|
cat botherer posted:As pointed out, Biden also has sexual assault allegations. This is just a really dumb way of shutting down criticism - absolutely emblematic of politics as a team sport. Just by the existence of reality, it is inevitable that some criticisms of the Biden admin from the left will be the same or similar as from the right, when the right senses an opportunity to do so. What I think gets glossed over is the End Game when the criticisms are brought up. Like, let's say Leftists and Right-Wingers both come out with criticisms about X. On the left side, the End Result is to fix X or resolve it in such a way that people aren't being hurt or screwed over or whatever X actually ends up being. The rightwing side wants to use it as a bludgeon against trans kids or to blame it on Wokeness. But since they're both raising similar points with the criticisms, it gets glossed into "Oh, they just both want to be mean to Biden for no good reason."
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:To me the issue is an element on the left on this event stuck their flag in the ground before we knew what happened. They blamed Biden for ending the strike, Biden not regulating hard enough, and not responding quickly enough to CHEMICAL CLOUDS when we didn't have even close to a complete idea as to what's going on. Sure the Right Wing gloomed onto it but that's what they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Because it reinforces the notion that both parties are the same in our larger cultural discourse. This leads directly to things like a rapist game show host becoming president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I think breaking the strike and not pushing for harder regulations are pretty valid criticisms! They're valid in the sense in that we should be doing them, we don't know what caused the issue in East Palestine is my point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
Saying we don't know what happens when deregulation occurs is like saying we don't know what is causing climate change so there's no need to cut back on CO2 emissions. I knew because when the experts told me months ago that it was happening I believed them
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:They're valid in the sense in that we should be doing them, we don't know what caused the issue in East Palestine is my point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:We don't know exactly, precisely, what caused the East Palestine derailment. However, we absolutely, 100% do know that under regulation and poor working conditions increase the probability of exactly these kind of disasters happening. I think the Biden admin should do things to make it less likely that we have environmental disasters. Controversial, I know. We don't need them to do a special study on this crash to know that the Trump deregulation was bad because there were presumably studies leading to the regulations that got deregulated in the first place
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
plogo posted:Because she would stay with Lina Khan if she wasn't needed to boost DoT, that is how I read it. And I agree that she is a good hire. Huh, okay. Poaching another department's personnel because Biden's cabinet member is not performing well seems a lot more convoluted than simply firing/forcing the resignation of that cabinet member. Especially when it's not even for one of the top positions of the department. I would just simply assume that Howard wanted the job/it's a better position career-wise for her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Pete's not just any cabinet member though. Biden owes him and n the party wants him to be the young face, preferred over various others for political reasons
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
the_steve posted:What I think gets glossed over is the End Game when the criticisms are brought up. People are afraid that if Biden gets beat up from both sides on an issue, then it results in right[er] wingers coming to power, and you end up getting the Bad Result. This effect is amplified if we have good reason to believe (as I, at least, do in this case) that the administration will take substantive steps towards solving the issue when a right wing replacement wouldn't. So it becomes a natural response to try, at least in public/politically heterodox venues, to minimize the problem. It's a lovely phenomenon because it leads directly to "politics as team sports," and it makes a lot of malfeasance by both parties go uncontested, and it lets parties artificially graft their unpopular positions to their popular ones. But it's not an irrational fear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Pete's not just any cabinet member though. Biden owes him and n the party wants him to be the young face, preferred over various others for political reasons So do you think that Howard was poached from the FTC to a non-key position within the DoT because Buttigieg is performing poorly in his role?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Kalit posted:So do you think that Howard was poached from the FTC to a non-key position within the DoT because Buttigieg is performing poorly in his role? I don't know that lady I just think the idea you raised that it would be simpler or more likely to fire Pete is patently absurd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't know that lady I just think the idea you raised that it would be simpler or more likely to fire Pete is patently absurd. Replace that name with any government employee. Trying to read into the hiring of a non-key position within a department on how poorly the head of that department is performing is laughable Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Replace that name with any government employee. Trying to read into the hiring of a non-key position within a department on how the head of that department is performing is laughable I think there is some tension in the position that she is moving to "not even for one of the top positions of the department" and "Howard wanted the job/it's a better position career-wise for her" than Chief of Staff for Lina Khan. In my subjective estimation, it is more likely that she was sent to DoT because she is a committed member of the antitrust clique and they think they can make inroads in DoT. We will find out in a few years I would guess. I also agree with Harold that firing Mayor Pete causes other political problems so it is not obviously a better option than changing staffing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
I think it’s likely that Mayor Pete got a lot more flak than the hypothetical perfectly spherical Secretary of Transportation on an infinite frictionless train crash, but there’s a reasonably non biased justification for the media and public acting that way. Buttigeig was the front runner at the start of the last Democratic presidential primary, at least for a bit, and I don’t think I’m being too presumptuous to think it’s very likely he will run again. A putative presidential candidate is gonna be under more scrutiny than someone random from industry because the public has more interest in how they are going to act under pressure and how they’ll lead. It’s not necessarily fair but I don’t see how you fault the media for being harder on someone once they’ve publicly stated ‘I would like to be the most powerful person on earth please’
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Sorry does objective truth not matter here? I want to clarify for whoever misunderstood that I'm not saying the two parties are identical. But the second half of that post wasn't in yet and I was referring to the object truth underlying the criticism left wingers levy at the Democratic party, which is then grasped by the Right in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
There hasn’t been anything incorrect about the actual DOT response to the acute incident.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:To me the issue is an element on the left on this event stuck their flag in the ground before we knew what happened. They blamed Biden for ending the strike, Biden not regulating hard enough, and not responding quickly enough to CHEMICAL CLOUDS when we didn't have even close to a complete idea as to what's going on. Sure the Right Wing gloomed onto it but that's what they do. Folks with real world experience tried repeatedly to explain in detail how these investigations are run only to be told they were just doing scientism and should be disregarded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Folks with real world experience tried repeatedly to explain in detail how these investigations are run only to be told they were just doing scientism and should be disregarded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:30
|
|
|
What investigation is needed to say that the safety regulations Trump got rid of were probably good and should have been reinstated asap, especially after the union came out and said they were very concerned about the safety of the trains? An expert, this guy: https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-ditmeyer-92589618/, was saying those rules would have made the disaster less bad. That's the science I was following Harold Fjord posted:https://www.levernews.com/rail-companies-blocked-safety-rules-before-ohio-derailment/
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:What investigation is needed to say that the safety regulations Trump got rid of were probably good and should have been reinstated asap, especially after the union came out and said they were very concerned about the safety of the trains? That’s not what the preliminary NTSB investigation does. They figure out the specific immediate causes of the event. The larger critique of systematic failures should be made. But that’s not the NTSB job or role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that gov't agencies like the EPA sometimes don't follow their own science, for what are quite obviously political reasons. I'm going to irritatingly quote my post quoting the guardian from a while back to me make this point:I posted:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/23/climate-friendly-us-program-plastics-fuel-cancer
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:It's also worth noting that gov't agencies like the EPA sometimes don't follow their own science, for what are quite obviously political reasons. I'm going to irritatingly quote my post quoting the guardian from a while back to me make this point: I don't really get the first bolded part of this. Of course the names and ten times over the structures of the products that are made are proprietary. That holds true for every regulatory product on the market. At best they are required to give the public rough range of how much of an actually toxic ingredient is present, but if it falls below regulatory amounts then it's no longer required. Just flat out turning over internal regulatory documents to the general public would be the largest corporate information breach in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:I don't really get the first bolded part of this. Of course the names and ten times over the structures of the products that are made are proprietary. That holds true for every regulatory product on the market. At best they are required to give the public rough range of how much of an actually toxic ingredient is present, but if it falls below regulatory amounts then it's no longer required.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:It's in the public interest to let people know what environmental toxins could be put into the air they breathe. It's an utterly unenforceable expectation. The system is set up to allow information restriction by the EPA so that they know what is being released and can inform the public of whether it is dangerous. If you simply release the formulations of every product that crosses the EPA's desk to the public then companies will simply stop reporting changes to regulatory bodies. No nation on earth handles chemical information that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
celadon posted:... When was this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:When was this? Iowa was called for him and is the first primary right? Like that would make you the front runner if you win the first thing? If frontrunner has a different definition then person in front that’s fine. Regardless of position the idea that a high profile presidential primary candidate may be held to more public scrutiny I think is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Yeah, I think it's normal for cabinet secretaries with naked higher aspirations to get more news coverage, and to be more strongly associated with their department's successes/failures. Powell, Hayley and Pompeo come to mind as recent examples on the GOP side. Obama had some Secretary of State in his first term who people made a lot of fuss about relative to, say, Tony Blinken. I forget what her name is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Obama had some Secretary of State in his first term who people made a lot of fuss about relative to, say, Tony Blinken. I forget what her name is. her husband was some sort of politician too, wasn't he?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I won't speak for the other poster but the NTSB literally released its report a day or two ago but people were already claiming their issue was the cause and Biden is actually the worst because of their issue not being addressed. The labor issues in the rail industry were probably just one of several contributing factors - because the nature of these kinds of incidents is that it's rarely just one thing that goes wrong, because we've generally regulated and built our infrastructure and systems to be a little more systematically robust than that. DeadlyMuffin posted:If someone is saying the same thing the fascists are, it's worth asking why. Maybe it's a "sky is blue" thing, or someone's having a stopped clock moment, but I don't think ignoring it is wise. I think this is worth digging into a little more. The reason fascists should be distrusted is because they have incredibly evil objectives, built on a nonsensical worldview based on fictional premises, and are willing to use any kinds of lies and information to spread their vile plans. The fash, in this case, do not have any actual concern for the people of East Palestine. They're insistent that the government has failed to clean up East Palestine and may have spread deadly pollution across hundreds of miles. But they're not pushing any solution to this supposed catastrophe other than "blame the Democrats and get mad at them". They're not pushing solutions, they're not calling for cleanup efforts, they're just spewing conspiracy theories. They have no plan for helping the victims, they just have plans for using it as a political cudgel. What about the left? This is where the leftist argument should diverge from the fascists - because while the fash are spreading made-up poo poo as a cheap political weapon, the left should be driven by real concern for the actual human victims of real issues. What solutions do we have for the victims? If you think East Palestine is still polluted, what is the solution? "Don't lift the evacuation yet" is a short-term measure. What's the long-term solution? If we don't lift it now, then when should we lift it? If the EPA's cleanup method was insufficient, is there another cleanup tactic the EPA should engage in, and if so then why aren't they doing it? Is there any cleanup tactic? Does all of East Palestine need to be condemned as a Superfund site and closed off to human habitation indefinitely? What is the path forward? I realize that this is D&D and that we have few experts in here, and I don't really seriously expect posters here to be solving any of the above questions. But it's important for real leftists to at least keep these questions in mind, because they're all about helping the victims and not just about scoring political points. "I don't have any idea what I'm talking about, but this seems suspicious and idk if we should trust the government here" doesn't actually help anyone. It's empty speculation that serves only to draw out more disruption and uncertainty for the victims. And in a rare departure from "posting isn't real life", a conspiratorial campaign of distrust like the fash are pushing can make people feel unsafe regardless of whether they're actually unsafe. Yeah, if the victims' homes are still dangerous then they absolutely want to know and stay away. But they also have a strong interest in having solid confirmation that their homes are safe so that they can return to their daily lives, so it's important to pair skepticism with a push for conclusively determining whether their homes are safe and/or what needs to be done to make them safe. Similarly, how long Pete takes to comment on it doesn't actually have any impact on the cleanup, except for his own political career, which I think most of us don't exactly have high hopes for to begin with. And while I can certainly sympathize with wanting to take any opportunity to call Pete out, let's not pretend it's even half as important as whether the cleanup's been thorough or what the regulatory response is going to be. It's of interest to political horserace stuff, but I don't think there's much to actually discuss there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
celadon posted:
Your overall point still stands even with the quibble about whether or not he was "the" frontrunner. He's one of the 3-4 people that could have won the Dem primary and become President. It's understandable and reasonable that he'd get more scrutiny than someone with less of an obvious aspiration to become President. It's solid reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
celadon posted:Iowa was called for him and is the first primary right? Like that would make you the front runner if you win the first thing? I was just asking what you were talking about because I didn't remember that. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Many people don’t trust the government on environmental issues for what are, historically, pretty good reasons. "the government" isn't a singular institution. Why continue to ignore the posts of people with direct experience with this? Main Paineframe posted:The labor issues in the rail industry were probably just one of several contributing factors - because the nature of these kinds of incidents is that it's rarely just one thing that goes wrong, because we've generally regulated and built our infrastructure and systems to be a little more systematically robust than that. BINGO. quote:I realize that this is D&D and that we have few experts in here, and I don't really seriously expect posters here to be solving any of the above questions. But it's important for real leftists to at least keep these questions in mind, because they're all about helping the victims and not just about scoring political points. "I don't have any idea what I'm talking about, but this seems suspicious and idk if we should trust the government here" doesn't actually help anyone. It's empty speculation that serves only to draw out more disruption and uncertainty for the victims. And in a rare departure from "posting isn't real life", a conspiratorial campaign of distrust like the fash are pushing can make people feel unsafe regardless of whether they're actually unsafe. Yeah, if the victims' homes are still dangerous then they absolutely want to know and stay away. But they also have a strong interest in having solid confirmation that their homes are safe so that they can return to their daily lives, so it's important to pair skepticism with a push for conclusively determining whether their homes are safe and/or what needs to be done to make them safe. I just wanted to add to this bolded point here from a great post. It's not just "IDK and this seems suspicious" but it's also "I'm going to immediately disregard anyone with experience or actual data and call it scientism". No one here posting about how the NTSB works had their posts engaged with seriously by those who "doubted". When monitoring was brought up, claims were made that the monitors couldn't be trusted, were error-prone, political motivated and so on. No evidence to back up those claims and no one posting serious, detailed questions about these claims had those questions answered. When the NTSB is brought up, folks respond with claims about the EPA instead. I just have to ask, have folks actually read the initial NTSB report? It's only four pages with pictures. It's quite accessible to the layperson. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:"the government" isn't a singular institution. Why continue to ignore the posts of people with direct experience with this? It boiled down to "I don't trust the government therefore I trust these random tweets about how dangerous something is with 0 evidence" and when someone got mad or asked for some sort of evidence they get accused of scientism or being a lib or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:It's an utterly unenforceable expectation. The system is set up to allow information restriction by the EPA so that they know what is being released and can inform the public of whether it is dangerous. e: Solkanar512 posted:"the government" isn't a singular institution. Why continue to ignore the posts of people with direct experience with this? My point with that post was to say that many people, myself included, do not default to trusting the government on environmental matters. My prior is that given a conflict between capital and public interest, the government will usually side with capital to a pretty big extent. The fact that the EPA, etc, has experts on these matters doesn't mean that expertise will be directed towards the public interest. ee: vv Yeah obviously 25% of people around there aren't going to get cancer, but there's some pretty real concerns here. I also take work by ProPublica pretty seriously. They're one of the good ones IMO. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:In this case it looks like it’s being used as an excuse to obfuscate air pollution that includes some pretty gnarly carcinogens. Just because it is normal doesn’t make it ok. In fact, one could say that makes it worse. Just to clarify, in the article you posted it says that the "25% chance of cancer" thing is for certain specific toxic chemicals in their pure form, but not what they will actually be burning. They are using fuel that is made partially from waste products of those plastics and not just burning that plastic itself. So, the risk is different that just straight up inhaling them and the major risk seems to be mostly to workers or if there is a major explosion. I'm not an environmental scientist, so I don't know what the actual risk is for the public and what it entails. But, the "25% cancer rate" stat isn't saying that everyone near the factory has a 25% of getting cancer or that the fumes have a 25% of giving everyone in the area cancer. Still very possible that it is a bad decision, etc. Just wanted to clarify because it sounded wild to me that a factory could give 25% of people in a huge radius cancer as part of a normal refining process and get approved and the report is mostly about the risk if the plant exploded or leaked and the concern is over how much of the pure chemical is in the waste product. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Just to clarify, in the article you posted it says that the "25% chance of cancer" thing is for certain specific toxic chemicals in their pure form, but not what they will actually be burning. I'm not familiar with that particular section of EPA regs/laws but the article's use of "one in a million" makes me think that, based on regs/laws I am familiar with, the authors don't fully understand what they are saying. I could be wrong and maybe the rules are much, much more strict in that arena but my experiences with journalists tend towards them making somewhat incorrect statements because they are trying to convey information to Joe Public using concepts meant for "experts who are also the public". And that's before you get to bad actors mis-conveying information for specific ends. Think of it like a science article about the Webb telescope saying "scientists find life-supporting exoplanet" when the reality is that they found a planet in the zone where it could be possibly habitable but whether or not is has an atmosphere or is scorched by solar radiation is unknown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I'm not familiar with that particular section of EPA regs/laws but the article's use of "one in a million" makes me think that, based on regs/laws I am familiar with, the authors don't fully understand what they are saying. I could be wrong and maybe the rules are much, much more strict in that arena but my experiences with journalists tend towards them making somewhat incorrect statements because they are trying to convey information to Joe Public using concepts meant for "experts who are also the public". And that's before you get to bad actors mis-conveying information for specific ends. quote:Under federal law, the EPA can’t approve new chemicals with serious health or environmental risks unless it comes up with ways to minimize the dangers. And if the EPA is unsure, the law allows the agency to order lab testing that would clarify the potential health and environmental harms. In the case of these new plastic-based fuels, the agency didn’t do either of those things. In approving the jet fuel, the EPA didn’t require any lab tests, air monitoring or controls that would reduce the release of the cancer-causing pollutants or people’s exposure to them. This is also planned for a poor, black area in Mississippi, which is very on-brand for this sort of thing. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the term "environmental racism" at this point. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I was just asking what you were talking about because I didn't remember that. You don't remember it because Bernie won Iowa and the Buttigieg campaign decided to muck with the results of a weird process and declare victory anyway. celadon posted:Iowa was called for him and is the first primary right? Like that would make you the front runner if you win the first thing? Iowa was won by Bernie, the Buttigieg campaign declared victory themselves. That doesn't mean Pete won!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
John Olver passed away recently https://www.masslive.com/news/2023/02/longtime-western-massachusetts-congressman-john-w-olver-dies-at-86.html Good guy, he was my representative for many years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 23:27
|
|
