Slashdot Mirror

I've written my representatives frequently to ask that we not shit where we eat. As is my right and responsibility in a democratic republic.

I see, so you expect others to fix the problems you make, rather than fix them through your own actions

I'm not sure if leaded gasoline was really all that necessary to have a high standard of living. I don't think overfishing is the necessary consequence to feed our populace. And I don't think fertilizer run-off into our freshwater ecosystem is the only way to operate a farm. I think frequent chemical spills is a symptom of mismanagement, poor oversight, incompetence, and criminal negligence.

Indeed, many businesses already responsibly deal with their pollution. Through good design and stewardship, they are able to cost effectively mitigate the effects of delivering their products. This requires money, which means that profitable firms are the ones most able to implement these procedures, changes, and systems. Illegal dumping is often done by poor (ineffective) business people, running businesses with poor profits (no money for upstream controls to prevent pollution).

Perhaps the purchase price of my computer did not include all of the necessary the costs. Paying to clean up our environment through tax dollars is a bit like padding the income of every business. As a consumer, in the end I will have to pay.

It is way cheaper for a business to avoid spills than for it to accumulate over decades. We're at a point that we can't force businesses to clean up some of the biggest sites as it would bankrupt them before they could finish the job. I propose that we not let things get to the point where we need the government to step in and clean it up.

And so, where you have the ability to choose where your money goes, you apparently didn't decide to take into consideration the effects of your purchases on the environment. Interesting. Businesses that pollute are only able to do that because people choose to buy their products. Where people decide not to buy, the business disappears.

But what the heck, lets tax the profitable businesses so they have less money to be good stewards with. The poor companies don't have money to pay the taxes, so they'll probably be forgiven the tax cost "to protect jobs", and let them keep polluting. Then we can all pat ourselves on the back, while ignoring the loss.

What have you done to clean up the part of the mess that you made by living in first world conditions?

I've written my representatives frequently to ask that we not shit where we eat. As is my right and responsibility in a democratic republic.

Pollution is also the cost of supplying first world living conditions.

I'm not sure if leaded gasoline was really all that necessary to have a high standard of living. I don't think overfishing is the necessary consequence to feed our populace. And I don't think fertilizer run-off into our freshwater ecosystem is the only way to operate a farm. I think frequent chemical spills is a symptom of mismanagement, poor oversight, incompetence, and criminal negligence.

Obviously you partake, since you're using a computing device connected to the internet

Perhaps the purchase price of my computer did not include all of the necessary the costs. Paying to clean up our environment through tax dollars is a bit like padding the income of every business. As a consumer, in the end I will have to pay.

It is way cheaper for a business to avoid spills than for it to accumulate over decades. We're at a point that we can't force businesses to clean up some of the biggest sites as it would bankrupt them before they could finish the job. I propose that we not let things get to the point where we need the government to step in and clean it up.

We have no measurements at all on what any sort of fake news could of did. You cannot compare a nebulous quantity like this.

Hmm, I suspect that advertisers would disagree with you. They spent lots of money, they want results. You may not trust them, but they do have measurements.

While we have real studies on the likely number of illegals who voted. Studies that show the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

Oh really, and you can cite these studies? Sean Spicer couldn't. And I can find other reports that say numbers such as you and Trump claim are bogus.

Sorry, but actual prosecutions are so low, that you have to ask, if your allegations were true, why isn't anybody being charged? You know that does include Trump voters.

I'll believe you care when you get that woman charged. Absent that, I'll believe you don't even care.

Meanwhile, half of the votes in the recounts we did, in Hillary majority districts, could not even be recounted because of problems.

And these problems were? How many Trump votes were included? You know what I noticed about Michigan though?

2,279,543(DT) 2,268,839(HC)
2,564,569(BO) 2,115,256(MR)
2,872,579(BO) 2,048,639(JM)
2,479,183(JK) 2,313,746(GWB)

Hmm. Something odd about how the vote dropped precipitously in 2016. Perhaps you should explain that, instead of chasing a dubious phantom that is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the Republican state government. Because they could have improved the voting systems if they wanted, they could have managed any errors. Mysteriously, they instead chose to gerrymander the state.

And while I suspect you don't want to admit it, if you believe there are indeed millions of unlawful voters, the you can't trust ANY election returns, there are no legally elected officials anywhere.

That means we have an illegitimate government. At all levels. Federal, state, and local.

Good luck calling for all of them to be removed.

I doubt you have the integrity to try.

Turns out that the regulations is on the businesses and organizations, not the kids

Any excuse or evasion to justify unlimited meddling in every person's daily life, I guess.

Thanks for another example of your inane babble, as you try to dismiss a matter of significant importance with a false and misleading objection, as bad as when you tried to claim that these regulations were on individual kids.

Turns out that the integrity of the food supply is a very convincing and significant reason for regulation, and it turns out the regulations we're talking about are on...the schools and the providers of food at them.

You know, the people who the government employs.

So you have to ask who holds them responsible.

The local and state voters.

Unfortunately, Michigan being a hotbed of gerrymandering, means further protections are necessary beyond mere voting. Which is obvious, even the Constitution of Michigan provides for that, though not as expressly as some states.

See the 14th Amendment and Article IV.

Flint residents are welcome to sue and get a remedy from courts.

Yes and they did so however, Courts aren't the only source of enforcement, as in fact, Congress has authorized and required other, subsidiary, entities in the Executive, to act, not just courts in the form of lawsuits.

See how it works yet?

Yeah, any excuse for unlimited meddling by distant self-dealing busybodies.

Ah once again, you offer your vacuous sophistry, but you couldn't even come up with a non-repetitive one.

Too bad you even tried to ignore international law, making the Federal government inherently bound up in this decision.

Yes, I noticed you doing that. It's the real fly in your ointment, no amount of desperate haranguing can get you over the Supremacy Clause. That bothers you, your usual evasions can't get you past black letter law.

There's no mention about how much water fracking a well can use. It's going to take 4-8M gallons to frack a single well. It's ridiculous that they think they can frack in the western states. Our forests are on fire. We're having THE worst fires, year after year, and it's only projected to get worse. Maybe they can use 8.5M gallons to frack a single well in Canada when they have the water resources of Michigan, but not in the west. That project is slated to expand to 500 wells that will use 4B gallons of water. Crazy.

The company’s plan to drill several new gas wells near Kalkaska will entail pumping about 300 million gallons of water out of the ground, injecting that water into several gas well bores and then leaving nearly all of the contaminated water in the ground when the fracking is completed, according to state records.

The result: A net loss of up to 300 million gallons of groundwater to the North Branch of the Manistee River, a blue-ribbon trout stream fed almost entirely by groundwater. One of Encana’s drilling sites is a half-mile from the Manistee River’s North Branch, according to company records.

“If the citizens of Michigan knew corporations were destroying hundreds of millions of gallons of Michigan water – water that is supposedly protected by government for use by all of us – they would be opposing this new kind of completion (fracking) technique,” said Paul Brady, a fracking watchdog who lives near Kalkaska. “These deep shale, unconventional wells are using massive amounts of water without adequate testing and solid data on aquifer capacity.”

Encana spokesman Doug Hock, however, is optimistic: “Can we access the (deep shale gas) and still protect the environment? Absolutely.”

And down a bit further...

Encana officials said the oil and gas industry wants to export natural gas extracted from shale formations in Michigan and other states to consumers in Asia. Demand for natural gas in China is strong and prices are double the cost of natural gas in the U.S., industry, watchdogs said.

Truth is, Americans are getting screwed in every way till Sunday and don't know it (or care) and we're ultimately getting left with higher prices, poisoned water and land that will remain for generations, and politicians that promise they will do better next time. You can't have clean food without clean water and air. I think we're screwed with this path to 'Energy Independence'.

In states like MI, as well as many others, the bulk of the school funding goes into paying people not to work via pension plans.

Until states (and the feds) get this under control you're never going to see an end to the lack of `funding' for our schools.

I'm ok with raising taxes if that would solve these funding issues, however I see zero evidence that is the case. I'd like to see the money spent on schools, no longer diverted away from actual teaching / educating for the purpose of pension payments and healthcare for retired teachers.