Because they are addressing a specific problem with EPA?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
What's more important, having a free society with a vigorous economy, or the ability of political apointees and bureaucrats to decree rules, bans, and burdens on us based on secret science that by definition can't have a concensus?
Intresting that they chose birthdate instead of age, don't you think? Why do you supppose they did that? Have you seen medical research that relied upon birthdate as a key component of the data rather than age?
Their method is sly, but the intent is obvious, and dishonest.
Have you not see the stupid lawsuits brought by fringe environmentalists that greatly drive up the cost of much economic activity for little or no benefit? Have you not seen stupid government regulations that either prohibit various activities or greatly drive up the cost of various economic activities for little or no benefit, or even create actual harm? Surely you can't believe that ALL rules are good rules that must be imposed according to the whims, agendas, or mistakes of bureaucrats and political apointees? Is your thinking that all politicians are evil and untrustworthy, but bureaucrats and political apointees are all sages, angels, sweetness and light? Or is it even simpler: bureaucrats sounds like Democrats and therefore have your unthinking support?
You have more faith in government than I do. I read the bill as regulating a regulator to make it more expensive and harder to do anything.
The EPA is part of the government. If you have little faith in the government, why would you want it to be easy for them to act using unpreproducible or other bad science? It is easy for EPA to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in. Surely you don't believe that all of government is filled with bad actors with the one incredible exception of EPA, staffed by only angels and sages instead of political apointees and bureaucrats?
What's wrong with requiring some level of scientific rigor in something before making public policy on the results?
That would impede the politically driven agenda, so it obviously can't be good.
I can see you're trying, but you're not making much progress in getting it right. Is there somebody you know that could coach or tutor you? Maybe all you need to succeed is just a little nudge at the right time or place.
"Muddy the discussion"? You mean like having two opposing viewpoints represented? Having an actual discussion instead of choir practice? Well, that's the problem isn't it? Far too many people are here for choir practice instead of discussion, and a lot of that "music" is pretty crappy given the varous claims about geeks and "superior" intellects. Too few people post correct information about this and related topics.
And your crack about "same worn-out arguments" cuts both ways. Or at least you would realize it if you have any genuine insight. The right answer doesn't change just because you're tired of reading it.
A standing president tried to warn the American people about the Military Industrial Complex. What did that do? Not a damn thing. Should you be surprised? Not really. George Orwell warned you about all of this other shit over sixty years ago. No one listened. No one believed it could ever happen. And now it has happened. And there are no vehicles left for you to use to change or stop it.
Not many years before that warning the US devoted about 40% of GDP to defense spending. The long term trend of the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has been a long decline until today where only aroud 5% of GDP is spent on defense. That wouldn't happen if the "MIC" were all powerful as some people mistakenly claim.
There appears to be a gap between the facts of history and your theories.
If you're in their crosshairs, you'll get bagged, tagged and shipped off to Gitmo, which is what would have happened to Snowden if was caught before he fled.
There is essentially no chance of that happening. The only prisoners sent to Guantanamo were people known or believed to be members of al Qaida, or its affiliates. That doesn't describe Snowden. Or are you calling Snowden an al Qaida terrorist?
Snowden would end up in ordinary Federal court.
In a post above you made this claim:
What they ARE doing is building up a retroactive database of our information, so that its friends can comprehensively destroy us or our reputation at a moment's notice.
What you posted there doesn't seem to support that claim. Would you care to provide an actual example of that happening to an ordinary American (or Briton, or Canadian, or Australian, or New Zealander) with no involvement in terrorism or organized crime? Do you have in mind someone running or office, or what? There doesn't seem to be much to your claim.
The US is positioning US marines in Australia, fully armed and munitioned (so called firing range practice), as a measure against China
You poor soul.
There is a very large gap between your thinking and reality. Think of the Marines as a "trip wire" protecting Australia.
Have you failed to see how often a preferred ally of the US, suddenly becomes a distant ally, than a country of concern and finally a supporter of terrorism, as they refuse to obey US government dictates. Along with that goes regime change and bringing of US favoured 'er' democracy or autocracy or total chaos in order to remove actual democratic governments.
Most people fail to see that since it doesn't actually happen.
.... I do believe that they lose all reason when it comes to pleasing the US.
Rather like many do when discussing
Well, there is plenty of madness to go around, isn't there? I seem to recall a certain faction of the NZ political establishment thought cozying up to the People's Republic of China was a better "fit" for NZ than allying with the US. I wonder what the people in Hong Kong would think, or the Philippines? Of course, what could possibly go wrong? What madness.
John Schwartz reports at the NY Times that prominent members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities
Its simple to get right. You didn't, and still haven't.