Downfall - "Droppin bombs since '04"

  • home
  • forums
  • calendar
  • gallery
  • handbook
  • raid hub
  • epgp
Home › Blogs › Shihli's blog

Reasons to hate George W. Bush

Shihli's picture

Shihli — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 00:20

I mean absolutely no offense to any republican/conservative-oriented Downfallers, but honestly, how can ANYONE support this fuckshit ...

A full copy of the article is posted below.  If you identify yourself as a republican, conservative, democrat, liberal, whatever ... I honestly have no idea how ANY of you can support this "man".  What he is trying to do to this country, to our people, to *THE WORLD*, is unforgivable and I can only hope the worst for him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/george-bush-midnight-regulat...

After spending eight years at the helm of one of the most ideologically driven administrations in American history, George W. Bush is ending his presidency in characteristically aggressive fashion, with a swath of controversial measures designed to reward supporters and enrage opponents.

By the time he vacates the White House, he will have issued a record number of so-called 'midnight regulations' - so called because of the stealthy way they appear on the rule books - to undermine the administration of Barack Obama, many of which could take years to undo.

Dozens of new rules have already been introduced which critics say will diminish worker safety, pollute the environment, promote gun use and curtail abortion rights. Many rules promote the interests of large industries, such as coal mining or energy, which have energetically supported Bush during his two terms as president. More are expected this week.

America's attention is focused on the fate of the beleaguered car industry, still seeking backing in Washington for a multi-billion-dollar bail-out. But behind the scenes, the 'midnight' rules are being rushed through with little fanfare and minimal media attention. None of them would be likely to appeal to the incoming Obama team.

The regulations cover a vast policy area, ranging from healthcare to car safety to civil liberties. Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices, such as dumping strip-mining waste.

The Bush moves have outraged many watchdog groups. 'The regulations we have seen so far have been pretty bad,' said Matt Madia, a regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch. 'The effects of all this are going to be severe.'

Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. Outgoing presidents often use the loophole in their last weeks in office, but Bush has done this far more than Bill Clinton or his father, George Bush sr. He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president.

Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party. One rule will make it easier for coal companies to dump debris from strip mining into valleys and streams. The process is part of an environmentally damaging technique known as 'mountain-top removal mining'. It involves literally removing the top of a mountain to excavate a coal seam and pouring the debris into a valley, which is then filled up with rock. The new rule will make that dumping easier.

Another midnight regulation will allow power companies to build coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks. Yet another regulation will allow coal-fired stations to increase their emissions without installing new anti-pollution equipment.

The Environmental Defence Fund has called the moves a 'fire sale of epic size for coal'. Other environmental groups agree. 'The only motivation for some of these rules is to benefit the business interests that the Bush administration has served,' said Ed Hopkins, a director of environmental quality at the Sierra Club. A case in point would seem to be a rule that opens up millions of acres of land to oil shale extraction, which environmental groups say is highly pollutant.

There is a long list of other new regulations that have gone onto the books. One lengthens the number of hours that truck drivers can drive without rest. Another surrenders government control of rerouting the rail transport of hazardous materials around densely populated areas and gives it to the rail companies.

One more chips away at the protection of endangered species. Gun control is also weakened by allowing loaded and concealed guns to be carried in national parks. Abortion rights are hit by allowing healthcare workers to cite religious or moral grounds for opting out of carrying out certain medical procedures.

A common theme is shifting regulation of industry from government to the industries themselves, essentially promoting self-regulation. One rule transfers assessment of the impact of ocean-fishing away from federal inspectors to advisory groups linked to the fishing industry. Another allows factory farms to self-regulate disposal of pollutant run-off.

The White House denies it is sabotaging the new administration. It says many of the moves have been openly flagged for months. The spate of rules is going to be hard for Obama to quickly overcome. By issuing them early in the 'lame duck' period of office, the Bush administration has mostly dodged 30- or 60-day time limits that would have made undoing them relatively straightforward.

Obama's team will have to go through a more lengthy process of reversing them, as it is forced to open them to a period of public consulting. That means that undoing the damage could take months or even years, especially if corporations go to the courts to prevent changes.

At the same time, the Obama team will have a huge agenda on its plate as it inherits the economic crisis. Nevertheless, anti-midnight regulation groups are lobbying Obama's transition team to make sure Bush's new rules are changed as soon as possible. 'They are aware of this. The transition team has a list of things they want to undo,' said Madia.

Final reckoning

Bush's midnight regulations will:

• Make it easier for coal companies to dump waste from strip-mining into valleys and streams.

• Ease the building of coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks.

• Allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.

• Open up millions of acres to mining for oil shale.

• Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.

• Hurt road safety by allowing truck drivers to stay at the wheel for 11 consecutive hours.

 

  • Other
  • Shihli's blog
Dufe's picture

The high degree of

Dufe — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 18:00

The high degree of equivocability found in this article, combined with what I've seen recently in some internal, governmental information sources, tells me that we have an irate article author here that is very upset and is allowing his emotions to have a large influence on the overall validity of his writing.  He has every right to do so - I'll just say (despite my general state of dissatisfaction with the last 8 years) that nothing being done by George W. with these rules is, in fact, significantly different from what past presidents have done.

A lot of facts/arguments are missing here as well.  For example, the issue with the weapons in national parks has numerous and surprising supporters (mostly outside of any hunting or NRA type groups) and was slated to go to congress eventually, but they "ran out of time."  It really doesn't fit well with most other issues on the list.  The issues of power plants near national parks and oil shale mining originated from within the US Bureau of Land Management months ago as a measure to expand the power grid's generation capacity and generate revenue for the government by selling off rights to land currently owned by the federal government.  The US power grid is in dire need of expanded generaion capacity in the next 5-10 years.  Let's be honest, people will complain about new coal plants or other generation regardless of where they're placed (and this regulation was actually modified recently to keep it a bit further from the parks).  Shale oil is very expensive to extract, and that mining may not even occur in the near future now that oil prices have fallen back down, and might have been more welcomed had they not.  (Supply and Demand, remember?)

And the devil's advocate question:  Should promoting industry at a time when the economy is in bad shape outweigh certain other concerns?

In general though, I don't agree with what I would term "anti-democratic" actions. (e.g., Why in the hell does a 100% unelected body like the EPA or the FTC get to pass huge numbers of laws and regulations all of it's own without any real democratic-process oversight?) I just feel that this reporter did an equally terrible job in presenting either the full facts or an unbiased discourse. 

saedo's picture

For point 5, I don't really

saedo — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 11:07

For point 5, I don't really see how that's all that bad. How can pro-choice advocates not want to give the choice for people to opt out? Seems hypocritical.

Anyways, for the rest

Shihli's picture

Point 5 extends beyond

Shihli — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 11:27

Point 5 extends beyond abortion rights.

Doctors are hired and paid to do a specific job - and that is to keep people healthy and to save lives.  In a sense, one's personal beliefs *SHOULD* have nothing to do with it - if someone comes in and they need fixing, you fix them.

"Point 5" basically states that a doctor can refuse a patient treatment or care because of their moral views.  This sounds fine except when you consider the following scenarios:

1)  Teenage girl gets pregnant and wants an abortion - local doctor is adamantly pro-life.  Birthing the child may cause severe damage to (and/or kill) the girl, but she is refused a potentially life-saving (at least to HER) abortion because of the doctor's personal views.

2)  Black or Jewish doctor has to treat a neo-nazi/skinhead patient.

3)  Homophobic doctor has to treat a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender patient.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in a sense, one's morals or beliefs should not factor into the equation in every single circumstance.  As a doctor, you have to treat the unhealthy and injured, regardless of your personal beliefs regarding their lifestyle or circumstances.  However, Bush's proposal negates that and states that you can essentially deny someone care because you don't agree with their lifestyle, or take offense to them for their skin color.

A few thoughts...

Olorien — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 14:10

I hear about this a lot with abortion conversations and I just wanted to put in my two cents.  Many people in discussions about abortion use the woman/girl whose life is in danger argument and I feel that most use it as a emotional tool rather than a logical argument. 

In the hypothetical situation you have a young girl, pregnant, where the baby is threatening her life, if she continues to carry it to term.  Where ever she is there is only one doctor.  Not only is there only one doctor but there are no other doctor options, or hospitals within reach for this hypothetical patient.  So that this one doctor who is morally opposed to Abortion is going to kill the patient with his objection.  In order for the objection to be true we have to agree that all the above statements are true.  And this day and age in America finding such a situation would be near impossible.

Another thing to  think about is requiring doctors with a moral objection to abortion to perform one anyway is akin to requiring doctors to perform assisted suicide.  Regardless of whether the view is correct or not these people feel that performing this service is murdering a baby.

These are just my thoughts take them or leave them.

Shihli's picture

But you, too, are making some

Shihli — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 14:16

But you, too, are making some assumptions.  Specifically, that it's easy to find a doctor in every part of the nation.

Certainly, doctors are fairly widespread throughout the pacific coast and New England, and likely in the Great Lakes area as well (Minnesota, Michegan, Wisconsin, Illinois, that area).  However, you also assume that there are plenty of doctors in Wyoming, North Dakota, western Montana, throughout much of the South, and such.

You also assume that said doctors are all not morally opposed to abortion.

The assumptions in both arguments are large and both are asking for an emotional response.  To liken an abortion (in some cases saving a life by ending another - but there are many cases) to assisted suicide (asking the doctor to simply end a life) can be a bit of a stretch given certain circumstances.

My personal view is on the ropes between pro-life and pro-choice, leaning towards pro-choice.  But that isn't what this thread is about.  This isn't a discussion about abortion, but rather a discussion about how the current lame-duck "President" is attempting to set our nation's progress (particularly in international relations) decades because of an adolescent drive akin to "If I can't have it NO ONE CAN".

I wanted to reply to 2 points

Olorien — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 14:47

I just wanted to say two things, and then say that I will quit hijacking you post and speak in PM if need be.

I make two assupmtions in my post.

First, not that doctors are prevalent everywhere but that patients will have options in care and that they would not be subject to the morals of a single doctor.  Now it may be true that the overall moral trend of an area is enough that you would have to travel a great distance to receive an abortion, and is a very good point.

My second statement comparing abortion to assisted suicide I stand by.  When dealing with this issue for right or wrong you must take into account that the Pro-Life people do actually beleive that the fetus is a living being and it is murder to kill it.  You do not have to agree with them on the point, in fact I do not, but you cannot just disregard the fact .

Shihli's picture

For the most part, I don't

Shihli — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 14:52

For the most part, I don't disagree - aborting a fetus certainly is destroying a life.

By that same token though, "morning after" pills (like Plan-B) would be considered murder as well.

It's a very very large can of worms that *probably* shouldn't be opened on a website such as this so it's probably best to cut this discourse short, and continue it in PM's as you suggested.

That said ...

Word on the street is that in the Middle East (or at the very least, Muslim nations), throwing your shoe at someone is considered a major form of disrespect - in essence, the reporter was demonstrating that he has an EXTREME dislike/hatred of G.W. Bush.  Likewise, I've read that the reporter has summarily been arrested - which makes me sad :(

That would explain the barrage of shoes

Olorien — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 15:15

That would explain the barrage of shoes flung at me by Garreth when I notified him that the points on the site were broken.

Adwarflol's picture

Just my 5 cents

Adwarflol — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 15:06

This article seems fairly biased, not that I support george bush or have any sort of real opinion on american politics. Also mainly when people have abortions it's just an embryo. Or so I've heard. Which is different than a fetus. Just my opinion though ;D

Shihli's picture

It's hard to be biased when

Shihli — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 15:17

It's hard to be biased when you're stating facts.  Certainly the article has an opinion and an agenda to push, but the facts in the article - about what Bush is trying to do as he leaves office - are still facts.

Secondly, "just an embryo" ... an embryo is the precursor to the fetus, but it's still a step in the creation of a human life.  I don't want to start an argument about when life begins, but you need to understand that this "just an embryo" *IS* a life, or at least is headed towards being one.

It is incredibly simple to be

Cdhabro — Tue, 12/16/2008 - 05:34

It is incredibly simple to be biased while only stating fact. Bias has nothing to do with fact or fiction; it is simply a partial or a slanted view of an issue. This reporter is extremely biased against Bush's mid-night regulations. If you disagree then show me a single portion of the article that attempts to justify in a non-negative light any of the regulations listed in this article.

Omission of fact also shows bias. How do you feel about the midnight regulation that will add a new HUD Rule Aimed at improving the transparency of mortgage settlement costs? Another rule to help enforce laws governing how long truck drivers can drive until they have to rest (aka- help ensure they don’t just disregard the law and drive without keeping their own and others safety in mind.) Or yet another that would allow the FDA to regulate genetically engineered meat and milk.

That isn’t the only way this author reveals his bias. Wording and tone portray it. How can these midnight regulations be “stealthy” when they are a matter of public record? I just did a Google search and found several websites covering many of the changes in a single place. The article constantly attacks these new regulations stating that they are changes only being made to hamper the Obama presidency. That they will take months or even years to correct, as if the changes were all a matter of right and  wrong rather then different view points of how certain aspects of the law should be enforced/regulated.

Stating that it is hard to be biased when you’re stating fact is incorrect.

saedo's picture

Still, those people really

saedo — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 12:09

Still, those people really shouldn't be doctors.     But I guess in this imperfect world we can't really enforce a higher moral code to those people.   And finding a diff doctor probably isn't as easy in the american system.

Ideology aside, Seems like

Cdhabro — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 07:22

Ideology aside, Seems like regular politics to me. That said I agree “how can ANYONE support this fuckshit ...” However I take less issue with the specific changes and more issue with the general state of my government. There is too much to be said but to sum it up- Government should serve public interest not lobbyist, business and greed.

As a whole...

Olorien — Mon, 12/15/2008 - 14:34

As a whole I have to agree with you.  The politics that are being played right now are just stunning.  Congress just passed a law stating that Drug companies could not bring gift to medical facilities, for fear that it would unduly influence doctors in to prescribing that companies drugs.  I think that those same politicans should take a look at the practice of lobbying for the same reason.  Also crap like this has been going on for a long time we just are fortunate enough to have systems inplace to find out about it now.  I know that Bill Clinton, and the first bush did the same types of things on there way out.  We can only help that moving forward that increased public awareness will stop some of these political Shenanigans.

Random image

Knoppix in Bora Bora

Navigation

  • Content
  • Raid Parses
  • The Downfall Handbook
  • User list
  • Polls
  • Groups
  • Popular content

Who's new

  • Babyconan
  • Grantlius
  • Ecology
  • fumabomb
  • firstslacker

Latest image

PMS Logo for Legion

Archives

  • September 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (5)
  • July 2016 (8)
  • June 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (3)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • January 2016 (5)
  • August 2015 (1)
  • May 2015 (3)

Recent comments

  • App closed with extreme
    7 hours 17 min ago
  • Guild App closed at his
    4 weeks 1 day ago
  • Once we get the new site,
    7 weeks 1 day ago
  • Is the time frame posted in server time?
    7 weeks 2 days ago
  • Awesome. Thanks. Once I
    9 weeks 1 day ago
  • I'd be happy to stick around
    9 weeks 1 day ago
  • Possibly
    9 weeks 1 day ago
  • More necro
    10 weeks 2 days ago
  • Story time!
    11 weeks 3 days ago
  • I;ve downladed drop box, if
    13 weeks 17 hours ago

Active forum topics

  • April 1st 2006
  • Nostalarious: "Blizzard wants Vanilla servers"
  • Galaga 13/13 Heroic by Deposing A Tyrant
  • Poker Face Achieves in one night! Glory of Hellfire Raider
  • Glory of The Hellfire Raider
  • Galaga Destroys Heroic Archimonde AOTC 12/13H
  • Galaga takes out Thomas the Train (7/10 H BRF)
more

Recent blog posts

  • So I guess this is the end...
  • Shaedo's Soloing Extravaganza
  • Shaedo UI Extravaganza
  • Big site updates this weekend!
  • This is for all the Hearthstone players out there
  • My First Full Day on Beta
  • State Of <Downfall> 2014
  • Scaron taking a break
  • How Gorgonnash's Connections went
  • Let's Talk about Mythic Raids
more

Poll

What do you think about no flying for an entire expansion?
YES) It makes me feel more immersed in the game lore.
15%
YES) It encourages more PvP! (Please explain how in comments)
5%
YES) I miss riding my ground mounts.
9%
MAYBE) If you make all of my flying mounts able to be ground too.
8%
MAYBE) if ground mounts are sped up to 200% speed (or higher)
26%
NO) I don't have enough time when I'm on to be riding everywhere
7%
NO) I have spent too much time getting various levels of flying to be wasting it.
11%
NO) It encourages more PVP! (please explain in the comments)
0%
NO) I love flying.
19%
Total votes: 74
  • 38comments
  • Older polls

Popular content

All time:

  • Professor Putricide Strategy Page
  • Rotface Strategy Guide
  • Arthas, the Lich King Strategy Page
  • Sindragosa Strategy Page
  • Toravon the Ice Watcher Strategy Guide
  • home
  • forums
  • calendar
  • gallery
  • handbook
  • raid hub
  • epgp

I notice your oeuvre is monochromatic.
This site is proudly powered by Drupal.