Slashdot Mirror
The EPA's Bold New Idea Has Massive Implications For Public Health (motherjones.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: For years, the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of radiation, carcinogens, and other toxic chemicals has been based on the cautious scientific reasoning that considers even slight exposure to toxins potentially risky to public health. From that premise, the EPA has assessed a wide range of pollution, including lung-clogging particulate matter, Superfund cleanup, water treatment, radiation exposure, and risk assessments for carcinogens like benzene.
That time-honored approach may be changing because of easy-to-overlook phrasing within a paragraph buried in the proposed "Strengthening Transparency In Regulatory Science Rule," a regulation that will bar the EPA from considering a wide range of scientific studies in its rule-making. With a few sentences buried in the seven-page Federal Register text, the EPA is opening the door to a new scientific approach that -- in a worst-case scenario -- could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.
Some scientists have considered the implications of this paragraph and described a whole array of potential problems to Mother Jones. Because the paragraph is written in incredibly vague language, most scientists were unable to explain which pollutants or regulations were the prime targets.
That time-honored approach may be changing because of easy-to-overlook phrasing within a paragraph buried in the proposed "Strengthening Transparency In Regulatory Science Rule," a regulation that will bar the EPA from considering a wide range of scientific studies in its rule-making. With a few sentences buried in the seven-page Federal Register text, the EPA is opening the door to a new scientific approach that -- in a worst-case scenario -- could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.
Some scientists have considered the implications of this paragraph and described a whole array of potential problems to Mother Jones. Because the paragraph is written in incredibly vague language, most scientists were unable to explain which pollutants or regulations were the prime targets.
No idea about the full implications, but hormesis is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
“growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function,”
Because, you know, the best way to talk about a sentence is to not show it.
Nothing matters any more. There is no truth or facts and science is all just made up liberal lies. All that matters is the will of Trump and the Corporate Lobbyists -- you know, THE PEOPLE. Working Class Tax Payers aren't people and don't get a say
What's a little mercury between friends?
It's true or it's false. Neither option is liberal.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
what is with the militant liberal bias on this site?
Reality only seems to have a liberal bias because of how off the rails conservatives have gotten over the past couple decades. I voted for Bush Jr. twice, but being a "conservative" in today's political climate is a sign of either severe indoctrination or a severe lack of critical reasoning skills. Or perhaps treating abortion or gun control as a voting litmus test, but I would consider those to being a single issue voter and not actually conservative (and in many cases another example of a lack of education).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
EPA ... the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.
Can't wait for the FDA to make that assumption about cancer ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This world was built on the process of Evolution by Variation and Selection, not Intelligent Design.
At some point, you've just got to do something; you can't be arguing over hypotheticals for eternity.
America is ready to start doing something again.
Is like the church was back in the day when Galileo was around. We're all going to suffer for it.
have always been at war with Eastasia.
could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial
Where exactly is this "assumption" made?
And parenthetically, you do know that small percentages of something might be beneficial, right? The way to find out would be to study it, not just assume that even one bazillionth has to be harmful because reasons.
Public health, schmublic health. There's MONEY to be made!
Who the fuck cares if we make the planet unable to support human life! I'll be dead, having made MORE MONEY!
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Why does this dribble even make it to /.?
You know that goofy high pitched in and out 70's stuff that would start to play every time shit was about to go down? Yeah, I'm hearing it over and over in my head right now.
From Ironside apparently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
To explain the above subject line: If it were up to me, my philosophy with regards to public health would be to consider something to be potentially harmful until proven, through fact- and scientific method-based reasoning, that it's not harmful. Highly irresponsible otherwise.
" The proposed regulation provides that when EPA develops regulations, including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, with regard to those scientific studies that are pivotal to the action being taken, EPA should ensure that the data underlying those are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. "
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science
If so, what's the problem?
a 120mm round from a tank fired to your head is bad, .22cal would be okay? /h (yes, I know modern tank shells aren't made of lead, no need to get pedantic on me)
but a
I mean, they're both lead right?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
from the ./ summary:
"For years, the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of radiation, carcinogens, and other toxic chemicals has been based on the cautious scientific reasoning that considers even slight exposure to toxins potentially risky to public health."
That is the fundamental error underlying all environmental regulatory policy in the U.S. Every nutrient essential for human life has some dose at which it becomes toxic. Water and table salt are two common examples. Whether a substance is harmful or beneficial to life depends on both the substance and the quantity. If the EPA were serious about that policy, then it would demand that the oceans be ejected into space to clean up the environment of deadly salt and water toxins.
It says "cautious scientific reasoning." There are two problems with that description. First, it is value judgment which violates presumed editorial neutrality of straight news. Second, it is the wrong value judgment. "idiotic non-scientific assumptions" would be an accurate description.
The consequence of a completely unworkable policy is regulatory confusion and rule by bureaucratic fiat.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
As a resident of the 'real world', I find that a statistically significant number of people (>75%) who profess the same views as you, rely on fox news as their primary source for information.
just sayin...
I voted for Bush Jr. twice
Don't feel bad; we can't all have above average (or even just average) intelligence.
Now we can see a return to the good old days when people used to paint their homes with lead paint. Yes! You too will soon be able to paint lead on your walls for all the family to enjoy. The EPA says it was mistaken and it's perfectly safe now. Paint your walls with lead paint soon! :))) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Oh, and in Flint Michigan and many other parts of the USA, neighbourhoods can start drinking the tap water again because lead is safe!
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Hormesis -- a positive health impact from low exposures to an environmental stressor like radiation or pollution -- is a real thing. You can demonstrate that in lab animals.
The thing is, humans aren't lab animals. You can't control their total exposure to the stressor. Scientific support for radiation hormesis in humans is (for obvious reasons) anecdotal, and by definition isn't controlled. The same exposure that had a small beneficial effect in one population might not have happened had that population been living on a radon spur.
Where there is a possibility of a hormetic effect at low levels of exposure and a certainty of a negative effect at high levels of exposure, you have to limit human exposure from any single source. That doesn't take a genius to understand, but that level of reasoning appears to be light years beyond the current political discussion, in which radiation is either good or evil and must be treated accordingly.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Also compare reality versus fantasy. Ie, there are MANY on the conservative side who believe the Bible is the literal world of God, not just divinely inspired. These people claim to now exactly how the world will end, and because of this they firmly believe that climate change is not an issue.
Another factor about "reality" is what you take as your base assumptions. Such as is it more important to make money (or create jobs) or to protect safety of others. These days, liberals these days tend to assume that safety is more improtant while conservatives tend to assume economic activity is more important. Different base assumptions and therefore different conclusions arise from the same facts.
Of course, there are those who want to have both better economics while having public safety who then attack the data as being false so that they don't have any internal conflicts; ie, they redefine reality. This happens on both sides of the issue, they may either attack the data showing something is unsafe or they may attack the data showing potential economic advantages.
Regulatory capture is going to be the death of US civil society, and the nation will truly be in the hands of the wealthy and corporations .. and everyone else can fuck off and die.
If the EPA is coming with this assumption, they know they're lying their fucking asses off and are really just giving corporations a giant cash grab at our expense.
And I fear this is going to undermine actual science and allow very weak evidence by polluters, with a requirement for very strong evidence to prove something is dangerous.
America is truly fucked.
Here's an explanation of what's going on... same method used by tobacco industry.
https://thinkprogress.org/sena...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I know it's Mother Jones, but how in the world do you twist the actual text into that kind of soundbite?
In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.
No wonder they didn't quote the actual language in the article.
Your point would have been better if you didn't make it a partisan thing.
Good quote from a guy whose stuff I like: "In our online interactions, we have a choice of being a smartass and showing people how dumb they are, OR maybe convincing skeptical new people to consider our opinions. Unfortunately for fellow smartasses, we only get to choose one :-)"
The current state of political debate doesn't distinguish between types of radiation, much less the exposure levels.
How many reporters don't understand the difference between a microwave's radiation and inhaling cesium dust or radon exposure? I'd say most. I commonly see warnings about cell phone radiation exposure like it's the same as fallout from a nuclear blast.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I think that "reality has a liberal bias" being ranked as insightful instead of trite is evidence of a liberal bias. Intelligence being heritable is a reality, but saying it, is a faux pas in liberal circles.
I am generally deeply skeptical of what Trump is doing to the EPA, but I don't actually see a problem with the text - it's a good thing to investigate response models to various toxins, radiation, etc. and use the most appropriate one for determining policy. A linear model is almost certainly incorrect for most cases, and could just as easily underestimate the harm as overestimate it.
The problem comes in if this is used to implement unjustified deregulation, which is certainly a concern with this administration. It's hard to say if that's the case without more context though.
It's not a partisan think. I'm a liberal myself. It's that people across the political spectrum make ridiculous arguments.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Apparently, using scientific research to inform regulatory policy and protect public health is being "militantly liberal" now.
I'm about as conservative as they come and I routinely read a lot of sites for my news.
Oh, so you vote Democrat then considering that they are having a more economically conservative politics that doesn't increase the deficit as much?
Or are you "conservative" in the sense that you just want to throw out the Mexicans and are willing to burn down the country while doing so?
Just a reminder to you younger Slashdotters, that there was a time, before there was an EPA, where several of the Great Lakes had all their fish dying, there were rivers in Ohio that would burst into flames and several American cities where the smog was so bad that the air was a yellowish-green even on a cloudless day. And not just cities like LA and Cleveland, Pittsburgh, but also Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas and many others.
A Republican president created the EPA in 1970, and within a decade and a half, you could find Lake Trout and Salmon in the Great Lakes again, there are even fish in the Cuyahoga, and people could actually breathe in cities without coughing up brown phlegm again. Corporations adjusted to the new regulations and the '80s and '90s saw a booming US economy with widespread improvement across all economic strata.
We are being ratfucked by our own government. If your big issue is "feminists are taking my jobs!" and supporting this administration in order to "own the libs and SJWs", you are what is known as a useful idiot, and you are hurting yourself.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not a liberal or a conservative, but this is actually a reasonable approach. Toxicity is always about dosage and basically everything is toxic at some dose. In particular the evidence that all radiation exposure, not matter how small, causes cumulative damage has come under scrutiny because the original research was extrapolated to those levels. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but additional research is needed to validate the conclusion at those very low levels. We need a more balanced approach that doesn't assume that the results of exposing mice to levels of chemicals that are far beyond what any person is ever likely to be exposed to (relative to their body mass) means that they are not safe for humans in small doses. That's a very safe, conservative approach, but it has a real cost and that conclusion is not necessarily supported by the science.
The faster we get rid of various versions of LNT, and actually get reasonable scientific definitions, the better. Our bodies are designed to easily handle certain amount of toxins, carcinogens, radiation, etc. It's a part of normal metabolic process.
The problem is when we receive more of a dose of aforementioned things than our natural metabolic, immune etc processes can handle. When that happens we get sick, poisoned, killed or suffer long term cell damage that leads to cancer. The worst offender by far in this category is the radiation LNT model. It's been long debunked (yes, you get a significant radiation dose by flying, no, it's not a carcinogenic factor to fly to your yearly holiday because the additional dose is much lower than surplus of your natural cell repair mechanisms held in reserve).
Same applies to toxins, poisons, carcinogens and so on. What we need to know is not just that "this material/process can be toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic" but "how much of an exposure to this needs to occur for the toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic effect to actually occur in human body".
"Because the paragraph is written in incredibly vague language, most scientists were unable to explain which pollutants or regulations were the prime targets."
Easy: Every by-product of industrial production that make republican backed corporations shitloads of money.
Reality has a liberal bias. Sorry if that pisses you off.
I voted for Clinton twice, then I voted for Bush twice. But at least I never voted for Obama.
Reading the examples of Hormesis out there ... things don't look so great for hormesis. I'll take the threshold.
He is conservative in the sense that he does exactly what his corporate masters tell him to do, even lie if it gets him into a position where he can provide greater satisfaction to said masters
Pretty much kavanughs all the way down
You pretty much proved it with your righty-blindness and false equivalencies
Thanks for playing
That explains the minions? They're all fucking mutated because of bananas.
Oh, wait, bananas are real and radioactive and minions aren't. That applies to radiation inside the body too.
you lost me at: "I voted for Bush Jr. twice"
Get your dogma outta my yard!
Reality only seems to have a liberal bias because of how off the rails conservatives have gotten over the past couple decades.
How have conservatives gone off the rails, exactly? Because from where I'm sitting, it's the liberals that have gone completely off the rails, out-right attacking their own country while holding mutually exclusive views as being some sort of sacrosanct universal truth.
It's liberals that are obstructing everything the democratically elected President is doing. Liberals that are inventing reasons and false accusations to derail the President's Supreme Court pick. Liberals that are demanding that we both treat men and women as exact equals in every way while at the same time demand we give special treatment to women to make up for the ways they differ from men. Liberals that have declared that "sex" and "gender" are somehow different things describing the same thing. Liberals that are rewriting the rules so that what used to be considered small talk is now a "microaggression." Liberals who are declaring that the rule of law does not apply to men when accused by women. Liberals who declare that if you are a white male, you have no place in modern society. Liberals who have told everyone that they cannot succeed through hard work, and that if they do anyway, it's thanks to the government letting them. And it's liberals that are attacking new requirements that requires the EPA to use real, repeatable science and not just any P-hacked study.
I don't know what world you live in, but from what I can tell, it's not conservatives who have completely gone off the deep end - it's the left.
With this comment:
can tell you that Fox has it's bias but it's pretty obvious to me that they are the LEAST biased of the major cable network related websites
You pretty much just pegged what is wrong, first you think fox has anything to do with actual news and not entertainment, pandering to a certain world view.
Do you still believe Sadam had something to do with 9/11 and had chemical or nuclear weapons?
You realize you are the least likely to be informed about the real world by listening to Fox News?
So much so that if you watched no news at all you would be better informed?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#251316fc12ab
You understand that it was the conservatives that held open the Supreme court for 10 months when Obama was President right? You are complaining because Democrats are finally playing dirty like Republicans have been for at least a decade. Republicans have had a win at all costs mentality going back at least 20 years.
You know what happens when a Democrat is accused of sexual misconduct? They quit because the party pressures them into it. Al Franken was accused of much less as well. Roy Moore was poised to win but residents came to their senses to vote a Democrat instead of a pedophile. Kavanaugh has enough black marks against him that any other President in history would have withdrawn the appointment and found someone less controversial.
How are women being granted special treatment? What proposal are you referring to? My guess is that there is none and you're just repeating the same BS the Fox or Alex Jones spew all the time.
It is quite rich that you say liberals are declaring "that the rule of law does not apply to men when accused by women. " Mostly what they do is shout derogatory remarks at the women until the accusers shut up. Deny deny deny, that is Trump's single strategy when it comes to controversy.
Good luck finding liberals that thing the white male has no place in society, again, you're just repeating the same Alex Jones BS.
I'll give you a little test. Who are the most well known "liberals?" Here's a hint, Bill Maher is a white dude, hint, Bernie Sanders is an old white dude, John Oliver, Steven Colbert, John Stewart, the list goes on. You're way off base and I welcome you to come back to planet Earth because you clearly are living someplace else.
Now let's attack your most basic principle. I know of no one and you know of no one that is completely conservative or completely liberal. There are things I think should be changed and things you think should be changed. (Those are liberal ideas.) There are things I think are going well and thing you think are going well. (Those are conservative ideas. )
Dumping social security in favor of 401ks or other private investment options is not a conservative idea. It is a stupid idea but that is a different discussion. You might want abortion to be banned and return us to the time where women were doing to the tune of 100,000 a year. That is more conservative because you're returning to how it was before Roe V Wade.
It scares me the lack of history perspective from the Republicans right. Most things are the way they are today for a reason. If you're going to tear it apart you better be prepared to deal with the shitstorm that it was holding back. The EPA needed teeth to actually stop our lakes and rivers from burning. Now we're defanging them and hoping what? That a Democrat will come into power so you can blame them for the problem and then watch as they start cleaning it back up.
People like to laugh a Democrats screaming tax and spend. Republicans just spend. The more they can borrow the better. Remember when there was a conservative principle that said not to carry debt? Now we have a President who calls himself the King of Debt. Democrats at least try to balance the budget. It only happened when Clinton was in office because Republicans wouldn't let him spend any money on anything. Guess who got the blame for all the base closures though? Many Vets today hate Clinton for what happened to the military even though it was Republicans that forced the budget issues leading to their problems.
Team Blue and Team Red both arguing over polygraph tests, neither and no one pointing out that polygraph tests are pseudoscience. The culture war consumes all.
Do you still believe Sadam had something to do with 9/11 and had chemical or nuclear weapons?
Don't know and don't care about his involvement in 9/11. I do remember laughing my ass off watching Wolf Blitzer live on CNN diving out of view because of incoming SCUD missiles carrying chemical weapons from Iraq (run by Saddam), so I know from reliable sources he had chemical weapons.
I also know about the yellowcake that got sold to Canada, so if he didn't have current, working nuclear weapons he had the starting materials.
You realize you are the least likely to be informed about the real world by listening to Fox News?
I'm curious how you rate Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the "real world news" scale. If you're going to skewer Fox for bias, let's not forget the other side.
Hmmm. Given the types of people that the current administration have put in charge of the EPA, I'm wondering myself what this could possibly be aimed at...
Could it be coal?
Nah. That's just my liberal-leaning reaction. Trump has obviously looked at the current standards for chemical exposure, consulted the experts, and identified areas where chemical regulations could be loosened in a way that still reasonably protects the health of American citizens.Why look at all the public health issues and environmental protections that Trump and his constituents care deeply about:
There's... coal.... no wait. Already said that.
Um.... coal.
Also.... coal?
(maybe oil too, but not nearly as much as coal. MAGA!)
You understand that it was the conservatives that held open the Supreme court for 10 months when Obama was President right?
I remember a lame duck President hoping he'd get his nominee through the process before he left office. I do not remember that nominee facing ginned-up accusations of sexual misconduct and "drinking problems" from 36 years prior to his nomination, while he was still in high school, nor do I recall a demand for unending FBI investigations into his alleged misbehavior from 36 years ago. "Just another 20 people you should interview, what's another 20 people?" That's an actual question from an actual (I assume) news reporter at the Senate press conference this morning.
Maybe it happened and the news media of the time just ignored it?
You know what happens when a Democrat is accused of sexual misconduct? They quit because the party pressures them into it. Al Franken
You're presenting this like it is a positive quality. If Al Franken did nothing, then his party pressuring him to resign is a Bad Thing. It's pandering to baseless accusation and innuendo. It's virtue signaling. "Look at how virtuous all us Democrats are, we forced Franken to resign at the first hint of trouble." Like I said, that's not a good thing.
Kavanaugh has enough black marks against him
Unsubstantiated and unproved "black marks", to the extent that people who the accuser claimed were there and observing the activity deny being there at all. Accusations are accusations, not proof. Unfortunately for Franken, there were pictures.
Now we're defanging them and hoping what?
There is nothing in the proposed regulation that defangs the EPA. Hyperbole much? Apparently not, you're terrible at it.
> You understand that it was the conservatives that held open the Supreme court for 10 months
Yeah. That's JUST LIKE wiping your ass with the Bill of Rights by embracing a lynch mob mentality in order to scuttle the other party's nominee.
THIS example is the perfect demonstration of why liberals have completely jumped the shark. It's anyone's guess what part of the Bill of Rights you will trash next.
I seriously worry about liberals now FAR more than fundies now. At least some fundies embrace the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Reality has a militant bias. Sorry if that pisses you off.
Democrats didn't pressure Al Franken to resign. What happened was the Democrats were using false pedophilia accusations against Roy Moore (seems to be a bit of a theme) and the hipocracy of ignoring an accusation WITH PICTURE EVIDENCE eventually grew to be too great. Eventually the media shamed Al Franken into resigning by pointing out the blatant hipocracy of trying to use "MeToo" while ignoring pictoral evidence.
Also, if you look far enough back in their post histories, you can find the usual suspects here defending Franken in spite of the pictures.
Obama's nominee was put forth OVER HALF A YEAR BEFORE THE DAMN ELECTION. There was no 'lame duck' about it. It was the same old 'no we're assshats only out for ourselves, fuck everyone else we won't even attempt to compromise' from the extreme right wing fucktards (i.e. 'Republicans').
Polygraphs aren't pseudoscience; but there's a lot of pseudoscience around polygraphs. People can't deal with anything that's complicated, so (as needed) people will regard a polygraph as practically infallible or utterly useless. In fact their performance is better than chance, which is useful, but not decisive.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes. Presidents do not get to name justices to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year. It's called the "Biden Rule," after the senator who created it, Senator Joe Biden.
Who was he again? Oh, right, Obama's Vice President. Guess he never thought his own rule would come back to bite him like that.
...relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.
Thank God humans evolved, thus ending the 4.5 billion year dearth of pollutants that was holding back all the species on the planet. Since the mid 19th century we've been making things so much better!
J
Slashdot is somewhere to the right of Mussolini. Itâ(TM)s a bunch of bitter old men still living in their mothers basement and complaining about how SJWs kept them from having the awesome life they still feel entitled to.
Obama's nominee never faced any charges because he wasn't even given a single hearing for 10 months. 10 months! During which, the SCOTUS was unable to decide at least one case because of a 4-4 deadlock, upholding the lower court's ruling. It was straight up a power play because they abused their constitutional right of advise and consent. They were openly discussing keeping the seat open for Clinton's entire term(s) as well. Up to 8 years. You can't think that's OK for anybody to do. However now the norm is set. This is how we do things now. The party controlling the Senate may keep a SCOTUS seat open for as long as it takes for one of their guys to get elected president. As the faith in institutions fray, Republicans are now ramrodding through a nominee who does not have support of the people. The last institution that has any faith is about to lose it in the eyes of the people it governs. With little faith in all three branches of government, we are set for a revolution. Maybe not soon, but the die is cast. You need to think hard about how you, personally, contribute to this in the way you vote. When I vote, I punish abuse of power, no matter who the political party is. I punished Democrats for doing away with filibuster on all other judicial nominations. I punished Republicans for the SCOTUS seat fiasco. And I intend to punish them again this cycle for a very, VERY long list of abuses of power the past 2 years.
Go to hell you fucking partisan shit stain!
Kavanaugh has enough black marks against him that any other President in history would have withdrawn the appointment and found someone less controversial.
Let's assume for a moment that Kavanaugh is innocent and that all the stories about him is completely fabricated, he still should have his nomination withdrawn.
Ignoring senators questions, purposefully not answering or dodging questions, misrepresenting witness testimony, and his verbal political attack all make him unfit to sit on many courts, much less on the supreme court.
You need to go read what the âoebiden ruleâ was.
It was a speech Biden gave where he wanted to delay Supreme Court confirmation hearings till after the election to reduce the politicization of it. This rule was never codified in anyway. The only reason people think it was, is because Mitch McConnell implied/mislead it was
But donâ(TM)t trust me on it, find the full speech and its context yourself if you want.
They tuk err jerb!
But seriously I have no issue with Mexicans or Hispanics... That want to come here legally. Matter of fact I just hired one that worked for me at a previous company because that company wouldn't give him a raise in 3 years. I've been trying to get him for a little over a year but he's company loyal. He is also here legally. And is a better American than a lot of other people I know. The point here is most of us have no problem with immigration. We have a problem with illegal immigration.
Do you realize the minority's that "never vote republican" are very religious? Black white Asians you name it they have a religion and are very defensive over it some to the point of killing you for not believing.
Oh the irony.
" Because the paragraph is written in incredibly vague language, most scientists were unable to explain which pollutants or regulations were the prime targets."
If this is indeed the case, then it runs afoul of the Supreme Court's "plain English language" standard of interpretation of the law, where a reasonable practitioner of the art in question should be able to read and understand the law without having to be coached by a lawyer.
Obviously the EPA is crippled by current right wing politics. The right wing loonies should be forced to drink only water from Flint !
I do not remember that nominee facing ginned-up accusations misconduct and "drinking problems"
You know who else didn't face accusations? Neil fucking Gorsuch. The reason Kavanaugh is facing accusations and obstruction is because he has a history that is filled with problem drinking and sexual innuendo, and he has repeatedly lied in testimony. He's a terrible nominee who should have been withdrawn and replaced with someone without the baggage he has.
But I will say, you do have incredible username-content synergy. Everything you post is pure obfuscation. The next time you post something accurate will be the first.
Don't forget the lying. The constant, non-stop lying. Dishonest people have no business being judges of any sort.
Thank you for your perfect example of how off the rails the American right has become. Even most right wingers disagree with your points. Most of what you're complaining about is "science", not liberals. You can beef with science all you want, but you can't win unless you provide disproving evidence. So far all the evidence is on the "liberal" side; even the majority of right wingers accept that, although begrudgingly.
Anyone in law enforcement is 100% certain Kavanaugh did it. Even the super conservative Trump supporters that I know all shook their head in dismay when they realized that Kavanaugh was unabashedly proving his guilt with his responses. That response during the testimony is a dead giveaway. Nobody gets that flustered and afraid from a very basic line of questioning.
You can call them unsubstantiated, stamp your feet in anger, and deny the facts all you want. Science has proven that Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.
HAH you fell for that shoddily made youtube video? You do realize the guy that made that video (for a joke) has admitted it's just a joke right? And you actually took it seriously?!?
No wonder you are able to believe Fox News :P You are among the most gullible people in the history of the entire world.
Obama's nominee was put forth OVER HALF A YEAR BEFORE THE DAMN ELECTION. There was no 'lame duck' about it.
Some people call anything after the midterms "lame duck", but during the last year certainly is "lame duck" by any definition.
fuck everyone else we won't even attempt to compromise'
You mean like the compromise to call for another background investigation to get Kavanaugh approved by the judiciary committee, which resulted in a demand for more background investigation after the compromise investigation was over? Flake was inexperienced in the process; he's learning the hard way.
Remember when the Republic Party stood for, among other things:
- personal responsibility;
- accountability;
- consequences for the actions of the individual.
Bret Kavanaugh was investigated based upon his actions. The "liberals" had nothing to do with his drinking, his partying, his (alleged) sexual assaulting ways. But do continue to push the narrative that "Democrats made poor Bret Partay Hardy!"
The political Right have abandoned all their "values" and stand for little more than racist immigration policies, fawning over the rich and powerful, screwing the poor and weak, and control of the political establishment. They have sold their souls for 40 pieces of silver, just as a certain Apostle once did. What was his name? Judas, was it?
Whatever happened to Judas? Ohhhh, riiiightttt.
The EPA doesn't need science to make it's rules. With the Republicans in charge, we live in a post-science world. The only thing they need to consider in making rules is how it affects corporate profits.