Congratulations to New Soil & Water Conservation District Boardmembers!

Congratulations! Environmentalists Kevin Bixby and Craig Fenske won election to the Doña Ana Soil & Water Conservation District board Tuesday. That's good news for progressives and moderates – and plants and wildlife.

Tuesday's win was one step in long process of change. The winning campaign gained impetus from popular concern sparked by the election of Donald Trump. The election matched strong opponents and two very different styles of campaigning.

Soil and water district boards exist to protect natural resources for all of us, and for wildlife. They do that elsewhere. Valencia's created a fine wildlife refuge near Belen. Here, the board has focused on assisting ranchers, promoting extremist ideology, and (recently) flood control. Containing floods is an important duty, but the board is also charged with preserving water, helping wildlife, and preventing or controlling soil erosion. 

 

In the past, these were small elections. They're held at odd times. Most people ignore them – which may have suited board-members. (This year the Legislature passed a bill calling for consolidated elections to avoid such situations, but Governor Susanna Martinez vetoed it.) The DASWCD board eventually drew attention for its anti-government, anti-wildlife pronouncements and neglect of most of its duties, eliciting a resounding defeat in a 2014 referendum, when 85% of voters rejected the mill levy the district sought to finance its operations. DASWCD's opposition to the new national monument drew strong challengers in the 2015 board elections. 

 

This week's election was noteworthy. It pitted Republican money against word-of-mouth and door-to-door canvassing by volunteers. One progressive group that provided some of those volunteers did not exist until after the 2016 election results. The Steve Pearce-related PAC Goal West financed extensive mailings, which may be why absentee ballots strongly favored real-estate developer Kent Thurston and incumbent board chairman Joe Delk. Right-wing money was a significant factor in electing Donald Trump and will play a major role in future elections. The energy and spirit of volunteers won't always be sufficient to counteract that.

It also pitted Bixby, founder and CEO of Southwest Environmental Center, against Delk, who says “environmental cartels” diminish Christians. Couldn't be a clearer contrast. Similarly in the Las Cruces “zone,” conservationist Fenske, a former extension agent, defeated Thurston. Some Delk/Thurston supporters say this was a popularity contest, but it felt like a battle over protecting of our natural resources for everyone. (Delk might be a fun guy. I hope to hear his band play some day. But I strongly preferred Bixby to him for a job focused on conserving water and other resources.)

Bixby and Fenske bring new skills to the Board. Both have extensive experience cooperating with federal, state, and local governments, not avoiding them. Both have experience fund-raising and grant-writing. The District has suffered from inadequate funding and misdirection. Bixby and Fenske can help right the board's course – and perhaps help bring in funds to allow the District to do real good for all of us. 

 

Fenske called the win “a community effort.” Bixby thanked “everyone who came out and voted in this election. Democracy's not a spectator sport.” He added, “I look forward to helping all the people of the district--farmers, ranchers, city dwellers, young, old, conservative, liberal. We all have a stake in taking care of our land and water, and making sure we have a livable planet in the future.”

Going forward, let's hope: that DASWCD will bring its board-selection system into compliance with law; that it will be more open and transparent; and that a more varied mix of community members will learn to work collegially to better serve the public and the environment.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 7 June, 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website and, presently on KRWG's website.  A spoken version runs on KRWG Wednesdays, I think at 7:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., and possibly at other times.]


[With various people opining on what DASWCD is supposed to be doing, maybe I can help by reprinting a relevant New Mexico statute:

73-20-26. Legislative determination; purpose of act.  

A.   Considered and resolved by legislative determination, it is declared that:   

(1)   the land, waters and other natural resources are the basic physical assets of New Mexico, and their preservation and development are necessary to protect and promote the health and general welfare of the people of the state;   

(2)   the improper use of land and related natural resources, soil erosion and water loss result in economic waste in New Mexico through the deterioration of the state's natural resources; and   

(3)   appropriate corrective and conservation practices and programs must be encouraged and executed in New Mexico to conserve and develop beneficially the soil, water and other natural resources of the state.   

B.   It is declared to be the policy of the legislature and the purpose of the Soil and Water Conservation District Act [73-20-25 through 73-20-48 NMSA 1978] to:   

(1)   control and prevent soil erosion;   

(2)   prevent floodwater and sediment damage;   

(3)   further the conservation, development, beneficial application and proper disposal of water;   

(4)   promote the use of impounded water for recreation, propagation of fish and wildlife, irrigation and for urban and industrial needs; and   

(5)   by the application of these measures, conserve and develop the natural resources of the state, provide for flood control, preserve wildlife, protect the tax base and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of New Mexico. ]

A Vote for Merrie Lee Soules is a Vote for Southern New Mexico

U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce's extremism is out-of-step with his constituents, while Merrie Lee Soules promises us vigorous, competent, and thoughtful representation in Washington. 

Mr. Pearce consistently lets his ideological views outweigh our interest. He helped shut down the government, costing taxpayers at least $20 million*, simply to make a political statement he knew would fail, although Pearce poses as a prudent fiscal conservative. Even most Republicans in Washington can't stomach the nuttiness of Pearce and the “Freedom Caucus.” [* A friend informs me I was too kind to Pearce here, and that the official estimate by the Office of Management and Budge was that this senseless shutdown in 2013 cost us $2 billion.]

For someone who's taken an oath to defend the Constitution, he's way too cozy with the Bundys and others who oppose Constitutional federalism, sometimes violently, and put their personal interests above the public's.

The well-armed Bundy Bunch took over Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon last year. Already in default on public grazing leases, the Bundys wanted the refuge “returned to the state” so ranchers could do as they wished with it. (The group's slogans about freedom reduce to grabbing ranchers' freedom at the expense of birders', hikers', and environmentalists' freedoms.) That Malheur was federal land -- with authorities trying to balance the interests of campers, hikers, hunters, ranchers, and environmentalists -- meant nothing, because the Bundys loath the U.S. Government.

So, it seems, does Pearce, who voiced sympathy with the takeover: "[P]eople in the West are furious. They're furious going into this situation. We're fed up." (But he said he was “not taking sides on the Bundys”!)

In 2011, Pearce backed Otero County's dangerous and futile challenge to the U.S. Government's Constitutionally granted power to manage federal lands. Otero County threatened to “treat” 1,500 acres of National Forest, and to arrest any U.S. official who interfered.

Wyoming had unsuccessfully made the same weak argument to U.S. appellate courts in 2002. But Pearce egged these guys on, echoing their contempt for the U.S. Government and the Constitution. The U.S. sensibly caved on a minor point to avoid threatened violence, then won handily in the courts. Pearce irresponsibly boasted of his participation and encouraged “other local areas” to emulate Otero County – days before the Court of Appeal summarily trashed Otero County's legal arguments.

These are odd positions to take when you've sworn allegiance to the United States. The quaint legal positions of the Sovereign Movement make little sense and have been rejected by the courts. Even the Bundys, now being tried for their crimes, are mighty silent about their ideology. If I were a misguided “patriot” facing criminal charges, wonder how I'd feel about Pearce egging me on from the safety of the sidelines – then making political capital out of my passion?

Pearce's politics also trump his decency: Trump disparages Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, and Pearce has called Trump's comments on women “horrid,” yet Pearce supports Trump. He tries to save face with his constituents by claiming he doesn't “endorse” Trump, but merely “supports” him – whatever that means. More double-talk.

He says he can't support Hillary Clinton because of Benghazi. Pearce and his conservative pals cut budgets, endangered diplomats' security, then made Clinton their scapegoat.

Merrie Lee Soules is forthright, hard-working, and constructive. She's already fighting for us: her intervention in the El Paso Electric rate case helped save us millions. 

Soules brings progressive values and decades of real-world business experience to the possible job of representing us in Congress. She'll carry Las Cruces, and may appeal as well to politically moderate businesspersons who might be ready to exchange Pearce's costly shenanigans for a more thoughtful, evidence-based approach. 

Let's elect someone who'll fight for us, not banks and oil companies; who combines progressive values with business sense; and who weighs evidence rather than obeying ideological biases.

                                                        -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and other newspapers today, Sunday, October 16, as well as on the newspaper's website and  on KRWG-TV's website.  I welcome comments, questions, and criticism here and/or on those sites.]

[I should note that I left messages for Mr. Pearce early Monday, inviting him to comment for the column, but never heard back from anyone.  There are questions I'd have liked to ask him, and I'd have liked to give him an opportunity to address what obviously seem to me problems with his candidacy; but his previous comments on these matters are a matter of record.]

[I mention the Otero County incident.  Otero County -- perhaps with reason -- disagreed about forest management.  That was a matter within Federal discretion.  Some in Otero County disputed that, even disputed Federal jurisdiction, and threatened to take action -- which could have led to violence.  The Feds compromised by allowing Otero County to take down some trees in a public "kickoff event," but only within a small area where the Feds had already marked some trees to be taken down.  This avoided potential violence while the case moved swiftly through the courts.
Pearce left no doubt where he stood: in a piece published in The New Mexican on September 26, 2011, he urged other local governments to "follow Otero County's lead so as to regain an alleged 20,000 logging jobs he claimed were lost when the spotted owl was listed as an endangered species."  His piece explained the law and the facts in somewhat idiotic fashion:

1. Despite the unambiguous Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, Pearce pontificated that "I  have continually said that forest management can only be done successfully if local government is an equal with the federal government."
FACT: The Supremacy Clause, for easy reference, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives . . . both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In short, legally the local government is not an equal to the federal government with regard to managing public lands.  The Constitution says so pretty clearly, adding that people in Pearce's position must support that Constitution.

2. Pearce wrote, "Recent events in Otero County prove that local governments are more than capable of managing their lands.  Their plan was legal and . . . initiated what will hopefully be the renewal of the timber industry in New Mexico . . . If we can get local governments to take the initiative and tell the federal government that enough is enough."
FACT: Some of his pals and allies threatened violence.  Had the Federal Government been less patient, people might have died or been injured.  Perhaps innocent people would have been hurt.  Showing more good-sense than Pearce and his pals, the Feds agreed under pressure to let Otero County officials do a symbolic "kickoff" in a one-acre parcel where the Feds had already marked trees for cutting.  Then the Feds quickly consulted the courts.

3. Pearce added "[T]he U.S. Constitution specifies which powers are given to the federal government.  The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states that all powers not given to the federal government belong to the states and to the people.  The right to determine how the forest should be managed belongs to states, counties or the people.  It is a local issue that directly affects our homes, our communities, and our safety."

FACT: Four days later, the 10 Circuit Court of Appeal rejected these arguments on summary judgment.  That means the court didn't even have to bother with an actual trial.  Pearce's legal arguments were that lame.  He should have known (must have known?) those arguments weren't an accurate statement of the law, because the 10th Circuit had tossed out exactly the same arguments in a 2002 case where Wyoming sued the U.S. (showing more cool-headed judgment right there than Pearce and his pals did), claiming the right to vaccinate elk to protect local herds of cows from bruccellosus.   The 10th Circuit explained that the Supremacy Clause means what it says.
So the question remains, why did Pearce incite and encourage all this anti-governmental rhetoric, which wasted court time and resources and could have wasted a few lives, when he must have known it was all legally frivolous?  (I assume he knew that because I give him credit for being smart enough to talk to a lawyer; but perhaps I err.)]

[Pearce also backed the recent Malheur Refuge takeover, at least implicitly.

It's worth recalling the "cause" that the Bundys and Pearce used to justify action: local ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond had set a fire to protect their land from an approaching fire, and had thereby damaged federal land (and endangered firefighters they knew were nearby).  Mandatory sentence for their conduct was five years' imprisonment.  A friendly judge reduced Dwight's five years to three months (and reduced Steven's I forget how much), which federal courts later rejected.
I loathe mandatory minimums.  Reading the account, it's easy at first to sympathize with the Hammonds; but the 2006 fire was their second known arson, as they had also started a fire (on federal property or their own, depending on whose view you buy) that burned 139 acres of public land.

Further, the elder Hammond apparently had assaulted a federal refuge staffer in 1994; had made death threats for years against refuge managers; repeatedly violated terms of permits and moved herds across the refuge without giving the requisite advance notice; often allowed his cattle to trespass on refuge streams for days, trampling new willow trees that crews had just planted; and evaded serious jail time only because of the intervention by the local Republican congressman.

In January 2016, Pearce voiced sympathy with the takeover, without actually condoning it: "[P]eople in the West are furious.  They're furious going into this situation.  Now I'm not taking sides on the Bundys.  I think that's a sideshow.  I think the Hammonds are the ones who have been badly treated, and that's what we're expressing in the West.  We're fed up."  It's worth noting that the tone and substance are sympathetic with the Bundy's, who are at that point committing crimes against the U.S. Government Pearce supposedly serves; and "I'm not taking sides on the Bundys" states flatly that he refuses to take the side of the U.S. Government against criminals. (Note that he did not say "I'm not taking the Bundy's side" or "I'm not taking sides with the Bundys.")

On January 7. 2016, Steve Pearce released a statement on the Malheur Refuge takeover stressing that "we understand their frustration with increasingly heavy-handed federal agencies that continue to violate the rights of hardworking American farmers and ranchers.  He stated that he did not condone the takeover; but as far as I can tell, he certainly didn't urge the out-of-state ranchers to abandon their illegal control of the Oregon refuge. 

At a NM Cattle-Growers Association meeting, a Pearce ally said of these eventa, "Two men accidentally burned 140 acres of tumblewoods and they are in prison in Oregon for five years mandatory for setting the fire." Pearce himself spoke moments later, saying "we are in a fight for our lives," adding that the government will not and cannot secure the border, they do not desire to secure it, and they have not secured it."
[FACT: the border protection is working much better than it did in the past.]]

[Few sane citizens realize there's actually a "Sovereign Movement" which holds that for some arcane legal reason having to do with the paperwork ending the Civil War, elected county sheriffs are actually the highest legitimate law-enforcement officers in the nation.  (Some county sheriffs tend to like that idea, and I learned about this stuff while I was looking into our previous sheriff's hiring of a gentleman named Seeberger.)


[If I were a Bundy cohort, or misguided patriot, pleading guilty to a crime, how would I feel about Steve Pearce egging me on from a safe spot on the sidelines -- then making political capital out of my passion and anger?]

As a citizen of this Congressional District I'll vote for Merrie Lee Soules with great delight.  She's so superior to Pearce that one friend of mine, after witnessing their recent debate in Las Cruces, said he "almost felt sorry for Pearce."  She's a longshot.  Pearce has an abundance of money from banks and oil and gas companies and the National Rifle Association.  But each vote counts.  And Pearce's support for Trump, who appalls even most Republicans, ought to weaken his credibility, particularly here.

Let's Listen to Each Other!

Too many people treat politics and government like a football game.

My team is my team no matter what. So what if the tight end attacked a 90-year-old man? They're the 'Niners, man.

Politics oughtta be different. Local politics above all. We're neighbors. But some people see everything in black and white. Or red and blue. 

Someone on Facebook called Julia Brown “the worst county manager ever.” I disagreed. I've criticized her in columns, but she's smart, and I suspect she's hard-working. (I lack enough first-hand information to decide how I'd vote on extending her contract; but with the imminent change of commissioners, a three-year extension doesn't seem wise. An outgoing school board did that with Stan Rounds, which upped the cost to the public when the next board told Rounds to take a hike.)

When I replied that Brown definitely wasn't “the worst county manager ever,” someone said I was in favor of her because we both went to PVA meetings (I usually do. She was there once or twice to announce something.), and that I believed everything Billy Garrett told me.

I like and respect Billy Garrett. He's a smart guy, knows a lot about local government, and works incredibly hard as county commissioner. But I've disagreed with him strongly and publicly. 

Commissioner Ben Rawson's political views differ strongly from mine. I didn't vote for him. I'm appalled by some of what he says, and how he says it, but he appears to listen to his constituents. 

Barack Obama seems a smart and caring fellow with an astonishingly good temperament for the Presidency; but I've disagreed strongly with him on many issues, notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and thought he relied too much on Wall Street types for advice on repairing our economy. I like that he's tried to avoid the pitfall of prejudging every foreign-policy situation based on ideology or a personal agenda; but recognize that such an approach can slip into uncertainty and lack of direction.

We're all imperfect. We're human. I try to listen to everyone with an open mind and make up my mind based on evidence. I still get things wrong sometimes.

Of course, some politicians make this hard. Reading Steve Pearce's recent op-ed about Rick Riscoria acting heroically in the World Trade Center fifteen years ago, I thought “I actually agree with Pearce about something!” Unfortunately, he segued into a partisan and misleading rant claiming that Obama created ISIS. Does he really not remember that the Bush administration lied about Iraq to start a war – and Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle, who should have known better, went along happily? I was disappointed, but not surprised, that instead of mourning our dead, Pearce turned a solemn subject into a dishonest bit of self-promotion.

And the temper of the times disfavors thoughtfulness. If you advocate better understanding between police and the communities they serve, you're labeled a cop-hater – even if you have friends in law enforcement and work with law enforcement officers every week. (Count me as one who thought it stupid and tasteless for Hillary to say that Donald's supporters were “deplorables.” Preferring Clinton to Trump doesn't require me to agree with all she says.)

I wish the paper could print this column without my name. Maybe we should read all newspaper columns without knowing who wrote them until we've finished reading. If we read the words, and assess the words, rather than spotting someone's name and going into attack mode, maybe we'd find some middle ground.

Think of it as working together to keep the stadium from falling down on both teams.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and possibly other newspapers this morning, Sunday, 18 September, and on the newspaper's website (where someone has already advised me that I am a pathetic columnist who is destroying the county) as well as KRWG-TV's website.]

[None of the above means I don't plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, don't think Donald Trump poses a unique threat to our democracy, or don't hold to values that tend to emphasize social concerns over pure capitalism, freedom over conformity or repression, as well as candor, openness in government, and the like.  I just get uncomfortable dismissing whole groups of people, or ignoring them.  I actually believe in free speech as central to our democracy, and in free, fair, and open discussion of ideas as a way to get to truths which may not be quite what anyone thought they were before the discussion.] 

[Locally, we cannot afford to let differing political opinions become feuds.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't each fight for what we believe is right.  I sure do.  But why should someone's unappetizing beliefs blind me to the good that person does or the laughs we have in the midst of disagreeing -- or the fact that I may learn something from him or her?  That's why I found the duplicitous municipal recall effort so unfortunate.  It crossed some line between disagreeing on facts and courses and used flat-out lies and vicious tactics.  I feel the same about "attack ads" that try to win election by last-minute false and scurrilous newspaper ads.  But I still can't afford not to take my best shot at civil discourse with the people responsible for those.
I've seen a couple of recent examples of folks from different places on the political spectrum working together: after an employee in the County Clerk's Office committed crimes, Deputy City Clerk Scott Krahling reached out to Russell Allen and other Republicans to participate in a committee to look at procedures in the office and see whether additional safeguards might be usefully implemented; and a similar bipartisan committee has worked on getting out the vote.  Some of my Democratic friends understandably criticized that, but it was probably a sensible move.  In advocating a Detention Center Citizens Advisory Committee, I found that it was championed on the Commission by Billy Garrett, but Allen and other conservatives, who are generally skeptical of governments and in favor of citizens getting a look at things, also favored the creation of the committee.]




 

Where There's Smoke, There Shouldn't Be Political Profit

Steve Pearce’s effort to turn the Gila forest fire into profit for his pals is one more vivid reminder that he’s an embarrassment to New Mexico.

With the fire still raging, Pearce wrote in these pages that the blame for it belonged on environmentalists ("extreme interest groups") and the Forest Service, and that more logging would prevent or limit future forest fires.

Like most good con jobs, his piece has a grain of truth in it: clearing of smaller growth can help, as can prescribed burns in some circumstances. (And clear-cutting the wilderness would probably stop the forest fires for decades.)

However, his suggestion that commercial logging could solve the problem is pure nonsense. (For one thing, this fire is burning in Wilderness, where no such motorized vehicles and tools would be permitted by law. He must know that. So why should the Congressman berate the Forest Service for not allowing what Congress has forbidden it to allow?)

More generally, what loggers want is not the smaller growth that helps forest fires travel.

They want the larger, commercially marketable timber.

They don’t want to thin forests by taking a tree here and there, or the small stuff.

They want to cut in as concentrated a way as they can, to minimize costs and logistical problems and maximize profits.

The fact is that commercial logging not only doesn’t prevent forest fires, it tends to exacerbate the problem.

The bulk of scientific and expert opinion is that logging is more of a problem than a solution.

Mr. Pearce either knows that (and doesn’t address it because he can’t) or he doesn’t know it. Not knowing it would mean he was stupid (which I doubt) or just didn’t care.

I’m no expert. I read Pearce’s column, had some doubts, and did some research. I talked to some people who’ve actually spent much of their lives fighting forest fires; and I read a substantial amount of material. Sources like the Forest Service, the General Accounting Office, and scientists tend to warn about the dangers of logging. Most nonprofit conservation / environmental groups agree. Logging industry spokesfolk and conservative "free enterprise" think-tanks tend to disagree.

Pearce approaches problems differently. Rather than starting with a question, such as "What’s the evidence of climate change?" or "What’s best for our forests?", and consulting as varied and qualified a set of experts and observers as possible, Pearce seems to start with an answer ( "Facing up to global warming could be bad for business" or "Private enterprise logging forests is better than the government protecting them") and articulates a position his financial backers and political allies will approve. Then, if necessary, his people find whatever industry flack will sit in a witness chair and say whatever absurdity Pearce’s position needs said.

An honest opinion piece for Pearce’s side would at least address the bulk of scientific and historical evidence on the other side, and try to explain why it’s all wrong. Maybe it is. But "because I say so" isn’t strong evidence.

An honest look at the forest-fire issue would also have to recognize that some major causes of the problem are things Pearce likes or doesn’t believe in.

A couple of experts told me that the kind of fire we’re seeing more and more often "used to be the 10% case, the perfect fire storm when all bets are off." Now those rare conditions – very low humidity, high winds, combined with high temperature -- are the new normal. Under these conditions, fires burn hotter, and do deeper harm to the earth from which we hope trees will grow again.

"Basically what’s doing this is drought and climate," said Bryan Bird, a biologist with Wild Earth Guardians. "None of the types of fire treatments we can undertake will consistently have an effect in the new world of climate change."

Bird also noted that while "Pearce screams and yells," environmentalists, loggers, Forest Service officials, and others are "on the ground trying to find the answers, and he’s not there."

Looking into the forest fire issue, I came away with the view that dealing with this problem is more complicated than either Steve Pearce or I might like. I can’t offer some panacea here, although certain steps make sense.

We should cut or burn more undergrowth, at least in some public lands other than wilderness. That’s not something logging companies want to do. Nor could they legally do so, in areas where motorized vehicles and machinery are prohibited. (It’s also tough in a time of diminishing budgets.)

However, doing more of this also impairs the naturalness of land and interferes with wild-life. Decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. We should protect homes; but someone building in or adjacent to public lands ought not to assume that the public will disturb those lands to accommodate the new home or business.

One suggestion I heard is to revive something like the Civilian Conservation Corps. We have a major problem with unemployment. We have something that needs doing. Maybe we could pay people to spend some time in the woods clearing undergrowth. Yeah, it’d be an expense; but it might save more in fire-fighting costs than we’d spend on this sort of prevention. The military-style attack we all see on TV is often fruitless – and always extremely costly. (On the other hand, it may be an old man’s assumption that today’s youth would leave computer games and social networking behind to make some money working in the woods for awhile.)

I don’t know the answers; but unlike Steve Pearce, I don’t pretend to.

                                                          -30-
[The foregoing column appeared today, Sunday, 23 June in the Las Cruces Sun-News.]

Should We Make Decisions Based on Science -- or Propaganda?

The Endangered Species Act requires officials to use the best available scientific information. Steve Pearce and his Chief of Staff, Todd Willens would like to do away with the law, but for now it is the law.

(Willens was legislative director for Congressman Richard Pombo, who received abundant supplies of oil and gas money and sought to repeal the Endangered Species Act. Pombo was on the Sierra Club’s "Dirty Dozen List" because of his ties to Oil and Gas, and was close to Jack Abramoff, who was later jailed for his illegal influence-peddling. Pombo lost his Congressional seat in 2008; but industry’s fight to eradicate the Endangered Species Act lives on, with Pearce playing a major role.)

A 2007 episode in Willens’s career is instructive: the Florida Everglades were on the U.N. World Heritage Committee’s list as an endangered site. A National Park Service report advocated keeping the Everglades on the list. Willens, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, led the U.S. delegation to the Committee meeting. He vetoed the scientific opinion of the Park Service and the Committee’s scientific advisors. He urged the Committee to take the Everglades off the list.

There’s a pattern here:

Responsible cientists advising the U.N. said the Everglades should stay on the "Endangered Sites" list. Willens got it removed.

Responsible scientists say that the dunes sagebrush lizard is endangered, and that "voluntary" agreements by some landowners won’t suffice to save it. Pearce disagrees, but without scientific support.

Responsible scientists – and the U.S. military – say global warming is a serious problem. Representative Pearce calls it "something that can’t be validated."

Where responsible science is inconvenient for oil and gas or Pearce’s other financial backers, he wishes it away.

The best example of this is Pearce’s ostrich-like reaction to climate change. (Maybe the Republican Party should switch symbols, from elephant to ostrich.) Pearce proclaims (on his peopleforpearce web-site) that "scientist Tim Ball . . . testified that the science is very unclear on whether the carbon in the atmosphere is manmade. The fact is that scientists are still deeply divided on the issue." Pearce proudly states that he called Ball to testify, and he claims Ball was the only real scientist who testified; but Ball’s lack of credibility is almost comical.

Ball is a Canadian climate change sceptic. He chairs the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. Two of its three directors are executives with a lobbying company, the High Park Group, which represents energy clients on energy policy. Before that, he was with an oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.

Ball and his industry-backed sponsors are as careless with his resume as they are with science. Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg between 1988 and 1996. NRSP has billed him as "retired professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg." In 2006, Ball wrote a letter to the Royal Society identifying himself as "Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg." But that university had never had a climatology department; Ball has never been a professor of climatology; and his stint as a active geology professor had ended twenty years earlier. His affiliated groups have frequently called him Canada’s "first PhD in climatology" – but his PhD was in historical geography.

Space doesn’t permit further details here, but Ball isn’t the eminent scientist Pearce wishes he were. Ball has published only four pieces of original research in his entire career, none in the last eleven years. He has published in "Energy and Environment" described by one expert as "a journal skeptics can go to when they are rejected by the mainstream peer-reviewed science publications." In legal pleadings, the Calgary Herald stated that "The Plaintiff [Dr. Ball] is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." (Ball then withdrew his somewhat dubious lawsuit against the Herald.)

This is the industry hack Mr. Pearce dragged in to testify to a Congressional committee. This is the man Pearce cites as "scientific" authority for Pearce’s disbelief in climate change. Sorry, Steve. Not even close.

Ball’s just a guy who’s figured out how to make a decent living off saying what the oil and gas industry wants to hear – kind of like Steve Pearce, actually.

The present dunes sagebrush lizard issue is also classic Pearce.

I don’t claim to know whether the lizard is endangered or how best to preserve it. The experts say one thing. Pearce says another, because the scientific view doesn’t suit him – or his backers.

He can’t fight on scientific grounds.

Therefore, Mr. Pearce tries scare tactics. Apparently the lizard’s range overlaps about one or two per cent of the oil and gas leases in the Permian Basin. One or two per cent. Pearce screams that protecting the lizard could cost us "most of the oil and gas jobs in southeast New Mexico." (Government officials in charge of implementing the Endangered Species Act don’t agree, of course.)

"The delta smelt listing as endangered put 27,000 farmers in the San Joaquin Valley out of work. It shut them down cold," Pearce protests - inaccurately.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (not a bunch of environmentalists) has estimated that job loss was more like 5,000. Meanwhile, continued drought conditions cost 16,000 jobs; but Pearce can’t make political capital out of addressing the drought, which appears to be exacerbated by weather change due to greenhouse gasses we create.

If there are solutions to these complex issues, we’ll find them through honest examination of the scientific and economic facts, and reasoned debate.

Fear-mongering is a time-honored tool for demagogues. It’s a whole lot easier and sometimes more politically effective than serious examination of troublesome issues.

But it’s a lousy way to run a government.

                                                               -30-
[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 22 January, in the Las Cruces Sun-News.  It was the second of two on U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, who had published a column in the same paper portraying himself as an environmental moderate, despite his somewhat grim record with regard to the environment.]

Pearce will, of course, be up for re-election this year.   He will be heavily favored.  Particularly with Koch Brothers' money behind him, there's likely to be some pretty ugly PAC advertising on television if his Democratic opponent shows any sign of making it a close race.

Who will that be?  So far, I'm only aware of one Democrat seeking the nomination: Evelyn Madrid Erhard.  If she wins the nomination, it will be quite a David-and-Goliath scene.   We see her collecting signatures at the Farmers' Market, and talking with citizens.   If she's the nominee, she'll face a hell of a challenge.  Oddly, though, in theory she's just the sort of person Tea Party folks say they want: a regular citizen, about as far from a career politician as anyone could be; and a pretty good example of "family values" -- married to the same man for more than three decades.   At least at first glance, it seems as if she'd be a breath of fresh air if she could manage to unseat Mr. Pearce, who so richly deserves retirement -- though perhap not the lucrative lifetime pension and health care benefits all Congressfolk get.

So, let me think, what else did we see that we liked at Saturday's Farmers' Market?

A man and his dog . . .

. . .  a little love . . .




. . . and a man with no dog

 

We also watched a family supervise the sketch artist as he made a quick portrait of the son.  The boy maintained a very serious expression throughout, but seemed to approve of the result.

Also a honey bee . . .



. . . and a blues guitarist . . .




. . . and a couple of dogs who didn't much care for each other
-- though from the picture alone, they might be contemplating a first date.

Note: unless otherwise attributed, all photographs and images -- and verbiage -- on this site is copyrighted.

A Jackal in Eagle's Clothing

Most politicians lie, and portray themselves more favorably than they deserve.

Few do so as blatantly as Congressman Steve Pearce, portraying himself as an environmental moderate in a recent piece in this newspaper.

Harmonizing environmental protection with other needs is a subtle and difficult set of choices. If tackled honestly, they are complex.

For Pearce, the choices are simple. He’s bankrolled by the oil and gas folks, and votes the way they want him to.

In the 2010 election cycle, Mr. Pearce raised nearly $2.5 million. His top four contributors were Yates Petroleum, Marbob Energy, Devon Energy, and Chesapeake Energy, and the fifth was a corporation owned by a right-wing billionaire. At least two more oil companies were among his top ten, along with a bank and an investment firm. So far in 2011-12, Oil & Gas represents his top contributor, at $55,500. "Automotive" is second and Banks fifth.

The petroleum industry got what it paid for. Groups from that industry give Mr. Pearce ratings of either 100% or very nearly 100%. I’m told that Mr. Pearce has received more than $1.2 million from the oil and gas industry during his career.

By contrast, Public Citizen rates him at eight per cent. Most environmental protection groups, as well as La Raza, the American Library Association, and the ACLU, rate him at 0 %. Nada. His League of Women Voters "energy score" is also 0%. In his own party, the "Republicans for Environmental Protection" gave him a generous 17% rating for 2006.

An environmental moderate doesn’t get a 0% rating from environmental protection groups. An environmental moderate looks honestly at the available choices, balances interests as fairly as s/he can, and votes based on what’s best for the people s/he represents, or for the country. Sorry, but that ain’t Steve Pearce.

There’s no doubt where Pearce stands. Folks who work for the petroleum industry obviously know it. So do folks intent on protecting the environment, and advocates of good government generally. Put simply: "Oil good. Wasting time on our environment, bad." It’s that simple.

It’s that simple for Pearce, and he says so to groups like the Anti-Endangered Species Act rally in Roswell.  He writes a different story in the Sun-News. For us, he writes, "I have always advocated balance" in such matters. He also disparages Washington lobbyists – even though he and his oil and gas clients work with some very powerful anti-environmental lobbyists. In fact, his chief of staff was formerly an anti-environmental lobbyist.

Pearce tells us that "no matter how many special interests attack me, I will not stop doing what is right for New Mexico"; but he is a creature of the monied special interests! This doesn’t make him wrong, just dishonest. A fair statement would be that no matter how many concerned groups and citizens attack him, he will not stop doing what is right for the Koch Brothers, Exxon, and Steve Pearce.

Of course, Pearce hides his allegiance behind copious references to working people and farmers. Like the worst of history’s demagogues, he musters support by fear-mongering, instead of honestly addressing difficult choices. Anything that will inconvenience his backers he casts as a devastating blow to employment.

Most dangerously, he advocates an end to awards of legal fees for successful public-interest lawsuits.
Naturally this is a biggie for polluters and corporations that don’t want environmental protection to cut into their profit margins even a little.

His attack on environmentalists as "interest groups" is sly. Unlike trade associations, labor unions, and industry lobbyists, they don’t represent the material interests of workers or businesspeople or ranchers or the elderly. They represent all of us, in a sense. Whether they are right or wrong in any particular case, they represent the Earth we live on, and the other species we share it with, as well as the trees that take poisonous carbon dioxide out of our air and return oxygen to it. (Even Mr. Pearce probably needs a little oxygen now and then.)

Mr. Pearce shrieks that sometimes the groups’ attorney fees get paid by the public. That’s true. What he leaves out is that they get paid if they win a case that is in the public interest. That is, someone who sues to make the government or an industry follow the law, and protect a river or stop poisoning the air, has done us all a favor and may get paid out of the public treasury.

They don’t get paid if they lose. They don’t get paid if they’re wrong.

Unlike the oil and gas companies, they don’t have abundant profits from which to pay lawyers to help them make more profits. Owls and lizards generally can’t afford lawyers and lobbyists. (Well, maybe the Geico gekko can.) The San Francisco River has no Law Department. Trees get paid well below minimum wage for helping maintain an environment we can live in.

Environmental groups only get paid for winning lawsuits that make government or industry follow the law. Congress made the laws; and most of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Mr. Pearce’s Republican allies, such as George Bush. The deck is pretty well stacked against advocates for the owls and trees; but even so, Mr. Pearce wants to remove their chance even to sit in on the game.

                                                             - 30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 7 January.  For the benefit of readers who don't know, Mr. Pearce is a Republican Congressman from southernNew Mexico.]