From The Archives -- EPA Moves To End Mountaintop-Removal Mining
[Program Note: This was yet another one of those stories which were largely ignored by the mainstream media last year. Perhaps regional media in Appalachia covered it, but the national organizations mostly took a pass on reporting it. Which is a shame, because it seems to suggest the closing of a very dark era in the history of U.S. mining. Anyone who doubts the severity of the ecological destruction this practice causes should really check out this article on Crooks And Liars by fellow blogger Matt Osborne (of the intrepid Osborne Ink site), and view his two videos -- which lay bare (brutal pun intended) this rapacious mining technique's devastation in a very moving way. As you can see from Matt's article and his documentaries, even though the E.P.A. has taken baby steps in the right direction, there's still a long path to travel in order to ban this practice forever. If the whole subject is too depressing for you, then I guess you can read the article I wrote last month which shows some optimism in the American mining field, in a story that has recently gotten some attention due to China's announcement this week that they'll be cutting back their shipments of rare earth minerals to the rest of the world (which is more than just "significant," as they currently control 97 percent of the world market).]
[Originally published 4/22/10]
Happy 40th Earth Day, everyone!
Earth Day, as we all know, got going through the efforts of some starry-eyed idealistic hippie-types four decades ago. The "ecology" movement scored some of its biggest victories almost immediately, under (gasp!) President Richard Nixon, with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and passage of some updated federal anti-pollution laws. Since that time, it has become the very mainstream "environmental movement." Today (for instance), most people recycle things without a second thought for where the concept came from.
But rather than stroll down memory lane with an overall history of the movement itself... well, OK, upon reflection... here is the original 1970s "ecology" flag, just for sentiment's sake:
...and just because it's a pretty cool looking flag, don't you think? Ahem.
Instead, I'd like to highlight some good environmentalist news from a few weeks ago, which didn't really get much media attention at the time. Perhaps if they had delayed the announcement, it would have made a bigger splash today, being Earth Day and all.
At the beginning of this month, the E.P.A. announced new regulations which will begin to bring an end to the horrendous practice of "mountaintop-removal mining." From the Washington Post story about the new rules:
The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency ended months of bureaucratic limbo on the issue. It was hailed by environmentalists but condemned by coal industry officials, who said it would render a technique that generates about 10 percent of U.S. coal largely impractical.
At "mountaintop removal" mines, which are unique to Appalachian states, miners blast the peaks off mountains to reach coal seams inside and then pile vast quantities of rubble in surrounding valleys. Under the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, hundreds of such sites received federal permits.
But on Thursday, E.P.A. Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said those "valley fills" will be curtailed. She cited new scientific evidence showing that when rainwater is filtered through the jumbles of rock, it emerges imbued with toxins, poisoning small mountain streams.
"You're talking about no, or very few, valley fills that are going to meet this standard," Jackson said.
Now, the new rules probably won't be perfect. Few things are, and the mining companies are likely to look very hard for loopholes. And, even if they do prove to be perfect, the rules do "grandfather" in the existing mines. But these new rules will go a long way towards ending this devastating practice, and should be seen as a milestone along the road towards this goal.
For those unfamiliar with the term, in certain parts of Appalachia, most notably West Virginia and Kentucky, the mining companies developed a novel way to get the coal out of the ground -- take a mountaintop or ridge, blast it apart, and separate out the coal. The only problem with this is that, after blasting, you are left with a bigger volume of rubble than the mountain you started with. So the mining companies used surrounding gullies and valleys to dump the stuff, leaving a devastated wasteland behind.
The problem with this is that in those valleys are often streams. And the hard minerals and other unwanted substances can destroy the livelihood of those streams -- and, at times, the rivers they feed into. This is a major problem in the region, and environmentalists have been fighting it since it began. Although it is a problem limited to one region, the impact within that region is enormous. Again, from the article:
...rock is often piled up to form a mountain shape. But there is usually excess rock, which goes into surrounding valleys. Between 2000 and 2008, companies received permits for 511 valley fills. These often look like giant plugs, filling Appalachian ravines to the brim: in all, government data show, the plugs -- placed end to end -- would span 176 miles... satellite maps show flat, brown mine sites spreading among green mountains.
The new rules took effect immediately, although the E.P.A. is still open to public comment on them. This should effectively bar any new permits for mountaintop-removal mining to take place in the future. As the remaining mines play out, the concept of destroying an entire mountain to get at its coal will take its place in the history of "environmentally-destructive things we used to not even think about doing, but which we have now condemned and moved on from."
I would assume this was big news in the affected region. But it really should have been bigger news nationwide. Because this is a real and tangible step towards a better future. It's a step Bill Clinton gave lip service to, without ever actually taking (Clinton issued "guidelines," halfheartedly, on his way out of office -- knowing full well that George W. Bush would immediately overturn them when he took control... which Bush, of course, then did). But an E.P.A. rule goes right to (if you'll forgive me) the bedrock of the matter, and will not be easy for future presidents to overturn or ignore.
This truly is a monumental environmental achievement by President Obama, and while it does indeed provide some good news on Earth Day, one wonders why the White House hasn't made a bigger deal out of it in the media. OK, I realize Obama gave a rather momentous speech today, but long after that speech has been forgotten, the Appalachians will still be there for future generations. And that, as I said, is a good enough reason today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of a starry-eyed idealistic hippie movement, and what it has gotten accomplished so far.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Site Update:
Since this is now a user-supported site, I feel honor-bound to update everyone on the site's progress (which is why I'm taking the week off from writing columns, in other words).
Finally -- finally! -- CW.com can say that the site is now fully complete. The "Email Chris" page is now working (although there is no confirmation page as of yet, to let you know your email has gone through... we're working on that...) the way it is supposed to.
And -- bigger news -- ALL the static-text pages are now complete! Woo hoo! Much to our embarrassment here, this chore has been sitting around undone for far too long, but has now been completed. I've gone through and updated every "About" and "FAQ" type page on the site, and written a few that never existed up until this point -- most notably the "About ObamaPollWatch" and "About FridayTalkingPoints" pages, which jaded regulars eager for a mild thrill might want to check out (I'm just sayin'...).
Anyway, progress continues down in the nuts-and-bolts area of ChrisWeigant.com, just to let everyone know...
-CW
I applaud the EPA in their efforts such as this..
However, the EPA is far over-reaching it's mandate and needs to concentrate on efforts such as what is talked about above and forget about ludicrous actions such as trying to regulate a person's breath...
Michale.....
Oh, and as I said the first time this ran, that's a pretty kewl looking flag.. :D
Michale.....
actions such as trying to regulate a person's breath...
Hunh?
QIAB,
E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html
When a human being breathes, they exhale carbon dioxide..
The EPA wants to regulate carbon dioxide...
I tell ya, it's Governor Kodos all over again!!! :D
Michale.....
I see. It was intended as japery.
Ha.
I see. It was intended as japery.
Ha.
Actually, it's semi-serious...
As with the FCC, the EPA is trying to do an end run around Congress and the courts...
If there is one motto that sticks to the Obama Administration, it would be "By Hook Or By Crook"
What's amazing to me is that the Hysterical Left, who would have a conniption fit just because the Bush Administration was reading Aunt Matilda's secret baked beans recipe, is just lying down passively while the Obama Administration imposes or attempts to impose regulations and assaults on our liberties that would make Dick Cheney cringe...
We have three branches of government for a reason. Obama seems to be doing his damndest to circumvent the checks and balances inherent in our system aided and abetted by the Left....
Michale.....
I see. It was intended as japery.
For the record, I had to look up the term, "japery"...
Good word usage... :D
Michale.....
Michale -
Yeah, I couldn't resist throwing in that image of the ecology flag. It is a cool design.
As for the EPA, I think if this is your position, your wrath should be focused on the courts. The EPA is under the gun from a court decision it lost to come up with regulations. The EPA is also completely independent of the White House (at least in theory), by law. The real culprit here (if you consider CO2 regulation as some sort of travesty, which you seem to be suggesting) is Congress, though. Everyone KNEW these new EPA regs were coming. Congress could have acted to forestall the EPA regs, by passing some sort of energy policy which addressed the court decision. They did not. They punted. No energy policy (good or bad) was passed. Which means that Congress AND the courts have forced the EPA to act.
So, without agreeing with your position at all, I have to say that if you're going to pin blame, save a few pins for the ones whose feet this can be laid at, that's all.
-CW
Michale -
One last thing -- this IS "checks and balances" at work. The court is a check. The balance is supposed to be (in this situation) Congress -- which is why the court gave the EPA so much time to come up with regs, so Congress could act in the meantime. The Obama administration doesn't even enter the picture, since the courts are driving this effort and Congress had the power to change that (which they refused to). I believe (I could be wrong about this) the original court case and decision happened under Bush, even, and the appeals happened under Obama. So it's not some nefarious Lefty plot coming from the Oval Office, sorry.
-CW
CW,
So you are saying that the EPA situation is completely different than the FCC situation??
But I agree with you that Congress does share some of the blame..
The 111th Congress sure got a lot of practice punting this session, eh? :D
But regardless of whether or not Congress did it's job or not, the simple fact is, it's ludicrous for a government agency to want to regulate the gasses that result when a person exhales...
Can you imagine the possible results of such regulation???
I believe (I could be wrong about this) the original court case and decision happened under Bush, even, and the appeals happened under Obama. So it's not some nefarious Lefty plot coming from the Oval Office, sorry.
Actually, it is.. :D The Bush Administration's EPA determined that Carbon Dioxide was not a greenhouse gas.. The Obama EPA took it upon itself to reverse that decision..
From the article above:
She took a first step on Tuesday when she said that the agency would reconsider a Bush administration decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-burning power plants. In announcing the reversal, Ms. Jackson suggested that the E.P.A. was considering additional measures to regulate heat-trapping gases.
Further, the White House IS involved...
The White House signaled that it fully supported Ms. Jackson’s approach, deferring to her to discuss the administration’s response to the Supreme Court case.
Michale.....
Further, the courts only told the EPA that they cannot regulate CO2 under THE CLEAN AIR act unless there is a finding that CO2 is an endangering gas.
So, the courts didn't FORCE the EPA into regulating CO2. They simply laid out a road map that the EPA must follow if the EPA CHOOSES to regulate CO2...
Initially, it was assumed that the EPA's foray into these areas was to blackmail Congress into passing Scheme & Ream (AKA Cap & Trade) That the EPA would not be so foolish as to actually think it could regulate a person's breathing gases..
We now know that Obama's EPA (just like it's FCC) sees themselves as above the law...
Just because Congress chooses not to act, doesn't give these agencies the right to go on a delusional power grab...
Perhaps Congress is not acting for a reason, eh?? I mean, hell.. If a totally Dem dominated Congress doesn't act on EPA and FCC related issues, shouldn't that be a clue and a half to the agencies that maybe the kinds of actions they are proposing aren't warranted???
Imagine a world where your government can regulate the very gases you breathe in and out?? What's to stop the government from imposing a tax on individuals for their CO2 output, the same way Obama's EPA wants to impose a tax on businesses for THEIR CO2 output??
Can't happen?? Why can't it??
Imagine if Bush's appointed officials in various agencies acted in such a unilateral fashion. Wouldn't the Left have a fit??
It seems that all the cries of Government Control or Police State during the Bush years was all smokescreen..
Because, judging from the Left's apathy towards Obama's actions, it appears to any reasonable person that the Left doesn't MIND Government Control, as long as it's the Democrats who are the Government... It appears the Left doesn't MIND a Police State, as long as Democrats are the Police...
And, again.... I must point out.. All these controls and regulations that the Democrats are imposing on this country..
How will ya'all feel about them when it's the Republicans who are at the helm??
Do ya'all REALLY want so many reins of power over your lives, if it's the Republicans who are holding the reins??
Food for thought, eh?? :D
Michale.....
Man, that's one hell of a straw man even for the hysterical anti-left...
Bashi,
Care to elaborate??
Michale.....
Your whole EPA is trying to regulate a persons breathing.
Bashi,
The EPA is wanting to regulate CO2.
CO2 is a gas produced when a person breathes...
These are the facts, are they not??
But you are right.
It's ludicrous to think that such regulations would lead to actually regulating a person's breathing.
Just as ludicrous as when the Left claimed that the Patriot act would lead to midnight arrests and mass Gestapo tactics..
Right?? :D
Michale
Well, you could read the proposed regulation. The EPA wants to regulate sources of CO2 over 5000 tons per year. That has been changed to 25,000 tons per year. Humans exhale .4 tons per year each. Only a teeny tiny exaggeration. Maybe if we all hyperventilate...
But what turns it from a normal run of the mill straw man to a Hell of a straw man is the assumption that regulating human exhale gasses is something unusual. Every gas coming out of you is regulated in some way especially if you take in to account your human breath exaggeration. Many have industrial emission regulations as well.
N2 : transportation of liquid nitrogen, using n2 for food packing
O2 : flammable, lost of regulations there.
H2 : same as above.
CO2 . Lots of regulations on the transportation and use of CO2 in it solid form (dry ice).
All the trace gasses are regulated in some way as well: carbon monoxide, ammonia, acetone, methanol, ethanol…
Hell there are even regulations surrounding the emission of water vapor with all the mold problems.
Just as ludicrous as when the Left claimed that the Patriot act would lead to midnight arrests and mass Gestapo tactics..
Some on the left certainly said such but I read much more coming from Libertarians…
Bashi,
Well, you could read the proposed regulation. The EPA wants to regulate sources of CO2 over 5000 tons per year. That has been changed to 25,000 tons per year. Humans exhale .4 tons per year each. Only a teeny tiny exaggeration. Maybe if we all hyperventilate...
Good point.
Could you source this?? :D
Every gas coming out of you is regulated in some way especially if you take in to account your human breath exaggeration. Many have industrial emission regulations as well.
But not every gas coming out of us is taxed simply by virtue of it coming out of us, now is it??
But that was my fault. I should have been more precise...
Some on the left certainly said such
"Some???"
-Lt Commander Worf, STAR TREK VIII, First Contact
It was a tad bit more then "some".. It was an entire Leftist movement..
Was I the only one awake during the Bush years?? :D
Michale.....
Well, you could read the proposed regulation. The EPA wants to regulate sources of CO2 over 5000 tons per year. That has been changed to 25,000 tons per year. Humans exhale .4 tons per year each. Only a teeny tiny exaggeration. Maybe if we all hyperventilate...
Regardless, that is the proposed regulation NOW.... But what's to stop the Obama administration from lowering that threshold??
Not a damn thing...
"Can't happen" you say?? "People will rise up" you think??
{{cough, cough}} TSA {{cough, cough}}
Once you start de-sensitizing people to a police state environment, it's always easier to institute more and more taxes and more and more restrictions..
But, it's OK... We can trust the government, right??
What about in 2 years when it's a GOP government???
Michale.....
Regardless, that is the proposed regulation NOW.... But what's to stop the Obama administration from lowering that threshold??
Moving from a straw man to a slippery slope?
Regardless of all the arguments, real and alleged "straw man", let me ask you, Bashi.
Do you think it's a good idea to be taxing CO2 emissions with the economy in such a fragile state??
Michale.....
Bashi,
Moving from a straw man to a slippery slope?
Why is it that you can't make an argument solely on the merits of your alleged argument but rather always attacking HOW I make my arguments???
Irregardless, there are MANY arguments against what the Obama Administration is doing by circumventing Congress and having his appointed minions do the dirty work that the American Public are clearly and overwhelmingly against...
If you could look at things as a political agnostic, you would see this..
Michale.....
Why is it that you can't make an argument solely on the merits of your alleged argument but rather always attacking HOW I make my arguments???
Many of your arguments have parts that are so ridiculous that pointing out the logical fallacies seems to be the best way to respond. Take this thread. Do you really expect me to put any stock in the arguments that Obama is some how trying some unusual executive branch power grab to the point he wants Orwellian like regulation on breathing? Not to mention that the whole thing is a dance around bringing up global warming, which for some reason you are avoiding. You seem fine with the Patriot act as a federal government power grab because, I would guess, you feel the threat is greater than the risks. Many of those who agree with the science behind global warming feel the same. If the moderate to extreme predictions are correct, global warming could make terrorism seem a walk in the park, therefore actions taken to try and prevent it are seen as worth slowing economic recovery or the risks of more power to the federal government.
If you could look at things as a political agnostic, you would see this..
ROTFLMAO. One would think an agnostic would criticize all parties equally. Would not lump all the left in to a single group and attribute to them the most wacky thing a few of them are saying while completely ignoring all the wacky stuff the right is doing. Would put links in posts to the most rational version of the story rather than FOX opinion pieces when an even more extreme right wing version of the story can not be found.
"agnostic" Hehe…haha…sniff* Whew...still a good one.
Thursday, 16:45:
Actually, it's semi-serious...
Friday, 17:19:
It's ludicrous to think that such regulations would lead to actually regulating a person's breathing.
Saturday, 3:22:
Regardless, that is the proposed regulation NOW.... But what's to stop the Obama administration from lowering that threshold??
Not a damn thing...
I've seen more consistency in the flight of hummingbirds.
Which position do you actually subscribe to, Michale? It can't be all of them because they contradict one another directly.
Bashi,
Many of your arguments have parts that are so ridiculous that pointing out the logical fallacies seems to be the best way to respond.
If THAT is what you did, then I wouldn't say a word.
But you make personal attacks on HOW I make my argument rather than "pointing out the logical fallacies"..
Which indicates to me that HAVE no logical or rational argument.
Once you make personal attacks, you have already lost..
Take this thread. Do you really expect me to put any stock in the arguments that Obama is some how trying some unusual executive branch power grab to the point he wants Orwellian like regulation on breathing?
About as much stock as anyone should put in the idea that, via the Patriot Act, the Bush Administration was hell bent on midnight knocks at the door, etc etc.
Is THAT any more a believable argument?? Yet that's the argument that the Left made during the Bush years...
Further, is it really that far-fetched that the government would want to tax CO2 that emits from a person??
About as far fetched as the government wanting to tax CO2 from industry in the midst of a recession based on the flimsiest of science...
You seem fine with the Patriot act as a federal government power grab because, I would guess, you feel the threat is greater than the risks.
Actually, that is fairly accurate..
Many of those who agree with the science behind global warming feel the same. If the moderate to extreme predictions are correct, global warming could make terrorism seem a walk in the park, therefore actions taken to try and prevent it are seen as worth slowing economic recovery or the risks of more power to the federal government.
How many predictions, to date, that the Global Warming "scientists" have predicted have come to pass??
NONE.. ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....
One of the leading Pro Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) "scientists" is on record as stating that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998...
It's on THIS so-called "science" that the EPA is basing their ludicrous power grab on...
But, this isn't a discussion on the AGW question... That question is one of religious-like devotion, IE "my priests are right and your priests are wrong."
This is a discussion on the Obama administration subverting the will of the American people by doing an end run around Congress.. AGAIN...
Would not lump all the left in to a single group and attribute to them the most wacky thing a few of them are saying while completely ignoring all the wacky stuff the right is doing
Why should I do your jobs for you?? :D I am equally critical of the Right when it is deserved.. I have agreed with people here on many aspects of the ludicrousness of the Right...
Where we differ is that you appear to believe the Left is as pure as the driven snow, whereas I really don't see much difference between the Left and the Right..
So who really is the political agnostic here?? You or me? :D
QIAB
I've seen more consistency in the flight of hummingbirds.
And again with the personal attacks.. Jeeze louise.. Do ya'all take lessons in how to lose debates???
Which position do you actually subscribe to, Michale? It can't be all of them because they contradict one another directly.
The 1719 post was a comparative analogy whereas I illustrated that how alleged "ludicrous" actions weren't very "ludicrous" when the Left was making the claims..
In effect, I was saying, if it's so "ludicrous" that the government would want to tax someone's breath, then it is equally "ludicrous" that the government would use the Patriot Act to round up people who dissent via midnight kicks at the door...
I should have put "ludicrous" in quotes so you would have understood it better. My apologies.
Anyways, once you take out that statement, my positions have been entirely consistent...
Sure, the intended regulation as it stands now, would preclude taxing an individuals CO2 emissions. Just as the Patriot Act when it was written didn't envision groping passenger's genitals and alleged naked scanning..
Yet, here we are..
I am constantly amazed at how much faith the Left has in it's government.... When it's a LEFT government, that is.. :D
I posted a simple question that, amidst all the personal attacks, seems to have stumped ya'all..
Is it a good idea to be increasing taxes on industry based on the flimsiest of science, with the economy as bad as it is??
Michale.....
Ya'all, apparently, think it's ridiculous to think that the government would attempt to tax an individual's CO2 emissions...
Let me ask you.. Do you think it's "ridiculous" to think that the government would force an individual to buy a private-sector product??
Today's "ridiculous" or "ludicrous" apparently, is tomorrow's legislation....
Michale.....
On the lighter side....
2010 MAY BE THE WORST YEAR EVER....
Things were even worse abroad. North Korea continued to show why it is known as “the international equivalent of Charlie Sheen.” The entire nation of Greece went into foreclosure and had to move out; it is now living with relatives in Bulgaria. Iran continued to develop nuclear weapons, all the while insisting that they would be used only for peaceful scientific research, such as — to quote President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — “seeing what happens when you drop one on Israel.” Closer to home, the already strained relationship between the United States and Mexico reached a new low following the theft, by a Juarez-based drug cartel, of the Grand Canyon.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/03/106081/dave-barry-2010-may-be-the-worst.html
THAT is really funny... :D
Michale.....
Pointing out logical fallacies of an argument is a personal attack? Really?
And then you post this chestnut, to which variations of frequent your posts:
Where we differ is that you appear to believe the Left is as pure as the driven snow, whereas I really don't see much difference between the Left and the Right..
I challenge you to find any post I have made on this site where I have stated anything even close to that I believe the left is "as pure as the driven snow". Or in common internet vernacular:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Would it be rude to point out this chestnut and it's variations are also a logical fallacies?
How many predictions, to date, that the Global Warming "scientists" have predicted have come to pass??
NONE.. ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA….
How are those wild extremes of weather working out for you on the east coast? Was that not one of the predictions of global warming?
One of the leading Pro Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) "scientists" is on record as stating that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998...
Hmm… do I believe One unnamed global warming scientist or NASA? I think I'll go with NASA…
Let me ask you.. Do you think it's "ridiculous" to think that the government would force an individual to buy a private-sector product??
I own a car. The state I live in requires that I buy accident insurance if I wish to drive the car. Where I live would be very difficult to survive with out a car making car insurance a de-facto requirement. Car insurance is private-sector product. No it does not bother me. Or would you like to more narrowly define "government"?
Is it a good idea to be increasing taxes on industry based on the flimsiest of science, with the economy as bad as it is??
As you seem to be in the minority here that finds the science "Flimsy", this is also a logical fallacy...
Bashi,
Pointing out logical fallacies of an argument is a personal attack? Really?
Let me rephrase....
If THAT is what you did, then I wouldn't say a word.
But you make personal attacks on HOW I make my argument instead of simply "pointing out the logical fallacies"..
I challenge you to find any post I have made on this site where I have stated anything even close to that I believe the left is "as pure as the driven snow". Or in common internet vernacular:
Fair enough.. We can nip this one right now.
Do you think the Left is better than the Right when it comes to common accusations that are leveled against the Right?
I own a car. The state I live in requires that I buy accident insurance if I wish to drive the car. Where I live would be very difficult to survive with out a car making car insurance a de-facto requirement. Car insurance is private-sector product. No it does not bother me. Or would you like to more narrowly define "government"?
You are comparing apples and alligators..
The insurance you are required to purchase is to cover SOMEONE ELSE, in case you get into an accident..
To use your analogy accurately, you would have to claim that COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE is a required or mandated purchase..
As we both know, there is no mandate, State OR Federal, that requires an individual to purchase COMPREHENSIVE Insurance..
Further, your analogy is flawed because the requirement is a requisite for the operation of a motor vehicle.. If you choose not to operate a motor vehicle, there is no mandate to purchase insurance..
In the case of Crap Care, the only requirement for the forced purchase is that you exist..
Finally, we are discussing FEDERAL requirements and mandates, not STATE's...
If you really want to defend the mandate feel free. But I don't really think you want to do that nor do I believe you actually agree with the mandate...
As you seem to be in the minority here that finds the science "Flimsy", this is also a logical fallacy...
As long as you define "here" as CW.COM, your statement would be accurate.. :D
But SOMEONE has to bring logic and objective thinking to that particular discussion as opposed to a "Oh my god, think of the children!!!" type emotional argument...
Might as well be me.. :D
Michale.....
The 1719 post was a comparative analogy whereas I illustrated that how alleged "ludicrous" actions weren't very "ludicrous" when the Left was making the claims..
In effect, I was saying, if it's so "ludicrous" that the government would want to tax someone's breath, then it is equally "ludicrous" that the government would use the Patriot Act to round up people who dissent via midnight kicks at the door...
OK, if you're going for analogy, it sounds to me like you don't think the kick-down-the-door fears were well-founded; the analog to that conclusion would be that fears about regulating human breath are equally unfounded.
Yet you keep bringing it up. Do you really believe that or are you just foolin'?
One of the leading Pro Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) "scientists" is on record as stating that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998...
Do you know what the words "statistically significant" mean? Did you read the actual interview where this quote came from or did you just pick up the quote from a list of denier talking points?
OK, if you're going for analogy, it sounds to me like you don't think the kick-down-the-door fears were well-founded; the analog to that conclusion would be that fears about regulating human breath are equally unfounded.
I am saying that, on the surface, both claims could be construed as ludicrous.
Yet, we have seen that other, equally ludicrous sounding ideas, such as forcing Americans to purchase a private sector product has come to pass...
IE what sounds ludicrous today could possibly happen in the not so distant future..
But my point in bringing them both up in the manner that I did was to point out the hypocrisy..
If midnight kicks at the door was so feasible and so "likely" to the Left during the Bush years, why is taxing (not regulating but taxing) human breath so far-fetched in the Obama years???
As far as my own personal belief??
I would but nothing past the Obama Administration insofar as doing things that the vast majority of Americans are against..
Look at CrapCare.. Look at Net Neutrality...
You can bet, if the American people are against something, that the Obama Administration will push it thru like the second coming...
Michale.....
OK, so you initially wrote that the EPA is attempting to regulate human breathing, but then you backed off that as "ludicrous" but only on the surface and still insist that it could happen because health care reform.
Have I caught up yet?
Not quite....
I am not saying it "could happen because of Health Care Reform".
I simply assert that what sounds ludicrous at face value might not be so ludicrous after all and I provide facts to support that assertion..
Further, my position is that the EPA is setting things up so that, in the future, the government will have the ability to TAX human breath... You DO realize that CO2 is a component of human breathing, right???
Regardless, I honestly doubt that the EPA will jump on the "Death Panels" bandwagon and will try and decide who gets to breathe and who doesn't....
The CrapCare division might take umbrage to that.. :D
There....
NOW you are caught up... :D
Michale.....
Do you think the Left is better than the Right when it comes to common accusations that are leveled against the Right?
I do not look at the world in terms diametric opposition. Nor do I place value judgements on criticism of various sides policy. "Better" is a meaningless value judgement. I tend to agree more with the lefts arguments than the rights. But I do have liberal friends that during the bush years had to make up derogatory words using "Bush". I did not respect those political opinions much in the same way I do not respect yours on health care after all your made up derogatory names for it. If you can't call a spade a spade, I generally view your argument as suspicious.
You are comparing apples and alligators..
No, you asked Let me ask you.. Do you think it's "ridiculous" to think that the government would force an individual to buy a private-sector product??
You did not qualify what that private sector product was for or the level of government which was doing the forcing only whether or not I thought it ridiculous that the government would force an individual to buy a private-sector product.
As I do happen to buy a government mandated product already I did not find it ridiculous. If you wish to qualify the question after the fact, well that's a different question.
Further, your analogy is flawed because the requirement is a requisite for the operation of a motor vehicle.. If you choose not to operate a motor vehicle, there is no mandate to purchase insurance..
Ah, but I qualified it by stating driving a car where I live and therefore purchasing insurance is a de-facto requirement.
Finally, we are discussing FEDERAL requirements and mandates, not STATE's…
"Government" contains the subsets: federal, state and local. you made a blanket statement. I gave you a blanket response.
If you really want to defend the mandate feel free. But I don't really think you want to do that nor do I believe you actually agree with the mandate…
That is not what you asked, though it may have been at the heart of what you were dancing around.
As long as you define "here" as CW.COM, your statement would be accurate..
Or anywhere science is followed rather than faith based arguments…
But SOMEONE has to bring logic and objective thinking to that particular discussion as opposed to a "Oh my god, think of the children!!!" type emotional argument…
As avoiding the fallacies of logic are a corner stone of academic logic and objective thinking and after your exaggerated arguments above I find much irony in this…
Bashi,
I do not respect yours on health care after all your made up derogatory names for it.
Actually, it wasn't me that made that name up.. I was perfectly happy with Dunsel Care until it was pointed out that the legislation actually does harm and is "crap"... CrapCare was born...
If you can't call a spade a spade, I generally view your argument as suspicious.
I think that has more to do with the position of the argument, rather than the argument itself. :D
Having said that, you might be surprised to learn that I agree with you. Whenever I am faced with "cutsie" arguments that have things like Rethuglicans or Dumbocrats, I know I am not dealing with a person that has a mature argument.
However, in the case of CrapCare, it's more geared towards a thing, rather than a person or group... Therefore, it's exempted. :D
As I do happen to buy a government mandated product already I did not find it ridiculous.
You are not FORCED to buy said product... You buy it as a requirement for operating a motor vehicle...
That's the difference..
Ah, but I qualified it by stating driving a car where I live and therefore purchasing insurance is a de-facto requirement.
You CHOOSE to drive a car.. With that choice, there are responsibilities entailed..
It's a lot different than simply existing and THAT is the requirement for the forced purchase...
"Government" contains the subsets: federal, state and local. you made a blanket statement. I gave you a blanket response.
In other words, you were just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. :D
As avoiding the fallacies of logic are a corner stone of academic logic and objective thinking and after your exaggerated arguments above I find much irony in this…
This, coming from the guy who knew we were talking about Federal Government mandates and choose to dance around with other non-analogous mandates.. :D
Michale.....
my position is that the EPA is setting things up so that, in the future, the government will have the ability to TAX human breath...
Based on what? Certainly not the current batch of proposed regulations. There is absolutely no evidence to support this interpretation. Your position places you squarely in the camp of hysterics and paranoids who look for secret symbology in currency, hidden markers of the Trilateral Commission on official letterhead, and heralds of Old Nick on detergent boxes.
In short, Michale, you're opining--without evidence--that the government is surreptitiously laying the groundwork to tax respiration. Let me be plain: this is crazy talk.
I simply assert that what sounds ludicrous at face value might not be so ludicrous after all and I provide facts to support that assertion..
One of us has been mislead about the meaning of the word "fact." I do not believe it is me.
Let me ask you.. Do you think it's "ridiculous" to think that the government would force an individual to buy a private-sector product??
Just for speculative purposes, let's stipulate to the premise--it is ridiculous for the federal government to mandate the purchase of medical insurance.
Now let's see where this premise leads us.
If the requirement is ridiculous it should not stand and if it does not stand, some residents of the United States, although financially able, will elect not to purchase health insurance.
Some number of these will contract serious illnesses or fall victim to injurious accidents or criminal violence. What becomes of these residents in Michale's ideal world? Do they:
1) Receive care at the expense of the government or insurance rate payers? (This is the system in effect prior to the implementation of all aspects of the ACA.)
2) Get turned into the street if they fail to present a valid insurance card or post a bond against expected expenses?
3) Incur a monumental debt that will be paid over many years--if at all?
Which way would you have it, Michale?
Based on what?
Based on the recent history of this administration and it's penchant to utterly and completely ignore the will of the American people.
Based on the EPA's own assertion that CO2 is a gas that can be and should be taxed..
Take your pick...
In short, Michale, you're opining--without evidence--that the government is surreptitiously laying the groundwork to tax respiration. Let me be plain: this is crazy talk.
As crazy as those in the Bush years who claimed that the Patriot Act was the pre-cursor to a full on Gestapo Police State??
You mean THAT kind of "Crazy Talk"?? :D
I guess what you mean is, it's only "crazy talk" if it is against the Left and their so-called "progressive" agenda....
As far as "without evidence"...???
You must have been asleep during the entire CrapCare debacle...
One of us has been mislead about the meaning of the word "fact." I do not believe it is me.
Please feel free to refute my facts. It should be amusing, to say the least.. :D
Michale.....
As crazy as those in the Bush years who claimed that the Patriot Act was the pre-cursor to a full on Gestapo Police State??
You mean THAT kind of "Crazy Talk"??
I do.
Strangely, you seem to recognize the craziness of the gestapo police state notion while subscribing to the very thing you compare it to.
As for refuting what you believe to be facts, you'll have to point them out for me. As I said, one of us wouldn't know a fact if it was dressed in a sailor suit and sang the Hallelujah Chorus. I'm willing to offer attractive odds that it's not me.
QIAB,
Which way would you have it, Michale?
There is a 4th option..
A Do Over.
Get rid of CrapCare completely and re do it right...
Address the REAL issues and not just bennies for the Insurance Companies and other corporate interests...
Put an end to frivolous lawsuits and wasted medical tests...
Get rid of the waste and the 300+ new bureaucracies that CrapCare created...
Put forth a program that is REAL Health Care reform and not this garbage that the Democrats forced upon the American people in the name of political agendas...
That would be my choice, but hay... What do I know... I am just the token NPA around here. :D
Michale.....
Based on the recent history of this administration and it's penchant to utterly and completely ignore the will of the American people.
Based on the EPA's own assertion that CO2 is a gas that can be and should be taxed..
Take your pick...
If the first leads to the conclusion you assert, it can just as easily be offered as evidence that the Obama administration plans to mandate broken glass in homemade apple pies, abolition of the seventh-inning stretch, and round-the-clock telecasts of Aalf retrospectives. At any rate, your declarative is strained: the Obama administration has plainly acted against the will of some people; to call those who oppose his agenda "The People" presumes that the rest of us don't count.
If I grant the validity of your second offering, I'd also have to grant that the EPA plans to regulate wildfires, old rotting logs, and darkness, for all of these things also occasion the release of CO2.
Do you have anything--a news clipping, a government web site, a scientific paper, anything at all--that advances the idea of taxing human respiration? In an act of unearned generousity, I'll answer for you: you do not.
There is a 4th option..
A Do Over.
Chararacteristically, you duck the question. Here it is again:
Some number of these will contract serious illnesses or fall victim to injurious accidents or criminal violence. What becomes of these residents in Michale's ideal world?
What becomes of these people if you get your "do over," Michale?
If the first leads to the conclusion you assert, it can just as easily be offered as evidence that the Obama administration plans to mandate broken glass in homemade apple pies, abolition of the seventh-inning stretch, and round-the-clock telecasts of Aalf retrospectives. At any rate, your declarative is strained: the Obama administration has plainly acted against the will of some people; to call those who oppose his agenda "The People" presumes that the rest of us don't count.
75% of the people opposed CrapCare...
89% of the people oppose Net Neutrality...
61% of the people oppose Scheme & Ream AKA Cap & Trade
I think I am on safe ground when I speak for the American People in these regards....
The will of the people has been and continues to be thwarted by your Democrats..
"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
If I grant the validity of your second offering, I'd also have to grant that the EPA plans to regulate wildfires, old rotting logs, and darkness, for all of these things also occasion the release of CO2.
I am glad you see the complete and utter ludicrousness of the Obama Administration and it's attempt to tax CO2..
Common ground.. A wonderful thing.. :D
Do you have anything--a news clipping, a government web site, a scientific paper, anything at all--that advances the idea of taxing human respiration?
Human respiration results in CO2 emissions..
The Obama Administration wants to tax CO2 emissions..
The logic is impeccable... For those who are enslaved by Party ideology, that is...
What becomes of these people if you get your "do over," Michale?
Well, that depends on the quality of the Do Over, now doesn't it?
I'll let you know once CrapCare is a faded footnote in the annals of a failed presidency...
Michale.....
The logic is impeccable... For those who are enslaved by Party ideology, that is...
DOH!!
That SHOULD read:
The logic is impeccable... For those who are NOT enslaved by Party ideology, that is...
My bust... :D
Michale.....
75% of the people opposed CrapCare...
89% of the people oppose Net Neutrality...
61% of the people oppose Scheme & Ream AKA Cap & Trade
Oh, please do share your sources for these. They possess all the outward appearances of "facts" but their fragrance is evocative of the barnyard.
The will of the people has been and continues to be thwarted by your Democrats..
To be fair, they are also my Democrats as well, as I voted them into office... Much to my eternal dismay.
Michale......
Human respiration results in CO2 emissions..
The Obama Administration wants to tax CO2 emissions..
The logic is impeccable... For those who are enslaved by Party ideology, that is...
This is the most truth you have assembled in a single post to this point, yet probably not in the way you suppose.
Well, that depends on the quality of the Do Over, now doesn't it?
I'll let you know once CrapCare is a faded footnote in the annals of a failed presidency...
Cutting and running, Michale? I seem to recall you promising I would be out of my depth here.
Oh, please do share your sources for these. They possess all the outward appearances of "facts" but their fragrance is evocative of the barnyard.
OOOOOooooooooo, I love it when you talk dirty.. :D
The CrapCare percentage was common knowledge during the sausage making debacle that was the CrapCare debate... Since then, numbers have fluctuated, but it's still the majority of Americans..
Start here...
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=%2275%25+of+Americans+Oppose+ObamaCare%22&btnG=Google+Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=f7t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=Americans+Oppose+ObamaCare&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83f87efc6f926f13
As for Net Neutrality....
Only 21 Percent Of U.S. Voters Support Net Neutrality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/us-voters-net-neutrality_n_802456.html
With Scheme & Ream.... AKA Cap & Trade
Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
Modest Support for “Cap and Trade” Policy
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1386/cap-and-trade-global-warming-opinion
The ooo-so-important Independents are becoming especially skeptical of Scheme & Ream...
Further...
Surveys show Americans are against cap-and-trade
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/77553-surveys-show-americans-are-against-cap-and-trade
You can bet one thing..
If the American people are against something... Obama and the Democrats will take that as a sign of FULL SPEED AHEAD.....
Michale.....
Ah...did you read your own links? They do not jibe with the numbers you gave...
The CrapCare percentage was common knowledge
Oh, I see. Common knowledge.
Well, that settles it.
For anyone who has endured the tedium to this point, I fear our discussion may leave you in the lurch.
While Michale insists that 75 percent of Americans opposed health care reform, polls show that a sizeable majority of Americans favored a public option, eliminating denials of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, extended coverage for dependents up to age 26, and a prohibition on lifetime coverage limits. Approval for the bill bottomed out at about 42 percent in CNN polling.
In one specific poll, CNN found only 25 percent of respondents wanted to see Congress move forward with the then-current version of the bill. Just less than 50 percent chose "start over" as the recommended course of action. Please hold your breath with me while we await Michale's confirmation that this is the number that was "common knowledge."
On the other items, Michale tells us that 89 percent of the public opposes Net Neutrality while 21 percent support it. He informs us that 65 percent oppose cap and trade while 50 percent support regulating CO2 emissions.
I leave it to the reader to puzzle out the error in these last two.
Ahh I see how you are.. :D
You demand links and supportive evidence from me, yet refuse to give any of your own..
Why is that??
You can dance all you want around the numbers.
But the simple fact is, the majority of Americans are against CrapCare.
They are against Net Neutrality.
They are against Scheme & Ream AKA Cap & Trade..
These are the facts whether you choose to acknowledge them or not...
Ya'alls blind support of the Obama Administration is identical to the accusations that the Left hurled at the Right during the Bush Administration alleging the same kind of blind support..
Thereby proving, once again, that there really isn't any difference between Left Wing ideologues and Right Wing ideologues. They are both enslaved by Party dogma and are incapable of pointing to their own Party and saying, "Yep, that's frak'ed up"....
Michale....
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/cantors-obamacare-repeal-bill-goes-online
At least the GOP knows how to introduce legislation that the American People can actually READ and understand...
:D
Michale.....
You demand links and supportive evidence from me, yet refuse to give any of your own..
Michale, I took my numbers from the links you provided! Didn't you read 'em?
These are the facts whether you choose to acknowledge them or not...
These are NOT facts or even "facts":
75% of the people opposed CrapCare...
89% of the people oppose Net Neutrality...
61% of the people oppose Scheme & Ream AKA Cap & Trade
These are contradicted by the links YOU provided.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hah leyy luuu yah!
Bah! Broke a closing tag in there. Should be obvious to most where it belongs. Apologies.
QIAB,
Michale, I took my numbers from the links you provided! Didn't you read 'em?
Of course I read them.. I simply didn't memorize them...
These are NOT facts or even "facts":
You have a tendency to take things out of context or cross-context when you are backed into a corner..
Let me repeat my facts...
The majority of Americans are against CrapCare.
The majority of Americans are against Net Neutrality.
The majority of Americans are against Scheme & Ream AKA Cap & Trade..
These are the facts that you so dutifully dance around and ignore...
These are the facts that you simply can't rufidiate.. :D
These are the facts that are so epic that they have gone viral...
The WOW Factor of the Democratic Party fail is epic. It's true... You can google or facebook it..
The American People really want the Democratic Party to man up or else the Mama Grizzlies will force an A-Ha moment...
Live life to the fullest...
I'm just sayin....
:D
Michale.....
Uh...
The subtitle of one of YOUR links is:
Modest Support for “Cap and Trade” Policy
You exaggerated your argument by cooking the poll numbers. In many cases by over 10%. A monstrous amount in political terms.
If the lowliest peon in the Obama Administration had cooked poll numbers to this degree you would be crying to high heaven. We would get a good week of conservative blog links and page long posts on it. As well as blaming entire "left" as though we were personally responsible.
That you caught yourself makes it all the sweeter...
Actually, as anyone here can attest to, I am not much on polls to begin with.. :D But they do have their uses, fickle though they may be..
My only point has been that The American People are firmly against CrapCare. They are firmly against Net Neutrality. And they are firmly against Scheme & Ream..
Further, even faith in Global Warming or Climate Change or Global Climate Disruption or whatever the current spin is also falling among The American People.
Items near and dear to the heart of the Democratic Party have been refudiated by The American People.
These are, when all is said and done, the only facts that matter...
Michale.....
My only point has been that The American People are firmly against CrapCare.
The American People support a ban on excluding people with pre-existing conditions from getting coverage.
The American People support allowing dependent adults to remain on their parents' policies.
The American People support a prohibition on insurance companies dropping paid-for coverage for made up reasons.
The American People support closing the Medicare "donut hole."
Which parts do you think the Republicans have the courage to repeal, Michale?
And the "majority of Americans" have no idea what Net Neutrality is.