Today, in a
Washington Post story on a bill in Congress that would protect thousands of acres of pristine wildnerness AND sell of thousands of acres of our land to devlopers, Bob Bennett showed the true disdain that he and his fellow party members have for those of us working for a better place. Look below the fold for background on this interesting environmental story, Bennett's quote, and a little history of the life and carrer of Bob Bennett.
So, if you already know this, bear with me. But for those who aren't environmental dorks, here's a quick intro to the issue that gave us a Freudian insite into Bob's brain:
Land Classification: The federal government (or us, the people) own lots of land, especially out west. Many people assume that this land is protected, but the reality is that most of it isn't, and the fate of the forests lies in the legal classification of the land. National Forest land is generally open to all kinds of development. Bureau of Land Managament land is generally used for oil and gas drilling and to subsidize grazing for huge agribusiness. For land to be truly protected, it generally must be classified as "Wilderness," a very specific term that requires an act of Congress. Land that has been disignated "Wilderness" is protected from roads, development, motorized vehicles, and even mountain bikes. Basically, Wilderness designation allows people to walk around but not much more.
How We Get Wilderness Disignation: It would be great if we could trust the Forest Service or the National Park Service to make decisions that protected the land and natural habitat under their care, but we can't, so one of the few real options for real protection for federal land is a congretional Wilderness disignation. These are REALLY hard to get, and the land that's designated tends to be the "rock and ice" stuff: the land that's above treeline and is beautiful while biologically not as significant as lower-elevation land. To put it another way, most of our Wilderness is piles of beautiful rocks that hosts relitivaly little wildlife, while the land most important for the survival of species like Salmon and Grizzly Bear, the lower lands, are ignored. This is partly because these rock and ice designations are not as controversial because there's no money to be made up there. The timber and gas companies want the lower stuff, and they usually win.
Back to my point. Wildernss designation is hard, if not impossible, to get through Congress. However, some folks, like Sen. Harry Reid in NV, have figured out a way to do it: they trade wilderness designation in one place for development in another. Needless to say, this approach is highly controversial, but it's the only way Wilderness bills can move forward with the Repugs in control. Check out our friend Richard Pombo's (R-CA11) quote from the same story:
"If I didn't want wilderness, I easily could have stopped all these bills."
Now, of course, he DOES stop all the really important bills, and the bills that DO go throw are, in the words of Carl Pence, and experienced Idaho forest ranger:
"It's a second-class wilderness,"
The Stage Is Set: So, that brings us to the words of wisdom from Mr. Bennett. In case you forgot, here they are again with more context.
Bennett, whose proposal would sell off as much as 25,000 acres of federal land in Utah's fast-growing Washington County while protecting other red-rock areas, said environmentalists would be wise to take the deal he is offering.
His advice to them, he said in an interview, is: "Take it and then keep arguing for more, that's your job. I don't object to you earning a salary for a hopeless cause."
Mr. Bennett may be right that environmentalists should take the deal. But the utter disdain that he has for the conservation movement is really amazing when you figure out the "code." What Mr. Bennett is really talking about here is the belief among some of these right-wingers that the environmental movement is full of starry-eyed naive people who are making a cushy living protecting trees, paid for by the liberals who control the charitible foundations that pay for all of it. Now, I've worked in the environmental movement for several years now, and of course that's baloney and I've heard it before. But what really amazes me is what this quote shows about Mr. Bennett's larger world view.
Bob Bennett, corporate and GOP hack: So I checked out Mr. Bennett's bio, just to see if he had any real-world experience. Of course, he's the son of a 4-term Senator (and we all know, that's a tough life). But he's also spent a lot of time in the corporate world, running a variety of big companies. He's also spent some time helping the CIA screw up the world, and at one time, employed Watergate crook E. Howard Hunt. Check out his history for yourself at Wikipedia or on his own web site.
So, Bob has spent his time: being the kid of a Senator, being a big-shot CEO, working for the CIA, and being a big-shot neocon and Bushy. To be fair, he's been quite successful in all these endevors (except for maybe Watergate). So yes, Mr. Bennett does seem to have a knack for picking winning causes. And I suppose he would know what's hopeless and what's not.
And, to those of use who are taking huge pay cuts, volunteering our time, blogging, reading the newspaper, talking to our neighbors, donating or money, or doing any number of normal things to try and make the world a better place, Mr Bennett says our cause is hopeless. And to him I say, yep, you may be right. But when somebody asked why he devoted his life to the seemingly hopeless cause of conservation, Gary Snyder is rumored to have said "Because it's a matter of style."
So, here's my advice to you, Mr. Bennett: Keep cashing those fat Senatorial paychecks while lying to the American public about Iraq. I don't have any problems with you cashing in big time while keeping the world at the status quo.