« More Spiderman 2 | Main | Unconvinced »

Go Bush, Go!

Did the president really gut the Endangered Species Act yesterday while no one was paying attention? So I've heard, at any rate. If so, good riddance. You'll all yell at me, I suppose, but really: Who cares? Species die, shit happens, get over it. Clean air, clean water, and lower carbon emissions I'll get behind that stuff impacts, you know, people.

July 5, 2004 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Go Bush, Go!:

» Astonishing Ignorance from Value Judgment
Matthew Yglesias is astonishingly ignorant if this post is anything to go by. I spend a lot of time lamenting ignorant right-wing wackos, but the callowness, shortsightedness, and ill-informedness demonstrated by this single post reminds me again that ... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 5, 2004 9:52:50 PM

» Read a book first! from Unfogged
Thanks, Matthew Yglesias, for reminding us that an education in philosophy is not enough -- at least for understanding (a) that the rapidly accelerating global extinction crisis for the most part results from the rapidly accelerating destruction of ent... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 8, 2004 3:08:10 PM

» Shallow, stupid, and shortsighted... from Pharyngula
...and he's not a Republican. Matt Yglesias just shot himself in the foot. Did the president really gut the Endangered Species Act yesterday while no one was paying attention? So I've heard, at any rate. If so, good riddance. You'll all ... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 8, 2004 4:14:16 PM

» Milking the bias from Majikthise
On June 26th Matt Yglesias lamented the tragic dialectic of inaccuracy: Thinking a bit more about Michael Moore,the tragedy is that we have a systemic bias in our media culture that rewards people who make over-the-top and/or inaccurate attacks on [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 9, 2004 3:06:41 PM

» Enviromental Ignorance from the Greater Nomadic Council
I've run across a couple of bloggers blithely discounting the importance of things like trees and other species (although the first post might be seen simply as a criticism of a particular policy). Both posts run along essentially the same... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 9, 2004 4:13:48 PM

» My Internet Access is Back from tps12 from Hulver's site
Therefore, you get the diary I started writing Monday night.I'm tired. A bit of drinking and hanging out and walking around waving signs this weekend, but not much sleep. I got a nice "Republicans for Voldemort" sticker and some fliers about voter driv... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 1, 2004 5:49:08 PM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 7:56:03 PM


short sighted dude

Posted by: texan | Jul 5, 2004 1:15:33 PM

didn't you learn anything from Star Trek 4?

Posted by: texan | Jul 5, 2004 1:17:35 PM

Hey, I was just watching Star Trek 4! And you're right. Never know which extinct plant or animal will be needed in the future. Not for talking with aliens but for medecine. Anyway, they have as much right to be here as we do.

Posted by: mpower1952 | Jul 5, 2004 1:24:10 PM

This post betrays an ignorance about the origins, nature, and use of the ESA so deep, so thorough, so callow as to defy belief.

I've never advised you to take down a post before, but this might be the time to do it. You really, really sound like an asshole. And not in that insouciant, "oh how I blithely contravene conventional wisdom" way of sounding like an asshole that is your métier. No, this is the kind of sounding like an asshole achieved by someone who *thinks* he's doing that but in fact knows nothing about the subject at hand, nothing about the conventional wisdom or the reasons behind it, thus leaving him sounding like an asshole simpliciter.

Posted by: Realish | Jul 5, 2004 1:29:32 PM

This is true. I have to sit down when I chew my gum.

Posted by: Conezone | Jul 5, 2004 1:35:55 PM

Nice move Douchebag.

Posted by: Conezone | Jul 5, 2004 1:39:40 PM

"I'll get behind that stuff impacts, you know, people."

Ok, Manhattanite, let me explain ecology to you. The weird little fishes are food for the exotic little birds which are eaten by the furry critters that we in flyover country like to kill.

Where's the compassion?

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 5, 2004 2:02:27 PM

You do realize that many projects that would have resulted in degraded air quality, water quality and increased carbon emmissions were stopped with the power of the ESA right?

Also, while extinction is part of the natural order, extenction by the hand of man is not usually thought of as natural.

Posted by: Bob B. | Jul 5, 2004 2:05:25 PM

You suck, dude.

Posted by: c. | Jul 5, 2004 2:12:02 PM

We depend on other species, and on the health of the overall ecosystem. A planetary ecosystem based entirely on humans and the species we choose to keep would probably collapse, and most humans would die in the collapse; such an ecosystem is dying slowly, in other words--the horror concealed in the safe-sounding word non-sustainable.

Go do some homework on this.

Posted by: Randolph Fritz | Jul 5, 2004 2:12:10 PM

Link, anyone?

Posted by: MattB | Jul 5, 2004 2:12:51 PM

Rawls is a drama queen, non-human species don't matter, blah blah blah. What an asshole.

Posted by: david | Jul 5, 2004 2:12:55 PM

We generally love ya Matt, but this is bullshit, as is your hatred for forests and dislike for anything furry or slimey. There is more to appreciation of nature than smart-assed poking of dead dolphins.

Guess you never bother reading EO Wilson or Gordon Orians, and maybe you skipped Environmental Ethics at Harvard, thinking it was not your cup of tea.

Hey Matt, hint, it's all connected. And it's fantastically complicated. Humans are real bright sometimes, but we can't replace this stuff after we eliminate it.

You seem to have no respect or appreciation, not a clue, for the wonder and beauty of life on our planet. This kind of attitude should be reserved for asshole republicans. Even many of them don't believe what you seem to so proudly proclaim. I find it depressing everytime you go off on this rant about not caring about the natural world other than humans. Some day I'm pretty sure you will awaken to what you have been missing and you will be appalled at your blindness. I hope I read your words on that day because I have little doubt that you will be eloquent. But I doubt anything that is written in response to this post will change your mind about this, but I sure hope everybody tries, so a shadow of a doubt may enter your mind and you will open your eyes. What a let down.

Posted by: Zaboo | Jul 5, 2004 2:17:36 PM

Go take a hike, Matt. No, literally. You might gain some appreciation — even awe — for the non-asphalt-paved parts of the planet.

Posted by: patrick | Jul 5, 2004 2:18:27 PM

The ESA has been instrumental in saving large amounts of habitat. Habitat/wildspace looks like a luxury good (i.e. income elasticity>1). We are too short-sighted to save the habitat in any other way. Ergo, despite its flaws, the ESA is a good thing for people.

Posted by: CalDem | Jul 5, 2004 2:20:06 PM

People are more important than critters, but this was a stupid post. GWB strips species protections not to help people, but to make sure there are even fewer laws to get in the way of a few favored contributors developing their land.

Get back to me when there's real conflict between species protection and helping ordinary people. While you're at it, do a little research on the related subject of fisheries management. What's happened to the world's fisheries is a nice object lesson.

Posted by: wcw | Jul 5, 2004 2:24:46 PM

Abolishing the national park system AND dropping the endangered species act? What's wrong, did you get bit by mosquitoes the last time you ventured beyond Bos-wash?

Losing natural wonders--great and small--diminishes this country and impoverishes its people. Maybe not in a way that can be measured by economists or political scientists, but in a very real small-s spiritual sense. The American character was forged in close proximity to the majestic and violent power of nature; a people who stand humble in relation to forces far beyond their control are a people that will be frugal, and prudent, and will have greater credulity when snake-oil peddlers try to sell them on crazy schemes involving human infallibility.

Indeed, if you had a better grasp of the importance of nature, I doubt you would have fallen for the inane Iraq war arguments.

Posted by: jlw | Jul 5, 2004 2:25:06 PM

Well, I thought it was funny. Wrong, but still funny.

Posted by: Ikram | Jul 5, 2004 2:28:15 PM

When Matt is maintaining his counterintuitive liberal cred for his homies at the Starbucks, he sometimes turns into a piece of shit. Deal with it, guys. That's Matt!

Maybe if someone kisses him he'll turn into a pumpkin or a frog or something. You first.

Posted by: Zizka | Jul 5, 2004 2:31:59 PM

I think organizations like PETA are made up of scum who would better contribute to the earth by killing themselves, but Matt, you sound like an idiot. Don't write about this topic again until you learn something about it.

Posted by: Michael | Jul 5, 2004 2:39:03 PM

Sometimes I am dazzled by your rhetorical brilliance, and reflect on the value of a Harvard education when applied to a first-class mind. Times like this, however, I am reminded of your callow youthfulness, and am moved to reflect on the principal shortcoming of blogs: lack of editors. Do please read up, even superficially, on North Atlantic fisheries, the Brazilian rainforest, or you know, the Chesapeake Bay.

Posted by: boonie | Jul 5, 2004 2:42:05 PM

Ah, Matt. Thanks for reminding me why I never want to raise my kids in the city.

Posted by: Matt | Jul 5, 2004 2:50:28 PM

This was Shallow Matt. Deep Matt took the day off and didn't realize his unlock screensaver password was so obvious.

Posted by: djangone | Jul 5, 2004 3:11:49 PM

MY studied liberal arts right? One of the problems with that area of academia is that it's very easy to brush aside certain fields as irrelevant, unimportant--in short, a waste of time and resources. People who have science degrees on the other hand, or even a minor appreciation for objective thinking realize that you don't know what you don't know. In other words, maybe if you know little about ecosystems, you won't go shooting off your mouth about how unimportant a certain part of it is, and you wouldn't deride one of the most important pieces of government environmental policy on a whim. Like they said above, MY, educate theyself!

Posted by: Kol | Jul 5, 2004 3:18:20 PM

Yes! Spotted owl is good vittles.

Posted by: rd | Jul 5, 2004 3:26:22 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.