Slashdot Mirror
EPA Asserts Executive Privilege In CA Emissions Case
Brad Eleven writes "The AP reports that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has invoked executive privilege to justify withholding information in its response to a lawsuit. The state of California is challenging the agency's decision to block their attempt to curb the emissions from new cars and trucks. In response, the EPA has delivered documents requested by the Freedom of Information Act for the discovery phase of the lawsuit — but the documents are heavily redacted. That is, the agency has revealed that it did spend many hours meeting to discuss the issue, but refuses to divulge the details or the outcomes of the meetings. Among the examples cited, 16 pages of a 43-page Powerpoint presentation are completely blank except for the page titles. An EPA spokesperson used language similar to other recent claims of executive privilege, citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'"
Wouldn't it be easier for the Bush administration to disband the courts to protect the nation from eco-terrorists in California? After all, a true democracy doesn't allow the courts to interfere with the government.
... the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.
You people work for us, We the People. Any analyses you perform should be a matter of public record. Get over yourselves.
Furthermore, what is with "executive privilege" being used as a cover for bureaucratic malfeasance? We aren't talking nuclear secrets here, but matters of public policy.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Surely, the executive privilege thing is to protect state secrets, not to protect state officals? If Something someone says wouldn't hold up to scrutiny, they shouldn't be saying it for an official document?, particularly one that goes against what the local politicians have decided?
So why not just redact the names and leave the statements intact? Oh yeah, that would actually make sense.
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
You can find all sorts of crazy For Official Use Only documents on Google for the Department of Defense giving budget information, and I even found a PDF for a PowerPoint for training new employees on their procedures on computers with classified materials. All computers with such information on them must be kept 2 inches apart from one another and away from all windows. If it's that easy to find DoD information, it should be easy to get good EPA uncensored info.
Right? Am I right?
I bet there were a some American Auto makers (well, they now mainly produce cars in Mexico, but that makes them still American, right?) And Oil Companies listed on those 16 pages.
They hide information for the sake of hiding information. You're reducing pollution, asshole, not hunting down terrorists so there should NEVER be any reason to withhold any information from the public, let alone a court of law.
The law should be: By default all information is public. The government must PROVE there is an overriding security reason to keep something a secret. And not wanting to be embarrassed isn't good enough. Hiding information to save someone's political career is an argument FOR releasing the data.
-- Will program for bandwidth
In future news, every top-level administrator of the EPA will be fired in 2008, following the inauguration of the new president.
Seriously. For the EPA to do something this monumentally stupid, the entire agency deserves to be disbanded, considering that their actions have been completely and entirely contrary to their stated mission.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
They are supposed to provide "frank and honest opinions". It's their job. That's why we pay them. If they are afraid to tell the truth, then something is seriously amiss, and we must suspect some meddling (possibly corporate) in the process.
Executive Privilege? EPA needs its bottle changed, they're scared of reality.
So, does anyone have a link to the documents that were released? Or are they supposed to be kept secret until the trial?
'cause given the track record of the feds wrt. FOIA releases, the odds are small but decidedly non-zero that the information is still in there and they just have to turn on "track changes" or edit in full Acrobat or something.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Sitting here and complaining about how all of this is BS isn't gonna change things. What can we actually do to make our collective disapproval known?
Ok, I'm a business owner and that makes it hard for me to be a Demo. Furthermore, I'm a California citizen and I'm generally opposed to "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown and his environmental soapbox posing. So you see, I'm not a screeming liberal by any means.
That said, this just really sucks. The Freedom of Information act was possibly the most effective means to hold the government accountable in my lifetime. Bush and company have no respect for it and think that they can arbitrarily ignore it. In the words of Emo Philips, "They need to be tought a lesson". Run their asses back to Texas along with all their followers, cronies and hacks. I'm greatly sick of all of this.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
"citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'""
So in other words we live in a society were people needed to be coddled from anything negative directed towards them? What is the point of having opinions if you're not willing to defend them? What is the point of having principles if you're not willing to stand by them?
On what possible grounds is EPA claiming executive privilege? On the "cause we say so" grounds?
This is what happens when political appointees put The Party ahead of the country, btw.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
The EPA has become the Exxon Protection Agency under our current executive leadership. Sadly the Democrats, once they are in power, will need years to reverse the damage.
I wonder if political appointees have overturned internal recommendations by the career EPA scientists/staff, hence none of these papers can be turn over to the Congress without someone lost their jobs prematurely. I thought there are already several examples during this administration.
Isn't this the same argument BushCo uses over and over to keep from revealing what they are really up to?
There is no logical reason why California cannot get this information other than it is to cover BushCo butts.
Go ahead, Bush apologists, and mod me down but you know the truth - Bush and his corporate interests are selling you out, selling your country out, and selling your futures out.
EPA political appointee #1: "Ford is offering 0.5 billion in campaign contributions if we say no to California..."
EPA political appointee #2: "I'll check with GM to see it they'll raise their offer."
As a European, I have the view that Obama is the most trustworthy of them at the moment, and he seems to be the most tech-friendly candidate of the ones that still have a chance to get elected. Do you have any pointers to scandals that can change my view?
c++;
Conservatives hate it when it comes to medical mj or assited suicide or pro-gay marriage. Liberals hate it when you are pro gun or anti-abortion or needing to enforce civil rights on uppity sounthern states.
But in the end, the founders had it right. All these experiments in green futures and healthcare and individual rights and social safety nets are far ahead of the lowest common denominator feds it isn't even funny. And programs being closer to the people they preport to serve probably makes them more accountable.
In a pre-emptive reply to the inevitable comments claiming this is evidence of imperial hubris, or corporate-fascistic tendencies, I say poppycock. The US is and always will be a REPUBLIC. The only difference is the recent addition of the adjective BANANA.
And by house, I mean WHITE HOUSE. This crap has gone on WAY too long. People aren't just looking away because they can't. When there's a pile of shit in the corner, you tend to point your nose in another direction; look away. But when we have this situation; there's shit in every corner, there's no place to look away to! That's when it's time to clean up.
The AP reports that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has invoked executive privilege to justify withholding information in its response to a lawsuit. The state of California is challenging the agency's decision to block their attempt to curb the emissions from new cars and trucks. In response, the EPA has delivered documents requested by the Freedom of Information Act for the discovery phase of the lawsuit -- but the documents are heavily redacted. That is, the agency has revealed that it did spend many hours meeting to discuss the issue, but refuses to divulge the details or the outcomes of the meetings. Among the examples cited, 16 pages of a 43-page Powerpoint presentation are completely blank except for the page titles. An EPA spokesperson used language similar to other recent claims of executive privilege, citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in OH MY GOD THERE'S SHIT COMING OUT OF MY EYES
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-records-re-hillary-s-health-care-reform-plan-0
Now there is openness......
It is a fiction created by the presidency so they can cover things up. I challenge *anyone* to find out where in the constitution this right is spelled out.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Everytime I hear about executive privilege, all I can think of is that something illegal was going on. Much like invoking the 5th amendment.
So that means that someone can go kill someone else, and if they are in power and high up, they can invoke executive privilege and say "nope, can't hear about that!" Its a blank check. And I think that's just a bit too much leeway being offered, especially right now.
What, Big Brother is listening to everything on the Internet? Sorry, we can't tell you, we invoke executive privilege. Its also State Secrets. And its for your own good, anyways. THERE ARE TERRORISTS OUT THERE! We are just protecting you. You didn't need privacy anyways!
Head a little further east, into Riverside and Redlands. LA's exposure to the sea breeze drives their smog right into the inland empire, where it settles. LA may generate most of it, but the majority ends up settling in the valley. When we're lucky, we can see the mountains arund us at night. Usually it's just a haze and only the lights are visible.
California doesn't need higher standards. California needs to start banning all old and out of tune automobiles, period. There's so many junker antiques running around that it's absolutely insane. Also, they need cleaner factories. They might as well start their own EPA while they're at it, because the one we already have isn't doing a goddamned thing. How do we get a vote to pull all of the EPA's funding into Congress?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Chilling effect? You know what? I kinda want them to chill. You know...until there's a new administration...
Does anyone here know what information the EPA could possibly need to protect?
I'm interested in why they blocked it in the first place.
less emissions means more of the fuel is being used for propulsion instead of being expelled.
using gas more efficiently can only be good for national security given our dependance on foreign oil.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
As with previous examples, it's not that they fear a chilling effect on candid advice, it's that the advice they gave wasn't for the good of the country. They advised the EPA to do what was good for their industries, and that's bad press.
In an interview on the Newshour http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june01/schorr_5-29.html in 2001, Daniel Schorr was asked what he'd learned about government after years of covering it, and he answered:
If people knew that their malfeasance was going to go public some day, and be exposed to the light, they would be less comfortable tell all the lies they tell in the dark.
That was the same story with supergravity vs string theory... that is.. until the proponents of supergravity were vindicated when the 11th dimension was acknowledged, giving rise to M theory.
just because you're ostracized now wont mean you're ostracized forever, and when you are vindicated, your reaping is all the sweeter.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Honestly, this is the type of corruption and incompetence I've simply come to expect from this administration.
The counter examples, where they *do* act in the public interest are hard to come up with. Maybe somebody could list them, and prove me wrong.
O.
I think they mean... the chilling effect it would have on dishonest people's careers.
There is no such thing as a citizen. You are a consumer. It is your patriotic duty to consume.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The administration is here referring to the chilling effect in a literal sense. i.e. being the slowing of the greenhouse effect that could occur if the current regime was held to account. But they don't have it quite right- it would be a slowing of the heating rate, not an absolute drop in temperature.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Impeach the current President and Vice President. It is the only solution.
I read the article, and it referred to Boxer's quest for documents via the Freedom of Information Act, but this doesn't mention the California lawsuit, or the preserve-documents order that is related to it.
As near as I can tell, this is only related to Boxer's environmental committee request for information, and is not in response to the lawsuit. In fact, I think it may be a test to see if it might be a viable response to the lawsuit as well. If it works for the congressional request, they might try it out in the courts.
is that it's only OK for the experts to give testimony if the ones in power agree with the experts?
citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'"
Sounds like the good 'ol "you can't handle the truth" argument.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Vote with your wallets, etc etc... I've been having fun writing my congressman any all sorts of issues that bug me. The trick is to talk to them how they want to hear it. I'm in a republican dominated state, Idaho. So obviously I need to point out this another instance of the federal government usurping power from the states in a thoughtless and wreckless manner. There are many angles to every issue now matter how liberal theres always a way to put some, eh... spin? on it so that those least likely to listen just might pay some attention.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
According to Wikipedia, "executive privilege" is reserved for "President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government." Is the EPA now part of the Executive Branch? Is there any actual basis in law for this claim?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"Chilling effect" is exactly the purpose of competing agencies requesting Executive records. That balance of power and mutual oversight is supposed to chill out the partisan hotheads who otherwise do whatever they want with the power that the public gave them.
--
make install -not war
How dare you people critisize our beloved, Rushmore-deserving, Commander-in-Chief when this nation is at occupation. And I double dare you when it comes to his selfless, humble friends that sacrifice and serve the countryside they love - And! - who could be making way, way more in the private section, unlike you chipwits. I hope these real Americans you attack all get jobs as lobbiers and hand-write laws that outsource all your jobs to Indiana. Servants of the people you say? Not in the land of purple mountains majesty and fruity plains, because I'll have you know, a Log Cabin Republican President named 'Honest' outlawed slavery with the 18th amendment (which Clinton attempted to overturn with the 21st as I recall.) And another thing. You think gasoline won't go to $200 a barrel if that Hillary Clinton gets elected? She won't, but if - because I'm here to tell you no Saudi King is going to walk down a primerosa path holding hands with her and then what? I'll tell you what. There goes the "Special Relationship." Your minds have been ruined by all those liberal courses you took at college. I doubt you could even understand what those patriotic EPAers even wrote... that they deleted I doubt you could even put two sentences together. Believe me, if they decide it's to their advantage to unredact this alleged information and not be chilled, this administration has backups of everything they've ever done. Do you? Did Clinton?
Invoking a variant of the "but, but, $DEMOCRAT" clause only shows your true colors. Try being more original than just copy-pasting from talk radio.
Unless of course, you are that outdated talk radio host(which is overdue for "retirement due to Fairness Doctrine").
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I partially agree with you. The problem is top down. A pencil pusher won't get in any trouble if he refuses to release what should be public documents, but he can catch all kinds of hell if he "goes against the grain" even though he did the right thing.
Some of the oil company profits can be attributed to actual innovation. Chevron developed a very cost efficient system for extracting huge amounts of oils from what were previously dry wells. Lots of oil is trapped in shale, and they developed the means to get it out, cheaply and safely. They deserve their profits for that.
Blaming Americans for middle east violence, however, is pushing it too far. The blame rests solely on on the saudi princes and theocracies who use their huge profits to export hate and violence to the entire world. Yes, people should be driving more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly cars, but not everyone has the luxury of running out and getting a Prius. A poor family is stuck with what they could get for a few hundred dollars. In the long run they would be saving money with the new car, but they can't come up with the cash and it's tough getting a reasonable car loan on a minimum wage job. And don't even get started with public transportation. In most areas, public transport is all but useless, especially if you don't work a nine to five job, e.g. janitorial work is typically done after normal work hours. Plus, have you ever tried grocery shopping using the local bus service? A more affluent family might actually need something bigger. Picking on the "soccer mom" is a cheap shot. They're called that for a reason. Transporting a soccer team in a big SUV is actually BETTER for the environment than each parent individually driving their kid to the games and practices in an economy car.
Finally, our entire economy is based on the transportation of goods. Oil is considered a national security issue because our economy would collapse without it. Trucks are really the only way to move things around the country. If we suddenly did not have oil, large cities would suffer catastrophic famine within a few days and all that good talk about alternative energy would come up short when a solution is sought.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I'm just playing devils advocate here, I think that the Federal government has overstepped its boundaries in this case and agree with California. The states should have the right to set their own standards unless cross-border trade is imperiled, and I don't see that here.
Still, that said, we're talking about the results of negotiations between US-EPA and California prior to the lawsuit. This happens all the time, two parties sit down and try to solve their disagreement amicably before going to court. The thing is, the product of those discussions, whether in small claims all the way up to the national courts, have always been protected. Otherwise, neither party would have any incentive to sit down and try to settle. Both sides in a financial litigation (for instance) can't sit down and talk about a dollar settlement if their admission that a settlement is possible constituted admission of guilt or culpability. Same thing holds true here, I think - if EPA tried in good faith to come up with a solution that might have included verbage that could be construed as accepting California's position - even theoretically - they would want that kept out of the open court, and rightfully so.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Be more original about it, this sounds near exactly like another post and straight from talk radio.
To copy-paste from that is mere ventriloquy.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I'm sorry, you think Clinton is far left? If anything she's a moderate righty.
Hillarycare anyone? How about "it takes a village"?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Dear Slashdot,
Please redact the majority of this comment. Surely, you understand the chilling effect that would occur if my frank and honest opinions and analysis were to be disclosed in a broad setting. Though I willingly chose this public forum, much like a government employee chooses a job with the risk of public scrutiny, the risk of embarrassment is too great to allow you to publish it for all eyes to see. What if some spelling or grammar nazi notices a tiny mistake that resulted from my lack of proofreading? No, Slashdot, I would rather not have my comment face the wrath of the unwashed masses with mod points today.
Sincerely,
User #774466
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
We all know what this is really about. Current EPA administrators are political stooges for the Bush administration. This is no big secret. They're just waiting until the next election to offset a fallout... in the hopes that a pro bush administration republican is elected. It's just... plain disgusting.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether you agree with these guys, you know they aren't bullshitting you. The rest of the candidates ask you what you want to hear (polls) and then tell you exactly that. It has absolutely no bearing on what they're going to do during their administration (Bush against nation building, Bush for an amendment banning gay marriage, Bush [insert just about any campaign promise here]).
But we're too dumb to vote for the guy who tells us what he's going to do. We'd rather vote for the guy who tells us what we want to hear.
Ron Paul is an Aspie and would save us from this overbearing government regulation.
Aspies for Ron Paul
Blaming Americans for middle east violence, however, is pushing it too far. The blame rests solely on on the saudi princes and theocracies who use their huge profits to export hate and violence to the entire world.
And who created those theocracies? The West, including the US, after WWI. Britain, France, and the US partitioned the Middle East into separate countries when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. For aiding in the fight against the Turks Sheiks were promised land to form a country on. Look at a map of the Middle East, it looks almost like a jigsaw puzzle because of this.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Conservatives hate it when it comes to medical mj or assited suicide or pro-gay marriage. Liberals hate it when you are pro gun or anti-abortion or needing to enforce civil rights on uppity sounthern states.
Everyone hates you when you're pro mj (hemp), assisted suicide, gay marriage, guns, choice, and civil rights.
Yes, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, ie I am a Classical liberal!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Not just california. And enough of them that they could force detroit to actually, like, ya know, put some real cars with decent mileage that run cleaner out on the dealers lots, instead of the ten times a year at industry tradeshows trot out some million buck hand carved concept vehicle that runs on lithium dilithium crystal hydrogen WTF whatever unobtanium "fuel cells" which is the biggest snakeoil vaporware yet when it comes to cars..like the US has a spare TEN trillion dollars minimum to just swap around all the liquid fuel delivery stuff to offer "hydrogen" that can't be stored well and runs through membranes that are forced to use extremely expensive rare metals catalysts that the least little bit of impurities render *useless*. In other words, waiting for the hydrogen fuel cell car is like waiting for duke nukem forever, except eventually you will actually be able to play that game. And have you looked at the new supposedly tougher mandated CAFE standards? What a joke! Especially when you can look at europe, where the same big three "US" companies who claim "it can't be done!!" are selling a ton of vehicles with twice the mileage, and have been for years and years now.
The future is cheap all electrics (china will be kicking ass shortly with those, at under ten grand delivered, wait for second gen to get something acceptable, the manufacture is just so damn simple and current good batteries like NiMH are plenty good enough), clean turbocharged diesels, and ultra lean running gassers, most likely very small displacement and supercharged, which more likely than not will be running on E85.
Hydrogen fuel cells was and is a scam to get them off the hook for years and not have to actually compete, that and the industry is incestuous with their cousins, there is not as much profit for the big oil guys if everyone in the US all of a sudden was getting double the mileage, now would there be? You think golf courses are just for playing golf? Ha! That's one of the places the cartel "gentleman's agreements" go down at, well away from any SEC or DOJ interference.
This administration has hidden behind EP or a flat out refusal to comply for almost 8 years. Cheney came up with an energy policy years ago behind closed doors with execs from the oil and energy companies. When Congress called for details and names, Cheney told Congress to go suck an egg. This administration doesn't care about the founders' desire for 3 branches of government. The Executive branch is the only one that "rules" right now. Thank you all the Bush voters. We haven't had a democratic process for 8 years. Bush dictates what the important bills will contain and how they'll be written. If you waver, you're called un-American and the bill is vetoed. When the Executive branch dictates to the Congressional branch what to do, that's not really a "checks and balances" system. Get used to it or get off your butt and VOTE!!
Another interesting fact is that California's state budget is 1/5 of the federal budget without the current spending on the "W.o.T" (war on terror) that's being pushed by Bush and his cronies. So overall, I think the combination of the Real ID act, the EPA trying to tell us we don't have they right to set tougher standards then the nation, along with all the other flak and shit from Washington is finally giving us the needed push to leave the nest.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
"Hillarycare" would represent a right wing alternative to their existing health care system. Most advanced countries would have to reduce the scope of government involvement (including subtantial privitization) in their health care systems to match what Hillary has proposed. Since almost all of these countries have longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, etc. than the USA, they are unlikely to adopt a health care plan as right-wing as Hillary's
And "it takes a village" would represent common sense consensus among most societies (apart from the US). Someone who proposed the common US view of "I'm looking out for number one everyone else can go die for all I care" would be thought a dangerous sociopath. A country based on "looking out for number one" would be viewed as a threat to world stability.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs
I wouldn't doubt it at all.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
If it makes the point and is true, originality doesn't matter. We are not in the practice of locking information away from consumption just because someone else said it first.
On NPR today, a commentator (forgot what he was) said that Iraq was going to be Bush's legacy, and that he'd be remembered depending on how that turns out.
This will be his legacy. Iraq, the wiretaps and erosin of civil liberties, guantanamo,etc, are pretty big deals, but are tiny compared to the crap we'll be getting from climate change soon. His avoiding of the issue, his going out of the way to sabotage attempts at fighting it, and then his half-assed attempts to tackle it, will, hopefully, be what's remembered. Little consolation, of course, for those for those who'll suffer from his amazing ability to ignore the world around him.
Not all his fault, of course. The only serious Republican candidate that realizes the seriousness of the situation is McCain. The others, who have more of the traditional conservative base behind them, don't; rather, they would actually, like Bush, undo much of the hard work that had been done so far to keep environmental degradation under control.
It has never been so important for a Democrat to win, in my opinion. Our kids futures probably depend on it, and not just to ensure that they can collect a social security check.
You forgot Poland... err Gravel.
Actually, they're all Polands...
I propose that this kind of abuse of power based on false pretenses such as "executive power" be called 'georgewbullshit' or maybe just 'bushit'.
How does parent get modded 'offtopic' when TFA gets into the concept of 'executive privelege', and it's usage by the EPA to suppress democratic operation of government (government lacking in transparency and openness)?
Bush (for better or for worse, in my opinion well beyond worse) is the executive in question. Parent is not offtopic.
If you don't agree, post an intelligent and informed response, with information specifically pertaining TFA in your rebuttal, then you could possibly look smarter; don't incorrectly mod as a form of political retaliation and hide behind mod points. Wus!
EPA was created by congress and the Executive jointly.
EPA submits yearly strategic plan reports to congress under GPRA.
When created, Toxic Nixon called for a Strong independent Agency.
Its budget is approved by Congress yearly.
Legally EPA is answerable to BOTH congress and President. (Two bosses).
Congress should withold funding to EPA unless EPA agrees to release the information.
Else congress can sic the GAO on EPA to conduct an ana1 audit of EPA.
Am sure that would make EPA realize in a hurry that they have to release relevant information.
Am talking about a congress with a Spine, not this present spineless corporate critter who would sooner dismember EPA for a few dollars from polluting companies.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Have you looked into Ron Paul?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul&search=Search
Yeah you really have to be some kind of crack-head to think giving the government billions in tax dollars to spend on health care is a bad idea, but think giving the government billions in tax dollars to give to insurance companies who will spend some of that money on health care, but will also try to keep as much of that money as profit as possible, is a great idea.
GP did say "free market", the government deducting or taking money from income isn't a free market. I don't know if GP looks at it this way, but I think it's better for government to allow people to buy health insurance on their own without making them pay tax on it. Competition in health insurance will lower insurance premiums.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There are Muslims who disagree with you. There are moderate Muslims who support democracy. Radwan A. Masmoudi of the Center of the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID) is one who supports democracy. Here's more on Islamic Democracy.
You also overlook Algeria as a democracy. As well as Egypt. And Turkey. Fact is is you left out a number of democratic Muslim nations.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That used to be a tree. That also used to be a tree. That used to be a different true. F*** this, for "presentations" I prefer fyzikel "slides." If you don't no wut I mean, ax Winston Smith. Cr@p.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
... to that which you would appear to oppose.
Actually, I don't doubt that you have some keen insights, but friggin' come on, inform me already!
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
Corporations are efficient at finding the maximum price that the market will bear, and minimizing their own costs, so as to maximize profit.
Oh, in my previous reply I missed replying to this. Not all corporations are concerned only with maximizing corporate profits. Corporations like Whole Foods Markets work to improve local economies and sustainability. The first corporations were granted a corporate charter for the purpose of improving society. The first corporation to be issued a corporate charter and issued shares was the Dutch East India Company, not to be confused with the Honourable East India Company which was the second corporation to be issued a charter, by England's Elizabeth I. Because shipping was so risky, from both pirates and the weather, not many people wanted to invest in a ship. If a ship sunk and lost all it's cargo or the sailors were drowned the ship owners were financially liable. So the Dutch government started granting corporate charters that limited the liability of investors, all the investors could loose is the amount they invested in the corporation.
The problem with corporations today is that they were able to get the government to get rid of laws that required corporations to improve society. Thomas Jefferson warned of the Corporate Aristocracy: "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." What needs to be brought back is the original purpose of corporate charters, to serve and improve society.
FalconShould there be a Law?