What was it Robert Frost said about that road making all the difference? Well, how the hell does he know?
I just read Lance's post about Sir Hannity and the delta smelt. I'm somewhat hesitant to look like I may - in any way - be perceived as a Hannity apologist, but I have to throw in my .02.
Life is full of choices. In my experience the most important choices involve some form of compromise. We usually give up something good (or potential good) in favor of something we view as better (or potentially so). I know that tearing apart Sean Hannity quotes is as easy as, well, shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel, but in the case of this smelt, what is the compromise? The topic has become a lightning rod for an old-hat debate that easily falls along the left vs right paradigm, environmentalists vs businesses, and unfortunately Hannity has become the official talking head for one side. I admit that it's difficult to separate the man from the issue, but what are we really talking about? The fate of this fish is at hand. It has been legally classified "endangered" and the experts believe that turning off the delta pumps will help. On the other side, millions of people and farms depend on the water those pumps provide. Fair trade? Well, I guess that depends if you're asking the smelt or the farmers.
John Stewart pointed out that were it not for government subsidies, these farms would not exist in the California valley. Well, that's not exactly true either, Mr. Stewart. It's true that most of the farms take some sort of Federal subsidies, but I highly doubt that some of the most fertile land in the world would be farm free were it not for the Federal government. It would certainly look different, but I doubt all farming would cease. Furthermore, is that supposed to be an argument for the government shutting off the water? If the smelt is more important than the California farming industry, then why the hell do my tax dollars go those subsidies every year? Was that money well spent?
Lastly, what assurance do we have that shutting off these pumps will save the smelt? Is it a speculation or a guarantee? If California decides that saving the smelt is a greater good than a healthy agriculture industry and the pumps stay off, will we look back and say, "that smelt made all the difference?" I wonder what the farmers will say if they relocate, leave the farming business or end up pumping water from Colorado. I wonder what the consumers will say if they pay more for their food. I wonder what the environmentalists will say, if Californian produce is once again primarily shipped from over seas.
October 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There is definitely a lot to consider on this one. Too bad people like Hannity can never see the subtle intricacies of an issue though, and instead he has to boil it down to "a two inch fish!"
As for Stewart not being correct, I think that his only point was to show Hannity's hypocrisy, as Hannity is always going on about "big government" when "big government" made at least some of these farms possible in the first place.
I really don't know how much of an impact the government had. The one thing that I do know is that California seems to have a drought quite often. That's definitely one aspect of this that they're not quite looking at.
The common ploy used in recent fish vs farmer battles is pitting the farmer against some non-charismatic minnow (smelt in this case) or a sucker (Klamath Falls). What we don't hear about is that these same waters also support habitat and (in the case of smelt) food for salmon. It is a lot easier drumming up anti-environmental cheers when we aren't discussing a fish we eat and whose fishery supports a lot of jobs. Or used to in the case of the Pacific Northwest. I'd like to see Hannity address the commercial fishermen who depend upon a healthy delta.
Post a Comment