XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.global-warming   
   XPost: or.politics   
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)