Testicular fortitude versus gonadal atrophy

It is often said that envrionmentalists are too quick to criticize the bad and too slow to praise the good. This tendency apparently violates some fundamental rules of politics and undermines the political effectiveness of the environmental camp.
While not agreeing with it, with that criticism in mind, today we start a new award where we praise the good and slam the bad on equal footing.
Profiles in courage – testicular fortitude award
This award goes to DEP Commisioner Lisa Jackson who boldly and clearly spoke out in opposition to the controversial “Permit Extension Act” . That bill would exploit the current economic recession and collapse of the housing market to attack totally unrelated environmental protections (kind of like invading Iraq in retaliation for 9/11 – one event had nothing to do with the other):
“New Jersey’s top environmental official said she does not support the proposed state Permit Extension Act as written because it would “indis-criminately” extend permits even in environmentally sensitive areas.
“Obviously, it’s not something that I’m supportive of in its current form,” said Lisa P. Jackson, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection. “It’s overarching and is absolutely without consideration for the most environmentally sensitive areas of the state.”
DEP head not a fan of Permit Extension
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080607/NEWS/806070375
Fear and loathing – gonadal atrophy award
This award goes to DEP for failing to stand up and allowing a completely misleading and false statement to go unchallenged.
Yesterday, Senator Jeff Van Drew (D/Cape May) introduced his bill to weaken enforcement penalties in the recently enacted horshoe crab moratorium law. Van Drew stated that DEP had requested and implied DEP approved amendments to provide flexibility, not only in enforcement fines, but in the moratorium itself.
Environmentalists say this would create a huge loophole in the moratorium Governor Cozine just signed with much fanfare:
see: Horseshoe crab ban may have wiggle room
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806100423
Immediatel after his remarks, Van Drew invited DEP to testify.
DEP stood up but declined to testify. In doing so, they let the Van Drew remarks go unchallenged. Thus, it appeared that DEP not only supported the bill, but agreed with Van Drew’s statements that DEP itself had asked for the flexibility in the moratorium.
I am told that Van Drew mispoke, that DEP did not request those amendments, and that Van Drew basically spun to justify his bill.
So, why then did DEP allow that critical mistatement to go unchallenged?
Some environmental colleagues stress that the buck stops at the governor’s desk, and that I should back off criticism of DEP. While I agree that the ultimate accountability rests with Corzine, I disagree that criticism of DEP should be withheld.
DEP must have professional integrity, courage, and autonomy to defend the science and speak truth to the Governor, legislators, the press, and the public without fear of political retaliation.
DEP failed those tests here – failing to speak truth to power will earn DEP the first gonadal atrophy award.
We will make these awards a regular feature here.
Thoughts?