XPost: alt.atheism, alt.global-warming   
   From: zed@is.dead   
      
   WHY ARE ALMOST ALL SCIENTISTS LEFTISTS?  IS SCIENCE NOT THE PRIVY OF THE   
   RIGHT WING IDEOLOGY?   
      
      
   The party of pollution, disease and death: When Republicans tell you who they   
   are, believe them   
      
   In the name of imaginary freedom, Republicans are willing to let many people   
   die. In fact, they're proud of it   
   By Mike Lofgren   
      
      
   In its current session, the U. S. Supreme Court weakened the federal   
   government's authority to enforce the Clean Water Act.   
      
   The mainstream media have been assiduous in explaining to us that the case   
   involved knotty issues of constitutional limits to regulatory authority, the   
   extent to which Congress may delegate powers to agencies, Fifth Amendment   
   takings and so forth. A more daring analysis might have suggested that the   
   decision demonstrated that the Republican-led court, reflecting the GOP's   
   traditional hatred of regulation, was attempting to dismantle what Steve   
   Bannon called "the administrative state. " But even that fails to convey the   
   true significance of the ruling.   
      
   Descriptions like those given above are the means by which conventional media   
   accounts of our politics normalize the abnormal and pretend everyone is   
   operating in good faith, if perhaps acting from principles we may not agree   
   with. So let's try to describe the court's decision in plain English.   
      
   The Supreme Court, acting as the judicial arm of the Republican Party,   
   weakened the Clean Water Act because it wants polluted water.   
      
   Related   
   The GOP's heart of darkness: Why Ron DeSantis can never beat Donald Trump   
      
   Removing a large number of waterways and wetlands from the jurisdiction of   
   the Clean Water Act will predictably lead to more pollution. To say that   
   additional contamination of water is only hypothetical if dumping is no   
   longer prohibited in deregulated waters, and that if such pollution occurs it   
   would be a regrettable and unforeseen consequence, is to engage in dishonest   
   argumentation.   
      
   By passing the Clean Water Act in 1972, Congress intended to promote clean   
   waterways rather than the interests of real estate developers or industries.   
   By construing the law to enable the latter interests rather than clean water,   
   the Supreme Court's majority is demonstrating not only its recent obsession   
   with legislating from the bench; it is saying contaminated water is fine.   
      
   One could apply the same principle to habitual Republican policy choices   
   during the COVID pandemic. Among other adverse actions, Florida Gov. Ron   
   DeSantis prohibited municipalities, schools and even private businesses from   
   instituting mask mandates. The prohibition, as is typical with the GOP, was   
   done in the name of "freedom. " But whereas the increase in "freedom" is   
   abstract, hypothetical and unquantifiable (or maybe imaginary), it is a   
   statistical certainty that not undertaking mask wearing, social distancing   
   and other measures will lead to additional deaths, particularly among the   
   elderly and immune-compromised.   
      
   There is no meaningful rhetorical distinction between saying that Ron   
   DeSantis "accepted" that more people in Florida would die and saying that he   
   wanted them to die.   
      
   Again, as this is a clearly foreseeable outcome, we're on safe ground to   
   conclude that DeSantis was blithely content to see more Floridians die. When   
   a person takes deliberate and calculated action that results in additional   
   deaths for the tawdry reason of pandering to his ideological supporters,   
   there is no meaningful rhetorical distinction between saying he "accepts"   
   that more people will die and that he wants them to die. In this case, we may   
   invert Immanuel Kant's dictum and conclude that "he who wills the means wills   
   the end. "   
      
   The same holds true with other public health, pollution control, workplace   
   and consumer safety regulations established during the last century. The   
   money supposedly saved (mainly by corporations who just happen to be   
   political contributors) when Republicans eliminate or weaken them is more   
   than neutralized by costs externalized onto the general public in the form of   
   cleanup expenses or illness or premature death.   
      
   Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer?   
   Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.   
      
   Another salient example is indoor gas stoves. In response to findings that   
   they can degrade indoor air quality and cause asthma or create dangerous   
   carbon monoxide levels, some municipalities have banned new hookups or made   
   other restrictions. The EPA has been studying the matter.   
      
   Predictably, Republicans brought to the House floor a bill that would   
   prohibit a ban on gas stoves and even prohibit setting environmental   
   standards for them. It failed on a procedural vote only because a few far-   
   right Republicans voted no, in protest against Speaker Kevin McCarthy's   
   insufficient zeal in holding the nation's economy hostage in the debt limit   
   negotiations. Rationality in this case was served only because Republicans   
   were divided on their preferred strategy for damaging the public interest.   
      
   It makes nonsense of the principles of causation and individual   
   responsibility to deny that the results of GOP actions are not willed. In   
   criminal and civil law, persons are held guilty or liable if it can be shown   
   they had good reason to know the consequences of some damaging action they   
   undertook, regardless of their excuses.   
      
   This principle also holds true with one of the most fraught issues in   
   America: firearms. In the wake of heavily-reported mass shootings in their   
   states, the Republican governments of Florida, Texas and Tennessee rushed to   
   weaken their gun laws. Florida and Texas now authorize concealed-carry of a   
   firearm without a permit or mandatory safety instruction; immediately after   
   the school shooting in Nashville, the Tennessee legislature further   
   diminished the potential liability of gun manufacturers.   
      
   Unrestricted concealed-carry vastly expands the opportunity for a would-be   
   killer to gain access to virtually any public venue unchallenged. The police   
   will not be looking for suspicious persons carrying concealed weapons, since   
   there is no law against doing so. If they happen to stop someone on other   
   grounds, they can no longer arrest him for concealed firearm possession   
   without a permit. It is as if the Texas and Florida legislatures are begging   
   for more gun homicides.   
      
   The weakening of liability is likely to have a similar effect. Without the   
   potential for civil cases or criminal prosecution, manufacturers have no   
   incentive to vet retail distributors for their honesty or diligence in   
   turning away or flagging suspicious customers. If you've ever wondered how   
   perpetrators in their teens, or seeming down-and-outers, can afford to pay   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)