Gee, We Didn't See <i>This</i> Coming (Poll)
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Democrats — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Back in September, when the Democrats were busy using the confirmation hearings of John Roberts to blame President Bush for a hurricane, it occurred to me for the first time that Charles Krauthammer might not have been joking when he diagnosed the modern liberal movement with a psychological disorder he dubbed "Bush Derangement Syndrome." (BDS) Before that point, I had always assumed that references to BDS were good-hearted pokes in the eyes of our liberal friends for their unseemly fixation upon Bush. After all, I know a good many folks who could well have been accused (fairly or unfairly) of fixation upon Clinton when he was in power - it's a natural reaction to losing an election which has cannot be re-fought for another four years. However, when the Democrats used their best TV opportunity in years to focus on all the ways Bush was to blame for Katrina, it finally became clear: These people are truly sick, and they need help.
It's a measure of how bad the illness has become that after the recent explosion in the Sago coal mine, before it had even been determined whether the miners trapped inside were alive or dead, two popular liberal websites were discussing all the ways that Bush was to blame for an explosion of still undetermined cause in a coal mine in West Virginia. Frankly, the only thing that surprises me about this revelation is that the elected Democrats have not picked up the siren call of their fundraising masters as of yet - but not to worry, if they could shoehorn Katrina into the Roberts hearings (over and over), I'm certain at least one of them will find a way to grill Samuel Alito about the President's responsibility in preventing coal mine explosions next week. It's probably indecent to be amused at such a shameful spectacle, but I suspect I'll be unable to avoid at least a chuckle or two, nonetheless. The saddest part of all is that it's not really a member of whether elected Democrats will begin to sound this particular deranged refrain, but only which one(s) will be the first to do so.
More below...
UPDATE [01/05/06 15:44:00 EST by Leon H]: Scott Shields of MyDD responds below the fold.
The first liberal reason that Bush is to blame is that (wait for it) Bush didn't spend enough federal money to prevent the problem from happening:
As the AFL-CIO points out in their analysis of the 2006 budget, the President continues to underfund the MSHA, effectively freezing their enforcement budget.
Ah, yes, the wonderful canard that if you throw enough government money at a problem, it will simply go away. It's worked so well on poverty, why not try it on coal mines? The only problem with this analysis, or any other analysis pulled from the AFL-CIO, is that it's not exactly rooted in reality. Setting aside for just a moment the ridiculous notion that the staffing/budgetary levels at the MSHA directly caused or contributed to this explosion, or the even more ridiculous notion that President Bush is personally responsible for this chain of events, let us undertake to see if this claim is even true.
From the AFL-CIO's own webpage, the beef that they have is with the diminishment of MSHA personnel in positions in full-time equivalents (FTE) - the budgetary amount has actually increased by an average of over .9% annually, in real 2000 (adjusted for inflation) dollars. This misleading chart would lead one to believe that when Clinton was in office, the MSHA was thriving and growing bureacracy, from the standpoint of inspection and enforcement staff. However, the MSHA issued a press release with their budget request on March 4, 1998 which tells a very different story:
MSHA staffing has declined annually since FY 1993, when agency appropriations included 2,571 FTE.
So, when Clinton took office, there were 2,571 full-time equivalent employees at the MSHA, and when he left, there were 2,276. In other words, Clinton cut 11.4% of the positions at MSHA during his tenure as President. President Bush, on the other hand, has reduced the FTEs to 2,208 since he took office - which is to say that he has cut FTEs by 2.9% in just under five years as President. Now, the AFL-CIO's chart suspiciously only includes the last Clinton fiscal year, to give the impression that these cuts have only been taking place since Bush took office - thus providing ammunition to the Bush Deranged that would validate their twisted worldview in which everything is Bush's fault, when they know good and well that the "problem," if it can be called that, was worse under Clinton. Someone ought to inform the AFL-CIO that it's not nice to deliberately provoke a paranoiac with the object of his fixation.
The second reason that the Sago explosion is apparently Bush's fault is that Bush was too cozy with his "big coal" buddies, and appointed an industry insider to regulate them:
A New York Times article dated August 9, 2004 detailed the Bush administration's close relationship with the coal mining industry. While the piece largely focused on environmental issues, it still makes it clear that administration's concern for the health and safety of coal miners took a back seat to their concern for the bank accounts of their allies at the mining companies.
* * *
Over the last six years, coal companies have donated $9 million to federal political candidates and party organizations, and 90 percent has gone to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
It seems, at the very least, a tad counterintuitive to imply that the Sago explosion was Bush's fault because he put the MSHA in the pocket of the coal miners, when Bush's MSHA cited this particular mine over 200 times. Now here is where the argument gets really strained. The writer at DailyKos whose diary soared to the top of the recommended list says that this is still all the fault of Republicans because:
And what I found should not have been as disappointing to me as it was. You see, since 1994 OSHA changed dramatically in how it has undergone its enforcement authority.
Today, an OSHA inspector needs to provide PRIOR WARNING to an employer at least 24 hours before an inspection. Why? Because of GOPers such as Cass Ballenger. He headed the Employment and Workforce Committee and played a major role in deforming it in the 90s.
Jeez, I can see as how it would be real easy for a mine operation to, you know, change the composition of the air within their mine, given that 24 hour notice. Must be why this particular mine was so successful at avoiding citations, huh?
Now, I'm a reasonable man. A reasonable man who knows next to nothing about coal mining, or the coal mining industry, but I'll grant the fact that a mine which has been fined 208 times (I believe this is within a 2 year period) ought to have at the very least been fined into oblivion. Then again, as I said - I have no idea how many citations the average coal mine gets, to know if this particular mine was excessive. Given the well-rehearsed history of OSHA-related entities, it would shock me precisely nil to learn that a great number of citations were given for violations of outdated and senseless regulations, but even if one is willing to assume that the MSHA is the one government bureacracy that would actually run efficiently and accomplish its desired end (if only it were given enough money), it is a non-sequitur of epic proportions to declare that, because the citations given to this mine were not enough to drive it out of business, the disaster at Sago is therefore George W. Bush's fault.
Alas, such non-sequiturs are the stock and trade of the paranoiac, where logical conclusions warranted by the evidence are not needed to establish causation - the object of their fixation (in this case, George W. Bush), rules the entire universe, therefore everything bad that happens in it is his fault, Q.E.D.
My advice for Samuel Alito is this - make yourself very knowledgeable about the coal mining industry. I have a feeling you'll need that knowledge beginning next Monday. Don't ask for a rational explanation - just trust me on this one.
A postscript: To truly plumb the depths of BDS, you must observe the way Scott Shields opens his analysis of why the mine explosion was Bush's fault - not with well-wishes for the miners or their families (all that came later), but first this:
I haven't seen much discussion of it in the blogosphere, but there are 13 coal miners trapped under 260 feet of dirt right now in West Virginia. It's worthy of discussion here because, once upon a time, these guys were the bread and butter of the Democratic Party -- industrial workers doing hard labor to support their families. Now, they're just as likely to vote Republicans on social issues as they are Democrats on pocketbook issues.
The saddest thing is that I don't think that Mr. Shields has the faintest idea of why his crass honesty here renders his disclaimer which follows hollow.
UPDATE: Scott Shields responded to this post in an email. The entirety of it read as follows:
Leon,
Posting at MyDD, I don't really do much scandal or mudslinging. I do election/political analysis. In a certain light, I don't have any business writing about the Sago Mine disaster, which -- please read the post again -- I don't blame on Bush. So why write at all about a mine disaster at a political blog? Because when it comes to worker safety, policies tied to politics matter. That's something many people -- including some impacted directly by the policies -- have sadly forgotten. I'm glad that when you referred to what you saw as my "crass honesty," you at least acknowledged that it was, in fact, honesty.
So as much as I appreciate your concern for my well-being, I assure you that BDS is a misdiagnosis. I don't blame Bush for all of the world's ills. But yeah, I do fault him for furthering what I believe to be bad policy for the wrong reasons. As does Andrew Sullivan, incidentally (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2006_01_01_dis...). And I'm pretty sure he doesn't suffer from BDS, either.
Take care,
Scott Shields
The first thing I have to say is that there's more than one way to place blame. Saying that someone purposefully and willfully caused event X to happen is not the only way to blame them. You can also say that the unintended consequences of someone's actions caused event X to happen, and you are still blaming them. You may also say that event X happened because of someone's negligence, and that is still blaming that person. There's not a country I'm aware of that doesn't recognize negligence torts.
So when Mr. Shields says, as he does in his post:
The defense will be that Bush didn't cause the explosion that collapsed the mine. My response will be that he didn't do anything to prevent it. In fact, if anything, the actions of his administration made the situation worse.
Or, as he did in his email:
But yeah, I do fault him for furthering what I believe to be bad policy for the wrong reasons.
He's at the very least accusing Bush of contributing to the cause of the action via negligence (comparative negligence is still negligence) - which is to say, blaming Bush. I will grant that neither Mr. Shields nor the Kos diarist accused Bush of planting dynamite in the mine (although we've yet to hear from Cynthia McKinnon yet), but there's more than one way to skin this particular cat.
Now, as to my umbrage about Mr. Shields' analysis of WV politics, and how WV has turned into a Republican state - I still am of the opinion that he does not understand what the issue here really is. Mr. Shields did not know (nor is it now known) what politicial affiliation these particular miners had, nor who they voted for, nor even if they voted at all. For him to bring the issue of WV's "redness" in a story about disaster, which then proceeds to lay blame at the feet of Bush for negligence, the clear impression that is given, whether he intended it or not, was, "You coal mining people went and voted for Bush, and look where it got you. We need to warn folks not to vote Republican, or this sort of thing will happen." I didn't want to accuse him of such since he didn't explicitly state it, but how else is one to interpret this from his email?
Because when it comes to worker safety, policies tied to politics matter. That's something many people -- including some impacted directly by the policies -- have sadly forgotten.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like, "those people brought this on themselves by voting for Bush," doesn't it?
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Give Me Zarqawi. And Give Me Death. — Comments (51) »
Gee, We Didn't See <i>This</i> Coming (Poll) 46 Comments (0 topical, 46 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You've summarised the case that Scott
Shields made re the Bush administration and MHSA. But the Kos diarist you cited seemed to be taking issue with Republican congressmen, and I couldn't see any mention of the President at all.
The precursor to BDS (Reagan Derangement Syndrome) was largely cured by the longterm success of his policies and...his death. I suspect that "the times they aren't a-changin".
on the eve of the Justice Department's announcement of likely the largest political scandal in a century, it hardly seems fitting to focus blame so squarely on everyone but our own party. This abramoff scandal is truly disgusting, and the fact that the R's duped me into voting for them on the basis of their moral highground is an outrage. This is not what I have been voting for since the late 80's!! This is exactly the kind of corruption that I wanted to get rid of by getting rid of the dems. I am so disgusted that I don't know what to do. Maybe I can find some pro-life dems and vote for them. If you are not disgusted by the endless barrage of indictments and guilty pleas, then you are probably loyal to the party over being loyal to your country. There is no way to justify what these slimey politicians have done. They no longer deserve my support.
Until there are some facts out there to be outraged about. We aren't even talking about indictments here or leaked evidence, much less guilt. I have seen no evidence reported anywhere that makes me believe that there was any wrongdoing here other than by Abramoff himself. Everything just seems to be speculation based on who he knew and who he supported. And he was indicted for tax evasion and fraud. I'm not a big fan of guilt by association, myself. I'm content to let this take it's course before I come to any conclusions about it.
Some of these guys are probably crooked (politics attracts cooked people like moths to a flame), but who's to say until there is something to base this on? I would venture that the truly crooked ones are a tiny minority anyway (like ole' Duke from CA).
You forgot Cynthia McKinney on your poll. She is always reliable. Remember, Bush blew up the levees in Katrina. I can just picture him there in his tophat and curly mustasche with his ACME style plunger detonator at the ready.
I have read that the MSM is blaming "miscommunication" for the mine-story debacle.
Good thing they did not blame "faulty intelligence" or they really would have rake themselves over the coals for "lying."
Considering that you're pretending that there are no Democrats involved with Abramoff (i.e. Harry Reid), I seriously doubt that you are or have ever been a Republican or Republican voter.
The DailyKos writer is outraged that mine inspections are announced beforehand. I read this as saying that if you think someone is doing something bad and you are responsible for the oversight, then you shouldn't tell him beforehand that you're coming by to check, lest he find some way to cover it up before you get there.
Shouldn't this principle apply not only to domestic issues, but also to, say, Foreign Intelligence, e.g., UN Inspections of Saddam, NSA monitoring of international calls, etc.? It seems to me that if there's going to be this much finger pointing by the Left over how this all applys to mining regulations, then their current outrage over whether Bush overstepped his executive authority in intelligence gathering should be matched by an outrage over the security breaches the recent leaks have caused. But no...
I see that Senator Robert F. "Sheets" Byrd has escaped noticed in this fiasco. Surely there is an outpost of the Robert F. Byrd Mine Safety Institute nearby. I figured by now there would be one every fifty feet.
You can't give warnings to any businesses (mines, meat packers, Wal-Mart, etc) when they have an inspector coming over, but you do need to give plenty of warning to terrorists when you think you might want to hear what they are talking about on the phone, even more so if (for some reason) you wanted to see what they checked out at the library.
redstatecarnivore : on the eve of the Justice Department's announcement of likely the largest political scandal in a century
Huh?
You either don't know anything about the history of political scandals in this country, or you are a loony left liar.
Take your pick.
redstatecarnivore : "This abramoff scandal is truly disgusting"
I can give you any number of Klintonite scandals that are far more disgusting than this one, and there didn't just involve money either.
redstatecarnivore "and the fact that the R's duped me into voting for them on the basis of their moral high ground is an outrage"
Since you didn't vote Republican in the first place, it obviously is not the Republican Party that "duped" you.
It was the sleaziest Party on the entire planet, The Democratic Party of America, that did the duping.... that is assuming you are not a sleaze bucket yourself of course. :)
redstatecarnivore :"I am so disgusted that I don't know what to do."
No?
Ummm....since you call yourself a carnivore, you could turn round and practice your carnivorous behavior on yourself by devouring your own self.
Hows about that dude?
I know that some of the groups that gave money to Abramoff, also gave money to Dems; is this what your list shows? I have been to a few web sights claiming that Abramoff himself only gave money to Repubs or Repub groups?!
Individual donations to any candidate are chump change. The law only allows individuals to donate a maximum of $2,000 to a candidate. You're not even going to get your picture taken with the candidate for that.
If the Democrats are trying to claim that this whole scandal is about Abramoff's personal donations, they're just trying to blow smoke in your eyes. It takes a lot more than $2,000 to buy a United States Senator.
Greenberg-Traurig was the lobbying firm/PAC, and it passed out millions. Many candidates, both R and D, got Serious Money from them. But in addition to that, the Indian Tribes that Abramoff represented were also out there passing out dough. Reid got something like $66,000 from the tribes directly, on top of what he got from Greenberg-Traurig. Why Senator Harry Reid of Nevada gets money from a tribe running casinos in Louisiana is a subject that Harry Reid would probably rather avoid. We shall see whether the media helps him do that.
No one is talking about this yet, but if a Nevada Senator gets money from people who run casinos in Louisiana, Lord knows how much he got from people running casinos in Nevada.
...interested in the fines, however, I am of the understanding that the ownership of the mines changed hands sometime in November. I wouldn't be too hard on the new owners until it became clear if the violations occurred before or after the change in ownership. Of course, any inaction on existing conditions would be unexceptable also, within reason considering that they have held the mine for at most two months before the explosion.
but why would anybody be making their mind up only now? The mental deterioration began,or really speeded up, during the Clinton years. I know I'm not supposed to mention his name in some circles[ the "get over it" thing] but since the Dems still bring up Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon, what the hell. During those years liberals were deeply conflicted. Here they are, God's gift to the human mind, signposts, landmarks, in the history and development of science, the humanities, knowledge in general, a political vision unrivalled in our species. And what happens? They fall for the kind of trash most people would kick off their doorstep. To a person whose identity is rooted in government,whose self esteem is based on a particular political outlook, this, as Charlie Schumer would say, is troubling. They knew the Clintons were a kind of walking filth but how to reconcile that with their radiant self image? In a word, they knew two things; that support for this vermin was a reflection on themselves, and that they had been had. True, liberals have other problems but the 90's were a negative catalyst for this wise tribe, this natural aristocracy.
That's the money ratio of Abramoff-related giving. Now, the fact that Rs control all three branches has something to do with that as does Abramoff's staunch R affiliation, whatever the reason, it'll be mostly Rs indicted as a result. The fact is the party ran on ethics in 1994 and proceeded to install the most corrupt pay-for-play legislative system this country has seen since the eighteenth century. The details of this scandal as they emerge are absolutely sickening and I'm not sure we've heard all of it yet.
Look, I'm under no illusion that Ds might not have done the same things if they had thought of them, but the fact is Rs, led by Tom "The Lobbyist's Friend" DeLay, innovated in the area of "government for sale" with startling originality and audacity. I mean, using Indian casino money to encourage anti-gambling fundamentalists to scuttle rival Indian casinos? Genius. By comparison the Ds are just ham-handed, old-fashioned ward healers. Dan Rostenkowski stole postage for crying out loud.
The question we the people face, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum, is what are we going to do about this now that we know the extent of corruption in Washington? Throwing these bums out so that new bums can take their place at the trough doesn't seem to fix the problem. Remember, that's what we tried to do in 1994. Structural changes have to be made.
And I for one have little faith that the guys out golfing with Abramoff are the guys we want enacting those changes.
That link is perhaps the best rebuttle I've ever read. Sick 'em Nick.
The only way this is a legit criticism of MSHA's authority is if the violations were serious ones, and even then, the 200+ citations indicates that the problem is obviously not a lack of oversight but rather that the fines are too small (and note that if they were bigger, MSHA's budget would be smaller because it would be more self-financing). But the Bush-bashers don't bother to explore that issue at all. For example, if many of the fines were over things like ergonomic shortcomings, that would have zero to do with whether the mine was (relatively) safe from explosions & collapses.
"Look, I'm under no illusion that Ds might not have done the same things if they had thought of them, but the fact is Rs, led by Tom "The Lobbyist's Friend" DeLay, innovated in the area of "government for sale" with startling originality and audacity." Welcome to earth. The Dims have always been the party for sale.
BizzyBuzz has the goods ... click here.
You have a charge of hypocrisy to level? Because if so, I'd do it elsewhere.
Move along, nothing to see here. This threadjack ends now.
violations from the link in the dKos article:
Mine ventilation
Machine maintenance
Fire suppression devices
Unsupported roofs
all between 200 and 400 dollar fines. A few hundred 0 to 60 dollar fines.
Looking on the MSHA website however for a similar mine, I found "Burn Coal Inc Mine #1" mine in the same county, same type of coal, with many worse (monetarily) fines. Same regulations, but fines in the thousands instead of hundreds. The lists don't detail the exact differences in offenses.
"Ah, yes, the wonderful canard that if you throw enough government money at a problem, it will simply go away"
Reductio ad absurdum is a useful instrument in the toolbox of any rhetorician. But this is not a fair characterization of the argument in this context.
Over the last hundred or so years, the dangers of working in mines have diminished by orders of magnitude. To what other than government regulation would you attribute this?
One can argue that this level of regulation is good enough and that level of regulation is too much. These are matters of opinion and policy. But one can't seriously suggest that mine safety regulation (which costs money) and mine safety (which saves lives) are in no way related.
I don't know what mine safety regulation has been like during this Administration so I don't have an opinion on the subject. Deregulation, however, has been a GOP plank for a long time and, when discussed in the abstract, is presented as a positive good. I think it should be defended in the same terms if/when (again, I know nothing about this matter) its downsides manifest.
Pulled a David Blaine and was in to places at once to cause the explosion in the mine.
So the painfully clear outcome is "Bush hates white people"
Apologize for the sarcasm
- the dangers of working in mines have diminished by orders of magnitude. To what other than government regulation would you attribute this?
- Strip mining
- Technology
some dude on News Hour the other night who had been director (or whatever the title) of whichever agency it is that inspects mines for safety. He explicitly said that subterranean mining is 100 times safer today than it was 100 years ago. Since strip mining isn't subterranean mining, we can eliminate that as a factor.
I have now exhausted my experise on the subject of subterranean mine safety. ;)
But its quite obvious that regulations of all sorts have reduced injuries and fatalities in all aspects of life. Seatbelt laws, for instance.
Because we strip mine, there are certain kinds of mining that need not be done any more.
It's sad that anyone would try and make the tragedy with the deceased miners into a political issue. I hope the leftist blogs that are doing this realize what a mistake they are making to drag politics into this.
Don't the Democrats and environmentalists oppose strip-mining?
Bush Derangement Syndrome does seem to exist to a large degree. But the other part of this is that the Democrats are going with a very good plan on defense: They are taking the offensive. Because, by using their logic, they share a fair bit of the blame for these deaths due to their opposition to the less-hazardous (to miners) method (to wit, strip-mining).
They also are using the usual propensity to wave a bloody shirt against Republicans (something that the GOP has avoided- I personally find such tactics to be very stomach-churning).
I work with people who think Reagan was one of the worst presidents and - wait for it - Carter was one of the best.
Apparently, every ounce of rational thought they possess on a daily basis is used to perform their job. There's just not enough left for politics.
- Your attempted demonization of the Left needs better examples. The second blog (from Kos) that you use as an example of "BDS" doesn't ever mention Bush. Granted, his name comes up in the comments, but I'm willing to guess that you wouldn't want to take ownership of all the garbage that comes up in RedState's comments, would you? So, nice try.
- A "reasonable man" would have looked into the value of the 208 fines to see if they could actually result in oblivion. As you of course conveniently omitted, the fines were very small for a corporation and wouldn't even have sent you into oblivion.
- It is possible to lay blame on any Executive when his policies cause an agency to become less effective. From the Washington Post, in 2004: "In the past 3 1/2 years, OSHA, the branch of the Labor Department in charge of workers' well-being, has eliminated nearly five times as many pending standards as it has completed. It has not started any major new health or safety rules, setting Bush apart from the previous three presidents, including Ronald Reagan."
"At OSHA, the administration's regulatory philosophy has translated into a smaller staff to develop new standards, less reliance on the views of organized labor and an enlarged role for businesses."
And we all know that business has only our best interests in mind, right?
you either don't know or don't care that OSHA has nothing to do with mine safety.
"But its quite obvious that regulations of all sorts have reduced injuries and fatalities in all aspects of life. Seatbelt laws, for instance. "
Which doesn't address whether the supposed reductions in injuries or fatalaties are worth the concurrent reduction in liberty. Seat belt laws, for instance, are a travesty of governmental invasion into our lives, a perfect example of nanny-state thinking. Arguing that regulations sometimes result in increased safety is pointless. Monarchy sometimes results in increased efficiency. Totalitarianism sometimes results in increased public safety. But I don't think you'd consider those fair trades.
In any case, for the specific mining issue, it's speculative to say the least to assert that regulation would have increased the safety of the mine, since there currently is regulation and the cries are that it was not safe (enforcement to my mind being part and parcel of any regulatory scheme). It's speculative to say the least to assert that it in fact WAS any more or less safe as a result of or lack of regulation. Accidents can occur under safe conditions as well can they not? It's speculative to say the least that any of the safety violations this mine in particular was cited for were contributing factors in either the explosion or the deaths of the miners, unless I've missed updated information somewhere.
None of which detracts from the essential truth that Kossacks routinely endorse the notion that problems diminish as government funding increases. The Kos diary in question more than clearly bases on this exact assumption. An altogether fair characterization in which case.
I'm willing to guess that you wouldn't want to take ownership of all the garbage that comes up in RedState's comments, would you?
Actually, we ban our loonies, too. That's the difference between us and Kos. Generally speaking, yes - while I would not necessarily agree with everything that is said in the comments, I would "take ownership of it," and anything that I wouldn't, I'd either delete the comment or ban the user or both.
Unless you were referring to everything that's posted here as garbage - please clarify.
A "reasonable man" would have looked into the value of the 208 fines to see if they could actually result in oblivion. As you of course conveniently omitted, the fines were very small for a corporation and wouldn't even have sent you into oblivion.
You obviously are unaware of my current financial sitaution. As an actual response to your "point," I'd suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills as they pertain to what I actually said in the post.
As to the rest, streiff's already dealt with it.
And I'm pretty sure [Andrew Sullivan] doesn't suffer from BDS, either.
Andrew Sullivan has been moving closer and closer to BDS with every day that's ticked away since 9/11. Some would say he's already there.
In the midst of all the hue and cry about this disaster, has anyone stopped to consider that WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE FACTS SURROUNDING THIS INCIDENT?
If we don't know what happened, we can't say anything about whether or not this tragedy was the result of chronic negligence, worker error, or chance. Until we answer that fundamental question, any attempt to bring politics into the matter amounts to nothing more than blogospheric yellow journalism.
I'll make a deal to the Kossacks, Scott Shields, and everybody else who doesn't know any of the facts but sure as heck knows it was George Bush's fault: You tell me exactly what went on and prove actual negligence on somebody's-anybody's-part and then we'll all discuss the political implications. Until then, try to have a modicum of respect for the dead.
Jack Sparado, former head of the National Mine Health and Safety Academy seems to have an ax to grind.
And according to this, Bush is using a chain saw to "cut the red tape" that keeps these mine owners/political benefactors from reaching their wallets.
I'm sorry for the cynicism. I'm an old-school "paleo-conservative" (small government/strict constitutionalist) and folks of my ilk have been having a very bad couple of months as we slowly come to the realization that our boys are neither. But what the heck am I going to do? Vote for Hillary?
We need serious ethical reform in Washington. Put in a flat tax and eliminate corporate tax deductions altogether. No loopholes, no "special interest" tax incentives. That alone will rid DC of 90% of the lobbyists. The rest (like the bag men for the mine owners) will stick out like sore thumbs.
so what does a big list of Dems who took money from Abramoff prove? They they are still as corrupt as they were in the early 90's? Big deal. I started voted R to get rid of that kind of corruption and the R's marched into DC extolling their own righteousness as pillars of integrity who were going to clean up DC, yet they succombed to the same corruption as they went there to get rid of. Perhaps there is something wrong with the system when no one can resist the temptation to become corrupted? perhaps we need to re-think the whole campaign finance laws?
It seems to me the basic problem is that it costs too much money to get elected. Virtually every House district is now so large that mass media is the only way to deal with it. Trouble is, that costs tons of money. One idea is to enlarge the House by making the districts smaller. That has its own disadvantages, but it's an idea. So is forcing the media to carry some amount of advertising as a condition of having a license. There are gotchas with that, too: the broadcasters are using a "public resource" but the cable guys aren't. How do we force newspapers to do anything? There are gotchas with every plan.
What I don't like are these draconian restrictions on donating as a way of trying to control this. That just gives incumbents a big leg up on challengers, and movie stars and other celebrities a big leg up on otherwise qualified people that no one ever heard of. If we keep that up long enough, we're going to end up with Paris Hilton in the Senate.
I don't know what the answer is. It's a puzzle.
The solution is to eliminate all campaign finance restrictions and replace it with mandatory and immediate disclosure. This should be easy enough to do in the age of the internet.
I like the concept of making the house districts a lot smaller. The Senate should be given back to the states at the same time.
you have some good ideas in that post. Its been very clear for a long time that the big money involved in running a campaign is destroying the integrity of the system, as well as the integrity of some of our leaders. Making the the house districs smaller may help, but like you said, that creates its own problems. 100% full disclosure is also another good idea, but it seems like the people who want to hide what they are doing always find a way around that (ie: DeLay and friends circumventing state finance laws by funneling the money to the federal level, then sending it back). unfortunately, it is just human nature that people will look for the loop-holes and other ways to circumvent the law to gain power. One thing is for sure, we should enact laws that severly restrict the kinds of gifts that congressmen can receive from anyone (ie: golf trips to scottland, jobs for their family members, etc).
I think that the pertinant question that should be asked is what exactly were the 208 fines for? Were they unimportant minute regulations that weren't taken care of because of their relative unimportance? Or were they serious issues that were not fixed because the fines were so cheap that the company decided to not fix them based on a bean-counter analysis?
I'd tend to believe that if their were serious issues with the mine then there would have been more complaints to the union by employees, and something would have been reported by the press. Hopefully someone will dig up some details on this though.
I will admit that required notice before an inspection seems kind of odd. Not necessarily suspicious, but not what I'd expect. However as I know next to nothing about coal mines, I'll reserve judgement until someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in.