Daily Archives: January 21, 2012

Coffee Talk

Obama and the EPA

13 Comments

Obama recently defended the work of the EPA with respect to concerns about how the agency might be negatively affecting the economy, stating,

That is a false debate. We don’t have to choose between dirty air and dirty water or a growing economy. We can make sure that we are doing right by our environment and in fact putting people back to work all across America,

He went on to add,

When I hear folks grumbling about environmental policy, you almost want to do a ‘Back to the Future’ reminder of folks of what happened when we didn’t have a strong EPA, You have a president who is grateful for your work and will stand with you every inch of the way.

This isn’t a false debate, Mr. President Dr. Science. This is a real debate over tangible concerns about what constitutes sound science and what is merely rhetoric designed to push an agenda.  You certainly do nothing to contribute to a needed discussion by resorting to your usual sophistry by insisting on a false dilemma between “clean”, which no one has been able to define, and the implied alternative “dirty”, which is also a nebulous adjective. Furthermore, a growing economy is better able to afford those desirable but not necessary goals. You conveniently ignore that self-evident truth with your tacit position that creating jobs through new regulations will help the economy. All such a process will do is create more paperwork for more paper pushers, which contributes nothing but another set of inert bureaucrats who will place new burdens on the taxpayer and corporations, a double whammy.

I have an idea–how about we do go back to the future? This country needs a future when the EPA is run by real scientists and makes decisions based upon sound scientific process and not upon the some need for bureaucrats to create more positions designed to push more paper or for government lawyers to find more ways to waste a court’s time with frivolous lawsuits about specious issues such as wetlands that were never wetlands or farms that create “dust” as though dust, a natural occurrence, is a true pollutant when it is a nothing more than a nuisance. How about concentrating on issues that have real import such as the underground storage tanks at Hanford that, if not drained soon, may contaminate the Columbia River and subsequently the entire upper West Coast? How about concentrating on cleaning up abandoned mines that have the potential to leach dangerous elements into our drinking water? Get some priorities and stay away from sophomoric arguments, will you? And clean up that god-awful mess you’ve made in DC while you’re at it.

Opinion/Editorial

Newt the Masochist~OA~1-21-2012

55 Comments

Newt has done far more to hurt himself, than the MSM or his opponents have. Here’s a list of stuff that he’s solely responsible for.

1. He vowed to “Not go negative”. How long did he keep that vow? I understand that he was responding to negative attacks against him, but he should have expected those attacks. Is Newt so naive that he thought by sanctimoniously vowing to “Not go negative”, that he would immunize himself from negative attacks? His vow became a lie when he broke it, and it’s a perfect example of Newt’s uncontrollable ego getting the better of him. He could easily have ignored the negative ads and accepted the fact that he had no chance of winning in Iowa, but instead he reverted into typical Newt attack mode to stroke his ego. If he had kept his vow, he would have still lost in Iowa and NH, but he would be soaring in SC instead of it being a tight race. It was stupid of him to unilaterally make such a ridiculous vow before a political contest, but it was even dumber to break it.

2. Before any of the primaries, Newt rather smugly declared himself to be the OBVIOUS eventual winner of the primary. Nobody likes gloating, especially before the fact.

3. He publicly trashed Paul Ryan’s terrific budget plan as “Right wing social engineering”, at a time when ALL Republicans should have gathered under a banner of solidarity. What was he thinking? Could it be another example of his ego not allowing him to acknowledge a fellow Republican’s intelligence and hard work. He sounded as though he was childishly jealous that HE hadn’t thought of it himself.

4. He suggested that a an opponent who has already beaten him in two primaries (Santorum) should drop out of the race. What arrogance. Does he think that he’s building himself up by belittling others? Continue reading →