This isn't really the forum to debate it, but I'm aware that there are accounts of this happening, I find that detail to be really extremely unlikely to be true. In general the depictions of that event have so many internally contradicting details that my I would say very little of what specifically happened can be considered confirmed facts.
As a Dutchman I have a theory that the reason Holland is the tallest nation on earth is natural selection because the tall people eat the smallest there
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
Great jobs report today - It is all beginning to work!
4:34 pm - 5 May 2017
Quote:
Patrick Chovanec @prchovanec
Just to be clear, the US economy has added an average of 185,000 jobs per month so far this year, compared to 187,000 per month last year.
As a Dutchman I have a theory that the reason Holland is the tallest nation on earth is natural selection because the tall people eat the smallest there
Aussie will pass the Dutch within 20 years, and Aussies like to eat and drink.
It should be noted the writer Peter Sunderland is an Editor at the Libertarian site, Reason who was not a supporter of Obamacare originally.... I know there's some in this thread that would dismiss the article simple because its in the NYT.
Worth reading to get a better understanding of how these two things are intertwined.
Its never really been about healthcare at all.
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
Former AG Sally Yates to testify tomorrow on Trump's Russia connections and the Trump administration's plan has leaked and they plan to smear Sally Yates as a "Democratic Operative". She was a non-political DOJ attorney for two decades.
The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.
A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” said the spokesman, J. P. Freire.
The dismissals on Friday came about six weeks after the House passed a bill aimed at changing the composition of another E.P.A. scientific review board to include more representation from the corporate world.
Former AG Sally Yates to testify tomorrow on Trump's Russia connections and the Trump administration's plan has leaked and they plan to smear Sally Yates as a "Democratic Operative". She was a non-political DOJ attorney for two decades.
I actually would agree with the EPA being staffed with former oil industry people. Dealing with the AER or ABSA when you get career regulators is painful. They just don't understand the purpose of what they are doing. And industry led reform of the regulations and applications often lead to the most economical solutions that still protect the environment. So under the right leader this type of approach could be positive.
However given Pruitts agenda this will unlikely be the result. Hopefully some of these corporations are concerned with public perception
I actually would agree with the EPA being staffed with former oil industry people.
Yeah! And the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society should be staffed by people from the tobacco and asbestos industries too! All you foxes, please mind the henhouse. Wait, what? There are no hens left? Well, that was a different level of efficiency we hoped to achieve, but at least we have no chicken poop problems to be concerned about. Amiright?
Quote:
Dealing with the AER or ABSA when you get career regulators is painful. They just don't understand the purpose of what they are doing.
Or maybe you just don't understand what they are doing? A regulator's job isn't to make compliance easy, it is to insure that those being regulated comply with regulations and afford the protections mandated. The reason that academics are involved is because they have done the research to understand the negative impacts of the sphere they regulating. That does not happen in industry, and if it does and the people working in that industry fail to acknowledge that what they are doing in contributing to sickness and death, well there is a special place in hell for those people.
Quote:
And industry led reform of the regulations and applications often lead to the most economical solutions that still protect the environment. So under the right leader this type of approach could be positive.
The problem is that you must trust industry to have, a) some level of morals, b) some level of social responsibility, and c) a willingness to ignore the mantra of corporate responsibility to the shareholder. Sorry, option "c" always trumps everything in modern society, especially here in the United States. You can't trust industry to self-regulate. How many stock market crashes do we need, or how many environmental disasters do we need before people learn that lesson?
Quote:
However given Pruitts agenda this will unlikely be the result. Hopefully some of these corporations are concerned with public perception
NEWS FLASH: Corporations don't give a #### about what the public thinks. When it gets to the point that the public may start pushing back against them, they go out and hire a good PR company and a think tank to change the narrative. Its why the tobacco industry was able to keep the charade of health benefits of their product promoted, and the dangers buried, for decades. Its what the "conversation about climate change" is still going on. Corporations only care about one thing - profit. They want to make as much money in as short a period of time as possible, consequences be damned.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
EPA...I can understand using companies etc but it will only work if you have ethical companies. The one I work for I believe is as we use EPA and OSHA regulations as a minimum baseline. 95% of companies would scream bloody murder if we were to impose our standards!
But that isn't the case here. This is an administration that is hell bent on restoring the 1950s dirty industry and honestly I think that would be satisfied with having a second world type sweatshop or near sweat shops just for th eskae of saying "jobs!". Oh sure it may create jobs but the cost will be huge. And I'm not convinced it will create jobs. To do business with Europe right now you need to pass EHS audits in the same way as quality audits. And they don't use US regs and standards for EHS...they use their own.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
Yeah! And the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society should be staffed by people from the tobacco and asbestos industries too! All you foxes, please mind the henhouse. Wait, what? There are no hens left? Well, that was a different level of efficiency we hoped to achieve, but at least we have no chicken poop problems to be concerned about. Amiright?
Or maybe you just don't understand what they are doing? A regulator's job isn't to make compliance easy, it is to insure that those being regulated comply with regulations and afford the protections mandated. The reason that academics are involved is because they have done the research to understand the negative impacts of the sphere they regul ating. That does not happen in industry, and if it does and the people working in that industry fail to acknowledge that what they are doing in contributing to sickness and death, well there is a special place in hell for those people.
The problem is that you must trust industry to have, a) some level of morals, b) some level of social responsibility, and c) a willingness to ignore the mantra of corporate responsibility to the shareholder. Sorry, option "c" always trumps everything in modern society, especially here in the United States. You can't trust industry to self-regulate. How many stock market crashes do we need, or how many environmental disasters do we need before people learn that lesson?
NEWS FLASH: Corporations don't give a #### about what the public thinks. When it gets to the point that the public may start pushing back against them, they go out and hire a good PR company and a think tank to change the narrative. Its why the tobacco industry was able to keep the charade of health benefits of their product promoted, and the dangers buried, for decades. Its what the "conversation about climate change" is still going on. Corporations only care about one thing - profit. They want to make as much money in as short a period of time as possible, consequences be damned.
Well, the Tobacco scientists did have more information and new sooner that tobacco was likely causing cancer than the rest of academia.
Yes, you still need intelligent regulation but industry scientists have more resources at their disposal than their academic counterparts. If you can forge a real partnership to try to solve problems at the regulator level rather than a continuous adversarial relationship, society will be better off. Lower cost goods while maintaining environmental protections.
I don't think this is Pruits goal though.
I also don't like your analogy it isn't putting the fox in the henhouse. Its letting the farmer in the hen house. Now he might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in order to profit however his goal of extracting wealth is in the farms benefit and some level of impact unlike the fox who is just a cancer on the well being of the farm. The fox in the hen house analogy is part of the problem in creating this adversarial relationship between regulators and corporations which is not productive.
