| |
|
Monday, October 31, 2005
|
|
From the Eugene Register-Guard:
The federal government is retreating from a right-to-know program that allowed residents in neighborhoods all across the country to look up the pollutants emitted by nearby factories.
About one-third of 20,000 major industrial plants nationwide will get relief from paperwork if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopts the proposed rules.
Instead of requiring companies to report their chemical releases to the federal government annually, the schedule would be changed to every other year.
Also, companies would be allowed to emit 10 times more chemicals - up to 5,000 pounds per year - before they reach the threshold where detailed reports are required, compared with 500 pounds under the current rules.
As a result, the federal Toxics Release Inventory - which is available online in an easy-to-use form - would have less detail and more out-of-date information.
EPA officials say the “Burden Reduction Rule” was spurred by business complaints that the reporting requirement was too cumbersome.
Yes, “too cumbersome”. And the extra 4500 pounds of toxics per year each newly unencumbered business can emit, will not be a burden on our lungs, thyroids and other innards. Our greatest wealth, it’s claimed, is our good health. But it’s apparently disposable when poor widdle businesses whine to the Yellowphants.
This, from the folks who claim to be pro-life.
(Via The American Street.)
8:09:10 PM 
|
|
From Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update segment the other night...
Tina Fey: "A recent poll showed that 66 percent of Americans think that President Bush is doing a poor job on the war in Iraq -- and the remaining 34 percent think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church."
(Via Yellow Dog Blog.)
8:08:16 PM
|
|
Every time you think about where this country is at right now, I want you to remember the Floriduh results in the 2000 presidential election:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
Nader: 97,488
To answer Mr. Nader's supporters (with 5 years in the rear view mirror): Yes, there was a difference.
(Via All Spin Zone.)
8:07:28 PM
|
|
Via Ken, these two paragraphs from Federalist 78 which go against the demonization of the judiciary we've gotten so much of these last couple of decades. It seems to me clear that the judiciary is the least powerful of the three branches, and that the current crop of leaders wants to grant more and more powers to the executive (at least, as long as the executive is Republican).
Whoever
attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that,
in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary,
from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the
political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to
annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds
the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but
prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be
regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the
sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the
society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to
have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend
upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This
simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves
incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three
departments of power [1] ; that it can
never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care
is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally
proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the
courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered
from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from
both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that ``there is no
liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and
executive powers.'' [2] And it proves,
in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary
alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the
other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a
dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent
separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in
continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate
branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and
independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly
regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great
measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
1:38:27 PM
|
|
LIBBY QUAID, ASSOCIATED PRESS - The House Agriculture Committee approved budget cuts Friday that would take food stamps away from an estimated 300,000 people and could cut off school lunches and breakfasts for 40,000 children. The action came as the government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of U.S. households.
(Via UNDERNEWS.)
8:27:32 AM
|
|
This is the best parody of conservative writing I've ever seen. I love the misspellings, the way it says liberals hate motherhood, love drugs, are crooks.
8:12:03 AM
|
|
That, of course, was what candidate Bush told the delegates at the 2000 RNC convention.
Five years later, a Washington Post/ABC poll reveals White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned:
The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.
Well done.
(Via Thoughts from Kansas.)
8:06:50 AM
|
|
The following is an extract from an October 19 , 2005 public conversation sponsored by The Nation Institute at the New York Ethical Culture Society, between investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter:
"Mr. Ritter: Well, I view that Iraq is a nation that's on fire. There's a horrific problem that faces not only the people of Iraq but the United States and the entire world. And the fuel that feeds that fire is the presence of American and British troops. This is widely acknowledged by the very generals that are in charge of the military action in Iraq. So the best way to put out the fire is to separate the fuel from the flame. So I'm a big proponent of bringing the troops home as soon as possible. Today's the best day we're going to have in Iraq. Tomorrow's going to be worse, and the day after that's going to be even worse. But we also have to recognize that one of the reasons why we didn't move to Baghdad in 1991 to take out Saddam was that there was wide recognition that if you get rid of Saddam and you don't have a good idea of what's going to take his place, that Iraq will devolve into chaos and anarchy. Well, we've done just that. We got rid of Saddam, and we have no clue what was going to take his place. And pulling the troops out is only half of the problem. Mr. Hersh: One of the things about your book that's amazing is that it's not only about the Bush Administration, and if there are any villains in this book, they include Sandy Berger, who was Clinton's national security advisor, and Madeleine Albright. ….. Mr. Ritter: You know, there's a lot of talk today in the Democratically controlled judiciary committee about going after the Bush Administration for crimes, for lying to Congress, and etc. And I'm all in favor of that, bring on the indictments, but don't stop at the Bush Administration. If you want to have a truly bipartisan indictment, you indict Madeleine Albright, you indict Sandy Berger, you indict every person on the Clinton Administration that committed the exact same crime that the Bush Administration has committed today. Lying during the course of your official duty: That's a felony, that's a high crime and misdemeanor. That's language in the Constitution that triggers certain events like impeachment. So let's not just simply turn this into a Bush-bashing event. This is about a failure of not only the Bush Administration but of the United States of America … …. And so that's why you have a Secretary of State like Condoleezza Rice who has the gall to stand before the American people and say that war is the only guarantor of peace and security. And now she testified before the US Congress today, and she said that not only is Iraq probably going to be another ten-year investment of time, blood, and national treasure for the American public, but that Syria and Iran may very well be the next targets of the Bush Administration. So this Administration has learned nothing, but what's worse is that Congress has learned nothing."
Ritter and Seymour Hersh: Iraq Confidential
October 26, 2005
(Via Free Iraq.)
7:56:49 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Steve Michel.
Last update: 11/2/2005; 10:16:44 AM.
|
|
|
