HorsesAss.Org

New York Times: “Dodgers Could Reunite Torre and Mattingly”. Almost makes you wish they’d never moved from Brooklyn!

In the comment threads, Tim Eyman claims that “I-960’s policies have strong voter support,” but a recent KING-5/SurveyUSA poll suggests the initiative itself does not:

Initiative 960 is defeated 2:1 in a vote today. Women and greater Seattle voters oppose by 3:1. Those who have already voted oppose 2:1. A third of voters are Not Certain how they will vote on 960. If all of them vote Yes, the outcome could be close. Otherwise, the measure will be defeated.

Of course I take this and all pre-election polls with a lump of salt. I-960 has a very favorable ballot title (written by Timmy’s personal attorney, Jim Pharris,) and that’s always worth a few extra points at the polls. Still, if I were initiative financier Michael Dunmire, I’d start worrying about having flushed yet another half million dollars down Timmy’s gold-plated toilet.

It is interesting to note that Eyman’s success at the polls appears inversely related to the personal effort he puts into getting his initiatives on the ballot. While he’s never invested much money in promoting his measures, there was a time when the bulk of his signatures were gathered by volunteers, and the bulk of his money came from an army of small contributors… efforts that required real grassroots outreach and mobilization. But in lazily relying on lump-sum payments from Dunmire to buy his way onto the ballot, Tim has abandoned the grassroots campaigning that once generated the buzz and support that carried his initiatives to victory. Long past are the days when Tim can send out an email and instantly generate a crowd of supporters for some publicity stunt or another; now it’s pretty much Tim, Dunmire, the Fagins and a rented costume.

I-960 could still pass; it’s got an appealing ballot title, and nobody likes taxes. But if it fails, Tim only has himself to blame.

TANGENTIAL ASIDE:
Do you think Tim recognizes the irony that he has been reduced to commenting in the threads of a blog named after an initiative to proclaim him a horse’s ass?

Max Blumenthal keeps tabs on the craziest people in America so that you don’t have to.

Man… and I thought the comment threads here on HA were a little nutty. Take a look at this gem from a comment thread over on (u)SP:

Who ARE you? Stephan may know, but I don’t. […] I want to know who you are. You are rude, ill mannered, and how dare you insult my perm? I have it done by the same person who does perms for a very well liked, very powerful and very well respected elected woman in the Republican Party.

Watch who you insult. With that in mind, I will make sure that this elected official is informed what you think of our hairdresser. She will definitely not like it. This could come back to bite you and seriously hurt your political career if you are who I think you are.

In addition, do understand that I am a professional business woman, and there is monetary value attached to libel.
Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on October 26, 2007 10:42 PM

Threatening a libel suit over an insulted perm… that’s either the work of a brilliant satirist, or a typical Republican candidate in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.

Weeks at a time go by without a peep from Greg Nickels on anything. Then, on the eve of his hosting a U.S. Conference of Mayors “Climate Summit”, he’s everywhere, he’s everywhere!

Down at South Lake Union, symbolically test driving a new red streetcar. “It’s kind of like back to the future,” Hizzoner said. We could forgive him the cliche if it were actually true, but not even the most publicity-whoring fatcat of Seattle yore would have built a 1.3-mile glorified amusement-park ride for the equivalent of $47.5 million inflation-adjusted dollars. Back in the day, streetcars were for transportation. They ran across town, they ran to Fremont, to Phinney Ridge.

As for the SoLa streetcar, I’d rather walk a few blocks and burn the calories. Or ride my bike and get there a lot quicker, with zero! carbon footprint!

Speaking of which…no sooner had the Mayor relinquished the photo-op wheel of the streetcar than it was off to City Hall for the big Progress Report on Climate Change. The short take: Seattle is down 8 percent in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990, putting us within the Kyoto Protocol target of 7 percent reduction by 2012, as long as we don’t blow it in the coming four-plus years. The summary of the report does not give much actual data on how the figures were arrived at, and I’m skeptical that there isn’t some book-cooking going on here. But even if we accept the summary’s conclusions, it’s just plain crass for the Mayor to time this thing so close to the national hoo-hah. After this weekend I doubt we’ll hear a peep about the Kyoto Protocol till Nickels announces his candidacy for re-election in 2009.

Meanwhile, there was Mayor Nickels again yesterday, patting himself on the back for the city’s Bicycle Master Plan, another brick in the reduced greenhouse-gas wall. On Monday, the plan goes before the City Council, and let’s hope the Council can find a way to reconcile its worthy goals with its lousy (so far) implementation, starting with the mess at Stone Way. Originally slated for full bike lanes, this crucial north-south bike commuter route was pared back to the confusing, mixed-signal “sharrow” markings after Fremont mogul Suzie Burke complained the bikes would interfere with truck traffic. As a result, cars and bikes have to criss-cross each other’s right-of-way on Stone Way, creating a certifiable death trap that helps neither side and endangers both. From Erica’s report it seems light bulbs are going on in Council chambers, albeit dimly. The good folks at Cascade Bicycle Club, who led two protest/solidarity rides around Fremont this summer, are on the case as well.

To sum up: Is an ego made of carbon, and if so, does it have a footprint? I would love to give Mayor Nickels the benefit of the doubt in all things green, because I support what he supports and believe in what he says he believes in. On the other hand, I don’t promote a mammoth parking garage in Woodland Park Zoo while talking about the need to discourage car culture in Seattle. I don’t extol greenhouse-gas reductions while pimping a waterfront tunnel, a gargantuan SR-520 Interchange and a Trojan Horse highway expansion levy (Prop 1) in the guise of rapid transit. And I don’t talk about more liveable and lively neighborhoods while seeking to cram “69,000 new jobs and 56,000 new residents” into them.

“Trends indicate that Seattle will become even denser, and that’s good news for our climate,” the report states. Hold on: It’s only good news if the density in Seattle reduces suburban sprawl, halts highway expansion, diminishes reliance on the automobile and curbs wasteful growth. So far, the tradeoffs just aren’t there, and all the mayor’s press releases and all the mayor’s men can’t put that Humpty together again.

I’m still waiting for Will to post his first-hand take on Monday’s briefing at city hall, where Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels announced that the city is on target to meet the Kyoto Treaty goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But while I wait, I thought I’d make a quick observation that most of the other published reports seem to have missed: hitting the target was, um… pretty damn easy.

The report shows that in 2005, Seattle’s total emissions were 8 percent below 1990 levels — 11 percent below on a per capita basis. And most of these reductions were due to conservation and climate-friendly policies on the part of Seattle City Light.

A skeptical Erica C. Barnett dismisses these reductions as “the low-hanging fruit for Seattle,” and while that’s kinda-sorta true, it should be noted that this fruit was a helluva lot less low for Seattle than it would be for most other cities. City Light already relied on emission-free hydropower for 90 percent of its electricity, so whatever reductions and offsets the utility achieved, they only had 10 percent of their generating capacity to play with. By contrast, cities that rely on fossil fuel fired plants for the bulk of their power have a lot more room for improvement.

President Bush backed out of the relatively timid Kyoto accord claiming the economic costs would be too much to bear, but Seattle’s efforts thus far have not only been painless, they went nearly unnoticed. If the rest of the nation were to follow Seattle’s lead, it is likely many cities would far exceed our modest reductions, and at little or no cost to rate payers. I think that’s the real news in Monday’s announcement.

No doubt Seattle faces huge obstacles in maintaining these reductions over the next five years — and the goals themselves likely fall far short of what is necessary to slow or reverse global warming — so I fully expect cynics to dismiss the reductions as little more than a short-lived, symbolic victory. But symbolism has a knack for inspiring action, and if Seattle’s early success leads other cities to attack their low-hanging fruit too, well that at least would be a first step in the right direction.

Now with the morning news on this site every day, This Week in Bullshit is less relevant than ever:

* Rush Limbaugh knows where your children go to school.

* Mickey Kaus is an idiot. But on the other hand someone who may or may not exist accuses Hillary Clinton of doing something, so you decide.

* FEMA learned their lesson from Katrina: No more press at the press conferences.

* We may lose another member of the coalition in Iraq. The contractors. But only if they’re ever held accountable for their actions.

* How did you spend your Islamofascism awareness week? I opened presents under the meaningless word that’s a pretext to bomb Iran tree.

* And is there anything that isn’t OK to the far right if it ends up harming a Clinton in some way? Bill Clinton’s distant cousin was raped? Well shit parole the rapist, you’ll be praised by columnists for the liberal New York Times later on, even if they go on to kill one or two women.

Locally:

* Dino Rossi has been a quantum candidate. Both a candidate for governor and not at any given time. But now he’s in. I hope he’ll take his idea man’s advise and try to ban boxing.

* Mars Hill is going to unleash their bunnies and blatant homophobia on another Seattle neighborhood.

This is an open thread

Or so Will tells me. He just got back from a briefing in the mayor’s office, that concludes that Seattle his hit the 7-percent reduction in carbon emissions targeted under the Kyoto Protocol. But then, Mayor Nickels drives a car, so I guess that’s meaningless.

More from Will later.

[UPDATE! -Will]

I’m spending the afternoon and evening at the UW doing research, so I give my thoughts on what I saw when I get a chance, but not just yet. Here’s part of the press release:

The report shows that in 2005, the latest year studied, the city’s greenhouse gas emissions were about 8 percent below 1990 levels. And on a per capita level, the reduction was about 11 percent below 1990. The city has adopted the standards of the Kyoto Treaty, which call for reducing climate pollution to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

“This is a remarkable milestone that shows how cities can lead the way in the fight against global warming,” Nickels said. “It is a success that we can all celebrate. But it is just the start of our work. To beat global warming, we must not only maintain this achievement but
go a magnitude beyond these numbers. That’s why we need everyone’s help in taking action.”

The Mayor explained his general policy positions, and then the staff people filled in the details.

No word yet from Lomborg, but this seems to be a very big deal. Probably not to some folks, but you can’t win ’em all.

[From Paul HOLD THE LAUDITS!]

This thing stinks of cheap political opportunism (see my comment below @4), but I’m willing to keep an open mind (obviously!) till I actually read the report itself. Still, let’s not get all in a lather over self-congratulation…

[Update: I’m so busy with hw right now, but I gotta add something -Will]

ECB:

Kyoto is an extremely modest goal. The latest science says that we must reduce emissions worldwide by 80 percent—and in the US by more than 90 percent—to prevent catastrophic global warming.

Kyoto failed in the US Senate 95-0, with even Vice President Gore indicating he wanted to see developing nations take on more responsibility before the treaty would be brought to a deciding vote.

When I listened to the Mayor, he made it clear that two things must happen:

1) Cities can’t do it by themselves. We need a new POTUS before any significant federal legislation can become law.

2) For Seattle, some of the easier stuff has already been done. The next big thing to tackle is transportation.

The transportation waters are full of land mines. Seattle doesn’t have the tax base to build light rail all over the city by itself. Congestion pricing is another way to go. It’s likes saying to people, “See those roads right there, the ones you’ve been driving on, the ones you’ve already paid for? Guess what: they’re not free anymore. Oh, and also, we’re not building any light rail for you. Take the bus or more to Fremont.” Not even Ron Sims could sell that, and he can sell anything. (Example: Ron actually convinced Snohomish County to take loads and loads of King County’s shit for decades. Not proverbially. Literally.)

So, maybe we should put people into North Korea-style residential towers, feed them soylent green, and jail them for not recycling. If that’s what gets us from 7% reductions to 90% reductions, then bring it on.

Call me naive, but despite my occasionally harsh criticism of the folks on the Seattle Times editorial board, I’m always genuinely surprised every time they sink to a new level of rhetorical shamelessness. Take for example their endorsement of Tim Eyman’s patently ridiculous and unworkable I-960. I never saw it coming.

I-960 would, amongst other things, require a two-thirds supermajority in the legislature for passing tax and fee increases, as well as other budgetary actions; failing that, such measures can be put before voters for simple majority vote at the polls. The goal, as even the Times admits, is to send a message to legislators, and bind their hands (though not “too much.”) “This is not a great solution, but it’s about all the people can do by ballot,” the Times writes. “We think it would have a wake-up effect on legislators.”

Of course, what neither the Times nor Eyman is willing to clearly articulate is exactly why they feel such a dramatic wake-up call is needed. The Times feebly argues:

Initiative 960 deserves the people’s support. In this decade, the Legislature has raised statewide taxes on cigarettes, liquor, inheritances and gasoline. Initiative 960 makes further tax increases a bit more difficult…

Oh… it’s because the people need a stronger voice in approving or rejecting tax increases, right? Except that A) both the gas tax and estate tax were challenged via initiative; and B) given the opportunity, voters overwhelmingly rejected repeal of these taxes at the polls! So what’s the problem? Voters had the chance to reject these taxes, but refused. Looks to me like the system is working.

It is curious to note that the Times never called for such extremist measures when Republicans controlled the legislature, or at least posed a reasonable threat to do so, but now that Democrats have at least temporarily gained dominance by winning the battle of ideas, the Times and the GOP want to change the rules. No longer is a simple majority a sufficient standard for deciding the basic operations of government, as it has been throughout our nation’s two-plus-century history. No, its party unable to win much more than a third of the seats in the state House and Senate, the Times now argues in favor of granting the Republican minority a veto over the democratically elected majority.

Ironically, it was only two weeks ago that the Times editors vociferously argued against “the tyranny of the minority” in urging approval of EHJR 4204, a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the 60-percent super majority requirement for passing local school levies:

Fifty percent plus one is how our democracy works.

What the fuck? Surely the Times is not suggesting that “fifty percent plus one is how our democracy works” at the polls, but 66 percent plus one is how democracy should work when it comes to representative democracy? Indeed, on the very same page the Times endorses I-960, they make the opposite argument in opposing SJR 8206, a constitutionally mandated rainy day fund that would require a 60 percent supermajority to tap:

Voters should say “no” because this measure binds future legislatures to the thinking of today and does so in an all but permanent way.

Anyone who believes in representative democracy — and in lawmakers in future years making important budget decisions based on what they know at the time — should decline this obviously tempting measure.

So let me get this straight: fifty percent plus one is how democracy works, except when Democrats dominate the legislature, and if we believe in “representative democracy” we don’t want to bind the hands of future legislatures to a 60 percent supermajority, but we do want to bind the hands of the current legislature to a two-thirds one? I mean… what the fuck?!

When the editors of our state’s largest daily willfully contradict themselves on the same page, on the same day, it is an embarrassment to themselves and to the entire region. And it begs the question: are the Times editors really this stupid… or do they merely think their readers are? In other words, are they fucktards or fuckwads?

Oh, the Times argues that the difference between SJR 8206 and I-960 is that of a “concrete” versus an “earthen” dam, but this sort of naked sophistry is laughable within the context of the larger philosophical arguments the Times itself has raised. “Tyranny of the minority,” “50 percent plus one,” “representative democracy,” “lawmakers… making important budget decisions based on what they know at the time” — all these lofty principles are tossed aside in the service of punishing and embarrassing a Democratic legislature that dared to tax Frank Blethen’s heirs.

With so many other editorial boards getting it right, it is hard to fathom how the Times could get it so wrong, and in such a poorly argued and/or disingenuous manner. And while the Times editors admit that I-960 “is not a great solution,” unlike their colleagues, they stubbornly refuse to educate their readers by explaining why:

The Olympian
“The measure, which will appear on the Nov. 6, general election ballot, is murky, expensive, mired in bureaucracy and might be unconstitutional… I-960 is clumsily written and will be challenged in the courts, costing taxpayers millions of dollars… Voters should reject I-960.” ‑ September 23, 2007

Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
“I-960 will be expensive and is not necessary. We urge voters to reject the proposal.” ‑ October 27, 2007

Tacoma News Tribune
“Voters really can’t know what exactly I-960 would do…The initiative also goes astray by being overly – and oddly – prescriptive. For advisory votes, it calls for doing away with the usual voters’ pamphlet explanation…and mandates that the ballot question describe the issue at hand in 13 words. That’s not a recipe for informed voting.” ‑ October 19, 2007

The Columbian
“The Columbian strongly recommends a ‘NO’ vote on I-960, joining a large chorus of organizations, public officials and other newspapers… Colorado tried twisting a similar tourniquet around legislators’ work, and the effort there failed miserably, with sharp declines in national rankings for education funding and health care… If enacted, [960] would make our state government bigger, slower, more cumbersome and more expensive… Let’s say a natural disaster or some other catastrophe hits our state. If legislators were constricted by I-960, the response to that disaster would be brought to a dangerously slow pace. That’s why police, firefighters and nurses oppose I-960.” ‑ October 8, 2007

The Times endorsement puts Blethen and the gang in pretty lonely company, but the way they wrote it — blatantly (or stupidly) contradicting their own editorial page — has them standing alone. What kind of paper argues for a measure they admit is bad, to solve a problem they refuse to enunciate? Are they idiots or liars? Fucktards or fuckwads? You decide.

It looks like the “family values” party may have another gay-sex scandal on it’s hands, and this time its local:

An alleged extortion attempt involving a state lawmaker and a reputed male prostitute is under investigation by Spokane police.

Details surrounding the case remained sketchy Sunday, but authorities confirmed that it involves two-term state Rep. Richard Curtis, a Republican from the small southwest Washington town of La Center, and that there was some type of confrontation last week at Davenport Tower. The identity of the alleged extortionist was unavailable, though police confirm he is a reputed prostitute.

[…] Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, Curtis has voted like a fiscal and social conservative. This spring, he voted against domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples. Last year, he opposed a gay rights bill that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Of course, nobody wants to jump to conclusions when somebody’s reputation is at stake, but I find this tidbit particularly intriguing:

State GOP lawmakers were in Spokane Wednesday through Friday for a retreat to discuss the upcoming legislative session, said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee.

He said most who attended the meeting stayed at the Red Lion Hotel at the Park. He said he visited with Curtis “a number of times” at the Red Lion and assumed he was staying there too.

“I didn’t know of anyone who stayed at the Davenport,” Armstrong said. “My first thought is that it must be a mistake.”

That was Armstrong’s “first thought,” but the phrasing kinda implies that there might be a second. I’m guessing we’re going to be hearing a lot more about this story over the coming weeks.

Following up on our speculation about a refresh of Macbooks for Leopard, MacRumors reports there may be an announcement as early as tomorrow. It looks like Apple held off coupling an announcement with the Leopard rollout, figuring they could sell a bunch of soon-to-be-outmoded Macs to the hordes seeking the new OS. Including around 200 who stood in line outside the U District’s Mac Store, aided by University Village’s Apple store being closed for renovation. The Mac Store folks parked their van outside the U Village Apple store to help usher Leopard buyers over to their outlet. Not that Apple stores were hurting: Buyers also lined up for nearly two hours outside Alderwood Mall and Bel-Square stores, as we reported.

Meanwhile, Ars Technica tosses its colonoscopy of Leopard into the ring. So far no real huge gotchas, although little annoyances are starting to surface (3-D being foremost).

Why give Apple so much attention in Microsoft country? As any local Mac user knows, there’s a huge disconnect between the 9-out-of-10 computers running Windows stat, and what we see around us. If you’re not on a corporate network requiring Windows, or your machine is not supplied to you by an employer, chances are much higher you’re using a Mac. Among my circle, here in Seattle, the stat is darn near reversed. And as Apple’s recent blowout quarter revealed, the Windows switch game is still going strong. From The New York Times story:

“One of the company’s strongest indications that it will see continued growth is its report that more than 50 percent of those who purchased Macintosh computers in its chain of 197 stores during the quarter were first-time Mac buyers.”

Via Balloon Juice. Amazing.

Sometimes it’s damn hard to pick the day’s top story, but this morning, not so much. Baseball is still “America’s pastime,” even if football is the big money sport, and while the Super Bowl may be the single biggest TV event of the year, the World Series is by far the more iconic event. So when the Boston Red Sox sweep the Series for the second time in four years, that’s big news, especially in Boston. But, um, still… it’s only a baseball game…

Armed with broom sticks and prepared for a sweep, confident members of Red Sox nation descended on Coors Field tonight predicting a historic victory for their beloved Boston team.

Their sweep dreams came true.

The Red Sox have swept a Series for the second time in four seasons and it had grown men ready to cry even before the game’s first pitch.

And I cried the day Bush was declared president, so I respect men who aren’t afraid to show their sensitive side. As for Denver fans…

The Rockies’ magical season died on Sunday night, forever frozen within reach of a goal that seemed laughable when the players arrived in Tucson seven months ago. Four games, four losses. A paradise and championship lost.

Ugh. Gag me with a spoon.

Still, I suppose if it had been the Phillies Mariners in the series, I might wax equally poetic. And maybe next year it will be the Mariners, if they can get themselves a little of this. Or perhaps, this.

Speaking of drugs, California Gov. Arnold Shwarzenegger tells GQ magazine that marijuana is not one:

Schwarzenegger told the British edition of GQ magazine that he had not taken drugs, even though the former bodybuilder and Hollywood star has acknowledged using marijuana in the 1970s and was shown smoking a joint in the 1977 documentary “Pumping Iron.”

“That is not a drug. It’s a leaf,” Schwarzenegger told GQ.

And at just over a billion dollars a year, marijuana is also Washington state’s number two cash crop, coming in just behind our state’s more famous $1.15 billion apple harvest. That makes WA the number five pot-growing state in the nation. Just imagine if it were legal and taxed, how many millions marijuana would bring into government coffers instead of the millions we spend arresting, trying, and incarcerating growers? And just imagine the suffering that could be relieved if medical marijuana patients were allowed to actually grow and buy marijuana, as well as merely possess it? Perhaps it would even make the ailing J.P. Patches a happy clown again?

Suffering from “blood cancer,” J.P. Patches could use a little weed

And speaking of getting high, things are looking up for at Harrington WA, new home of the National UFO Reporting Center. May they have as much success as the Bigfoot Field Research Center (and yes… there really is a Bigfoot Field Research Center,) which may have finally found conclusive evidence of sasquatch, deep in the woods of Pennsylvania. Or maybe it was a “skinny, mangy bear.” Whatever.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: TBA
Liberal propaganda.

8PM: The truth about Roads & Transit
Well… my truth, anyway. Aaron Toso from Yes on Roads & Transit joins me for the hour to take your calls, and to set the record straight as to why the greatest danger to the Arctic’s polar bear population is Sierra Club Cascade Chapter chair Mike O’Brien.

9PM: TBA
Even more liberal propaganda.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

I know next to nothing about science. When scientists (or at least those who aren’t on the payroll of Exxon) agree that human beings are having a significant effect on the climate, I tend to believe them.

That’s not some sort of hipster affectation, mind you. When people with doctorates in earth sciences speak in one voice, I try to set down the PBR and the graphic novel and listen. But what throws me for a loop is when good people, with the right idea, go off the rail.

Like the “Save The Polar Bears” crowd.

But really… Who should the polar bears fear the most? Local Sierra Club boss Mike O’Brien and his Nissan Pathfinder? Or some drunk Canuck with a shotgun?

The Canuck, it turns out.

Polar bears would stand a greater chance of avoiding extinction if people stopped shooting them than if they reduced greenhouse gas emissions, according to a book by a leading environmental skeptic.

Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish professor who achieved international fame with his previous book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, examines and rejects claims by environmentalists and the former president Al Gore that polar bears are drowning because the sea ice they hunt on is melting.

Lomborg says the story about drowning bears is taken from a single sighting of four dead bears the day after an abrupt windstorm. The bears came from a population that was actually increasing, which has been the overall trend in the polar bear population since the 1960s.

Lomborg, whose PhD is in political science and who doesn’t claim to be a scientist, gets all sorts of hisses and boos when he speaks. He even got nailed with a custard pie in Oxford. Hmm… Pie target Bill Gates is still shipping software, and the mannish Ann Coulter hasn’t been eaten by wolves. Perhaps the “pie throwing as a means of affecting public policy” meme is a bit played out, no?

Lomborg continues:

[He] points out that over the past decades, the global polar bear population has increased dramatically from about 5,000 members in the 1960s to around 25,000 as a result of the regulation of hunting.

Even if a decline in the bear population has taken place since the 1980s, he says, if we try to help them by cutting greenhouse gases we can at the very best avoid 15 bears dying, with realistic option meaning that it is probably only around 0.06 bears per year.

But he says, if we care for stable populations of polar bears, dealing with the 49 polar bears from the same population around Hudson Bay that get shot each year might be a smarter and more viable strategy.

I’d much rather see enviro groups pushing an American-style “cap and trade” system for controlling carbon dioxide in a way that would spur innovation and reward creativity, rather than more of these goofball vanity campaigns.