We've heard the same thing, and to make Senator Coburn even more of an aggravating so-and-so, we've heard that the hold has nothing to do with guns, with Jarvis or even with the NPS, but has something to do with border security issues. Since Coburn held the credit card right legislation with his guns amendment, it's not out of the question he's holding the Jarvis confirmation hostage for some other pet-scheme he's pushing.

Bill Wade
Chair, Executive Council
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

Yo Bill-----This only makes my point, in spades, about the absolute necessity of removing the national park system from the criminally insane and corrupt spoils shake down that IS Washington politics.

Is this any way to run a supposedly "profesional" organization? Well, yeah, I guess if you're a group of Brooklyn mobsters involved in a turf war with New Jersey wiseguys. In that scenario this way of doing business makes total sense.

As far as being the wellspring of effective land management policies it is nothing short of a pathetic joke.

Always has been.

Always will be under the current umbrella called federal management.

Makes you want to move to OK just to vote against him!

Thanks so much for the posting Beamis and for your insightful outlook, penetrating wit and tireless efforts to expose the cognitive dissonance many status quo defenders must feel.

Federal bankruptcy is impending; hopefully readers will wake up and investigate non-political management systems, such as conservation land trusts.

Before the usual suspects jump me for being "negative" I'd like to point out that love of the parks has nothing to do with supporting the federal bureaucracy that oversees their operation. Yellowstone and Glacier are separate and sacrosanct entities with or without the consistent ineptitude regularly displayed by the officialdom of the Dept. of Interior or the ridiculous and power mad machinations of Congressmen from Oklahoma.

I support the parks and believe that they need new ideas and new forms of self-sustaining governance. This is in no way a form of negativity but a reasoned position that is rooted in what I consider to be a sorry state of affairs concerning the current container these beautiful and important lands find themselves in.

In much the same way you can dearly love your country and its people but not give one iota of support to the crooks who supposedly run it. In fact, a true love of country absolutely requires this.

Read more about Dr. No and his (in)famous use of the hold: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/washington/28coburn.html

Frank, Beamis, et al:

The LA Time recently published an article you might be interested in:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis9-2009aug09,0,3614997.story

"From the very beginning of our national history, Americans have been arguing about the proper role of government. Put succinctly, the dispute is between those who regard government as "them" and those who see it as "us."...."

Anonymous2: Thanks for the link, but I disagree with the author on many points. His bias is one of bigger government, intervention, statism. He calls individual liberty an anachronism. He believes the Constitution "identifies a collective interest best managed by a federal government empowered to make decisions for the society as a whole." He fails to address the the limits on power imposed by the Constitution. I disagree entirely with his bias.

Sort of reminds me of totalitarians from the not too distant past.

The premise of this power grab stems from the cynical notion that the common people are too dumb to make the voluntary and individual decisions that collectively produce a free and productive society but instead must be coerced into doing what is right by an overarching governmental structure that compels through force the necessary actions to bring about the common good. Hitler, Stalin and Mao must all be smiling in their graves that most Americans are educated to believe this lie and to actually embrace it.

Most futurists are predicting the break-up of this country sometime in the 2010-2012 time frame. (They say Vermont will be the first to secede). I hope this comes true and that we all will get back to a more locally focused view of what constitutes common interest and that voluntary participation, individualism and private property rights will prevail. The rather bizarre idea of some abstract "national interest" has ceased to exist, if it ever did in the first place, and deserves its rightful place on the scrapheap of history.

All of the above rhetorical back and forth is nice to debate, but the bottom line is that Jarvis will be an excellent head for the NPS, that the 'hold' has nothing to do with him as an individual but is just a procedural power play, and this nonsense needs to stop.

Surely there is leverage we can apply to these mouthbreathers to get Jon Jarvis confirmed.

I guess the bigger point is that "mouthbreathers" are the ones in charge of the parks. This is the real problem and root of all of the dysfunction.