mayor of Midland and represent Texas on the Republican National Committee, sent a note to Karl Rove in 2002 complaining about an Environmental Protection Agency rule designed to keep groundwater around oil drilling sites clean.

Well, you can imagine Angelo, an oilman, was not happy about this sucker. In fact, he informed Rove, the rule was causing many in the oil industry "to openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity."

Rove forwarded the note to the White House environmental advisers, demanding a "response ASAP." So the rule finally took effect this month, but after intense industry pressure, court battles and behind-the-scenes lobbying at the agency and in Congress, it's more hole than rule. And guess what? It has no teeth in it.

Yep, Ernie and oil industry got what they wanted: the end of the Clinton-era proposal to require special EPA permits for construction sites smaller than 5 acres as a way to keep groundwater clean. Imagine the immense burden that would put on the oil companies. Really, unless the Bush administration took this kind of special care, Exxon might suffer a drop in profits.

Next, we find the EPA has decided not to release information on 140 Superfund sites -- these are toxic waste sites that present risk of exposure to those nearby, as the exposure remains uncontrolled. You might, if you hadn't been paying attention, assume information collected by the government and paid for by the citizens would be, uh, public.

"This isn't a question of left or right," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. "This is a question of right and wrong." According to the Los Angeles Times, "The EPA said that it had blocked only information related to law enforcement and that the public had access to all relevant health-risk data for the sites."

That's the kind of sentence reporters write with a straight face.

Actually, what the EPA is keeping secret is how much money and time it will take to clean up the Superfund sites. Why? "Republicans said Democrats want to manufacture a political issue, and noted that Senate tradition had long prevented the release of sensitive information," said the Times. What political issue? The reinstatement of a "controversial tax" -- i.e., the Superfund tax on chemical, oil and other polluting companies.

In case you haven't been following this, the Superfund is broke and has been largely inactive for four years. The fund was allowed to run dry when Congress failed to renew the tax on polluters. You may not believe this, but the oil and chemical companies complained mightily about being asked to pay for the cleanup of messes they had created. What a concept.

Other environmental controversies continue to simmer all the time -- out of sight, out of mind. Just one more regulation chopped here, just one more law changed there, just a little information hidden.

But do be sure to give Bush credit for declaring the already protected Northwestern Hawaiian Islands a national monument. That's a good thing. Is there an election any time soon?

Digg!

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Does Bush Even Know There is a Pacific Ocean?
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jun 22, 2006 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is classic Bush/Rove to one outward, ostentatious and flamboyant act that on the surface appears actually competent and humane to cover their every day acts of maintaining and asserting their power. Little that comes from the Bush administration is constuctive, it all seems to be aimed at destruction. Protecting a marine reserve should be a no brainer and an expected act of a civilized country rather than a quasi momentous, magnaimous gesture that it is being used for. But coming from Bush and seen by those who know the daily truth of our current government it simply becomes pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And then... ? Posted by: chasaturn
» RE: And then... ? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Haven for the Plutocracy Posted by: GreenLibbie
strictly speaking, he screwed up
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jun 22, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Geo heard that the Specific Ocean was near Pearl Harbor, he knew he had to act. No surprise attacks will be tolerated during his watch.

Strictly, though, he screwed up. When Satan gets word of this unintentional act of forethought, He will be livid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush gets there first again! (a bit of humor)
Posted by: AlienSlave on Jun 22, 2006 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly it just pisses me off to no end! I seen that Nova special as well and I also seen a very good profit to be made by the billions of bick lighters that have washed up on the shores of those islands full of fluid already picked up and put into plastic buckets. My thought of becoming an oil baron working with propane gas is over if GW gets there first.
By the time I work through the Federal paper work someone with Federal connections will have them.
AlienSlave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Oil
Posted by: Rational on Jun 22, 2006 3:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember one of the bush league rethuglican talking points against the Alaska wildlife refuge, where they want to drill for oil, is that it is so remote who's gonna ever see it?

Well for the NW Hawaiian Islands I would ask Who's gonna see it?

Maybe it is the same difference between invading Iraq and ignoring tyrants in other countries. No oil in the NW Island Chain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one easy piece
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 23, 2006 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One nice easy piece by Bush cannot atone for the thousands of bad decisions that the Bushies have made. They are still environment wreckers in total and mass killers in a failed attempt at empire. If we had made our electoral system sound and true before 2000 then the Bushies would never have gotten "elected".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd be VERY careful about touting this as a good thing
Posted by: russianblue1 on Jun 23, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the past five+ years, every time Dumbya has turned his short attention span onto a worthwhile program or charitable mission, funding is usually cut shortly thereafter and any regulations and laws pertaining to said programs are often gutted.

I, for one, wish he would never pay attention to anything, except for his bike (here's to hoping he isn't wearing a helmet when he falls), pretzels (here's to hoping he'll choke to death next time), and his precious bible (the inspiration for the "voices" he hears). God knows, the world would be a better place!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Window Dressing!
Posted by: ankhet on Jun 23, 2006 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It looks good, doesn't it? But the territory is at the very edge of our world. Locally, every forest, every wildlife preserve, every ice floe is ripe for the taking (After all, the elite have needs, though what they take is not theirs alone). Further - will that ocean territory remain virginal, or will there now be a military facility - communication, satellite relay, naval or missile base now be set up to "defend" it (think China, Midway)?

I'm amazed anyone still has hope, Molly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe we can get him to watch Gore's movie?
Posted by: inanaturallight on Jun 23, 2006 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we get him to watch Al Gore's movie on global warming? Maybe he'll take the subject to heart then!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bush's good deed
Posted by: willymack on Jun 23, 2006 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take a piece of paper, fold it in half lengthwise, write everything bush has done for the good of our people on the left-then write a list of his manifold crimes against ALL humanity and Nature on the right. No contest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, but no cigar.
Posted by: cispirit on Jun 23, 2006 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s really just a flashy piece of PR. Most people think of Hawaii as the eight major islands. The state actually contains about 125 islands, stretching nearly 2000 miles from the Big Island to just short of the Midway group. The total land mass of the Leeward Islands is near 6,500 sq.miles. The islands, reef, atolls, shoals and sea in-between, west of Kaui, have been the “Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge” for many years. Once again, W is attempting to re-write history and take credit for something where no credit is due. Re-naming the area is just a redundant bit of fluff and doesn’t come close to making up for the damage his administration has inflicted on the rest of our public lands and the environment at large.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CISPIRIT Posted by: fuzypupy
» RE: Sorry, but no cigar. Posted by: Doubtom
FUZYPUPY
Posted by: fuzypupy on Jun 23, 2006 6:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BETTER CHECK FOR A SIGNING STATEMENT BELOW HIS SIGNATURE BEFORE GIVING HIM CREDIT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's behind Bush's "good deed?"
Posted by: mountainmama on Jun 23, 2006 9:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must watch not to be caught up in all the hoopla, giving King George a pat on the back for his "good deed." When I first heard/read about this, I said, "okay...what does he get out of it?" Think about it folks! He never does anything unless down the road he gains something from it. So don't get too damn excited here, Molly! I love your writing but think!

Here's the deal...by doing this, it puts the area under governmental control. DUH! That means, he can do as his Hindass pleases as he has done elsewhere. Like sell off land for drilling oil (remember Alaska?), or sections of National Forests for logging companies to "have at it" with the ancient forests! This is the reality here.

Wake up folks!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A Snake in the Grass Posted by: robmikejas
GORE'S MOVIE...
Posted by: SamFox on Jun 24, 2006 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is just more propaganda like M Moore's snip and paste BS'documentries'. Any one beleiving this load of horse dropping has not done all their home work. There IS NOT consensess of the scientific community that supports global warming. Pro GW advocates get all the press, but they are not the only ones who have something to say. Those who decry GW for the lie it is are not reported much.

Among scientests there is more of a divison there than any thing. IF there is a growing consensus it's more against than for the deception of global warming. Don't forget that most of the scientests who claim to support GM's propaganda machine have their grant money on the line...how much of these $$$$ would they lose if they did not support this egregious lie???

Global warming is just another back door attempt to give the UN more control of the US. Check out sustainability as promoted by the UN for only one example of how the UN is granted/assumes control in the USA...

Bush does little to help the US. He has another agenda, his new world order. If he was truly serious about THIS country he could grab a LOT of support and boost his rating enforceing the immigration laws already on the books. He and Congress have ignored them & wasted a lot of time writing new laws and playing tennis with them while leaving the borders open. How long ago was it that he said he'd send NG Troops to the borders? How many are there now? How much time has passed...?

As far as the islands he said he'll protect, I don't trust him to act in the best intrest of the USA. Something is probably up....I know he and much of Congress want the new world order to supplant the siverngty of the US...so look out!

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

REPLY TO SOJOURNER. CHECK OUT SUSTAINABILITY, UN STYLE AT
Posted by: SamFox on Jun 28, 2006 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NewsWithViews.com

(On the left of the page is a list of authors. In the middle a list of articles.)

Phyliss Spivey: 'Riverside County Development-United Nations Style'. Also her archives.

Selling out the US into a EU type Union, read (middle of the page) 'Bush Admin. Quietly planning NAFTA superhighway. North American Union To Replace USA?'

For the skinny on The private banking cartel's PRIVATE ownership of the 'Federal' Reserve, check Devvy Kidd's Archives. She is on the list of authors, left of page.

A truer Pic. of how bad for the US illegal immigration is, read Frosty Wooldridges's archives. He is on the authors list @ left.

By the way, I did not call Bush a liberal. He is a NWO sell out, like his dad and Clinton. Why do YOU think Bush & Congress are not pushing for tight borders? He is supposed to be a compassionate conservitive. Gimme a break! The Lib-Dems and the Conserv-Repubs are both NWO sell outs. What do YOU think NAFTA, KAFTA AND FTAA were designed to do? Once (if he succeds) the US is sold into the Free Trade Area of the Americas (or whatever it's called) he will forfiet US soverngty to the UN and our ability to start wars. No Constitution. (Which, by the way, IF Bush & other Presidents were following, we would not be involved in Iraq and most of the other wars we've been in.) We will no longer be an independant nation, but part of Mexico and Canada as ONE union, like the EU.

For kicks and giggels, punch in 'Illuminati' on the Ask search engine.

For a Biblical take on homosexuality, read "Would The Son Of God Contridict The Father', mid. page. This replys to those who say Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

That is where I am coming from.

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ACTUALLY, THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS WILL BE FOR
Posted by: SamFox on Jun 28, 2006 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
any one who opposes the New World Order's One World Government. And Christian's. Some one in another post said somehting about Christians being raptured, a win win situation.

I replied that there is no such thing as the rapture the way the Left Behind Series teaches. We will ALL, unless death takes us out, continue on the earth till final harvest, when Jesus will come back. Bye the bye, Jesus Himself said that in His parable about the wheat and tares. When will He return? I do not know. I do know that before He does come there will rise a man or a group of people who will 'have all the answers'. At first it will seem great. But after a while...

Check out the Bible. It has a 100% correct prediction rate. Check out Josh McDowell's book on the subject.

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]