Gender: Do not display
Home country: US
Member since: Sat Jun 4, 2005, 09:56 AM
Number of posts: 13,728
Home country: US
Member since: Sat Jun 4, 2005, 09:56 AM
Number of posts: 13,728
Bay Journal: Science, not politics, should guide Clean Water Act clarification
On Aug. 2, nearly a half-million people in Toledo, OH, woke up to learn their tap water was contaminated with microcystin, a neurotoxin produced by a massive bloom of the algae Cyanobacteria in Lake Erie. It’s thought that nutrient overload, from farm runoff and sewage treatment effluent, contributed to the algae bloom.
In January, the drinking water for more than 300,000 West Virginians was poisoned when a Freedom Industries storage tank leaked, spewing 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane into the Elk River, just upstream from a water treatment plant.
Why has the public not demanded that the federal agency be given the necessary authority to enforce appropriate safeguards, so that our fresh water resources will not be subject to the vagaries of state and local authorities, nor to the whims of private landowners?
Instead, the EPA is being barraged by an army of opponents. Developers, property rights groups, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the fertilizer industry and a number of politicians are attacking its proposed clarification—not an expansion—of which “waters of the United States” are covered by the Clean Water Act.
The need for clarification arose from two Supreme Court cases, in 2001 and in 2006. The clarification would enable the EPA to better protect our wetlands, small streams and other important watershed features without being dragged into court every time someone wanted to avoid compliance by exploiting an ambiguity.
But this July, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed two bills that could limit the EPA’s authority. One of the bills would give states more authority over water pollution permits, while the other would block the agency’s ability to redefine which waters fall under its jurisdiction. These bills follow measures passed by the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies on July 9, which would significantly cut EPA funding and remove the agency’s authority to implement the proposed “Waters of the U.S.” rule.
The alarm has sounded. We hit the snooze button at our peril. If you care about having clean, safe fresh water, contact your U.S. congressman and tell him or her to support the EPA’s waters of the United States clarification. The proposed rule is open for public comment until Oct. 20.
Comment period originally ended in July but was extended to 10/20.
Posted by MH1 | Fri Oct 3, 2014, 10:06 PM (2 replies)
"Corbett, down in the polls, may now have to face the porn"
A BIG BATCH of porny emails may be the very last thing Gov. Corbett, trailing badly in the polls to Democrat Tom Wolf, needs to hear about right now.
Still, a judge yesterday said the state Attorney General's Office may release emails requested in the last two months by four newspapers, including the Daily News, which may have been sent or received by Corbett's top deputies when he was attorney general.
The newspapers, in requests filed under the state's Right-to-Know law, described the emails as "pornographic" in nature.
They have been described to the Daily News as sexually explicit and, at times, misogynistic.
Soon to be ex-governor Corbett.
Posted by MH1 | Tue Sep 23, 2014, 10:36 PM (12 replies)
Seriously. I'm reading a Boston Globe article about the SC buffer zone decision.
The high court ruled that the state law, enacted in 2007, imposed “serious burdens” on protesters who wish to speak with arriving patients.
I tend to think of the First Amendment as protecting me from going to jail for saying something like "Dick Cheney is a fraud who profits from death and destruction and the Iraq War was just another profit venture for him". This ain't nothin' - it's actually quite a lot, and a protection not available to citizens in many other countries.
I don't really find myself fretting over whether someone is restricted from blocking the sidewalk in order to sell me something - whether it's the latest crappy brand of gum, or the beliefs of their church, or LaRouchian political nonsense, or even to sign me up for Greenpeace. I accept that some of these people will occasionally hang out in the otherwise pleasant park where I like to walk on my lunch hour, and they may even annoy me at times, but that's okay. It's a small price for living in a free society.
But, aren't there already some sort of laws in most places that prevent people from blocking sidewalks?
And how in the world is "free speech", "freedom of assembly", etc. interpreted to mean someone can walk up to me and get in my face when I don't want to talk to them? I'm not going to call the cops on panhandlers, who I assume do what they do out of being disadvantaged (and normally panhandlers don't insist anyway), but if someone tries to talk to me to sell me something and I indicate "not interested" and they follow me and keep asking, that is harassment and I don't see how it is "protected". ESPECIALLY if they get too close to me - into my personal space, i.e. in my face. And if they touch me, that is assault, in my book, certainly if I have already indicated that I am not interested in interacting with them.
More than that, being frankly not the most "sociable" person on the planet, I do not acknowledge that a random stranger has any "right" to interrupt my thoughts and bother me when I'm walking on a public sidewalk. In other words, they do NOT have a "right" to speak to me, except in an emergency for my safety or the safety of others; that people sometimes do this is merely a generally accepted annoyance, not a "right". In my opinion.
So, I don't get why the First Amendment has anything to do with whether protesters have a "right" to speak with arriving patients. If they want to stand and hold signs somewhere, that's a different issue. But impede someone's path or speak to them? I don't get why that should be a "right" in the first place. But, on the other hand, I don't know why a "buffer zone" should be needed. If this is harassment - and I would consider it harassment - then why can't the harassers be arrested regardless of a buffer zone designation? If the cops know that this is a problem around certain clinics - and they do know, because it is - why not station more cops there?
Does it just come down to funding? Not enough cops to hang around and arrest people for harassment? The buffer zone makes it easier to demarcate a violation and therefore have a clear case and arrest, therefore more likely for protesters to avoid violating it?
Just to be clear, I am not happy with the SC decision. I think clinic buffer zones ARE needed, unfortunately. It's just that I wish that no one had to be subject to harassment on the sidewalk anywhere for any reason, and I wish "buffer zones" just for clinics were not needed for that reason. That might put me at odds with folks who want to accost me with progressive petitions or requests to join progressive groups, but I'm sorry, those groups have other ways to reach me (and they have generally succeeded).
People should just back off and let other people go about their business, whether it be a medical procedure or catching the commuter train on time (and not having to wait a half hour until the next one).
Posted by MH1 | Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:14 AM (64 replies)
I know there is a trash page attacking them on facebook.
If there is a well run support page I'd like to know.
I'm somewhat ambivalent about Bowe Bergdahl's reported actions in combat BUT I think that should be up to the military to judge and handle.
And I think the attacks on his family are utterly despicable, pathetic, and beyond the pale.
Apologies if this was asked and answered, if so please just post the link. Thanks.
Posted by MH1 | Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:27 AM (3 replies)
DEAR SUSAN CORBETT:
Well, here we go again.
Because he owes the kids of Central High School an apology.
What the hell was he thinking yesterday, when he canceled his scheduled visit to Central, where he was supposed to present the school with a well-deserved achievement award?
His appearance at Central was going to be historic, by the way, since it would have been the first time since he was elected governor that he'd actually stepped inside a Philadelphia public school.
Take a moment to digest the fact that the governor of this state has never visited any of the Philly schools whose kids are suffering the fallout of his draconian budget cuts. He has never seen firsthand the bursting classrooms, empty counselors' and nurses' offices and shuttered libraries.
Well, you can imagine the excitement Tom's impending visit generated in Central's students - a collection of some of the nicest, smartest, hardest-working kids you'll find anywhere. They're also some of the most engaged, the kind who grow into society's Big Somebodies. Notable alums include a governor (Leon Abbett), astronaut (James Bagian), comedian (Bill Cosby), Watergate lawyer (Sam Dash) and philosopher (Noam Chomsky), to name just a handful who've done themselves, their families and the school proud.
But at the last minute, your husband blew off his chance to meet these wonderful kids, to feel the school percolate with their energy, to see how 2,312 kids from countless cultures blend beautifully under one huge roof.
Your thin-skinned spouse backed out when he heard that his visit to Olney would be accompanied by - gasp! - protests. Please note that the protesters weren't planning to protest, say, Tom's stance on gay marriage, fracking or the newly defunct voter-ID law. They were going to protest the state's lack of funding to Philadelphia schools.
Oh, how dare they?
Much more at link.
Please remember this (add it to the pile, that is) and make sure you all vote this corrupt cretin out of office this fall.
Posted by MH1 | Sat Jan 18, 2014, 01:26 PM (3 replies)
Go to Page: 1