Monday, January 01, 2024

NIXONS BEST LAW


ESA at 50: Celebrating the Nation’s Most


Effective Environmental Law


 
 DECEMBER 28, 2023
Facebook

Photograph Source: Sounds Wild – CC BY-SA 4.0

December 28th marks the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), widely regarded as America’s most potent and effective environmental law. The Act has saved hundreds of species from extinction, and is overwhelmingly popular with the American voters. When it originally passed in 1973, to be signed by President Nixon, it carried the Senate unanimously and won a bipartisan majority of 390 in favor to 12 against. Preventing extinction, it turns out, is a bedrock American value.

The strength of the ESA is its legal requirement that decisions must be made solely based on the best available science, sidelining politics. In the absence of this law’s protection, powerful special interests – like the timber, livestock, oil, and mining industries – that drive rare plants and wildlife to extinction through their profit-driven resource extraction flex their influence to prevent conservation of declining species. Through good-old-boy-networks, payola schemes to support political candidates, and collaboration with state and federal agencies, they block efforts to rein in their excesses, and lock in guarantees that their environmentally destructive practices can continue. Endangered Species Act listing interrupts these power dynamics and puts science in the driver’s seat.

The bald eagle, decimated by the insecticide DDT that thinned eggshells and caused widespread nest failures, as well as by shooting by livestock producers, now has populations in every state except Hawai’i. The peregrine falcon was brought back from the brink and today numbers over 72,000 birds. The spotted owl was nearly wiped out by the unsustainable logging of old-growth forests, and its ESA listing did more to reform the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest than any other single environmental action. The black-footed ferret, killed off as collateral damage in the livestock industry’s campaign to eradicate the ecologically important prairie dog, now has multiple populations in the wild (although continued poisoning and shooting campaigns targeting prairie dogs continue to frustrate ferret recovery).

The enemies of ESA protections – mostly states that resent federal intervention in wildlife management decisions, and commercial interests with a profit motive in continuing or resuming exploitation of lands and wildlife – are very fond of calling for the premature de-listing of species. Sometimes they even ask Congress to interfere in the listing process. So-called “extinction riders” are introduced every year which seek to legislate delisting or block uplisting, and sometimes these bad bills even pass on the House side, but they tend to die for lack of 60 votes in the Senate. Unfortunately for the sage grouse, a rider added in 2014 and maintained in the annual spending legislation has  prevented ESA protection and meaningful land management reforms, and the trajectory of the species continues on its grim path downward.

Political tampering by career professionals inside the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service happens as well. The agency has lost multiple lawsuits brought be conservation groups on the basis that the best available science was not being followed. For species like Montana’s Arctic grayling, the American bison, the Yellowstone grizzly population, and the Mono Basin sage grouse population, courts have rejected “not warranted” findings by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, finding that the agency failed to follow the best available science. That’s the strength of the ESA – it keeps federal agencies, states and individuals accountable for complying with the law.

Wolves are a special case, because they face chronic efforts to strip their protections whenever states elect anti-wildlife administrations; in 2011 a rider advanced by Senators Tester and Simpson forced de-listing in Montana and Idaho, as well as parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah, and set the stage for delisting in Wyoming. This pernicious attack on the ESA has resulted in today’s absurd anti-wolf policies that allow unregulated hunting and trapping across much of the wolf’s natural range in these states, and even blocked court oversight at the time. They clearly deserve to be re-listed in these states based on the best available science, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is ducking their responsibilities. As a result, wolf populations are declining (or even extirpated) across large areas of states where they are delisted, even as wolves are expanding their range in states where they remain federally protected. This provides an object lesson in both the effectiveness of the ESA, and the hazards in allowing states to manage populations of large native carnivores.

But despite the politics in Congress and inside the Fish and Wildlife Service, deserving species like the wolverine, lesser prairie chicken, and Gunnison sage grouse have recently run the gauntlet and received federal protections they deserve under the law. These species are getting far more conservation attention, and measurable protections, than they did under state management before their listing under the ESA.

Looking ahead to the next 50 years, the climate crisis will continue to stress native ecosystems, and the distribution of plant communities is likely to shift in response. As the global biodiversity crisis hits home in the United States, we’ll need reforms of federal agencies, corporate activities, and humanity’s relationship with nature in order to help fragile and interconnected ecological communities survive. As humanity faces these stressors, we will need to lean ever more heavily on the natural resilience of healthy ecosystems, and the ESA will be more important to our own survival than ever before.

Erik Molvar is a wildlife biologist and is the Laramie, Wyoming-based Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project, a nonprofit group dedicated to protecting and restoring watersheds and wildlife on western public lands.


War and “Democracy”: An Appeal to Self-Interest


 
 DECEMBER 28, 2023
Facebook

Photo by Egor Myznik

By way of marking the western date for Christendom’s most holy celebration, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III announced  that “at President Biden’s direction, U.S. military forces conducted necessary and proportionate strikes on three facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah and affiliated groups in Iraq.”

So much for visions of sugar-plums, etc.  Instead of surplus socks or the latest video game console beneath the tree and a day spent watching football and avoiding fruitcake, we get war  in the “Holy Land,” war in Ukraine, war in Myanmar, war in Sudan … the list goes on, covering quite a lot of territory, costing thousands, and negatively affecting millions, of lives.

Austin’s justification for the US strikes: They “are a response to a series of attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-sponsored militias.”

The US occupation of Iraq (following George W. Bush’s war of aggression based on false “weapons of mass destruction” claims) supposedly ended in 2011.

US forces supposedly vanquished the Islamic State in Syria (following Barack Obama’s illegal invasion, supposedly in pursuit of that objective, but more likely in hope of overthrowing that country’s existing government) in 2019.

Why are US troops still in harm’s way in those places?

Why does the US government continue to mind everyone’s business but its own — providing arms, “advice,” and even direct muscle to at least one side in almost every conflict on the planet, at your current financial expense and at your and your loved ones’ future risk of experiencing the same horrors now inflicted on others?

If all the talk about “democracy” means anything, the answer is:

Because you allow it.

The usual appeals against you doing so are aimed at your conscience:

Don’t you care about the lives of civilians caught in the crossfire of [insert war here]?

Don’t the mangled bodies of children disturb you?

Don’t the videos of families fleeing their homes with what little they can carry, ahead of airstrikes or within hearing of artillery fire, rouse your empathy?

The evidence says no, not really, or at least not very much.

If you DID care, the gaggle of warmongers you continue electing and re-electing to Congress and the presidency would either be in prison or, at best, out on parole and asking you if you’d like fries with your value meal to earn their livings.

Since you clearly don’t give a hoot about the lives of foreigners who may not speak the same language, worship the same god, or even sport the same skin color as you, let me instead appeal to your self-interest.

Do you remember 9/11? I’m sure many of you do. Do you want more of that action? Because this is EXACTLY how you get more of that action.

Every time “your” congressional representative or the president “you” “elected” announces US government support for atrocities abroad, he or she is threatening you and yours with death at home.

If you choose to vote, vote the warmongers out — for your own good and for your family’s safety.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

The Corporate University in the Age of Artificial Intelligence


 
 DECEMBER 28, 2023
Facebook

Photo by Maximalfocus

ChatGPT/AI was supposed to be the next big thing to revolutionize higher education.  But based on my students’ comments, it is less than underwhelming.  But that does not matter.  AI will be the latest tool the corporate university uses to save itself from the neo-liberal education policies it has pursued for the last  fifty years.

At the beginning of 2023 ChatGPT/AI took higher education by storm.  It was heralded by the likes of The Chronicle of Higher Educationthe voice of neo-liberal higher ed,  as the next big thing to change teaching and learning. Much like massive open online courses or MOOCs,  clickers,  interactive whiteboards, Channel One, and a collection of other ed-tech concepts driven by profits and cost reduction and not pedagogy or learning theory, it was going to be the savior or demise of higher education as we know it. Yet the road to educational reform is littered with educational technology failures and overhypes.

I decided to see for myself what ChatGPT could do, and embraced it in all of my undergraduate courses in the fall 2023.  What my students and I found was a trove of problems.  Their ChatGPT searches produced false facts, yielded biased information, and did little to encourage critical thinking—except when I asked my students to think critically about the role of AI in the classroom.  They were underwhelmed by it.

Yet AI’s value as a teaching and learning tool is secondary to the broader implications of it as another artifice of the corporate university to leverage down costs and enhance revenues at a point when the business plan for higher education is broken.

The corporate university emerged in the 1970s.  It is one where colleges increasingly use corporate structures and management styles to run the university.  This includes abandoning the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) shared governance model where faculty had an equal voice in the running of the school, including over curriculum, selection of department chairs, deans, and presidents, and determination of many of the other policies affecting the academy.  The corporate university replaced the shared governance model with one more typical of a business corporation.

The corporate university was created in response to the emergence of a neo-liberal political philosophy characterized by less government involvement and more faith in market structures. In the case of public universities, the corporate university emerged as a result of dramatic cuts in tax dollars to fund them, forcing upon them a new business plan.  The new business plan relied less upon tenured faculty than upon a contingent workforce, standardization of and purchase of pre-paid curriculum, and a growing pool of baby boomers and students willing to pay increasing amounts of tuition for credentials and degrees in a crowded marketplace.

Critical to the corporate university plan was technology.  At best a review of the existing literature paints a mixed bag on the deployment of new technology in terms of improved teaching and learning.  Yet the “genius” of Apple thirty years ago as I started to teach was to convince schools to overinvest in technology on the premise it improves learning and teaching.  In effect, their mantra was “technology drives pedagogy,”  not pedagogy drives technology.  Over time, one learning technology after another was ostensibly going to revolutionize higher education, a code name less for improving teaching and learning and more as a way to leverage profits and augment the corporate university business plan.  First, it was the for-profit colleges that employed the new technologies but then they were adopted by the rest.

The idea was to use technology, including online courses, to teach more students per class or instructor.  Create pre-packaged, recorded courses and curricula and sell them to schools.  One could do this and reduce the dependency on full-time faculty. School administrators often speak of all these tech toys as part of “high impact” learning, a phrase that downplays the traditional emphasis on lecture, discussion, reading, research, and writing.

The corporate business model survived until the Great Recession of 2008-09.  Since then college enrollment has dropped by more than one million students.  It will hemorrhage by 2026 as the so-called enrollment cliff kicks in and colleges will see even fewer students.  Combine that with a $1.8 trillion student loan debt and tuition at pricy colleges that exceed $80,000  per year and the result is that fewer and fewer students see a university education as worth it.

Enter the new-found excitement for ChatGPT as yet another technological savior for higher education.  When it comes to ChatGPT or AI in the classroom its hype and deployment may be driven less by its educational value than by corporate profits or efforts by schools to engage in further cost reductions.  At some point, ChatGPT/AI enters the classroom once the corporate university figures out how to monetize it.  Look to see schools combine it with MOOCS or other mass curriculum deliveries in the near future as a way to salvage what is left of their failed corporate business plan.

David Schultz is a professor of political science at Hamline University. He is the author of Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter.