Peanut Butter, no Jelly; Ham, no Burger . . .

. . . endangered species, no habitat. Thus is the strategy of the orchestrated failure, er, evisceration of an already too weak Endangered Species Act via the Pombo Bill, or actually just a continuation of the planned conservative program to artificially render government ineffectual in order to prove their circular argument that government is ineffectual. At least they're good at something. Or consistent, anyway.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 is a case-study in Orwellian doublespeak and the sort of vulgar sophism Plato warned about long ago. Primarily, the bill removes the power of Critical Habitat designation, basically arguing it to be both ineffective and an infringement on the rights of private landowners. This would be a valid objection, except that it actually has been a very effective provision of the ESA, and importantly, does not generally affect private landowners. Replace "valid" with "lie."

The bill is packed with loose language about using the "best science" to reform the ESA to make it more 'effective." Tell me something – what scientist would argue that endangered species can be protected without protecting their habitat? This doesn't require a PhD. in ecology to refute – it's intuitive and obvious. Replace "best science" with "Lysenkoist goddamn lie."

Enter: libertarian ideology. Support for this regressive action is based on the notion that the ESA infringes on individual property rights. The Heritage Foundation has a well-constructed pile of mendacious bullshit presenting this p.o.v. However, the ESA, as interpreted, has very little effect on private landowners. So, go back to reading Thoreau or Rand or whatever in the hell you get your childish bullshit from. Straight from the horse's mouth:

"the process of designating critical habitat will result in publication of guidance to landowners through consideration of the need for "special management and protection" of areas within the designated habitat. There appear to be public misperceptions that designation results in binding restrictions on private lands. In fact, designation forces consideration of all aspects of the habitat needs of a species and generates guidance to landowners, but has not been interpreted as authorizing direct regulation. Guidance typically addresses activities not likely to be viewed as prohibited "takes" and activities regarding which a landowner may wish to seek additional guidance to avoid takes."

Supporters of this nonsense bill also claim that the ESA promotes frivolous litigation and bureaucracy. No surprise there, and no surprise that this is false. Actually, the new version allows for reparations to corporate land owners as compensation for lost economic value of land housing endangered species. In short – taxpayer dollars will end up in corporate pockets over claims of potential economic loss and concomitant litigation. And it's the liberals who want to steal your tax dollars and piss them down the sewer?

Finally, to the 36 spineless Democrats who voted in favor of this, you give invertebrates a bad name, and fuck you too. And if anybody reckons me guilty of cooing and fawning over fuzzy bears and spotted owls, bring it on. My rebuttal to that misinterpretation is in the works.