ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/21/2018 01:38 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.380 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/11/2008 11:35 PM ID: 72666 Permalink   

Bush To Compromise Endangered Species For Sake Of "Efficiency"

 

The Bush Administration is in the process of changing The Endangered Species Act. They would allow government agencies to decide for themselves if their projects will harm endangered animals or plants, and would not require congressional approval.

The new regulations would no longer require mandatory independent reviews from government scientists. And stop federal agencies from determining the emissions from projects that add to global warming and how it affects other species and environments.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., says the proposals are illegal and "This proposed regulation is another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door."

 
  Source: news.yahoo.com  
    WebReporter: gws1968 Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  26 Comments
  
  This Just In  
 
Kempthorne defends proposed changes to species law

http://www.breitbart.com/...


He is obviously talking out of his ass!
 
  by: gws1968     08/11/2008 11:44 PM     
  one more...  
 
one more step backwards.
 
  by: HAVOC666     08/11/2008 11:48 PM     
  Bush is determined  
 
... to ruin the country as much as possible before he leaves office. He's almost like a kid throwing a temper tantrum.

I was going to post another article last week about how Bush appointees are softening OSHA regulations to allow workers more up-close-and-personal time with dangerous chemicals -- I just couldn't find a good source on it.
 
  by: l´anglais     08/12/2008 01:59 AM     
  Well, since he's going down as the worst..  
 
..I guess he figures he'll try to secure that title for at least a century to come. Might as well be "best" at something -- even if in this case it's being the worst president in US history.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     08/12/2008 02:08 AM     
  l'anglais  
 
Man! You took the words right out of my mouth! I was thinking that same thing the whole time I was writing up this summary.
 
  by: gws1968     08/12/2008 02:20 AM     
  This is why the sewage plant  
 
should not be named after Bush. The sewage plant helps clean up and protect the environment from pollution. Bush encourages it.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     08/12/2008 03:13 AM     
  The smell of a plot is getting stronger  
 
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

- Grover Norquist

Norquist has spent his entire career trying to convince Americans that the notion expressed by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, that the United States is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," is a lie.

Norquist and his ilk have tried to portray the U.S. government as some sort of oppressive, distant, uncaring overlord, all because they think their taxes are too high.

For a while now, I've entertained the notion that Bush, Cheney and Rove, all of whom owe much of their power to Norquist's early work in Bush's 2000 presidential candidacy, have been trying to drive the U.S. government into a telephone pole.

Take a look at their administration's record, and they certainly *seem* to be trying to do just that. If they really wanted to convince voters that we should drown the government in a bathtub, what better way than to take control of the government and force it to become the monster they believe it is?

Wouldn't that go a long way toward convincing voters to abandon the idea that citizens working together through democracy can effectively govern a nation?

If you want to see their dream made real, look no further than Chile under Pinochet -- runaway inflation, soaring unemployment, people dying of poverty, and rampant corruption.

If we've learned anything from the Iraq war, it's that power abhors a vaccuum. Remove a power, and a different power will try to occupy the vaccuum left behind. I'd hate to see America being ruled by anything other than the power of its citizens.
 
  by: l´anglais     08/12/2008 03:17 AM     
  This is the truth  
 
If the U.S. economy fails, other countries will buy out most of our businesses and property. With their money and our failing dollar, they can persuade congress and basically control certain parts of this nation.

So for the health of this nation, the economy, the environment, the people, this could be a very wise move. This can and will get the economy back up to the U.S. standard, and will certainly create many, many more jobs.

Once the economy is back rock-in, the Endangered Species act can be reinstated and enforced with what is left of the animals and plants. If we hold back our economy right now in this time, we will never have a strong economy like we once had, and other nations will capitalize on it.

China is purposely draining the U.S. dollar, and it also seems Bush is not helping. But allowing this regulation to be stopped for the next 20-40 years, we can become self dependant on fuels, which will create jobs, and have the money circulating in the U.S. instead of paying the Middle east 100's of billions per year. Enforcing the oil companies to supply this nation first, then sell the left over oil to the open market for a massive profit.

Some how I have the feeling that the Bush Adminstration put us into this situation to the point where we half to relax strict laws, so we can get back to where we were before he took office.
 
  by: slayer06   08/12/2008 05:16 AM     
  Continued  
 
It took 7.5 years to screw up this nation, and it will take 20 - 40 years to fix it, if it can be fixed.
 
  by: slayer06   08/12/2008 05:20 AM     
  @slayer  
 
and by that time there won't be anything left to protect. Brilliant. While we're at it let's allow the timber companies to decide the environmental impact of cutting down trees on the national parks
 
  by: Jaded Fox     08/12/2008 05:23 AM     
  @slayer06  
 
"This can and will get the economy back up to the U.S. standard, and will certainly create many, many more jobs."

How is removing Congressional oversight from government projects regarding the ESA going to create jobs?
 
  by: l´anglais     08/12/2008 06:00 AM     
  @slayer06  
 
There are other ways of streamlining these types of jobs without ruining whats left of the planet. I don't see how anyone can see this any different when Bush already made it clear he doesn't give a shit about the environment or any species for that matter Mr. "Goodbye from the most polluting country in the world"
 
  by: gws1968     08/12/2008 06:08 AM     
  i dont see  
 
how becoming self sufficent on fuels is dangering our environment and ruining everything.

alot of countries go after there own resources, allmost all of them, i dont see there environments ruined.
 
  by: cray0la     08/12/2008 06:45 AM     
  @cray0la  
 
I don't have a problem with that just do it responsibly and do it by making the bureaucrats get off their ass and do their job (actually work) and things won't get delayed.
 
  by: gws1968     08/12/2008 07:00 AM     
  Answers  
 
@Jaded Fox

I realize nothing will be left to protect. On the other hand, in 200 -500 years, there still will nothing left to protect even with strict standards.

I have talked to elders here that live close to the Coeur d'alene river, they all told me in the early 1900's that the streams were so polluted that the water looked like rust and you couldn't see through the water. All due to mining and dumping chemicals. It is also illegal to sturup the Coeur d'alene lake bed because it is so polluted at the bottom, they are afraid it would have severe health effects on the local population.

Pollution levels are greatly reduced, and those levels will never be seen again as long as our economy is strong and stable.

l'anglais Quoted:
"How is removing Congressional oversight from government projects regarding the ESA going to create jobs?"

Easy, the government sponsored \ created projects will not be hampered by a few environmentalist when they release a few endangered spotted owls or squirrels into the property of an unpopular project. Stopping the project dead cold after spending millions on the research, development, and foundation. Companies take a risk when they try to build, they can be half way through a project and have an environmentalist or archaeologist spot an endangered creature, a public hazard (What if), or the remains of an ancient dinosaur, this in the end ruins the project and the company eats the loss. This fear for the company, prevents projects from happening. Look at the fears of having a Nuclear power plant in your city!

@gws1968
"There are other ways of streamlining these types of jobs without ruining whats left of the planet."

How do you figure? We can implant safe ways into our enviroment, but at what cost? Most methods are so ridicolously expensive that it prevents them from even being built or implanted in the first place. We build plants over seas because they have little environmental standards, this makes the project worth while because they can make a profit.



 
  by: slayer06   08/12/2008 07:10 AM     
  @gws1968  
 
I miss read your question.

"There are other ways of streamlining these types of jobs without ruining whats left of the planet."

With the increasing competition in the world market, and other countries having little or no environment standards, it is hard to compete without destroying the environment or implanting safe regulations.

I wouldn't want to be live like the China population, working 7 days a week, 12 hours per day, just to make it from paycheck to paycheck (if that). They are making sure they under bid and out produce the U.S..

Breathing China's air or drinking and swimming in their waters, or even walking in their filthy streets. But their has to be a fine line between production and environment.

If all industrial nations got together and had strict pollution and environment policies, then this problem wouldn't exist.
 
  by: slayer06   08/12/2008 07:26 AM     
  @slayer  
 
Sounds like an irresponsible, short-term solution to me (though more thoughtful than most). Applying that kind of logic to solve our problems will quickly have us selling off everything that makes this country great, all because some parts of the country have gotten used to getting what they want, as opposed to using what they need. Frankly, I don't see the great hardship that necessitates this. In fact, I've heard that once citizens were asked to sacrifice their excess to maintain the country, now it seems the reverse is true.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     08/12/2008 07:30 AM     
  @slayer06  
 
"Companies take a risk when they try to build, they can be half way through a project and have an environmentalist or archaeologist spot an endangered creature, a public hazard (What if), or the remains of an ancient dinosaur, this in the end ruins the project and the company eats the loss. This fear for the company, prevents projects from happening. Look at the fears of having a Nuclear power plant in your city!"

Well, I've read up on modern nuclear plants and I'm not scared of them. The rest of what I've quoted from your post just underscores what I've been thinking about for a while now -- the only thing that matters in this country now is money.

You know, when al Qaida puts out its propoganda against America, they claim we worship the dollar. I'm beginning to think that's not necessarily wrong. Our native species, our natural heritage, none of that means anything next to the Almighty Dollar. I guess there are a lot of people who don't mind the thought that animals you can see now in America's few remaining wild areas will some day exist only in zoos or books.

It's sad, but I guess this country has decided that money really can buy you happiness. Who cares whether Scouts can go camping 50 years from now -- we've got rungs of the corporate ladder to climb, and we've got to stay on track for that first heart attack at age 45!
 
  by: l´anglais     08/12/2008 07:46 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
They aren't destoying the government, they're making it larger, working within its legal frame.

That Libertar-er, anarchist spiel is just fine but in destroying the government one ought to consider how to do so such that peoples' lives are improved.

Destroying the government, really, people in the nation are so stupid they tend to believe the things the government claims.
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   08/12/2008 11:39 AM     
  Of course...  
 
I can't believe we missed it. This whole blunder we are in isn't the fault of the bush admin, congress, the feds, gov (deficit) spending, poor energy planning, or predatory lenders.

It's a calculated scheme cooked up by the touchy feely animal kingdom. They've been playing us like a fiddle, this whole time, they've been making us believe they're going extinct for sympathy points. But Bush cracked your diabolic ploy of dismantling our economy, no more can you hide under the guise of protective environmental policies. You've been exposed!

Polar bears, prepare to join the axis of evil!!!
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   08/12/2008 12:26 PM     
  @l'anglais  
 
You can honestly blame this on the Bush Administration and the Republicans. I shows they are more concerned about putting money into their pockets, their companies, or support their stocks they invested in, than to actually help and support this once great nation.

I am not saying this is a great thing to kill off the rest of the endangered species, I am just saying that the plan will work. If people would stop living off the government (the fakers), the government wouldn't need to be so big. The people should control the government, not have the government control us.
 
  by: slayer06   08/12/2008 03:40 PM     
  @slayer - So, 8 years ago  
 
this country was paradise? Right in the middle of Clinton abusing his power and embarrassing this country by shagging a barely legal intern right in the Oval Office? With a cigar, no less?

This change is total BS and will cause irreparable harm to our environment. God, I can't wait until this elections over.
 
  by: elzorro   08/12/2008 11:54 PM     
  elzorro  
 
Amen! Election over and beyond to the Swearing in of the next President. If it's McCain then all bets are off!
 
  by: gws1968     08/13/2008 12:36 AM     
  Pete sakes  
 
Better watch where you walk environmentalists, you might step on an endangered ant! <----sarcasm

Having oil rigs on the out skirts of land in the ocean will not create a massive extenstion. It will have little impact to the enviroment and there will be government watch dogs (officals & inspectors) on board to make sure they follow procedures. Accindents do happen, even in the process of shipping oil in the ocean. At least there will be only less than 100 miles to travel, instead of 3000. Less of a chance of boats sinking by ice bergs or waves beating and breaking the hulls. Might even have a pipeline leading to shore.

I massive meteor could hit earth at any moment and cause a massive extension. The massive France partical accelerator is going gold this month and could distroy earth (could happen, no one knows for sure). The sun could blow up, nuke warfare, chemical warfare, an uncureable deadly virus that is unstopable (plauge), global warming (mith?), many things that would cause mass extention. But lifting this restriction is not going to kill off endangered species, But it is not going to help protect them neighter.
 
  by: slayer06   08/13/2008 01:51 AM     
  @elzorro  
 
"this country was paradise? Right in the middle of Clinton abusing his power and embarrassing this country by shagging a barely legal intern right in the Oval Office? With a cigar, no less?"

I believe that playing with an adult private is called fondling.. So when Clinton was asked if he had sexual affairs with Ms. M., he was not lieing but stretching the truth. Anyways it was not anyone's business but his own, wife, and Ms. M's. But yes, he did lie to the U.S. public. Barley legal? They are, or their not legal. There is no in between or close.

Republicans pushed to impeach Clinton because he stretched the truth. But yet Bush can lie to the public to gain support for a war that would cost 100,000 + lives and no impeachment is planned. *SIGH* Hardly a comparison.

No nation is Paradise, but to some it could be, matter of opinion.
 
  by: slayer06   08/13/2008 02:14 AM     
  @Slayer06  
 
Wasnt that 'partical accelaterator' that you speak of switched on on Saturday? As in the 9th. Thats what I heard, people were freaking out about how the worlds going to end for a change. *yawn*
 
  by: Red!   08/16/2008 03:08 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com