Clean Air

[BLACK KNIGHT]

Well, it was reported in the Greenville News, a paper fit only to line a bird cage, that the Bush EPA has decided to enforce the stricter interpretation of the law re: the coal burning power plants - upgrade vs. new construction argument cited by Edwin in the thread below, "Will Dubya be accepted now".
So the power companies are PO'd, but still the environmentalists are not happy because the EPA left future decisions open to modify the Clean air Act to address the upgrade v. new construction controversy.
Maybe if people just gave the man a chance....naw, I know better.

[Grady]

On the other hand...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40646-2002Jan13.html

"Pfeifle blamed the mix-up on the Democratic-controlled Senate, which has yet to confirm the assistant secretaries or agency directors that President Bush has tapped to oversee the mining office and the wildlife service." LOL


"Bush has vowed to protect wetlands in no uncertain terms, and his Environmental Protection Agency submitted comments objecting to the Corps proposal. But environmentalists and some federal employees argued that the no-comment situation reflects a new hostility toward environmental issues at Interior. They said they could not recall a previous case when Interior failed to supply any formal comments on an issue as important as the Corps program that provides 80,000 permits to develop in wetlands every year. They also noted that even though the wildlife service's Oct. 15 comments -- which were provided to The Washington Post by environmentalists who agree with them -- went well beyond the disputed mining rule, Interior failed to pass along any of its concerns on other issues."

Comments, we don't need no stinking comments!

[BLACK KNIGHT]

Thanks. I can always count on you to make my point, Grady.

[The Owl]

Could be that they're actually thinking about the situation. What do I know though?


Owl

[edwin]

BK,

Saw the story in the B'ham news as well. Basically, the story goes that he is allowing the EPA to pursue the lawsuits against these companies. However, the Southern Co. and other cos. are NOT afraid because Bush is getting ready to roll back the regs. upon which the suits are based. How's that for hypocrisy? If the story is still on the 'net, I'll post it.

[Grady]

It sounds like a political bait and switch.

I believe Bush is throwing a few bones to environmentalists on high-profile issues left over from the Clinton adminsitration while quietly going about business-as-usual in other areas. For example, the administration very quietly went to federal court in California recently to argue that California can't stop oil drilling off its own coast. (No local control here, thank you!) According to the article I read, there was no press release, no announcement, nothing. Wonder why?

[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 01-17-2002).]

[BLACK KNIGHT]

How do you KNOW that he's getting ready to roll them back? Sounds like paranoia.

[THE EG]

Should we add employees of the Greenville News to the LUVTROUT suspect list?

[BLACK KNIGHT]

http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif


No, the employees at the Greenville News couldn't spell that well, nor do they use good grammar.

[This message has been edited by BLACK KNIGHT (edited 01-18-2002).]

[THE EG]

Just trying to look out for you.

[edwin]

BK,

You're right. I don't KNOW that they are going to do it. I am just telling you what I read. Some official in the administration told the reporter that they expected that the new source regs would be rolled back and that Clinton's regs. would be trashed. I tried to find the story and post it but the link is no longer available. Maybe I am being paranoid, but I am just repeating what I read.

[BLACK KNIGHT]

http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif OK

[jeffg]

Edwin, nytimes on thursday of last week hidden about 6 pages back in main section had their version of that article.
readin it was a bait and switch imho, but the scary part to me, ( and maybe I am just an ignorant liberal) that the Corps will have more power and say in what is classified as a wetland, and what can be developed.....

[edwin]

Fortunately, the EPA is fighting that proposal by the corps, which is possibly the most anti-env. agency of our gov't.

[BLACK KNIGHT]

Tongue in cheek: But the EPA is a member of the Bush admin....

[vonchim]

What we have here is a fox in the hen house.
All you really have to do is look at the environment in Texas to see what this guy can do. I know the AJC is a fishwrapper, but some of these guys stink too! Heck, Ashcroft is the one who got Dubya's drivers license info purged/changed . Not to mention he just appointed Scalia's son to the highest legal position in the labor department. To the victor go the spoils.
AJC Editorial http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0102/0120fox.html

[This message has been edited by vonchim (edited 01-22-2002).]

[BLACK KNIGHT]

AAAUUUGGGHHHHHH!

[The Ole Man]

HeeeeeeeeeeHeeeeeeeeey
von--there is always plenty of stink to go around on both sides of the aisle. It is just the nature of the beast since day one. Of course to the victor goes the spoils--that's the name of the game. Btw, you missed one--Colin Powells son is the new head of the FAA (or maybe it was the FCC-whatever), AND Phil Gramms wife was on the Board of Directors of Enron; and Bob Doles wife used to be Secretary of Transportation, lada, lada, lada. If you were to flesh out all the friends and family patronage going on among politicians,it would fill the Library of Congress. Who was it that said "You can learn a lot by just looking around." http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by The Ole Man (edited 01-22-2002).]

[BLACK KNIGHT]

A simple thread pertaining to a specific concern some members expressed over Clean Air Act evolves into political complaints over appointees in the Labor Department.
That's unreal. Actually it's all too real.

[Speck]

vonch,
Funny how that editorial mentioned all those people who "worked for Company X" or "lobbied for Industry Y" or "has ties to Company Z", but I suppose you didn't notice what was missing.

Things like "hid legal documents related to" or "lied under oath" or "granted amnesty for a wanted man after his brother-in-law accepted money from the fugitive".

Putting on my flack jacket . . .


------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout

[Windknot]

Obviously we need a lighter moment!

For my conservative bretheren - guys, take a deep breath; this one's on us!

I did not see the broadcast on Sunday...I'm glad, 'cause it would have ruined the games!
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020123-11632845.htm

[BLACK KNIGHT]

Racicot is seriously weak- I saw it-it was ugly. Terry McAullife (sp?) is one smooth, albeit, sleazy, operator. Def. wouldn't buy a used car from the man. I believe the guy lies so frequently, he believes it now.
But I digress- the whole thread's purpose was to refute the assertion that Bush is gonna trash the Clean air Act. I should have just beat my head against a wall. Won't make this mistake again. Out.

[vonchim]

Ole Man
I agree with you on that. The whole place is a rats nest of sleaze. I would probably die instantly if you could find someone in washington that wasn't as crooked as a snake.
BK
I was just pointing out the return of a specific favor. Actually 2 of many.

Speck
Lying under oath is nothing new. Maybe we should spend another $40 Mil. and put him in jail for a year or two.

Did not see the thing on sunday. Wish I had. I just would hate to see the streams and rivers get trashed in the name of cheap energy, profits.

Besides, it's winter, raining, and the river is muddy. Kinda boring inside!

[Speck]

Vonch,


I wrote a very in-depth response, but then I decided the hell with it.
Just call me if the FBI finds one of the Bush associates in a park with a bullet hole in his head AND incriminating documents in his filing cabinet AND another staffer removing said documents AND Jeb Bush taking money from John Walker in return for a presidential pardon AND ... Oh, hell this could go on all day.
Then I'll join the crowd in thinking the Bush Administration is corrupt.

------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout

[AthensTroutBum]

I can't hear ya'll, there's this paper shredding machine in here makin' a lot of racket.

Kellen

[Grady]

(Grady shouts over the whirr of the shredding machines)

Hey, Speck,

Is there a moral distinction between a lie and a lie under oath? If so, your man is in the clear. If not, you might want to look at what Bush said recently about his relationship with Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay.


[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 01-24-2002).]

[The Owl]

I would probably die instantly if you could find someone in washington that wasn't as crooked as a snake.


We found him last November, bro. Now, it wouldn't matter if God himself came down to run for President, some of the liberals out there would surely try to "impose" their view of him on the rest of the country.

" You know that God fellow? I hear He made the people that got out of Enron with money AND his name was even ON the money.....oh boy is he a crook!" http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif


Well, it won't be long before the Democrats start looking for more "silly-putty" to throw at the President - always trying to make something stick. So far, the only thing that's stuck is a lone pretzel. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

Go W Go. ( 4 more years! )

[Grady]

And then there is the head in the sand approach!

[Speck]

Grady,
At the risk of sounding like I'm giving W. a pass on that (which I'm not, but I have to admit to not having kept up on it), yes, there is a difference.
Lying is certainly morally wrong in itself.
But lying under oath shows not only a character flaw, but a lack of respect for our judicial system.
As does getting a DUI, right? Just thought I'd throw that in there to show I'm no Bush fanatic.
He's actually a little liberal for my taste.

------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout

[vonchim]

This admin. is just going to roll back as many laws/regulations as they can to help out mining,oil and other industries. What little effect the silt nets that are used in constructon do, just think if they were not required at all.

[huntfish]

BK,
Amen on your last post, brother. Ever notice that the environmental consultants (myself included) hardly ever post in this forum? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[BLACK KNIGHT]

huntfish- Next time I think about it, slap me. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

[Speck]

Vonch,
I seriously doubt that the list of "to do" items on the Bush agenda includes "roll back as many environmental regulations as possible". I don't suppose it's possible that some regulations are unnecessary or need to be clarified, is it? Naw, I didn't think so.
Just think, in 7 more years, all the trout will be gone and we'll all be wearing oxygen tanks while we drive our SUV's to our jobs at the Southern Co.

------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout

[jeffg]

growing up in western md, and going to school right on the WV border and seeing what coal mining does to water, forests etc.. is what is worries right now about man in charge.

His we need to lower regulations of coal burning plants, need to use coal because we have a lot of coal statement scares me.
(he made these comments at the speech in WV a few days ago)
Yeah, liberal wacko I am, but once again I know of a certain trophy trout river that is the border of MD and WVA that the only reason ANY life is in that stream is do to man made limestone filters. Without those filters the stream was dead. No insects, no grasses heck the trees didnt even live around the banks of the stream. N. Branch of Potomac was killed by coal, saved at later date by man after long fights amongst state, companies, governments, etc....

And as most people are aware of (whether they want to believe it or not) Acid rain is killing streams.... but once again, just a lunatic fringe left winger stating this...



[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 01-25-2002).]

[Speck]

I don't think you're a liberal wacko, Jeff, at least not from reading your post. I think you have legitimate concerns, and I agree with everything you just said.

------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout

[FLYSLINGER]

Is there still a such thing as the seperation of church and state? Stating that the goverment stay out of religious business in all ways possible? Unless some of you guys are really wiccan,buddhists, or something similar, instead of christians; I dont see why almost every enviromental thread turns into a religious arguement. If this keeps up, Aaron will have to start a religion forum on the board , so some of you can argue about whether it is best to be baptists,methodists,etc. Its getting ridiculous.
Which i know i will probably be called evil, an atheist or the anti-christ, but please try to keep it to yourselves unless it is deemed nessasary. Everyone needs some sort of faith in something, but it doesnt have to appear in so many threads and fuel so much childish bull****.
My rant for the week.......fire away!!!

------------------
Screaming reels,
Jeremy

"Never go camping with a man that drinks whiskey sours."
Lewis Grizzard

[Speck]

Slinger,

There is very little of a religious nature in this post, in fact virtually none.
Moral argument? Sure. Religious? I don't see where you get that.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

(Oh, and by the way, there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.)

------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout

[BLACK KNIGHT]

Actually, there IS no thing as separation of church and state as it is applied today. The Constitution only guarantees your right to worship as you choose, but does not preclude the government from participation in religion. It simply guarantees the government won't sponsor a state religion. Separation of church and state is basically a 60 year old legal argument- until then, it hardly was an issue, or argued.

Editing due to intoxication on Sam Adams India Pale Ale- Brewer- Patriot.

[This message has been edited by BLACK KNIGHT (edited 01-26-2002).]

[JOHNKIES]

BK is correct in that the Constitution of The United States expressly forbids a state religion. That is what the middle class, English speaking, white people were fleeing from in England. And post - Revolution, they wrote a Constitution to meet their immediate needs. Those things which were not directly addressed in the Constitution but were felt important enough were added later as the Bill Of Rights.

To keep the whole thing flexible, the writers of the Constitution also made provision for that Constitution to be changed as needed to address the country's needs. And they made that change difficult and laborious, I think, to avoid changes due to whims and short term political interests. They also gave us a Republic, not a Democracy, to keep the ongoing operation of the government running smoothly. But as the needs of the country change, so does the government. It was intended to do that and if the public feels it has gone too far, or not far enough, then we change it through the elective process. That is why we see the needs of a broader constituency being addressed today than those of the early settlers - white, English, middle class - we have become a very diverse nation.

The Constitution of The United States does not define or address separaton of church and state, but then it also does not address a postal service, social security, income taxes, interstate highways, national forests or national parks. These have come about via a republican form of government which has the flexibility to move from supporting canal building to moon walks. And that government can also help us to all have clean air to breath and clean water to drink if we demand that of, and elect to office, representatives who will reflect our will.

------------------

[Speck]

Well put, JK.

However, I'd still like to know what exactly flyslinger was so upset about. I've re-read this thread twice; it just isn't there.

To paraphrase your own words fly,:

If this keeps up, Aaron will have to start a RANTING forum on the board , so some of you can RANT about whatever it is that is bothering you, rather than ranting in threads that have nothing to do with what you're saying. It's getting ridiculous.

Indeed.

------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout

[fletcherwilliams]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."


Congress doesnt have to make a law for or against a religion, but the president can appoint the pope if he so desires.. nothing wrong with that. The Supreme Court or the president can do anything religious they want to.

[Bryan Etzel]

jk,
it does adress postal service:
Article 1, sec. 8..."To establish post offices and post roads;"

and income tax:
Article 1, sec. 9..."No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

which was reversed in 1913 by the 16th amendment..."The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "

[fletcherwilliams]

16th ammendment made it possible for politicians to start using the catch-phrase "program" instead of "new tax." It was passed by legislators who wanted to raise taxes under the table. I think the ammendment privelege of the constitution has been grossly abused. this is where i can join you in your evil anarchaic ways. sometime youll have to give me a chance to pull you away from the dark side. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

[FLYSLINGER]

I wasnt real upset or anything, I forgot I wasnt in that Sierra Club post. I think I was drunk when i posted that oh well. Apply it where its needed.

------------------
Screaming reels,
Jeremy

"Never go camping with a man that drinks whiskey sours."
Lewis Grizzard

[Speck]

Peace, Bro.

------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout

[Grady]

Here is an interesting read on the issue first raised here, and others. What is simply astounding to me is the web that exists among pols, corporate big wigs, lobbyists, fundraisers, etc. They move from one arena to the other and back so easily, or so it seems. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the administration does on the clean air issue.
[URL=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html]

[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 02-04-2002).]

[The Owl]

Grady, shouting that you're head is in the sand is nice, but maybe a bit too obvious of an exclamation. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
If you're implying that it is my head in the sand, then I think you're mistaken, and two.......you've brought up a tactic of your own called " I'm a liberal and I can't argue facts.....but I sure can throw insults around!".
Nice move.

As for the rest of this thread......I give you all a rest from what most of you cannot handle anyway. The truth.


BK , you bad man. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif


Owl

[FLYSLINGER]

Interept it as you please.Something to think about when calling someone else or yourself a liberal:
"The only time a flaming liberal bends over and takes one is for sex, just maybe."
Rush Limbaugh.
Heard it on the radio, almost wrecked i was laughing so hard.

------------------
Screaming reels,
Jeremy

"Never go camping with a man that drinks whiskey sours."
Lewis Grizzard