It should surprise no one here that I support President Bush's refusal to tax corporations in order to money the EPA Superfund toxic sites clean-up program. All Americans suffered greatly after September 11, but no one felt the sting of those sinister terrorists more than corporate America. Since 1980, the Superfund has identified and pursued those parties response for massive environmental damage (such as what occurred at Love Canal in 1978). As of 2002, the EPA has put 1222 sites on its National Priorities list. Funding the $8.5 billion Superfund has dwindled in recent years from $860 million in 2001 to $28 million slated for 2003.
Haven't we spent enough money pestering Big Business? Corporations employ our neighbors and often pay taxes! We should be thanking these corporations for exhibiting the American can-do spirit of capitalism, not punishing them for "making the planet unlivable." Yes, there may be higher incidents of "flipper babies" in some parts of country and it's true that a small percent of the population may turn into cannibalistic underground dwellers or quasi-human morlocks -- but that shouldn't impede the wheels of capitalism! Remember, you can't break eggs without making a cake or people will talk!
The cynical among my readers will immediately point to the huge sums of money corporations like General Motors, PECO Energy company and Union Pacific have contributed to the GOP and suggest that Bush's motives are somehow tainted. Others may look at the page cited above and see that both Andersen Consulting and Enron stuffed a lot of money up George Bush's bum. I feel sorry for those desperate folks who see conspiracy in the most harmless of coincidences and I would feel this way even if the GOP wasn't paying me to write this.
Remember: corporations are almost people too.
That the deputy administrator of the EPA is Linda Fisher....an executive at...*drumroll please*...Monsanto.
Re:you are aware i assume
ajtaylor on 2002-02-25T21:36:12
Please tell me you are kidding! Am I stoned or is this a clear case of conflict of interest?! And Monsanto is the company on trial in Alabama ( my home state:-) ) for contaminating a whole town w/ PCB's. Hmmm.... how do people get away w/ these type of things? Re:you are aware i assume
hfb on 2002-02-25T21:49:27
Nope, I'm totally serious.
Re:you are aware i assume
pudge on 2002-02-26T15:55:54
Well, she WAS an executive at Monsanto. She no longer is, of course. That would be a clear case of conflict of interest, yes. But it isn't any conflict of interest.Re:you are aware i assume
ajtaylor on 2002-02-26T18:13:13
But still it seems like a potential conflict. Just because she is no longer on Monsanto's payroll doesn't mean she could not be influenced. Surely she must still have friends in high places there...I guess what I'm getting at is that we should take a long look at where people come from before they get into important offices like this one. No, she doesn't work for them anymore. But is it likely she will be "friendly" to them? Probably. Could she also make impartial decisions? Probably. But how do we know? I would rather have someone I wonder less about is said office. There will never be a perfect candidate, but there are better & worse ones. (I am passing no judgement on this woman because I don't know enough.)
I know that if we put people into public offices that have never worked in the real world, their decisions & policies will be influenced by their lack of experience. You HAVE to have experienced folks leading the country. All I'm saying is that we should be careful. Monsanto IS, after all, one of the larger chemical companies in the world...
Re:you are aware i assume
pudge on 2002-02-26T19:07:09
Yes, she could be influenced. So could anyone. Clinton's Chief of Staff -- perhaps the most powerful man in Washington, aside from the President himself, because he runs the White House -- Mack McLarty left the White House to take a job at Enron. This was shortly after Clinton and Ken Lay had gotten together to discuss a few things about energy policy. Was there a conflict of interest there? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not.
The point here is twofold; first, the obvious, that this kind of thing happens all the time, and in both parties. Political organizations and business organizations with strong political interests often share personnel, including and especially executives and lawyers.
Second, related to that, is the idea that it is unfair -- that is, according to American tradition -- to say someone shouldn't be able to have a particular job because of related work in past jobs. There's no real evidence from what I've seen that she is any more susceptible to influence by Monsanto than anyone else Monsanto has had dealings with, including Congresspeople and Senators from Alabama.
I think it is far more interesting to point at specific viewpoints or actions by Fisher and say how they are inappropriate or wrong-headed etc., than to try to paint her as being unduly influences by Monsanto... unless, of course, there's some real evidence that such undue influence is taking place. Maybe there is, but for all I know, Linda Fisher was against the Monsanto actions in question, and left the company because she was fed up. It is possible, and the point is that we just don't know.
You want a real conflict of interest? The HEAD of the EPA used to be governor of NEW JERSEY!:-)
Re:you are aware i assume
jjohn on 2002-02-27T13:09:03
You want a real conflict of interest? The HEAD of the EPA used to be governor of NEW
JERSEY!:-)
I very nearly was going to take a crack at that, but I figured: too easy. New Jersey gets a bad rap for Newark (which is a frightening example of urban ruin and decay). Trenton and the coast are very pleasant indeed.
Re:you are aware i assume
pudge on 2002-02-27T13:15:20
I worked next door to Trenton for awhile (in Princeton), and while Princeton is pleasant, I really can't say the same for Trenton. Maybe "tolerable" is better. Actually, I think the nicest parts of New Jersey are inland, the northwest portions, where there's a ton of forest. The worst parts are all adjacent to the turnpike. Too bad that's half the state.Re:you are aware i assume
jhi on 2002-02-27T01:13:51
How do people get away with these type of things? Easy. They get elected. No, wait...
Re:you are aware i assume
jjohn on 2002-02-25T23:21:22
I was not aware -- thanks for the heads up. Although, now I'm more depressed than ever.Re:you are aware i assume
hfb on 2002-02-26T00:08:04
Well, Kay Cole James, a noted affimative action opponent is the director of the Office of Personnel Management; John Bolton, an opponent of nonproliferation treaties and the UN is now the Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security; J. Steven Giles, an oil and coal lobbyist, is now Deputy Secretary of the Interior [ remember James Watt? ], the Secretary of the Interior is behind opening up national parks for foresting, coal mining and oil and gas drilling....I could go on. Don't get depressed, get pissed! This corporately owned and sponsored president needs to go.
Re:you are aware i assume
jdavidb on 2002-02-27T18:15:53
So, assuming affirmative action is the only solution to problems of discrimination in the Office of Personnel Management, it's terrible to have Kay Cole James there.
Of course, if there are other solutions, then that might not be so bad.
As an aside, to everyone: when did use Perl; get more political than the Drudge report?
:) Re:you are aware i assume
chaoticset on 2002-02-27T19:51:45
As an aside, to everyone: when did use Perl; get more political than the Drudge report?:) The Drudge Report is political? But he's SO IMPARTIAL!
:P Seriously, I have avoided any political discussions in life for a long damn time because they had a tendency to become, shall we say, less than interesting.
:) I'm glad to find a place where A: The primary focus isn't politics, so the usual junkies aren't attracted and B: the debates don't devolve into utter psychosis. It's nice to have an intelligent political discussion now and then. It's awful to think that my life is somehow governed by the schmucks I see running for office, though.
:\ Re:you are aware i assume
jdavidb on 2002-02-28T17:59:53
That's one good thing I'll say for it. I think everything I've seen has been intelligent. Even all of you guys who are wrong.
:)
Particularly in MS' case, they have made huge profits (read billions in cash sitting in the bank) & are not paying a dime in taxes. You'd think all those money grubbing politicians would close these loopholes considering the sums they are missing out on spending on pork barrel projects.
I do wonder when the good ole US of A is going to work out that it lives in the world.Don't shit where you live
Re:Non-Sarcastic Reply
jjohn on 2002-02-27T17:18:22
*blink*
Pudge, are you feeling all right?
Your point about the Democrats not being above reproach resonates with me. In fact, I'm uncomfortable being grouped those alcoholic, philandering ass-clowns (although I'd sure like to party with them). However until there's a party governed by perspective and compassion (that also has a reasonable shot at winning seats in Congress or taking the White House), I have to pick the "evil of two lessers." Given the chronic low voter turn out in recent years, is America getting the government it deserves, rather than the government it wants?
Re:Non-Sarcastic Reply
pudge on 2002-02-27T18:27:05
Anyone really familiar with my beliefs wouldn't think I said anything extraordinary; I may be a card-carrying right-wing Christian conservative Republican, but that doesn't mean I have to always think like one!I have my own thoughts about the election process, which boil down to the parties and the media conspiring to deprive the people of real democracy, and the people not really caring that it's happening. So yes, we do get the government we deserve, but it's not like they aren't to blame. I certainly don't think Bush is the best man for the job, though I certainly think he's better than Gore or Clinton. I've never voted for a President, Senator, or Congressman that I thought was well-suited to the job. I do my part to try to change the system, and try to get along as best as I can until it does change, and that's all I can do.
So yes, we do have to pick the lesser of two evils sometimes. Most of the time. So which is lesserly evil? In regard to national politics, my main concern is that government is small and efficient. My main goal is to return to following the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.This was, in effect, enumeration of the widely held understanding that the US government was only allowed to do what the Constitution said it was allowed to do. It was codifying the promise that the states would remain sovereign in most instances. And why is this important? Because the closer the government is to you, the freer you are, the more power you have over what happens to you, the more powerful your own voice is. I'd have been a Federalist in the 1700s, but today I suppose I am an Anti-Federalist. Funny how times change.
Of course, the problem is that the Republicans in Washington don't seem much more interested in this than the Democrats; but at least the Republicans say they agree with the principle. It's the best I can do right now, like you.
As to perspective: neither party has any more than the other.
As to compassion: I disagree strongly that the Democrat party has an ounce more compassion than the Republican party. The problem as I see it is that the Democrat party puts the principle of compassion above the principle of freedom. Achieving or maintaining freedom sometimes isn't "compassionate," but it is always right. "Live Free or Die" isn't just a quaint slogan on a license plate for some people. Freedom is the most important thing. While neither party acts in accordance with this belief, the Democrat party openly attacks freedom in the defense of compassion, such as in most forms of taxation, such as in centralization of powers to "help more people," such as in many forms of federal regulations
... designed to suck away our freedom all for the supposed greater good, for compassion. Well, I don't buy it. The systematic stripping of freedom is not compassionate to me. Further, I think that we can help more people directly by de-centralizing services, even privatizing them in many cases. Charity was alive and well long before the government took it over, and it can be again. But even if the government does remain in control, the more local the control, the better people can be helped. This principle is almost universal. It's not like I am against government welfare; but if it exists, I want it locally controlled. I was on the town Finance Committee and voted to give thousands of dollars to various charitable causes. I also voted against a few causes, because I felt that if the local government does support charities, they should be real efforts of funding and not just a few donations here and there, which I feel citizens should take responsibility for.
So similarly, I denounce Bush's current proposal to put more strict controls on how states deal with people on welfare (he wants to increase the required percentage of people on welfare who work) simply because I want the states to, each in turn, decide what is the best way to help their own people. If that means 65% or 50% or 90% instead of 70% who have jobs, then so be it. I believe in democracy and the power of people, when given the chance, to make the right decisions (funny as that may sound). I don't think Washington politicians are better equipped to say how to handle Massachusetts welfare than Boston politicians are. When the federal government is in control, we have no voices as individuals; no one listens to a word we say. When the state is in control, we have at least some voice. When the city is in control, our voices are tremendously powerful, and that is the essence of our system of governance.
Of course, none of that says anything about issues that are federal issues, like wars, treaties, environmental policy, abortion, and more. But while I agree with the Republican party on many of those issues, my main reason for affiliation is as outlined above. You may notice that pretty much all of my political opinions stem from the concept of freedom I've outlined in brief above: that each successively greater level of government (family-> neighborhoood-> district-> municipality-> county-> state-> region-> nation) only exerts that power which it must exert, usually only because the lower levels are unable to. Where the Republican party strays from that principle, I oppose it, and giving corporations far more rights than individuals is certainly an example of that.
And as a somewhat related issue, it is looking like the head of the Salt Lake City Olympics, Mitt Romney, is going to be a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. I am an alternate delegate (alternate because of my child's impending birth) to the GOP convention in a little over a month; if he is a candidate, that might be enough to make me try to attend. Go Romney!
The Government It Deserves
chromatic on 2002-02-27T18:28:59
I dunno, but I'm sick of getting the government the rest of the country deserves.
