Henry David Thoreau wrote: “In wildness is the preservation of the world.” Thoreau understood that as humans we need to be nourished by contact with or immersion in the natural world. Environmentalists understand this. They fight the inexorable march of what we call progress, which clear-cuts forest and paves over what once were boundless plains. Today, most of us get into a car and drive for hours to connect to wilderness. And we find solace in those encounters.
Most presidents take pride in the number of acres of wilderness that they have saved for future generations and the number of national monuments they designated to preserve unique natural formations. Not Trump. Trump has been openly hostile to environmental protection and to any measures that reduce the risks of climate change.
Yesterday the administration announced that it was opening up 58 million acres for commercial development.
Lisa Friedman wrote in The New York Times:
The Trump administration said on Monday that it would open up 58 million acres of back country in national forests to road construction and development, removing protections that had been in place for a quarter century.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced plans to repeal the 2001 “roadless rule” that had preserved the wild nature of nearly a third of the land in national forests in the United States. Ms. Rollins said the regulation was outdated.
“Once again, President Trump is removing absurd obstacles to common-sense management of our natural resources by rescinding the overly restrictive roadless rule,” Ms. Rollins said in a statement. She said the repeal “opens a new era of consistency and sustainability for our nation’s forests.”
Environmental groups said the plan could destroy some of America’s untouched landscapes and promised to challenge it in court.
The unspoiled land in question includes Tongass National Forest in Alaska, North America’s largest temperate rainforest; Reddish Knob in the Shenandoah Mountains, one of the highest points in Virginia; and millions of acres of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho.
“Most Americans value these pristine backcountry areas for their sense of wildness, for the clean water they provide, for the fishing and hunting and wildlife habitat,” said Chris Wood, the chief executive of Trout Unlimited, an environmental group.
Businesses are eager to chop down the timber. There’s profit in those untouched forests, maybe even tracts for homes. The word “pristine” in not in their vocabulary.

The roads will provide access to fire fighters and help save huge amounts of forest land from being destroyed in wildfires. Alas, “Theveord pristine” is not in my vocabulary either.
LikeLike
Dawn: Of course access for firefighters answers the question about why Trump wants to open the nation’s parks to “commercial development.”
LikeLike
Dawn: Of course access for firefighters answers the question about why Trump wants to open the nation’s parks to “commercial development.”
LikeLike
Actually, the stated intent was to “consider” opening appropriate lands as a possibility for increasing affordable housing. Heinous, I know.
LikeLike
Hello Dawn: Fascist fools do as fascist fools are.
LikeLike
Most housing that is in demand is not in wilderness areas as housing tends to follow good paying jobs. More than likely Trump and company want to expand oil and gas exploration which will plunder the natural resources to make money for favored donors. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-hell-no-insane-utah-republicans-proposal-for-sale-of-millions-of-acres-of-land-under-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-sparks-outrage/articleshow/122027958.cms?from=mdr
LikeLike
Dawn,
Sorry for the typo. I fixed it.
It should read “The word pristine…”
I type all
My posts and comments on my cell phone and it’s all too easy to hit the wrong key.
LikeLike
I think most of us knew what you meant.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
I’m a moderate independent who is liberal on some issues (e.g. this one) and moderate to conservative on others. Over the last 45 years I’ve voted for candidates of both major parties, and I’m dismayed that both parties are now effectively controlled by their extreme factions: MAGA for Republicans, the woke Left for the Democrats. For me, both Trump and Harris were choices with huge tradeoffs. I support Trump’s recent actions in Iran while I lament many of his other choices. It would have been a similar deal with a President Harris.
This linked essay reflects my own opinion on Trump. The first section praises him, the second section begins with this sentence: “And now to harsh your good vibes, I will point out that Donald Trump is still quite literally an openly lawless president.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/carnival-of-fools/trumps-iran-strike-shows-precisely-why-elections-matter/
LikeLike
Jack Safely: Without knowing the outcome of the Israel-Iran war yet, I am reminded of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The other thing is Trump’s habit of separating and hiding his own means and ends–of hiding HIS selfish intentions under the otherwise acceptable means that, in fact, are also aimed at HIS own very different but desired outcomes.
In this case, he stupidly thinks the two opposed factions don’t already know that he is using them both for a shot at the Peace Prize which, I read this morning, . . . ALAS . . . was withdrawn from consideration.
LikeLike
Jack,
I’m often undecided on issues too, having worked in the first Bush administration.
But I don’t agree that Harris and Walz ran as the “woke left.” Harris never brought up identity politics, although Republicans said she did. Her positions were not extreme. O loved Gov Walz’s comment about hot-button social issues: “Mind your own damn business!” The GOP painted them as radicals but they were centrists.
You know where I stand on almost everything. This is what I think about Trump: he is destroying our government. He defers to Putin. He has abandoned Ukraine. He may withdraw from NATO to destroy the post-1945 alliance (Putin’s goal).
If we destroyed Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon, I’m happy but I think Trump should have gone to Congress to get their authorization. He thinks he is king.
I would love to see regime change in Iran and the emergence of a decent non-clerical government that does not oppress dissidents and women. But it doesn’t seem likely.
I don’t think Trump cares about it. He likes only what flatters his ego and looks good on TV.
Diane
LikeLike
Diane,
Harris and Walz downplayed their woke Left beliefs during the 2024 campaign, but they have returned to those beliefs since then. What Walz meant about “mind your own damn business” was surrender to the cultural Left on all issues. There is nothing moderate about either of them on any issue – they are not centrists, and neither are you.
That’s fine: it’s a free country, and Trump won’t change that no matter how hard he tries. Democratic (small d) principles are bone-deep in a large majority of Americans, although I’m uneasy about how many liberals have become much less friendly to free speech compared to even ten years ago Barack. Obama recently said that governments will have to become much more involved in preventing “misinformation.” He should learn from the finest moment of the conservative Justice Scalia when he provided the critical vote supporting the right of protestors to burn the U.S. flag as a symbol of protest. Defend the rights of even those you strongly disagree with.
LikeLike
Jack,
I consider myself center-left.
The rise and aggressiveness of the radical right has pushed me to the left.
So has Trump and his active demands for censorship. His war against “woke” and DEI are nothing more than censorship.
I am woke and I support diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Pretty interesting for someone who worked for Bush 1.
I tend to take a “live and let live” approach to people I don’t agree with.
My view on abortion and trans issues is that what people want to do with their bodies and lives is their choice, not the government’s.
Courts and legislatures should not override medical decisions.
Diane
LikeLike
Jack: Try to find the center in American politics today, and you will find yourself far to the right of anything you experienced in 1980. That year, a rather moderate Carter lost to a Reagan that was far out of the mainstream. Since then, traditional liberal faith in a government that administers clean food, water, and air has taken a bipartisan backseat to economic expansion in the hopes that wages might improve. Democrats and conservative reactionary leaders have agreed to disagree, so long as billionaires improve their fortunes.
The Bernie Sanders crowd wants to be the left, but Medicare for all is just the idea that created solid medical service in countries as disparate as Japan and Finland. Not radical left at all. Rather centrist.
I can’t find the left, and the right is so radical that they want women to die instead of granting them medical privacy.
LikeLike
Diane,
You have made clear that you support the extremes of DEI and what is called wokeness. Non-racist, non-sexist people oppose the quotas in employment, college admissions, etc. that the DEI crusaders demand. Affirmative action is not extreme DEI; extreme DEI opposes the very concept of individual merit in favor of group rights.
Most people have a live and let live position on transgender issues. What they – and I – oppose are medical “treatments” on humans too young to legally make other important decisions about their lives. And what really hurts the trans cause is the insistence that XY people should have the right to compete against XX people in competitive sports; many of the trans extremists deny that in general men have relevant physical advantages over women. In 2025 you will get drummed out of the Democratic party for saying that XYs and XXs are different. You have always been hesitant about taking a side on that controversy because most people on your point of the political spectrum take the crazy woke position.
LikeLike
Jack,
I’m not “crazy woke,” but I’m definitely woke.
By that, I mean that I side with a government role in protecting the air, the water, and nature. I worry about climate change and agree with the great majority of scientists who say that we can reduce the pollution we spew into the air and lakes and rivers.
I opposed affirmative action for many years, but in the twilight of my life, I believe I was wrong. I don’t believe that students should be admitted to selective colleges based on the color of their skin, but I do believe that colleges should make a to increase the diversity of their student bodies.
When I went to college, the members of my class were all white. Now the student body has young women of every race and international students. My guess is that the freshman class this year was about 50% white.
The college has not lowered its standards, but it has let smart young women from diverse origins know that they are welcome. And they apply. My view is that most of the women in my class (class of 1960) would not be admitted today, that the standards of admission are higher now than they were when I was admitted.
I don’t know what the “extremes of DEI” are.
Diversity is a fact. Look at sports teams: basketball, football, baseball. Very diverse. Is that bad? Our military, I have heard, has a very large proportion of black and Hispanic service members. Is that bad?
We all need to learn to live together. There’s too much racism in this country. That’s a fact too.
Equity is a good goal. It’s the goal of equality of opportunity. It’s not a fair competition for the rewards of life when some start off on third base while others have not yet had a turn at bat. We can’t make everyone equal but we can make sure that everyone has a good start in life, with good medical care, a secure roof over their heads, good education, and the basic necessities.
I would hate to live in a society where people died on the street because they had no health insurance and couldn’t pay for medical care.
As for inclusion, that just means that there’s a welcome for all. Every day in school, from K-12, I recited the Pledge of Allegiance. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the nation, for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.”
For ALL, not for some. That’s inclusion.
If you think I’m an extremist, I disagree. I’m a patriot.
Diane
LikeLike
Extremely well said, Diane.
LikeLike
I think most people get too hung up on labeling others. What most people want is a government that is responsive to and works for instead of against them. A huge impediment to a responsive government is unlimited amounts of money that can be spent to win elections. Everyone, regardless of party, should understand the money is undermining democracy and work to change its corrupting influence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly so, RT!
LikeLike
Retired,
As we speak or write, Trump is disassembling every agency of government except for the military, ICE, and border security.
LikeLike
Anyone who cites the National Review has no clue what “woke left” even means, especially if you think Democrats fit that bill.
LikeLike
Jack Safely: (I’m not speaking for Diane who holds her own whenever she writes here.) Also, I have not given a huge amount of thought about young children’s treatments or sports participations.
However, I question your stand on “Non-racist, non-sexist people (who) oppose the quotas in employment, college admissions, etc. that the DEI crusaders demand . . . ” I’ve see too many who claim to be non-racist and non-sexist, and who are happy with the present unjust status quo, but who are in fact dyed-in-the-wool and just extremely un-self-reflective people who are so sexist and racist that it would be funny if it weren’t so sad–and systematically unfair.
Sexism and racism are difficult to root out even when the person finally “gets it” because much of it is “inherited” and has migrated to the subconscious domain.
On the other hand, many who have had decades to realize what women and non-white people (whatever that means) have been trying to get across to them, still just dig down deeper with their obvious-to-others attitudes of race-sex arrogance and carelessness. I don’t like affirmative action either–too much like a sledgehammer going after flies in many situations; however, I also think that something had to be done at the legal level to help wash out the recalcitrant results of both attitudes, as it keeps raising its ugly head across the culture. (My family is loaded with sexists who just laugh and go on their way if called to attention. It’s sickening.)
And as someone here referred to Ike’s position on the matter, injustice breeds resentment, and resentment breeds revolution. But who cares, really, if a person is white male?
LikeLike
“have been trying to get across to them”
That phrase says EVERYTHING, Ms. King!
Love to you and yours!
–Bob
LikeLike
The United States refuses to come to grips with its legacy, which works in the hardships of the lives of people every day, yet today. In the life of the third generation from slavery single mom who is scrounging around in drawers tonight trying to find enough change to pay her bus fare to work tomorrow, in utter fear that she will lose the job. I believe in redemption and forgiveness. But first must come confession.
LikeLike
Vandals.
LikeLike
The destruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment capability was long overdue. Iran has been dragging its feet and equivocating about this for a long, long time. It is questionable whether our Congress of sleazeballs and traitors could have been trusted with advice and consent on this issue. So, I do not agree with what seems to be the consensus on this blog regarding that.
Ofc, the Trump maladministration should not now be lying about the extent of the damage to the enrichment program and about the extent to which the bombings set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That lying to the people (and to Congress) is extraordinarily dangerous, as the Trump clown car posse’s attempt to squash and control the Defense Intelligence Agency and its reports on the actual efficacy of the strike. That strike, btw, was a breathtaking accomplishment. Honor to those who planned and executed it for a job extraordinarily well done.
Islamist jihadist extremism is a great evil. Its treatment of women cannot be dismissed with cultural relativism. But illegally assassinating a head of state, as Trump has said he could do and is considering, is not the way to accomplish our ends there. How actually to undermine and overthrow these extremist government is an entirely different discussion and one definitely worth having.
LikeLiked by 3 people
cx:
as IS the Trump clown car posse’s attempt to squash and control the Defense Intelligence Agency and its reports on the actual efficacy of the strike. Actual, unbiased intelligence assessment of this matter is extremely important.
LikeLike
Bob: One of the outtakes of war in the Pacific during WWII was that the Allies’ otherwise brilliant planners did not take into consideration the willingness of the Japanese pilots to deliberately die for their cause–and so the planners didn’t plan for suicide pilots and we paid a high price for that lack of knowledge. (I read this some years ago in a New York Book Review article but have no idea which book or date.)
The point is that the principle of “know your enemy” is probably at least in part still missing from the military but, for Trump and his bimbos and clowns, it’s a given: they have NO IDEA what kind of psychological makeup, motivations, or loyalty they are dealing with.
LikeLike
I firmly believe that Trump would have gotten Congress to approve his military action. I could be wrong. The Republicans squawk but end up giving him whatever he wants.
The public doesn’t have any appetite for another Middle Eastern war.
From Trump’s perspective, it was advantageous to strike fast and get out.
But the mission of eliminating Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons was not successful. Trump made a fool of himself by going to the cameras immediately to declare “Mission Accomplished.” He gave the Mullahs time to move what they could. They read his tweets.
LikeLike
There’s a helpful 6/24/25 analysis by the AP called “Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act.” It goes into the history of the law, what it does and doesn’t do, how it has been used. https://apnews.com/article/war-powers-act-trump-congress-9e6832fb5f5f844acf8992008d3a8d63 About 6 paras into the section called “Dividing war powers between Congress and the president,” there’s a link to a chart listing, 1975 – March 2025, the 126 presidential letters to Congress issued with 48hrs of taking military action as reqd by the act (see “[President Joe Biden] wrote nearly 20 letters citing [the War Powers Resolution.]” https://warpowers.lawandsecurity.org/reports/
LikeLike
Here’s the history:
The Forest Service adopted the “roadless rule” (after 3 yrs of study) on Jan 12, 2001. The GWBush admin repealed it in May 2005– challenged in the courts, his rescission was struck down twice from the federal bench. There were later court challenges by Wyoming and Alaska, struck down by Federal Appeals Courts in 2011 (WY) and 2013 (AK). The 2013 judge held that no further challenges are allowed, because the statute of limitations has run out. In October 2020 Trump stripped over half of Tongass National Forest (AK) from these protections; in January 2023 Biden restored protection.
Like watching ping-pong match.
LikeLike