Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

Crimes against nature

pulatus Nov 20, 2003 10:45 PM

Read the whole article here:
http://rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2154

===================================================
George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats. The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. George W. Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became number one in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, he championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit, diminishing standards of living for millions of Americans.

I am angry both as a citizen and a father. Three of my sons have asthma, and I watch them struggle to breathe on bad-air days. And they're comparatively lucky: One in four African-American children in New York shares this affliction; their suffering is often unrelieved because they lack the insurance and high-quality health care that keep my sons alive. My kids are among the millions of Americans who cannot enjoy the seminal American experience of fishing locally with their dad and eating their catch. Most freshwater fish in New York and all in Connecticut are now under consumption advisories. A main source of mercury pollution in America, as well as asthma-provoking ozone and particulates, is the coal-burning power plants that President Bush recently excused from complying with the Clean Air Act.

Furthermore, the deadly addiction to fossil fuels that White House policies encourage has squandered our treasury, entangled us in foreign wars, diminished our international prestige, made us a target for terrorist attacks and increased our reliance on petty Middle Eastern dictators who despise democracy and are hated by their own people.

When the Republican right managed to install George W. Bush as president in 2000, movement leaders once again set about doing what they had attempted to do since the Reagan years: eviscerate the infrastructure of laws and regulations that protect the environment. For twenty-five years it has been like the zombie that keeps coming back from the grave.

The attacks began on Inauguration Day, when President Bush's chief of staff and former General Motors lobbyist Andrew Card quietly initiated a moratorium on all recently adopted regulations. Since then, the White House has enlisted every federal agency that oversees environmental programs in a coordinated effort to relax rules aimed at the oil, coal, logging, mining and chemical industries as well as automakers, real estate developers, corporate agribusiness and other industries.

Bush's Environmental Protection Agency has halted work on sixty-two environmental standards, the federal Department of Agriculture has stopped work on fifty-seven standards, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has halted twenty-one new standards. The EPA completed just two major rules -- both under court order and both watered down at industry request -- compared to twenty-three completed by the Clinton administration and fourteen by the Bush Sr. administration in their first two years.

This onslaught is being coordinated through the White House Office of Management and Budget -- or, more precisely, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, under the direction of John Graham, the engine-room mechanic of the Bush stealth strategy. Graham's specialty is promoting changes in scientific and economic assumptions that underlie government regulations -- such as recalculating cost-benefit analyses to favor polluters. Before coming to the White House, Graham was the founding director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, where he received funding from America's champion corporate polluters: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Alcoa, Exxon, General Electric and General Motors.

Under the White House's guidance, the very agencies entrusted to protect Americans from polluters are laboring to destroy environmental laws. Or they've simply stopped enforcing them. Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. The EPA has proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would drop staff levels to the lowest level ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped fifteen percent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped forty percent. The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws.

The White House has masked its attacks with euphemisms that would have embarrassed George Orwell. George W. Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative promotes destructive logging of old-growth forests. His "Clear Skies" program, which repealed key provisions of the Clean Air Act, allows more emissions. The administration uses misleading code words such as streamlining or reforming instead of weakening, and thinning instead of logging.

Replies (8)

ArdentSnakeFan Nov 20, 2003 11:03 PM

What are you doing??? You're spilling the best-kept secret in the world today! Bush isn't a "good guy" at all! He's EEEEEVILLLL! His whole agenda has been to destroy the country he was born in and that his father almost gave his life for! He WANTS to poison our children, especially the poor little black boys in New York. (Didn't you know he conspired with previous NY governors to make their state as deadly as he was making TX???)

Or could it be that in previous years, the EPA has gone so far overboard with its acts and laws and was part of the reason for our degrading economy? So now that Bush is trying to balance things out, it's easy for anyone opposed to him (simply for political reasons that have nothing to do with truth or real ideals) can rant about how he's "ruining" the country.

There is no such thing as a polution-free society. But if you actually study history, you'll see that all the western countries are cleaner per-capita than at any other time in history. Today's medical problems are caused much LESS by air and water polution and much more by the garbage (junk/fast food) that we willingly and eagerly ingest!

pulatus Nov 21, 2003 09:36 PM

I noticed that none of the right wing Bush supporters had even a single specific response to this well researched and well supported publication. What does that tell you of their intellect, understanding, and knowledge?

Yea, thats right....

Nothing but the same old tired flames. It seems these boys will defend Bush even while he is destroying the only environment we'll ever have. Makes you wonder why they bother to keep herps at all, they certainly can't respect them. Maybe they're only worth protecting when they're in cages?

Its hard to understand how anyone could love wildlife and support Bush. There is no sense to that at all.

Joe

rodmalm Nov 22, 2003 02:59 AM

first you complain about a source I use that is a political publication and now you think that a music magazine is the ultimate authority on Bush and the environment! Maybe an authority on what drugs get you the best high, or the best way to pose nude for their cover, or what concert to go to, but anything else they are no authority on.-in my opinion. I would never use the Rolling Stones Mag. as a reference for anything--again, except for sex, drugs and rock-n-roll!--I assume they know a lot about those subjects! Their covers alone should tell you how serious a reference they are.

Rodney

pulatus Nov 22, 2003 02:30 PM

Did you even notice who wrote the article Rodney? Do you really mean to say that Rolling Stone can't print the truth about anything because all they know is drugs and rock and roll? Thats pretty simplistic don't you think? (Why am I not surprised?)

You couldn't refute anything in the article? Did you bother to even read it?

Funny how you and your new friend have responded to this lengthy post, full of facts about the Bush distruction of the envirnment with replies that conatin nothing other than put-downs.

Joe

rodmalm Nov 22, 2003 03:50 PM

I am saying that no person, who seriously wants to read about political matters, goes to the Rolling Stone to do so. The cover alone should chase away anyone who is serious about political matters! They are well know for editorial opinions and commentary. They are also well known for being very far to the left. (Not quite as far to the left as a publication you might find coming out of Cuba, but pretty far!) And considering how you berate anything towards the right, I am surprised that you can't recognize that I might berate something that is this far to the left.

Rodney

pulatus Nov 23, 2003 12:08 AM

When you posted your silliness about Saddams link to terrorists I pointed out to you how far right the Weekly Standard is - I know you didn't know that because you don't read the Weekly Standard - you get your information from Shawn Hannity and his ilk - which is why your so terribly misinformed.

But then I refuted the claims in the article by reports on right wing Fox News and on the DoD's own web site - pretty good, huh?

You responded to the Rolling Stone article by dismissing the entire publication as knowing nothing but sex, drugs, etc - which makes me realize you don't read that publication either. Do you read at all Rodney?

If you can, why don't you read the whole article and refute it? Or if you need to you might ask a friend to read it to you.

Joe

ArdentSnakeFan Nov 25, 2003 09:18 AM

Joe,

You claim this article is “full of facts” about Bush’s destruction of the environment. And yet, the article is primarily editorial opinion. (Most of it inflammatory, at that.) What “facts” Rob Kennedy, Jr. does state are unsubstantiated – meaning he didn’t give even a hint of what sources he drew his information from. Therefore an average person like myself has no chance to go back and study those sources more closely. I’ve read the whole article. It IS compelling, if one doesn’t bother to question sources or look closely.

I’ve no doubt that there have been shanigans going on from time to time in the EPA offices. But I’ll bet you every reptile in my collection that such deceptions have gone on on both sides of the issues. Do you drink Coors beer or do you have friends who do? Do you use products made by Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Alcoa, Exxon, General Electric and General Motors? There needs to be a balance between absolute government control over these and other industries, and absolute neglect and abuse by the same industries. Yes, there must be laws to protect the environment. But those laws cannot go too far or we begin to undermine the great things that built this country in the first place.

Different people have different ideas about where that balancing line should be. The article you offered as “proof” of Bush’s attempts to destroy our environment do nothing but prove that political agendas rule the day. It does nothing to show a balance (or lack of) between law and freedom. It attempts to paint Bush and his cabinet as psychopathic, money-grubbing, maniacal liars fully and consciously intent on the destruction of our nation. The only reason to paint reasonable people in that light is because you don’t want them in power, not because you actually believe what you are trying to say.

I am not an environmental expert. No doubt, Rob Kennedy, Jr. is one. He has access to sources that I do not. And he has the ability and the will to twist those sources and reveal just the bits of them that back up his political agenda. I do not have the resources or the time to refute all his unsubstantiated facts. He didn’t write that paper in a day, and I certainly couldn’t refute it in a single morning sitting in front of the computer, as you seem to insist we be able to do. It would take weeks (at least) of diligent research...and that only if the person doing the research had the education, background, and ability to do so. I do not. Do you? Do you have the ability to research and substantiate all those “facts” Kennedy threw out on the table? Or do you expect me to take those on faith as you are doing?

We both choose where to put our faith. I put mine in Bush, and I have good reasons for doing so. You put yours in Kennedy and I’m sure you believe your reasons are just as valid as my own.

Doing so does NOT mean I wish to destroy the environment, as you implied. Doing so does not mean I can’t respect my animals. Attacking me (or anyone else on this board) and saying we cannot take care of or care about our animals simply because we have different political views than yours shows how close-minded and vehemently one-sided you are being on this issue.

And just to set the record straight, I am not Rodney’s “new friend.” I don’t even know who he is and to the best of my knowledge have never even exchanged a single word with him. We’re not “banding together”....we actually have completely independent and individual ideas.

Below this post is another post from me, taking the part of the article you thought worth posting here and pointing out all the editorializing and unsubstantiated facts.

The only person I see “flaming” anyone in this thread is you. Can you respond to this post without flaming or making baseless attacks about my character that you know nothing about?

ArdentSnakeFan Nov 25, 2003 09:43 AM

George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. [Editorial Opinion]

In a ferocious three-year attack [Editorial Opinion],

the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws [Unsubstantiated], weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife [Editorial Opinion].

Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year [Inflammatory Editorial Opinion].

Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats. [Unsubstantiated]

The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. [Editorial Opinion]

George W. Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became number one in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, he championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. [Unsubstantiated]

Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit, diminishing standards of living for millions of Americans. [Inflammatory and Unsubstantiated]

I am angry both as a citizen and a father. Three of my sons have asthma, [No reason given for the asthma, trying to imply it is because of Bush’s bad policies]

and I watch them struggle to breathe on bad-air days. [Does Rob Kennedy Jr. live in TX so that he can blame his sons’ asthma on Bush?]

And they're comparatively lucky: One in four African-American children in New York shares this affliction [Unsubtantiated]; their suffering is often unrelieved because they lack the insurance and high-quality health care that keep my sons alive. [More editorializing, attacking Bush about healthcare problems that Clinton promised to solve but could not in eight years! What does health insurance have to do with Environmental Issues? Nothing unless you want more inflammatory remarks to add to your column.]

My kids are among the millions of Americans who cannot enjoy the seminal American experience of fishing locally with their dad and eating their catch. Most freshwater fish in New York and all in Connecticut are now under consumption advisories. [So the millions of Americans who DO fish and eat their catch are all dying of mercury poisoning? I hadn’t noticed.—In other words, Unsubtantiated]

A main source of mercury pollution in America, as well as asthma-provoking ozone and particulates, is the coal-burning power plants that President Bush recently excused from complying with the Clean Air Act. [Unsubtantiated]

Furthermore, the deadly addiction to fossil fuels that White House policies encourage has squandered our treasury, entangled us in foreign wars, diminished our international prestige, made us a target for terrorist attacks and increased our reliance on petty Middle Eastern dictators who despise democracy and are hated by their own people. [The author fails to note that it is the environmentalists that fight so hard against harvesting the oil in our own country that make us more dependent on foreign oil. And terrorism has nothing to do with the environment, but he tries valiantly to link the two and blame Bush for terrorism that has been ongoing for decades.]

When the Republican right managed to install George W. Bush as president in 2000, movement leaders once again set about doing what they had attempted to do since the Reagan years: eviscerate the infrastructure of laws and regulations that protect the environment. For twenty-five years it has been like the zombie that keeps coming back from the grave. [Editorial Opinion]

The attacks began on Inauguration Day, when President Bush's chief of staff and former General Motors lobbyist Andrew Card quietly initiated a moratorium on all recently adopted regulations. [Unsubstantiated]

Since then, the White House has enlisted every federal agency that oversees environmental programs in a coordinated effort to relax rules aimed at the oil, coal, logging, mining and chemical industries as well as automakers, real estate developers, corporate agribusiness and other industries. [Unsubstantiated]

Bush's Environmental Protection Agency has halted work on sixty-two environmental standards, the federal Department of Agriculture has stopped work on fifty-seven standards, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has halted twenty-one new standards. The EPA completed just two major rules -- both under court order and both watered down at industry request -- compared to twenty-three completed by the Clinton administration and fourteen by the Bush Sr. administration in their first two years. [Unsubstantiated]

This onslaught [Editorial] is being coordinated through the White House Office of Management and Budget -- or, more precisely, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, under the direction of John Graham, the engine-room mechanic [Editorial] of the Bush stealth strategy [Editorial].

Graham's specialty is promoting changes in scientific and economic assumptions that underlie government regulations -- such as recalculating cost-benefit analyses to favor polluters. Before coming to the White House, Graham was the founding director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, where he received funding from America's champion corporate polluters: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Alcoa, Exxon, General Electric and General Motors. [Inflammatory Editorial Opinion]

Under the White House's guidance, the very agencies entrusted to protect Americans from polluters are laboring to destroy environmental laws. [Editorial Opinion]

Or they've simply stopped enforcing them. [Editorial Opinion]

Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. [No reason given for the decrease in penalties; author is assuming but not proving negative implications]

The EPA has proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would drop staff levels to the lowest level ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped fifteen percent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped forty percent. [No reason given for these decreases, assuming negative implications]

The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. [Meaningless statement]

Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws. [Another meaningless statement. “Decades of service” would imply that they made it through those “horrific” Reagan years and should be able to survive what they know will be a temporary situation under Bush. No real reason is given for their resignation, nor is their resignation even relevant to the discussion.]

The White House has masked its attacks with euphemisms that would have embarrassed George Orwell. [Editorial Opinion]

George W. Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative promotes destructive logging of old-growth forests. His "Clear Skies" program, which repealed key provisions of the Clean Air Act, allows more emissions. The administration uses misleading code words such as streamlining or reforming instead of weakening, and thinning instead of logging. [Editorial and Unsubstantiated]

Site Tools