As part of Senator John McCain’s “Outreach Program”, his campaign has begun a weekly event of conference calling with bloggers. I was fortunate enough to have received one of those invitations. The bad news is, I had a previous engagement at precisely the same time as the conference call so I had to back out but requested a seat next week or at least at a future date.

It appears though that some other bloggers aren’t exactly thrilled about the format or maybe more precisely, who’s on the invitation list. Michelle Malkin wishes she had an invitation and it appears that after sending an email to McCain’s Internet guru guy, Patrick Hynes, she will be included in next week’s show.

I sent Michelle Malkin an email and shared that I was on that list and I certainly don’t consider myself a liberal blogger. I suppose my readers have already figured that one out. Of course I don’t have the readership of Ms. Malkin either nor do I pretend to be her caliber of writer. I was happy to have been extended an invitation and hope I’ll have a seat next week.

It seems from the information I received prior to the conference call, Mr. McCain takes a few minutes to speak to the callers/bloggers. Then, if there is time, he will field questions. I’m not clear if questions are supposed to be focused on the topic he has chosen to discuss or if it is wide open.

So what I’d like to do is this. Let’s assume that questions can be asked about any subject. If you can think of a question, hopefully that pertains closely to the subject matter of which I write at the Black Bear Blog, include it in the comments section below. I will copy these questions off and consider asking them of the senator should be given an opportunityl.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I asked the question just today. Has this thing about blaming everything on global warming gone just a little bit too far? Well, here you have proof that this world is out of control, only this time they’re not blaming obesity on global warming. They’re blaming global warming on obesity.

Didn’t Hitler have similar thoughts about Jews?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Just a quick note here. I was just returning from a trip across town and I had crazy Glenn Beck on the radio entertaining me while stuck in the usual traffic. He began telling his audience that someone had asked him to define conservatism. This is what he said as best that I can remember.

Conservatism is the power of the individual, the freedom to succeed or fail.

If you know Glenn Beck at all you know that he went on from there in a lengthy monologue about this. I thought his initial response was concise, truthful and to the point. It impressed me enough that I thought I would pass that on.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you missed the live presentation of Open Air With Tom Remington yesterday, here is your opportunity to listen to that recorded program.

The show was a bit different than others but one I think you’ll enjoy nonetheless. I share with listeners some of the new “gadgets” I have at my disposal to make me even more obnoxious than I already am.

I’ve also included an update on Skinny Moose Media’s plan to do a remote live audio stream from the Kittery Trading Post in Maine for the annual Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Moose Lottery. It should be a good time. We will go live with our broadcast sometime around 4 p.m. and live drawing will commence at 6 p.m.

Are we getting carried away with blaming everything, good or bad, on global warming?

I thought it important to spend a bit of time explaining about the different kind of visitors I have at my blogs and some of the problems that arise when a visitor lands on one of my articles for the first time, reads it and leaves a comment based solely on the contents of that article. This is not necessarily the readers fault as I explain that it is impossible to link every story to every other article that fully explains my position on certain issues. This is just one of the many challenges of being a blogger. I think the explanation will help listeners and readers to better understand the dynamics of reading blogs all across the Internet.

The last part of the show addresses political issues. The main point I wanted to clarify was why, if I am going to support John McCain in the upcoming presidential election, I am spending time criticizing some of the things he says and does. As most of you know, I am a conservative. John McCain says he is but to me it is more of a pick and choose kind of conservatism. I am not one to simply agree with everything John McCain says just to be a good republican. So listen in and find out why.

Listen to the broadcast now!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

*Scroll for Updates*

There is one thing for certain. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s announcement yesterday that the polar bear will be listed as “threatened” has stirred the proverbial pot. It should have come as no surprise that regardless of what decision was made, it was going to be the wrong one to someone.

I want to take this opportunity to focus on a few comments made by Sec. Kempthorne, President Bush and others about listing the bear, the Endangered Species Act and the role the courts play in all this.

Here’s a comment made by Sec. Kempthorne in his address yesterday concerning the ESA and his past and present dealings with it.

I sought to reform the Endangered Species Act with Senators Harry Reid and Max Baucus and the late John Chaffee when I served in the United States Senate. I had lived with the consequences of ESA decisions as Governor of Idaho. As Secretary I have now experienced the reality that the current ESA is among the most inflexible laws Congress has passed. It prevents me, as Secretary, from taking into account economic conditions and adverse consequences in making listing decisions.

There is something wrong when an Act such as this that has obviously reached the point where it is being abused, is nearly thirty years old making it “inflexible” and clearly is not necessarily in the best interest of the people or the animals we are trying to protect. This statement should not be taken by some to mean nobody cares about the welfare of animals but things have changed considerably in 30 years.

President Bush said:

“There is a right way and wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution. Discussions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges but should be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect.”

He acknowledges that the courts are being used by environmentalists to accomplish the goals of its agendas. This is another indication that something is wrong with the ESA. A classic example of manipulation and using of the courts by environmentalists is realized now that 12 groups are suing the government to overturn the decision to take the gray wolf off the ESA list of endangered animals. Their work became much easier with their ability to seek out a judge they know will side with them.

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial agrees that the courts will make a mess of things.

The greatest danger is that this ruling will be distorted by the courts, where it is inevitably headed.

The National Center for Public Policy Research released a statement yesterday. In that statement the Center also says the courts will be busy.

Environmental organizations will continue to try to use the Endangered Species Act to impose energy-use restrictions on the American public, but no climate policy should be adopted without the consent of the public as expressed through the votes of their elected representatives in Congress.

Sec. Kempthorne evidently believes he can utilize a loophole and institute a new ruling that will prohibit the environmentalists from using this listing to write global warming and environmental policy.

First, to provide clarity and certainty to those regulated under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service will propose what is known as a 4(d) rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards imposed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.

The second thing he plans to do is make it clear that climate change can’t be blamed on any one specific event, entity, etc.

Second, Director Hall will issue guidance to Fish and Wildlife Service staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project, or government action.

I can’t envision that holding up in the courts but it’s a guarantee we’ll find out sooner or later.

This brings me back to what I referred to in the beginning of this piece. The fourth thing Kempthorne proposes is a clarification of the rules.

Fourth, the ESA regulatory language needs to be clarified. We will propose common sense modifications to the existing regulation to provide greater certainty that this listing will not set backdoor climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.

Sec. Kempthorne said that the ESA is perhaps the most inflexible piece of legislation ever enacted by the American people. Many of us have screamed for years that changes need to be made along with clarifications. Can this be accomplished in time before the onslaught of lawsuits begin to change this ruling?

There are still many people who are naive enough to believe that this ruling is what the environmentalists wanted and will back off. Not true.

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, almost immediately after the ruling on the polar bear was announced, sent out emails to members alerting them that the fight continues.

The bad news? The Bush Administration’s plan for “protection” is so full of loopholes for oil companies and other polluters that it could be the equivalent of sending a leaky lifeboat to rescue drowning polar bears — unless we move quickly to get it fixed.

Simply put, you and I have finally gotten the Bush Administration to acknowledge the gravity of the polar bear’s plight — and that’s crucial — but it’s NOT enough to ensure the polar bear’s survival.

So our fight must — and will — go on.

Make no mistake: the Administration’s attempt to water down protection for the polar bear is illegal — and it won’t hold up in court.

That’s why NRDC is already preparing to fight the next round of this legal battle and secure the kind of full-fledged protection that polar bears so desperately need and deserve. I’ll be in touch very soon with more details.

We don’t intend to back down or declare final victory until the polar bear is no longer facing the unthinkable threat of extinction.

Whether or not enough attention can be drawn away from the climate change debate to address serious flaws of the Endangered Species Act remains to be seen. Clearly it is time for some changes and clarifications that are in the best interest of saving species, habitat and protecting our economic investments and overall health and well being.

*Update* Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 12:54 p.m.

Hugh Hewitt says, “This was false hope dressed up as “guidance.”, when referring to Interior Sec. Kempthorne’s assurances that this ruling wouldn’t be allowed to manipulate green house gas emissions.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have a prerecorded program scheduled to air today on Skinny Moose Radio at 3 p.m. I hope you’ll listen in. I will get the program uploaded and available for podcasting shortly.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Barry Saddler lives in Northern Idaho. He says he’s never shot and killed an animal before in his life but that all changed this week when he killed one wolf from a pack that was attacking his dog. Now that he has had a first hand experience in what it’s really like dealing with wolves, this is what he had to say about it.

“I was always the one that liked gray wolves,” he says. “I said they just kill to eat. But they don’t kill to eat, they’re glutten killers. They kill to kill.”

There’s quite a difference in being out in the territory living where the wolves are then sitting in a cushy office in the city filing lawsuits. This is only one example of how one’s mindset about wolves can change when then witness first hand the killing capacity of a wolf. It’s not done the way the wolf lovers say it is.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

*Scroll for Updates*

Gathering information now. More to follow!

*Update* 3:30 p.m. Wednesday
I just finished watching the streaming video from the Department of Interior. I now have a lot of reading to do but I will say this. The closing remarks that Sec. Kempthorne made about reaching this decision seemed to me to show just how much he doesn’t understand the possible ramifications of his decision.

He said that people have said that listing the polar bear would create a way to force the reduction of greenhouse gases and he said that this act, assuming he meant the Endangered Species Act and the Department’s decision to list the polar bear, is not a means to achieve forced reduction of greenhouse gases.

If he really believes that, I have to believe he has been hiding under a rock for the past decade or so. This request to list the bear is completely an act to force the reduction of greenhouses gases and he has to know that. It has been the entire foundation of the request to list the bear.

The other thing he said which made my hair stand on end had to do with him sharing how difficult it was to render this decision. He said that this decision had to be based solely on scientific evidence and that they couldn’t consider economic issues as part of the decision, nor could they somehow project into the future what negative influences this decision could have on our economy and need for energy.

I find this hypocritical and disingenuous when you consider that in order for the DOI to reach this decision, it had to be based on projecting into the future what might happen with our climate. Perhaps this is another part of what is wrong with the administering of the ESA. If now, with this ruling, we can request the listing of protection of species of animals based on models that might predict our future climate, maybe it would be a good idea to incorporate the use of models to predict our future economy.

Whether officials at USFWS want to admit it or not, they have just set a precedent that sets the stage for the possibility of listing any number of other species based on projected climate changes.

Kempthorne tried to tap dance around the fact that global warming wasn’t the driving force behind the decision. He said it was overwhelmingly the loss of habitat - i.e. sea ice due to melting. Hello? So what melted the sea ice? Too much hot air in Washington?

*Update* 3:50 p.m. Wednesday May 14, 2008

You can read the press release and find the entire final report at the DOI website. Here’s an excerpt from what Kempthorne said that leaves me gasping.

“While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting. Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective. That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.”

How do you make a ruling based on the theory of global warming, deny that it’s not global warming driving your decision and then say the only way we can save the polar bear is if everyone does what they can to stop melting sea ice?

*Update* 4:20 p.m. Wednesday May 14, 2008

Michelle Malkin has something to say about this listing.

*Update* 4:45 p.m. Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Hugh Hewitt reminds us all once again why listing the polar bear under the ESA will affect us all.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting is continuing their campaign of spreading lies to the people. In an editorial in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise by Joe Miele, president of CASH, says that young people are against “killing”.

The average age of these “sportsmen” is increasing because hunting and fishing no longer appeal to the younger generation, which has shown for the most part to be uninterested in killing animals for recreation.

According to data supplied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, since 1996 the number of anglers and hunters in New York has decreased by more than 25 percent and 5 percent, respectively. This has been occurring because sportsmen who choose to interact with wildlife in violent ways are dying or otherwise dropping out of the sport faster than new hunters and anglers can be recruited. Despite the waning interest in the blood sports, nonviolent forms of outdoor recreation are becoming more popular every year; hunting and fishing have been declining in popularity as wildlife watching in the state has been showing encouraging growth.

It is despicable that CASH has taken some data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that shows the interest in hunting and fishing has declined of late and wrongfully concluded that the reason is because young people aren’t interested in killing animals. Miele offers no data to support his claim because there is none available.

Certainly, the information that USFWS puts out that Miele refers to, does not include any conclusions as to what is affecting any of the trends referred to in this editorial. His assumptions and conclusions are absurd, unfounded and this is nothing more than a cheap trick to influence public opinion.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Here’s a man who’s been around politics a long time and I’m not sure he does understand what his hoped-for job as President of the United States would be.

“I’ve made some Republicans mad in the past and I may make them mad now, but my job is to do what I think is best where the environment is concerned,” McCain said at a campaign stop in North Bend, Washington. “I think we can get Democrats and Republicans in this effort.”

Read more here.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Here’s another photo of a “Whatzit”. Some of you I know will know what it is and others probably have never seen anything like it before in your life. I can tell you that I believe, if this photo was taken where I think it was, my Great-Grandfather sat upon that thing.

Milt Inman took the photo and sends along this hint: “Down South neverbe; Up North usetobe”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It’s looking more and more like come next November when we all walk into that polling booth our choices for the next president of the United States of America will be Barack Hussein Obama or Al Gore! That’s right Al Gore. John McCain is trying desperately to paint himself as a conservative while at the same time pandering for votes from anywhere he can get them (like this is some new political strategy).

The question we all need to ask is whether or not John McCain is really believes the comments he made yesterday while delivering a speech in Oregon.

Today I’d like to focus on just one of those challenges, and among environmental dangers it is surely the most serious of all. Whether we call it “climate change” or “global warming,” in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we to act meet the challenge, and act quickly.

This sounds like Al Gore! Is McCain living in a bubble since he announced his candidacy? “We’re all left with the same set of facts”? Come on! That’s a bunch of malarkey. Everyday there is more and more scientific evidence that shows us that any climate changes we are experiencing are natural and cyclical.

In November you can decide which global warming alarmist you want who will cost American taxpayers billions of dollars on a hoax started by a loser politician.

I’ll put my money on science.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Milt Inman took the picture recently near his home in Maine. As you can see the grass has greened but the leaves have yet to reveal themselves, although I think you can see the red maple buds showing on the trees behind the fox on the rock. That sly fellow believes he is king of the beasts!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“Promoting the paperback version of his book, The Assault on Reason, on a U.S. National Public Radio show, Mr. Gore said that “even though any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming… nevertheless… the trend toward stronger more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.””

Mr. Al Gore took it upon himself to use the devastation in Myanmar to promote his latest book of lies. Read more here.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This will seem silly to some but I think it’s a legitimate question. I was just reading a short headline from out of Canada this morning stating that a man holds ex-wife hostage with a hunting rifle. There are really no more details than that but my question, which I’ve asked on numerous occasions, is why was it a hunting rifle? Why not just a rifle? Why not a gun? Why not a target rifle?

I guess it could have just as easily been called an assault rifle. After all, the media loves using assault weapon. I would suppose that by definition anything used to assault someone or something has to be declared an assault weapon, although most of us know what is meant when assault weapon is used to describe a gun used in committing a crime.

Now it could very well be that this guy uses that rifle only for hunting and nothing else and so therefore, the media is correct in calling it a hunting rifle. Whether it is intentional or not, does calling every rifle a hunting rifle become as damaging to the sport as calling every gun an assault weapon?

Why hunting rifle? If a man pulled out a jack knife and committed a crime, the press doesn’t refer to that knife as a Boy Scout knife. When someone is beaten to death with a baseball bat, the press doesn’t describe it as one just like Mickey Mantle used to use, or a golf club as like the one Tiger Woods uses.

Is it just an easy thing to say? To refer to it as a hunting rifle? Or is there really more to it?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!