Bush Trashing the Environment

[Louis VI the Fat]

Your article is full of misinformation. This is a ruling by the EPA, not Bush, alright?

It is a political agency. The Environmentla Protection Agency is led by administrator Stephen L. Johnson. He was appointed by Bush in 2005.

Edit: Marcus C. Peacock (born March 21, 1960) is the current Deputy Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He was sworn in to office August 8, 2005. Within a month of being sworn in, Mr. Peacock was appointed the lead for coordinating EPA’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

You couldn't trust these two guys to run a hotdog stand properly. They are there for one thing only: to see to it that environmental peotection does not interfere with the business interests of companies priviliged by the Bush administration.



Good old Ike, speaking way back in 1961:
(=Eisenhower)

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together...Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by the task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiousity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."

[Vladimir]

It is a political agency. The Environmentla Protection Agency is led by administrator Stephen L. Johnson. He was appointed by Bush in 2005.

Edit: Marcus C. Peacock (born March 21, 1960) is the current Deputy Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He was sworn in to office August 8, 2005. Within a month of being sworn in, Mr. Peacock was appointed the lead for coordinating EPA’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

You couldn't trust these two guys to run a hotdog stand properly. They are there for one thing only: to see to it that environmental peotection does not interfere with the business interests of companies priviliged by the Bush administration.



Good old Ike, speaking way back in 1961:
(=Eisenhower)

Poppycock!

That’s rather ignorant to assume that everyone appointed by a president is his puppet. Does everyone Sarkozy appoints go around squeezing breasts in public? Does everyone Putin appoints randomly kiss the stomachs of young boys? I think not! *harrumph*

I’d also like to know what you believe the function of the EPA is after a natural disaster. Not to mention the functions of the state and local governments. I’d also like to see how any branch of government runs a hotdog stand.

[Louis VI the Fat]

1 That’s rather ignorant to assume that everyone appointed by a president is his puppet.

2 I’d also like to know what you believe the function of the EPA is after a natural disaster.

3 I’d also like to see how any branch of government runs a hotdog stand.

1 A judge is appointed, but independent. The administrator of the EPA is not independent. He is part of the...administration. It is a political position, at near cabinet level. 31st of January, 2001, the Democratic administrator of the EPA was replaced by a Republican.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrator_of_the_Environmental_Protection_AgencyThe Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is the head of the United States federal government's Environmental Protection Agency, and is thus responsible for enforcing the nation's Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as well as numerous other environmental statutes. The Administrator is nominated by the President of the United States and must be confirmed by a vote of the Senate. The office of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970 in legislation that created the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA Administrator is customarily accorded Cabinet rank by the President and sits with the President, Vice President, and the 15 Cabinet Secretaries. Since the late 1980s, there has been a movement to make the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency a Cabinet Secretary, thus making the EPA a 16th Cabinet department, dealing with environmental affairs. The Administrator of the EPA is equivalent to the position of Minister of the Environment in other countries.

2 The EPA assesses the environmental effects of a natural disaster. Which they pretty much botched up after both 9-11 and Katrina.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hurricane Katrina presented not only a human tragedy, but also one of the biggest environmental stories of the new millennium. Even after days of criticism that the federal government didn't do enough to help hurricane victims, federal agencies compounded the problem by failing to respond adequately to journalists' environmental questions.

The event gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a chance to show that it had learned lessons from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when the agency was broadly criticized for withholding information and downplaying risks. Instead, EPA appears to have taken the same tight-lipped approach in responding to Katrina, denying the public crucial information collected with taxpayers' money on behalf of taxpayers in the first place.

3 In the case of the EPA under Bush, the hotdogs will be toxic, mock scientific reports will show that they are not, your child will get cancer from eating it, Bush will pardon the people responsible shortly before leaving office


Edit: What am I saying!? It is much worse than this. Bush will not pardon them, he goes one better. He will make it perfectly legal to sell toxic hotdogs, to prevent even civil lawsuits.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This is pretty damning:

An extensive online questionnaire responded by 1600 EPA staff scientists who have worked in the agency for more than 10 years has determined that they have been pressured to skew their findings. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in other fields of science. About 40% of the scientists have reported that the interference has been more prevalent in the last five years compared to previous years.

To quote DD: Bush! Bush! Bush!

[Ice]

I'm going to have to agree with the Bush opposition on this single case.

What I do know, is that 'percholrate' is a highly controversial subject, with lots of law suits, looming lawsuits, and nervous companies and the military fearing lawsuits. Naturally, these business interests have formed a a powerful lobby. Sponsored 'medical research'. Tried to influence legislation.

I couldn't agree more. I'd like to see an independent commission, paid for by the government, give their findings on the issue. Until then, the feds should ban or regulate closely the substance in water.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm going to have to agree with the Bush opposition on this single case.
I couldn't agree more. I'd like to see an independent commission, paid for by the government,...

1. paid for by the government means by us, the taxpayers. Do NOT fall into the trap of thinking it all belongs to the government -- that way lies slavery.

2. Any study funded by the current executive branch (at least under the current administration) would be considered suspect by the very people who are angry with the current proposed ruling.

3. This, and other issues associated with Presidential leave-taking, are going to get more and more press. The goal is to minimize Bush's ability to do anthing aside from pack up his gear.


Extension on three: What really chaps the main-stream media and a lot of the US political left is that there is no constitutional way to get Bush to resign in favor of Obama and put Obama in office yesterday -- which is what they'd like to see. Their thinking runs thus: we repudiated everything you did and stand for, so why the are you still here?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1. paid for by the government means by us, the taxpayers. Do NOT fall into the trap of thinking it all belongs to the government -- that way lies slavery.

2. Any study funded by the current executive branch (at least under the current administration) would be considered suspect by the very people who are angry with the current proposed ruling.

3. This, and other issues associated with Presidential leave-taking, are going to get more and more press. The goal is to minimize Bush's ability to do anthing aside from pack up his gear.


Extension on three: What really chaps the main-stream media and a lot of the US political left is that there is no constitutional way to get Bush to resign in favor of Obama and put Obama in office yesterday -- which is what they'd like to see. Their thinking runs thus: we repudiated everything you did and stand for, so why the are you still here?

RE: As to the point in the OP, I favor clean drinking water. If there are legitimate questions as to the science behind the EPA's proposed ruling, then it should be reviewed. Until the ruling is made, we should err on the side of safety.

[Louis VI the Fat]

2. Any study funded by the current executive branch (at least under the current administration) would be considered suspect by the very people who are angry with the current proposed ruling.

Well we would, wouldn't we, after the mockery the current administration has made of the EPA. Here's a fair and balanced account:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group. The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations. "The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

The EPA has been under fire from members of Congress on a number of fronts including its delay in determining whether carbon dioxide should be regulated to combat global warming. Johnson also has been criticized for rejecting recommendations from science advisory boards on a number of air pollution issues including control of mercury from power plants and how much to reduce smog pollution.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as senior managers and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists, the report said.

The survey covered employees at EPA headquarters, in each of the agency's 10 regions around the country and at more than a dozen research laboratories. The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemical cancer risk for humans.

Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document. Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects "because of pressure to change scientific findings."

What really chaps the main-stream media and a lot of the US political left is that there is no constitutional way to get Bush to resign in favor of Obama and put Obama in office yesterday -- which is what they'd like to see. Their thinking runs thus: we repudiated everything you did and stand for, so why the ... are you still here?

Yes, you are absolutely right. But is this the position that you want to take Seamus? US politics has fallen prey to extreme partisanship and pressure groups. Shockingly, this has dragged US science down with it. Obama will move in, the EPA will for the next four years deliver 'scientific' reports that support the politics of leftists and environmental pressure groups, and then Obama will leave again, and new special interest groups move in. Etcetera.

So what does one do about it? Decide on one side and squeak about the meanness of the other side? Or be outraged that a core scientific government institute is the toy of whomever is in power?


Might as well be militant to encourage further debate: I, for one, put as much stock in US scientific findings as I do on former Soviet science. Sure, the directness, and goal-driven approach often yields phenomenal results.
Physics and engineering somewhat trancend politicised approach. But pharmaceutical, medical, environmental, sociological, historical research? Gah! Everywhere you look, there is either a politicised government agency involved, or covert funding by a lobby group, or direct corporate interference.

The US has both the best funded scientific institutions and the greatest minds of the world, and both the world's most hostile and unscientifc culture. From high schools to the best research intitutions, US science is in the grip of 'Intelligent Design' onslaughts. That is, science is under attack from, or simply the output of, politics, pressure groups, disinformation. With American scientific reports, one never needs to read the conclusion, only the origin. Show me the financer, and I'll show the scientific results.

[Ice]

1. paid for by the government means by us, the taxpayers. Do NOT fall into the trap of thinking it all belongs to the government -- that way lies slavery.

2. Any study funded by the current executive branch (at least under the current administration) would be considered suspect by the very people who are angry with the current proposed ruling.

3. This, and other issues associated with Presidential leave-taking, are going to get more and more press. The goal is to minimize Bush's ability to do anthing aside from pack up his gear.


Extension on three: What really chaps the main-stream media and a lot of the US political left is that there is no constitutional way to get Bush to resign in favor of Obama and put Obama in office yesterday -- which is what they'd like to see. Their thinking runs thus: we repudiated everything you did and stand for, so why the are you still here?

So it keep it banned until a committee, under the new Obama administration, is created to deal with the problem.

Airing on the side of safety in this situation seems prudent.

[Xiahou]

I couldn't agree more. I'd like to see an independent commission, paid for by the government, give their findings on the issue. Until then, the feds should ban or regulate closely the substance in water.

Right, so we should ban everything until a government committee and prove incontrovertibly that it isn't in any way harmful.

[Husar]

Right, so we should ban everything until a government committee and prove incontrovertibly that it isn't in any way harmful.

Right, so we should allow anything that was considered harmful for years just because someone new comes and says it's not and his opinion hasn't even been peer-reviewed or critisized. Because everytime someone new comes and says something, that person has to be right, so where's gay marriage then? Or does that only apply to environmental laws that are stopping poor american companies from dumping raw oil and chemicals into the next river?

[Ice]

Right, so we should ban everything until a government committee and prove incontrovertibly that it isn't in any way harmful.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

[Vladimir]

Yes we can!

Hey, um. Can I have that Senior Membership when you're done with it? Just asking.

[Devastatin Dave]

Yes we can!

Hey, um. Can I have that Senior Membership when you're done with it? Just asking.

Hope and change my friend, pray to the One and it can be yours!!! yes you can!!!!

Sorry, I've been drinking to much of the poisonous George Bush water today....