Who Hijacked Our Country

Friday, December 21, 2007

Environmental Protection Agency: “Fuck The Environment”

George W. Bush has probably inspired more references to George Orwell than his last eight or nine predecessors put together. Let’s hand over billions of acres of public wilderness to the timber companies, and we’ll call it — get a load of this! — the Healthy Forests Initiative. Teeheeheeheehee.

Then we’re gonna undo several decades’ worth of regulations against air pollution. And we’re gonna call it — ROFTLMAO — the Clear Skies Initiative.

Oh, and don’t forget our “Justice Department,” whose sole purpose seems to be shielding the country’s most powerful VIPs when the unwashed masses start to ask embarrassing questions.

One of the basic tenets of the Republican philosophy has always been — supposedly at least — states’ rights and local autonomy. Hardworking self-reliant Americans are sick and tired of having One-Size-Fits-All legislation rammed down their throats by the federal government.

Now, are you ready for this? Seventeen states have passed strict greenhouse gas limits for motor vehicles. These limits are stricter than the federal limit. And now the Party of States’ Rights has squelched — squished, trounced, deleted, Ixnay — all seventeen of these state laws.

And that’s not all. These seventeen states were trampled by a federal agency that calls itself — be sure you're sitting down for this — the “Environmental Protection Agency.” WTF??? Seventeen states took the extra initiative to combat greenhouse gas emissions, and they were thwarted by the “Environmental Protection Agency.”

You can't make this shit up. If somebody tried to write an “Orwellian” novel describing the George J.W. Bush Administration, everybody would say it was too farfetched; too sensational.

The auto industry’s favorite prostitute EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said: “The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution — not a confusing patchwork of state rules. I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.”

“A confusing patchwork of state rules.” [pause] Uhh, I have a question. It’s probably a dumb question, but like schoolteachers are always saying, the only dumb question is the one that isn't asked. (And they always meant it, right?) So:

What's the difference between “States’ Rights!” and “a confusing patchwork of state rules”?

Labels: , , , ,

13 Comments:

Blogger anna said...

Confusing patchworks? That's quite an inventive term for it. Each passing day brings me to closer to the conclusion that the gov-ah-munt sux and I need to move to a mountain in Idaho.

December 21, 2007 at 4:05 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Anna: Yup, there's a new surprise every day, each one more shocking than the last. What to do.

December 21, 2007 at 4:40 PM  
Blogger Randal Graves said...

Maybe the next time the states want to do something right, just tell the feds they voted to ban abortions. Then they'll be left alone. No one reads any of these bills anyway - well, Russ Feingold did that one time.

December 21, 2007 at 5:01 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Randal: Yeah, that's probably exactly what they'll need to do, bring out all the rightwing buzzwords about abortion and gay marriage. Or they could come up with a scientific report (from a creation scientist) proving that global warming is causing an increase in abortions and homosexual behavior.

December 21, 2007 at 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Global warming causing an increase in homosexual behavior -- ha, ha, that'll get them interested in working on the problem. How sad is it that regulating who someone is allowed to love is more important that not melting our planet? I can't even believe this anymore.

I've never been all that crazy about California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, but in this case I applaud his attempt to do the right thing. California needs this kind of legislation probably more than any other state, and they ought to be allowed to do it. This is just pathetic.

December 21, 2007 at 9:32 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Anonymous: Yup, pathetic is the word. Pathetic, and too surreal to be believed. As hard as it is to believe, there really are some very influential people who actually believe what you're talking about: that who's sleeping with who is more important than whether our planet is melting and dying.

And unfortunately, these influential people have millions of followers who are so dumb, if they looked up on a rainy day they'd drown.

December 21, 2007 at 9:51 PM  
Blogger Larry said...

Too bad each state can't withdraw from the union, but if that happened Bush would declare those who do a terrorist state and attack them.

December 22, 2007 at 3:30 AM  
Blogger PoliShifter said...

I'm getting so fed up with this kind of crap.

It seems the U.S. needs to reach environmental crises of epic proportions before anyone will start giving a flying fuck.

Ofcouse Bush and his Cronies don't give a shit. They have enough money to hire food and drink tasters. They can always filter their air and go indoor skiing in the desert with their buddies in the UAE.

December 22, 2007 at 9:44 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Larry: It's tempting to withdraw, but I think that would backfire. Any state that secedes would have weapons of mass destruction and connections with al Qaeda, and the U.S. would have to invade.

PoliShifter: I don't think any environmental catastrophe could ever be severe or blatant enough to convince the neocons and wingnuts. They'll always find a way to rationalize it as "natural weather cycles" or "God's Will" or something. The only hope is for the rest of the population to become better informed and less gullible.

December 22, 2007 at 11:37 AM  
Blogger J. Marquis said...

Ironic how the GOP picks and chooses what issues "states rights" applies to.

December 23, 2007 at 8:16 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

J. Marquis: Yup, they're pretty indecisive when it comes to that.

December 23, 2007 at 11:55 AM  
Blogger Snave said...

"States rights" is o.k. to the Bush administration unless it applies to

drugs
abortions
gay marriages
presidential vote recounts
assisted suicide
health care
pollution control
people in persistent vegetative states,
auto emissions standards
school curriculum
gun control
food safety
etc. etc. etc.

"States rights" is nothing more than a phrase they use to get people to think the adminisration is actually in favor of policies that benefit the "little guy". Once all is said and done, THEY want to be in control of everything. Heaven forbid they should ever let states' governors and/or legislatures make decisions that allow for states to completely control their own business. The use of the term "states rights" serves to give us all the illusion that we actually might have some control over our lives at the state level.

December 23, 2007 at 10:10 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: Yeah, they just turn that "states' rights" banner on and off like a light switch. I can't believe they still think they're fooling people with that slogan.

December 24, 2007 at 12:45 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home