The results are in. The people have spoken at two public hearings conducted by the Dane County Lakes and Watershed Commission last week on the so-called Dane County Waterbody Classification Project.
The message sent at those hearings should inform the statewide debate over who should control the Department of Natural Resources - the people through their elected governor or a handful of self-appointed "experts."
I attended, briefly, the Verona hearing last Tuesday. Sue Black of the Lakes and Watershed Commission got back to me and reported the breakdown of speakers, pro and con. She said 13 were recorded as neutral, 6 in support of the proposed regulations and 23 spoke against. Another 138 registered in opposition but did not speak. The Commission also received 97 "photocopied" forms in opposition, perhaps from one of the websites organized in opposition. That is a total of 258 opposed versus 6 in support.
In Sun Prairie on Thursday this was the breakdown: 14 neutral, 8 in support, 29 speaking in opposition, 129 registered in opposition and 82 other forms in opposition. That is a total of 240 opposed versus 8 in favor.
Grand total = 498 opposed and 14 in support. I would call that overwhelming opposition from "the people."
Now, the teachable moment. Spencer Black, the Sierra Club, The Capital Times, and the hook and bullet crowd want to wrest control of the state Department of Natural Resources away from the popularly elected governor and give it to the "professionals."
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, like most newspapers (the Wisconsin State Journal and Beloit Daily News being the only exceptions I could find in a quick search), editorialized:
"Protection of the state's natural resources is better served by a continuity of professional leadership."
That is just another way of saying the people have no say in their environment, only the "experts."
The director of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters demands that "once and for all ... science and not politics will determine natural resource decisions in Wisconsin."
Considering that the root of the Greek word "politics" is "poli" or "people," that is downright totalitarian. The whole Communist experiment did away with political parties and meaningful elections because, you see, "experts" would make decisions in the name of the people according to the precepts of "scientific" Marxism. The inevitable deviations were ascribed as the work of slackers, saboteurs, fifth columnists, counter-revolutionaries, the mentally ill, and other socially dangerous elements.
The 498 who spoke or wrote in opposition in Verona and Sun Prairie would be disregarded, if they were even given a chance to register their opinions, in favor of the "expert" elites relying on the officially sanctioned "science."
Eventually, Old Joe Stalin determined what was scientific and what was treasonable.
His ideological descendants, like Prog Dane's Matt Logan, expressed in so many words that:
"The environment is far more complex than anyone except a PhD level expert can fully appreciate. Are we going to limit what "personal responsibility" means to only those things that the average high-school graduate can assess and appreciate?"
It's a wonder we allow the proletariat to vote at all. As concerns "the environment," an all-encompassing term, the elites would rectify that.
The State Journal editorialized earlier this month:
Critics claim gubernatorial appointment of the DNR secretary exposes the natural resources agency to political influence, which is true - and appropriate.
Folks, without accountability to the people there can be no democracy.
Bad science
Let us also remember that the history of man is replete with bad science. Eugenics, the "recovered memory syndrome," Piltdown Man, and the "Japanese War Tubas" (pictured above) are but a few examples. (Oh, the humanity!) Add to that Al Gore's "climate change" (once called "global warming.")
The hacking of computers at a British Climate Change institute is exposing the latter scam.
The conspiracy behind the anthropogenic Global Warming myth ... has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the Internet.
These alleged emails supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing (the climate change) theory suggest conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and ... (that) "warmist" scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause. [ The United Kingdom's Telegraph: Climategate]
Meanwhile, in Copenhagen (words I've always wanted to write), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet next month:
to consider a 181-page draft that calls for developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to the tune of somewhere between $70 billion and $150 billion per year, funded perhaps by a 2 percent tax on international financial transactions.
Did I say "the environment" is an all-inclusive term? The Weekly Standard quotes the London Times characterization of what is at stake:
"Copenhagen is perhaps viewed best as an agreement that, if successful, could define the global industrial and commercial landscape of the 21st Century."
Did I say "the environment" is a sphere increasingly being reserved as the private club of the elites? The Weekly Standard records that:
"Treaty" is a word not used, perhaps to avoid the need for Senate approval of any deal that President Obama might sign. [The Weekly Standard: Hot Air in Copenhagen]
Childlike trust
My eclectic adversary here at The Daily Page suggests we'd all be better off if we would but trust the government planners, priestly keepers of the scientific truth. The precocious Emily Mills asks "Whose Lawn is it Anyway?"
Mine, is the answer. Look, I mulch, I keep fallen leaves out of the street, I forego phosphorous (although I am considering applying Milorganite next spring). I take unused pesticides and used motor oil to the collection site. My green recycling bin is filled to overflowing; my brown garbage bin is comparatively empty. My main set of wheels gets an average of 27 miles per gallon in mostly city driving.
And yes, I can float a boat in the neighborhood retention pond. So I ask, are the complex standards embodied in the Waterbody proposal:
- Cost effective? The Lakes Commission refuses to do a cost-benefit analysis. "Too expensive," they say. Hey, now they know how it feels for business and industry!
- Practical. If people do not understand them they will not comply.
- Necessary. Are we chasing decimal points here? For instance, the Cap and Trade bill will cost families $1,700 a year to reduce the world's temperature by a single degree Farenheit. Is it worth it?
It amazes me that liberals, so seared by the Watergate experience as to be skeptical if not cynical about most government claims, so credulously drink the Kool-aid when the government serves up its official line on the almighty environment.
Emily Mills says she welcomes the debate. At least, we can still debate this. If some prog-libs had their way, the people would have no say at all. "Science" would rule.
Wall to Wall:
Terence Wall, who is running against Russ Feingold for the U.S. Senate, claims that a public opinion poll shows that he would win with 62 percent of the vote over Russ Feingold if the election were held today.
Folks, I have no way to independently verify or discount it. Wall says the poll was conducted by the On Message organization out of Alexandria, Va. The poll is said to have a plus or minus error ratio of 4 percent on a sample of 600 likely voters.
Do you see what I see?
Said the night wind to the little lamb.
Did you see a couple in an intimate pose? Good for you. But research - not conducted at the Blaska Policy Research Center and Experimental Work Farm (so send your vice squads elsewhere) - shows that young children cannot identify the intimate couple because they do not have prior memory associated with such a scenario.What they will see, however, is the nine dolphins in the picture! Keep looking, you'll see the dolphins!
- Brother Charlie Sykes, the dean of conservative commentators in the Badger State, heralds as "Monday's Hot Read: A Reality Check for Madison" a "trenchant and hilarious analysis of liberal Madison's reality check on crime" as penned by your favorite blogger.
- A great Christmas gift: e-mail the bookmark for Stately Blaska Manor to your loved ones (or worst enemies - works either way). Bookmark me now!
- Hey kids! This Thanksgiving, remember the words of wisdom from the Father of Our Country, George Washington: "Spit not into the fire, especially when there be
meatturkey upon it!"
