On The Five today, there was a debate regarding whether ISIS people are poor, needing jobs or whether they are middle class, well-educated people.
It is important to remember that within any structure there are the upper echelon and the lower ranks. When it comes to ISIS, the upper echelon like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (their Caliph), who has a BA, MA and a PhD in Islamic Studies, and Jihadi John (Mohammed Emwazi), who comes from the middle class and received a computer programming degree from University of Westminster, are well-educated, purposeful megalomaniacs. These are people who are intelligent enough to create effective propaganda and navigate through today's technological advances (social media in particular). While the lower ranks consist of people who are primarily motivated, to join ISIS, by ideology. Juan Williams is correct (probably) in asserting that these are lost souls. Whether they are middle class or not, they are people looking for purpose and meaning in life, which so many of us struggle with. And like many of us, they are finding it through religion. Unfortunately the religion that ISIS promotes is not just antisocial, but truly grotesque to the human race. It is a "religion" that promotes genocide, murder, and ultimately ego-centric selfishness (yeah, I know that's redundant, but the emphasis is necessary, as the "religion" excludes the rights AND the existence of other human beings).
AGAIN, the only effective (non-military) way to "combat" this "religion"/ideology, aka propaganda, is with counter-propaganda. the most effective of which would be to denounce ISIS' interpretation of Islam. The first step would be to gather other Muslim leaders and countries to stand in opposition of ISIS and their beliefs. Without their support, there will always be a level of legitimacy to ISIS' claims. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if such leaders and nations were holding their tongues, just to see if ISIS can pull off a Worldwide Caliphate.
The second step would be to use Islam against them. By delving into the Islamic religion and finding contradictory ideas, philosophies, verses, and quotes, we can create a rift between the ISIS propaganda and the true meaning of being a Muslim. Then each recruit will be rejecting Islam in favor for ISIS gibberish. So that those that join ISIS will, in fact, garner NO benefits from their suicidal and violent actions. There will be no "72 virgins" waiting for them when they die; there will be no place in Heaven for them; there will only be fire and damnation.
Unfortunately all of this goes back to Marie Harf and her poor statements, which I assume, reflect the thoughts from the White House. The comments she made were so naive and ignorant, that I, as a proud United States of America citizen, am embarrassed.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
ISIS (ISIL): Islamic Joke
The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant or The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a freakin' joke.
The only "authority" they have is created through fear and violence. They hold no religious backing what-so-ever. After all, they claimed themselves as the Worldwide Caliphate, which has just as much legitimacy as if the ASPCA declared themselves the Worldwide Caliphate. I'm certain that they believe themselves more Muslim than other Muslims; probably based on their interpretation of the Qur'an. Their "caliph", Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, would easily argue that his studies, receiving a BA, MA, and Phd., in Islamic Studies would qualify him as an expert. And yet it is with such great knowledge that it would be easy for him to abuse and manipulate the teachings of Muhammad. Turning these holy beliefs into propaganda for violence and power.
For was it not Muhammad who said:
"Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has no faith."
I'd hardly call any acts of ISIS as having any kindness, and therefore, by extension, has no faith. As much as they might use "religious beliefs" as honorable justification for their actions, the truth is they are simple fascists who prey on the weak, discarding religious fervor for bloodthirsty psychosis.
Or how about this:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; ..."
Final Sermon
"Surely there is no advantage (preference) for an Arab over an aajami (non-Arab), nor a non-Arab over an Arab, nor a white over a black, except by piousness and good deeds."
Narrated by Imam Ahmad
"O People! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab,..., except in piety."
Narrated in Mosnad Ahmad
Do you think yourselves devout, ISIS? HA! To re-interpret the words of Muhammad to fit your ideology of "Might Makes Right", is not only delusional, but truly idiotic. True knowledge can be conveyed and understood through words; only the irrational and foolish speak through violence.
Don't believe me? Then how about this:
"The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr."
The Islamic Review, vol. 22 (1934), p. 105, edited by Khwajah Kamal al-din
I fact the quotes speak for themselves, you don't need my interjections. See how followers of Islam would condemn your actions:
"The Messenger of Allah said, "Verily, Allah has revealed to me that you should adopt humility. So that no one may wrong another and no one may be disdainful and haughty towards another."
-Riyadh-us-Salaheen
"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to people."
Sahih al-Bukhari
"Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded."
Sahih Bukhari
"'What is the best type of jihad (struggle)?' He answered: 'Speaking truth before a tyrannical ruler.'"
Riyadh us-Saleheen
Allah's Apostle called "War is deceit."
Narrated Abu Huraira
And so on, (you can find more quotes and references at the link below).
I'm tired of pointing out the obvious: True leaders of men and women speak of compassion and empathy; those are the ones that will be honored for all time to come.
You, who promote violence and destruction, will be remembered only as evil men and laughable fools.
Muhammad quotes and more
The only "authority" they have is created through fear and violence. They hold no religious backing what-so-ever. After all, they claimed themselves as the Worldwide Caliphate, which has just as much legitimacy as if the ASPCA declared themselves the Worldwide Caliphate. I'm certain that they believe themselves more Muslim than other Muslims; probably based on their interpretation of the Qur'an. Their "caliph", Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, would easily argue that his studies, receiving a BA, MA, and Phd., in Islamic Studies would qualify him as an expert. And yet it is with such great knowledge that it would be easy for him to abuse and manipulate the teachings of Muhammad. Turning these holy beliefs into propaganda for violence and power.
For was it not Muhammad who said:
"Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has no faith."
I'd hardly call any acts of ISIS as having any kindness, and therefore, by extension, has no faith. As much as they might use "religious beliefs" as honorable justification for their actions, the truth is they are simple fascists who prey on the weak, discarding religious fervor for bloodthirsty psychosis.
Or how about this:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; ..."
Final Sermon
"Surely there is no advantage (preference) for an Arab over an aajami (non-Arab), nor a non-Arab over an Arab, nor a white over a black, except by piousness and good deeds."
Narrated by Imam Ahmad
"O People! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab,..., except in piety."
Narrated in Mosnad Ahmad
Do you think yourselves devout, ISIS? HA! To re-interpret the words of Muhammad to fit your ideology of "Might Makes Right", is not only delusional, but truly idiotic. True knowledge can be conveyed and understood through words; only the irrational and foolish speak through violence.
Don't believe me? Then how about this:
"The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr."
The Islamic Review, vol. 22 (1934), p. 105, edited by Khwajah Kamal al-din
I fact the quotes speak for themselves, you don't need my interjections. See how followers of Islam would condemn your actions:
"The Messenger of Allah said, "Verily, Allah has revealed to me that you should adopt humility. So that no one may wrong another and no one may be disdainful and haughty towards another."
-Riyadh-us-Salaheen
"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to people."
Sahih al-Bukhari
"Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded."
Sahih Bukhari
"'What is the best type of jihad (struggle)?' He answered: 'Speaking truth before a tyrannical ruler.'"
Riyadh us-Saleheen
Allah's Apostle called "War is deceit."
Narrated Abu Huraira
And so on, (you can find more quotes and references at the link below).
I'm tired of pointing out the obvious: True leaders of men and women speak of compassion and empathy; those are the ones that will be honored for all time to come.
You, who promote violence and destruction, will be remembered only as evil men and laughable fools.
Muhammad quotes and more
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
State Department's Marie Harf demonstrates her naivete with suggestions on how to defeat Isis
If you haven't heard this story, then here's a link that will sum it up:
Marie Harf on CNN
Marie Harf Criticism
But if you don't want to read/watch that then here is a brief summary: Marie Harf, as the Deputy Spokesperson for the Department of State, has an interview in which she said that (and I'm paraphrasing here) we [the US] can not win this war against Isis with violence alone; that we needed to approach it from a social perspective too. After which she suggests that we find them jobs.
She receives a whole bunch of criticism, to which she responds by having another press conference where she states that we [the US] need to find a way to help these people get jobs or do something else instead of picking up guns. And follows it with telling her critics that such an idea may be "too nuanced for them."
To begin with she's calling us, the people of the United States of America, or at least anyone who disagrees with her, stupid. Take offense! I certainly do.
The concept to me is certainly not too nuanced. You[Harf] are suggesting that we find and enact social reforms to deter people from joining terrorist groups. The mere fact that this is your [the White House's] suggestion demonstrates a massive naivete. People don't join terrorist groups because they are poor, have no jobs, or have no other alternatives. People join terrorist groups out of ideology. People join because the information they read or exposed to create a vision of the world that they can not find fault with. When it's coupled with religion it has a backbone of honor and justice. Having available jobs or a better economy will not make any difference whatsoever.
It's possible (much like cults) the heads of the terrorist organiazation do not believe in the ideology, but as long as the the terrorist organization is successful, why would they leave for such opportunities? Would a king rather work in a mail room?
The solution is OBVIOUS. It was always obvious. The fact that I see the solution instantly, but the President has to hold a conference to "figure it out" is infuriating. I would like the leaders of this nation to be smarter than me.
As I said, the terrorist groups use ideology to recruit members, however most of that ideology is a distortion of the truth or propaganda. If you want to destroy a terrorist group, you kill the "charismatic" leaders and bombard the "sheep" followers with counter-propaganda.
I told the solution was obvious, what's NOT obvious is how to accomplish such a task. But you still have to understand the issues first; you can't just spark "bleeding-heart" rhetoric, with no definitive plan.
And let's not forget why Isis is really doing this....which is......because we are christians and jews, not muslims??
EXACTLY. How can you create counter-propaganda unless you know what the original propaganda is stating?
When muslim extremists crashed plains into the twin towers, I felt, and heard others say, "why did they do this?" Or more appropriately, "What did I do to them, that sparked such a reaction?" Eventually I came across a documentary, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. In this documentary, we find out that a small group of extremely religious muslims felt that other muslims weren't true muslims (weren't following the muslim faith as true believers). The started bombing various institutions to "wake them up" to true muslimism, but this did not work. So then they blamed the Western influences (us/U.S.) for tainting the muslim religion.
I don't know if this is Isis' "philosophy," but I don't hear anyone talking about what's motivating them.
Will religious bigotry ever end?
hrmph...probably not.
Marie Harf on CNN
Marie Harf Criticism
But if you don't want to read/watch that then here is a brief summary: Marie Harf, as the Deputy Spokesperson for the Department of State, has an interview in which she said that (and I'm paraphrasing here) we [the US] can not win this war against Isis with violence alone; that we needed to approach it from a social perspective too. After which she suggests that we find them jobs.
She receives a whole bunch of criticism, to which she responds by having another press conference where she states that we [the US] need to find a way to help these people get jobs or do something else instead of picking up guns. And follows it with telling her critics that such an idea may be "too nuanced for them."
To begin with she's calling us, the people of the United States of America, or at least anyone who disagrees with her, stupid. Take offense! I certainly do.
The concept to me is certainly not too nuanced. You[Harf] are suggesting that we find and enact social reforms to deter people from joining terrorist groups. The mere fact that this is your [the White House's] suggestion demonstrates a massive naivete. People don't join terrorist groups because they are poor, have no jobs, or have no other alternatives. People join terrorist groups out of ideology. People join because the information they read or exposed to create a vision of the world that they can not find fault with. When it's coupled with religion it has a backbone of honor and justice. Having available jobs or a better economy will not make any difference whatsoever.
It's possible (much like cults) the heads of the terrorist organiazation do not believe in the ideology, but as long as the the terrorist organization is successful, why would they leave for such opportunities? Would a king rather work in a mail room?
The solution is OBVIOUS. It was always obvious. The fact that I see the solution instantly, but the President has to hold a conference to "figure it out" is infuriating. I would like the leaders of this nation to be smarter than me.
As I said, the terrorist groups use ideology to recruit members, however most of that ideology is a distortion of the truth or propaganda. If you want to destroy a terrorist group, you kill the "charismatic" leaders and bombard the "sheep" followers with counter-propaganda.
I told the solution was obvious, what's NOT obvious is how to accomplish such a task. But you still have to understand the issues first; you can't just spark "bleeding-heart" rhetoric, with no definitive plan.
And let's not forget why Isis is really doing this....which is......because we are christians and jews, not muslims??
EXACTLY. How can you create counter-propaganda unless you know what the original propaganda is stating?
When muslim extremists crashed plains into the twin towers, I felt, and heard others say, "why did they do this?" Or more appropriately, "What did I do to them, that sparked such a reaction?" Eventually I came across a documentary, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. In this documentary, we find out that a small group of extremely religious muslims felt that other muslims weren't true muslims (weren't following the muslim faith as true believers). The started bombing various institutions to "wake them up" to true muslimism, but this did not work. So then they blamed the Western influences (us/U.S.) for tainting the muslim religion.
I don't know if this is Isis' "philosophy," but I don't hear anyone talking about what's motivating them.
Will religious bigotry ever end?
hrmph...probably not.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Gun Control Laws Are Stupid!!
I just heard the Seante shot down a gun control law that would have made background checks more "intense" or something.
I say YAY! Success!
Unfortunately it was rather close. It got 54 votes, but needed 60 votes. Whew, that was close one.
Let me be clear. First of all this desire for more restrictive gun control law(s) is primarily motivated by these rash of teenager/young-adult killing sprees in schools and other public places. These tragedies should instigate a re-evaluation of how we, as a society, create or allow these events to occur.
Gun control has nothing to do with it. For instance the last tragedy I heard about, wherein a psychologically disturbed son, went to the school his mother worked at, and proceeded to shoot children, teachers, and his mother. The guns he used were purchsed by his mother. So a gun law requiring further or more thorough background checks, would have had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THIS TRAGEDY. That's right. This gun law will not keep your children safe. Had this law been in place a year ago, there still would be dead children and teachers.
But that's not even the biggest problem with this scenario and gun laws. The biggest problem is attempting to blame the social problems on inanimate objects, instead of on individuals and society. Instead of trying to make guns illegal or more restricted, we should be asking ourselves how these events came into play. For instance in the previously mentioned tragedy, I had heard that the "shooter" had gone to the school because he was extremely upset that his mother would send him to a mental hospital. The very fact that he thought going to a school with a weapon to confront his mother was an appropriate response demonstrates his mental instability. So the better questions aren't "How did he get those weapons? And how can we make that more difficult?", but "Why didn't he get help? Why wasn't he in a mental institution? How did things get so far that these events could happen?"
Guns are inanimate objects; they are tools. Guns do not create crime. The arguement that they make crime easier is valid; however crime will not be eliminated by the elimination of guns. To eliminate crime we have to confront it at it's core, it's roots, it's cause, not it's symptoms.
So why have guns at all? Well you can blame Great Britain for that. When rational discourse failed between the colonists and the British Empire, violence seemed the only solution for justice. As such the founders understood a need for individuals (constituents) to own and maintain defensive weapons were their government to ever revert to a fascist construct. Considering we now live in a nation that is heavily influenced by "the 1 %", lobbyists, corporations (they are NOT people, DAMN IT!!), and other groups with money, plus the fact that we have politicians who are more concerned with being noted in the annals of history as opposed to actually attempting to help our country, I think it is absolutely necessary to put few restrictions on the purchase of guns and for individuals to acquire his/her own personal gun.
So to sum up:
Gun control laws will not protect our children.
FUCK U Gabrielle Giffords!!!!! "so that we can look parents in the face and say: we are trying to keep your children safe."
FUCK U Mayor Bloomberg!!!! "Children lost and they're gonna die, and the criminals won. I think that's the only ways..ways to phrase it."
I say YAY! Success!
Unfortunately it was rather close. It got 54 votes, but needed 60 votes. Whew, that was close one.
Let me be clear. First of all this desire for more restrictive gun control law(s) is primarily motivated by these rash of teenager/young-adult killing sprees in schools and other public places. These tragedies should instigate a re-evaluation of how we, as a society, create or allow these events to occur.
Gun control has nothing to do with it. For instance the last tragedy I heard about, wherein a psychologically disturbed son, went to the school his mother worked at, and proceeded to shoot children, teachers, and his mother. The guns he used were purchsed by his mother. So a gun law requiring further or more thorough background checks, would have had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THIS TRAGEDY. That's right. This gun law will not keep your children safe. Had this law been in place a year ago, there still would be dead children and teachers.
But that's not even the biggest problem with this scenario and gun laws. The biggest problem is attempting to blame the social problems on inanimate objects, instead of on individuals and society. Instead of trying to make guns illegal or more restricted, we should be asking ourselves how these events came into play. For instance in the previously mentioned tragedy, I had heard that the "shooter" had gone to the school because he was extremely upset that his mother would send him to a mental hospital. The very fact that he thought going to a school with a weapon to confront his mother was an appropriate response demonstrates his mental instability. So the better questions aren't "How did he get those weapons? And how can we make that more difficult?", but "Why didn't he get help? Why wasn't he in a mental institution? How did things get so far that these events could happen?"
Guns are inanimate objects; they are tools. Guns do not create crime. The arguement that they make crime easier is valid; however crime will not be eliminated by the elimination of guns. To eliminate crime we have to confront it at it's core, it's roots, it's cause, not it's symptoms.
So why have guns at all? Well you can blame Great Britain for that. When rational discourse failed between the colonists and the British Empire, violence seemed the only solution for justice. As such the founders understood a need for individuals (constituents) to own and maintain defensive weapons were their government to ever revert to a fascist construct. Considering we now live in a nation that is heavily influenced by "the 1 %", lobbyists, corporations (they are NOT people, DAMN IT!!), and other groups with money, plus the fact that we have politicians who are more concerned with being noted in the annals of history as opposed to actually attempting to help our country, I think it is absolutely necessary to put few restrictions on the purchase of guns and for individuals to acquire his/her own personal gun.
So to sum up:
Gun control laws will not protect our children.
FUCK U Gabrielle Giffords!!!!! "so that we can look parents in the face and say: we are trying to keep your children safe."
FUCK U Mayor Bloomberg!!!! "Children lost and they're gonna die, and the criminals won. I think that's the only ways..ways to phrase it."
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Mean People Are Mean Period
If you murder a human, should you go to prison?
If you steal an item, should you pay for its value?
If you scam hundreds of people out of their homes, should you lose your job?
If you lie to a nation about your intentions, should you be held accountable?
Apparently not.
Our society, and by extension, our nation has been attempting to remove all our responsibilities. Soon we will be able to do whatever we want, with no consequences whatsoever. Soon we will be able to kill, pillage, rape, plunder, lie, cheat, and so on, and it wont even be our fault.
The newest fad in "it's not my fault" is the mean gene.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/18/are-mean-people-born-that-way/?hpt=hp_t3
Apparently scientists are performing experiements to see if there is a gene that is directly correlated to being mean, as opposed to being nice. I don't have a problem with the experiements or the desire to fully understand the human body. "The more knowledge we have as a species, the better!" I say.
No the problem I have is the approach that the article takes. It starts off with the title "Are mean people born that way?" Implying that such a thing would be uncontrollable, like hair color, eye color, skin color, height, breast/penis size, etc. That mean people can not control whether they are mean or not. And then it ends with "So it's probably a little too early for mean people to start using their DNA as a convenient excuse for their bad behavior. But maybe someday..."
WHAT THE FUCK?!
When is it ever o.k. to not control your behavior. We spend the first 20 years of our life LEARNING to control our behavior...and then what? we just stop? After that we can just blame it on the genes?
Let me be clear: Our choices, our actions are always controllable by us. I'm not saying it's always easy, I'm not saying that it's always clear. I'm simply saying that if you are mean to other people, then you should be held accountable for your actions.
What does it mean to "blame your genes" or "excuse your bad behavior"? To me it implies an inability to deviate from one's genetical predispositions. And while you might be able to justify such things in low cognitive creatures, I believe that homo sapiens have reached a cognitive level that allows us to control and alter our behavior, despite our predispositions.
This isn't the first time science/society/government have tried to eliminate our responsibilities for our actions (remember 'fat people have a virus'?), and it wont be the last.
But hopefully that'll just mean that some douche-bag will stupidily push the button and we'll all be dead, cause after all, it wont be his fault! He was just born that way.
If you steal an item, should you pay for its value?
If you scam hundreds of people out of their homes, should you lose your job?
If you lie to a nation about your intentions, should you be held accountable?
Apparently not.
Our society, and by extension, our nation has been attempting to remove all our responsibilities. Soon we will be able to do whatever we want, with no consequences whatsoever. Soon we will be able to kill, pillage, rape, plunder, lie, cheat, and so on, and it wont even be our fault.
The newest fad in "it's not my fault" is the mean gene.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/18/are-mean-people-born-that-way/?hpt=hp_t3
Apparently scientists are performing experiements to see if there is a gene that is directly correlated to being mean, as opposed to being nice. I don't have a problem with the experiements or the desire to fully understand the human body. "The more knowledge we have as a species, the better!" I say.
No the problem I have is the approach that the article takes. It starts off with the title "Are mean people born that way?" Implying that such a thing would be uncontrollable, like hair color, eye color, skin color, height, breast/penis size, etc. That mean people can not control whether they are mean or not. And then it ends with "So it's probably a little too early for mean people to start using their DNA as a convenient excuse for their bad behavior. But maybe someday..."
WHAT THE FUCK?!
When is it ever o.k. to not control your behavior. We spend the first 20 years of our life LEARNING to control our behavior...and then what? we just stop? After that we can just blame it on the genes?
Let me be clear: Our choices, our actions are always controllable by us. I'm not saying it's always easy, I'm not saying that it's always clear. I'm simply saying that if you are mean to other people, then you should be held accountable for your actions.
What does it mean to "blame your genes" or "excuse your bad behavior"? To me it implies an inability to deviate from one's genetical predispositions. And while you might be able to justify such things in low cognitive creatures, I believe that homo sapiens have reached a cognitive level that allows us to control and alter our behavior, despite our predispositions.
This isn't the first time science/society/government have tried to eliminate our responsibilities for our actions (remember 'fat people have a virus'?), and it wont be the last.
But hopefully that'll just mean that some douche-bag will stupidily push the button and we'll all be dead, cause after all, it wont be his fault! He was just born that way.
Monday, October 17, 2011
10/14/11 - committee on Government Backing Loans to Solyndra
On 10/14/11, a committee/subcommittee interviewed and discussed the government backing of loans to Solyndra. They discussed the matter with two representatives from the Department of Treasury.
I would like to discuss with you the detailed issues regarding this matter. Unfortunately that's not possible. After about 3 hours of listening to these politicians, they have spent more time asking inane questions, arguing with the DoT representatives, and spouting rhetoric to further their political agenda. As such there wasn't much actual information garnered from this subcommittee hearing.
What I can tell you is that the Department of Treasury, while handling the government's money particularly loans, does not decide whether other departments, particularly the Department of Energy, CAN have a loan. The DoT offers advice and recommendations to other departments, but has no power (nor enough information) to deny a loan or to force additional investigations.
However, if I understand the law here, if the loan exceeds $100,000, then whatever department, again Department of Energy in this case, must consult with the Department of Justice before proceeding. The DoTreasury informed the DoEnergy regarding this issue, BUT the DoEnergy never did consult the DoJustice.
My problem is the politicians neither understand, nor seem able to grasp the established procedures between the Dot, the DoJ, the DoE or any other department. I kinda think it's their fucking JOB to know how our government runs. Do you really want someone who doesn't understand how the government runs, to be making more laws?
These are the people who represent us, the constituents.
I would like to discuss with you the detailed issues regarding this matter. Unfortunately that's not possible. After about 3 hours of listening to these politicians, they have spent more time asking inane questions, arguing with the DoT representatives, and spouting rhetoric to further their political agenda. As such there wasn't much actual information garnered from this subcommittee hearing.
What I can tell you is that the Department of Treasury, while handling the government's money particularly loans, does not decide whether other departments, particularly the Department of Energy, CAN have a loan. The DoT offers advice and recommendations to other departments, but has no power (nor enough information) to deny a loan or to force additional investigations.
However, if I understand the law here, if the loan exceeds $100,000, then whatever department, again Department of Energy in this case, must consult with the Department of Justice before proceeding. The DoTreasury informed the DoEnergy regarding this issue, BUT the DoEnergy never did consult the DoJustice.
My problem is the politicians neither understand, nor seem able to grasp the established procedures between the Dot, the DoJ, the DoE or any other department. I kinda think it's their fucking JOB to know how our government runs. Do you really want someone who doesn't understand how the government runs, to be making more laws?
These are the people who represent us, the constituents.
Friday, October 14, 2011
EPA Regulation of Coal Waste
If I understand the issues correctly, the bill referred to as EPA Regulation of Coal Waste, will move the regulation of coal ash from the EPA to the states, in an attempt to prevent the EPA from eventually classifying coal ash as hazardous, which, according to the EPA's own scientific/factual regulations, coal ash does not classify as hazardous/toxic.
The "head" of the bill is Republican Representative John Shimkus, from Illinois.
The opposition is led by Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, from California.
I didn't really find Waxman's criticisms to be legitimate. The biggest concern here is taking away the power of the EPA and passing it to the states. While I agree that a federal institution (the EPA here) ought to be able to peruse, inform, and step in under gross abuses, I think it is more rational to have these local issues dealt with by local government agencies. The federal government should not be stepping into individual waste management institutions. Fuck that.
The other concern brought by the opposition is that coal ash, the waste product of coal energy factories (I believe), is toxic/hazardous. Despite R. Rep. John Shimkus large clear graph that demonstrates, scientifically, that coal ash does not meet the requirements of hazardous material set by the EPA, all the opposing Democrats continued to harp on the hazardous and toxic nature of coal ash.
These Democrats claimed to be the smart party?! Yet they can't grasp a simple, SCIENTIFIC assessment?
So 3-4 Democrats tried to add amendments to the bill. R. Rep John Shimkus opposed these amendments, pointing out that they were redundant. And like sore losers, each Democrat asked for a recorded vote.
(I believe the first Amendment was brought up by R. Rep John Shimkus and was passed)
2nd Amendment is not adopted.
3rd Amendment is not adopted.
4th Amendment is not adopted.
5th Amendment is not adopted.
6th Amendment is not adopted.
So Democratic Representative David Cicilline, from Rhode Island, stands up and makes a flowery speech about how the House of Representatives should be trying to pass legislation to get people back to work, to improve our economy, not on legislation that damages our environment and fails to protect our communities. But it's a pretty empty speech; there's a lot of rhetoric, but little facts, data, or info, mostly just fear-mongering. If he had been there 2 hours ago, he could have heard such facts that completely discounted everything he said, although whether he would have listened is debatable. And just for the record, putting the words "common sense" in front something (like this "common sense amendment") does not make that something "common sense."
Republican Representative Fred Upton, from Michigan, gives a speech opposing Dem Rep. David Cicilline. He tells the history of the bill; he talks of the many proponents of the bill; and he outlines, briefly, how this bill will be helpful. He uses info, data and rationale to support his point of view.
Final Vote on H.R. 2273, Limiting EPA Authority & Giving States Oversight Over Coal Ash
Yeas 267
Nays 144
Special thanks to C-SPAN.
The "head" of the bill is Republican Representative John Shimkus, from Illinois.
The opposition is led by Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, from California.
I didn't really find Waxman's criticisms to be legitimate. The biggest concern here is taking away the power of the EPA and passing it to the states. While I agree that a federal institution (the EPA here) ought to be able to peruse, inform, and step in under gross abuses, I think it is more rational to have these local issues dealt with by local government agencies. The federal government should not be stepping into individual waste management institutions. Fuck that.
The other concern brought by the opposition is that coal ash, the waste product of coal energy factories (I believe), is toxic/hazardous. Despite R. Rep. John Shimkus large clear graph that demonstrates, scientifically, that coal ash does not meet the requirements of hazardous material set by the EPA, all the opposing Democrats continued to harp on the hazardous and toxic nature of coal ash.
These Democrats claimed to be the smart party?! Yet they can't grasp a simple, SCIENTIFIC assessment?
So 3-4 Democrats tried to add amendments to the bill. R. Rep John Shimkus opposed these amendments, pointing out that they were redundant. And like sore losers, each Democrat asked for a recorded vote.
(I believe the first Amendment was brought up by R. Rep John Shimkus and was passed)
2nd Amendment is not adopted.
3rd Amendment is not adopted.
4th Amendment is not adopted.
5th Amendment is not adopted.
6th Amendment is not adopted.
So Democratic Representative David Cicilline, from Rhode Island, stands up and makes a flowery speech about how the House of Representatives should be trying to pass legislation to get people back to work, to improve our economy, not on legislation that damages our environment and fails to protect our communities. But it's a pretty empty speech; there's a lot of rhetoric, but little facts, data, or info, mostly just fear-mongering. If he had been there 2 hours ago, he could have heard such facts that completely discounted everything he said, although whether he would have listened is debatable. And just for the record, putting the words "common sense" in front something (like this "common sense amendment") does not make that something "common sense."
Republican Representative Fred Upton, from Michigan, gives a speech opposing Dem Rep. David Cicilline. He tells the history of the bill; he talks of the many proponents of the bill; and he outlines, briefly, how this bill will be helpful. He uses info, data and rationale to support his point of view.
Final Vote on H.R. 2273, Limiting EPA Authority & Giving States Oversight Over Coal Ash
Yeas 267
Nays 144
Special thanks to C-SPAN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)