Talk:Mike Thompson (California politician)

---

removed "though he would be regarded as a liberal by national Democratic standards, as with virtually all California Democrats." this is a subjective statement and not backed by any facts. for instance he has a 25% rating for the conservative test, hardly very liberal by national standards... as well many Democrats in California have 20%+ (Tauscher, Farr), 30%+ (Baca, Sanchez) ratings and there's even 40%+ (Cardoza 48% and Costa 50%) rating on the conservative test, so this claim that California Democrats are more liberal than the national average doesn't really hold up. Tirge Caps 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Visit

It seems that he went to Iraq with a congressman from Michigan and a congressman from Washington D.C., this visit was indirectly financed by Saddam Hussein. This just got out, so I may not have all my facts straight, but when enough information is out, we should add a section on it under controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird88 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't have all the facts out, and even the ones out were misstated. The trip was already organized when the charity offered to pay for the plane tickets. The charity was vetted by the US gov't. The trip was vetted by the US gov't. When McDermott et al went to Baghdad they met with Iraqi officals, so it's not like this is any more controversial in 2008 than in 2002. Perhaps less, seeing that they were right, there were no WMDs, the war was an error, etc. Besides, this is all taken from the indictment, which means the government (Bush administration) gets to say whatever they want to say. And wasn't the administration being lobbied by groups wanting to overthrow the government, as opposed to keeping it in place? Huangdi (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Environmental record

This seems to be msotly about animal rights, not the environment. Flatterworld (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, endangered species protection is an environmental issue. In regard to your peculiar deletion of the bear baiting bill and Thompson's involvement, you can even see that bear baiting is the commonly accepted term for using bait to capture bears, even by proponents of the practice. [1]

Lokiloki (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Environmental record

Flatterworld, according to Wikipedia:NPOVD#How_to_initiate_an_NPOV_debate, you were supposed to create this section (here in the Talk page) and

"... clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article."

since you are the one who posted the POV tag. Since you didn't create this section, I did. Please provide your explanation and suggestions. Wideangle (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, since you obviously aren't at all familiar with writing for encyclopedias. First, this is not written in encyclopedic style. It uses inappropriate language and phraseology (massive, sparked some concern, high-tech hounding, and so forth) reflecting bias. Daily Kos is not considered a reputable, reliable source. For a section purportedly about his envirnomental record, it mentions one (1) actual environmental issue (logging) and then skips back and forth among a few animal rights issues. The section repeatedly states his hunting and fishing, with no connection to his record on the environment. iow, it implies that in itself is a 'bad record'. We really don't need rewrites from various animal rights groups pasted into Wikipedia. If that's your only interest, I'm sure you can find a better outlet than Wikipedia. Or, go work on the Animal rights article. We try to keep articles about members of Congress balanced, avoiding undue weight being given to one part of their record. We are an encyclopedia, and that's what encycloppedias do. Flatterworld (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thompson voted for President Bush's controversial Healthy Forests Initiative,[11] which environmentalists saw as a massive gift to the timber industry.[12] He has sparked some concern for his environmental credentials with votes against limits to new commercial logging roads in Alaska's Tongass National Forest[13] and against limits to bear baiting.[14] He was also one of only 30 Democrats to vote against an amendment to maintain roadless areas protected under the Roadless Rule.[15] While a California state senator, Thompson helped defeat legislation to halt high-tech hounding of black bears[16] and co-authored and voted for a bill (SB 28) to resume trophy hunting of cougars.[17] SB 28 would have undone provisions of California Proposition 117 (the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990) which had been approved by the voters in the statewide election held on June 5, 1990, that provided some protection for cougars.[17] Thompson was the House sponsor of the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Thompson was recognized as Federal Legislator of the Year by the hunting lobbyist group Safari Club International; he received the Hunting Heritage Award from the same group.[18]

Thompson did not endorse California's Proposition 2 (the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act) in the November 2008 election,[19] which passed with an overwhelming statewide 63.5% Yes vote[20] and which also won in every county of Thompson's district.[21] Proposition 2 was officially endorsed by the California Democratic Party.[22]

Daily Kos has an article[23] that details 14 of Thompson's legislative votes that were allegedly anti-environment.

Thompson is an active member and former co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus,[24][25] and is a lifelong hunter and fisherman.[26]

I changed "massive" to "inordinate". I changed "sparked some concern for his environmental credentials" to "disappointed some environmentalists". The work continues. Wideangle (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's it? That's all you got out of what I wrote? Sorry, but that's totally pathetic. Forest, trees, miss. Flatterworld (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not all that I intend to do in response to your explanation and suggestions. I do understand that what you wrote encompasses more than that. Responding to the totality of what you wrote will take some time, and will be done in bits and pieces, as time permits. Your patience is appreciated. Wideangle (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed "high-tech hounding" to "the use of dogs in hunting". The phrase "high-tech" is inappropriate here because the proposed law (California S.B. 67 of 1993-1994) has nothing to do with high-tech items. It is true that the committee staff's analysis of the bill (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_67_cfa_930212_181358_sen_comm) mentions "telemetry equipment and radio-collared dogs", but that's only in the comments and was never in the text of the bill. The word "hounding" was correct in the dictionary sense, but city folks would tend to infer the figurative meaning of the word (synonym for "harass" or "badger") so I prefer to use "hunt". The work of responding to your suggestions continues. Wideangle (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Bear baiting" is the proper term

The proponents of bear baiting call it "bear baiting". Note the headline in http://www.bowhuntingmag.com/beralegb_0716/ -- "Bear Baiting Amendment Defeated On House Floor". If you look down near the bottom of that same webpage, you will see direct quotes from Congressman Robin Hayes (co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus) in which he twice calls it "bear baiting".

The phrase is also used in the law. See the text of H.R. 1472 (the "Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003") in http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.+1472:/ , in which the phrase "bear baiting" occurs five times. Wideangle (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Bear baiting is the term used by the animal rights lobby to put people in mind of bear baiting in England in medieval times. That would be pit bulls fighting bears (in pits) for amusement. Wikifying THIS article to point to bear baiting is absurd. What this law is about is setting out food ("bait") to encourage the bears to come to a particular location where they can be shot. Do you truly not understand the difference? Did you not check where the wikification was pointing? Oh wait - you just changed that article, so clearly you're well aware that you were misleading people. Sorry, but you're making it incredibly tough to assume you're acting in good faith here. We are an encyclopedia, which means we try to be as clear and exact as possible to avoid misleading people. Flatterworld (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)