Back in January, Governor Palin had an op-ed in the NYT arguing against the proposed listing of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. It began:
About the closest most Americans will ever get to a polar bear are those cute, cuddly animated images that smiled at us while dancing around, pitching soft drinks on TV and movie screens this holiday season.
This is unfortunate, because polar bears are magnificent animals, not cartoon characters. They are worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat. But adding polar bears to the nation’s list of endangered species, as some are now proposing, should not be part of those efforts.
The balance of the article makes the standard arguments against listing the polar bear, including that many bear populations are stable or increasing and that an ESA listing won't do much of anything to protect the bear's habitat or forestall the threat of global warming. While the listing won't do much to help the bear, or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it could well hamper oil and gas development in Alaska, which I am certain is one reason Palin wrote the piece, as well as a reason Alaska has filed suit to reverse the FWS' decision. This is the position I would expect just about any Alaska Governor to take. But while this view may make for sound policy -- again, the listing won't do much to help the bear -- it's not good law. I think there was ample legal basis for the FWS listing decision, and I expect Alaska and the other listing opponents to lose their case in court.
Which begs the question: tell us why you didn't bother to mention this "ample legal basis?"
Since when did the Volokh Conspiracy contributors all become pointed-headed liberals?
Adler has been a voice in the wilderness for years now --- if the right sits out this debate on ignorant principle, then crazies like Al Gore dominate the conversation. The GOP platform has only now warmed up to global warming. You're probably a decade behind. Meanwhile, hippie nonsense goes unchecked.
Adler has been a voice in the wilderness for years now --- if the right sits out this debate on ignorant principle, then crazies like Al Gore dominate the conversation. The GOP platform has only now warmed up to global warming. You're probably a decade behind. Meanwhile, hippie nonsense goes unchecked.
To my dear friends, the polar bears: Adapt or die.
Adler admits:
1. Polar bear populations are increasing
2. Putting them on the endangered species list won't help them much anyway
3. Putting them on the endangered species list will hinder development
This isn't "ignorant principle." Adler's just wrong based on his own admission of the facts. And Palin is right.
You shamed him into it. He wrote an article just to answer your question.
I know, how were you supposed to know that, right?
I was just addressing your claim that Adler is some sort of mustachioed Adlai Stevenson. It's not true. He's a responsible voice and the right needs many more like him.
As for your argument that (1), (2), and (3) mean that FWS listing was legal error, it seems that you think a bad law = an invalid law. That's downright precious.
Is Inspector Javert in the building?
Don't polar bears live on dry land as well as ice?
No, they don't; instead, they depend upon the ice for hunting...
Every lawyer who uses it does know a meaning for it.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.