Matthew Baker, professor of geography and environmental systems, sees an uncertain future ahead for the health of our streams, while the services they provide—from diluting pollution to generating energy—are only becoming more important.

“As human populations grow,” Baker says in an interview with the Ohio Valley Resource, “land transformation is degrading stream ecosystems at a truly historic pace.” Development for housing and agriculture are major causes of that transformation. Many people suggest we can easily, or at least eventually, fix whatever we break in an ecosystem, Baker says, but that may not be accurate, as we’re still working to understand the intricacies of how stream systems function.

“It’s tough to design what we don’t fully comprehend,” Baker says, with the result that most attempted restorations only address one component of an ecosystem, sometimes with negative effects on other elements. In addition, restoration efforts often address symptoms of stream damage, rather than underlying causes, so any positive outcomes may disappear only a few years later.

As a researcher focused on watershed ecology, Baker says it’s frustrating to see these efforts fail. “It’s sad…because the folks that designed and built it had the best intentions and relied on the best available science at the time,” he shares.

Baker argues that stream restoration projects need to be organized at the watershed level, rather than focusing on a single polluted stream or algae-swamped lake. But without comprehensive knowledge of how the watershed works as a biological system, even these well-intended and -informed projects can have undesirable consequences.

“I don’t want to criticize those efforts,” says Baker, “because they have the right idea, but neither do I want to communicate that we’ve got everything figured out.”

On top of the major challenges of better understanding complex stream ecology and the impacts of human actions on streams, Baker says, “Current regulations are not adequate for protecting streams and their watersheds.” Further, some economic-based regulations, like those that allow developers to pay for restoration elsewhere while damaging ecosystems where they are, may not even be effective.

Still, while there is significant difficult work ahead to develop effective stream health improvement projects, Baker says he remains steadfast in moving forward with evidence-based restoration efforts: “…it is a work in progress.”

Read the full interview, On restoration: A scientist’s concerns. Part of the interview was broadcast on NPR’s Here and Now segment, “In coal country, environmental regulations are creating jobs.”

Image: Matt Baker launches a drone to take photographs of a dam on the Patapsco River that is in line for removal. Photo by Andy Miller.

As of the 2016 presidential election, 23 of the 50 United States operate under some form of open primary. In these states, voters are permitted to choose any party’s ballot to vote on within an election. This affiliation is not permanent and can change from election to election.

In contrast, states with closed primaries allow only those who are registered to a certain party to vote on that party’s ticket. So, only registered Republicans may vote for the Republican presidential candidates, and only registered Democrats may vote for Democratic presidential candidates in the primaries.

While these 23 states allow for constituents to vote for any presidential candidate regardless of party affiliation in primaries, Maryland is one of the remaining states that only permits their constituents to vote for presidential candidates within their registered political party. This system adversely affects both our democracy and our state by endorsing polarization and should be done away with.

Of the five states with the highest turnout of voters in the 2016 primary elections, all said states had either fully open or semi-open primaries. In contrast, of the five states with the lowest primary voter turnout, four had closed primaries with the exception of Idaho.

In the 2016 election, we saw presidential candidates cross boundaries like never before. Furthermore, we saw the most extreme presidential candidates get pushed to the front of the crowd, while more moderate candidates were overshadowed. We can view this as potential evidence of the United States being more polarized than ever before with respect to the two-party system.

Giving every citizen the power to choose a presidential candidate regardless of that candidate’s political affiliation will most likely increase bipartisanship within the population and the government. The negative effects of polarization touch every aspect of our culture and our society. Having open primaries would encourage constituents to consider the viewpoints of all and not just those endorsed by the leaders of their party.

Opponents of open primaries argue that they can be used by political parties to elect candidates of other parties that might be easier to defeat. While this idea likely happens now with open primaries, and would likely happen more if Maryland operated with open primaries, the benefits of open primaries, including increased political freedom and decreased polarization largely outweigh the negatives of people having greater opportunity to vote strategically.

In the end, it should be constituents that are responsible for, and hold the highest power to influence the results of the election for President of the United States of America. Upon the birth of our country, and the appropriation of democracy to support it, it was envisioned that the people would essentially hold the real power.

In their current form, closed primaries only serve to further polarize the politics of this nation. We should encourage a democracy that considers all candidates regardless of political affiliation and looks to how their ideas can improve our country. A helpful step in this process would be instituting open primaries in Maryland.

The post Open primaries: combating the political polarization in America appeared first on The Retriever.

For today’s transmission, let’s read and re-read this passage from Luke 9 several times in different translations until it touches down deep in our soul.

(NIV)  ²³ Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. ²⁴ For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.

(NLT)  ²³ Then he said to the crowd, “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must give up your own way, take up your cross daily, and follow me.²⁴ If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it.

(NASB)  ²³ And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.²⁴ For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.

(MSG)  ^23-27 Then he told them what they could expect for themselves: “Anyone who intends to come with me has to let me lead. You’re not in the driver’s seat—I am. Don’t run from suffering; embrace it. Follow me and I’ll show you how. Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self.

(ESV)  ²³ And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.²⁴ For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.

This passage is very clear, that the more we try to save our lives, we will lose it. The word ‘save’ in verse 24 is very interesting, as it is the same root word that is used to describe ‘salvation’ as we have come to know through Christ. In this context, Jesus is dealing with our sinful tendencies to try to save our own lives by preserving and withholding from the Lord and one another. The warning that Jesus gives is that He is the only one who is able to save us - both in the eternal and also as we live in this temporal world. This means that any and all form of saving that we try to achieve by ourselves will end with us losing our lives, for there is only one Savior, and that is Jesus Christ. He is the one who saved us from sin, and also who rescues us on a daily basis from our enemies and life’s difficulties - the one who provides, safeguards, and preserves our lives. Therefore, as we get our hearts ready for Good Friday worship, let’s once again declare that there is only one savior in our lives - Jesus Christ!

-GK