12 Dec 08
"The Bush administration has made it easier for drilling, mining and major construction projects to go ahead without a full scientific assessment. Revised rules mean agencies will no longer have to consult scientists about whether projects, such as the building of dams or mines, would harm wildlife. [...] Modifications to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are expected to come into effect in about 30 days. Republican supporters of the changes, along with developers and some federal agencies, argue the current system of environmental reviews causes delays to projects, pushing up costs."
Rest of the story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7778749.stm
Environmentalists - who let's face it, have an agenda - are unhappy. But is this perhaps simply a bit of well-informed common sense that will improve the prosperity and well-being of all Americans?
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFI don't recall any legislation being passed, so this is likely by executive order to the EPA.
"The Bush administration has made it easier for drilling, mining and major construction projects to go ahead without a full scientific assessment. Revised rules mean agencies will no longer have to consult scientists about whether projects, such as the building of dams or mines, would harm wildlife. [...] Modifications to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are ex ...[text shortened]... well-informed common sense that will improve the prosperity and well-being of all Americans?
Of course that could change day after Inauguration of the New President.
I'm in favor of preserving and cleaning up the environment, but radicals in the movement tend to make human progress nearly impossible. Humans are part of the environment, and as sapient members thereof must do what is beneficial to humans as well as wildlife.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignThat's quite a claim. Where do you imagine humans would have progressed to without "radical" pressures to preserve and clean up the environment during, say, the last 30 years?
...radicals in the movement tend to make human progress nearly impossible.
Do you exclude moves towards 'environmental protection' during those 30 years from your definition of "human progress"?
Humans are part of the environment, and as sapient members thereof must do what is beneficial to humans as well as wildlife.
Would you agree that enviromentalism might be just one clear example of our sapience and that our sapience might designate us a different role from the other wildlife as to how exactly we can and should 'benefit' and to what degree other life forms lose out?
Do you think Bush's proposals will improve the prosperity and well-being of all Americans?
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignHere are some details about the "human progress" that the Bush administration is making possible:
I don't recall any legislation being passed, so this is likely by executive order to the EPA.[...] I'm in favor of preserving and cleaning up the environment, but radicals in the movement tend to make human progress nearly impossible.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/george-bush-midnight-regulations
• Make it easier for coal companies to dump waste from strip-mining into valleys and streams.
• Ease the building of coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks.
• Allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.
• Open up millions of acres to mining for oil shale.
• Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.
• Hurt road safety by allowing truck drivers to stay at the wheel for 11 consecutive hours.
Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. Outgoing presidents often use the loophole in their last weeks in office, but Bush has done this far more than Bill Clinton or his father, George Bush sr. He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFThere's a bridge over a river near my hometown that's decades too old. Construction of the new one, a quarter mile away, has been held up for 11 years now due to environmental pressures. It appears there is some uncertainty concerning how the the location of the swirling water around the existing pillar to the new bridge pillar will effect wildlife. Holding up a bridge over the location of swirling water seems a bit extreme.
That's quite a claim. Where do you imagine humans would have progressed to without "radical" pressures to preserve and clean up the environment during, say, the last 30 years?
Do you exclude moves towards 'environmental protection' during those 30 years from your definition of "human progress"?
[b]Humans are part of the environment, and as sa ...[text shortened]... ou think Bush's proposals will improve the prosperity and well-being of all Americans?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkOh well then, we'd better make it easier for coal companies to dump waste from strip-mining into valleys and streams, then.
There's a bridge over a river near my hometown that's decades too old. Construction of the new one, a quarter mile away, has been held up for 11 years now due to environmental pressures. It appears there is some uncertainty concerning how the the location of the swirling water around the existing pillar to the new bridge pillar will effect wildlife. Holding up a bridge over the location of swirling water seems a bit extreme.
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAbsolutely disgraceful, although sadly, exactly what we have come to expect from the moronic, greedy, selfish, monkey-boy.
"The Bush administration has made it easier for drilling, mining and major construction projects to go ahead without a full scientific assessment. Revised rules mean agencies will no longer have to consult scientists about whether projects, such as the building of dams or mines, would harm wildlife. [...] Modifications to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are ex well-informed common sense that will improve the prosperity and well-being of all Americans?
more here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/george-bush-midnight-regulations
EDIT: Oh sorry, you already posted this link....good work FMF!!!
16 Dec 08
"Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights."
Let's hold a gun on a healthcare workers head and make them perform abortions even though they may consider that murder. Healthcare workers should be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks or they're too drunk. That there must presently be laws forcing them to do these things is an abomination. Big thumbs up here for the new relaxation of regulation, now if only they would stop making people with strong feelings on abortion, actually pay for abortions through the tax regime.
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaSo, it seems you whimp out of your own tedious dictums when it suits you? Can't say I am surprised. For all the sanguine air and graces you emit, all you ever do really is try to intellectualize your profoundly anti-social instincts. Can't expect any consistency from self-righteous bludgers-in-denial, can we?
Healthcare workers should be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks or they're too drunk. That there must presently be laws forcing them to do these things is an abomination.
In your own words...
Originally posted by Wajoma
An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions, take it or leave it. An employee says "Here I am, these are my skills, these are the minimum conditions I require, take it or leave it." If there is some overlap they get together and do business, if not they go their separate ways in search of an employer or employee that will accept their terms.
(http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=104550&page=3)
Surely your "Healthcare workers facing abominations" should just walk away and go in search of an employer that will accept their pick & mix terms?
Or does your smug little maxim on this matter only apply to the kinds of powerless yellow and brown folk who stitch your trainers in sweatshops?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFYep
Surely your "Healthcare workers facing abominations" should just walk away and go in search of an employer that will accept their pick & mix terms?
Or does your smug little maxim on this matter only apply to the kinds of powerless yellow and brown folk who stitch your trainers in sweatshops?
Nup
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaA little novelty post to try to cover up your discomfort?
Yep
Nup
Problem is, you can't stop people from reading my last post. And you can't stop them checking what it is you say ad nauseam about who calls the shots when it comes to terms and conditions of employment. This is not one you can spin, I'm afraid.
Yep?
Nup?
Cute.