Wrangling the Angler: Part Four

Today concludes the four part examination of the various quandaries raised by the Washington Post (here) regarding Vice President Cheney’s involvement executive branch decision making;

1. Regarding Cheney’s role in challenging the science protecting a group of endangered fish in the interest of farmers hit hard by drought in a swing- state that resulted in the death of over ten thousand salmon: A touchy issue. Do most Americans support the rights of fish over the potential livelihood of farmers? Unless they’re on the fringes of the far left, not likely, and, despite the environmental carnage, it is difficult to find fault in the impulse to do so. Difficult, not impossible.
2. Regarding Cheney’s effort to pressure the EPA into easing air pollution controls: Why should the EPA care about air pollution? It’s not like air pollution is one of its charters? Seriously, have we not arrived at the point that air quality (and I’m not even talking about global warming) is something to remain vigilant about?
3. Regarding statements from former Cheney staff members who explained their role in re-writing a Clinton-era land protection measure that put nearly a third of our national forests off limits to logging, mining, and most developments: I’ll never understand the conservative agenda against the environment (notice I say conservative not Republican, as I believe there are Republicans out there who have at least some interest in the environment). With a nation that’s national identity is so tied up in the works of Henry David Thoreau and William James, it seems like it should almost be un-American to pillage the land the way Cheney would attempt. There isn’t a Founding father (from Jefferson to Franklin) in which the American ecology wasn’t of significant import. Power clearly has its draws, and as Americans we seem to celebrate individuals who can accumulate it. But with the environment today it’s more and more about greed and money, and Cheney resembles, more and more, the lumbering arrogant evil (a harsh word but one Americans shouldn’t be afraid of—as if our society has never produced a figure bereft of morality) of Noah Cross from Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, than the Henry Kissinger he imagines himself to be.
4. Regarding deputy assistant interior secretary for fish and wildlife, Paul Hoffman’s, claim that the VP, an avid fisherman, was against listing the cutthroat trout because it would harm the recreational fishing industry in the VP’s home state of Wyoming: So it becomes clear: Attempt to interfere with anything the VP views as his—power, wealth, recreational activities—and risk drawing his ire. Most Americans, as part of adolescence, come to terms with the fact that we can’t always have what we want and that sacrifices constantly have to be made, for the “greater good”, or, less nobly, for “prudence’s sake”. Apparently, not the VP who reacts like a spoiled child when denied the things he craves—again: power, wealth, recreational hobby.
5. Regarding Cheney’s attempt to remove snowmobiling restrictions in national parks, a tactic that involved attempting to fundamentally alter the way in which national parks were managed and attracted so much opposition from park managers and the public that the Interior Department withdrew it: Finally, the kind of off-radar political initiative we expect of our VPs! It would be more humorous if not for the way such an image seems to complete the disturbing portrait of a man who has attempted to remain unapproachable. And doesn’t immediately prompt one ask: Is there a single Cheney decision that has benefited Americans?
6. Regarding Paul Hoffman’s assessment that Cheney’s “genius” is his ability to “put the right people in places… that comport with his overall vision”: Genius? Most people would call those people servants. And it hardly takes a “genius” to issue orders to a servant, no matter how many he may be directing.
7. Regarding Cheney’s refusal to tap into the Cabinet officials (referred to as the “God Squad”) in his quest to help Ohio farmers, who’s job it is to decide if economic hardships outweigh the benefit of protecting endangered wildlife, and Cheney’s insistence that the had to “get the science on the side of the farmers”: Can we all at least agree on what a pathetic politician Cheney actually is, thereby explaining his utter lack of interest in the office of the presidency. We see here the seedlings of what will be another colossal failure (much like his dealing with enemy combatants) that, rather than benefiting anyone, works to hamstring both the executive branch and the agencies tasked to deal with such issues. The fact that there is a system in place to decide such issues, and the fact that Cheney sought to circumvent such channels, further illustrates his fear of confrontation and would avoid debate for fear of being exposed as the robber baron he is.
8. Regarding former head of the EPA, Christine Todd Whittman’s, assessment that Cheney had called her personally to complain that she “hadn’t moved fast enough” regarding easing pollution rules for aging power and oil refinery plants: Ah, finally, a VP who is hands-on in environmental issues! Sigh…
9. Regarding Whittman’s assessment of task force meetings with Cheney, in which Cheney argued that EPA regulations were to blame for keeping companies from building new power plants: So companies shouldn’t operate with a moral imperative and to expect them to do so is unacceptable? Companies shouldn’t be expected to make money in order to make it, particularly if it pertains to the future health of this nation (not to mention the world)? How have profits for oil refineries “suffered” as a result of environmental legislation? Didn’t Exxon pull in $25 billion last year? Not a penny of that can go to increased environmental protection? Didn’t they drive a tanker into Alaska? Have increased safety regulations in auto-manufacturing (seat belts, air bags) actually hurt auto-companies (like they claimed they would). Only the most self-deluded person would actually believe that those costs aren’t passed to the consumer. So either Cheney is a complete idiot, or he is deluded. The only other option would be to consider that he is completely aware and doesn’t care, which would make him someone completely bereft of moral character, traditionally the description reserved for people we like to think of as “evil”.
10. Regarding the White House’s assessment of EPA reports that White House wanted “more pro-industry”: Sigh…
11. Regarding the federal court of appeals who decided against Cheney backed legislation and their ruled that their attempts to redefine the law would only be valid in “a Humpty-Dumpty world”: But that’s the thing: When you don’t care about pushing Humpty of the wall and would attempt to prevent others from cleaning up the broken pieces, such laws make perfect sense.