Rule number one about the Obama administration: they don't care about the stuff you care about, they're not stupid and they could care less what you think. Do not attribute to stupidity what can be explained by evil.
I hate to tread on Mcmanus's turf here, but after nearly 4 years of watching the Obama administration I'm no longer remotely convinced by explanations for its failures that invoke incompetence.
I really think the only plausible explanation at this point is that all this stuff is happening because they want it to happen.
I think I'll go find a nice desert island to live on now...
I linked to this is the other thread a little while ago. This is genuinely the stupidest announcement the US government has ever made.
the stupidest announcement the US government has ever made
I wouldn't call an announcement that helps the government advance an evil agenda 'stupid", exactly. This is just pointless. There's no one who's going to be impressed by the government getting rid of a website.
If they assassinated the guy who does Penny Arcade, I'd be impressed.
re:stupidest announcements:
Tom Ridge's advice to prepare to seal your home in duct tape and plastic has to be up there. Let a thousand Christos bloom!
My house is still sealed in duct tape and plastic. Siding is expensive.
If we could seal all the tortoisi in plastic and duct tape, they'd be safe from terrorism and not that much slower than before.
Useful information on the website: the desert tortoise is a member of the weasel family.
This is no laughing matter, Moby. God, you have to turn everything into a joke. My father was killed by a desert tortoise, and if we had had that website back then to warn of us the danger, he might still be alive today.
Not a stupid government announcement, but a creepy one prepared for a possible Apollo 11 failure that they never had to make.
... For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.
PRIOR TO THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT:
The President should telephone each of the widows-to-be.
AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT, AT THE POINT WHEN NASA ENDS COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEN:
A clergyman should adopt the same procedure as a burial at sea, commending their souls to "the deepest of the deep," concluding with the Lord's Prayer.Authored by William Safire.
the desert tortoise is a member of the weasel family
Not to be confused with the gopher tortoise.
Holden: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
Leon: What one?
Holden: What?
Leon: What desert?
Holden: It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.
Leon: But, how come I'd be there?
Holden: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a tortoise, Leon. It's crawling toward you...
Leon: Tortoise? What's that?
Holden: You know what a turtle is?
Leon: Of course!
Holden: Same thing.
Leon: I've never seen a turtle... But I understand what you mean.
Holden: You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden: I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, I found them on a government website, deserttortoise.gov. Have a look before they close it down to save money.
Why does the administration think its OK to shirk the government's responsibility to provide stewardship of our nations natural resources and habitat, and, by extension, to empower the public with information that will assist in said habitat conservation? Desert tortoises need websites too.
FWIW, the desert tortoise website seems well done.
And what on earth do they think a website costs?
17: Biden just stares at the models and doesn't listen to the price when the Go Daddy comercials come on the TV.
I would hazard a guess that www.deserttortoise.gov has received more traffic in the last day than in the previous six months.
www.desserttortoise.com is available if you want to be a niche baker.
Masturbate to Weiner's congressional career quickly. Announcement supposedly on its way.
Any bets on the first news source to use "Weiner Pulls Out" as a headline?
As part of the same initiative, the fiddlinforresters.gov website has already been taken down. You can check out the wayback machine to see what that site is about.
Apparently, Forrest Service employees doing outreach on a volunteer basis through music is beyond the pale. I can only assume that the website of the US Marine Core Band will face a similar shutdown.
I admit to being curious enough to see what the Post's headline was. It is indeed "Weinder Pulling Out."
Weiner resigning makes me dislike him even more.
Rule number one about the Obama administration: they don't care about the stuff you care about, they're not stupid and they could care less what you think.
You can believe most of that and still think this is stupid.
Anyway, a related story criticizing the web waste idiocy.
To the OP: I'm not sure it's fair to say that we've squandered the presidential term. That's not to say that the Obama administration's downgrading or ditching environmental protections isn't disgusting, or that the closing down of stand-alone websites isn't silly.
There's no one who's going to be impressed by the government getting rid of a website.
I'm no longer remotely convinced by explanations for its failures that invoke incompetence.
I would hazard a guess that www.deserttortoise.gov has received more traffic in the last day than in the previous six months.
And what on earth do they think a website costs?
A website costs, nothing, basically. Isn't that the whole point? Unless you assume this is just comically clueless, which seems like a bad assumption, the fact that they're closing down websites that cost nothing in the name of austerity has to be the whole point. It's a show, for voters who might otherwise be misled by Republican spin about government waste. They're establishing a narrative by which they can plausibly claim, 'we've carefully combed through the entire federal budget, and we've cut waste whereever it existed. Every expense had to be justified; nothing got a pass. We even shut down government websites, which cost nearly nothing to run, when we didn't think their benefits outweighed their costs. [Insert other similar petty expenses that have been trimmed. I.e., "We've started using rougher toilet paper in government buildings."] The federal government still spends a lot because it does a lot, but we've made sure that every expense is bringing good value to taxpayers. There is no 'waste' left to cut."
Incidentally, does anyone actually think this website was doing any meaningful amount of positive good? It seems perfectly fine and all, but I'd far rather cut this than SCHIP. It's actually a great place to make a big show about all the "cuts" they're making without doing any actual harm. The desert tortoise is still federally protected, it just doesn't get it's own .gov website. Wikipedia strikes me as a perfectly adequate substitute.
The desert tortoise is still federally protected
Plus, it has a shell.
we've carefully combed through the entire federal budget**, and we've cut waste whereever it existed
Standard DoD exclusions apply.
28: Which areas am I being unfairly dismissive of?
I think they should have TWO websites devoted to the desert tortoise:
www.deserttor.gov
www.deserttuga.gov
Because, hey, adorable, right?
It's actually a great place to make a big show about all the "cuts" they're making without doing any actual harm.
No, it isn't. It is an obviously pointless thing to do and reminds of Dilbert back when that used to be funny.
They show a video on Continental flights with the CEO talking about the progress they're making in their merger with United. The first thing -- out of two things -- he reports is that they've "repainted hundreds of planes." Awesome, dude. I don't remember what the second one is.
32: There's a website devoted to this question, right? It's not bad.
I'm not a whirly-eyed Obamabot, but it seems too much to go all McManus on Obama.
32: There's a website devoted to this question, right? It's not bad.
Thanks for the link, that is kind of fun.
I'm glad that somebody's done it with that kind of attitude. It isn't an earnest, well-intentioned attempt to persuade, it's good natured and fun.
Further to 36: Some of the things listed there haven't actually happened -- oops -- like closing Guantanamo Bay.
It's actually a great place to make a big show about all the "cuts" they're making without doing any actual harm?
There is harm in making about show about making tiny cuts to minor programs with weak consistences. First, it undermines the administration's credibility, because everybody knows the numbers involved are trifling. Second, the administration should be pushing back against the frame that everything the government does that doesn't involve sending checks to old people or deploying expensive weapons system is "wasteful government spending."
I'd like to see Obama say "we're going to cut the budget for the Marine Band from $25 million a year to $10 million a year", and then watch the entire right wing freak out in a mass explosion of cognitive dissonance. But he won't do it, because he's a weenie.
I'd like someone to make a website similar to 36, but from the other perspective. Call it "WhereTheFuckIsMyChange.com", and have it point out all the ways in which Obama has been a great disappointment.
40: That would be more difficult, if only because the site linked in 36 provides a link to the actual legislation or regulatory provision that occurred, while a "what didn't happen" site would have to link to ... something else.
a "what didn't happen" site would have to link to ...
Firedoglake.
and have it point out all the ways in which Obama has been a great disappointment.
Further to 36: Some of the things listed there haven't actually happened -- oops -- like closing Guantanamo Bay.
Anyone who was hoping for restraints on executive prerogative is sure as hell disappointed. Sigh. I'm sure it was already linked, but Obama now says Libya doesn't count as 'hostilities' within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.
"As long as they can't shoot back, because we're killing them from thousands of feet up, there's no need for restraints on the president's war-making powers!" -- yeah, tell that to the Cambodians.
What a lovely thing to stew over while I wait for mattresses to be delivered and Comcast to fail to show up for the fifth straight time.
On the OP, surely Urple is right. This is pure theater; the only danger is that it occupied a few Joe Biden staffers for a few days.
Obama now says Libya doesn't count as 'hostilities' within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.
"Hostility" is such an strong word. The conflict in Libya could be better described as a barely civil war.
It's bad, stupid theater. There's no major harm from killing the website, but there's real harm from presenting unnecessary websites as the source of any of our budgetary problems.
This is pure theater
It is, but its hippie punching theater. Its "fuck the environment" theater.
I don't like that kind of theater, although my being pissed off about it is probably part of Obama's master plan. Which pisses me off even more, because I don't like being manipulated.
$25,000,000 OF MY MONEY GOES TO THE MARINE BAND EVERY YEAR? GET SOME GUYS IN TO RUN IT LIKE CHOPITLE. DO THEY EVEN PASS THE HAT OR SUGGEST DONATION FOR THEIR PERFORMANCES, LET ALONE CHARGING ADMISSION? COMMUNITARIAN CLAPTRAP.
the only danger is that it occupied a few Joe Biden staffers for a few days.
You probably flip over desert tortoises for the fun of it, too. Or sue them for copyright infringement. Bastard.
They're establishing a narrative by which they can plausibly claim, 'we've carefully combed through the entire federal budget, and we've cut waste whereever it existed. Every expense had to be justified; nothing got a pass.
This doesn't make sense either, because if this website counts as waste there will always be tons of waste in the budget. In other words, they're trying to establish a narrative that will never succeed, not even on its own terms. Why would they want to do that?
When people think of government waste, they're not thinking, "Geez, if only all these government websites were *consolidated* like they are in the private sector, now that would be efficient." The only narrative I see being established here is that some political hacks in the administration are morons.
but there's real harm from presenting unnecessary websites as the source of any of our budgetary problems
But OBVIOUSLY websites that cost nearly nothing aren't the source of our budgetary problems, and no one could think they are. What they could think (if they were misinformed) is that there's lots of unexamined waste floating around in the federal budget. The goal here is not to say, 'look, we've gotten rid of a $4.99 website, that will help the budget,' it's 'look, we've combed through the federal budget all the way down to the $4.99 websites, and gotten rid of anything that wasn't bringing adequate value to taxpayers.' It's an attempt to help refocus 'our budgetary problems' (your words) on reality, rather than on some fantasy/lie about government waste.
They're establishing a narrative
This is the problem. Fucking narratives. Politicians put way too much work into packaging things nicely for media consumption. I'd so much rather they spent the effort on trying to build policies that don't suck.
the only danger is that it occupied a few Joe Biden staffers for a few days.
The full Obama announcement video isn't as bad as I would have expected, but the whole thing is made out to be bigger than a couple of days of Biden. It seems they might not have wanted to draw extra attention to the empty warehouses and boxes and stuff that are probably a more significant source of cost (but still minor in the scheme of things).
Hey remember in the 80s and 90s when cutting DoD waste and procurement reform was a bigish thing?
and no one could think they are.
This is wrong, I think. People don't really know if a static webpage requires a programmer, or what. I think it's pretty fuzzy for a lot of people.
Hey remember in the 80s and 90s when cutting DoD waste and procurement reform was a bigish thing?
I think people realized how important it is for the Pentagon to have state-of-the-art equipment like the $800 hammer and $5000 toilet seat or whatever once the Republicans united in support. The real problem is those freeloading Europeans.
It's an attempt to help refocus 'our budgetary problems' (your words) on reality, rather than on some fantasy/lie about government waste.
You think? Because to me it looks like the exact opposite. Its a way of giving credence to the fantasy/lie about government waste while doing absolutely nothing to focus on the real world causes of the deficit. Not that they should even be fucking around with the deficit right now, giving the country's massive unemployment problem.
People don't really know if a static webpage requires a programmer, or what.
Even better!
Also, without the Soviets, we no longer need to worry about the spending cut gap.
53: except that it's not a particularly convincing rhetorical strategy and it plays into the assumptions of your opponents.
plays into the assumptions of your opponents
This cannot be a surprise any longer. Playing into the assumptions of the opponents is basically Obama's whole game.
There will always be calls for getting rid of governmental waste, fraud, and abuse. Because there is a lot of government waste, fraud, and abuse, even though in the grand scheme of government it's not a big deal. This doesn't reframe any existing narratives (I actually think that whole way of thinking about politics is kinda bullshit anyway); it's a bone to the ten people stupid enough to fall for the trick. Who cares.
I mean a strategy of "we're not looking into any government waste! Because who cares, waste is a tiny part of the budget, and people are unemployed!" wouldn't be particularly effective; it wasn't effective during the new deal and it wouldn't be effective now. People want to know that their President has a handle on the business of government; they may be stupid, but they do, and that belief isn't just confined to conservatives. Positioning yourself as a frugal minder of the public purse isn't crazy -- especially where, as here, there are literally no negative consequences from your rhetorical gesture. It actually makes spending on things you care about more possible.
If any response to this comment mentions the phrase "Overton Window," I will vomit.
||
It's getting real at the Whole Foods parking lot.
I'll defer to Halford on whether that is, in fact, how they live on the West Side of LA.
|>
Who cares.
Desert tortoises care, but not enough to vote, apparently.
I always admire the business acumen of people who rarely talk about increasing business revenue, do not take particularly notable stands in favor of supporting core services, and do not look at expanding into new markets.
People are cutting back, so must the government. Can't see how that kind of statement would hurt the prospects of infrastructure repair and maintenance. But I'm sure that statement was completely necessary. It's not like someone could say, we're cutting waste so that we could do more with less - everyone know that's bullshit too - but it's a better bullshit than we should do less.
I should make clear that I'm totally not OK with some of the substantive environmental policy steps by the administration described in the linked article. But that's the real issue, not the completely bog-standard political posturing about the tortoise website.
Desert tortoises care
I don't think they do, is the thing. Really, why would they be unhappy with their wikipedia page? Is that not enough? What does an additional ".gov" address get them?
especially where, as here, there are literally no negative consequences from your rhetorical gesture.
Is this true? The bottom line is that various federal and state statutory instruments embody a commitment to incur certain human costs in order to protect threatened species. Whether you agree with this commitment or not, it's part of the law. I have no idea why you seem to think that public outreach should have no part in the pursuit of this legally mandated goal, but it's implicit in your claim, and not backed up by, well, anything.
64: But nobody votes on that shit. Nobody is going to change their vote because of this. People who are that stupid are going to vote on some random other shit that comes up between now and next November.
Plus, the Overton Window.
And yes, I'm aware that the Republicans run the House and pretty much nothing is likely to happen. I didn't read up on it, but it sounds like the administration got the Republicans to refuse and all cut no tax budget. If that's part of a plan of painting them as someone you just can't do business with no matter what, that's smart.
Is there any evidence that closing or consolidating this website will have any significant effect on anything? If there is, maybe I'd think again. But I don't think it's violating any core mission of the ESA or the USFWS to close down this website; it's not like their killing the program related to the species' survival.
IT'S A FUCKING TURTLE WEBSITE. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT. Before this news broke this website probably wasn't even on the first page of google's search results. Creating it in the first place was a stupid idea. Getting rid of it is a good idea, just so no one has to spend any time updating it. Use that time to go save turtles instead. That doesn't mean there should be "no public outreach" on endangered species, just that bullshit websites are a waste of digital space.
Tortoise, not turtle. I'm sorry. I was worked up.
It has a significant effect in looking the Obama administration look like tools. No one will have any reaction to this other than to roll their eyes.
And for the love of god, Halford, the desert tortoise is even your official state reptile! Have you no shame?
The point of the .gov website is to serve as a hub for tortoise education and outreach; it's not supposed to simply be a neutral repository of factual information, like an encyclopedia. I'm not sure it would be appropriate, for example, for the wikipedia article to have an extensive "what do I do if I find a tortoise?" section.
This is all about attacking weak claimaints rather than weak claims; threatened species are the epitome of the former. If animal conservation is a legitimate goal--or if you simply care about the rule of law values implicated in following a statutory mandate--then that means taking the appropriate steps to achieve those goals. It's madness to think that public outreach isn't a legitimate part of that.
In other news, here's Sen. Cob/urn pulling the same shit with the NSF budget.
73,74: It's part of a named Campaign to Cut Waste, announced in an Obama White House video narrated by Obama himself, with Biden appointed to an 11 member task force to comb through the budget looking for waste. The tortoise and the fiddlers thing is just something people have seized on as the most idiotic about it, but hardly the most consequential.
IT'S LIKE PEOPLE DON'T READ LINKS.
If there was no website, would anyone hear it if we had two tortoises and gave them names? Would anyone even care?
the last part of 78 was just for urple
Is 77 trolling, or have you legitimately gone insane? I'm pretty sure that the rule of law and the endagered species act (and even public outreach about endagered species!) will survive the demise of deserttortoise.gov.
I'm not knocking the tortoises, btw, which are awesome.
That doesn't mean there should be "no public outreach" on endangered species, just that bullshit websites are a waste of digital space.
If part of your public outreach involves creating, e.g., classroom materials for teachers to teach students about desert tortoises (as would make sense, I suppose, if you think kids should learn about local ecosystems), then you should have a website where this material can be found.
Look, I have no idea if the Mojave Max Emergence Contest ("Students in grades K-12 may submit their guess when the desert tortoise in their region will emerge from brumation"!) was a successful bit of PR, and neither do you, and neither does Sheriff Joe Biden. But conservation requires local buy-in from the human population, and putting stuff on a website is about the cheapest way you can make info accessible known to man.
And the point is that if you're going to have a commission on waste and abuse, they should be looking precisely for things that get media attention, are reasonably unnecessary, and can be shut down at basically no cost to society or the environment.
Is 77 trolling, or have you legitimately gone insane?
First they came for the tortoises, and I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a tortoise (though they are awesome)...
OUR SITE MAY LOAD SLOW BUT IT IS MORE DEPENDABLE THAN THE HARES'
A partial list of alternate nongovernmental educational webpages devoted to the desert tortoise:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_tortoise
www.deserttortoise.org/
www.desertusa.com/june96/du_tort.html
www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/desert_tortoise.php
www.tortoise-tracks.org/gopherus.html
www.enchantedlearning.com/.../turtle/Destortprintout.shtml
www.nvwf.org/nevada/wildlife/tortoise.htm
www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/reptiles/desert_tortoise/
www.blueplanetbiomes.org/desert_tortoise.htm
Note as well that the announcement seems to indicate that the federal government will still have a dedicated educational webpage devoted to the desert tortoise; it just won't get its own standalone website.
83: Sure, but it shouldn't be done in a way that suggests everything should be about cuts. That's what I see as the larger problem with the gimmick. Because when you start doing cuts that matter, no one's going to give a fuck about your bullshit commission.
I should note that I've seen desert tortoises in the wild and have even been on a government sponsored nature hike to see one! Yet I don't think this website is a big deal.
Hmm, 85 put the wrong animal in the wrong place.
You know, they could just consolidate everything into one endangered species website. But then I'd have to get back to work, instead of thinking about this important issue.
And the point is that if you're going to have a commission on waste and abuse, they should be looking precisely for things that get media attention, are reasonably unnecessary, and can be shut down at basically no cost to society or the environment are wasteful and abusive.
Fixed that for you.
Media attention is, if anything, likely to get in the way of this, because media attention is all about context-less soundbites. As we're seeing here; as we're seeing with the stupid Coburn NSF stuff.
If you want to do this right, you know what you do? Appoint a number of independent commissions selected by random-lot, give them decent full-time salaries and expert staff, and oversee them with other, similarly appointed commissions. No media bullshit, just people with a job to do, the support to do it right, and a lack of incentives tempting them to fuck it up in the name of scoring political points.
Halford is down the the Gopherus agassizii
. (I got that from wikipedia, not a .gov site.)
We had a desert tortoise when I was young. Then it ran away, and presumably found $5 of government money.
92: but this IS wasteful. It's trivial dollars, so it's easy to shrug it off, but there's absolutely no reason in the world for this website to exist.
You couldn't balance the federal budget if you closed down a trillion of these, so it's sort of a silly gesture in that sense. But that's not an argument for keeping the website in place.
I bet it would in fact cost more to do the work of consolidation than it would to leave it alone.
93: Down with, down on, or going down on? Because only one of those three is correct.
Anyhow, I think there's some value in this kind of political theater as a preemptive strike against dumb arguments, and I'm glad to see it done at as little cost as possible.
the federal government will still have a dedicated educational webpage devoted to the desert tortoise; it just won't get its own standalone website.
Sure, you could bury your educational materials 10 sub-directories deep on some other, more general forest service website. But then the URL would be more difficult to remember, the content would be harder to find, and you would have a more difficult task in helping that information reach its intended audience.
The government has its own top level domain, which is a valuable thing. Why not use it for making sure your environmental outreach efforts are more effective?
It probably already cost more just to find it, bring it to the attention to the top of the administration, and talk about shutting it down.
HOLY SHIT PAREN IS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES THIEF
Well, except now it's got to have a great google rank, etc.--now you're really giving up something by doing away with the domain name.
More specifically, there is a level of petty waste below which it is wasteful to spend taxpayer dollars and skilled labor-power tracking down, because you're costing far more in oversight than you're saving in deterred fraud/waste. And if what's at issue here is honestly just the domain name fees, that's so far below that threshhold it's not even funny.
So either Sheriff Joe is actively evaluating stuff at this level--commissioning cost/benefit reports where the costs are trivial; or he doesn't give a shit about whether the trivial costs really are offset by slightly-less-trivial benefits, and is just doing some hippie-punching. Either way, this is evidence that something is going very wrong with his waste-and-fraud commission, because doing it right wouldn't look like this.
99 and 96 have it exactly right. There is some waste so petty, that hunting it down is itself wasteful.
I honestly can't believe 98 is not trolling. If the intent is to make me turn my caps lock on again, you're damn close to succeeding. I haven't been this angry in weeks. How many people in this country do you think "remember" the url of www.deserttortoise.gov, as opposed to just typing "desert tortoise" into a search engine? Two dozen?
HOLY SHIT PAREN IS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES THIEF
Maybe, maybe not: (thanks to the stand-alone site, this information was a mere two clicks away!)
Since the desert tortoise is a threatened species and protected under the Endangered Species Act, it is illegal to collect them from the wild.
It is legal, however, to adopt a pet tortoise through adoption programs in Nevada, California, and Arizona. These pet tortoises have been bred in captivity and should not be returned to the wild. Captive or pet tortoises may be unable to survive in unfamiliar territory and may introduce disease to the wild population.
I'm sure Paren went through the appropriate agencies.
If they said they were planning to streamline federal IT and that that would save costs down the line, and as part of that, some sites would get shut and/or consolidated, that probably wouldn't offend anyone. But most people would have fallen asleep by the end of that statement. Also, I think they may have said that already, sometime before cutting the e-gov budget.
Oh, and y'all should really watch the video in 65.
I really don't see this as having anything whatsoever to do with hippie punching.
Urple, having a special domain costs essentially nothing. I own like seven domains that I bought for random reasons, and I keep renewing because it's less work than deciding to get rid of them. The only cost was in designing the website, and that was already incurred.
100: We did have a permit; it had been raised in captivity by a neighbor who wasn't able to take it with her to like, Alaska or something. We probably did break some law by allowing it to escape; we didn't have the chicken wire sunk deep enough under the fence, I suppose, and they love to dig and dig. It's weird that we were never able to find it; we searched and searched and had posters up and everything.
I honestly can't believe 98 is not trolling. If the intent is to make me turn my caps lock on again, you're damn close to succeeding. I haven't been this angry in weeks. How many people in this country do you think "remember" the url of www.deserttortoise.gov, as opposed to just typing "desert tortoise" into a search engine? Two dozen?
But so what? I don't get why it seems self-evident to you that it is more wasteful to have the same content in a separate website. Wasteful of what, necessarily? It might take more work and money to do it that way, but it seems far from a foregone conclusion.
Annnnd, looking at 104, it seems we might single-handedly have been responsible for bringing a plague upon all beach-dwelling desert tortoises in SLO County.
I agree that the tortoise website isn't particularly wasteful, but neither does it matter whatsoever. Which makes it the perfect target for political theater like this.
It's weird that we were never able to find it; we searched and searched and had posters up and everything.
Halford probably killed it and ate it.
But it's stupid political theater! It just makes work for people who have better things to do, and what is the useful political gain from doing it?
That was me. But it was meant as gentle jesting, not mean-spirited, anonymous character assassination.
The political theater that your enemies are right? Yeah, we need more of that.
I guess I'm not convinced by the story of its value that urple suggests in 29, but maybe I should be.
109: Poachers?
110: Fair enough. Maybe it's just a bad example all around.
114 -- it provides evidence for the "fine toothed comb" argument, which is useful if you're trying to justify spending more on other things. And I agree that the administration could do a better job justifying spending more on other things.
The only cost was in designing the website, and that was already incurred.
I don't get why it seems self-evident to you that it is more wasteful to have the same content in a separate website. Wasteful of what, necessarily?
It's wasteful of approximately nothing at this point. I acknowledged that up front. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that there's any positive value whatsoever, or any good reason to preserve it. If the answer to that is no, then it's a perfect thing to cut, if you're looking to cut things. And I still stand by the fact that it was a wasteful thing to create in the first place, so even if that waste was trivial and is all in the past, getting rid of it has some symbolic value.
I really don't see this as having anything whatsoever to do with hippie punching.
Strangely, I would put say this is a combination of straight hippie punching and intra-hippie feuding. Of course it is straight hippie punching; of all the possible static webpages, he just happened to mention the one that is about a non-charismatic endangered species? Besides that, it enables the mindset that dismisses basic science and species protection as not immediately useful. We saw this recently in McCain's claim that monitoring volcanic activity was pointless waste.
My guess though is that there's even more backstory, and the administration is picking a side in the intra-environmental feud: desert solar v. desert protection. My guess is that Obama's administration is siding with Chu's technocratic renewable energy push.
The republicans need a sacrifice to the gods of austerity, and they're threatening more-credibly-than-I-would-have-guessed to sabotage the economy if they don't get it. The less painful that sacrifice can be, the better. I'd rather lose www.deserttortoise.gov than medicaid.
it provides evidence for the "fine toothed comb" argument, which is useful if you're trying to justify spending more on other things.
It's useful if you're trying to convince idiots; it's not if you're trying to make cogent arguments. Using a fine-toothed comb if you're trying to search an entire beach for large rocks isn't reponsible, it's a pointless waste of man-hours.
non-charismatic
I BEG YOUR PARDON?
It's useful if you're trying to convince idiots; it's not if you're trying to make cogent arguments.
Welcome to politics in the United States of America.
I myself am captivated by desert tortoises and would love to spend an evening with one watching the moon rise. I apologize if I gave offense; I was speaking of feelings that vile, crass Tea Partiers might hold. My own are entirely the opposite.
105 gets it exactly right.
It may not have taken much work at all to identify seemingly redundant, or consolidatable, websites: maybe all you do is scoop up all the standalone .gov sites with fewer than 50 unique visitors per year, or something. It would be a bit like deaccessioning library books that apparently spark no interest.
What did take effort was to pull one out of the list as an example. It looks a little weird that they'd choose this one. Still, for political theater effect, and/or kowtowing to the cut-cut-cut crowd, it could have mollifying effects. Never forget how stupid people are.
Oh, and y'all should really watch the video in 65.
Hell yes, that made my day.
I'd rather lose www.deserttortoise.gov than medicaid.
There's absolutely no reason to think that politics works this way, that you can appease the gods of austerity by throwing them the tortoises. Indeed, there are good reasons to think it works the other way; that success feeds on success, while demoralization damages movements.
WAKE ME WHEN YOU GET TO MEDICARE, DON'T UNPLUG ME
Remember when Reinventing Government convinced everyone that Democrats were the fiscally responsible party and killed the myth of significant discretionary waste? Let's do that again with a different vice President and more hippie-punching.
120 What I'm pushing back against is the idea that there's any positive value whatsoever, or any good reason to preserve it. If the answer to that is no, then it's a perfect thing to cut, if you're looking to cut things. And I still stand by the fact that it was a wasteful thing to create in the first place, so even if that waste was trivial and is all in the past, getting rid of it has some symbolic value.
Why was it wasteful to create it? Why do you insist it has no positive value? You think the government should never be in the business of providing information to people, or what? This is one of those threads where I honestly can't tell if you're just making a weird argument to get people to react or if you believe what you say.
Although, it really should be organized like www.endangeredspecies.gov/.
There's absolutely no reason to think that politics works this way, that you can appease the gods of austerity by throwing them the tortoises.
There is reason to think that the Republican leadership wants to increase the debt limit every bit as badly as the Democratic leadership wants to increase it, but that many Republican rank and file, who, like their supporters, are morons, are demanding austerity measures in exchange, and giving them anything substantively harmless that helps get there (or at least helps reposition it as entirely on their shoulders if we don't get there*) is good policy IMO.
*The Obama administration already gets a solid "F" on this, and there's probably nothing they can do at this point even to move that up to a D-.
Oh for fucks sake.
www.endangeredspecies.gov/deserttortoise.
You think the government should never be in the business of providing information to people, or what?
This seems to be quite a bit beyond anything that's been said in this thread. I don't think there's any value in the government providing this information in this format, no.
134: Then it should have been announced as part of a deal, not the usual preëmptive surrender.
136 I don't think there's any value in the government providing this information in this format, no.
Why not? You don't think government agencies should explain what they're doing to the public? You don't think the government should provide educational resources for teachers? Is it just part of the site that you find useless, or all of it?
129: I don't know, Trapnel. The Republicans are engaged in theater, and have been willing to accept ceremonial concessions a couple of times already; they're playing to their own foolish base.
On preview, what 134 said.
I can honestly see both sides in this matter, but the Republicans are the ones we have to deal with.
It's not literally useless, but its utility is surely trivial. (As is its cost.) So why do it? Shouldn't the government focus on doing important things?
Weiner Pulls Out
The Post or the News used that one a couple weeks ago when he didn't show at some NYC political event.
"Reinventing Government" was a spectacular political success by the Clinton administration, and helped to defuse much of the worst of the Gingrich revolution. Which is why they're trying something similar in similar circumstances now. Looking like you're doing something about waste in government really is a necessary prerequisite for doing more with government, in our political culture. What is the administration supposed to do -- say "government waste isn't a big priority for us"? That would sell well. Instead, they're looking to get as many political points as possible for the least substantive cost. That's not "preemptive surrender"; that's smart politics.
The idea that you should never compromise or preempt an opponents position so that you can always look tough is silly, which is why real politicians don't act like bloggers.
I mostly agree with 119, but I don't see where the administration is asking for stuff in return. It seems more like the off-shore drilling announcement - or did they get something for that? - but obviously with less harm.
The stuff about "acting like bloggers" is as tired a routine as the Overton window.
There's almost an entire party that rarely compromises or pre-empts opponents decisions, at least not anymore. I suppose if you go far enough back, you can see the Republican healthcare alternative to the Clinton plan as a big success, since it's turned into what's apparently the upper limit of what we can get.
142 is right. In this political environment, with these opponents. It's not ideal, of course. And pulling deserttortoise.gov out of the hat seems odd, but the strategy generally isn't idiotic.
I suppose if you go far enough back, you can see the Republican healthcare alternative to the Clinton plan as a big success, since it's turned into what's apparently the upper limit of what we can get.
In what sense was it not a big success? It delayed any change whatsoever for 15 years, and then more or less became law. And somehow simultaeously became a liability for Democrats, for perceived overreaching.
134: Then it should have been announced as part of a deal, not the usual preëmptive surrender.
The hippie punching annoys me, but I don't see how it could have been part of a deal.
You can only make a deal when you're offering the other side something it wants. The Republicans don't want to kill the deserttortise website. The Republican's don't even want to bargain for a reduction in government "waste" (serious question, when was the last time a Republican administration did something like "Reinventing Government"?), they would rather cut the parts of government that provide services.
The entire reason to conduct economizing efforts unilaterally is because you don't want to give up cuts in the programs that the Republicans want to cut.
Well, I'm not sure how much of the recent use of the plan against Democrats can be attributed to the plan itself, rather than to the Republican refusal to budge on opposing it. Not budging is also one of the reasons it was so difficult to pass even that plan, and at that point, it was no longer a Republican plan or offered as a compromise by the Republicans.
Biden's negotiating over Medicaid cuts. Hopefully he brings up the tortoises and the fiddlers.
Well that's annoying, the link in 149 is fully readable if you go through google, but not here.
The problem is the implicature: choosing to raise this says that government waste is a big problem, and a civilian environmental program is a good place to go looking for it. Every time this comes up, people will be talking about environmental spending and waste, waste and environmental spending.
In this political environment, with these opponents.
I am almost reminded of reading of a WWII British official advocating against scorched earth tactics, being reluctant to engage the Axis in an escalating "war of dreadfulness" or some such, but not quite.
Wait, people are defending this move? Are you all fucking high? The military budget funnels billions to mercenaries and oil companies with record profits still get billions in tax breaks and the administration singles out an educational website as an example of govt. waste? And we're calling this smart politics? Jesus.
"Reinventing Government" was a spectacular political success by the Clinton administration, and helped to defuse much of the worst of the Gingrich revolution.
Show me actual research demonstrating this. I mean, I'll settle for weak Granger-causality tests here. But in the absence of rigorous analysis, I see absolutely no reason to think Clinton's 2nd term popularity had anything to do with this, as opposed to perceptions of a great fucking economy.
Clinton triangulated. Isn't that the conventional wisdom, that he did so necessarily and brilliantly? He wound up bringing the Democratic party rightward in some matters (welfare 'reform', free trade agreements, other things), which also happened to boost the economy, or perhaps it was a coincidence.
Anyway, I feel like we can't get anywhere unless we acknowledge the near-dementia of the Republican leadership at this time. They're a bunch of nutjobs, as is their base, apparently. It's enough to make a person wring her hands.
How many people in this country do you think "remember" the url of www.deserttortoise.gov, as opposed to just typing "desert tortoise" into a search engine? Two dozen?
Do you imagine that search engines are the only way people find content on the internet? Sure, its the dominent means, but surely not the only one.
If you are a desert tortoise scientist, trying to promote your desert tortoise conservation related programming activities - being able to put www.deserttortiose.gov at the bottom of your brochure gives you significantly more traffic (and credibility) than does http://www.departmentoftheinterior.gov/bargainbin/stupidanimals/desert/~tortise/index.html
Moreover, it looks like they were planning on posting some of the data from their research on the site, and were also using the site to organize volunteers for some sort of habitat monitoring project. Do you think these activities are equally useless? Should we not be having people do desert tortoise research? And if they do the research, should we not enable them to publish said results in a format easily accessible to the desert tortoise habitat preservation community?
Should we not be having people do desert tortoise research?
To be honest, after seeing herpy stuff, I'm a little afraid of what motivates somebody to research tortoises.
But welfare reform & free trade agreements aren't what Halford was talking about. He was talking about this, which began with much fanfare in late 1993--if it was a big political success, it wasn't enough of one to stop a historic Republican landslide the next year.
I'm a little afraid of what motivates somebody to research tortoises.
You mean aside from getting filthy, stinking rich at taxpayer expense?
As long as Obama doesn't announce a new contract with America, I'll still vote for him.
157: Ah. I must say I didn't really notice that myself, in 1993 or later. Halford would have to say more about just what he meant, then, though he did say in 142 that it "helped to defuse much of the worst of the Gingrich revolution." Emphasis added.
I'm not entirely sure how much benefit there is in comparing the current situation to Clinton in the face of Gingrich, since, as you point out, the economy was in a very different place. That may make things entirely different. I'll have to think about it.
Clinton managed to raise taxes while still in a recession. But taxes weren't an automatic dealbreaker back then - not that it was easy.
121.2: I think Megan has it right about why the desert tortoise in particular was singled out; there are a lot of current news results about the tortoise and the solar projects. This is about Biden (or someone) being able to say during the closed door fundraising meeting, "We were willing to throw the fucking desert tortoise under the bus."
I must say that I have been considering the Republicans to be so stupid and idiotic at this point that they'd take meager bones like these -- seemingly cutting (actually consolidating) the tortoise website -- as satisfactory nods to their perspective.
That may be wrong. Maybe they aren't quite that dumb.
158: People have lots of ulterior motives for animal research.
(Link is NSFW and frankly a bit stupid.)
Clinton managed to raise taxes while still in a recession.
0 Republican votes on that BTW and as I recall with Gore breaking the tie in the Senate. Just something to keep in mind when we consider the wisdom of giving concessions to the Republicans.
Good thing the Dems managed not to act while they still had both majorities.
And don't get me started on the Dem failure to ditch the filibuster back when they had the chance. Way to play the long game assholes.
"Reinventing Government" started in 1993, but continued through 1999. In its broadest sense, it was one of a number of issues where Clinton helped kill off a bunch of 1980s arguments about how Democrats managed government and managed to turn te Democrats into the party of efficient government, which was more or less a Republican position through the 1980s. That the Republicans then tacked tongue right and became the party of no government shouldn't belie the accomplishments that Clinton made in coopting the political center for the Democratic party.
Those who think that intransigence is the best policy should think about the legacy of conservative accomplishments -- not just things they've been able to block, but affirmative government reform as envisioned by the Republican party -- since 1992. George W had essentially no legislative accomplishments other than tax cuts in two terms, the Gingrich crowd wasn't able to do all that much, and the Tea Partiers won't either. Unfortunately, we're in a global climate crisis and economy where intransigence means death, but conservatives don't feel that they've been able to accomplish much because they largely haven't
167: The Dems had both majorities only for a very brief time. Very brief.
170: Same amount of time as in the Clinton first term. Of course, 60 votes wasn't a hard requirement then, etc.
I should say, at the federal level. The swings have been wilder in both directions in the states.
169 is a good argument that everything is just fucked. Which is probably about right. Maybe the real battle is over who is best at doing nothing.
If the "reinventing gov't" stuff was worth doing, substantively, then it was worth doing, period. That's not what's at issue here. I was asking for evidence that these particular initiatives had an independent impact--beyond that of the welfare reforms, or NAFTA, or the general fantastic performance of the economy during those years--on voter perceptions of party competence. You haven't given any, unless you're giving yourself as a data point of a person who was so convinced.
Republicans basically do nothing while enriching the rich and fucking the poor; Democrats basically do nothing while enriching the rich and fucking the poor gently. Lately.
Lately = ~20 years.
176: Would a picture of a naked woman swimming with a whale cheer you?
George W had essentially no legislative accomplishments other than tax cuts in two terms
And some wars coupled with increased outsourcing to private firms to facilitate funneling shitloads of taxpayer money to companies heavily tied to Repubs. How about a Medicare plan which forbids the feds from negotiating lower drug prices with the pharm companies. And lets not forget leading the charge on censoring climate change scientists and a concerted effort to weaken environmental regs. And eight years of stacking the agencies and judiciary with wingers.
So other than cutting taxes and lining the pockets of themselves and their friends and undermining the whole govt. from the inside they got nothing.
they'd take meager bones like these [...] as satisfactory nods to their perspective
No, they'll just say "That's a $125 cut out of a $2 trillion dollar deficit because Democrats aren't serious about cutting the deficit." Like they have about all the cuts Democrats make.
177: I saw it. in order to tame them for captivity and display and the doing of tricks for the amusement of foul, hairless monkeys (actually, am not sure if that is what they have in mind for the belugas). First Raffi, and now this.
Nice musculature, though.
conservatives don't feel that they've been able to accomplish much because they largely haven't
Lowest taxes in 50 years, expansion of off-shore drilling, affirmation of executive powers to spy on American citizens, destruction of campaign finance laws, undermining of financial regulation, increased deportation of undocumented immigrants, laws undermining collective bargaining for public employees, laws requiring photo ID to vote, excessively anti-inflationary monetary policy, guns allowed in national parks - and that's just the stuff since Obama's been in office.
180: I think the Mail just makes up the text to provide spacing in the photo layout.
George W had essentially no legislative accomplishments other than tax cuts in two terms
A massive, and massively successful, infrastructure project: building the institutions of the permanent war and surveillance state. For the Cheney/Addington/Yoo wing of the party, this was of paramount importance, and they did it. There was some possibility that Obama might roll back a bit of it--indeed, that was why I was excited about Obama during the campaign--but we all know how that turned out.
On preview, somewhat pwned by Spike, but whev.
Halford, your own examples prove the 100% truth of the existence of the Overton Window. The Clinton administration coopted the political center. Did this usher in an era of Democratic dominance? No, it ushered in an era where the Republicans had the upper hand, an upper hand they lost only when they got the country into the stupidest war since 1812. The fact that the Democrats are trying the exact pander shows that it didn't work the first time -- the country is just as convinced that the government wastes money like crazy as they were were before the Democrats made a sincere effort to cut waste.
181 (cont.) new ways to undermine the ESA (by running Biological Opinions through a National Academy of Science review), cushy renewal of Reclamation's forty-year water contracts with farm districts. But mostly they ignored California, for which I am profoundly grateful.
I have to say that this thread reminded me why I haven't been around here much recently. I don't see that there really needed to be a discussion of the pros and cons of the administration's move. It looked like all cons to me.
But there was such a discussion, and maybe that's a function of the Unfoggetariat, or of liberal pluralism, or of the American intelligentsia, or of late monopoly capitalism, or of pomo, or of the actually-existing U.S. of A., or of some other goddamn thing.
And the result is Achilles and the tortoise, with Achilles stands on the starting line forever arguing with himself whether it is formally possible, or intellectually justifiable, or morally permissible for him to take the first step.
And then there's all the other stuff about game theory, and bargaining with yourself, and submissive wetting, and the Overton Window, and so on.
True. But I did get to imply that dedicated conservationist/researchers were motivated solely by sexual attraction to tortoise.
Well, it's either that or talk about how we are doomed. Or turtle fucking, I guess.
