Backtalk
|
|
Amped Up
As a long-term energy-field professional, I was glad to see Mother Jones taking a more balanced view than that all can be solved with wind, solar, and conservation. How can we double electric usage and eliminate coal? Via an all-out nuclear power program. Nothing else can provide more than 700 gigawatts of capacity in the next 30 years. So, it is up to you and your readers: Demand a nuclear program or complain about global warming, oil profits, and fossil fools. Your choice.
john fognini
Bloonfield, Minnesota
Judith Lewis offers a good explication of nuclear power. However, her premise, that expanding nuclear infrastructure could be a potent force to avert the climate crisis, is false. Nuclear will not reverse the climate crisis, and investing in it is an enormous diversion from the one thing that could: massive systemic energy-efficiency programs to cut waste. A dollar invested in smart use of electric power will cut 14 times more greenhouse gases than a dollar put into building a new nuclear power plant. Solar panels and farms require power storage, but they do not require gun-toting security, federally administered insurance, billions of gallons of cooling water, or deadly waste.
mary olson
Southeast Regional Services
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Bill McKibben's call for putting more environmental information into capitalism is a hidden call for climate taxes. There might be virtue in taxing greenhouse gas emissions, but hiding taxes behind feel-good phrases like "tariffs that encourage local economies" only obscures the real cost of environmental protection, higher-cost goods and services. If McKibben wants greenhouse gases controlled by taxing them, fine, but let's call a tax a tax and have an honest discussion about how much it will cost to contain climate change, rather than hide behind faux market language.
kenneth p. green
Resident scholar
American Enterprise Institute
You must be kidding. You tell us on your latest cover that we're screwed. Guess what, pal? It's the insane "Save the trees," "Don't touch the pristine land" attitude of people that read your rag that got us here.
gary alderin
Ellenton, Florida
It made me very sad to see Mother Jones throw Hugo Chávez into the category of "tyrant" based on such poor evidence ("Put a Tyrant in Your Tank"). Literacy programs, subsidized petroleum to allies, spreading Venezuela's influence...That's all it takes to be a tyrant nowadays? Last I checked, Chávez accepted the defeat of his constitutional amendment and is stepping down at the end of his second term. Demagogue and self-centered perhaps, but tyrant? This article belonged in the Wall Street Journal, not Mother Jones.
demian moreno
Berkeley, California
Constant Trouble
A salute to your penetrating piece on Haiti's loathsome Toto Constant, whom the Clinton administration referred to as the leader of a "gang of thugs." Still, even after he threatened the safety of a senior US embassy official, Constant was able to slip into the US. The Clinton administration refused to extradite him, maintaining that it didn't have confidence in the Haitian judicial process (which it had installed) to guarantee Constant a fair trial. Yet it had no reluctance in forcibly returning thousands of Haitian boat people to such a compromised system. We believe that was because Constant had been a cia asset all along.
larry birns
Director
Council on Hemispheric Relations
And You Call Yourselves Feminists
More access to pep (post-exposure prophylaxis treatment) for hiv is definitely needed. However, I was disappointed that Justine Sharrock did not include the need for pep for sexual assault victims. These victims do not automatically receive information about the availability of pep, let alone actual access to this potentially lifesaving treatment.
kristianne hinkamp
Victim's Outreach
Dallas, Texas
Political Trivia Question
In "Above the Law," Daphne Eviatar describes how kbr lawyers invoked the "political question doctrine" to dismiss lawsuits charging the company with recklessly disregarding its employees' safety in Iraq. Under the doctrine, courts refrain from resolving disputes that are better left to the political branches of government. Interestingly, the Bush administration has aggressively deployed this legal principle, repeatedly urging US courts to dismiss lawsuits against multinational corporations for human rights abuse because they have the potential to embarrass the host countries. The irony is that many lawyers and scholars believe the Supreme Court should have invoked the doctrine and refused to hear that little case in 2000, Bush v. Gore.
michael o'donnell
Chicago, Illinois
And yes, no need for coal, nuclear power...anything that can cause pollution...no more pollution, ever again. It is called Zero-Amp Technology. The inventor has 14 patents.
See more at www.worldviewopinion.com
Coal, gas, oil and atomic energy is destroying the planets livability and therefore the last forty-five years of ecological green revolution has brought into being the hi-tech tools to put in place wind, tidal, and solar power which transforms to electricity and is more power than can be used by society. No more blackouts. This non-pollution solution is given freely in natures kinder laws and provides work for all and forever more. Viva social liberation. End pollution wars, not endless wars for more pollution.
Dear Editor,
Canada is one of the world's biggest polluters. It is heartening to hear that the well-intentioned Alberta government is planning on spending $4 billion for carbon sequestration and public transit. But why is this money being spent on burying CO2 from coal power generation when there is no place to put it? The Leduc oil fields would have to be the major repository for it but where else could it go? It makes more sense to invest instead in alternative power generation for the Alberta Tar Sands project which is the single biggest contributor of greenhouse gasses in Canada, to the extent that American environmentalists, Barak Obama included, question the validity of importing "dirty oil" from Canada.
Substituting nuclear reactors for the coal and natural gas thermal generation of electricity and steam for the tar sands would eliminate much of the megatons of greenhouse gasses that would be produced over the (hopefully) long lifespan of the project and would go a long way toward fulfilling our Kyoto commitments. It would also serve to prove the viability of our own reactor technology, which will (again hopefully) be in great demand in the near future.
The old Inco mines in Sudbury could serve as a safe long-term site for such a purpose since it lies in the Canadian Shield which is one of the most geologically stable area of the world. The deep mineshafts there would be ideal for the recoverable storage of hazardous waste, since the rock is comprised of unfractured granite with little or no groundwater.
Instead of producing inferior medical marijuana, the Sudbury mineshafts could be the source of enough revenue to help eliminate our national debt. It would also eliminate the greatest hurdle to the production of clean, safe, non-polluting energy that the world will need to power the electric and hydrogen vehicles of the future. The alternative is melting glaciers, rising seas and famine. Give us nuclear energy before it is too late.
Sincerely,
Michael Sturdy
www.sturdyart.com
(Armstrong BC, 250-546-3613)
Energy costs…teen pregnancy…gas prices…401Ks tanking…gangs…pleading with oil sheiks
NOT A PROBLEM…NONE OF IT!!
Energy costs: First, Plug-In cars don’t do us much good without abundant affordable electricity. We could generate all that electricity we need but don’t. We erect barriers to doing it. The USA has over 12,000 miles of breezy, sometimes killer-windy coastline, “wind-swept plains”, and even a “Windy City”. The fact that regulations of my town won’t let me, the state won’t let my town, and congress isn’t encouraging generating electricity via wind must mean…no problem. We have a Sunshine state, Sunny California and Southwest, and immeasurable thousands of square miles to place solar panels.
The Bush-Cheney team has not put U.S. on an independence path via wind and solar generated electricity. Since that couldn’t be because their families’ millions are tied to the drill-for-oil/gas-at-any-cost lobby…there must not be a problem.
Importantly, wind & solar don’t have the 10-year lag that oil and gas do. We can address this now: we can build the solar panels/‘windmills’, create U.S. jobs, and tie the power to our grids; they’re here in-place. Existing distribution systems are the best way to move instead of each of us crawling-up on our roof.
Teen Pregnancy*: If that were a problem, surely our national legislature would enact measures to limit the problem. Availability of birth control for low income girls the way my neighbors and I in a nice suburb provided for our daughters might help.
Do you think the President and Mrs. Bush skipped that with their daughters? Since he, his administration, and supporters in Congress block efforts to widely provide it, one can only conclude…not a problem. (Really ‘not a problem for them’.) Also please see entry under Gang Violence*. We can address this now!
Gas Prices: Since they’ve been going through the roof for years, if that were a problem for citizens, the administration would have moved to have the U.S. auto industry produce electric cars to take advantage of wind & solar-generated electricity. It did not, ergo, there must not be a problem…for their limos.
Gang Violence*: This issue is, as mentioned above, related to Teen Pregnancy*. Without young low-income males growing up minus a responsible married on-site day-in and day-out father, we might not have the gang problem we do today. Unfortunately we do, so for the next 20-30 years we have to deal with it involving a lot of law-enforcement.
But…it’d be cheaper to try to develop a future fix. It’s not just to benefit the future gang-banger-lost-potential individuals. It's our kids and grandchildren who will have to deal with any, and this, our blessed land. Apparently this administration doesn’t see future problems…as has been the case in other areas of concern.
There is a way we can address the twin*issues now, at least for anyone looking further down the road then the next traffic accident. We can encourage education, positive economic futures, and discourage child-bearing without legal marriage with more than the empty words of ‘compassionate conservatives’.
We can do those things using both incentives and disincentives. Based on income, those might include free 1st year tuition to state colleges (academic or job-oriented) for every high-school graduate. 2nd year pays 75% with a 2.0 (“C”) average & 100% with 3.0 (“B”), if 3rd & 4th years 50% with a 2.0 and 75% with a 3.0. All of that is cheap compared to the madness of Iraq and will give us the kind of workforce the G.I. bill did after WW2 that created the greatest economy the world has ever seen. Guaranteed p.t. paid work on campuses or in community service capacities has to be included. Our system…our whole way-of-life, needs these kids to ‘make it’…not burden society!
As noted above, availability of Birth Control supplies would be a giant step forward. Believe it or not, cost-access-and basic knowledge are factors in low-income single-parent homes. Often we’re looking at multiple generations who have never managed their lives without taxpayer dollars. It’s not fixable in a year…or ten.
Disincentives might include no Welfare/Housing for any birth that doesn’t identify the father, economic or community service penalties for unmarried fathers, and jail/other for failing to perform on those penalties.
I’d put permanent posters in every middle and high school in the country that gets a single taxpayer dollar that starts out “BE WHAT YOU WANT TO BE! LIVE YOUR DREAM!...or have a life of poverty, 2nd class status, and other people tell you what to do FOREVER…your choice.” Kids need to hear it straight!
2720 E. Landis Ave.
Vineland, NJ, 08361
856-691-2461 (Day and Night)
Mother Jones
Dear Editor,
The Loss of World War II would have been a disaster with dire consequences for hundreds of years. The increase of greenhouse gasses could bring about the loss of thousands of square miles of land to the rising oceans, the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, and mass starvation.
During World War II, the American public accepted gas rationing so we would have gas for our planes and tanks. The American public should now accept gas rationing to save our planet.
We car pooled, used public transportation, and cut unnecessary driving to a minimum to help our country, we should to the same to help our world. Aside from the environmental impact this step would have, other benefits can be found: (1) Reduce our dependence on foreign oil from unfriendly nations, (2) Delay the exhaustion of our oil reserves, (3) Reduce demand and thus lower gas prices, (4) Use the saved money to help fund social security, healthcare, infra-structure, alternative energy, personal retirement funds, etc., (5) Reduce the traffic congestion on America’s busiest highways, (6) The result of several of these benefits would be to lower, or at least slow the growth, of the rising costs of manufactured products, b uilding, and food.
It is my sincere hope that a movement will develop that will inspire the American people (and therefore embolden the American politicians) to ration our fuel. Throughout history, Americans have stepped up and sacrificed for the greater good. The stakes are higher than ever, and I sincerely hope that we can collectively make the right choice.
Richard W. Conner
Vineland, NJ
Obama supports the global disaster of biofuels because he is from Illinois, the second biggest corn-ethanol producing state in the USA. He gets cheap rides on corporate jets supplied by the big ethanol manufacturers. Does Obama care that he is driving up food prices and starving people around the world? Obama does not understand issues, and is now trying to con people in believing that if we plant invasive biofuel weeds on farmland, we are somehow going to reduce the cost of food. His plan will simply crowd out food production to allow for massive biofuel weed production, and the whole idea is insane because it is all too expensive, causes too much environmental damage, speeds global warming, and ethanol is a lousy fuel that no thinking person should want in their gas tank. Ethanol contains 1/3 less energy than gasoline and thus reduces gas mileage. We should be trying to increase gas milage, not reduce it, and on a per miles driven basis ethanol causes more air pollution than ordinary gasoline.
Copycat Barack Obama has now jumped on the Bush war surge bandwagon and wants to send more US troops to Afghanistan in a new "surge" to die for his glory and his insane, unthinking ego trip. The USA has no vital interests in Afghanistan whatsoever, and the idea that terrorists need a base of operation in Afghanistan is ridiculous. Terrorists can plan attacks from any apartment in London or Detroit. International terrorists don't need Afghanistan at all. You need a substantial military base to launch large scale conventional military attacks, like the Allied invasion of Normandy during W.W.II. Anyone can build a bomb in their basement, their garage, or in a rented motel room or storage locker. The terrorists who planned 911 are now living comfortably in Pakistan, smoking cigarettes and laughing at us. Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan, so our spending billions of dollars to sink in the same Afghan quicksand that helped collapse the Soviet Union is simply bad policy, which is all Barack Obama has to offer.
If Obama really wanted to give Americans effective health care at an affordable price, he would support a national single payer health care plan like Dennis Kucinich recommends. That way you get the money sucking, healthcare denying insurance companies out of the loop. Single payer systems have proven to be the cheapest and most effective healthcare system in developed countries around the world. Countries who have national healthcare systems pay a much smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care and they get better results with a longer lifespan and lower infant mortality rates. Obama has not proposed this because he has no guts to fight the insurance companies, and is instead proposing a very weak and ineffective plan to make health insurance "more affordable." So where is the great "agent of change" Obama supporters talk about? Obama has no guts as a supposed "liberal" because he is not a "liberal". He is a narcissist! There is a big difference between liberalism and narcissism!
The problem with Obama is that he is all personality, all talk, all charisma, and no substance. He is a political prostitute who will sell himself to any special interest group he can to gain power. He enthusiastically sold out to the Israeli lobby, which got us into our illegal war against Iraq, and he will sell himself to anyone who will help glorify the Obama name. His ambition is purely for personal fame and glory. He is not a person who cares about real issues and who can formulate positive policies that can save our economy. Obama does not understand economics at all, and he bases what few ideas he does have on urban legends and childhood prejudices.
If James Earl Jones took a role as a presidential candidate, I am sure that great actor could give emotional, heart moving speeches that would make us all stand up and cheer. But do you really want an actor as president? Is a sparkling, show-biz personality the same thing as good policy? The answer is NO, and more and more people are realizing that Obama is an empty shell who can talk but cannot deliver the goods. Destroying the global security and affordability of the human food supply and sinking the United States deeper into an endless occupation of Afghanistan are not simply minor inconveniences that voters should ignore for the sake of a winning personality.
Christopher Calder - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
I would like to send your journal a letter to the editor that I have been sending to various papers throughout the U.S. It concerns a new energy technology that I believe America should take a good look at. It's called Plasma Generation and it is a clean processs that can use anything except nuclear waste as fuel. If America were to go into this type of energy production her dependancy on foriegn energy sources woul be virtually eliminated. My e-mai is - curiousscanadian@yahoo.ca
I hope to hear back from you.
I would like to send your journal a letter to the editor that I have been sending to various papers throughout the U.S. It concerns a new energy technology that I believe America should take a good look at. It's called Plasma Generation and it is a clean processs that can use anything except nuclear waste as fuel. If America were to go into this type of energy production her dependancy on foriegn energy sources woul be virtually eliminated. My e-mai is - curiousscanadian@yahoo.ca
I hope to hear back from you.
Hello You-All;
Here are two great, very enlightening, Written (book) portrayals of Barry Soerto, AKA Barack Hussein Obama:
1. "The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Freddoso.
David Freddoso, investigative reporter and National Review Online columnist,
examines the facts in: "The Case Against Barack Obama."
In this shocking exposé, Freddoso explores the reality behind the rhetoric, the plans behind the promises, and the faults behind the façade, revealing:
* Why Obama's inexperience and extreme left-wing voting record is more dangerous than any threat we face today
* Why the Rev. Wright debacle reveals Obama's poor judgment of character and deceitful nature
* Why it won't be politics of change with President Obama-it will be liberal politics as usualFreddoso exposes the real Barack Obama: a typical big-government politician, the #1 most liberal U.S. senator, and-if he were commander in chief-a serious threat to our national security.
2. "The Obama Nation" by Jerome R. Corsi.
Synopsis
In this thoroughly researched and documented book, the #1 New York Times bestselling co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry explains why the extreme leftism of an Obama presidency would leave the United States weakened, diminished and divided, why Obama must be defeated—and how he can be.
Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality
Barack Obama stepped onto the national political stage when the then-Illinois State senator addressed the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Soon after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, author Jerome Corsi began researching Obama’s personal and political background.
Scrupulously sourced with more than 600 footnotes, THE OBAMA NATION is the result of that research. By tracing Obama’s career and influences from his early years in Hawaii and Indonesia, the beginnings of his political career in Chicago, his voting record in the Illinois legislature, his religious training and his adoption of Christianity through to his recent involvement in Kenyan politics, his political advisors and fundraising associates and his meteoric campaign for president, Jerome Corsi shows that an Obama presidency would, in his words, be “a repeat of the failed extremist politics that have characterized and plagued Democratic Party politics since the late 1960s.”
In this stunning and comprehensive new book, the reader will learn about:
Obama’s extensive connections with Islam and radical politics, from his father and step-father’s Islamic backgrounds, to his Communist and socialist mentors in Hawaii and Chicago, to his long-term and close associations withformer Weather Underground heroes William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn—associations much closer than heretofore revealed by the press
If you want Truth and not Hype this is the book to read. I researched many of the facts before the book came out. This author is Right On. In my opinion the Main Stream Media chose this Candidate and has painted him as the One. People swoon over him but don't know a thing about what he stands for. My hope is that this book will open people's eyes so they can see past the perceived Personality and look at what this man really stands for. Clue: It isn't the betterment of the USA.
Congressman Charles Rangel bemoans the "squeezing" and hardships of the middle class. As with all politicians, talk is cheap. Congressman Rangel may be concerned about this serious issue yet his actions belie this concern. Recently, he has supported the rezoning of 125th Street in Harlem, which will create a dramatic change in Harlem and will negatively impact middle- and lower-income residents. The luxury development and upscale stores will destroy the character of 125th Street and the surrounding community--driving up rents and resulting in secondary displacement. This plague of overdevelopment is happening in all five boroughs of New York, destroying the special context of these communities, displacing middle- and lower-income residents, and effectively decimating neighborhoods turning them into sterile, gentrified wastelands. New York City is catering to the obscenely rich--those who have profited from Bush's generous tax cuts and corporate welfare. This is city planning at its worst. It's no wonder the middle class is disappearing in this country. If Congressman Rangel is so concerned about the well-being of the middle class, he must not support policies that benefit upscale developers. Politicians continually discuss the loss of the middle class, but by their actions do little to deal with this problem.
If Obama had committed these numerous gaffes, his run for the presidency would be over.
Dear Editor,
Quite frankly, I am upset after reading the article Slammed in your August issue. Our country is supposed to be a symbol of freedom and justice. Is hand cuffing a 5-year-old boy for throwing a temper tantrum at school just? I don’t think so. I am sick of unfair and unequal consequences for people of different races; a black girl shoving a teacher’s aide at school serves a year in prison while a white girl sets her parent’s house on fire gets off on parole? When are we going to make a change? How do we expect prisoners to transition to normal, functioning citizens if we lock them up for years for petty crimes? I made plenty of mistakes as a juvenile. When do we give these kids a second chance? We all make mistakes.
Keeley Burgert, 18
Upper Arlington, Ohio
Forever Immature
After reading the Forever Young article, honestly, I’m disappointed in the older generation of America. The article screams a lack of confidence in self and a resistance to accept age as a good thing. Getting older means gaining wisdom, experience, knowledge and an ability to share with younger people. Age is a ludicrous thing to be ashamed of and it all seems to come from a body that might not look like a 20-year-old’s. How about taking a look at the courses of nature, at the way things are supposed to happen? If everyone was supposed to look 25 forever, there would be no need for anti-wrinkle creams or “Fountain of Youth” pills. Detox would be nonexistent and the reliance on plastic surgery for younger looking bodies wouldn’t be the center-point of self confidence. The money we would’ve spent on self-centered change could save lives, feed the hungry and abolish war. The way I see what we’re doing, our bodies get older, and then we force them back to being young. Unfortunately, our minds just stay immature.
Katy Trenbeath 16
San Juan Capistrano, CA
So, pretty pls pls pls bring back the old slogan, and RAISE HELL again!!!
Just because that little sidebar of clean energy is out of the media limelight doesn't mean we aren't still dealing with its hazards and its interminable shelf-life.
Other means of generating energy for homes and businesses do not generate dangerous and long-lasting waste. Geo-thermal for one.
Nuclear waste is too much for this little planet to swallow.
I am disappointed beyond words to read Arthur Allen's myopic piece "Immune to Reason" in your Sepember/October issue. I expect to see this sort of feeble journalism in other publications, but not you, Mother Jones! Not you!
Allen's account lends credence to those who attack informed, concerned medical professionals and parents, and fails even to mention any of the following:
1) the landmark concessions recently made by federal vaccine courts that vaccines caused “autistic symptoms” in Hannah Poling
2) groundbreaking research findings that mitochondrial dysfunction affects at least 1 in 200 (in contrast to 1 in approximately 5000)
3) voices as mainstream as Bernadine Healey, formerly of the National Institutes of Health, who insist that a vaccine-autism link has not been dismissed.
In November 2007, vaccine courts comprised of medical doctors and researchers found that in the case of Hannah Poling, vaccines caused her "autistic symptoms." What more is autism than a grouping of symptoms? Hannah has a mitochondrial dysfunction, aggravated by vaccine loads and the toxins they contained. Hannah's mother, a nurse and attorney, has the same mutation, but is unaffected--could it be because she never sustained the same attacks on her system?
While the vaccine courts assert this mitochondrial dysfunction to be "rare," recent research published in August by the American Journal of Human Genetics that only tested 10 of 37 genetic mitochondrial mutations in blood found that at least 1 in 200 in the population carried such cellular susceptibilities (http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00402-3).
Which brings us to Mr. Allen’s declaration that the vaccine-autism link has been disproven. He fails to cite any of the private studies finding an increase in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations, or to acknowledge that the most-cited study used to dismiss such a link by Thomas Verstraten initially found a statistically significant risk of neurological disorders with vaccines.
However, when the study was released (coincidentally, Verstraten had become an employee for Glaxo-Smith Kline) he added a cohort of children too young to obtain any diagnosis to the study to reduce the risk as statistically insignificant. Beyond Mr. Allen’s erroneous assertion that studies have disproven a vaccine/autism link, he neglects to address the wealth of studies that suggest a link, including recent studies of primates given vaccine-equivalent amounts of thimerosal who then exhibited “autistic symptoms.”
Bernadine Healey, former head of the National Institutes of Health, maintains that, as suggested by countless voices, we should be testing susceptible populations. Those populations include those of us with mitochondrial mutations that keep our bodies from detoxifying properly through the methylation cycle.
Testing is available to detect these mutations, and these mutations are not rare. Federal vaccine courts have conceded vaccines can and have caused autistic symptoms. The question is, why aren’t government agencies pursuing research and testing to eliminate further damage to these individuals? Vaccines may be a Godsend for those who can sustain them, but for those who cannot, they are a lifelong nightmare.
If the current number is correct: “1 in 150 children is diagnosed with autism” (mind you, that number does NOT include children with sensory processing disorder, ADD/ADHD, PDD, PDD-NOS, or Asperger’s Syndrome, all of which are included on the autism spectrum) wouldn’t it be wise and prudent to move forward—even if that means certain populations refraining from vaccination—rather than wringing our hands, waiting for the CDC to concede they were wrong all along to say there was no link whatsoever?
And wouldn’t it be wise and prudent to stop scapegoating those who sincerely want to ensure the safety of their children? Mother Jones, please do not pander to the voices of condescension. They have been wrong before, and with the stakes as high as they are, it pays to investigate this further.
Sincerely,
Beth Hendrix
Its from one of my Helium.com writings.
Topic. "Has the Bush admin. helped or harmed the environment. I voted harmed.
My writing is on specifically on how lobbyists directly connected with the chemical industry are harming the integrity of the EPA.
This includes men in top positions with ties to the Chemical Manufacturers Association. The name is now American Chemistry Council. One of its subgroups is the American Solvent Council. The names and positions of these men are James Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and Jeffry Holmstead EPA's director of Air and Radiation. Both men are directly associated with the American Chemical Council, formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Assn. This to me, makes it rather difficult for the EPA to be totally objective.
The names and positions of these men are James Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and Jeffry Holmstead EPA's director of Air and Radiation. Both men are directly associated with the American Chemical Council, formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Assn.
Below are two examples of the wrongness of combining a govt. agency, and business. I believe govt. agencies can be most effective when they are totally objective. That is not under the influence of any interest group. I think this is true no matter how well intentioned such an organization is. The last thing the EPA needs is some individual or group influencing it.
(07/31/03) To better protect human health and the environment, EPA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) will provide $2 million over the next three years for research grants to develop innovative statistical methods and models of human exposure to pollutants. Source EPA newsroom. In my not so humble opinion to me, this is terrible news. It may initially sound good on the surface. However when you delve into what this means is the EPA is letting an organization with vested interests influence, maybe even control it. Its like letting the foxes rule the hen house to use an old cliche. Below is an example of the danger.
Promoting the chemical industry as crucial to the economic health of the nation the American Chemistry Council. (formerly the chemical manufacturers Assn) lobbied against the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a public right-to-know program. Under TRI, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency yearly reports on what industries release into the air, water and land. The ACC wanted less frequent reporting of TRI since 1999.
ARLINGTON, VA (July 14, 2008) Today President George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore domestic energy development in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). More information is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. Meanwhile, bipartisan talks continue in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate among a number of lawmakers exploring energy legislation that could include offshore domestic energy supply. This information was taken directly from the www.americanchemistry.com web site. Its the official site of the ACC. Its saying its permissible for off shore drilling. It seems that Bush doesn't care how off shore drilling will effect the environment. Or if he even thought about it.
These are just a few of many ways that the American Chemical Council, a chemical industry lobbying group is eliminating the effectiveness of the US Environmental Protection Agency, protecting our environment and our health due to environmental toxins.
Perhaps I am wrong with Bush's EPA be ing unduly influenced by industrial lobbyiest. However with much to gain with lax environmental rulings I became rather suspicious. This is especially so when they just happen to be major contributors to G.W. Bush. I find it quite difficult believe its merely coincidental. On the contrary I think its no accident that the EPA isn't as reliable , trustworthy as it should be
Lastly any official in any US govt. agency must be capable of making objective rulings with absolutely no conflicts of interest.
When Rice stated that Bush didn't know that someone would take planes and fly them into the Trade Center, she was right. None of them knew what would happen. But I believe that, at the least, Cheney knew that some type of catastrophic event would occur. They needed it and I believe they ordered it up. That would also explain why so many of the hijackers were Saudis.