|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 13, 2005 12:28:39 GMT -5
2000 when President Bush was running against Gore he promised to: · Establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. Can someone show me where this has been done? www.georgewbush.com/issues/energy.html" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20010204002000/www.georgewbush.com/issues/energy.html Speaking of the environment and its protection get a load of the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, former Senior Attorney for the Mountain States Legal Foundation. Their MISSION STATEMENT: Mountain States Legal Foundation, by seeking the proper application of the Constitution and interpretation of the law in the courts, administrative agencies, and other forums: · Provides a strong and effective voice for freedom of enterprise, the rights of private property ownership, and the multiple use of federal and state resources. · Champions the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution in support of individual and business enterprises and against unwarranted government intrusion. Does it sound like she would be a good advocate for legislation protecting the environment from industrial abuse? I don’t think so. I wonder why Bush picked her? www.mountainstateslegal.org/mission.cfmwww.whitehouse.gov/government/norton-bio.htmlwww.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/bush_environment_8-22.html |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 14, 2005 9:36:29 GMT -5
The Union of Concerned Scientists was founded in 1969 by faculty members and students at the pkmtyolmachusetts Institute of Technology who were concerned about the misuse of science and technology in society. Check them out at: www.ucsusa.orgAlso read what they have to say about the Bush administration’s misuse of science in regard to global warming: www.ucsusa.org/documents/RSI_final_fullreport.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 14, 2005 9:47:14 GMT -5
By BRIAN ROSS, JILL RACKMILL and VIC WALTER Jan. 13, 2005 -- In a preview of how the Bush administration may be influenced on important energy policies, executives and lobbyists from the oil, gas and mining industries entertained the top Washington officials who regulate them over rounds of golf, expensive steak dinners, and a special casino night last week at a lavish Phoenix resort. abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=410419&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jan 14, 2005 10:17:41 GMT -5
Someone has got to explain to me why there are no scientists in Congress or the Senate. Scientists tend to be pretty smart people. Why is that we continue to elect people that have backgrounds centered in business and law? Why is it that we continue to elect people who's sole ambition is to become a politician? Why is it that we continue to let people that have no understanding of science make policy that effects science?
|
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jan 14, 2005 12:19:02 GMT -5
Why is that we continue to elect people that have backgrounds centered in business and law? Oh Oh, I know! Pick me! Pick me! We elect people that have backgrounds in business and law (I'll add backgrounds in the military in deference to our many lawmakers who are also veterans) because the purpose of government is business, law, and national defense --NOT science. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Incidentally, the Senate Majority Leader is a heart surgeon, not a lawyer or a businessman and the Speaker of the House is a high school coach (wrestling, I think). Governors and a president have started out as actors, another former president was a peanut farmer, a California congressman started out as an entertainer (Sonny Bono), and let's not forget Bill Bradley, Fred Thompson, Steve Largent and J.C. Watts who were all athletes before they became politicians. And this is just off the top of my head within the last few years.... (well, except for Carter) Blessings, Steve |
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jan 14, 2005 12:55:27 GMT -5
Oh Oh, I know! Pick me! Pick me! We elect people that have backgrounds in business and law (I'll add backgrounds in the military in deference to our many lawmakers who are also veterans) because the purpose of government is business, law, and national defense --NOT science. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Incidentally, the Senate Majority Leader is a heart surgeon, not a lawyer or a businessman and the Speaker of the House is a high school coach (wrestling, I think). Governors and a president have started out as actors, another former president was a peanut farmer, a California congressman started out as an entertainer (Sonny Bono), and let's not forget Bill Bradley, Fred Thompson, Steve Largent and J.C. Watts who were all athletes before they became politicians. And this is just off the top of my head within the last few years.... (well, except for Carter) Blessings, Steve Steve, Actually, I admit I was a bit hasty is saying that nobody in Congress as a science background. I am sure that there are some that do. However, I think that you are short-changing the role of the government. The government is there solely to enforce the will of the people. I think that this has become a bit distorted in the last few centuries, but in theory, this is what it is for. Science affects the areas of law, business, and national defense. Everything ties together, and the realm of science is somewhat misunderstood by those that put their expertise in other areas. As an engineer with an MBA, I can tell you that business theory is somewhat simplistic as compared to many scientific theories. Scientists can be smart enough to handle both sides of that equation, and I think we need to give them the chance. Besides, it has been my experience that scientists tend to have a better grasp of the "Big Picture" than most business people and lawyers. Have a good one- Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 19, 2005 16:32:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jan 20, 2005 14:52:09 GMT -5
What’s a girl gotta do to get a 130,000-ton oil tanker named after her? Ask Condi Rice. She so charmed Chevron’s board of directors that they named one of the company’s tankers after her. You say this like it's a bad thing.  Would that more of our young black daughters chose Dr. Rice as a role model over, say, Janet Jackson. Blessings, LJ |
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jan 20, 2005 15:09:02 GMT -5
You say this like it's a bad thing. Would that more of our young black daughters chose Dr. Rice as a role model over, say, Janet Jackson. Blessings, LJ Why is the National Security Advisor so chummy with Big Oil? In fact, why is the President so chummy with Big Oil? Because Big Oil has a strong say in what the administration does, and thus get to push their own agenda. Their agenda is not always the best for the environment. |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 26, 2005 9:27:00 GMT -5
Take Action to Protect Clean Air!
The Clean Air Act faces its biggest threat yet as the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Senator Inhofe (R-OK), prepares to consider the Bush administration’s air pollution plan. The plan favored by Senator Inhofe would drastically undercut environmental and public health protections in place under the current Clean Air Act. Take action now--urge your Senator to save the Clean Air Act by opposing this harmful legislation! I write to urge you to oppose efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act, including the Bush administration's Air Pollution Plan, currently under consideration by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
If pkmtyolped, the Bush administration's Air Pollution Plan could permit significant increases in air pollution by weakening and delaying key Clean Air Act protections. By pushing back deadlines and lowering standards, the Air Pollution Plan would allow more Americans to be exposed to harmful levels of soot, smog, toxic mercury, and other hazardous air pollutants for longer periods of time, threatening the strides in improving air quality and public health achieved under the current Clean Air Act.
The current Clean Air Act resulted from a bipartisan Congressional commitment to improving public health and the environment for all Americans. When faithfully implemented and enforced, the Clean Air Act brings our nation closer to the goal of clean, healthful air. I urge you to honor that commitment by opposing all efforts to weaken or undermine the Clean Air Act, including the Air Pollution Plan.
|
|
