I love the environment; it’s the environmentalists I hate *UPDATED*

I’m a somewhat contrary person.  (Right now, those who know me well are probably off laughing hysterically somewhere at my understatement.)  Because the environmentalists are pushing so hard, from Al Gore on down, my instinct is to push right back.  Pushing back makes me sound as if I don’t care about the environment, but that’s untrue.  I like a healthy environment, whether it’s clean air, potable water, or abundant wildlife.  The environment matters to me.

Some environmentalist initiatives are fine.  Just as women’s hats were perfectly good without egret feathers, so too is it pretty unnecessary for women to wear baby seal fur or for someone to have a genuine ivory pendant.  Giving up decadent fashion statements shouldn’t ever be a problem.  My multiculturalist chops, never very strong to begin with, also fail me entirely when I contemplate all the Asian men chomping away at the tusks and testicles of various exotic animals in a superstition-driven quest to further their own libidinous desires.

My problem is with the thoughtless, hysterical, emotion-driven initiatives that seem to be concerned with punishing humans than with helping animals.  The most recent example of this knee-jerk environmentalist destruction took place in Australia.  Someone took a video showing the horrible conditions Australian cattle experienced in an Indonesia abattoir.  That is a terrible thing.  Although I’m a carnivore, I vastly prefer meat that is humanely raised and humanely slaughtered.

Once the video went public in Australia, the subsequent outcry from the environmentalist/animals rights crowd resulted in immediate government action banning all meat sales to Indonesia.  Apparently no one thought to examine the whole baby – bathwater principle.

Yes, the cattle were spared the cruelty that was inflicted on them at some (not all, but some) Indonesian slaughterhouses.  However, there were two obvious consequences for anyone paying attention.  First, the Indonesians simply looked to a different marketplace, so that the ban had no impact whatsoever on the poor cattle in Indonesia.  Second, Australia suddenly had a surplus of cattle, and cattle ranchers without a marketplace or income.  In the short term, prices dropped.  The long term prognosis, though, was that ranchers were heading for bankruptcy, which meant no one to care for all those poor beasties.  Uncared for beasties die miserably from starvation or dehydration, or they’re shot to put them out of their misery.  Way to go, environmentalists!

Just today, faced with the threat of its own ranchers slaughtering thousands of cattle, Australia rescinded its ban on exporting the meat to Indonesia.  Instead, the government is doing what it should have done to begin with, which is to put some systems in place to protect the exported animals.

The Australian cattle story is not an isolated one.  Thanks to AlBore, corn crops that could have been used to feed animals (which feed people) or to feed people directly, have been diverted to ethanol.  Now even AlBore has conceded that ethanol, especially heavily subsidized ethanol, was a mistake.  Ethanol is also an environmental disaster, sucking up fossil fuels to produce lesser amounts of ethanol.  So the greenies had us spending bazillions of dollars on a quixotic environmental adventure that starves people and animals, uses up otherwise arable land, and consumes more fossil fuel than it produces.

And think about all those electric cars that are going to save the environment.  Except they’re not.  A recent study revealed the ugly truth, which is that it takes such enormous amounts of resources to produce electric cards that the average driver cannot put enough mileage on the car, before the car wears out, to offset that energy.  Another environmentalist dream out the window.

None of the above is to say that future electric cars or future alternative fuels won’t be useful and help the environment.  It is to say, though, that you can invariably trust environmentalists to go off half-cocked and scream so loudly that ill-informed politicians leap on unstable, unsustainable bandwagons without a second thought, all at great expense to consumers and the environment.

I also have a problem with environmentalist’s hostility to humans.  Sometimes they frame it in terms of protecting little lizards or owls, and sometimes they just come out and say that people should be downsized altogether.  Of course, that’s just for the hoi polloi.  The environmentalists obviously don’t ever consider doing away with themselves, and the famous ones are pretty sure that they still have breeding rights.

So I love the environment; it’s the environmentalists I hate.

UPDATE:  Going through my email, I discovered that, just coincidentally, Sadie had sent me a link to a story about a fishing ban destroying small fishermen’s livelihoods in the Northeast, without any evidence that it’s helping fish.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Charles Martel says

    I think the hyper-environmentalist dislike for humans was made apparent when one of our leftist pests recently said that whatever it took to stop AGW—up to and including destruction of the global economy—was worth it. (I’m sure Gaia is going to acknowledge its worth with some sort of ceremony or medal.)

    We have to understand that the real goal with the Australian cattle kerfuffle is a.) dismantling the Australian cattle industry and b.) destruction of human life that depends on cattle as a prime protein source. The ethanol debacle showed us what happens when the choice is between feeding people and feeding environmentalists’ never-satisfied outrage at and desire to control the rest of us.

    Once you understand that the poor wittle animals are shills in this anti-human movement, its adherents’ crocodile tears become obvious. The same people who wring their hands over the destruction of a condor egg will gladly form a protective cordon around an abortuary. By their fruits ye shall know them.   

  2. Libby says

    The environmentalists are a destructive bunch. When the MSM discusses domestic terrorism, it’s limited to McVeigh and the attacks upon abortion clinics/doctors who perform abortions. However, the most prevalent form of domestic terrorism for decades has been committed by environmentalists and animal rights activists (ELF and ALF), who see terrorism as an effective method of supporting their cause. Here in Colorado we’ve had several cases of arson committed by ELF/ALF adherents, including the 1998 firebombing at the Vail ski resort and the 2010 Sheepskin factory store arson. In both cases, the unrepentant culprits had a history of ecoterrorism in multiple states, as well as a hatred of capitalism. Environmentalists don’t want to share their views so much as use any means necessary to force us all to live by their standards.
     

  3. Spiff says

    I was once involved with the review of post construction reports for water pipeline project that was part of the California Aqueduct in Southern California.  Someone who was involved with the construction inspection of the project told me a little story about the environmentalists involved with the project.  Apparently there was concern about lizards within the work area along the alignment of the pipeline.  To solve this problem the contractor was required to build a little metal fence to keep the lizards from moving in and out of the work area.  While building the little metal fence (which required welding) the surrounding fields caught fire destroying many acres of the lizard’s habitat (and I presume many lizards as well).  After the fence was built (and the fire put out of course) the environmentalists (I assume from Dept of Fish and Game) swooped in and captured the lizards within the work area so they could be tagged and removed.  Part of the tagging apparently included putting a microchip or something in their stomachs in order to track their movements.  From what I was told this microchip took up a significant portion of their stomach and could not be passed.  Apparently most of the lizards died of starvation.   The road to lizard hell is paved with good intentions.

  4. Spiff says

    Oh, I don’t know who said this but it is a quote I heard somehwhere and love:

    “Environmentalists want to do everything they can to save the environment; except to take a science class.”

  5. Michael Adams says

    “The cattle are shills”, and so are poor people.  Actually, I usually say they are props. They do not matter in any other way.
     
    Consider, for contrast, the Mormon Church, of which I am extremely unlikely ever to become a member. The Relief Society seems to form a good part of the women’s social life. Any Mormon who is poor, and many non-Mormon’s, as well, gets overwhelmed by the care and concern, food, clothing, job networking. My small church does similarly, and my wife’s larger congregation much more so, but the Mormons take the prizes for organization. (Anyone looking at my church would come away saying we do not believe in organized religion, evidently.)They do not point a gun at someone else’s head and demand that they “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick.” Knowing what we do, what a large portion of our lives is involved in such endeavors, I nearly break out in hives when someone like Barbara Ehrenreich or President Zero wanders trough, telling us to change, fundamentally, so as to eliminate poverty. Hives, Hell, they (Both environmentalists and socialists)are boils on the a** of humanity.

  6. Charles Martel says

    “. . . but the Mormons take the prizes for organization. (Anyone looking at my church would come away saying we do not believe in organized religion, evidently.)”

    LOL!

  7. Leah says

    The law of unintended consequences, Though to the greenies, making life miserable for humans is much more important than really saving the earth. The unibomber was the one greenie who really lived his philosophy (thank God he was such a rarity).

  8. says

    The Left aren’t enemies of humanity for nothing. They are proud of the work they put into becoming enemies of humanity. Give credit where credit is due. Not everyone can be an enemy of humanity, after all.

  9. JKB says

    Thing is that without the industrial revolution, without coal doing work formerly done by animal or human muscle, none of these idiots would have time to worry about the environment.  They’d be to busy scrambling for a meal before they died young.  They certainly would have had to study something of the useful knowledge in school rather than whatever foolishness their Leftist professors imparted.  

    You might find this interesting.  The sites are in Germany but the first is only a year and a half old

    Weed-Covered, Neglected Solar Park: 20 Acres, $11 Million, Only One And Half Years Old!

  10. Kate says

    A quick reaction to Sadie’s fish link: the corruption at NOAA is completely out of control, based in part that employees were allowed to keep a certain percentage of fines given to the various boats, fish market, etc. This in itself is tragic, but far worse is that it is becoming a support Kerry over Brown fight at the highest levels. See: http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/x1435408754/Bills-aimed-at-reforming-fish-law-enforcement for example. I live in this area, and not only is emotion high, but lifelong dems are considering changing their vote. It would be nice to get national coverage. (see also http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1692751076/Congress-leaned-on-to-fix-NOAA) It is odd to draw the parallel with Goldman Sachs: big (fishing fleets/banks) = government support, small business (fishing fleets/ banks) = driven out of business?  Kate

  11. Kate says

    Sorry, just one more link – as the Boston Globe, in the person of Joan Vennochi, has weighed in.

    Key opening: 

    THIS ISN’T about counting fish. This is about abuse of power that ran as deep as the ocean, compliments of the US government. 
    and later

    The enforcement scandal is “a cautionary tale about an agency that is dedicated to science and supposed to be the steward of the oceans and the atmosphere, that somehow allowed a police force to operate in plain sight under principles of neo-fascist, rogue behavior,’’ said Richard Gaines, a longtime Boston journalist who now covers this story for the Gloucester Daily Times

    http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-30/bostonglobe/29722642_1_noaa-fishing-industry-larry-ciulla

  12. Danny Lemieux says

    Kate: A quick reaction to Sadie’s fish link: the corruption at NOAA is completely out of control, based in part that employees were allowed to keep a certain percentage of fines given to the various boats, fish market, etc.
     
    Isn’t this the same NOAA considered by some to be infallible on “climate” related issues? Roque agency indeed!

  13. Gringo says

    Spiff #5
    “Environmentalists want to do everything they can to save the environment; except to take a science class.”
     
    Funny you would come up with that quote right after your #4 about destroying the lizards in order to save them. It seems to me that the regulators involved with the lizards didn’t know much about ecology- or didn’t apply what they had learned. They  were not thinking holistically, which is the way an ecologist is  TRAINED to think. On the contrary, they were thinking very narrowly: keep the lizards away from the pipeline. Anyone with a minimal understanding of California environment would know that welding sparks during the dry season are likely to set off fires. Moreover, you don’t need a Ph.D. to realize that. A reasonably intelligent 12 year old would know that: “Only YOU can prevent forest fires.” Heard that line before?
     
    Field biologists have been putting tracking devices in or on animals for decades. By this time, they have a pretty good idea, via trial and error,  regarding what tracking devices will work and will not work on given species. Judging by the consequences of the dead lizards, this was done as an experiment on the lizards. Well and good, experimenting is what scientists do. However, when something  has reached the level of laws and regulations, only tried and true methods should be used. It is apparent no lizards were tested before installing the microchips on a lot of lizards. Before you try an unproven method on a whole bunch of animals, you try it with a couple. Test the hypothesis: can lizards stand these given microchips?  That there was no previous testing of the hypothesis before mass installation of microchips on the lizards was very poor science.
     
    Then we are going to hear from abc about “scientifically illiterate,” which is ironic given that from all indications, abc is the poster child for “scientifically illiterate,” given the STEM background he refuses to reveal.

  14. says

    Kinetic bombardment can be made to be very accurate Martel. Single homes and buildings can even be taken out with no radiation fallout or other environmental damage to the surroundings.

    It’s the only way to be sure.

  15. jj says

    JKB (#13) hit a piece of this kind of BS squarely n the head.  Environmentalism – as philosophy, and thinking rare thoughts generally – is a function of leisure.  Primitive societies didn’t produce philosophers – or environmentalists – because nobody had time to sit around doing naught but thinking: they were all scrambling to get (1) something to eat; (2) warm; and (3) dry.  Once the basic needs are met, then you have time to kill, and the trouble begins.  So it is splendidly ironic that the professional environmentalists only have the leisure to go meddle in things about which they know little because the industrial revolution was indeed a success.
     
    I am somewhat torn on the subject, though, much as Bookworm herself is.  I am rather fond of the natural world, not particularly fond of humanity (the mass thereof, I suppose, to be accurate), and not the least bit fond of institutional stupidity, such as that exhibited in the examples cited above.
     
    And it’s clear – to take an example you don’t even have to work for – that unless somebody smacks them in the head our friends the Japanese will – quite cheerfully and with a lack of self-consciousness that would under ordinary circumstances be breath-taking in its arrogance – move the last whales on the planet into the “extinct” category, and never give it a second thought.  I’m not sure the little bastards should be allowed to do that.
     
    Our entirely worthless friends the Chinese will cheerfully kill the last rhino on the planet to get its horn in the interests of making their dicks bigger, or whatever their problem is.  (I don’t actually care.)  It’s a quaint and brainless superstition for an allegedly advanced society to cling to to, and I suppose would be regarded by some as kind of endearing – but not by me.  I don’t think those bastards should be allowed to do that, either.
     
    I object to arguing about stuff that is – or should be – obvious.  Alaska likes to hunt wolves, citing the need to control their numbers lest they decimate the caribou herds.  The mainland Indians, who do not hunt them, are aware of two things.  First:  the wolves cannot catch up to and kill healthy caribou, except by accident, so what they do is cull the herd of the old, the weak, the sick.  The strong and “in their prime” survive to breed.  Any member of just about any tribe you happen to talk to (and I have talked to Tlingits, Haida, and several iterations of Aleuts) will tell you “the wolf keeps the caribou strong.”  They have spotted this over thousands of years of watching it play itself out in front of them.  Second: there used to be a lot more wolves – and a lot more caribou.  Somehow or other the wolves never managed to decimate, or even damage, the population of caribou.  But something did.  Well, what changed?  Men showed up in greater numbers is what changed.  Now we have to conserve the caribou.  From what?  Us, or the wolves?  The answer should be obvious, and the fact that all the highly-educated geniuses in the Alaskan Department of Ecology don’t seem to be nearly as smart about the problem as six-year-old Indians are is a little disheartening.  (And goddamed irritating, to me.  Thus I say: I object to arguing to the end of disproving the obvious.)
     
    So, as is Bookworm, I’m a little torn.  “Environmentalists” tend to piss me off, because such basic notions as cause and effect seem to elude them.  They generally screw up, as with the lizards cited above, at least as often as they manage something positive.  And there are billions of us – the only thing there are more of than us on the planet are some kinds of bugs.  We have ruined a lot of territory – call it “habitat” if you like – for other creatures, and we have driven a lot of them right off the planet, usually for not very good reasons.  There are places where humanity should not, perhaps, be allowed to build a vacation home, because while people can live anywhere, those deep woods are the only places a lot of other stuff can live.  Maybe we give way – for once.  Mankind is never going to be in any danger of extinction, unless we blow ourselves apart somehow.  Lots of other things are, through no fault of their own, scrambling to hang on, and I suspect the universe – God, if you like – probably thinks they have just as much right to life as we do.  I’m not sure anybody’s right to “make a living” is seen by the Almighty as being more important than anything else’s right to exist.

  16. says

    It is also environmentally friendly. Unlike dirty fission and fusion nukes, kinetic bombardments just make a big crater in the ground without ecological damage!

    Btw, if you want to become environmentally aware, look to PETA as your role model. They save plenty of pets and animals from being eaten! In fact, they have saved so many animals from death, that one wonders where PETA houses and keeps all the pets they have rescued…

  17. says

    God, if he has any expectation for life, would probably deem it a divine law that the weak die off, and the strong survive. That is divine justice, as seen over the aeons. What makes Christianity interesting is that it tries to take a human outlook on what is relatively a cold and heartless universe. It uses human values of compassion and caring to treat inferiors, whether other humans or the animal kingdom. 

    Being “good” and just isn’t enough. One must be strong in reality as well. That is a universal law and is perhaps the only non-humanocentric universal law. Strong forces repel and pull in the weak.

    Humanity’s ability to adjust the life cycles of other animals come solely from one thing: the dominance of human technological supremacy on the Earth. If we didn’t become the dominant predators, we wouldn’t have a stool to stand on when talking about conserving anything or anybody.

    Many pagan religions, including Islam, still hold to the right makes might thing. But they’ve already admitted it. They aren’t the mightiest or the strongest around. Yet they still believe that if they can just win, they would be right and righteous both in combination with the other.

    That illustrates a curious human tendency to not give up in the face of adverse odds. And who knows, perhaps the horse will learn to sing after all.

    If humanity’s desire to exceed competitors were not as high as it is, we would never have become dominant on this planet. After we had achieved dominance as a species, all that was left was to dominant every human faction residing on planet Earth. And in that vein, might makes right gave way to more liberal and soft ideologies and ethics of international conduct.

    But still, all those fluff words are just that. Without backing by violence, ruthlessness, and sheer military might, nobody has any right to anything… including their lives.

  18. says

    Here’s a clear analogy. Who should get the best food in a community, those that work and are doing what is right, or those that are stealing and dong what is wrong? Who should get the best food in a community of limited resources?

    Should your food that you worked for to give to your family, be taken away from you to feed a family of murderers, serial killers, and child molestors when they don’t have jobs? Who is stronger here, the community’s best farmer or the community’s best serial killer. Which one is stronger? Which one is better? Which one has more of the Divine Justice on their side?

    Normally it’s a toss up. The farmer can feed himself, his family, and the community. But the raider has the strength to take all that away using strength and power, but the raider himself can’t do the work to feed himself, his family, or any community. He has to keep raiding. In terms of divine equivalence, those two groups look pretty similar.

    However… the moment the farmer develops some kind of military defense to resist the raiders, now we have a clear ethical difference between the parasite sucking on society’s teats and killing society off slowly, and the farmer that brings new life to the community yet also has the strength to kill people when necessary.

    Such a concept of what is the right path can be seen in Greek hoplites, especially Athens’ entirely citizen militia force. Sparta’s warriors were professionals and thus never did any farming: farming was for the helot slave workers.

    What farmers often do is to use the produce to hire human mercenaries, like Seven Samurai or Magnificent Seven, to do the fighting for them. If might makes right, and the source of might is economic prosperity, then who is mightier, the raider or the farming community? By destroying the economic prosperity of a people and their nation… what do you think will happen to their quest for justice?

    Military dictatorships and governments run by the military, often have issues later on during peace time. They can’t function correctly without an external enemy, thus they go out making more enemies as they go until they get destroyed. Or fall prey to internal dissension because they started looking for enemies internally. I believe the best alliance for those seeking Justice and the Good is to combine economic prosperity builders, such as farmers, and pair them up with killers and people who have the power to protect, not just destroy. That is an alliance that no raider, no parasite even, can contest. Instead of a farmer having to spend 10,000 man hours training to be a warrior, what is estimated to be 10 years of constant study for a human to acquire MASTERY in a skill, the farmer can spend his time mastering farming and his defenders can spend time mastering how to kill people as efficiently as possible. By reducing the time required from 20,000 hours to 10,000 hours for each person, more people are able to achieve mastery, develop human prosperity, and stabilize security.

    If the alliance between bread winners and security enforcers is probably stronger and mightier than the parasitical Leftists and their Communist child molestor allies… then that brings a whole new meaning to Might Makes Right. If Right makes Might, the whole universe will have changed. Because if you got defeated, you can’t blame anyone else because they were “racist”. If you got defeated, it’s cause you were wrong, at fault, and too weak to stop it. Being a raider and a parasite in a community is why you can’t do as well in the long term. Where are the bandit groups now? They disappeared. Only the US remained. Now that’s strength, even if new bandit groups like MS13 and the federal government come in as replacements for the old ones.

    If there is any divine law, that would be it: the concept that Unions and alliances make stronger products than the components added together by themselves. The Leftist alliance is itself proof that unions and alliances between people can generate great results. In this case, great evil results. And of course, might makes right because right makes might. If you are weak and unable to feed yourself, it’s probably cause you never educated yourself, exercised you body, learned any skills or job training. People like Margaret Sanger and the latest Leftist atheists, like euthanasia and eugenics: getting rid of weak people. I’m of a different viewpoint since even the disabled or the handicapped have had to become stronger than their peers simply because living with a disability is HARDER than those born with healthy or super athletic bodies. Strength when it comes to humanity, is not just physical.

  19. DL Sly says

    “My problem is with the thoughtless, hysterical, emotion-driven initiatives that seem to be concerned with punishing humans than with helping animals.”

    Then you’re gonna *love* this given it’s happening in your neck of the woods, so to speak:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_animal_rights_extremists_nearing_victory_in_california.html

    And, Ymar, there is a notation within the article at this link that goes to your statement: “Btw, if you want to become environmentally aware, look to PETA as your role model. They save plenty of pets and animals from being eaten! In fact, they have saved so many animals from death, that one wonders where PETA houses and keeps all the pets they have rescued…”  I think you’ll appreciate the irony.
    heh
    0>;~}

  20. Danny Lemieux says

    My epiphany was when a (very Liberal) acquaintance at my church proudly told me that his son was studying environmental “science” at Dartmouth. I asked him whether his son had been scientifically inclined. “Oh no, said this attorney, “he doesn’t like science, but fortunately he doesn’t have to take any science classes”. Instead, he was preparing himself to go to law school to be an environmental litigator.
     
    Environmentalism is an ideology. Ecology is an applied science. Chemistry,biology, zoology and horticulture are sciences.

  21. says

    Danny Lemieux: Environmentalism is an ideology. Ecology is an applied science. Chemistry,biology, zoology and horticulture are sciences.

    Environmentalism is advocacy. Ecology is the study of organisms and their relationships to each other and to the natural environment. Environmental Science integrates Ecology and its relationship to human activity and the built environment. Applied Environmental Science is called Environmental Engineering. Environmental Studies is an interdisciplinary field that includes Environmental Science as well as policy, law, economics and social considerations. 

    Dartmouth offers Environmental Studies as an adjunct to a major, such as biology, economics or government, and they also offer advanced degrees in Earth, Ecosystem and Ecological Sciences. 
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~envs/about/
     

  22. says

    DL Sly, all of this makes sense once a person opens their eyes and looks at it in a military strategy context. Of course they got big. Of course they equate humans with animals, and are killing animals in job lots. Of course. It’s a military war gaming scenario, where victory requires certain strategic assets. And they’re getting those assets, been doing so over the last 50 years or more.

    Yea, yea, but everybody wants to say “we’re not war with the Left”. But the Left is at war with you.

  23. Danny Lemieux says

    Gringo, you may have misunderstood me. I am not in any way demeaning “applied” science. Quite the contrary: I believe the most directly beneficial and difficult sciences are “applied”. Engineering is an example.
     
    Applied sciences tend to be hubs for multiple different scientific disciplines. Thus, “ecology” is a science where all the disciplines I listed and more (e.g., geology, hydrology, limnology) come together. An ecologist, therefore, must be cognizant of many different scientific disciplines.

  24. Spiff says

    @Gringo #19:

    I don’t know how true the story actually is as I didn’t actually witness it.  There may have been a bit of over exaggeration on the part of the story teller for entertainment value.   My sense is there is some truth to it, but I’m sure some details are missing as well.  I always think of that story whenever I encounter wacky environmental requirements on projects though.

    I have also seen contractors do some things that make me shake my head. Once, on a pump station construction project in San Rafael, I caught an operator purging the excess concrete in the hoses from a concrete boom pump truck into a runoff stream that flowed into the San Francisco Bay.  After I stopped the work and had the Contractor clean it up I shook my head and explained to him that was the sort of thing that caused the crazy out of control environmental requirements on construction projects.

    I just wish the pendulum would swing back and stay in a more balanced position.   

  25. Spiff says

    @Y:  I think it might already have when you consider things like the bridge failure in Minneapolis.

    We spend more time and effort worrying about BBS (bugs, bunnies and snakes) and planting trees for mitigation than we actually do maintaining and improving our infrastructure.  Someday I hope we get our priorities back in order.

    We ignore these sorts of realities at our own peril.
     

  26. says

    Unions don’t tend to attract gifted and talented engineers and architects. So a “union job” isn’t much about Army Corps of Engineering kind of work. So they don’t repair infrastructure. Nor will they let anyone else repair it, given how public funding can fit more easily into their own pockets.

Leave a Reply