Journal iminplaya's Journal: Can you dig it? 34
President Bush on Wednesday appointed as his top regulatory official a conservative academic who has written that markets do a better job of regulating than the government does and that it is more cost-effective for people who are sensitive to pollution to stay indoors on smoggy days than for government to order polluters to clean up their emissions.
I guess I ought to look into becoming a door-to-door gas-mask and oxygen salesman. Meh, what can I say? You people voted for this and will do it again '08. There can be no doubt of that if the mayoral election in Chicago is any indication.
Re:What does this have to do with the chicago mayo (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
She didn't actually say it anyway. This was in '97 [senate.gov] and it was a specific EPA plan that she was talking about, and her argument was not that staying i
Re: (Score:1)
Man, that first link is a doozey:
"Ground-level ozone has the same beneficial screening effects on ultraviolet radiation as stratospheric ozone."
Yeah while it's tearing the hell out of your lungs. Gonna have
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I accept your points, the thing is that they had to sneak her in the back door "without anybody seeing".
No, they didn't. They did not sneak, and everyone saw. They did it in full view of everyone.
Clearly, unless there is a true national emergency that requires a temporary person to fill the seat until the emergency is over and no longer, these recess appointments should not be allowed.
Then amend the Constitution to say so. John Adams used the recess appointment when there was no emergency, for crying out loud, back in 1799. As he wrote [ssrn.com] [WARNING! PDF!]:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My point of saying "sneaking" is because of the act of by-passing the hearings.
I understand that, but I think the characterization is false.
John Adams used the recess appointment when there was no emergency, for crying out loud, back in 1799...
Yes well, I would expect nothing less from him. He spent lots of time claiming many rights.
Huh? What are you talking about?
I never said Bush is doing anything new or different. He is merely a continuation of all that have preceded him. And it will continue after he's gone. That I accept, even if I don't approve. I only singled him out here because I saw it today. I don't care who's doing it. I don't like it.
My point was that the Constitution says he can do it, and that this interpretation of the Constitution, while not universally accepted, is widely accepted, and dates back to the second President; and that if you don't like it, the only option is to try to change the Constitution.
The pissing match will end when we start checking into the people we elect.
But I am glad Bush uses the recess appointment the way he does, so I wouldn't change that at all. Not glad he has to resort to that,
Re: (Score:1)
I find the whole thing to be sneaky and underhanded. Agree to disagree.
Huh? What are you talking about?
After passing the Aliens and Sedition act I would expect him to do the same kind of end run around the rules. He was that close to claiming a "royal" presidency. The only thing different from today's instance is that people didn't seem to accept that kind of garbage so easily. See, I don't care if it is permitted. The process is being abused for
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? What are you talking about?
After passing the Aliens and Sedition act I would expect him to do the same kind of end run around the rules. He was that close to claiming a "royal" presidency.
That is a significant misunderstanding of what actually happened. First, there was no "Aliens and Sedition Act." There were several acts, and ultimately, the main reason Adams signed them was not a power grab for himself -- in fact, he did not even like the Alien Act, and he never used the authority it gave him -- but because he was a man without a party, and Hamilton and the Federalists pressured him into it; he conceded, in order to gain support for his other policies. This was right in the middle of
Re: (Score:1)
While I'm here,
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, Sorry for the second reply, but I just ran across this [guardian.co.uk]. Here's a guy who's only qualification was his political donations
And you believe the Guardian when it claims that? On the contrary, his only DISqualification is his political donations. He is a very successful international businessman and philanthropist, which is precisely the kind of person who often makes a good ambassador.
and clearly would not have been approved
Yes, and? He would not have been approved primarily because the Democrats would not judge him on his merits. The Congress won't act responsibly, so why should the President bother, when he doesn't have to?
"He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies."
Yeah, how dare he spend his time and
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When you say that's it cheaper to keep people indoors as opposed to cleaning up their mess without the qualification that one might disagree with such methods, it leaves the implication that you do agree with it.
She never said that. She never said that. She never said that.
Seriously.
Once again, she NEVER SAID that people should stay indoors instead of the government cleaning up the air. That was never said, that was never implied.
"...sensitive individuals can take appropriate "exposure avoidance" behavior."
So where does she say that this should be done AS OPPOSED TO cleaning up? She never did.
What she was presenting this in opposition to was not cleaning up the air. She was attacking one specific proposal for cleaning up the air, one which would not have any significant effect on cleaning up the air. I've already explained this (accurate and relevant) distinction, and you are ignoring it. Taking her statements out of the context o
Re: (Score:1)
Ok fine. Until I can verify whether SHE said it or not, I'll concede your point. The point that it was offered up at all shows exactly that it was meant to be an alternative to cleaning up. In fact it was the only thing offered. No other alternative was put on the table. They simply insist that the effects of present levels are "statistically insignificant". Wow, that means a hell of a lot to the guy who sets sick. They
Re: (Score:1)
She never said that. She never said that. She never said that.
O...M...G!!! Let's look at this. Shall we?
Testimony of Susan E. Dudley...
Re: (Score:2)
In fact it was the only thing offered. No other alternative was put on the table.
That's not their job. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize a specific proposal without offering alternatives.
They simply insist that the effects of present levels are "statistically insignificant". Wow, that means a hell of a lot to the guy who sets sick.
They not concerned with health, they only care about cost/benefits ratios
You are making that up. It has no basis in fact or truth of any kind.
The matter should not come up. Stop the pollution. That's it.
Fine, you can think that, but almost no one will agree with you, not even Clinton or any EPA that has ever existed, or likely will exist. They ALWAYS weigh the cost against the benefit. You can disagree, but if you consider it a crime, it is unfair to accuse
Re: (Score:1)
Except when us damn hippies do it.
They ALWAYS weigh the cost against the benefit.
I don't believe that was official policy before the 80s. But whatever, it is now and clearly outweighs other criteria.
Oooh, I don't know. I think I can make something up...like...umm..."providing material
Re: (Score:2)
...the farmers...
are invaders.
Nonsense.
Bill Maher said it best when he said, "The biggest welfare queens wear overalls."
Bullshit. He is referring subsidies, which is a completely separate topic.
They are amongst the biggest polluters of all, brought to you by a company we do NOT want to monopolize our food supply. It is their pesticides and fertilizers along with the metals and acids that I want kept out of the water and food. Or are they organic? Even then big concentrations are trouble.
These are just normal family farms I am talking about. They do not cause any significant environmental problems.
I just find that very few people who think like this are in the position I am in.
You are in the exact same position as billions of others
...and you want me to endanger my family, for some other family.
No sir! I want you to not endanger some other family for your family. Quite a difference.
Except, I am not endangering anyone else's family. However, you do
Re: (Score:2)
Really sorry...
She never said that. She never said that. She never said that.
O...M...G!!! Let's look at this. Shall we?
Do you think the quote you provided shows her saying that? You're wrong. Perhaps you forgot what "that" referred to, in your words:
[It's] cheaper to keep people indoors as opposed to cleaning up their mess.
She never said that, or anything like it. Fine, you quoted her recommending people stay indoors. I already knew that, and conceded it. But for the umpteenth time, she did not say to stay indoors as opposed to cleaning up the mess. She was offering it as a contrast only to one specific proposal which she judged would not actually clean anything up, NOT as a general recomm
Re: (Score:1)
Only if it endangers others. You completely ignore the effect you have downwind(stream). It's a real case of not seeing past your own nose. You have it just plain wrong.
Which is also why the socialists have taken to overstating the threats...
Oh, please! Your own government is the king of that. Has been for a long time. As you inch so willingly towards complete lockdown.
Re: (Score:2)
You completely ignore the effect you have downwind(stream).
You are making things up. I do no such thing.
Which is also why the socialists have taken to overstating the threats...
Oh, please! Your own government is the king of that. Has been for a long time. As you inch so willingly towards complete lockdown.
Lockdown? What are you babbling about? You mean the Patriot Act etc.? If you had a sense of history, you would know that we are freer now than we've ever been before at a time of conflict. As you referred to, in our first war since becoming a nation -- the Quasi-War -- our government literally took away the freedom of speech. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. The 20th century saw everything from confiscation of private property to internment camps based s
Re: (Score:1)
This conflict is a ridiculous sham not worthy of further discussion. It was created to cover up the the government's ongoing credibility crisis that peaked with the 2000 election, and including some very interesting issues with the IRS that didn't make the papers or the hearings due to 9/11. The hearings were supposed to happen on the 15th. We are not in a state of war. Nobody has officially
Re: (Score:2)
This conflict is a ridiculous sham
False. Indeed, it's a conflict that has been going on since before I was born and has been getting more and more important to our daily lives as Americans. That doesn't necessarily mean it is as great a threat as many believe, but it certainly is a real threat: 9/11 proved that beyond any reasonable doubt.
It was created to cover up the the government's ongoing credibility crisis that peaked with the 2000 election, and including some very interesting issues with the IRS that didn't make the papers or the hearings due to 9/11. The hearings were supposed to happen on the 15th.
If you are implying the government created 9/11, you're on crack.
We are not in a state of war. Nobody has officially declared such a thing.
The second statement does not prove the first. I mentioned our first national war earlier, the Quasi-War. We were in a state of war t
Re: (Score:1)
9/11 could very well be just as domestic as OKC, which was also initially blamed on Middle East terrorism. Nothing has been indisputably proven, contrary to what the government is telling mass media. The administration's credibility is zilch, which doesn't matter when it has you convinced otherwise.
Vietnam was in a state of war. You make no sense. America was involved a police action. This does not gi
Re: (Score:2)
9/11 could very well be just as domestic as OKC
No, in fact, it couldn't. The only way to come to that determination is to be an idiotic moron on crack. Are you an idiotic moron on crack?
...tell the Vietnamese people they were not in a state of war.
Vietnam was in a state of war.
Not according to you, because nothing was declared, on any side, by anyone.
America was involved a police action. This does not give the president wartime powers. Without the declaration, he has no rightful claim to anything like that now either.
Nope. It's you who make no sense. In fact, the Constitution does not state or imply any such thing. Declaring war is not a requirement for being in a state of war; they are two distinct things. That has always been the case (again, going back to the 1700s). A declaration of war is a poli
Re: (Score:1)
Hey! that wouldn't be one of ad hominem thingies you always talk about, would it? Because, if it is, that's not very nice. Is that the ONLY "evidence" you can use against anybody who thinks that way? Yes, he's a moron on crack? That's all that needs to be said to show that he's wrong. In the spirit of your response, I could say you're an idiotic moron on Koolaid. You swallow up everything being s
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to come to that determination is to be an idiotic moron on crack. Are you an idiotic moron on crack?
Hey! that wouldn't be one of ad hominem thingies you always talk about, would it? Because, if it is, that's not very nice.
I don't care about nice, and ... well, it is not really an ad hominem. If I meant it to be used as part of an argument, it would definitely be an ad hominem. But my intention here is not to argue with you, but to signal that I think your view is so retarded that I refuse to even discuss it. An ad hominem is not any personal attack, but one that is used as an argument. But, if you think it is an ad hominem, I won't argue with you, because I couldn't care less what someone thinks about me who thinks that
Re: (Score:1)
Of course you will. The reasons why have been made clear before. It's only natural in your position.
An ad hominem is not any personal attack...
Again, of course, not when you use it. Only when you perceive it from others. Very typical, natural response. I shall leave you in the hands of Sam [slashdot.org] the man. He seems to be giving you quite a mouthful. You're right. It's a much more interesting discussion. Really brings out your best. Very revealing ind
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Triple Track...Because you'll buy anything."
You are a completely and utterly fascinating individual. Very educational and entertaining. I thank you for your time, sir.
Re: (Score:1)
"You called me a moron? Calling you brainless would be an insult to an anencephalic baboon."
Be advised that I'm not using it against you here, lest anybody would think I'm trolling, god forbid. That would be uncalled for. It is merely a point of information. I'm sure you're welcome to use it anytime.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the Patriot Act etc.? If you had a sense of history, you would know that we are freer now than we've ever been before at a time of conflict. As you referred to, in our first war since becoming a nation -- the Quasi-War -- our government literally took away the freedom of speech. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. The 20th century saw everything from confiscation of private property to internment camps based solely on race to using police forces to destroy free speech.
Even a lunatic ancap like me can agree with that, although sadly most don't. The worst effect I've seen from the Patriot Act is that I can't buy sudafed without giving up my privacy, and only during hours the pharmacy is open. Admittedly that's a pretty bad effect for me in particular, and I think it's totally wrong, but it's surely not as bad as what's happened in previous wars.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst effect I've seen from the Patriot Act is that I can't buy sudafed without giving up my privacy, and only during hours the pharmacy is open. Admittedly that's a pretty bad effect for me in particular, and I think it's totally wrong, but it's surely not as bad as what's happened in previous wars.
FWIW, that's technically the Patriot Act, but it was not part of the original Act, and would have been passed as a separate law if the Patriot Act had not been up for renewal.
Finally! (Score:1)