The “Secret Science Reform Act” considered by the House "Science" Committee would require the Environmental Protection Agency to make public all data, scientific analyses, materials and models before promulgating any regulations. Does that sound like some "transparency" that I would easily support?
Always sniff for the evil lies that underpin anything that comes from the present House "science" committee. In this case note that there is no accompanying requirement for industry to make data public or to waive privacy rules. In fact, the same bill clearly states that EPA may not publicly disclose any such information. Hence, this Catch-22 uses faux transparency to -- in-effect -- prohibit the EPA from doing anything at all. Ever.
Wow… and I thought the House "science" committee was run by troglodyte science-hating morons. Clearly they include at least a few troglodyte science-hating geniuses… or else (more likely, given past behavior) the morons have a pub-relations genius on their staff. (They do! Several veterans of the successful 30 year campaign to obfuscate and delay any regulation of Big Tobacco.)
== Remind you of anything? ==
This kind of maneuver is identical in its nefarious trickery to "voter repression" laws in many red states that require registered voters to present levels of ID that our parents never had to show and that are often hard to come by for the poor, minority, young, married or divorced women and so on. Coincidentally -- surprise -- these are often (lo and behold) democratic-leaning demographies.
Now let me take one of my "all sides exaggerate" stances. In fact, as a moderate, I am not opposed to gradually increasing the demand that voters prove who they are! Even though at-precinct voting fraud is virtually nil, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with improving care and accountability. People who are against voter ID improvements in any form are probably dogmatic, too.
But -- and here is a very big "but" -- if these laws weren't aimed solely at stealing elections for the GOP, the states in question would have accompanied the new regulations with measures aimed at helping their citizens to comply with the new burdens.
States routinely give "compliance assistance" to major corporations, when new regulations apply to them. But apparently not one red cent has been appropriated in any red state to help the poor, or young, or women, or minorities to get the required ID, a move that would also help them in so many other aspects of life. In some cases, simple access to ID might them to STOP being poor.
Please dig that well, because it is the alarm and utter proof of both nefarious motives and lying hypocrisy. How much have red states allocated to help newly disenfranchised citizens to comply with onerous new state regulations? Not… one… red… cent.
This is what the once honorable and intellectual movement of Goldwater and Buckley is reduced to. Not winning elections based on the merits of their evidence or by comparing the outcomes from their party's past periods of rule. Rather, all efforts go to cheating, cheating, cheating and more cheating. And if you support this cheat, then no amount of arm-waving will let you escape the clear fact -- that you are a cheater, too.
==The American Revolution's Biggest Misconception==
If you watch cable news or heed Facebook-snarky jpegs, you might believe the Big Grievance that provoked the American Revolution was "bureaucracy" … and a tax on tea.
What… you actually believe that? Bureaucracy? And a tax… on... tea?
Actually read. The grievance -- the Big One -- that Ben Franklin spent 7 years in London fighting, was that British king and lords and oligarchs owned 60% of the land in the colonies and refused to sell it or even let it be taxed by colonial legislatures, resulting in economic stifling.
The other Big Grievance was against parliamentary laws that forced all trade to pass through a few ports and monopolist corporations owned by the king and lords.
Above all, those lords were monopolizing political power, refusing to allow the colonies to send representatives to Parliament -- the ultimate gerrymandering.
Oh, that's not the narrative today's oligarchs foist through their cable propaganda mills. It's not the story they want hard-pressed middle class Americans pondering right now… not if your aim is to rebuild that feudal social structure. It's no wonder the New Oligarchy uses its media shills to focus on a tax on tea!
Because that lets you ignore the real similarity with those times. The fact that lords and monopolies were denounced by Adam Smith and by the Founders. That the Revolution was against their unbridled power while denying us representation that might let the people change the rules.
Because that lets you ignore the real similarity with those times. The fact that lords and monopolies were denounced by Adam Smith and by the Founders. That the Revolution was against their unbridled power while denying us representation that might let the people change the rules.
Sorry, "tea" guys. You folks are the lord-loving Tories. On every issue. Down the line.
