still down 45% to 80%
Still think you'll make money (on coal) IF Obama is gone?
to make vast areas uninhabitable. There are large areas of contaminated mine tailings in many states, including moonscapes from open pit Coal mining.
"Oh, daddy, won'tcha take me back to Mulenburg County
Down by the Green River where the cool waters play".
"I'm sorry my daughter but you're too late in asking
Mr Peabody's coal train has hauled it away."
John Prine Mulenburg County.
Peabody Coal Company started in Pennsylvania in the 19th Century. When the coal ran out there, they went to Ohio, and then Tennesee and Kentucky and all over the US. They were notorious for the virtual slavery of the working and living conditions their excessive rents for shacks and their over priced Company Stores, and their use of Baldwin Felts goons and Pinkerton thugs to fight unionization frequently through murder. John Lewis finally managed a reasonably cohesive Union of Mine Workers by the 1930's, but the UMW hasn't had a really great strong leader since, and there have been virtually criminal elements trying to take over the Union periodically, and murdering whole families in the process.
Sadly most Americans don't know their own history, the teaching of which only emphasizes "good" stories and negative stories about Union activity, even if they have to be made up. I oughta know, I was teaching it when we left the US in the summer of 1980.
BTW, JP, the history curriculum in Canada as experienced by my son is much better and more even-handedly taught. I always felt I was teaching my kids Republican history, not real history because the texts were so distorted. I often wonder if that isn't where the Republicans won the hearts and minds of the kids in the 70's and afterwards. I wasn't history, it was right wing propaganda. There's only so much a teacher can do with a misleading text book.
cares anymore. That type of owner behavior stopped years ago, Diana......but leave it to a liberal to constantly try to make the country apologize for past wrongs. What's next? Find all the records of former 'enslaved' mine workers and cut them all checks with a publicly displayed apology for the government not 'taking care of them soon enough'? You guys have done it for the Indians, you've done it for black farmers, you've pretty much done it for foreign countries all over the world.....what the hell, why NOT cut those coal miners' families checks, too? After all, it isn't coming out of any politician's pockets like a REAL charity check would.
lies (I know you don't think they're lies, but they are false statements) is your stock in trade.
"the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the Environmental Protection Agency's cross-state air pollution rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority."
That isn't breaking the law, it is over0zealous enforcement of the law. That isn't a crime, it is an hoonest mistake with procedures for redress through the courts in civil not criminal actions. This the normal way the limits of regulation is tested. The EPA makes a ruling, a company either accepts it or challenges it. The courts either uphold the EPA's ruling or denies it. The accurate statement would have been "DC Appeals Court denies EPA ruling".
The EPA didn't break the law, they attempted to enforce the law in a manner which over-reached its authority. Just because you hate a Republican-created institution (the EPA) isn't a reason to mis-characterize it's actions as law breaking. Courts determine how far is too far in enforcement.
Generally the problem is under-enforcement. Reagan so completely de-funded the USDA that it couldn't put enough inspectors in the field. The result? Jack in the Box restaurant's food poisoning problems and Big Boy's and a list too long to remember. Neither GHW Bush nor Clinton sufficiently re-funded the Department to ensure safety. Additionally, centralization of slaughter houses into huge entities has made contamination of stocks of ground beef common. I'm sure you've heard about tons of ground beef having to be destroyed because of contamination.
The same is true of the FDA, too few inspectors, and Mexican produce bringing salmonella, which is endemic in Mexico because of the use of human waste as fertilizer, causing problems. If I hear the stories up here, imagine how many I must be missing by not listening to honest American news. I'm sure Fox doesn't cover it unless they can blame a Democratic Governor or Obama for it.
So a little more accuracy please, James, because I may not visit SE everyday, but I pay close attention to your posts because of your propensity to use "terminological inexactitudes" with reckless abandon.
EPA = FDA = USDA and an alphabet soup of other agencies. Their job is to protect the American public from Air and Water pollution like the FDA is supposed to ensure the safety of Food and Medicines, and the Department of Agriculture is to examine slaughter houses to prevent E. Coli and Salmonella outbreaks. They don't break the law when they're enforcing it, though they may exceed their authority. If we're having outbreaks of disease caused by contaminated food, I'd say they're not enforcing it enough.
IS breaking the law........IF nobody challenges them, they get away with it, a precedence gets put into place and it 'becomes a law' by default after a while. Think of that exceeding as a 'squatter'....there are laws on the books still that if a squatter goes unchallenged after living in an 'abandoned' house for a certain number of years, the house actually belongs to the squatter and no longer the original owner.
As for your story about how you believed you were teaching "Republican' history....you have GOT to be kidding. Progressives began taking over and changing/rewriting our history books back in the 20's here or shortly prior to the 1920's, Rob, and since none of those changes were challenged, they became 'fact' by default over time. If you really believe you were teaching "Republican" history, you are definitely one of BO's radical WAAAYYY to the left supporters. Conservatives and true history buffs recently began challenging that liberal propaganda and we may see some reversals in the near future to get back to the truth.
One of the liberals' favorite presidents, FDR, actually took it upon himself to suppress the private sector industry. Even Newt Gingrich, in 1995, had it wrong about FDR 'bringing us out of the Great Depression' when he, in fact, prolonged it with a massive government (both federal and state levels) takeover via 'emergency' declarations and regulations and restrictions. That included a government 'takeover' of the private sector's ability to provide electricity to homes. Newt has since then realized and publicly corrected his error in thinking.
breaking and criminal law breaking are vastly different Legal devices. Rarely do EPA regulations end in a Criminal trial, though some have. Generally the Rulling is produced in a lower court, ruled upon where the respondent may either go ahead, of not pursuant to the wording of the parameters of the Legislation when it was adopted. Regulators aren't sent to jail, they're sent back to do better. Much of this depends on the Court system, and whether it's Republican or Democrat.
"In the U.S., interested parties can sue to have a judge review the rulemaking process once the rule is finalized. Interested parties frequently sue the rulemaking agency, asking the court to order the agency to reconsider. For example, environmental groups may sue, claiming that the rule is too lax on industry; or industry groups may sue, claiming that the rule is too onerous.
"Traditionally, courts are reluctant to step into the shoes of the technical experts and re-open the decisions made in the agency's detailed analysis. However, courts do review whether a rulemaking meets the standards for the rulemaking process. The basis of this review by the courts may be limited to certain questions of fairness or the procedures that ensure that both sides of a dispute are treated equally before any decision making occurs or that the decision is not patently unreasonable (under Canadian law) or Wednesbury unreasonableness (under British law) or similar doctrines described below.
"These powers of review of administrative decision, while often governed by statute, were originally developed out of the royal prerogative writs of English law such as the writ of mandamus and the writ of certiorari.
"Thus, it is not enough to simply claim that the rulemaking agency could have done a better job. Instead, under U.S. administrative law, to ask the court to order changes in a rule, a party must argue that the rule is:
"Exceeds statutory authority. Frequently, opponents of a rule argue that it fails to follow the instructions of the authorizing legislation. Rules can be found to exceed statutory authority if they are too strict or too lax. If a law instructs an agency to issue regulations to ban a chemical, but the agency issues a rule that instead sets levels for safe use—or vice versa—a court may order the agency to issue a new rule.
The penalty for breaking the law is usually a fine or a jail sentence. In this case neither applies. The companies whose work had been stopped by the EPA assuming their warrants to work haven't run out are permitted to start work but Appeals are common. I don't know what the grounds for appeal might be, nor at which level the Appeal might be.
I'd suggest a better Diploma Mill as a source for your research. It's a Conservative dominatd University where you can buy yourself a quick degree in FDR Hatred with out all that nasty studying.
by the EPA and Federal Government, now that you brought up fines.......that forces oil companies to add an additive to their fuel that doesn't even exist and are charging them a fine every year for NOT complying. Come on.....even YOU have to agree that that exceeds their authority to the extent that they are breaking a law/rule that can't be enforced, yet they are collecting on something that doesn't exist.
and you call it a Lie. Makes one wonder what you'd call it if I ever did tell a Lie.
EPA was begun by one of your favorite people, Richard M. Nixon.
"Additionally, centralization of slaughter houses into huge entities has made contamination of stocks of ground beef common."
Surprise! I agree with you on that one. It was a travesty for all the small family owned meat shops across America. It's part of the reason you now buy meat in large corporate chains of grocery stores. Why did they do that? It wasn't because it was right to put all the family meat stores out of business, but did it for the convenience and power support to the USDA, which reasoned it would be easier and cheaper to centralize and reduce the number of slaughter houses they were required to inspect. It also put cattle producers into a less competitive position with the slaughter houses, lowering their part of the profit due to the pressure to sell low to the remaining slaughter houses.
Now if you could just tame your own hateful interminable inexactitudes when addressing me, not to mention those "Oreos" you took a swipe at the other day.
that centralization, and the huge chicken rearing operations. Everything is focussed on scale of production. Me, I buy my meat either in Halal, or Kosher meat markets. That's decent meat. The only thing I buy in a supermarket is pork tenderloin. Fortunately Canada has escaped the food disaster stalking the US, waiting to happen.
although it might have contributed to the birth of fast food places. Sometime in the 60's rules or regulations changed enough that the local IGA stores quit doing slaughter and packing for local farmers, at least in north Florida area. Big meat processing plants became even bigger as local small processors faded away. It may have been this, and dealing with both sets of regulations may have become too cumbersome. Any possible fines might have impacted smaller producers more adversely than larger ones, but for some reason the 60's became the death decade for many local slaughter businesses.
Here's a page on them trying to undo the mistakes of the past.
for the most part.......unfortunately the board that decides what goes into the text books across the country is mostly liberal, and has been for nearly a hundred years....but since 2010, the times, they are a changin'.........
for their party, and their views and to denigrate the other point of view. Democrats tend to be hands off at the schoolboard level, listening to the teacher's opinions on the texts. Republicans start from the premise that all Textbooks have a "Liberal" slant, and need to be tossed or re-written to conform with their conservative ideology. That's not Education, that's Indoctrination, and belongs in Mao's China.
"I am religious but not of a conservative stripe. I used to see Christian fundamentalists as benign fellow travelers, all reaching for the same Spirit by their peculiar lights. Now, because of this and other political power plays, I see them as enemies to be beaten." It wasn't the woman who said that who wanted a war, it was the Fundamentalist "Christians in Name Only" who began a war on American schools in the late 60's. She has only woken up to the war she's been the target of in the last few years.
Fundamentalist Christians are as misguided as any Fundamentalist group, including Fundamentalist Islam.
And the Founding Fathers were mostly Agnostics or Deists. They were profoundly distrustful of religion when allied to government which first sent the Pilgrim Fathers to America, and William Penn to Penn's Wood Lot (Pennsylvania) The Pilgrim fathers fled a crypto Roman Catholic regime, later English Immigrants fled the Commonwealth (1640 to 1660) which was a Puritan dictatorship by Oliver Cromwell, others fled James the Seconds Catholic persecution of Protestants. The Founding Fathers understood what ill could arise from the political influence of any church which is why the structured the First Amendment as they did, and wished to build a wall separating Church and State. The concept of "a Wall
is a 19th Century interpretation of what they wanted, but an accurate one.
I have read no statements about the Founding Fathers from Tea Baggers, or Conservative Republicans which can be found in the Historical Record. By that I mean that none of the current Conservative beliefs are rooted in the writings and the experiences of those key to the founding of America. There are vast misinterpretations, and twisting, and quoting out of context, but no cohesive study which would stand up to peer review by other Historians. Historians are neither Democrats nor Republicans, they are men and women trying to wrestle truth from an experience 220 years ago, or 90 to120 years ago in my case.
Current Republicans believe in the Bed of Procrustes Theory of History, if it's too small stretch it, if it hangs over the edges lop it off. American History is always larger than Conservative Republican vision, or desires, so the hatchets and saws are always out to cut it down to size. They want a Business and Wealth Guided Oligarchy, and the disenfranchisement of anyone outside the 1% and Corporations.
I mean, it would make things so much simpler. No freedom of speech so people can't object, no freedom of assembly so Unions can't exist and negotiate for their members, no freedom of worship because only Conservative Fundamentalism is Right. Of course they'll have to leave it on the books, but the Supreme Court is so packed with Conservative appointees they think Corporations really are people, and not just a legal fiction.
Now with regard to the Liberal Arts. The term wasn't created by Liberals, and doesn't mean Liberals in the Political sense.
The liberal arts (Latin: artes liberales) are those subjects or skills that in classical antiquity
were considered essential for a free person, in other words, a citizen,
to know in order to take an active part in civic life and public debate."</div>"The aim of these studies was to produce a virtuous, knowledgeable, and articulate person. Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic were the core liberal arts.
<div>"During medieval times, when learning came under the purview of the Church, these subjects (called the Trivium) were extended to include mathematics, geometry, music, and astronomy (which included the study of astrology). This extended curriculum was called the Quadrivium. Together the Trivium and Quadrivium constituted the seven liberal arts of the medieval university curriculum. In the Renaissance,
the Italian humanists, who in many respects continued the grammatical
and rhetorical traditions of the Middle Ages, rechristened the old
Trivium with a new and more ambitious name: Studia humanitatis,
and also increased its scope. They excluded logic and added to the
traditional Latin grammar and rhetoric not only history, Greek, and
moral philosophy (ethics), but made poetry, once a sequel of grammar and rhetoric, the most important member of the whole group.
The educational curriculum of humanism spread throughout Europe during
the sixteenth century and became the educational foundation for the
schooling of European elites, the functionaries of political
administration, the clergy of the various legally recognized churches,
and the learned professions of law and medicine. The ideal of a liberal arts, or humanistic education grounded in classical languages and literature persisted until the middle of the twentieth century." From Wikipedia: The Liberal Arts.</div>
Why Liberal? because it was a curriculum for a Free (civis libera) Citizen. It was the grounding necessary for a Roman citizen (civis Romanus) to participate actively and intelligently in politics, whether he was Conservative or Radical. Liberal in the Political sense didn't arise until the late 18th Century. The Founding Fathers were Liberals because they believed in Universal Manhood Suffrage. In other words the Vote. The US was the first country in the world to re-institute that after the creation of Imperial Rome in about 17 BC. Greek city states pioneered that, and Republican Rome followed, though free men in Rome and in Greece were probably equalled or even outnumbered by slaves.
<div>Political concepts of Liberalism are 19th Century in origin. "
Liberal -- Of, designating, or characteristic of a
political party founded on or associated with principles of social and
political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, and Canada.
</div><div>The Whigs evolved into the Liberal Party in Britain and Canada. In the US, the origin of the Democratic Party is more complicated, "
The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party. The party favored states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. The Democratic-Republican Party ascended to power in the election of 1800." Wikipedia, Democratic Party. The American Whig Party really bore little relation to the British or Canadian ones, it was the business party of the North East, and allied with the Democrats following Jackson. Millard Fillmore was the last Whig President, and the party fell apart in the 1850's.</div>
Of course the fact that none of you can call that instantly to mind is a problem deriving from poor quality High School education and texts. Ask a Canadian High School student what Whigs were, and what the origins of the Liberal Party of Canada was, and they can tell you in a flash. In my experience questioning them, they're more knowledgeable about the United States political system than the average US High School student is. They may not know names and dates as well as American kids, but why should they? In Quebec the factions were called Les Rouges (Liberals. World wide except in the US the convention is red is the colour of Liberals) and Les Bleues (Tories, later Conservatives who tended not to do so well in Quebec). Right and Left originates from the Seating in La Chambre des Deputes in Paris after the Revolution. The Right wore Blue and the Left wore Red.
What's your objection to what you refer to as "Fundamental Christians"? How do you think they differ from any other sort of "Christians"? Do you use the term for both Catholics, Protestants, and Reformationist? So far as I can see your main objections, maybe the only objections, seems to be concerning gays and abortion issues. Are there other things which bother you?
source Toni. You wouldn't expect the Eagle Forum to be anything but a bird with two Right Wings. Why Texas, and not California, the most populous state dictates to the Nation, I haven't a clue. But Texas has been at war with conventional History (remember I used to teach it in the US) and with conventional Biology.
Universities have had to re-write their History and Biology Curricula (that's the plural) to make up for the deliberate omissions in Texified Textbooks, basically to teach the High School curriculum in a single First Year mega-gulp, so that students can progress to a less warped view of US History, and Biology in which Evolution is central. Thank God I did my high school History and Biology before all this stuff erupted. It's the 70's Conservative backlash and Ronnie's senile "If it claims to be Conservative it must be right" philosophy that has crippled a healthy and productive nation.
that I've gotten to the point that I don't even want to read them anymore.....so I won't. There are times when you actually make a good point and then discount it completely with hate-filled name calling (Tea Baggers) or your 'vomit' comments, and I find it difficult to even take you seriously anymore enough to reply.