Ruling? What ruling? The moratorium was not a ruling between any arguing groups. It was UNILATERAL in the absence of ANY environmental complaints, etc!

The BLM sure doesn't seem too gun-shy about fighting tooth and nail against, not only, environmental groups but actual STATES on behalf of oil projects (see the situation in Colorado). Nope, the BLM ain't a bunch of softies, that's for sure.

Funny how the BLM doesn't seem to put unilateral moratoriums on oil drilling PRIOR to the FAR MORE WIDESPREAD environmental lawsuits and complaints.

Once again, NOT ONE complaint or lawsuit in the 3 years of these 130 applications. The BLM then decides unilaterally on a moratorium because of the POSSIBILITY of activist threats? This fact doesn't seem SOMEWHAT strange to you at all?

__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com

When did I say I don't want people prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, when a crime is committed? We have thousands of laws on the books in this country, and we don't need more. What we need is for people to be willing to make difficult decisions, and actually hold people accountable for their actions. We don't do that though. Everyone is making excuses for awful behavior. Bring up Iraq, and talk about who voted for the war, and watch how many excuses you get for the people who helped give the green light. We don't need more laws & regulations. We need to hold people accountable. How many bums have lifetime jobs in congress or the senate? Then we whine about where we are today. You want a law? Try term limits.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing"

"What we need is for people to be willing to make difficult decisions, and actually hold people accountable for their actions. We don't do that though."

And what I'm saying is 'Don't hold your breath for that to happen'. You're pining for 20,000 years of human nature to be turned upside down. I understand the "this is the way it should be' and I agree with you. Now, HOW the hell is it going to happen? By complaining or by setting legal boundaries? If you have a REALISTIC (no pie in the sky, it oughtta's) then great. Until that happens, laws that punish scoundrels (and are enforced) are the closest thing we have against corruption. Aside from that, when it comes to voters not being up on current events - - the public gets the elected officials they deserve - - just as PFiV said - - they ARE a direct reflection on us.

__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com

Not a bad start. I'd love to know what "the rules" actually are in terms of how far you can go.

Example: living in the DC area, it's almost an inside (the beltway) joke sometimes, if you get a present from somebody who's also a Washingtonian, to say "I dunno, is it worth more than $20?"

The reason is there's a $20 limit on stuff you can get from somebody, if you work for the executive branch. The idea is a contractor can't "buy" you that way. And by and large, the rank and file are scrupulous about that kind of thing, not just out of fear, but also because hell, whatever you want to say about the feds, the great mass of them want to get the best value for the taxpayer. The great mass of them actually give a damn, at least to the extent that they don't want to CREATE a waste of taxpayer money.

Counterpoint? I was talking recently to a friend, and I juxtaposed this system against something I was familiar with from the private sector. As a matter of personal history, prior to trekking up to Baltimore to see the Pats and Ravens, the last game I'd been to was in the 90s. Skins/Lions playoff game. I had tickets because a friend had just been "given them" by a printer's rep.

His response was "oh yeah, and with the big boys it's anything you want..." and went on to enumerate several deal-greasing mechanisms including women, which is illegal on a whole 'nother front.

Point is, Congress exempts itself from the standards the executive branch (rank and file fed types) follow.

Now then - rank and file feds will break those rules too. At any level of government, some brainiac will put a porsche on his government credit card.

But at the congressional level, it's not that we never catch anybody. Partially, you're right, they tend to act in a sort of fraternal way toward those being caught, and they tend to try them in the press instead of the courts.

But the root of the lobbyist/Congressman dilemma is that the laws aren't as tight, and the Congressmen believe themselves to always be in need of the next campaign contribution. Each group can only give so much but there are loopholes; and in any event, I guarantee you there ain't no $20 limit.

Campaigns as we know them are inherently expensive, which drives a need for campaign money. Trouble is, you only give to campaigns at that level if you expect something back, if only access to your candidate.

So at the root, how do you fix that? Make candidates pay for their own campaigns and you just get a plutocracy.

I could see making campaigns publicly financed, period. As in, nobody can get money from anywhere but a general campaign fund.

We'd see less of these guys, and the public would certainly favor a low ceiling on the tax money they have to pay just to see campaigns.

Of course, that favors encumbents.

Term limits seem a neutral endeavor in terms of the dynamic here, which is cash-for-access.

The question is how to decouple campaign contributions from political actions. I wish I had the answer, but at least we should know the question.

PFnV