THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


Saturday, January 21, 2006


Are We Safer?

Let's see . . .

This from the Center for American Progress:
From the beginning, the Bush administration has run MSHA for the benefit of mining companies rather than the safety of miners. Shortly after taking office, President Bush appointed David Lauriski, who had worked in the mining industry for more than 30 years, as administrator of MSHA. Under Lauriski's leadership, MSHA moved to weaken a host of safety standards-including air quality standards meant to protect miners from black lung and respiratory disease-and scale back penalties for safety violations. Last year, Lauriski resigned from his position shortly after the Labor Department's inspector general found that MSHA management had improperly awarded no-bid contracts.
So we've seen two mining catastrophes in the past month. Those miners were not safer.

And, there's all those folks in New Orleans who were not safer.

Plus the 42 soldiers who were killed in Iraq last week who were not safer.

And now Osama is reminding us that, more than four years later, he's still out there and he still hates America.

How are the Republicans getting away with the claim that they are making America safer? I hear that will be the theme for Bush's State of the Union speech. Lies on top of more lies!

If you are an big oil or big pharma exec. your bonus is safer.

If you are a worker, your job and 401k...I'm gonna say, less safe.
Sorry, as much as I am opposed to BushCo, I can't lay the mining accidents at their doorstep, nor the failure of the levees.

I can blame them for prioritizing fossil fuels instead of initiating a vision for alternative energy and energy independence. BushCo will be 100% responsible if the children and grandchildren of today's coal miners are still down in the mines.

As far as Bin Laden goes, I think we can fault Bush for the way he has managed the relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan is clearly harboring terrorists. They won't catch them, and they won't let us go after them. So when does Bush put Pakistan on the list of state sponsors of terrorism? What happened to "you're either for us or against us?"
Via the Via Carpetbagger Report: "If the Bush White House went after Osama bin Laden with the same passion they go after Democrats, the nation would be better off."

Thanks for the link to "carpetbagger". I liked this point, " A few years after the president vowed not to politicize the war on terrorism, Rove "vowed Friday to make the war on terrorism a central campaign issue in November."

The lying does not surprise anymore, but why would he want "the war on terrorism" to be a central campaign issue when they are doing such a terrible job with "the war on terrorism"?
Come on. What the lobbygate is laying bare here is that the lobby buying power for big business, and their subsequent LAW WRITING invites ARE BEHIND this deregulation of industrial safeguards that bring these tragedies home and at their feet.
Yes indeed. The slap your wrist stuff is not just a GOPerhole phenom either but it does resonate clearly as a lobbygate issue.
Look at DE, the DEM controls have allowed a distinctly foul odor of special interests to rule the day when it comes to Motiva, DuPont, and our own DSWA. We see the DNREC agency "go to bat" for the development community as far as Arsenic poison allowable levels in residential construction and on and on.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]