Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog

Horace Cooper on Obama Administration's Non-Compromise on Birth Control Mandate

2012-02-10T22:31:58Z

National Center adjunct fellow Horace Cooper criticizes President Barack Obama’s attempt to claim a compromise has been made on his mandate that faith-based institutions alter their values and beliefs to comply with Obamacare contraception/abortifacient rules. This interview was broadcast on WLEA-Hornell, New York on February 10, 2012.

Steven Crowder to Host CPAC Blogger Awards

2012-02-10T21:31:38Z

On Friday night at CPAC 2012, the National Center’s Steven Crowder will host the “Red Carpet Blogger Awards.”

Blogosphere luminaires slated to be recognized at the event include Dana Loesch, Ed Morrissey, Ben Shapiro and James O’Keefe.

The awards program begins at 9:30PM eastern, and will be held in the Maryland room of the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, D.C.

Catholic Bishops Cannot Accept White House "Compromise" on Birth Control Without Surrendering Principles

2012-02-10T19:36:29Z

President Obama’s “compromise” mandatory birth control/early abortifacient regulation, announced today, has a huge problem within it the White House should have foreseen. If it didn’t, it is incompetent; if it did, it is going out of its way to offend Catholics and others opposed to the mandate on religious grounds.

Specifically, the White House claims that religious institutions will not be indirectly funding birth control and early abortifacients under the new, compromise, mandate, because health costs go down when women (not men?) use birth control. Thus, the White House argues, there no employer-to-insurer subsidy occurring when a religious employer triggers the mandate, as the insurer will pay for the benefit out of “savings.”

Here’s the problem: The “savings” substantially comes from pregnancy avoidance. That’s what religious-based opponents of the birth control/early abortifacient mandate objected to in the first place.

The Catholic Bishops can’t accept Obama’s alleged compromise without compromising the principles that brought them into this debate.

Obama Compromise Infringement of the First Amendment is Still Unconstitutional

2012-02-10T17:36:39Z

Responding to President Obama's announcement a few minutes ago of a "compromise" in the matter of the Department of Health and Human Services forcing Americans to subsidize contraception and early abort , the National Center has just issued a statement:

Obama Compromise Infringement of the First Amendment Guarantee of Freedom of Religion is Still Unconstitutional

Officials at the National Center for Public Policy Research are responding today to President Obama's "compromise" infringement of the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Religion in the matter of the HHS "free" contraception/early abortifacient mandate.

Horace Cooper, author of the National Center paper "The Birth Control Mandate is Unconstitutional," adjunct fellow at the National Center and a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University in Virginia, said:
"This isn't a real compromise. Religious organizations will ultimately pay in higher premiums for the services their employees receive. And secondly even this exemption fails to accept that the government may not force citizens to choose between their faith or obeying the law regardless of where they work or who they employ."
Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center, said:
"If this 'compromise' First Amendment infringement were accepted, would it not be a huge hole in the tent through which HHS could then decide that the churches themselves must also provide this coverage?

As insurance companies would build the cost of 'free' coverage into the pricing of the contraception/early abortifacient packages that would be offered alongside the other policies, under the compromise, wouldn't the religious-affiliated institutions be paying for the contraception/early abortifacient coverage anyway, just indirectly? Isn't the compromise just a big spin and an insult to churches, because it implies that they just want an 'out' to permit them to pretend that they aren't providing coverage they believe is immoral?

The HHS mandate is an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment. The compromise is, too.

President Obama noted in his announcement that 'we live in a pluralistic society.' Too bad 'pluralism' to him means my way or the highway."
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank with over 100,000 recent supporters. Contributions to it are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Green Activists Push Polystyrene Ban in California; We Push Back

2012-02-09T16:12:18Z

In an op-ed in the Orange County Register, Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution and I argue against a legislative effort to ban polystyrene foodservice containers throughout California.

We write:

The California Assembly could soon vote to make the state the first to forbid any food establishment from using “expanded polystyrene foam,” the kind of plastic used in disposable food-service items.
The bill, which passed the Senate and two Assembly committees last year, would likely have the support of Gov. Jerry Brown, who, as mayor of Oakland, pushed a ban on the material at the Oakland Coliseum, where the city’s professional baseball and football teams play.
Proponents of the ban allege that expanded polystyrene foam containers – which are sometimes incorrectly called “styrofoam” – are responsible for polluting waterways, killing sea birds and threatening human health. These claims deserve careful examination. Improperly discarded plastic containers (as well as other sorts of consumer waste) do wind up in storm drains and waterways and are, indeed, a blight, but restrictions on consumer products should be narrowly tailored to address specific problems.
If the problem is litter, let’s just enforce laws against littering instead of banning a product that, as is evident from its monumental popularity, fills a real need. That was exactly what the Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle) recommended in a legislatively mandated 2004 report about polystyrene. In a rare display of rationality by a California government agency, the report made several constructive suggestions, including the improvement of anti-litter education and making the act of littering a civil offense (to facilitate the issuance of tickets).
But activists weren’t satisfied; having decided they didn’t like polystyrene and wanting to rid the world of it, they demanded a ban. They concocted a tale about consumers’ use of these plastic containers threatening public health. Their only “evidence” was the fact that in June 2011 the National Toxicology Program added styrene, the chemical precursor of polystyrene, to a list of chemicals that are “reasonably anticipated” to be a carcinogen.
But there is less to this than meets the eye. The NTP based its precautionary conclusion on animal studies and from industrial, not consumer exposures. The activists’ claims were bogus; in fact, NTP officials were so concerned about the misrepresentation of their report by groups like those pushing for the California ban that they sent their associate director, John Bucher, to discuss polystyrene risks with the Associated Press. He concluded, “It’s not worth being concerned about.”
Although the NTP’s listing is of minimal legal significance, the action has given new life to various efforts to malign polystyrene. For example, The Environmental Defense Fund claimed that occupational (rather than environmental) exposure to styrene is “associated” with leukemia and lymphoma. Yet the human studies that EDF used are unreliable and irrelevant because the workers were also exposed to butadiene, a known carcinogen.
It is no wonder, then, that after reviewing styrene studies in 1994 and again in 2002, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has continually refused to categorize it as a “known,” or even likely human carcinogen. Regulatory agencies in the U.K. and Canada have come to the same conclusion.
Without a good environmental or health justification for a ban, one has to wonder how such an unsound piece of legislation could get so close to becoming law. The answer appears to be that it is backed by a diverse group of California’s left-wing activists (both houses of the state legislature are heavily Democratic) who have coalesced to promote an issue that seemingly has little do with their mission.
Although it is easy to understand why companies like Be Green Packaging LLC are lobbying to support a ban on their competitors – shameless self-interest, or what economists call “rent-seeking” – it is less clear why the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees is a supporter. A connection between an unjustified ban on a popular consumer product and the interests of government employees might seem obscure – except that the bill would exempt food vendors in school districts and local governments who recycle at least 60 percent of their polystyrene foam. Unionists call this a jobs creation bill because it would likely require schools to hire new teams of recycling sanitation crews.
Polystyrene’s defenders argue that the cups, plates and other products offer superior insulation, strength, and durability at a lower cost than alternatives, and that the ban will cost jobs in California, where some polystyrene is made. But they, too, are overstating the case: California manufacturers also make alternatives to polystyrene.
The real costs and disadvantages of a ban on this safe and useful product will be borne by consumers, who will have to pay more to keep their takeout food clean and warm. These consumers will include school districts, the vast majority of which will fail to achieve the unrealistic 60 percent recycling goal required for exemption. This will divert limited funds from actual education to the purchase of more expensive, polystyrene-free serving trays, plates and cups. Maybe the unions and other supporters of a ban on polystyrene don’t care about that, but taxpayers – and their representatives in the Legislature – should.

Would Jesus Pay for Abortions?

2012-02-09T09:30:28Z

That question may seem sacrilegious to some, and for that I apologize, but it seems pertinent in light of the Obama Administration's new rule, announced by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelious on January 20, that religious institutions providing social services must provide coverage for contraception, sterilization procedures and early abortifacients to all of their employees as part of their insurance plans.

If Jesus conducted his earthly ministry in the U.S. today instead of in Judaea 2,000 years ago, how might He have handled modern cultural questions?

From the Lazarus story, we might infer He'd support health insurance coverage for His disciples. From the loaves and fishes story, we observe He conducted charity work. So the new HHS regulation would apply to His ministry. How might He have responded?

While leaving that question for readers to ponder, I commend to everyone Horace Cooper's new paper, "The Health Care Mandate is Unconstitutional." Horace doesn't predict what Jesus would do if directly faced by this HHS regulation, but Horace has a pretty firm prediction about what the Supreme Court will say if Congress does not -- as it should -- promptly overturn this rule.

League of Conservation Voters Responds to My Blog Post

2012-02-08T22:31:07Z

Via Twitter, the League of Conservation Voters has issued a response to my blog post of earlier today, "League of Conservation Voters Cries Wolf... Again," teasing it (using LCV's own data) for its exaggerated claim that the 2011 Congress was "the most anti-environmental" ever.

"LCVoters" tweeted:

@NationalCenter The current House is most anti-environment ever b/c of breadth & depth of assaults on clean air, public health, etc.

My response:

Oh... I'm absolutely cut to the quick.

I was not aware that a plurality of conservatives in one-half of one branch of government could represent such a deep and wide assault on the environment.

I suppose the LCV thinks, in retrospect, that the Private Property Protection Act, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act; the Cost Benefit Act; the Regulatory Transition Act (freeze on new regulations); the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act; the Congressional Review Act (allowing Congress to review agency rules and pass a motion of disapproval to stop them); the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995; the "infamous" EPA Riders; the "Endangered Species Conservation and Management Act"; and a host of other initiatives that the left was screaming about back in 1995 were swell.

I always thought these things were just swell... I just didn't know LCV did, too.

If that's not what the LCV means, perhaps it should lay out its detailed methodology for determining that the "current House is the most anti-environment ever b/c of the breadth & depth of assaults on clean air, public health, etc." And it ought to be a lot more thorough than its weak offering "the House Republican leadership voted nearly 200 times to weaken environmental protections."

In 1995, they practically had 200 votes on environmental and health issues before breakfast... on a light day.

Time to either put up or shut up, LCV.

Did you do a rigorous analysis to make your determination – or was it all rhetoric just to generate press for an organization that many thought had gone out of existence?

League of Conservation Voters Cries Wolf... Again

2012-02-08T19:24:48Z

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) just released its 2011 scorecard and noted, "The 2011 Scorecard reflects the most anti-environmental session of the U.S. House of Representatives in history, featuring unparalleled assaults on our nation's bedrock environmental and public health safeguards."

Seems to me I've heard that claim before... repeatedly. I know for sure that the LCV made that claim in 1995.

So did the House surpass even 1995 as the most anti-environmental, even if one accepts LCV's definition of "anti-environment"?

Let's see: LCV says, "In the Senate (in 2011), 13 senators earned an appalling 0% score, while in the House 4 members earned a 0% score."

And what are the comparable numbers for 1995? 22 Senators received a 0% LCV rating while 111 House members received a 0% LCV rating.

I'm no math genius, but the 1995 numbers look much better -- that is to say, much "worse" from LCV's perspective.

Some advice to LCV: If you're going to make stuff up in an attempt to get the media to pay attention to you, at least make sure it is consistent with the stuff you made up in the past.

Another Project 21-Associated Film Screening at CPAC on Thursday Night

2012-02-08T13:40:42Z

“Runaway Slave,” a film to be screened at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., is another film that will be shown that contains the contributions of Project 21 spokespersons. This documentary feature will be getting a special sneak preview at the conference.

The brainchild of Pastor C.L. Bryant, a former local NAACP official in Texas who is now an outspoken conservative, “Runaway Slave” is described as “revealing the ‘new underground railroad’ and the mindset of a cultural acceptance of entitlements and big government.”

Promotional material for the film further notes:

The black conservatives interviewed in “Runaway Slave” do not bow to political correctness. Their thoughts and experiences are laid bare for an audience hungry for the truth.

Project 21 members Dozier Gray, Dr. Alveda King and Deneen Borelli were interviewed for “Runaway Slave.”

The film is expected to be released nationally later in 2012.

“Runaway Slave” will be shown on Thursday, February 9 at 7:30PM eastern in the Wilson C meeting room at the Marriott Wardman Park. Deneen will participate in a panel discussion at the screening.

A trailer for the film can be found below:

Horace Cooper Interview on “Ghost Voting”

2012-02-07T22:01:53Z

National Center Adjunct Fellow and Project 21 spokesman Horace Cooper recently did an interview with CNSNews about his paper on “ghost voting” and the need for stronger protections against ballot fraud:

The interview came about due to Horace’s new National Policy Analysis for the National Center, “When the Dead Vote, the Living Suffer: Department of Justice is Wrong to Oppose Voter ID.”

In that paper, Horace wrote:

Some states and jurisdictions might be understandably concerned that “ghost voting” and other types of voter fraud are allowed to run rampant when state-ID isn’t required. Indeed, thirty-one states currently demand some form of valid identification before voters can pull the lever for their favored candidate, and states are increasingly looking for constitutional ways to strengthen their voting laws in an effort to clamp down on election fraud.

…

Unfortunately, many of the common sense efforts being tried by states have been resisted by the Obama Administration, and legally challenged by its politically-charged Department of Justice.

…

The irony is that minorities know full well the history of voter suppression techniques. American history is replete with examples of poll taxes, literacy tests and even physical intimidation designed to limit the exercise of the franchise. Ghost voting is just as sinister and is even harder to detect.

Yet voter ID is a straightforward solution that the DOJ ought to be demanding, rather than opposing.

FDA Tobacco Science Panel Headed in Wrong Direction

2012-02-07T20:10:27Z

The Food and Drug Administration’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) has posted a draft summary of their report on dissolvable tobacco products. The report is available for download here. The report was required by Congress and will be considered by the FDA is it evaluates how to regulate newer dissolvable tobacco products.

I attended portions of the meetings held in preparation for this report, and offered my comments as part of the open hearing. A video of my testimony is available here. I am disappointed with TPSAC’s approach so far.

The draft report fails to properly take into account the potential, as well as documented benefits of switching from the most harmful form of tobacco use, cigarette smoking, to lower-risk, but still not safe products, such as dissolvable tobacco and snus.

An examination of the beginning of the report makes the approach clear.

TPSAC considered the burden of tobacco‐related morbidity and premature mortality to be the appropriate indicator in addressing this element of its charge. That burden reflects the number of users of tobacco products, their patterns of use, and the risks of the products that they use, as set out in Figure 1.

TPSAC lumps together all forms of “tobacco-related” effects, as if all forms of tobacco use were equally harmful. You might think that Figure 1 illustrates that “the risks of products they use” are different, but Figure 1 shows no such difference.

The report fails to appropriately acknowledge that cigarettes are by their nature more harmful than smokeless products, which are less dangerous because they are not burned and not inhaled.

The report gives little credence to the Swedish experience,  as studied in published reports by University of Louisville’s Dr. Brad Rodu. Dr. Rodu found that in Sweden, where snus replaced cigarette smoking, citizens suffered significantly fewer tobacco related diseases, including less oral cancer.

TPSAC writes that the Swedish tobacco harm reduction experience has “unique characteristics,” and therefore we shouldn’t place much weight on the very well-documented reduced rates of tobacco related illness, as the population began using snus rather than cigarettes.

Of course the experience in Sweden has “unique characteristics.” And Snus is different than the dissolvable tobacco products TPSAC is reporting on. But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn a tremendous amount from their experience. And of course, some differences between Sweden and the U.S. suggest that we ought to be more like the Swedes. I doubt that many Swedes would have switched to snus if they were subjected to American-style scare campaigns; if they were, they’d probably still be smoking cigarettes.

Furthermore, TPSAC makes the completely unfounded argument that , “For health benefits to be obtained, complete substitution of snus for cigarettes was needed.”

In plain english, that means, that TPSAC believes that in order for smokeless products to have any redeeming value to current smokers, anyone trying to switch must switch completely and never smoke even one cigarette again.

Consider: if you smoke ten cigarettes a day, and you substitute snus for five of those cigarettes, there would be zero benefit to your health, according to TPSAC. This is simply untrue. We know that the more cigarettes you smoke, the more you harm yourself. And while completely quitting all tobacco use is best, cutting your smoking in half, even with the help of smokeless products, would yield real health benefits. It’s too bad, for smokers, and those of us who have to pay for their health care, that TPSAC is unwilling to admit this. 

Project 21 a Longtime Critic of Sneaker Riots

2012-02-07T19:55:14Z

As police were clearing out scofflaw Occupy D.C. protesters from McPherson Square in the nation’s capital, police in nearby Hagerstown, Maryland were clearing shoppers out of Valley Mall because of rioting that broke out there over shoes.

While D.C.’s Occupy locations are among the last of those kinds of protest encampments left, the sneaker riots unfortunately seem to be continuing unabated. Are we in for “sneaker spring” uprisings as the economy continues to stagnate and people continue to fixate on petty extravagances such as high-priced athletic shoes?

Last summer, this sort of boorish behavior first began receiving national attention when “flash mobs” robbed stores in flurries of unstoppable criminal behavior. In December, shopping malls become riot scenes — replete with assaults and looting — when not everyone could get their own pair of Nike’s Air Jordan XI Concord sneakers.

Over this past weekend in Maryland, it was Nike’s new Foam sneaker. At Valley Mall, it was reported that around a dozen police officers cleared out the approximately 150 people battling over 90 pairs of the shoes.

Project 21 has long been a critic of self-appointed community leaders who meekly stand aside as morality declines in their neighborhoods. Project 21 spokespeople are condemning the obvious moral decline that is plaguing America right now, and have been quick to commend those springing to action as well as those who choose to ignore or perpetuate the problem by trying to redirect blame from people who need an infusion of the values that helped make America great.

Project 21’s Lisa FritschFor example, last August, Project 21 spokeswoman Lisa Fritsch praised Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia NAACP president J. Whayatt Mondesire and Milwaukee NAACP president James Hall, Jr. for calling out the rioters and demanding more civility. Lisa wrote in a New Visions Commentary:

But while violent “flash mobs” may be on the rise and in vogue, black youth have engaged in self-destructive behavior for decades. They have been a virulent destructive force in their communities — embracing drugs and crime, leaving a lineage of illegitimacy and thumbing their noses at educational opportunities.

…

Until recently, this problem was confined to urban communities. Now that it’s spreading, people are taking notice. The mobsters obviously think the ghetto is now too small for their devious diversions. They’ve acquired a taste for the finer sections of town.

In this bleak economy, cities cannot afford to have residents afraid to leave their homes. It’s an awakening that’s long overdue.

The tough love of curfews and community action are a good start. And, while Mayor Nutter’s comments on the state of the culture is exactly what needed to be said, it was his candid spiritual estimation of the situation that gets to the root cause of the problem of the decline of morality in the black community.

Project 21’s Deneen BorelliMore recently, after December’s sneaker riots, Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli wrote in January:

These instances point to a moral breakdown of our society — especially among young people with misguided priorities who are not held accountable for their actions. Morals have seemingly taken a back seat to things that are thought to be worth more than respect.

…

Why are black leaders largely mute about this bad behavior? Where were the voices of black leaders standing up against the “flash mobs” in 2011? Why isn’t the White House decrying its former colleague for publicly preparing for what he refers to, and one must assume, is hoping to help instigate, a “turbulent” year?

Actions have consequences. To continue on this destructive path will result in a bleak future that for many will include violent acts, incarceration and even early death.

Our country is in vital need of a morality surge in which parents, grandparents, church members and lawmakers all play a role.

There are thousands of misguided youths who desperately need love, guidance and discipline on a consistent basis. This would help put them on a path towards personal responsibility and success.

Both Lisa’s and Deneen’s New Visions Commentaries were initially published on the Daily Caller web site. As this problem continues, these won’t be the last times that Project 21 members speak out about America’s moral decline.

Film Featuring Project 21’s Deneen Borelli Screening at CPAC

2012-02-07T14:42:03Z

Deneen Borelli in “Fire From the Heartland”At the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, convening this week at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, D.C., participants have the opportunity to see Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli in “Fire From the Heartland.”

From Citizens United Productions, “Fire From the Heartland” is billed as the “first-ever film to tell the entire story of the conservative woman in her own words.” Deneen is joined by Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Malkin, Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and others, discussing the part women played in building America and how conservatism has played a central role in that development.

“Fire From the Heartland” will be screened on Thursday, February 9, at 11:00AM eastern in the CPAC Theater at the Marriott Wardman Park and is open to all CPAC attendees.

Deneen and Tom Borelli will be at CPAC 2012 as well.

To follow is a trailer for the film that includes Deneen:

David Almasi Talks About Taking Back Freedom Plaza

2012-02-06T18:46:18Z

Last Friday, National Center executive director David W. Almasi — permit in hand — visited Washington, D.C.’s Freedom Plaza. This is the where the National Center will be conducting free-market-oriented rallies and other events between February 13 and March 15. This is also one of the two campsites for Occupy D.C.

Joining David on the plaza was Dan Joseph of MRCTV. They talked about the permit and the National Center’s plans.

As the interview winds down, some of the plaza’s more permanent fixtures begin to stir and give a preview of the kind of interactions that might be in store for the National Center in the coming weeks.

Public Lands in Decay; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Trains "Diversity Change Agents"

2012-02-04T04:28:38Z

Good heavens!! Can this be serious?

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service put out a press release today saying, in part:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Welcomes Inaugural Class of Diversity Change Agents

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today graduated its first Diversity Change Agent Training Class, approximately 60 committed Service employees at all levels of the agency who will serve as mentors and advocates for workforce diversity. Graduates of the course will be utilized throughout the Service as role models...

Deputy Director for Operations Rowan Gould, along with each Regional Director is hosting a "Championing Diversity" workshop this week to reach a broad audience at all levels that will train and educate Service members on how to be champions of diversity...

"Almost all of us, if we're fortunate, can point to a person who, through their actions and integrity, had a profound influence on our life and how we view the world. That's why this program is so powerful. As an agency, we are strongly committed to workplace diversity, but it is the effort and example of committed individuals that will truly enable us to realize this vision," said Deputy Director Gould.

...As part of its commitment to diversity, the Service has also finalized and begun to implement a five-year diversity and inclusion plan which will allow the agency to progressively realize its vision of inclusiveness at all levels of the agency...

We just celebrated Groundhog Day, not April Fool's Day. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is training diversity change agents. Diversity police.

No wonder the Public Lands are in such disarray and decay. No wonder native flora and fauna are vanishing and being replaced by non-native alien invasive species. No one is minding the shop. Still more proof of the fact that good stewardship of land, habitat, and wildlife can only come through private ownership and the self-interested concerns of private owners, and seldom, if ever, from 9-5 bureaucrats with every possible conflicting interest and no dedicated long-term concerns.

What, me worry?

This is precisely what happened to the nation's government forests. Over the years the U.S. Forest Service took on every imaginable goal and interest -- except healthy forest management. It filled its ranks with what were called the "Ologists" -- experts in every sort of study except for forestry. Protecting everything in the woods except the trees themselves. And while perhaps "politically correct" in the eyes of some -- it has led inexorably to the sad state of the government woods. Dying and dead from vast overcrowding, accumulation of staggering amounts of forest debris and undergrowth -- fuel loads -- trees weakened by the stress of overcrowding and a struggle for water and nutrients -- and then susceptible to disease, insect infestations, and catastrophic stand replacement fires -- destroying forests, wildlife, endangered species, watersheds, and viewsheds for decades, if not centuries.

Will that sad scenario become the fate of the nation's wildlife now? Will the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service now be sending duck hunters, elk hunters, and even birders, out into field and stream dressed in tutus? The Possum Police will now be engaged in "job shadowing?" Will that help expand waterfowl populations or rare butterflies and Neotropical migrant songbirds? Tell me it isn't so.

You can't make this stuff up.