Partisan leanings notwithstanding, if you consider yourself to be any kind of environmentalist, you can not be happy with our current administration. Likewise the same can be said about the previous administration and their refusal of Kyoto. Moreover, the administrations prior to Clinton and their lack of prosecution for industrial polluters. And so on, and so on, and so on....
America's denial of the environment is a literal speed bump that impedes the correction of our problematic majority share in the environment (whew), and you know what? It's not a result of your party affiliation, but because you're the owner of the party.
Like it or not, these politicians/administration/agency/policy are yours.
I never really thought about it until I saw this headline: Bush's EPA Is Pursuing Fewer Polluters. While Bush might, in fact, be Commander in Chief, it needs to be said that he has tenure, not ownership! And while I understand these branches of the governmental tree are ultimately superintended under his supervision and guidance (and the headline did not actually intend to show ownership) I can't help but put that story's blame on us.
Under a democracy, the fault lies with the voter. Even after the votes have been cast, we are still in charge. When did this mountable fact go by the wayside?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s words to Western Illinois University could have been true under Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan. So what the hell are we doing, what the hell have we done, what the hell are we going to do?
If Obama is elected to office, will we hold his feet to the flame if he doesn't come through with his promise to comprehensively study climate change and its impact on low-income communities? If future president John McCain does not protect the clean air, safe and healthy water, sustainable land use, ample greenspace he claims to ensure, will we hold him responsible? If our fearless leader in chief Hillary fails to create a (successful) $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund for research and development, do we call for her resignation? If Rudy is elected, will we fight to oust him from office for his failure to even recognize the environment as issue?
Now is the time to jump.
America's denial of the environment is a literal speed bump that impedes the correction of our problematic majority share in the environment (whew), and you know what? It's not a result of your party affiliation, but because you're the owner of the party.
Like it or not, these politicians/administration/agency/policy are yours.
I never really thought about it until I saw this headline: Bush's EPA Is Pursuing Fewer Polluters. While Bush might, in fact, be Commander in Chief, it needs to be said that he has tenure, not ownership! And while I understand these branches of the governmental tree are ultimately superintended under his supervision and guidance (and the headline did not actually intend to show ownership) I can't help but put that story's blame on us.
Under a democracy, the fault lies with the voter. Even after the votes have been cast, we are still in charge. When did this mountable fact go by the wayside?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s words to Western Illinois University could have been true under Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan. So what the hell are we doing, what the hell have we done, what the hell are we going to do?
If Obama is elected to office, will we hold his feet to the flame if he doesn't come through with his promise to comprehensively study climate change and its impact on low-income communities? If future president John McCain does not protect the clean air, safe and healthy water, sustainable land use, ample greenspace he claims to ensure, will we hold him responsible? If our fearless leader in chief Hillary fails to create a (successful) $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund for research and development, do we call for her resignation? If Rudy is elected, will we fight to oust him from office for his failure to even recognize the environment as issue?
Now is the time to jump.
