by Bob Schildgen
Published on December 27, 2004 By sunshinedaydream In Politics
Bush's 7 Deadly Sins

1. Turning Mom Into a Superfund Site
A Bush proposal to weaken clean-air rules would put three times more mercury into our air and water than existing rules would allow. One in six women has enough mercury in her system to risk her kid having brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, seizures, and speech impediments. Not exactly friendly to the rights of the unborn, is it, George?

2. Belly Flop in a Cesspool
Nobody much likes sewage, except maybe sewer rats or those albino mutant lizards they say inhabit the pipes. So why did Bush, on his inauguration day, rescind a rule to cut down on sewage dumping? And then he goes from belly flop to flip-flop. First, Bush whacked a new regulation to reduce the arsenic in drinking water. A few months later--after a public outcry--he agreed to cut arsenic down to the same limits they have in Old Europe.

3. Playing With Fire
Bush touted his "Healthy Forests Initiative" as a way to stop catastrophic wildfires, but it actually allows more logging on 190 million acres--which could lead to bigger fires, because it lets timber companies cut the large trees that resist burning. He also claimed this would protect family homes, even when these trees are dozens of miles away, and when fire experts say the best way to keep a building from burning is to make a clearing around it, not in the next county.

Speaking of combustion, the United States burns through 20 million barrels of oil every day. But Bush's global-warming energy plan called for opening almost 70 million more acres to oil exploration.

4. Lying, Denying, Censoring, Cheating, and Other Misundemocratic Behavior
If global warming makes you nervous, well, ignore it. That's exactly what Bush's EPA did when it sliced a whole chapter on climate change from its 2002 annual report on pollution.

There was plenty of practice for denial and deletion, the most notorious case being just after the attack on the World Trade Center. The EPA found levels of asbestos and other pollution thousands of times above normal around the disaster site. But the White House ordered the agency to announce that it was safe.

Then Dick Cheney's energy task force refused to reveal what went on in its meetings--until the courts forced the Energy Department to cough up some of the records. The department even swiped $136,000 from its solar, renewable energy, and energy conservation budgets to produce 10,000 copies of the task force's drill-America-first report.

5. Coddling Criminals
A Texas-tough law-and-order guy, Bush executed 152 people while he was governor, and the state's prison population jumped 60 percent. Yet the first year he ran America, clean-air inspections fell off 30 percent, clean-water and clean-air criminal referrals declined by 50 percent, and criminal referrals for violations of rules controlling toxic substances dropped 80 percent.

6. Putting Polluters on Welfare
At the very heart of conservatism, compassionate or otherwise, is sturdy, all-American, bootstrap-grabbing self-reliance and responsibility. Therefore, you'd expect Bush to make big-time polluters shell out to fix their messes, also known as Superfund sites. (That's how the notorious Love Canal got cleaned up.) But Bush policy exempts the polluters from paying, so taxpayers will now foot the Superfund bill by themselves.

7. Flattening Teddy's Bears and Twain's Frogs
The Bush administration has weakened environmental protection on 234 million acres--as much as Teddy Roosevelt set aside. This means more logging, roadbuilding, mining, oil drilling--and the manly art of snowmobiling. To make it easier for snowmobilers, Bush's Forest Service proposed building a bridge to roar deeper into grizzly territory in Montana's Flathead National Forest. This was after he snuffed a ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

Bush even went after Mark Twain's celebrated jumping frog, yanking protection from 4 million acres of the California red-legged's habitat. He did protect 33,000 acres in Southern California for the kangaroo rat. But since these rodents are marvelously adapted to arid environments, it may be that he's just saving them for a role in desert warfare.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 27, 2004
Reply By: WorknmanPosted: Monday, December 27, 2004


I'm still waiting for the explanation of the other ice ages that have occurred prior to the dominance of the evil humans and their destructive ways. Or why there are no more dinosaurs? How can it be possible to predict climate change accurately 50 or 100 years in the future and not be able to predict with certainty what the weather will be like in 2 weeks.


bush did it........ all the ice ages.......... all the times the earth has heated up then radically cooled down..... bush also caused the one super continent to break apart and for all the lessor ones created after.............. then he cause all the earths people to start speaking different languages......... all this was an evil scheme to rules the world
on Dec 27, 2004
And I'd like to see proof that Bush is letting this happen on his watch, not supposition. And just what does Love Canal have to do with Bush?


You're not very good at putting the pieces together, are you? Love canal was used as it is the best known pollution sink hole in the country. Given the lazze faire, let industry police their own attitude that Bush has created an atmosphere that it is only a matter of time before we have a few more of these clean ups to do.

The right hear about the environment and they immediately say its bad for business. Well I'm sorry that wanting to breath is going to cost a few bucks profit.
on Dec 27, 2004

Reply #15 By: Moderateman - 12/27/2004 8:52:53 PM
Reply By: hitparadePosted: Monday, December 27, 2004No serious thinkers come from the left anymore. Liberals simply bash Bush and call that policy, debate - discourse. Liberals point the finger of blame without offering ideas of their own; it is not criticism that liberals offer (certainly not constructive criticism), but rather condemnation based on a presumed moral superiority that says I’m better than someone who believes that … without offering alternatives. Of course even as a conservative I desire clean air & water. I indeed most certainly expect these things at the very least. I wonder how the Chinese will help in the pursuit of such things?


ya think? lol


ROFL
on Dec 28, 2004
You'd better hope draginol doesn't decided to vent on this article... I read it and expected him to have torn it to shreds already. But I figure I may as well throw in a refutation if I'm going to make that irritating of a comment... so I'll pick an easy one.

I encourage everybody to check out what scientists predicted global warming would change the earth into by 2004 back in 1990. Then, I encourage you to see how much of our coastlines have actually disappeared. Global warming in the least of our problems, sunshine.

But a good article, in any case, and well researched.

I know I'm not signed in, but I don't want people to think I'm evading responsibility, so if anybody wants to tell me how terribly, inexcusably wrong I am, feel free to e-mail me @ dipique@juno.com.

El Corozon del Noche
on Dec 28, 2004
Two issues were foremost on the minds of the framers of our Federal Constitution. First was that King George’s army was going to return as soon as he dealt with the King of France’s intent to invade England. The second issue was the right to own slaves.

Needless to say the framers wrote a constitution with a central government lead by a president empowered to assemble and command a powerful army. And to no surprise, they then chose General Washington to be their President.

The King of England did return his Army in the War of 1812 and discovered a powerful American army. Today our national government spends more than the next 20 nations on national defense and commands the most powerful military force in the world.

The second issue influencing the writing of our Constitution is the issue of human rights. The framers were very careful to balance property rights with human rights in such a way that property rights would be protected.

They arranged for a Senate apportioned by area with the power to veto court appointments. They felt this would insure the protection of property rights for the minority over the human rights of the majority.

The slave owning areas agreed to allow Congress to stop the importation of slaves in 20 years, but required runaway slaves to be returned. Slavery was considered an abomination by most people. England abolished slave trade in 1809 and slavery in 1833.

The die was cast. The contest began in the halls of the new American government. Would the issue of property rights over human rights be resolved with ballots or bullets? Much posturing occurred, but in the end it was bullets that settled the issue in the Great Civil War. Human rights won, but the battle for racial integration continues to rage on in the halls of our present government.

Today the great issue surrounds when life begins. The question is: Does a woman’s property rights to her body trump the human rights of the newly created life in her body? This is again a moral issue that deeply divides our nation and it subtly invades all our political actions. Will this issue of property rights over human rights be resolved with ballots or bullets?

Is a fetus property? Certainly animals are considered property. People in servitude were considered property. Many were happy serving their master. However, some were mistreated and sought freedom. Many people felt that those servants should be allowed to escape, but others feared that any restriction on slave owning would result in an abolishment of slavery. Like today’s choice advocates they refused to compromise.

Today we see black people as humans and not property. Perhaps tomorrow we will treat a viable fetus (One that can survive outside its mother)as a human rather than property. Like the early slave owners, the property rights advocates are posturing their battle in the Senate and the Supreme Court to protect their rights, but the human rights advocates are waging their fight in the voting booths.

Contrary to popular political propaganda, historically the Democrat Party has usually favored property rights, i.e. slaves and women are property and therefore un-entitled to vote; Weapons, Advertising and religion are property to be restricted. The Republican Party generally favors human rights, i.e. free expression in unrestricted speech and religious symbols; wars to liberate oppressed people; graduated taxation to share the burden of government fairly.

In retrospect the abolition of slavery seems obvious. Will the issue of abortion be the same? Certainly it will be a long and continuous struggle. Perhaps with improved modern contraception the need for abortion will be greatly reduced and restricted.

Perhaps strong and wise leaders will solicit the scientific community to develop better means to reduce unwanted pregnancies, develop better adoption methods and compromise on a method to determine the viability of life.

The Democrats take the side of property rights in the issue of gay marriage. They hold that gay couples are entitled to the equal property rights as married couples and therefore are entitled to all the rights and privileges of marriage. The Republicans take the side of human rights. They hold that marriage is a sexual behavior issue that defines a wholesome human procreation order. It is a human behavior issue and not a property rights issue.

Justice Breyer has it dead wrong. He is on the property rights side and clearly legislates in favor of property rights. The only time he has a problem is when the issue is between property rights and then he favors the majority property owners.

Republicans generally favor private property rights over public rights. This again is an issue of the human right to freely use and protect a person’s home and private property. The Democrats generally favor the government’s right to appropriate private property through regulations and restrictions.

Generally speaking Republicans favor human rights over property rights and private property rights over government rights. They seek less government. Democrats favor property rights over human rights and government rights over private property rights. They seek big government.

Therefore, it is not surprising to see the big urban centers voting Democrat and the small urban areas and rural communities voting Republican. We continue to be a Nation divided over the issue of property rights vs human rights. Hopefully, we will resolve our differences over time. We can now see some evidences of the shift in favor of human rights with the growing strength of the Republican Party as occurred preceeding the Civil War. It continued for 70 years until the economic destruction brought on by unrestricted private property rights demanded greater government rights over priate property and resulted in the New Deal.
on Dec 28, 2004
Would you happen to have the cliff notes version of that post.....?

.....
..

....Man I have a headache now......
on Dec 28, 2004
The King of England did return his Army in the War of 1812 and discovered a powerful American army.


Hate to burst your bubble, but the American army was non-existent at the time. There was a planned invasion of Canada which was easily repulsed and the British marched the invaders nearly to Illinois before they were stopped. They marched nearly unapposed into our nation's capital and burned most of it to the ground, only stopped by a sudden hurricane. The uproar over the capital and the fact that they knew Baltimore was next allowed the Americans to form a credible defense. This might not be enough had a sniper's bullet not cut down the English commanding general near the start of the battle. Even then, the outcome was greatly in doubt..

Is a fetus property?


That is not the question that guides us. The question is not whether they are property, but whether they are yet a human being.

Perhaps strong and wise leaders will solicit the scientific community to develop better means to reduce unwanted pregnancies, develop better adoption methods and compromise on a method to determine the viability of life.


Unfortunately the right is against birth control, its existence, its implementation and even in teaching how to use it properly. So even if new methods were introduced, they would be combatted.

Generally speaking Republicans favor human rights over property rights and private property rights over government rights. They seek less government.


This was certainly not the case during the civil rights era. Its not the case now with the Patriot Act, and was never the case with respect to freedom of speech and also in pornography. There is more government now than there ever was.

The Democrats take the side of property rights in the issue of gay marriage. They hold that gay couples are entitled to the equal property rights as married couples and therefore are entitled to all the rights and privileges of marriage. The Republicans take the side of human rights. They hold that marriage is a sexual behavior issue that defines a wholesome human procreation order. It is a human behavior issue and not a property rights issue.


That's an interesting take, but one could equally argue that its a human issue that gay want to affirm their relationship, a quite human issue. If they see it as a property issue, then why don't Republicans come down on the side of civil unions as Democrats have. Both Kerry and Edwards stated they were against gay marriage but for civil unions. I haven't heard Bush come out in favor of civil unions, the property issue.

on Dec 28, 2004
Sorry, but "Love Canal" is waaaaay old hat. You cannot use something that happened in 1910 to describe what you say is a Bush screw up.
on Dec 29, 2004
Both Kerry and Edwards stated they were against gay marriage but for civil unions.


of course they did they would say anything to please any group....... and they still lost.
on Dec 29, 2004
of course they did they would say anything to please any group....... and they still lost.


If that were the case they would have stated they were in favor of gay marriage. You are also functioning by what Karl Rove and the republican smear machine has told you. by your standards, it doesn't matter what they would say, its automatically a lie. do you have any proof that either of them at any time have said or done anything to state they were for gay marriage or against civil unions. until then, its so much propoganda on your part.
on Dec 29, 2004

Reply #23 By: whoman69 - 12/28/2004 9:03:28 PM
Unfortunately the right is against birth control, its existence, its implementation and even in teaching how to use it properly. So even if new methods were introduced, they would be combatted.



Wrong answer! We are NOT against birth control! We are against abortions. If your going to say we are bad, fine. But at least get your facts straight.
on Dec 29, 2004
Wrong answer! We are NOT against birth control! We are against abortions. If your going to say we are bad, fine. But at least get your facts straight.


You have the wrong answer. The "moral majority" has fought against birth control every step of the way. They fight against sex education. In short, the only method of birth control they are in favor of is abstinance. They want total moral control over sex. President Bush has given $170 million to places that teach abstinance only. Their unwillingness to discuss birth control ensures that it will become increasingly an area of mythology.
Link
They have 7 links on their page promoting abstinance only programs.
on Dec 29, 2004

Reply #27 By: whoman69 - 12/29/2004 3:30:30 PM
Wrong answer! We are NOT against birth control! We are against abortions. If your going to say we are bad, fine. But at least get your facts straight.


You have the wrong answer. The "moral majority" has fought against birth control every step of the w


And just *how * would you know? Are you part of the *moral majority*? I don't think so! I on the other hand am part of it.. I went through the pages you talked about and *no where* could I find the links you were squaking about. However I *did* find this.


THE FOUR-PRONGED TMMC PLATFORM

Our four-fold platform is:

(1) TMMC will conduct an intensive four-year "Voter Registration Campaign" through America's conservative churches, para-church ministries, pro-life and pro-family organizations.

(2) TMMC will conduct well organized "Get-Out-The-Vote Campaigns" in 2006 and 2008.

(3) TMMC will engage in the massive recruitment and mobilization of social conservatives through television, radio, direct mail (U.S.P.S. and Internet) and public rallies.

(4) TMMC will encourage the promotion of continuous private and corporate prayer for America's moral renaissance based on 2 Chronicles 7:14.


Highlighted area *usually* means anti-abortion NOT abstinance only.
on Dec 29, 2004
And just *how * would you know? Are you part of the *moral majority*? I don't think so! I on the other hand am part of it.. I went through the pages you talked about and *no where* could I find the links you were squaking about. However I *did* find this.


That organization as has been pointed out is neither moral nor a majority.

You really aren't that good a reader are you. Did you notice the headline right in the middle of the page?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Left Launches Offensive Against School Abstinence Programs
- By Dr. Jerry Falwell

Did you follow that link and see they have 7 other links to organizations that promote abstinance only programs?
True Love Waits Link "This emphasis will involve drawing a community together to raise the banner of sexual purity"
Sex Respect Link where for just $2000 Coleen came come out and talk to you on a myriad of subjects dealing with abstinance
Truth4Youth Link the abstinance clearinghouse
Worth the wait Link "we're not about preaching to you"
Abstinence until marriage Link "which asks why should I wait", "look who else is waiting"
Choosing the best Link which teaches abstinence programs to grades 6-12
AbstinenceEdu.com Link who point out the new nominee for Health and Human services backs abstinance only programs

on Dec 29, 2004

Reply #29 By: whoman69 - 12/29/2004 5:48:51 PM
And just *how * would you know? Are you part of the *moral majority*? I don't think so! I on the other hand am part of it.. I went through the pages you talked about and *no where* could I find the links you were squaking about. However I *did* find this.


That organization as has been pointed out is neither moral nor a majority.

You really aren't that good a reader are you. Did you notice the headline right in the middle of the page?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Left Launches Offensive Against School Abstinence Programs
- By Dr. Jerry Falwell

Did you follow that link and see they have 7 other links to organizations that promote abstinance only programs?
True Love Waits Link "This emphasis will involve drawing a community together to raise the banner of sexual purity"
Sex Respect Link where for just $2000 Coleen came come out and talk to you on a myriad of subjects dealing with abstinance
Truth4Youth Link the abstinance clearinghouse
Worth the wait Link "we're not about preaching to you"
Abstinence until marriage Link "which asks why should I wait", "look who else is waiting"
Choosing the best Link which teaches abstinence programs to grades 6-12
AbstinenceEdu.com Link who point out the new nominee for Health and Human services backs abstinance only programs


Okay you are correct, I missed that big time. Okay now, *who* has pointed out that the organization is neither moral nor majority? And just what is you problem with teaching abstinence? So only teaching the kids about birth control tells the children what? That it's okay to do it as long as you use a condom? Phooey! It's NOT okay, condom or not!
The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray! How many of these children actually *use* a condom? Not very many else wise STD and teen pregnancies would be down which they ain't. The main reason they're pushing abstinence is that the birth control teaching does not seem to be working.
3 Pages1 2 3