A quarter of the world’s wildlife has disappeared since 1970, according to a new report prepared by the Zoological Society of London — a scientific, not political, organization — for the World Wildlife Fund.
Before I go any further, let me preempt inevitable comment: This isn’t about global warming. Well, not just about global warming, anyway.
The report details the wide range of causes. Habitat loss is the most significant, but there are many other factors — nearly all related to human activities.
Can we agree that this is a bad thing? It seems to me that we certainly ought to.
But inevitably, the question turns to what we should do in response. Should we limit human development? Can we? As Jim likes to point out, if we think we’re going to get China to play ball with touch environmental restrictions to protect species, we’re kidding ourselves.
Some organizations, like the Nature Conservancy, are using private donations to buy land, which they then preserve from development. That seems like a good approach. So do responsible government moves to declare certain areas national parks, wildlife preserves and the like. But that only works to a certain degree. What else can be done? I don’t know. I wish I had the solution.
But it does seem worthy of our attention. In addition to our responsibility to be stewards of God’s creatures, there are practical effects of species loss as well.
And, needless to say, the problem of species loss is only going to get worse and the effects of global warming become more pronounced. Just ask the polar bears, who this week were designated a threatened species by the U.S. government.
Finally, an interesting side-note. This report was covered today by the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian and several other outlets here in the UK, including shockingly the Daily Mail. When that group agrees on anything, it’s a notable story. And apparently, the report has not yet been released in the U.S., as there has been exactly zero coverage of it. I suspect my friends in the U.S. will be hearing more about this in the coming days. When you do, remember, you read it here first.
Jim: I think I know where Marshall is going to go with his pick, and so I’ll try not to take it personally. But I’ll go in a different area…
The year’s most over-reported story is Al Gore and his documentary. There’s talk he may be Time’s Man of the Year, even though “An Inconvenient Truth” was released last year; he just spent this year accepting awards. And let’s face it, the film is perfect for stirring the hearts of global elites - the earth is dying, corporations are to blame, we need a bigger government to regulate and restrict the actions of people. Giving us more power will help cute polar bears.
The irony is that I could find common ground with these folks; I want a clean environment and have a soft spot for certain parts of the green agenda - wetlands preservation, open spaces, endangered species, mixed-use development. But because of Al Gore, the cause has now been hijacked into an effort to establish a global aristocracy that will fly around on private jets, live in giant mansions, drive to global warming hearings in SUVs, etc., and then lecture the rest of us on how many squares of toilet paper to use.
Marshall: Jim’s is a worthy choice. Gore’s movie, it turns out, is rife with inaccuracies. Though I will say that to the extent it raised awareness of global warming and change a few folks’ behavior along the way, I don’t mind the attention quite as much as Jim does.
For my choice as the Most Over-Reported Story of 2007, I select the 2008 presidential campaign. The campaign started way to early, and the press bought it hook, line and sinker. We saw full, daily coverage of the campaign going strong last spring. Obama and Thompson both saw their media coverage — both in terms of volume and positive sentiment — peak last in early summer. Check the calendar: That’s 18 months before the election.
Now, I understand that the process of selecting delegates is starting extra early this year. Iowans will caucus just hours after the last New Years fireworks have exploded. But even with a January caucus, the level of media attention 8 or 9 months out from the first caucuses was excessive. It’s no wonder that voters have campaign fatigue already. As a result, too much of the coverage has been shallow, trite or boring.
As a consequence of the early caucuses and primaries, we’re now facing a period of a general election campaign lasting more than half a year. That’s too long and too much. Not even the most interested observer can — or for that matter, should — stay focused on the campaign for that long.
For the media, that means too much focus on insignificant stories that have no real impact on, well, anything. That’s exactly what happened in 2007, and it’s precisely that I’m likely to be naming the same winner in this category next year.
I am sitting in an airport, which has installed a television in the waiting area, and permanently tuned it to CNN. A moment ago, I caught a promo for a feature on later tonight that puts the spotlight on the horrible practice of dogfighting.
Perhaps that’s the one good thing that will come from the Vick story. Maybe, thanks to the publicity, a few more people will be disgusted and a few more dog fighting rings broken up. And just maybe, a few of the dogs that died horrible deaths on Vick’s property, allegedly at the hands of Vick and his co-conspirators, will have given their lives to help put an end to this abhorrent undertaking.
Here’s hoping…
Jim’s post last week articulating 11 ideas that, he hoped, could attract support from 90 percent or more of conservatives and / or Republicans, was amazing. It was well considered and well presented. It’s taken me a week to respond only because I aspired — fruitlessly I suspect — to offer a response of equal thoughtfulness.
In this post, I try to respond to Jim’s offering as well as the thoughts of some of our commenters. (By the way, I would remiss if I didn’t thank the raft of folks who graced us with their thoughts on insights. I very much hope that you’ll continue to visit On Tap and contribute to our dialogue.)
Responding to Jim
First, broadly, I really think Jim is onto something. It’s impossible to build or rebuild a movement without ideas, and in particular, a set of ideas that bring us together. The Democrats have illustrated this rather well over the last fifteen years. It was only when they united behind their hatred for President Bush that they ultimately prevailed.
It seems to me that the ideas must accomplish two objectives. First, they must genuinely further the conservative philosophy. Second, they must be winners at the polls. In other words, we’re looking for ideas that bring us together while equipping us with a message that will attract voters’ support.
Finally, a history lesson. Jim’s work was based on the idea of the Contract with America. It’s worth recalling that the Contract included a handful of big, bold core principles with a wealth of detailed policy proposals. But it’s significance in the 1994 elections is almost always overstated. We should use it for a model only insofar as it accomplished the goals that I’ve set forth.
WIth that in mind, let me address Jim’s ideas in order:
On Tuesday, a federal grand jury in Richmond, Virginia handed down an indictment against Michael Vick. The indictment alleges some of the most inhumane behavior imaginable, and if Vick is found guilty, I’m rooting for serious time.
If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that I’m a dog owner and dog lover. You may also have picked up that I am pretty big fan of animals generally.
On a philosophical level, I believe strongly that the way we treat animals reflects our humanity or lack thereof. It also reveals, I think, the central truths of our individual natures.
Vick and his cohorts allegedly conspired to create a criminal enterprise dedicated to and premised on animal cruelty. According to the indictment, Vick purchased the property in Surry County, Virginia with the explicit notion in mind of training and fighting dogs. He allegedly abused his own dogs, killing puppies by drowning, hanging and beating on more than one occasion. He and his co-conspirators allegedly went to great lengths to turn the most aggressive and energetic puppies from lovable balls of fur, intent only on their next meal and curling up with their litter mates, into hyper-aggressive, fighting machines bent on destruction and death.
What does this say about Michael Vick, assuming, with caution against committing libel in mind, that he committed the acts directed at him in the indictment?
To me, it suggests that he is a cruel and violent person who holds little value for life. The conspiracy which he allegedly led suggests that he is willing to go to extremes in premeditation and planning to carry out wanton acts of cruelty and violence. To me, this is precisely the kind of person who ought to be removed from society and set behind bars.
UPDATE: On this morning’s Mike & Mike show on ESPN radio, former University of Kentucky football coach Bill Curry summed it up succinctly. Assuming the allegations are true, he said, “This is about killing. Period.”
Jim: My thought on Vick after reading some articles is an incredulous bewhilderment at the ingratitude demonstrated in Vick’s actions.
You’re probably going, “Huh?” Let me explain. We all are given gifts in this life, some more obvious than others. Vick has been blessed with extraordinary athletic ability. He’s given a chance to play not just the most popular sport in the country, professional football, but a chance to be a leader of men, the face of a franchise, the opportunity to become a legend as a quarterback. He’s playing in a sports-crazy part of the country, with a fan base eager to see him succeed. He has achieved financial security in a way few of us can imagine with his contracts and numerous endorsement deals with some of the biggest companies in the country - Coca-Cola, EA Sports, Kraft Foods, Hasbro, AirTran. Nike puts together a commercial called “The Michael Vick Experience,” explicitly declaring to the world, he is not merely a player, but a phenomenon.
And how does he spend his free time? Allegedly training and watching dogs kill each other.
To invert Churchill’s grateful comment at the Battle of Britain, never has so much been so squandered on one ingrate.
If he’s guilty, I’ve got a simple sentence: Fight one of those abused dogs.
Well, I know it’s been quiet around here lately, but tonight I’m making up for it with volume…
A little while back, I wrote, “before a political movement - any movement, not just conservatives - can use technology to promote its message, it needs to agree on what that message is. If one had to propose a new Contract With America, could conservatives formulate a list of ten legislative proposals that would get 90 for 9? (Meaning, 90 percent of conservatives agreed with 9 of them?)”
Cam and I talked a bit about this off line. I loved Cam’s idea of framing the list as “A Contract With Our Children” –evoking the “Contract With America” while turning around Hillary’s ever-present “it’s for the CHILDREN!” mantra for the right.
But after weeks of wrangling with what ten issues and proposals could get 90 percent of conservatives (and a big chunk of the public) to back nine of them, I’ve finally made up my list. Here’s a list of ten – first the principle or idea behind the idea, and then the policy proposal that grows out of it.
ONE. THE PRINCIPLE ON PROTECTING ALL OF US: We can’t guarantee that there won’t be another 9/11-style attack, but we can make it a hell of a lot harder for our enemies to pull off another one. After that day, we looked back and gasped at all the ways we were oblivious to the gathering threat, everything from unlockable cockpit doors to decayed intelligence agencies to wrongheaded “walls” between the CIA and FBI to an unwillingness to raid bin Laden’s convoys over civilian casualties to not checking who’s entering this country – seemingly a thousand and one mistakes, bad decisions, and policy blunders.
No government agency can watch over every street corner, every crowded public place, every cog and joint in our national infrastructure, every inch of our borders and coastlines. (Nor would we want it to.) But an armed and alert citizenry can.
Quoting Tom Ridge in the days after the attacks:
“I think we’re somewhat obsessed about getting x number of federal air marshals,” the former Pennsylvania governor said. “I think every single able-bodied man or woman, from this point forward, looks at themselves as a potential air marshal. .. Ridge mentioned the gallant passengers of United Flight 93… “That is the kind of personal resolve that’s magnified across 280-plus million Americans, that says to bin Laden and al Qaeda and all successor organizations and individuals, ‘You may threaten us, you may attack us, you may harm us, you may injure us, you may kill us, but you won’t prevail. You will not win, because every American will rise to that challenge.’”
ONE: THE POLICY: Federal, state, and local governments – as well as private organizations - will provide CPR, first aid, and firearms training for any American who seeks it, forming a civilian corps of “Minutemen” ready to respond to crises in their area at a moment’s notice. In addition, concealed carry permits would be encouraged in every jurisdiction possible. No one would ever be required to carry a gun or know these skills, but potential terrorists will never be able to find a population of Americans defenseless and unable to rise and confront a threat at a moment’s notice.
This is about as heartening an environmental success story as I’ve ever seen.
The federal government today removed the bald eagle from its list of threatened and endangered species, capping a 40-year comeback for the national icon that showed that disappearing creatures are not always lost.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne made the announcement this morning before the dramatic backdrop of the Jefferson Memorial. Along with a crowd of dark-suited officials, those gathered to bear witness included boy scouts in uniform and a stately looking eagle with a snowy white crown. The decision offers a legal postscript to a rebound that has been obvious to bird-watchers across the country, especially along the eagle-rich Potomac River. There were 417 breeding pairs of bald eagles in the continental United States in 1967, after a decline blamed partly on the eggshell-thinning pesticide DDT. Forty years later, officials say, that number has grown to about 10,000 pairs.
“It’s really one of the greatest conservation success stories in U.S. history,” said Tony Iallonardo, a spokesman for the National Audubon Society.
Here’s to bald eagles. And here’s to having the gumption to take a stand and do what was necessary to stop driving our national symbol toward extinction.
More here.
And the official site here.
It is indeed a wonderful day when our national symbol is not only safe from extinction, but flourishing. It also amuses me when some environmentalists protest removing species from the endangered list. I thought that was the point… to get the species back up to the levels that means it’s no longer endangered. I didn’t find any links to people protesting the bald eagle being removed, but if you poke around you can find lots of stories like this one.
Jim: Yup - sometimes it seems like the environmental movement is stuck on gloom, as if acknowledging successes will somehow demotivate their entire movement. Much better to force-feed kids doomsday scenarios that give them nightmares.
I’ve been enjoying a few days off, visiting family in San Antonio, Texas. Yesterday, I had the chance to visit Sea World San Antonio and, thanks to the hard work of one relative (she knows who she is) to take advantage of a special Sea World offering.
I’d been to Sea World before. A few years ago, my wife and I visited Sea World San Diego. We did the usual things — checked out the penguins, laughed at the walruses, and saw the dolphin, killer whale and sea lion shows. I remember leaving a little underwhelmed, but at the time, I couldn’t really put my finger on the reason.
Nevertheless, I was looking forward to yesterday’s Sea World visit, because I was going to experience something very cool — I was going to don a wet suit and get into a pool with several Beluga whales.
Beluga whales are native to the arctic, which explains their white coloring. According to the folks at Sea World, they cruise around widely, but have never been sited south of the South Lawrence River. Interestingly, Belugas are one of the few whales species that are essentially non-migratory. They like the cold water of the arctic, and so there they stay. Your basic Beluga is a little larger than a dolphin. At Sea World, the Belugas perform in a thrice daily show called Viva, which also incorporates acrobatic platform divers and some excitable dolphins.
So, after watching an educational video in air conditioned comfort, we were fitted with wet suits and aqua socks and made our way out to the pool. Why the wet suit? Well, as I mentioned, Belugas like their water cold — about 58 degrees Fahrenheit as it turns out — so we needed the wet suits to prevent hypothermia.
Once at the pool, we split up into small groups, a couple of us joining a a friendly “trainer” named Michelle.
Michelle instructed us on how to enter the pool and warned us that the first couple of minutes would be exceedingly cold while the wet suit warmed up. Nevertheless, she said, it’s important to keep still and not hop around lest the whales decide that they aren’t interested in meeting you after all. Sure enough, when we slid into the pool, it was cold. But in seconds one the four whales in the pool with us swam over and said hello, and the chilly water was quickly forgotten.
The whales were great fun, and interacting with them was an incredible experience. Their skin is very much like our own, and the melon at the front of their head — which acts as the transmission point for their sonar — was unique in my experience. Imagine the feeling if you didn’t have a skull and could move your brain around with your hands.
Most interesting was the fact that Belugas, unlike dolphins or orcas, have diffused vertebrae. That means they can turn and swivel their heads like we can. They diverged from other whales in another key respect as well: Belugas don’t have a dorsal fine. Instead, they have a bony ridge at the top of their back which they use for breaking breathing holes in arctic ice.
We spent the first few minutes taking pictures. The whales were trained to kiss us on the cheek, give us a hug, and lay next to us at the edge of the pool.
Over the next thirty minutes or so, we got to visit with each of the four whales, and Michelle demonstrated the various behaviors that each had been trained to perform on cue.
Michelle had mentioned earlier that she was not a marine biologist, general biologist, or chemist. In fact, her degree was in psychology, a background that she found to be perfect for working with the Belugas because, she explained, she was an expert in understanding and shaping behavior. Marine biologists, she said, focus on a large ecosystem. Biologists are more interested in physiology. No, she said, psychology was perfect for her job at Sea World as an “animal trainer.”
It was during this conversation that I realized what had been bugging me about Sea World.
At other zoos and aquariums that I have visited, there has always been a commitment to science. Often, this commitment is only the flimsiest pretense, but it is ever-present. Naturally, some zoos and aquariums do better than others in justifying their claims with action. But even the pretense is important. If the animals are there for study, then they are NOT solely there for our entertainment. Instead, we are holding them in captivity, at least in part, for our enlightenment or in an attempt to save their species from extinction. Ultimately, it is, at least in part, about them.
Thanks to its proximity and the fact that I am member, the bulk of my experience in such matters is with the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. There, biologists, veterinarians and zoologists participate in dozens of programs to help salvage species that are on the brink. A few that leap to mind include the Cheetah, Golden Lion Tamarin, Asian Elephant, and, of course, the famous Giant Panda. At their research facility near Winchester, Virginia, National Zoo scientists are also working to save a number of species of African grazing animals. The National Zoo also concerns itself with conservation. Conservation messages dot its campus, as the Zoo captures the opportunity to deliver those messages to zoo visitors at at the very time they might do the most good — when they are staring face to face with the kind of animal that they might help save.
At America’s foremost aquarium, the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California, scientists are making huge progress in understanding and saving species like the California Sea Otter. Indeed, their efforts to rescue orphaned pups and return them to the wild have set the standard for such programs all over the world. To the extent that facilities like Monterey Bay or the National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland, train animals like pacific bottlenose dolphins, they do so within the framework of having the animals exhibit behaviors that they would display in the wild — all the better for the guests to fall in love and help take action to keep wild dolphins from getting caught up in massive tuna nets.
Not so at Sea World.
Simply put, Sea World fails to put on even the barest pretense regarding conservation, as Michelle’s explanation of her educational background illustrates. If Sea World were interested in understanding Beluga whales, the person assigned to spend hour upon hour each day would have the background to understand and glean insights from their behavior. Instead, Sea World has assigned someone trained to understand and manipulate their behavior. Indeed, the person assigned to interact with guests in the presence of these great whales might spend a few minutes educating folks about what the whales’ life in the wild. (We wouldn’t have learned anything beyond what was in the video if we hadn’t asked.)
In short, it’s not about the animals. It’s about entertaining us.
This was brought home yet again later in the day when we attended the afternoon killer whale show. Instead of a simple show with the majestic whales exhibiting their behavior for all to see, we encountered a multi-media extravaganza, complete with jumbo-tron and contrived plot. And it was that plot that was so revealing. The story wasn’t about a whale. It wasn’t about marine life at all. And it certainly wasn’t about conservation. It was about a kid who wanted to be an animal trainer. Called “Believe,” the show was a shockingly self-indulgent — even for SeaWorld — masterpiece of self-congratulation. The whales, with all of their wondrous natural talent were relegated to props for the heroic trainers to ride to and fro. (Incidentally, as I scanned the audience during the show, I was struck by the fact that no one was watching the video. Everyone was looking for the whales. Note to Sea World: Your guests are there to sea the animals. Not the trainers.) The irony came together at the culmination of the show, which involved four trainers swimming a pattern across the pool and then perching on the pool edge to wave to the crowd. There were no whales in site.
It was after the show that I encountered the first and only conservation message that I witnessed during the entire day. It was a simple color flyer, promoting the Sea World / Busch Gardens conservation fund. I encountered it on the wall above a urinal.
I know that Sea World claims to be committed to conservation. I recall seeing coverage, from time to time, of Sea World Florida’s on-going effort to save injured Manatees. I vaguely hearing of grants and the like to scientists.
But in San Diego and San Antonio — the Sea World parks that I have visited — Sea World is evidently making a conscious decision to pass on a golden opportunity. Instead of embracing the opportunity for a day-long teachable moment, Sea World has rejected it in favor of employing their animals as nothing more than props.
Now, someone is going to argue that Sea World is in business to make money, and that they make money by entertaining their visitors. Well, duh. But Sea World can successfully conduct its business, entertain its guests, and demonstrate a commitment to a greater responsibility. That seems like a no brainer to me. And it should to them, too.
Sea World has the power to reach a lot of people, to teach them about our oceans and the life within — much of which is threatened by overfishing, pollution and countless other perils. But they choose not to.
Certainly, that’s their choice. Just as it’s my choice to spend my money elsewhere. And that’s just what I’ll be doing from now on. Even though I really enjoyed my morning with the Beluga whales.
UPDATE: Another person in my party reports seeing a good deal more information than I did about the conservation fund. There was also a quiz before the killer whale show that purported to be about conservation, but all of the questions were about the size and lifestyle of the whales at Sea World. Nothing about conditions in the wild or how to preserve them.
This person also suggests that the clearest message from Sea World or its parent, Anheuser-Busch, throughout the day were the repeated messages, signs and information celebrating visiting veterans. While I strongly support this effort, and was glad to join an ovation for the vets in attendance at the killer whale show, it underscores the utter failing when it comes to conservation. If Sea World could deliver a compelling (and well deserved) thank you for the troops, they could certainly do the same with a conservation message for their guests.
UPDATE II: It just hit that during my search to round up all of the links for this post, I had an incredibly hard time even finding anything about conservation on Sea World’s various websites. Just another proof point…
Cam: Full disclosure requires that I state I have family members that work for Sea World’s parent company… so make what you will of my comments.
I have never been to Sea World, so I cannot speak with any first-hand knowledge of their conservation efforts. I will only say that it took me literally seconds to find information about conservation on Sea World’s website. I see that Sea World has given more than $2.2 million dollars in grants for conservation efforts since 2004. The fund has helped detain more than 250 poachers. And the fund has helped engineer a design change for fishhooks that reduce the number of sea turtles caught by 90%. So there.
I realize this might put me on Al Gore’s shit list, but I don’t constantly need to be reminded of the urgent need to SAVE THE PLANET! Sometimes it’s cool to go and see some neat creatures without it being drummed into my head that if only I wasn’t so greedy and consumerific that there’d be more of these majestic sea slugs for the world to enjoy. Sometimes I just want to see a dancing whale. Though I have to say, the whole “Trainer” thing does sound kinda lame.
Shempu: Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! You want to see a dancing whale, huh? You weren’t saying that the other day when I was doing the Lambada in the living room.
Cam: That’s because A) Thongs on whales aren’t appealing, and B) I was trying to eat at the time.
Jim: Fascinating stuff, Marshall. I’ve never been to Sea World, and so I can’t evaluate whether the criticism is fair. I do know the Baltimore Aquarium, a pretty darn good one, does a good show with quite a bit of education of species, etc.
I have been to the National Zoo quite a bit, and the last time I was there (summer 2004, I think? Hey, I’ve been out of the country for two years) it looked more than a little run down. I’ll have to check it out to see if the facilities have improved.
So, reading the latest issue of NRODT, I came across two comments in two articles that I’d file away in my mental back pocket as we discuss what could unify conservatives the way the Contract With America unified the right back in 1994…
(By the way… let me point out that IF the Republicans lose the White House in 2008, and fail to win back either house of Congress, the bad news politically could be good news for some very motivated, energetic, skilled movement of conservatives eager to set the agenda. As much as we mock the netroots, they moved astoundingly fast after the 2004 mess to get control of the Democratic party. They figured out what it would take to get their hero, Howard Dean, as chair of the DNC and did it. Two years later, not only did they get to take partial credit for the gains in Congress, but look at the other signs of their political influence: There are no more pro-Iraq-war Democrats left besides Lieberman, no Democratic presidential candidate wants them as an enemy (even Hillary), and no Democrat will appear on Fox News. We can argue whether these are worthwhile uses of newfound political power and influence, but the netroots figured out how to go from an easily-dismissed fringe often compared to the bar scene in Star Wars to a force that commands respect, even deference, in Democratic party circles.
On paper, if the GOP is in the same sad shape in 2008 that the Democrats were in 2004, a right-root movement could jump in and start steering the party in its preferred direction…)
First, in Jim Manzi’s cover story, “Game Plan: What Conservatives Should Do About Global Warming”:
The British entrepreneur Richard Branson has offered a $25 million prize to anyone who demonstrates a device that removes carbon from the atmosphere; what if the U.S. government upped the ante to $1 billion and pledged to make any resulting technology freely available to the world? That would hold the potential for solving any global warming problem that might develop, for a one time cost of less than 0.01 percent of U.S. GDP.
By the way, science may not be that far away, if this article in the Economist is correct:
That does not mean that lateral thinking about the problem has no place. And the idea proposed by Alfred Wong of the University of California, Los Angeles, at last week’s meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in Acapulco, is about as lateral as they come. Dr Wong reckons the problem is not so much that CO2 is being thrown away, but that it is not being thrown far enough. According to his calculations, a little helping hand would turn the Earth’s magnetic field into a conveyor belt that would vent the gas into outer space, whence it would never return.
Could you imagine that? Our friends on the left, hip-deep in planning carbon taxes, SUV bans, light bulb police, licensed and regulated carbon offset dealers… and we come along and say, “never mind! We just figured out how to flush our excess CO2 out beyond the atmosphere!”
Second line, a comment from Brink Lindsey, quoting David Frum: “And just as the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Grant eventually ran out of Civil War Generals to nominate to the presidency, so perhaps time has run out for the old Nixon-Reagan Coalition that came together to vote against the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. The 1960s and 1970s were, after all, a very long time ago.”
Yup. I’d rather see conservative leaders coming out with some off-the-wall ideas that I’m not sure I agree with, instead of offering up the same agenda that was hot stuff back in 1982…