Froma Harrop's republished editorial in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington informs us that the U.S. Supreme Court is probably far more independent than GW would like to have gotten given how he tried to tip the balance in a "conservative" direction after the retirement (and death) of two recent Justices: Sandra Day O'Connor and Rehnquist. What the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that had Ms. Harrop so excited was to send a message to the Bush administration as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, that they do have an obligation to protecting the environment.
I do not much address the environment as to "saving the trees" or "saving the whales." What I do argue is that our environmental policies--that include recycling; should take into consideration the health and welfare of families and children in particular. Health risks that come from swimming and fishing in polluted waters are a matter of serious concern. Thus, when GW tossed a few meaty bones to polluting industries by relaxing the many environmental standards by which they are governed in his first term, he also did this at the expense of the people who voted for him. He acted solely on the behalf of his many contributers to his 2000 campaign.
Froma Harrop did not get into the oval office corruption issue which was particularly blatant from the get-go. She thinks more in terms of global warming, that may indeed be human caused or at least with some billions of people capable of a higher technology than even existed over a hundred years ago, a greater contributing factor at the least to that issue. Nor did she get into what our dependence on Middle Eastern oil does in contributing to the undermining of the war on terror. For all that GW has talked pretty on alternative fuels, he spends more time picking fights with the Democrats than encouraging business interests to work with him on developing viable energy sources that ultimately does not contribute indirectly to financing terrorists.
She said, as does many among the old left, that the U.S. Supreme Court told the current administration (Chief Justice Roberts presiding) to grow up, yes you can regulate tail pipe emissions. Well, that was among the standards that GW intentionally relaxed. And as a matter of fact, the American auto industry began losing big money as more and more consumers shopped "Green" among foreign imports. Precisely, from those countries that signed the Kyoto accords. Japan, for instance. So, did GW help his big business contributers in his 2000 presidential campaign? Or did he do more to hurt them? I'm quite frankly not sure that GW quite has a grasp that market forces involve more than just the producer selling goods. The consumers also are part of the market forces and will make their own decisions on what they buy.
I do not much address the environment as to "saving the trees" or "saving the whales." What I do argue is that our environmental policies--that include recycling; should take into consideration the health and welfare of families and children in particular. Health risks that come from swimming and fishing in polluted waters are a matter of serious concern. Thus, when GW tossed a few meaty bones to polluting industries by relaxing the many environmental standards by which they are governed in his first term, he also did this at the expense of the people who voted for him. He acted solely on the behalf of his many contributers to his 2000 campaign.
Froma Harrop did not get into the oval office corruption issue which was particularly blatant from the get-go. She thinks more in terms of global warming, that may indeed be human caused or at least with some billions of people capable of a higher technology than even existed over a hundred years ago, a greater contributing factor at the least to that issue. Nor did she get into what our dependence on Middle Eastern oil does in contributing to the undermining of the war on terror. For all that GW has talked pretty on alternative fuels, he spends more time picking fights with the Democrats than encouraging business interests to work with him on developing viable energy sources that ultimately does not contribute indirectly to financing terrorists.
She said, as does many among the old left, that the U.S. Supreme Court told the current administration (Chief Justice Roberts presiding) to grow up, yes you can regulate tail pipe emissions. Well, that was among the standards that GW intentionally relaxed. And as a matter of fact, the American auto industry began losing big money as more and more consumers shopped "Green" among foreign imports. Precisely, from those countries that signed the Kyoto accords. Japan, for instance. So, did GW help his big business contributers in his 2000 presidential campaign? Or did he do more to hurt them? I'm quite frankly not sure that GW quite has a grasp that market forces involve more than just the producer selling goods. The consumers also are part of the market forces and will make their own decisions on what they buy.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment