I'm all in favor of casting critical light on Obama appointees, but this is ridiculous. You're going to attack a man who is soon to be responsible for the entire National Park system and described as the "cream of the crop" of the service (and remember, this is a system the the Rethugs would like to see dismantled) because he did a mediocre job mediating between two different sets of scientific reports about a single fricking oyster farm?

All I can say is this is typical Bay Area narcissistic B.S. Your tiny little problems with a single little piece of a large regional ecosystem (the "local agriculture" movement says it all, no?) outweigh all other concerns, country wide. Of course they do.

But even the logic here is dodgy. Why should we automatically assume that the NAS report is more unbiased than the NP report? NAS can be stacked w/ cronies too and is just as likely to have accumulated scientists with a pro-industry bias as the NP is to have accumulated over-zealous defenders of wilderness, no? And this talk of "cover up" and "attempts to rewrite reality" reflect someone totally out of touch with practical reality and with no sense of perspective. Dick Cheney and the CIA this is not.

The farm's lease is up, a gov't agency wants that land for another purpose, everyone is bent out of shape. Happens all the time. The fact that the NP service has taken the trouble of trying to evaluate the environmental effects of the farm, even going so far as to commission (at its own expense) a report critical of its own scientists indicates that it has done way, way more than any other government agency would normally do in such a case (to say nothing of any other landlord). Get over it.

The article gives no evidence for its insinuations, except that some (hardly disinterested) people have certain opinions that clash with others' opinions, and certain people changed their minds after a shitstorm of criticism.

Whoopee.

This is such a silly article. As western regional director, he was probably dragged into the periphery of this issue because Alice Waters squawked about local oysters, or something. He had absolutely nothing to do with the initial compiling of the report. It was written by park natural resources staff, who have varying levels of scientific training. With budget constraints it is often difficult to collect and analyze data with appropriate rigor. The NAS came in and gave them some criticism. Of course he was going to try to make his agency look as good and as capable as possible.

His actions are not even remotely comparable to the despicable, all-out, blatant war on peer-reviewed science conducted by Bush appointees. PLEASE.

i read a book in 2004 about shrimp farming. in this case it was menioed

concrete [?] pools

and clorine to kill the gunk on the fishies formed by the guunk formed by the gros concrete pools..

concrete? [this is a long mis-matched reply]

why not like a fish tank?

something less liekly to get gunk into it's pores and almost impossible to clean with a sqeaky window, wiper?

[absolute-surly gROSSS...]

oysters in natural waters on a oyster farm?

umm..

okay so i'm over at Master Sin No Bouyancy Considered

and listenng to an olberman run..

everyones newly fav straving politcan make news...

now she wnts to grab conservative dems [nothing new] for her champaign.....

as if obama wasn't awful enough.

the answer [ask nasa] is nO, we perfer NOT to bomb russia for shell/exxon [whatever the headtrip is there]

and at least when putin flew over usa he didn;t drop a bomb? eH? [putin is like any poltican: a politican..to palin fly over putins huse and do your own dirty work]

olberman says plain lokks thinner. bummer..who's gonna buy her new digs?

not me.

take a hint;

go to the goodwill and learn to truly dress down.

[i still wouldnt vote for her.]

less lipstick.

make your own eyeshadow w/ the plums from your kitchen.

use the flowers from your own garden for blush.

try baking soda as arm pit armanment.

i supose like johnson she could lift and show any surgery scars.

the answer would still be no.

upgrade her glasses: go to the local shelter ask for someones scratched or not, correctional vision of no concern.

floss more.

farmed oysters?

http://www.google.com/patents?q=darpa+neural+targeting&spell=1&scoring=1&output=rss

[thid also ght be a repeat]

--------i think, i know my food from my persons-----------

5.14.h. Human and/or Animal Use

www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/solicitations/sbir092/darpa092.doc

This solicitation may contain topics that have been identified by the program manager as research involving Human and/or Animal Use. In accordance with DoD Policy, human and/or animal subjects in research conducted or supported by DARPA shall be protected. Although these protocols will most likely not be needed to carry out the Phase I, significant lead time is required to prepare the documentation and obtain approval in order to avoid delay of the Phase II award. Please visit http://www.darpa.mil/sbir/ to review the Human and Animal Use PowerPoint presentation(s) to understand what is required to comply with human and/or animal protocols.

Human Use: All research involving human subjects, to include use of human biological specimens and human data, selected for funding must comply with the federal regulations for human subject protection. Further, research involving human subjects that is conducted or supported by the DoD must comply with 32 CFR 219, Protection of Human Subjects (http://www.dtic.mil/biosys/downloads/32cfr219.pdf), and DoD Directive 3216.02, Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoD-Supported Research (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321602p.pdf ).

--the ocean covers 70% of the earth...pass onto the idiot, currently, being intervied via olberman..where's my drink and powerstation : i come to conclusion the car shuld drive by the turn of a key, only---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31897726

U.S. patent number 6,011,991-Abstract Drawing Description Claims

Abstract [ this may be repeative info.]

A system and method for enabling human beings to communicate by way of their monitored brain activity. The brain activity of an individual is monitored and transmitted to a remote location (e.g. by satellite). At the remote location, the monitored brain activity is compared with pre-recorded normalized brain activity curves, waveforms, or patterns to determine if a match or substantial match is found. If such a match is found, then the computer at the remote location determines that the individual was attempting to communicate the word, phrase, or thought corresponding to the matched stored normalized signal.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=cQABAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6011991

6,011,991