I agree with much of what Bartlett says in this piece, but--
Resisting the temptation to just bash capitalism, Mr. Dionne correctly recognizes that the true conflict in business today is not between owners and workers, but between insiders and outsiders. Managers, who were on the inside, appear to have manipulated the system for their own enrichment, at the expense of outsiders, who included both workers and shareholders.
This is largely true, but it doesn't go far enough. Many of these insider managers have infiltrated the government, especially the Bush administration, and have been manipulating fiscal policy. Ken Lay offered Robert Rubin a job while he was still in the Clintion administration, and he at least waited until he was out of office to take the job. The "revolving door" phenomenon, by which these guys go from the private sector to government and back again, means that they never truly lose their allegience to the industries and corporations they are affiliated with. Dick Cheney knows that, some day, he WON'T be VP anymore, and he needs to make sure that he has friends and a place to go when he leaves office, so he feathers his nest politically while he is in office.
The Bush administration didn't help Enron? Give me a break! Energy deregulation, Energy Department appointments, banking and finance deregulation, off-shore tax havens, a blind limp and dumb IRS, failure to establish electricity-price controls in California -- all bought and paid for by Enron and other Bush family connections.
--Ed Raymond, Reader Weekly
We're all being pulled under by the shortsighted opportunism of a buncha unbelievably stupid greedy white men unhindered by the slightest sense of wisdom or conscience.
And if you find all of this a little too much to swallow, I'm sure we can at least agree on this lil clarifier:
The REAL reason Bush pulled us out of the Kyoto Protocol?
There is nothing patriotic about handing over our natural heritage to the oil industry. But that's exactly what the White House wants to do in the name of national security...
With the nation's attention focused almost exclusively on the war against terrorism, the Bush administration has moved quietly but aggressively in recent months to open up fragile wildlands to giant energy corporations. In Utah, they were in such a hurry to lease millions of acres of our redrock canyonlands for oil and gas development that they skipped the environmental review that is required by law. My colleagues here at NRDC have already gone to federal court to block this illegal giveaway of redrock country.
But that's only the beginning. The Bush-Cheney energy plan -- hatched in closed-door meetings last year with Enron and other energy giants -- would pave the way for oil and gas companies to despoil an alarming number of our last wild places: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, Wyoming's Red Desert, and many, many more.
President Bush says we need the oil to become more energy independent. Don't buy it! Using the tragic events of September 11th as an opportunity to advance the special interests of the oil industry will not enhance America's energy security. Our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to drill our way to self-sufficiency.
If we really want to declare energy independence, then the only answer is to dramatically reduce our appetite for oil. For starters, we could increase the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon. That would save nearly two million barrels of oil a day by the year 2012 -- more than all the oil we imported last year from Saudi Arabia.
--Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council
Occidental Petroleum's pipeline in war-torn Colombia.
Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, or any other regimen of protective environmental enforcement, in favor of industry-desired "self-policing" without independent standards or strict accountability.
Opening the fragile Alaskan wilds to intense oil exploration when the consequences of the Valdez disaster, thirteen years later, still recur, to the detriment of fisheries and other natural habitats.
Taking a general anti-environment stand so broadly and blatantly consistent with energy-industry wishes that the American West -- including prime wilderness areas and territory sacred to native populaces -- goes up for sale to the highest bidder...
These are evidences of an administration being completely within the silk vest pockets of Big Energy -- of Big Business in general.
America needs aggressive, top-level leadership not in behalf of elites and special interests.
But in behalf of its workaday, wage-earning majority.
Is that too much to expect in what we're always told is the "world's greatest democracy"?
How about getting a president, for a change, who serves and protects Joe Average?
Again, your logic is inescapable. Not only does such an inflammatory post (which is pure opinion and carries no facts) serve no purpose other than to antagonize those with whom you disagree, it does not even seek to further an actual point of view about any substantive issue. A parrot can be trained to say the same words over and over, and saying them loudly and stamping his feet while he says them makes them carry no more weight. All liberal may be idiots, I don't know, but you certainly aren't going to convince anybody of this (or anything else) just by saying it over and over. Evidently at least one conservative has yet to learn even the rudiments of either debate or civil conversation. (Is a moron different from an idiot?)
Would you or do you not get mad when someone generalizes about conservatives ? Instead of posting something you know will get people upset why not just debate an issue or talk directly to the person who you disagree with instead of calling a large group of people idiots. Debate the issue with em instead of insulting them.
No prob JT. I know what you mean. Sorry for the rant above. But I get tired sometimes of people saying or generalizing and implying that if you are conservative you somehow don't care about people, the planet, or kids and are selfish. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that most liberals and most conservatives and most in between care very much about all those things, and the country, they just disagree on how to do it. But in the end they have mostly the same hopes, fears and desires.
First of all we are talking about a very minimal area being effected. I was in Alaska last year when this issue was being debated. Polls showed that between 75-80% of Alaskan residents favored this. Shouldn't they be the ones to have the most say ? We need to ween ourselves from foreign oil. this is just one part of the equation. Other research is under way and we definately need to find alternatives to gas power. I agree with you there but in the mean time we have to do something. Mainly so we can tell Saudi Arabia that they are on their own and good luck and goodbye.
I get tired sometimes of people saying or generalizing and implying that if you are conservative you somehow don't care about people, the planet, or kids and are selfish.
First of all we are talking about a very minimal area being effected. I was in Alaska last year when this issue was being debated. Polls showed that between 75-80% of Alaskan residents favored this. Shouldn't they be the ones to have the most say ? We need to ween ourselves from foreign oil. this is just one part of the equation. Other research is under way and we definately need to find alternatives to gas power. I agree with you there but in the mean time we have to do something. Mainly so we can tell Saudi Arabia that they are on their own and good luck and goodbye.
Not only does such an inflammatory post (which is pure opinion and carries no facts) serve no purpose other than to antagonize those with whom you disagree, it does not even seek to further an actual point of view about any substantive issue.
Once again Lundstrom drags out his liberal talking points in lockstep with the closed minded liberals that refuse to allow drilling in the Arctic. There is no sensible reason not to dill in that wasteland.
I think they have made new drills and rules that do protect it as much as possible. and I think the guidelines will be pretty strict. Plus public pressure will be there as well. The area that will be effected is a pin head compared to the size of ANWAR. I have been to Alaska a few times although not to ANWAR. And the residents favor it. overwhelmingly. They live there so I think their vote should count the most. There was much similar talk when the pipeline was going through and many had argued and worried about disrupting the ecosystem and migration of the caribou herds. It never happened. After the initial growback of brush, trees etc. The caribou and other animals just see it as part of their landscape and breed, graze, and sleep right next to it. They are thriving. coincidentally on the other side of the coin I did go over to Valedz. The ecosystem there although obviously still effected has continued to recover at an astonishing rate, scientists who predicted it would take hundreds of years for the area to retun to normal are amazed to see the fisherey and wildlife returning and doing quite well. It's not 100% back to normal yet but It showed that with a little tlc old ma' nature can really heal herself and adapt. Now those residents lived through all that are still in a majority in favor of drilling says something.
Because I think the more oil that's extracted from the state, the larger the check they get every year. They get Jesse Checks that make ours look sick.
They are going after a small area that, by some estimates has very little oil. I'm cynical enough to think that they are setting themselves up for failure, so they have a reason to go further into ANWR until the reach a point where the place in plundered and they can finally claim success.
"The caribou and other animals just see it as part of their landscape and breed, graze, and sleep right next to it."
I've heard the jokes about caribou breeding too. Hardee, Har Har. The numbers are up, and I guess we're supposed to take pride in artificially shaping animal populations. Well, more caribou means less of something else.
You want to ween ourselves from the Saudis? Conserve energy and curtail your luxuries.
It's called sacrifice. It's been done during war before.
They are going after a small area that, by some estimates has very little oil. I'm cynical enough to think that they are setting themselves up for failure, so they have a reason to go further into ANWR until the reach a point where the place in plundered and they can finally claim success.
It could be a high price for failure. I say go in and get it. No one is going to get hurt. It is a WASTELAND after all.
They do get a check for allowing drilling rights. So what ? They also are the ones who have to live there and live in whatever enviroment they create or allow. All the people I met seemed greatly concerned with their enviroment because most of them make their living depending on the enviroment themselves so they have more at stake than some guy living in Albequerqe.
Well, more caribou means less of something else.
Yes Rick, you're right and you know what it's less of ? grass and plants they're herbivores with plenty of room and plenty to eat. My point is that the battle cry was that we would destroy the caribou's structure and enviroment and we haven't. It hasn't happened.
You want to ween ourselves from the Saudis? Conserve energy and curtail your luxuries.
I do conserve, and what luxuries ? Unless you mean my portable ice fishing house, now there's a luxury !
"I do conserve, and what luxuries ? Unless you mean my portable ice fishing house, now there's a luxury ! "
You're probably doing your part, then.
Torpedo used to kid me about my urban Cylindar Index, which is 4. Joe Soucheray would consider me downright unmanly.
I got no fish house. I stand up to my crotch in cold water when I go fishing (like to see Soucheray do that). I might go this weekend. Catch and release trout season starts in Wisconsin.
The Bush Administration is promising a new era that will, they say, hold corporate CEO's to a higher standard of accountability. Poor people were asked for the same thing with the Welfare Law of 1996, so, why not?
"Now we face the intriguing prospect that this Republican, business-friendly administion may force corporate chief executives to take more personal responsibility for what thier companies say and do," said a story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.
The treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill says that the top dog should know what's going on inside the dog pound. O'Neill said simple negligence -- not just fraud that we're probably seeing in the Enron Debacle -- should be punished.
"If executives consider administration proposals to be 'a piece of cake', Mr. O'Neill says, '"then we probably haven't raised the bar high enough.'"
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency's chief of enforcement has resigned in protest, saying in a letter circulating in the capital Thursday that he was tired of fighting "a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce."
In a resignation letter submitted late Wednesday to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, Eric Schaeffer accused the Bush administration of crippling agency enforcement efforts with budget cuts and undermining legal actions against power companies with "endless delays."
--From the Chicago Tribune
Despite all the glowing propaganda being issued by the RNC about how drilling the ANWR would supposedly be a wonderful, necessary and safe thing (repeated virtually verbatim by dutiful GOP footsoldiers here), Schaeffer's resignation combines with the Enron mess to make molasses of Dubya's chances of ever seeing Alaskan land dotted with oil derricks.
The idea isn't going anywhere.
The American people may enjoy a lot of gas-guzzling toys, but they're smart and sensitive enough to treasure what's left of our shrinking wilderness even more.
They won't tolerate the desecration precedent that drilling the ANWR would unleash upon so many of the remaining pristine places in the U.S.
The fate of the measure seemed to hinge on a disputed anti-fraud provision backed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats regarding how first-time voters who register by mail identify themselves. As they did last week, both sides sought a compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat who came 11 votes shy of cloture on Friday, said if he was unable to cut off debate he would pronounce the measure dead, ''at least for the foreseeable future,'' and move to other matters.
The anti-fraud provision would require first-time voters who register by mail to produce a photo identification or other specified documents, like a pay stub or utility bill.
Republicans maintain this is needed to help combat cheating, which has included people registering to vote dogs and cats and even the dead.
Democrats complain the provision could bar from the polls those with no drivers' license or other identification, such as minorities and the elderly, among their biggest backers.
Democrats complain the provision could bar from the polls those with no drivers' license or other identification, such as minorities and the elderly, among their biggest backers.
So someone who is minority or elderly doesn't or shouldn't be expected to have any I.D, a utility bill or a paystub the first time they vote ? Oh no we wouldn't want to not let someone without ID a paystub or utility bill vote for the first time. What a harsh imposition, HUH ? O.K let's just go back to dead people voting. Someone call Richard Daley. Can someone from the other side of the ailse please tell me how this is objectionable or wrong to not require this ? And why the Democrats are opposed to it ?
Requiring a photo I.D. to vote is hardly comparable to a tattoo, fold. What is wrong with trying to prevent fraud in voting? That is all that it is. Most people have an ID anyway. If it is too much hassle for the rest then that would be their choice.
I'm sure the liberals here won't agree. To them it's all Bush's fault.
I agree with much of what Bartlett says in this piece, but--
This is largely true, but it doesn't go far enough. Many of these insider managers have infiltrated the government, especially the Bush administration, and have been manipulating fiscal policy. Ken Lay offered Robert Rubin a job while he was still in the Clintion administration, and he at least waited until he was out of office to take the job. The "revolving door" phenomenon, by which these guys go from the private sector to government and back again, means that they never truly lose their allegience to the industries and corporations they are affiliated with. Dick Cheney knows that, some day, he WON'T be VP anymore, and he needs to make sure that he has friends and a place to go when he leaves office, so he feathers his nest politically while he is in office.
I don't think Cheney needs to worry about where he is going after he leaves office. If he makes it through his term he is set for life I'm sure.
The revolving door phenomenon means they never truly leave their allegiance to government.
Ok. I believe that.
The Bush administration didn't help Enron? Give me a break! Energy deregulation, Energy Department appointments, banking and finance deregulation, off-shore tax havens, a blind limp and dumb IRS, failure to establish electricity-price controls in California -- all bought and paid for by Enron and other Bush family connections.
--Ed Raymond, Reader Weekly
We're all being pulled under by the shortsighted opportunism of a buncha unbelievably stupid greedy white men unhindered by the slightest sense of wisdom or conscience.
And if you find all of this a little too much to swallow, I'm sure we can at least agree on this lil clarifier:
The REAL reason Bush pulled us out of the Kyoto Protocol?
Too hard to pronounce.
--Dan Stone, Reader Weekly (same issue)
You seem to forget Enron wanted the Kyoto Protcol, Rahkonen.
There is nothing patriotic about handing over our natural heritage to the oil industry. But that's exactly what the White House wants to do in the name of national security...
With the nation's attention focused almost exclusively on the war against terrorism, the Bush administration has moved quietly but aggressively in recent months to open up fragile wildlands to giant energy corporations. In Utah, they were in such a hurry to lease millions of acres of our redrock canyonlands for oil and gas development that they skipped the environmental review that is required by law. My colleagues here at NRDC have already gone to federal court to block this illegal giveaway of redrock country.
But that's only the beginning. The Bush-Cheney energy plan -- hatched in closed-door meetings last year with Enron and other energy giants -- would pave the way for oil and gas companies to despoil an alarming number of our last wild places: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, Wyoming's Red Desert, and many, many more.
President Bush says we need the oil to become more energy independent. Don't buy it! Using the tragic events of September 11th as an opportunity to advance the special interests of the oil industry will not enhance America's energy security. Our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to drill our way to self-sufficiency.
If we really want to declare energy independence, then the only answer is to dramatically reduce our appetite for oil. For starters, we could increase the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon. That would save nearly two million barrels of oil a day by the year 2012 -- more than all the oil we imported last year from Saudi Arabia.
--Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Senior Attorney,
Natural Resources Defense Council
The UNOCAL pipeline in Afghanistan.
Occidental Petroleum's pipeline in war-torn Colombia.
Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, or any other regimen of protective environmental enforcement, in favor of industry-desired "self-policing" without independent standards or strict accountability.
Opening the fragile Alaskan wilds to intense oil exploration when the consequences of the Valdez disaster, thirteen years later, still recur, to the detriment of fisheries and other natural habitats.
Taking a general anti-environment stand so broadly and blatantly consistent with energy-industry wishes that the American West -- including prime wilderness areas and territory sacred to native populaces -- goes up for sale to the highest bidder...
These are evidences of an administration being completely within the silk vest pockets of Big Energy -- of Big Business in general.
America needs aggressive, top-level leadership not in behalf of elites and special interests.
But in behalf of its workaday, wage-earning majority.
Is that too much to expect in what we're always told is the "world's greatest democracy"?
How about getting a president, for a change, who serves and protects Joe Average?
Not Jim Dandy, Jim Crow, or Daddy Warbucks.
Joe Average can take care of himself. Thank you very much.
Liberals: always wanting something for nothing.
Joe Average can take care of himself.
Yeah, just ask the men and women of Afghanistan, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Cuba.....
It is amazing how you take everything out of context, JT. Rahkonen was referring to the USA.
It is amazing how you take everything out of context, JT. Rahkonen was referring to the USA.
People are the same everywhere Jethro.
Or are Afghans a different sort of animal?
Maybe you haven't heard of our not so pleasant past.
Things like slavery, child labor, our treatment of Native Americans, women's rights, civil rights.
Yeah, no need for anyone in a position of power to do anything for the "Average Joe".
"conservatives", never seeing the big picture.
Liberals: idiots extrodinaire!
Daschle: You Gotta Hate Him
Come on Jethro, not all Liberals are idiots, are they?
Jethro--please don't put so much information into your posts...you're making my head spin.
Not all idiots are liberals but all liberals are idiots. You have to be an idiot to buy into the liberal nonsense.
Again, your logic is inescapable. Not only does such an inflammatory post (which is pure opinion and carries no facts) serve no purpose other than to antagonize those with whom you disagree, it does not even seek to further an actual point of view about any substantive issue. A parrot can be trained to say the same words over and over, and saying them loudly and stamping his feet while he says them makes them carry no more weight. All liberal may be idiots, I don't know, but you certainly aren't going to convince anybody of this (or anything else) just by saying it over and over. Evidently at least one conservative has yet to learn even the rudiments of either debate or civil conversation. (Is a moron different from an idiot?)
Jethro,
Would you or do you not get mad when someone generalizes about conservatives ? Instead of posting something you know will get people upset why not just debate an issue or talk directly to the person who you disagree with instead of calling a large group of people idiots. Debate the issue with em instead of insulting them.
Naz,
That is a pretty wicked looking bong the woman in your picture is holding. Either that or its a ....oh never mind. :)
That's actually a double-barrell shotgun, I think.
That's just what she wants you to think it is ;)
Luv2Fly, as a Moderate Conservative I realize that not all "conservatives" are like Jethro.
I've given up hope on actual debate with him.
"Through Daschle's maneuvering, any chance to get an amendment passed on drilling in ANWR will now require Republicans to round up 60 votes.
"I think it's safe to say we have the votes on ANWR procedurally. I'm not too worried about that issue," Daschle said Tuesday."
Congratulations, Sen. Daschle!
Save ANWR from corporate plunder!
No prob JT. I know what you mean. Sorry for the rant above. But I get tired sometimes of people saying or generalizing and implying that if you are conservative you somehow don't care about people, the planet, or kids and are selfish. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that most liberals and most conservatives and most in between care very much about all those things, and the country, they just disagree on how to do it. But in the end they have mostly the same hopes, fears and desires.
Yeah, let's make sure that a frozen lifeless chunk of land the size of an airport STAYS frozen and lifeless in perpetuity.
Rick,
First of all we are talking about a very minimal area being effected. I was in Alaska last year when this issue was being debated. Polls showed that between 75-80% of Alaskan residents favored this. Shouldn't they be the ones to have the most say ? We need to ween ourselves from foreign oil. this is just one part of the equation. Other research is under way and we definately need to find alternatives to gas power. I agree with you there but in the mean time we have to do something. Mainly so we can tell Saudi Arabia that they are on their own and good luck and goodbye.
I get tired sometimes of people saying or generalizing and implying that if you are conservative you somehow don't care about people, the planet, or kids and are selfish.
Me too. I hate that from both sides of the isle.
Rick,
First of all we are talking about a very minimal area being effected. I was in Alaska last year when this issue was being debated. Polls showed that between 75-80% of Alaskan residents favored this. Shouldn't they be the ones to have the most say ? We need to ween ourselves from foreign oil. this is just one part of the equation. Other research is under way and we definately need to find alternatives to gas power. I agree with you there but in the mean time we have to do something. Mainly so we can tell Saudi Arabia that they are on their own and good luck and goodbye.
Yeah, let's make sure that a frozen lifeless chunk of land the size of an airport STAYS frozen and lifeless in perpetuity.
LOL!
Why must it be a yes or no scenario with ANWR? Why can't they make laws that protect ANWR along side drilling?
Not only does such an inflammatory post (which is pure opinion and carries no facts) serve no purpose other than to antagonize those with whom you disagree, it does not even seek to further an actual point of view about any substantive issue.
I do that? Really?!!!!!!
Once again Lundstrom drags out his liberal talking points in lockstep with the closed minded liberals that refuse to allow drilling in the Arctic. There is no sensible reason not to dill in that wasteland.
JT,
I think they have made new drills and rules that do protect it as much as possible. and I think the guidelines will be pretty strict. Plus public pressure will be there as well. The area that will be effected is a pin head compared to the size of ANWAR. I have been to Alaska a few times although not to ANWAR. And the residents favor it. overwhelmingly. They live there so I think their vote should count the most. There was much similar talk when the pipeline was going through and many had argued and worried about disrupting the ecosystem and migration of the caribou herds.
It never happened. After the initial growback of brush, trees etc. The caribou and other animals just see it as part of their landscape and breed, graze, and sleep right next to it. They are thriving. coincidentally on the other side of the coin I did go over to Valedz. The ecosystem there although obviously still effected has continued to recover at an astonishing rate, scientists who predicted it would take hundreds of years for the area to retun to normal are amazed to see the fisherey and wildlife returning and doing quite well. It's not 100% back to normal yet but It showed that with a little tlc old ma' nature can really heal herself and adapt. Now those residents lived through all that are still in a majority in favor of drilling says something.
BTW Muskwa. LOL ! Damn that was funny :)
"And the residents favor it. overwhelmingly."
Because I think the more oil that's extracted from the state, the larger the check they get every year. They get Jesse Checks that make ours look sick.
They are going after a small area that, by some estimates has very little oil. I'm cynical enough to think that they are setting themselves up for failure, so they have a reason to go further into ANWR until the reach a point where the place in plundered and they can finally claim success.
"The caribou and other animals just see it as part of their landscape and breed, graze, and sleep right next to it."
I've heard the jokes about caribou breeding too. Hardee, Har Har. The numbers are up, and I guess we're supposed to take pride in artificially shaping animal populations. Well, more caribou means less of something else.
You want to ween ourselves from the Saudis? Conserve energy and curtail your luxuries.
It's called sacrifice. It's been done during war before.
They are going after a small area that, by some estimates has very little oil. I'm cynical enough to think that they are setting themselves up for failure, so they have a reason to go further into ANWR until the reach a point where the place in plundered and they can finally claim success.
It could be a high price for failure. I say go in and get it. No one is going to get hurt. It is a WASTELAND after all.
Rick,
They do get a check for allowing drilling rights. So what ? They also are the ones who have to live there and live in whatever enviroment they create or allow. All the people I met seemed greatly concerned with their enviroment because most of them make their living depending on the enviroment themselves so they have more at stake than some guy living in Albequerqe.
Yes Rick, you're right and you know what it's less of ? grass and plants they're herbivores with plenty of room and plenty to eat. My point is that the battle cry was that we would destroy the caribou's structure and enviroment and we haven't. It hasn't happened.
I do conserve, and what luxuries ? Unless you mean my portable ice fishing house, now there's a luxury !
"I do conserve, and what luxuries ? Unless you mean my portable ice fishing house, now there's a luxury ! "
You're probably doing your part, then.
Torpedo used to kid me about my urban Cylindar Index, which is 4. Joe Soucheray would consider me downright unmanly.
I got no fish house. I stand up to my crotch in cold water when I go fishing (like to see Soucheray do that). I might go this weekend. Catch and release trout season starts in Wisconsin.
Trout with roasted vegetables and red potatoes and a glass of chardonay mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmtrrrooouuut
As long as ANWR is in play to you, Bill, how about the Gulf Coast of Florida?
The Bush Administration is promising a new era that will, they say, hold corporate CEO's to a higher standard of accountability. Poor people were asked for the same thing with the Welfare Law of 1996, so, why not?
"Now we face the intriguing prospect that this Republican, business-friendly administion may force corporate chief executives to take more personal responsibility for what thier companies say and do," said a story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.
The treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill says that the top dog should know what's going on inside the dog pound. O'Neill said simple negligence -- not just fraud that we're probably seeing in the Enron Debacle -- should be punished.
"If executives consider administration proposals to be 'a piece of cake', Mr. O'Neill says, '"then we probably haven't raised the bar high enough.'"
For some reason, the preceeding series of posts reminded me of a kid I knew growing up.
Pretty freaky dude.
He once tried to dig his own swimming pool...in the woods.
Another time he was up on his garage roof holding onto a huge homemade kite.
"I'm gonna fly!"
He jumped and crashed just like all those goofy aeronautical pioneers in the old movies.
Geez, I hope he didn't ultimately become a Bush administration strategist, or an Enron honcho.
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency's chief of enforcement has resigned in protest, saying in a letter circulating in the capital Thursday that he was tired of fighting "a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce."
In a resignation letter submitted late Wednesday to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, Eric Schaeffer accused the Bush administration of crippling agency enforcement efforts with budget cuts and undermining legal actions against power companies with "endless delays."
--From the Chicago Tribune
Despite all the glowing propaganda being issued
by the RNC about how drilling the ANWR would supposedly be a wonderful, necessary and safe thing (repeated virtually verbatim by dutiful GOP footsoldiers here), Schaeffer's resignation combines with the Enron mess to make molasses of Dubya's chances of ever seeing Alaskan land dotted with oil derricks.
The idea isn't going anywhere.
The American people may enjoy a lot of gas-guzzling toys, but they're smart and sensitive enough to treasure what's left of our shrinking wilderness even more.
They won't tolerate the desecration precedent
that drilling the ANWR would unleash upon so many of the remaining pristine places in the U.S.
You give Americans WAY too much credit. If the price of gas doubled today, the drills would be on a flatbed truck headed north.
It's about time somebody reins in the EPA.
Election Reform Heads for Showdown Vote
The fate of the measure seemed to hinge on a disputed anti-fraud provision backed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats regarding how first-time voters who register by mail identify themselves. As they did last week, both sides sought a compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat who came 11 votes shy of cloture on Friday, said if he was unable to cut off debate he would pronounce the measure dead, ''at least for the foreseeable future,'' and move to other matters.
The anti-fraud provision would require first-time voters who register by mail to produce a photo identification or other specified documents, like a pay stub or utility bill.
Republicans maintain this is needed to help combat cheating, which has included people registering to vote dogs and cats and even the dead.
Democrats complain the provision could bar from the polls those with no drivers' license or other identification, such as minorities and the elderly, among their biggest backers.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/politics/2790306.htm
So someone who is minority or elderly doesn't or shouldn't be expected to have any I.D, a utility bill or a paystub the first time they vote ? Oh no we wouldn't want to not let someone without ID a paystub or utility bill vote for the first time. What a harsh imposition, HUH ? O.K let's just go back to dead people voting. Someone call Richard Daley. Can someone from the other side of the ailse please tell me how this is objectionable or wrong to not require this ? And why the Democrats are opposed to it ?
What is wrong with everyone having a photo I.D. everytime the vote?
Well, for one thing, it clearly isn't what the Constitutional signers had in mind. (And yeah, I know photography wasn't around back then.)
Second, it stinks to high heaven of apartheid South Africa's infamous Pass Book system.
Third, presumably such ID cards would have to be paid for out-of-pocket (or would the taxpayer foot the bill?).
Poor people with little money and many expenses
would be tempted to forego voting simply to save
the "license" fee.
It's a lot like a disguised poll tax.
Requiring a photo I.D. to vote is hardly comparable to a tattoo, fold. What is wrong with trying to prevent fraud in voting? That is all that it is. Most people have an ID anyway. If it is too much hassle for the rest then that would be their choice.