Well golly...

Post #31,656 by bepatient 3/11/02 1:33:46 PM Reply	Well golly... ...that was an awfully nice rant...but would you mind addressing the reality of the situation. How about we put webcams and microphones in every single office of every single member of the government. That should solve it...you think? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #31,672 by mmoffitt 3/11/02 2:51:38 PM Reply	Exactly how stupid are these executives? I mean, you walk into the White House to meet with the President or VP to discuss public policy and you assume that nothing you say is going to be a part of the public record? Is that it? We aren't supposed to be governed in secret are we?
Post #31,674 by bepatient 3/11/02 3:10:15 PM Reply	The policy is a part of the public record. There for all to read, isn't it? And again...this is NOT a new situation. This happens with every new admnistration. I don't think the administration would have an issue with releasing just the names. That, however, was NOT the request made. And you dismissed my comment, though continue to assert that you wish it to be true. Just like "Inside the NFL". Let's just stick a camera and a microphone on all of them...after all...we have a right to know. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #31,680 by mmoffitt 3/11/02 3:22:41 PM Reply	Sorry, thought that was rhetorical. I have no problems taping any public official engaged in discussions, fact-finding, etc. concerning the development of public policy. In a democracy, (cough, cough, wheez, ...), how can "developing public policy with the monied class behind closed doors" be defended?
Post #31,687 by bepatient 3/11/02 3:51:31 PM Reply	Well then... ...with you there is no line. And as such, noone in government should be allowed advice from anyone without it being "public record". With the current situation in "jounalism" nowadays...how long before that policy results in the complete inability of public officials to receive advice of any kind? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #31,690 by mmoffitt 3/11/02 4:02:58 PM Reply	Huh? How does that follow? Because public servants receiving public salaries have to receive advise in public, they can't get advise? Only if you think we ought to be ruled by kings.
Post #31,707 by bepatient 3/11/02 5:08:45 PM Reply	Are you actually... ...going to pretend to be that naive? Say, for example, that company X has several experts that could offer very good advice to public official #1. company x unfortunately has (like all companies) interest group Y that detests company x. Now would it be in company x's best interest to inflame interest group y by sending these experts to capital hill? Allowing these experts to be subjected to media smear campaigns for offering frank advice to public official #1. Even if they did go...as long as the information is to be public...do you think that these experts would give advice freely..or speak candidly about the real truth's of the issues? Say the issue is wastewater contamination and strengthening the Clean Water Act. Do you think these experts would be candid in discussing any problems they had with the potential legislation? Do you think they would give real facts that may potentially put company x in a position of questioning the "wisdon" of said legislation? You're out of your mind. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #31,709 by Brandioch 3/11/02 5:14:12 PM Reply	You mean.... something like the "friends of the court" stuff that many experts filed in the MS case? Private individuals going public with their advice to a public institution/individual.
Post #31,714 by bepatient 3/11/02 5:25:04 PM Reply	No. I don't. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #31,797 by mmoffitt 3/12/02 9:07:21 AM Reply	I knew the bias would come out if I waited long enough. >> Now would it be in company x's best interest to inflame interest group y by >> sending these experts to capital hill? Allowing these experts to be subjected >> to media smear campaigns for offering frank advice to public official #1. If they (your company x's experts) are giving "good advice" (from the perspective of the public good, which is what the public's representative should be interested in) exactly how are they going to be flamed? You have assumed that the advice will be bad public policy (a position I find myself in almost complete agreement with) but good for company x. That's what the fear is here, isn't it? That public policy decisions are made with what's best for corporate Murica foremost in mind, with almost total disregard for what is truly in the public's interest. You have implied that company x will tell the public officials what is good for company x and not the public. If that is correct then company x will, rightly, suffer massive PR attacks. It is NOT the function of government, however much you'd like it to be, to protect corporations at the expense of the public. >> Say the issue is wastewater contamination and strengthening the Clean Water >> Act. Do you think these experts would be candid in discussing any problems >> they had with the potential legislation? Again the pro-bizness bias. Are YOU saying that company x's problems with adhering to the Clear Water Act should be kept secret? Remember we're talking about the establishment of PUBLIC POLICY. That implies that what is best for the PUBLIC is paramount. >> Do you think they would give real facts that may potentially put >> company x in a position of questioning the "wisdon" of said legislation? Why not? There are countless representatives of the Republican party who routinely question any environmental protection legislation. IIRC, Reagan even tried to eliminate the Clean Water and/or Clean Air Acts. Our difference is that you want public policy to protect corporate interests and I want public policy to protect the public. That probably makes me un-Murican.
Post #31,807 by drewk 3/12/02 10:33:50 AM Reply	That's not the problem If they (your company x's experts) are giving "good advice" (from the perspective of the public good, which is what the public's representative should be interested in) exactly how are they going to be flamed? Use my example. Reasonable people might conclude that nuclear energy is better overall than coal. Whether you agree with this conclusion or not, you would have to (if you are being reasonable) agree that there are drawbacks to coal-fired plants that nuclear doesn't suffer from. But as soon as a public official starts asking questions of a nuke plant designer, various environmental groups are going to start staging protests. The modern environmental movement has IMO become as much a religious movement as one of public policy. Their conclusions can not be questioned. Even those opinions which may have once been reasonable are not open to refinement in the face of new technology. The sad thing is that this (near-)religious intolerance to questioning their beliefs obscures the legitimate points that could be, and should be, made. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #31,831 by Brandioch 3/12/02 12:20:13 PM Reply	I don't see the problem. But as soon as a public official starts asking questions of a nuke plant designer, various environmental groups are going to start staging protests. So? The sad thing is that this (near-)religious intolerance to questioning their beliefs obscures the legitimate points that could be, and should be, made. Again, so? You'll find religious viewpoints on just about every subject. On the other hand, some of them might have very good reasons for opposing what the >CORPORATE< "advisors" advise. But, since the discussion will be held in private, with undisclosed individuals who have undisclosed personal agendas, I'm sure everything will work out fine for the public. Just so they won't have to face some protestors. Yep, that makes perfect sense to me.
Post #31,832 by boxley 3/12/02 12:23:44 PM Reply	During the years when the dems had the house I used to listen adnauseum to Rep Miller on the energy commmitee trying to lock up Alaska. He would trot out all the usual suspects who would spout their shopworn crap and pass a bill to close the arctic. Now the repos Don young energy commitee is different. He would trot out all the usual suspects who would spout their shopworn crap and pass a bill to open the arctic. Just not your turn anymore, get over it. thanx, bill There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #31,840 by mmoffitt 3/12/02 1:08:42 PM Reply	If you accept what they hand you, you deserve what you get.
Post #31,855 by boxley 3/12/02 1:52:32 PM Reply	each according to my needs of their abilities? There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #31,993 by mmoffitt 3/13/02 9:58:38 AM Reply	No. each according to THEIR needs ;-)
Post #31,999 by boxley 3/13/02 10:51:41 AM Reply	who decides? commisar=ceo same diff :) There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #32,014 by mmoffitt 3/13/02 12:33:11 PM Reply	How about letting me decide? :-)
Post #32,020 by boxley 3/13/02 12:41:30 PM Reply	equals each according to my needs of their abilities :) There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #32,027 by mmoffitt 3/13/02 1:04:39 PM Reply	No, I am more equal than you are :)
Post #32,044 by boxley 3/13/02 1:50:22 PM Reply	thats why (communism-people=works)(communism+people=doesnt) There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #32,186 by mmoffitt 3/14/02 1:28:39 PM Reply	How do you know? It's never been tried.
Post #31,870 by Brandioch 3/12/02 2:48:44 PM Reply	That's why we should do it in public. Forgive me for referencing another thread in another forum, but, as I have said, a person will filer which "facts" s/he will accept as "facts" (instead of "conjecture" or "fantasy" or "bad science"). This will be based upon his/her previous opinion. So, we drag the policy process out into the open. Then we try to avoid the emotional discussions ("but what about the children?"). Then see if you can hit a consensus for 90% of the population. Personally, I think things like opening Alaska up for resource exploitation >SHOULD< be discussed in public. If you make a mistake, you can do a lot of damage. But that doesn't mean that we have to skip all exploitation. Or that suitable safeguards can't be put in place. But doing it simply by pre-screening your "experts" for people who already agree with your policy is beyond stupid (but it does make good politics).
Post #31,878 by bepatient 3/12/02 3:26:21 PM Reply	Absolutely, completely and uttlerly wrong. You have assumed that the advice will be bad public policy (a position I find myself in almost complete agreement with) but good for company x. That's what the fear is here, isn't it? That public policy decisions are made with what's best for corporate Murica foremost in mind, with almost total disregard for what is truly in the public's interest. You have implied that company x will tell the public officials what is good for company x and not the public. If that is correct then company x will, rightly, suffer massive PR attacks. Part of my job is to write policy. In writing policies, I've found it very effective to have the worst offenders offer their advice on how the policy should be written. I ask very specific questions about their violations and how they would recommend the policy be changed to stop further violations or "rulebending". Do you think that >anyone< would do that if the CEO were sitting in at every meeting. Do you think >I< would want this guys ideas on how to violate policy spread around so that everyone else knows how to do it? Bias? No. Good management technique. Yes. So...me wanting the branch responsible for public protection afforded the ability to get frank and candid advice from >everyone< (even the >bad< people) makes me pro-bizness. Yeah...sure. Think it through... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #31,988 by mmoffitt 3/13/02 9:43:29 AM Reply	So, part of your job is accommodation. >> In writing policies, I've found it very effective to have the worst offenders >> offer their advice on how the policy should be written. I ask very >> specific questions about their violations and how they would recommend the >> policy be changed to stop further violations or "rulebending". If they're in violation, then you want to know how to change the rules so they won't be in violation. Not stop the behavior that causes the violation, but just change the rules so the same behavior is no longer illegal. Thank you for making my point for me better than I ever could have. What you describe is precisely the kind of backroom deal making with corporate Murica that is completely, wholly indefensible.
Post #32,036 by bepatient 3/13/02 1:41:28 PM Reply	Bzzzt...wrong again. Its not about rewriting policy to make their actions legal...its about rewriting policy to specifically forbid that activity...with specific assistance from those who know what was wrong with the old policy. We will not agree on this point. So its safe to say we can just stop here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,025 by Brandioch 3/13/02 12:56:48 PM Reply	And in your world, criminals write the laws? Thank you for illustrating EXACTLY why your practice is bad policy. Why would ANYONE who is LEGALLY poisoning the environment have any interest in restricting their practices? Why would ANYONE who is ILLEGALLY poisoning the environment have any interest in making their actions MORE illegal? Why can't you close the loopholes YOURSELF?!?
Post #32,042 by bepatient 3/13/02 1:49:01 PM Reply	Why do I bother? Public policy is about balance. Your methodology has no balance because it eliminates the officials ability to get candid advice. If you don't see it that way. Fine. We'll just leave it at that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,045 by Brandioch 3/13/02 1:59:28 PM Reply	Crime is not "advice". Your methodology has no balance because it eliminates the officials ability to get candid advice. You're claiming that the people who willingly poison the environment have useful input for future policy? Whatever. If you don't see it that way. Fine. We'll just leave it at that. No. I'm interested in your explanation of WHY someone who is WILLINGLY poisoning the environment would give you advice on how to stop him or how to increase his cost-of-doing-business.
Post #31,880 by bepatient 3/12/02 3:34:20 PM Reply	Keeping my example...and to illustrate other answer. Clean Water Act. - Company x had found a loophole that has allowed them >legally< to dump more than they would have been allowed to otherwise. I, as official #1, know this and want to discuss this with people from company x...and I want them to do so voluntarily...so that I can ensure loopholes like this don't happen in the new legislation. Think company x sends anyone if the meetings are public record? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #31,881 by Brandioch 3/12/02 3:42:45 PM Reply	Counter example. 1995 (I think), MS signs the Consent Agreement with the DoJ after both parties come to mutually understood terminology.
Post #31,992 by mmoffitt 3/13/02 9:52:04 AM Reply	You want to "discuss" this? >> ...dump more than they would have been allowed to otherwise. >> >> I, as official #1, know this and want to discuss this with people from >> company x...and I want them to do so voluntarily... You're the official and you know about the loophole and the dumping. What is to discuss? Fines? Penalties? The only thing company x needs to be informed of is that their loophole closed and if they pull any more shennanigans, they'll pay dearly. I'd also submit that company x's violation of the spirit of the Clean Water Act >should< be a matter of public record so that the public can treat company x with the same contempt company x has shown the public. You've said I was naive and you think that these corporate people are actually going to tell you how to close loopholes? That is ridiculous on its face. Their job is to find loopholes, not expose them.
Post #32,023 by Brandioch 3/13/02 12:53:28 PM Reply	applause clap clap clap #1. The officials write the laws. #2. The eco freaks monitor the companies and make public high levels of pollution and where it is coming from. #3. The lawyers determine whether the company in question is, in fact, violating the law. #3a. If so, fine and so on. #3b. If not, was the law written incorrectly? If so, re-write the law. (see #1)
Post #32,070 by ben_tilly 3/13/02 5:07:33 PM Reply	Real example The city of Victoria, BC is (or at least was, and was castigated for it for many years) one of only 2 cities of its size in Canada without a sewage treatment plant. The irony is that Victoria has commissioned multiple environmental impact studies on several different proposals to build one over the years, and every time came to the same conclusion. The environmental impact of building a sewage treatment plant far outweighed the environmental impact of continuing to release raw sewage well offshore into a fast current in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. That answer may not be popular, nor does it suit our prejudices, but it is correct. However if this comes up again, what local business really wants to be known as the one who was advocating dumping raw sewage in the ocean? Cheers, Ben PS I am not saying that I agree with Bill's argument (I don't, because I think that privacy is abused more than it is useful) but it isn't trivially wrong. PPS I do agree with a moderate version of Bill's position though. And that for the separate reason that documenting and publicizing every single negotiation and contact between businesses and government would be an insane addition to what is already an insane amount of bureaucracy. "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #32,079 by Brandioch 3/13/02 5:59:11 PM Reply	Good example. However if this comes up again, what local business really wants to be known as the one who was advocating dumping raw sewage in the ocean? If it was "good" methodology that was used to reach that conclusion, then I don't see the problem with the results. Ahhh, but that's the catch. It isn't only the methodology, but also the requirements and assumptions. You can have bad requirements and good methodology and still end up with a "bad" result. I don't know the specifics of that situation, but I can understand how flushing raw sewage into the ocean would be cheaper and have less of an impact on a city than having a local treatment site. I will assume we are talking about just sewage, bio-degradable human waste and such. We are definately NOT talking about hazardous chemicals or industrial wastes, right? And, once the population knows the result of the methodology and the starting assumptions and requirements, they can do what they feel is "right". Example, suppose that the starting assumption was altered so that dumping untreated sewage into the ocean was NOT an option? That's why I still believe that this sort of thing should be discussed in the open. The people affected by the policy SHOULD be able to see what assumptions and such are made. I don't see the problem with any company doing the research and presenting the findings to the people writing the policy. That would distance those companies from "recommending" dumping raw sewage into the ocean. They're just doing the research on the impact of various options. Now, if the local populace is willing to pay more for a different option, that should also be an option. But then it gets into emotions and such. How much is a "cleaner" world worth? PS I am not saying that I agree with Bill's argument (I don't, because I think that privacy is abused more than it is useful) but it isn't trivially wrong. I think privacy should be the rarest exception. And even then, it should have a definate time limit on it. PPS I do agree with a moderate version of Bill's position though......... I think a lot of it could be streamlined. There's no need to document anything that isn't directly related to policy. But that also goes along with campaign finance reform. Not to mention getting rid of "riders" on legislation. Our current system has been restructured to facilitate abuse by monied interests. We have to start somewhere to reform it. Ending secret meetings between governmental officials and corporations would be my first choice.
Post #32,141 by mmoffitt 3/14/02 8:50:00 AM Reply	Well said. Concur completely.
Post #32,153 by ben_tilly 3/14/02 9:39:35 AM Reply	Do you have reading problems? I never said "not worth it" to build the plant. I said that, with environmental impact being the only consideration, it was worse to build the plant. I said that the first time. You appear to have missed it. Cheaper is not the object, the environment is. Major factors included that the only available areas to build it happen to be fragile wetlands, the effort of building one involves considerable erosion, and Victoria is unusually well situated for direct dumpage. (Most places do not have the luxury of a fast current in a large enough body of water that the human addition is truly negligable.) As for the kind of waste, this is raw sewage. If someone chooses to flush drain-o down the toilet, that is in there. Else it is the natural stuff. (It was measured to be essentially all the natural stuff.) Now you ask whether the answer would change if you removed the winning option. Well of course, with that option gone, of course you cannot come to the same conclusion. But there is no good scientific or engineering reason to eliminate that option. And when you include it, the only tradeoff for building the affair is public relations versus the environment. The environment won. The reports, furthermore, were public record. But the question kept on coming up for public relations reasons. (It is easy to convince people who know nothing of the subject or circumstances that dumping raw sewage must be horrible.) When it came up with a new round of politicians, the reports were privately reported to them, and as a result the study got duplicated somewhat less often (at city expense) than it might otherwise have been. Incidentally public relations versus the environment is a tradeoff that happens rather more often than most people think. The environmental movement seems to be more filled with enthusiasm and good intentions than knowledge and basic common sense. As a result a large number of measures that get a lot of lobbying from them are actually abysmally stupid for the environment. (eg Electric cars.) As for your final suggestion, what is or is not directly related to policy? Who decides that? Said common sense streamlining might be more difficult than you think... Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #32,182 by Brandioch 3/14/02 12:43:09 PM Reply	No worse than your's. I said that, with environmental impact being the only consideration, it was worse to build the plant. I said that the first time. You appear to have missed it. Cheaper is not the object, the environment is. You might have skipped the part where I said that the original assumptions will affect the findings. You might also have missed the part where I said that making it public allows the public to see what those original assumptions were. And whether they agree with them. Cheaper is not the object, the environment is. Ben, give me enough money and I can turn raw sewage into drinking water. With no more impact on the local environment than any other office building would have. But, it will be extremely expensive. Major factors included that the only available areas to build it happen to be fragile wetlands, the effort of building one involves considerable erosion, and Victoria is unusually well situated for direct dumpage. Remember what I said about original assumptions? You've just illustrated that. You're thinking that you have to take up land that isn't already used. Why not just grab a block of downtown? Yes, I know that isn't feasible, but it is an illustration about how you don't even think of your initial assumptions. Which is why the process has to be public. Someone else might have a different view based upon different assumptions and those assumptions might result in a "better" policy. But there is no good scientific or engineering reason to eliminate that option. Possibly. That is another of your assumptions. Suppose someone decided to flush more hazardous materials? You are assuming that they won't. And when you include it, the only tradeoff for building the affair is public relations versus the environment. The environment won. Again, as long as your initial assumptions are correct, that will be true. Now, what happens when someone decides to get rid of 1,000 gallons of DDT by flushing it a gallon at a time? The reports, furthermore, were public record. Now, that fits with my original position how? Oh, that's right. That WAS my original position. But the question kept on coming up for public relations reasons. And what is the nature of politics? Are people crying because they have to do their job? When it came up with a new round of politicians, the reports were privately reported to them, and as a result the study got duplicated somewhat less often (at city expense) than it might otherwise have been. Hmmm, I find it strange that no one managed to hold on to the original report. Couldn't they just re-check the assumptions and calculations used in that? Isn't checking a report for accuracy less expensive and time consuming than writing a new report? The environmental movement seems to be more filled with enthusiasm and good intentions than knowledge and basic common sense. I think the same could be said of just about any human endevour. As for your final suggestion, what is or is not directly related to policy? Who decides that? Well, if there's any question about it, I'd let a judge decide. I think it's better to err on the side of disclosure rather than secrecy. But that's just me. Other than that, the official knows whether something is related to policy or not.
Post #32,286 by ben_tilly 3/15/02 12:49:58 AM Reply	One of us has more free time... Hint: It isn't me. I said that, with environmental impact being the only consideration, it was worse to build the plant. I said that the first time. You appear to have missed it. Cheaper is not the object, the environment is. You might have skipped the part where I said that the original assumptions will affect the findings. I did not skip that part. I am addressing the fact that you brought up monetary cost in multiple places. You might also have missed the part where I said that making it public allows the public to see what those original assumptions were. Again, reading comprehension. The report exists and is public. What is not public are the contacts between business and politicians where businesses inform newly elected politicians about existing public information before the politicians do something stupid (like make a promise to fix what ain't broken). And whether they agree with them. Again, all of your criticisms about the conductance of the report are off-base. The reports in question were conducted publically and are freely available. Talking about that indicates that you have not actually understood the scenario that I was talking about. Which is, as you should know, private business contacts bringing up an issue that is sensitive from a public relations point of view, merely to point out facts that are publically documented. Cheaper is not the object, the environment is. Ben, give me enough money and I can turn raw sewage into drinking water. With no more impact on the local environment than any other office building would have. But, it will be extremely expensive. If you are going to raise a straw man, at least make it believable, OK? Just the needs of delivering sewage etc to and from, plus the power requirements of treatment, make your claim infeasible with current technology. Major factors included that the only available areas to build it happen to be fragile wetlands, the effort of building one involves considerable erosion, and Victoria is unusually well situated for direct dumpage. Remember what I said about original assumptions? You've just illustrated that. You're thinking that you have to take up land that isn't already used. Why not just grab a block of downtown? You can't just grab a block of downtown unless you re-route the existing sewage system all over town to direct the sewage to your ridiculously placed sewage treatment plant. That construction effort involves even more excavation etc, with an even larger overall ecological impact than building the plant in a previously undeveloped area. Yes, I know that isn't feasible, but it is an illustration about how you don't even think of your initial assumptions. Which is why the process has to be public. Someone else might have a different view based upon different assumptions and those assumptions might result in a "better" policy. I find it an even better illustration of how you are just throwing out objections without bothering to sanity check them first... But there is no good scientific or engineering reason to eliminate that option. Possibly. That is another of your assumptions. Suppose someone decided to flush more hazardous materials? You are assuming that they won't. Please note that the possibility of a change in the usage pattern is one of the potential costs of the existing system. It should not be an a priori reason to eliminate the option. (Not being a sewage expert, I don't know how much ongoing monitoring was part of the system. I know there was some. I only know about this because I lived there, and knew an environmental engineer who did a lot of the measurements for the report.) And when you include it, the only tradeoff for building the affair is public relations versus the environment. The environment won. Again, as long as your initial assumptions are correct, that will be true. Now, what happens when someone decides to get rid of 1,000 gallons of DDT by flushing it a gallon at a time? The same thing that would happen if they put the gallons on a boat and went out to the strait. Hopefully you catch them. The reports, furthermore, were public record. Now, that fits with my original position how? Oh, that's right. That WAS my original position. Having local businesses contact politicians and attempt to affect policy by privately pointing out reports that were produced by their own departments was not part of your original position... But the question kept on coming up for public relations reasons. And what is the nature of politics? Are people crying because they have to do their job? Um...I am not sure what you think is being demonstrated. The fact that the issue keeps on coming up means that the policy decision keeps getting revisited, which means that local businesses have reason to keep pointing out why the policy is as it is. When it came up with a new round of politicians, the reports were privately reported to them, and as a result the study got duplicated somewhat less often (at city expense) than it might otherwise have been. Hmmm, I find it strange that no one managed to hold on to the original report. Couldn't they just re-check the assumptions and calculations used in that? Isn't checking a report for accuracy less expensive and time consuming than writing a new report? Do you always miss the point like this? Reviewing an existing report, seeing the calculations and analysis, and realizing that the figures are still in the right ballpark is indeed easily done. That is what the local businessmen encourage the politicians to do. Actually conducting an environmental impact study is not nearly so cheap. Even if you have an existing one, you still need to go back over a lot of ground and redo measurements to estimate, for instance, what the impact of erosion might be. (A few dry years can change vegetation, and that affects the answer significantly.) Starting a bidding process for building a new plant before realizing that it is stupid to build one also costs a lot. The environmental movement seems to be more filled with enthusiasm and good intentions than knowledge and basic common sense. I think the same could be said of just about any human endevour. That doesn't make it wrong. As for your final suggestion, what is or is not directly related to policy? Who decides that? Well, if there's any question about it, I'd let a judge decide. I think it's better to err on the side of disclosure rather than secrecy. But that's just me. Other than that, the official knows whether something is related to policy or not. You may think that the definition of what is or is not public policy is clear, but I don't. However I don't have time to discuss it, so I will have to let it drop. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #32,331 by Brandioch 3/15/02 11:42:18 AM Reply	Full circle. I said the report should be public. You said it was. I said the assumptions made in it should be public. They are. And so on and so on and so on. So, what's the problem? Public disclosure? It seems that such is being met. What is not public are the contacts between business and politicians where businesses inform newly elected politicians about existing public information before the politicians do something stupid (like make a promise to fix what ain't broken). Okay, so you've lost me again. If it isn't regarding policy, why should it be public? And that isn't regarding policy. Telling someone that a report exists IN PUBLIC that will address concerns that some citizens might have.......???? And the report can be accessed and verified by anyone IN THE PUBLIC? Right? So, if an elected official states that s/he is basing policy on a public report......... That's what I've been pushing for. You can't just grab a block of downtown unless you re-route the existing sewage system all over town to direct the sewage to your ridiculously placed sewage treatment plant. That construction effort involves even more excavation etc, with an even larger overall ecological impact than building the plant in a previously undeveloped area. Hmmm, so, somplace that is already paved and such presents more of an ecological problem than a wetland? I find that difficult to believe. I find it an even better illustration of how you are just throwing out objections without bothering to sanity check them first... No. I'm illustrating that you have assumptions you don't realize. Now, I said that it wasn't feasible, so that seems to indicate that I did do a sanity check first. But you say that I didn't. Then you say that tearing up a block of downtown would have more ecological impact than tearing up a similar sized chunk of wetlands. I expected better of you, Ben. Please note that the possibility of a change in the usage pattern is one of the potential costs of the existing system. Which is an "assumption" concerning the practice. You assume that such will not happen. It should not be an a priori reason to eliminate the option. (Not being a sewage expert, I don't know how much ongoing monitoring was part of the system. I know there was some. I only know about this because I lived there, and knew an environmental engineer who did a lot of the measurements for the report.) No, it should not. But it should be addressed. More safety costs more (be it money or land or whatever). Your solution is good as long as all the assumptions are met. Your solution breaks down when those assumptions are not met. Therefore, you need to detail the assumptions. The same thing that would happen if they put the gallons on a boat and went out to the strait. Hopefully you catch them. Yep. But in that case, they're doing the transportation on their own. Rather that using the provided disposal system. Having local businesses contact politicians and attempt to affect policy by privately pointing out reports that were produced by their own departments was not part of your original position... Phrased like that, you are correct. I wanted the reports and such made public. Now, we've gone over this and it's turned out that the reports WERE made public and the ONLY thing is whether the names of the individuals who directed the elected officals to the PUBLIC reports should be released. Hmmm, if that is ALL they did, then I don't see a problem. In fact, I would say that any basic research on the part of any clerk checking into that policy would result in the same information being found. Um...I am not sure what you think is being demonstrated. The fact that the issue keeps on coming up means that the policy decision keeps getting revisited, which means that local businesses have reason to keep pointing out why the policy is as it is. Simple, PR is part of politics. Now, as I've stated above, this information could be found by any clerk doing basic research into the policy. Yet you're afraid that any business that tells the offical where to look is going to have a PR problem. Even though this issue keeps coming up. Whatever. So, the corps could keep quiet and another study could be commissioned (why wasn't the original report found during the initial research phase?) and it would result in the exact same findings as the original report. How many times does this come up in, say, a ten year period? Not that I'm saying such a situation couldn't exist, but the people there must have DAMN SHORT MEMORIES. Or is there something else? The more information you give me on this, the stranger it seems. Do you always miss the point like this? Reviewing an existing report, seeing the calculations and analysis, and realizing that the figures are still in the right ballpark is indeed easily done. That is what the local businessmen encourage the politicians to do. But they could keep quiet and the EXACT SAME THING would happen. There would be some research into WHY you were doing the dumping which would turn up the original report which would be verified. Why do the businessmen have longer memories than the people in the administrations? Actually conducting an environmental impact study is not nearly so cheap. Even if you have an existing one, you still need to go back over a lot of ground and redo measurements to estimate, for instance, what the impact of erosion might be. (A few dry years can change vegetation, and that affects the answer significantly.) So the original report might not be valid anymore? Is that what you're saying? But doesn't that bring us right back to the original point of corporations using "facts" to support their case?
Post #32,037 by bepatient 3/13/02 1:44:27 PM Reply	How are you going to know about the problem? Noone is ever going to speak to public officials in your regime. You will never find out about these things. You just don't get it. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to convince you of that fact. EOD You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,046 by Brandioch 3/13/02 2:04:17 PM Reply	Again, an interesting world you live in. Do people in your world turn themselves into the police for speeding? Noone is ever going to speak to public officials in your regime. Not so. The CRIMINALS won't be speaking to them. But what advice do CRIMINALS have to give? You will never find out about these things. Again, not so. You'll find out about it when the TESTING that is done to ENSURE COMPLIANCE shows high levels of pollution. You >DO< do test, right? You don't just rely upon the corporations to tell you what and how much they're pumping into your drinking water, right? So, the testing shows high levels of chemicals. You trace them back to the source and your lawyers go to work. You find out that they've found a loophole in your laws. So, you go back and RE-WRITE those laws to get rid of the loophole. Where's the problem?
Post #32,047 by bepatient 3/13/02 2:08:49 PM Reply	Not much of a reader are you. Forget the eco example. You can't seem to grasp the concept of balance in public policy. You want only those who have nice things to say to be heard. Your prerogative. EOD You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,048 by Brandioch 3/13/02 2:19:18 PM Reply	You say "balance". Hmmm, how to phrase this. You say "balance", but you don't explain why the people you are claiming would offer said "balance" would have any incentive to offer said "balance". Example, suppose I find a road into work in the morning that isn't patrolled and I can drive 100+mph and save time on my commute? What is my incentive to tell the cops that I'm driving that fast? Why do I want the cops to shut down my private express lane? Now, listen to me. I'm not saying that I wouldn't be the best one to tell the cops about it. I'm not saying that, if I did tell the cops about it, the world wouldn't be safer. I'm asking about what my incentive is to do so. Why do I want to hinder myself? I'm already breaking or bending the law. Why do I want to close that loophole? I understand "balance". I just don't see where you're ACTUALLY going to get "balance" from.
Post #32,103 by Ric Locke 3/13/02 10:27:46 PM Reply	I'll try once. Brandioch, you seem to have the oddest opinion of people in business. Pure, total stereotyping. I thought Liberals weren't supposed to do that? Yes, you're right -- any individual business is better off, e.g., dumping hazardous waste rather than treating it. But the people running the business don't necessarily think it's a good idea, which is where Government comes in. If only one company gets penalized for dumping, and the others don't, that company goes out of business. So the people running the company, who don't care for pollution any better than you do, want the Government to stop everybody from doing it -- and the way to do that is tell the Government what they're doing, so honest inspectors will know what to look at in the other companies. That way everybody gets a level playing field. But, under your rules, that's impossible -- the minute any admission is made, bang go the penalties, and all the others go ::whew:: coulda been us, and go turn the taps up higher. This is one of the principal reasons business is so rabidly against anything based on Kyoto; the whole point of that treaty is that the U.S. has to make all these expensive changes, the Europeans get to stand pat on where they are, and the "developing world" (read: two billion Chinese) get to dump whatever they like and gain an economic advantage. Your response indicates to me that you just don't have any clue as to what Ben was trying to say, but then you aren't just real good at reasoning from examples, are you? Regards, Ric
Post #32,151 by mmoffitt 3/14/02 9:14:28 AM Reply	And what color is the sky in your world? >> [on dumping] But the people running the business don't necessarily >> think it's a good idea, which is where Government comes in. ... >> So the people running the company, who don't care for pollution >> any better than you do, want the Government to stop everybody from doing it >> -- and the way to do that is tell the Government what they're doing, ... They do this even if it costs the company money? Nonsense. No business voluntarily does anything that subtracts from the bottom line. The truth is that the only reason any business exists is to make money for its shareholders. There is no other motivation for any business anywhere. What you suggest here is what I suspect has been done and is in no small measure the reason that we in the US pump vastly more pollution into the environment than our population would lead one to predict. >> But, under your rules, that's impossible -- the minute any admission is made, >> bang go the penalties, and all the others go ::whew:: coulda been us, and go >> turn the taps up higher. This is one of the principal reasons business is so >> rabidly against anything based on Kyoto; ... Wrong again, Pollyanna. The reason businesses are "so rabidly against anything based on Kyoto" is that implementation of that Treaty WILL COST THEM MONEY (see above for an explanation of that). Instead of saying, "::whew::" they better say "yikes, we're next" and plan/correct their behavior accordingly. >> the Europeans get to stand pat on where they are, ... Hmmmm, could that be because they don't pollute as much as we do? No, no, of course not - Kyoto was an agreement that was well researched and painstakingly negotiated to pick on Murican bizness, right?
Post #32,185 by Brandioch 3/14/02 12:56:55 PM Reply	Higher speeds cause more deaths. Therefore, people who speed should be calling the cops and having them patrol the areas that they speed in so that EVERYONE will be safer. At least, that is what I get out of YOUR position. Strangely enough, I don't see anyone doing that. Now, since my world view seems to be supported by the lack of calls into the police and your world view would seem to require people calling the police, which do you think is more realistic? But, under your rules, that's impossible -- the minute any admission is made, bang go the penalties, and all the others go ::whew:: coulda been us, and go turn the taps up higher. Is there some reason that neither Bill nor you can grasp the concept of "inspectors" who run tests and check levels of contamination? Admission isn't a factor. Once it is found that someone is dumping higher than expected levels of contamination, the lawyers come in. If the corporate lawyers have a good case based on a loophole, then it is the policy writer's job to CLOSE THAT LOOPHOLE. Your response indicates to me that you just don't have any clue as to what Ben was trying to say, but then you aren't just real good at reasoning from examples, are you? I'll agree with you when you can show me that people who break the speed limit call the cops and report themselves or the situation. You won't be able to do that because the people breaking the speed limit DO NOT CALL THE COPS TO ADMIT IT. Now, how do the cops find out about it? Well, from other people who live in the area and are tired of speeders zipping through their area or from other drivers who think that the speed posted is unsafe. I am exceptionally good at reasoning from examples. You will note that I (as opposed to you) actually address the points of the discussion rather than filtering them out. Speeders don't report themselves. Polluters don't report themselves.
Post #32,202 by a6l6e6x 3/14/02 2:48:23 PM Reply	And you have never seen... a convicted burglar on TV explaining the top 10 (or whatever) things people should or shouldn't do to their homes to avoid becoming victims. These folks are experts. I'll grant you that they would not be on TV before being captured. Alex "Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
Post #32,210 by Brandioch 3/14/02 3:11:41 PM Reply	The order of those events is the key. They were caught FIRST. THEN they did the public service stint. Now, if they turned themselves in rather than being caught, it would support the other two's position. Or if the burglar took it upon himself to do the public service bits before being caught. Or if the burglar notified the lock manufacturers of flaws in their designs. Or if the burglar sent letters to the local police force telling them to step up patrols in the areas he was working in. But, I never seem to hear about instances like those. It always seems to be that someone doing the MONITORING catches a violator and THEN the violator helps. #1. Officials write the laws. #2. People monitor compliance with the laws. #3. When a violation is found, the lawyers go in. #3a. The corp is fined for breaking the law. #3b. The corp uses a loophole to avoid being fined. #4. The officials re-write the law to close the loophole. (return to #1.)
Post #32,244 by bepatient 3/14/02 5:57:23 PM Reply	Who do you think monitors the laws? EPA compliance and reporting is the responsibility of the company...not the government. EPA law carries criminal penalty in certain cases. EPA law is retroactive in many cases. It is quite common for companies to assist in >strengthening< EPA laws. It is often done BEFORE there is substantial harm done. Of course, this doesn't jibe with your reality...unfortunately for your reality...its true. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,245 by Brandioch 3/14/02 6:19:04 PM Reply	The eco-freaks do. EPA compliance and reporting is the responsibility of the company...not the government. Now, I want you to apply this same "logic" to my speeding example. Suppose cops didn't enforce the speed limits. Like I said before, and before and before, NONE of the speeders call up the cops and turn themselves in. So >WHY< do you think that corporations will do what individuals do not? Let's take ANOTHER example, Enron. It is quite common for companies to assist in >strengthening< EPA laws. It is often done BEFORE there is substantial harm done. Fascinating. Truly it is. I mean that you keep making that claim when I keep pointing out that self-enforcement just doesn't seem to work for speeding or burglary or any other issue. Care to put up or shut up now? Start listing instances where a company has self-reported violations or has supported tougher standards. Then I'll counter with 10x as many examples of companies that have been fined for breaking the law. You >STILL< don't get it. You're arguing for THEORETICAL situations. I'm pointing you to the REAL WORLD. In your fantasy, corporations are good and help the EPA. In the real world, corporations get sued for dumping toxic chemicals into public drinking water and fight to gut the existing regulations. Like I said, speeders do NOT report themselves to the cops. But feel free to repeat what you've said without any support or links.
Post #32,250 by bepatient 3/14/02 7:20:09 PM Reply	Why do I think they do? Because [link\|http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/index.html\|its the law]. EPA uses several means to do this such as compliance inspections by EPA inspectors at regulated facilities, joint environmental inspections with state or tribal inspectors, and collection and analysis of self monitoring reports submitted to EPA by regulated facilities as required either by regulation or the facility's specific environmental permit. Welcome to the real world. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,255 by Brandioch 3/14/02 8:00:27 PM Reply	You use that phrase, but I do not think you understand it. Because its the law. Yes. It is the law. It is also the law that you not steal, kill and so on. Yet our jails are filled with people who do such. Welcome to the real world. Again, I have instance after instance after instance of examples showing that what you claim will happen JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN. So then you retreat into claiming that it is the LAW! Great. And wasn't my point that they will BREAK THE LAW!?! Again, you've got some serious filtering going on. In the "real world", corporations break the law and dump contaminants into public drinking water. This is a fact. There are examples of this. In your fantasy world, they don't do that because they helped write the law saying that they can't do that. Now, if I can pull up a single case of contaminated drinking water, who's position will it support?
Post #32,257 by bepatient 3/14/02 8:45:42 PM Reply	You don't know what you're talking about. I do. Its that simple. I work in a regulated industry. I've seen every aspect of EPA regulation and enforcement. Firsthand. Failure to report, even if you are not in violation, means you are fined. You don't even have to be doing anything wrong. You're still fined. If you falsify the compliance reports. You go to jail. My industry >supports< this. We politic FOR this. Why? Because if you leave it to the eco-freaks, things get done based on knee-jerk reactionism and not on the basis of fact. One of my co-workers was one of the principle writers of the Montreal Protocol. The effect of that was to eliminate the sale of 4 of our most profitable products. But NO company would ever do anything that would harm its bottom line. NEVER. At least...not in your world. The real world is different. I work there. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,260 by Brandioch 3/14/02 9:48:21 PM Reply	Ah, the old "I have secret wisdom and you don't" ploy. I do. Its that simple. I work in a regulated industry. I've seen every aspect of EPA regulation and enforcement. Firsthand. Really? I spent 3 years working for NorthWest EnviroService which was bought by Philip Environmental during their acquisition spree. See? My secret wisdom of the ancients is just as valid as your secret wisdom of the ancients. I think that qualifies as a slam in your face. Failure to report, even if you are not in violation, means you are fined. You don't even have to be doing anything wrong. You're still fined. Oooh, but what if you DO report, but you report INCORRECT data? You know, like a >LIE<? Oh, but in your fantasy world, corporations don't ever lie, do they? That's the part of this conversation that you just can't wrap your mind around. 'Cause, in your fantasy world, corporations are the font of all that is good. Bill, they lie. They falsify records. They dump polutants into drinking water. Just deal with it or I'll have to slam you with some examples of corporations that have lied to the EPA. If you falsify the compliance reports. You go to jail. And who tells if they are falsified? My industry >supports< this. We politic FOR this. Why? Because if you leave it to the eco-freaks, things get done based on knee-jerk reactionism and not on the basis of fact. Once again we see Bill's inability to conceptualize that corporations can lie to the EPA. Well, here is another in-your-face slam, Bill. [link\|http://hellskitchen.net/issues/nyat/epa990915.html\|http://hellskitchen...a990915.html] A company falsified records that it sent to the EPA. (waits for Bill's mind to shift gears to claim this isn't what he meant at all). Here's a big ol' url: [link\|http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/4dd4675b0d06ce8b85256ab2005d6699?OpenDocument\|http://yosemite.epa...OpenDocument] Yep. Another company that falsified reports to the EPA. So, we have examples of companies that violate the laws about reporting to the EPA. Gee, doesn't that kind of support my position and not Bill's? Oh, too bad, Bill. You're wrong again. One of my co-workers was one of the principle writers of the Montreal Protocol. And I'm sure his/her mother is very proud. The effect of that was to eliminate the sale of 4 of our most profitable products. And here's a url for that. [link\|http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/05.htm\|http://www.epa.gov/...treal/05.htm] But now I'm a bit confused. You seem to imply in that statement that you're working for a company that produces hazardous materials. (note the phrase "sale of 4 of our most profitable products). Yet, in previous posts, you seemed to be stating that you were writing official EPA policy and seeking the input of corporations to help close loopholes. Hmmmmm, very curious that. But NO company would ever do anything that would harm its bottom line. NEVER. At least...not in your world. Need I remind you of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream again? Yes, some companies DO sacrifice their bottom line in order to meet their idealistic goals. Oh, but that doesn't seem to match with your earlier statements either. You were talking about polluters who helped you close the loopholes that allowed them to pollute. Now you're going for the extreme by claiming that I say that NO company would sacrifice profit for values. I didn't say that. What I said was, why would someone who is polluting help you close a loophole? My example of that was asking you how many speeders report themselves to the police. The real world is different. I work there. No, Bill. You're existing in a fantasy world that is only coincidentally similar to the real world.
Post #32,280 by ben_tilly 3/14/02 11:48:55 PM Reply	Courtesy request Please create a hyperlinks instead of just posting big old urls. Posting a single big-ass URL can make an entire thread unreadable because it widens the text too far for comfortable reading without scrolling back and forth. The hyperlink makes your point - more effectively because you can just click on it - and does not interfere with reading the rest of the thread. Thank you, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #32,303 by bepatient 3/15/02 8:20:52 AM Reply	Ah...I see. I tell you what is required by law and supported by regulated industries. You find an example or 2 of people breaking the requirements. That means that ALL COMPANIES operate that way. Your a human. Humans commit murder every day. Brandioch's a murderer. Same logic. So get out there and kill somebody...times a wastin. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,323 by Brandioch 3/15/02 10:58:50 AM Reply	Ah, since I slammed your "secret wisdom of the ancients"... you're, once again, retreating to extremes and strawmen. I tell you what is required by law and supported by regulated industries. Yes, we've established that. Look backwards to find the point where I started my speeding analogy. It is the law. NEWSFLASH: People break the laws! You find an example or 2 of people breaking the requirements. That is right. I have supported my position that PEOPLE BREAK THE LAWS. Even the EPA laws. That means that ALL COMPANIES operate that way. Umm, no. Where did you pull THAT statement out of? I've already given you an EXAMPLE of a company (Ben & Jerry's) that operates at a MORE RESTRICTIVE level than required by the government. So, there, I've just slammed ANOTHER of your arguments. Your a human. Humans commit murder every day. Brandioch's a murderer. Maybe that makes sense in YOUR world. Or is that another example of your twisted attempt at "logic"? So get out there and kill somebody...times a wastin. That's a great rebuttal of my points. So, why does it appear that you are working for a governmental agency writing policy to control poluters in one post, but in another post, you seem to be working for a company that manufactures hazardous materials? Your filters are working overtime. You can't even parse my posts. Did you miss the part about Ben & Jerry's. Or does the above sentence appear, to you as: Did you miss the part about blah blah blah leftist blah. I give you an example of a company that holds itself to higher standards than required by the government. You say that I said all companies break the law. I, once again, give you an example of a company that holds itself to higher standards than required by the government. You, once again, say that I said all companies break the law. Now, this is the third time I'm giving you the example of Ben & Jerry's. I'm going to bet that the repetition of this has FINALLY gotten past your filters and you'll ignore this as the concepts are just too alien for your current mental state OR you'll reply with some pathetic excuse for a barbed witticism. For everyone else, I will restate your ORIGINAL position. That the EPA >SHOULD< get the input of companies who are breaking the environmental laws (or that have found loopholes) so that they can write "better" laws (or "close" the loopholes). My counter to that was that no speeders turn themselves into the cops. Nor do they call the cops and tell them of areas that are under-patrolled. It doesn't happen. Again, my process for writing "good" laws. #1. The officials write the laws. #2. Monitoring is done (by someone other than than those being monitored). #3. If violations are found, the lawyers are sent in. #3a. If it is a violation, the company is fined (etc). #3b. If it is a loophole, go to #1 as a re-write.
Post #32,326 by bepatient 3/15/02 11:08:21 AM 3/15/02 11:09:42 AM Reply	Just applying your "logic" Sorry you can't seem to follow. I tell you how the law and industry actually work. You point to an example where a company breaks the law and try to establish that example as defacto. Then you point to a largely non regulated (EPA) company as someone who does it "better". So. Most people don't murder others. But a couple do. That makes everyone a murderer...(your logic...not mine)...except that Ben guy. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 11:09:42 AM EST Expand All History
Post #32,339 by Brandioch 3/15/02 12:39:08 PM Reply	Another successful application of filtering. Thanks for, once again, proving that I'm right. Then you point to a largely non regulated (EPA) company as someone who does it "better". Nope. I gave Ben & Jerry's as an example of a company that holds themselves to higher standards than those required by the government. So, I did NOT say that, just because one company breaks the law, ALL companies break the law. But I expected this from you as your filters are working overtime in an attempt to spin the facts into something you can accept as "reality". I tell you how the law and industry actually work. Yet you still have trouble with whether you work for a governmental agency writing the laws or whether you work for a company that manufactures hazardous materials. And you expect me to believe that you have any real idea of how the industry works? You don't even know who monitors the companies to ensure that they're complying with the regulations. You point to an example where a company breaks the law and try to establish that example as defacto. No, I point out TWO examples of companies that have LIED on their required reports to the EPA. This establishes that some companies BREAK THE LAW. But that conflicts with YOUR religion so you can't accept it. Whatever. Which brings me back to the ORIGINAL point that you're advocating having CRIMINALS help write the laws because you think they want to have their criminal activities shut down. And, like all religions, your's only makes sense if you buy into the initial fantasy. Whereas, in my experience, criminals do NOT want their activities shut down. To support my position, I have pointed out that speeders do NOT self-report themselves to the cops.
Post #32,371 by bepatient 3/15/02 3:22:50 PM 3/15/02 3:25:52 PM Reply	I can see... ...that you have no interest in how things actually work. Even after I referenced the law and its requirements. And you continue to extend your examples to the entire landscape of industry (except of course the vaunted B&J) by insisting that I advocate >criminals< assist in writing laws and policy. (but I'm not supposed to notice that you're doing this...since I'm illiterate). I also pointed out the fact that a company had an employee and allowed him to partake in the drafting of a major treaty that effectively eliminated sale of very profitable products. Somehow this is less relevent than Ben & Jerry's exceeding government requirements...even though the act undertaken was, in essence, to draft stricter requirements than already existed...and doing so at considerable cost. But no company in your world would ever do such a thing. By the way. Drivers are not required to record and report the speeds they drive to the DMV. So if you want to use something as a comparison...try to find something a little better. Post edit--- On second thought. Don't bother. You're being combative with me just because it somehow inflates your sense of self. No one else here cares...or they would probably have posted by now. So.. EOD You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 03:25:52 PM EST Expand All History
Post #32,382 by Brandioch 3/15/02 3:55:04 PM Reply	I can see you're still filtering. Even after I referenced the law and its requirements. Bill, it is >YOU< that doesn't understand how "things really work". You can pass all the laws you want. People will still break them. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the fact. And you continue to extend your examples to the entire landscape of industry (except of course the vaunted B&J) by insisting that I advocate >criminals< assist in writing laws and policy. (but I'm not supposed to notice that you're doing this...since I'm illiterate). Bill, that is your original position. Shall I quote one of your posts back at you? Here it is: Part of my job is to write policy. In writing policies, I've found it very effective to have the worst offenders offer their advice on how the policy should be written. I ask very specific questions about their violations and how they would recommend the policy be changed to stop further violations or "rulebending". I also pointed out the fact that a company had an employee and allowed him to partake in the drafting of a major treaty that effectively eliminated sale of very profitable products. Somehow this is less relevent than Ben & Jerry's exceeding government requirements...even though the act undertaken was, in essence, to draft stricter requirements than already existed...and doing so at considerable cost. Actually, you said "coworker". And I never said that there weren't companies that would do that. >YOU< were the one that claimed I said that. I said the the companies in VIOLATION would not do that. Which, if you read your above quoted post, was what you said they would do. But no company in your world would ever do such a thing. Once again, Ben & Jerry's. A company that holds to higher standards than the government requires. My example. Yet you >STILL< keep trying to claim that I'm saying that NO companies would do that. People, do I need to present >ANY< more evidence for mental filtering? Really? This is the 4TH time I've mentioned Ben & Jerry's and Bill >STILL< wants to claim that I say that NO company would do that. Mental filtering, people. It real. It exists. Watch Bill and you will see it in action. By the way. Drivers are not required to record and report the speeds they drive to the DMV. So if you want to use something as a comparison...try to find something a little better. It's called an "analogy". You say the companies that violate EPA standards want to help toughen those standards. I say that this doesn't happen ANY PLACE ELSE. For an example, I said that speeders NEVER self-report themselves. And they don't. Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules. On second thought. Don't bother. You're being combative with me just because it somehow inflates your sense of self. No one else here cares...or they would probably have posted by now. Bill, >YOU< are the one who's job mysteriously changes from post to post. >YOU< are the one that keeps trying to re-phrase my position. Even after I clarify it. Even after I give examples of how you're attempting to re-phrase it. Bill, I really don't care what you think. I'm just illustrating how someone (you) with a pre-set agenda will filter any available "facts" to support your position. I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong on this. You "know" you're right. Even though I have years of experience in companies that also have to deal with the EPA. And I can NAME the companies I worked for. Your exact job is still undefined. Did you write policy or were you employed by a company that had to follow EPA policy? Your filters are operating so fast that you've managed to convince yourself that your industry is COMPLETELY different than any other facet of life. You can't explain this. You just KNOW that it is true. Like I said, religion, filters, beliefs.
Post #32,391 by bepatient 3/15/02 4:33:56 PM 3/15/02 4:36:45 PM Reply	No. Fact - I work in a regulated industry. Yes...we make hazardous materials. Fact - I write policies. Its line 3 under "Responsibilites" in my job description. Fact - The person involved in the Protocol is a co-worker. 2 floors down. Fact - EPA law requires >companies< to monitor and self report. Your car analogy is a poor one because speeders are NOT required by law to monitor and self report. I have used people who bend the rules successfully to offer advice and assistance in writing new policy to close those loopholes. They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit. It isn't any longer. Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules. I work for a company that has assisted in tougheniing rules a great expense to itself. That would seem counter to your assertion. I'm not filtering. You're doing your level best to misrepresent me. Have fun. You are now truly on your own here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 04:36:45 PM EST Expand All History
Post #32,470 by Brandioch 3/16/02 8:30:22 PM Reply	Strange...... URL: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=31878\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=31878] Part of my job is to write policy. In writing policies, I've found it very effective to have the worst offenders offer their advice on how the policy should be written. I ask very specific questions about their violations and how they would recommend the policy be changed to stop further violations or "rulebending". Please compare that with this quote taken from the immediately prior post. Fact - I work in a regulated industry. Yes...we make hazardous materials. Fact - I write policies. Its line 3 under "Responsibilites" in my job description. Fact - The person involved in the Protocol is a co-worker. 2 floors down. Fact - EPA law requires >companies< to monitor and self report. So, you're writing policy for your own company and you think that the wordst violators in your own company can give you good input on writing that policy? Here's a term for you.... Masterbation. Who gives a FUCK what your INTERNAL policies are and how they're generated?!? Your car analogy is a poor one because speeders are NOT required by law to monitor and self report. That is true. But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that people who break the rules do NOT report themselves. The speeders was an easy analogy. Since you seemed to have trouble with that (and still seem to) I gave you TWO examples of companies that LLIED on their REQUIRED reports to the EPA. Violators do NOT report their violations. Even if they are REQUIRED to. I have used people who bend the rules successfully to offer advice and assistance in writing new policy to close those loopholes. Do you UNDERSTAND why I said that was masterbation? Do you? No one >CARES< what your INTERNAL policies are! You don't have any AUTHORITY over anyone else. What you do or do not do has NO IMPACT on what other companies do. They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit. It isn't any longer. You see? This is where the confusion comes in. You say >YOU< re-wrote the policy to change a previously LEGAL act into an ILLEGAL one. But you do NOT have that authority NOR is that the office you hold. Yet you >STILL< claim to have done that. I've put up the two companies I've worked for. I still don't see you doing the same. You're operating under another masterbation fantasy, Bill. You did NOT do what you claimed you did. Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules. I work for a company that has assisted in tougheniing rules a great expense to itself. That would seem counter to your assertion. Okay, let me put this in very small words for you...... Are you saying that your company was in violation of EPA policy? Yes/No? Think >VERY< carefully about your answer there. You know what happens if you answer "yes". If not, then my point (allow me to quote it back to you "Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules.") is valid as your company did NOT meet the criteria for that statement (note the part about "violate the rules"). Now, if your company did NOT violate the rules, then your company does NOT match my criteria and, once again, you have proven my point about your inability to read with comprehension (due to the vast quantity of filters you have running in your head). If your company DID violate the EPA rules (well, well, what was that about "moral" companies the other day?) then >YOU< did NOTHING to strengthen the EPA rules, only your INTERNAL policies. Either way, your original hypothesis has been disproven (based upon this example). Unless your company DID violate the EPA policy AND self-reported it AND worked to toughen the EPA's policy. If so, please provide the name of your company for verification. You seem more than a bit confused on whether you write EPA policy or not and whether your company is/was in violation or not. In fact, your "facts" seem to change from post to post. Not that I would EVER doubt your veracity. Never ever.
Post #32,476 by bepatient 3/16/02 8:53:07 PM Reply	Nope. You can't read. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,481 by Brandioch 3/16/02 9:26:19 PM Reply	When pressed for actual facts..... Bill Patient will (as most Republicans) run and hide. I gave the names of both environmental companies I worked for. Bill refuses to name the company he works for. Bill also refuses to state whether said company was actually in violation of EPA policy or was not. Bill Patient, a model Republican and working for a moral company. (I'll just bookmark this thread for reference in future discussions, okay, Bill?)
Post #32,486 by bepatient 3/16/02 10:18:54 PM 3/16/02 10:20:09 PM Reply	Sure...no sweat. We won't be having any. And I'm not a Republican. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 16, 2002, 10:20:09 PM EST Expand All History
Post #32,507 by Brandioch 3/17/02 11:54:02 AM Reply	Why so fact aversive? What are you afraid of? Why can I detail my experiences and you try to hide behind a veil of secret ancient wisdom? Hmmmmmmm??????? What are you trying to hide? And I'm not a Republican. Oh, sorry, I really meant "conservative compassionate". Not "Republican". Never "Republican". Or whatever you want to call yourself these days. Looks like a Walks like a Quacks like a
Post #32,509 by bepatient 3/17/02 12:24:01 PM 3/17/02 12:25:55 PM Reply	this space left blank You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 17, 2002, 12:25:55 PM EST Expand All History
Post #32,512 by Brandioch 3/17/02 2:33:01 PM Reply	Again, why are you afraid of the facts? Why can't you answer a simple question? Hmmmmm? Claim illiteracy all you want. But it's hard to read when you won't write the answer. Does this make my third request for a response? You fear is what makes you weak.
Post #32,525 by mmoffitt 3/17/02 6:34:53 PM Reply	Clarification please. In my world, (a place requiring a much more Left-jaded field of vision than I suspect you're capable of ;0), a person who knowingly violates "the spirit of the law" is as culpable as some one who violates the law literally. You seem to be here: >>They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit. drawing a distinction that I, and I suspect Brandioch, does not draw.
Post #32,529 by Brandioch 3/17/02 7:24:14 PM Reply	Technically not criminals. But I'm still wondering why someone who seeks to use a loophole to advantage his/her company would work to close said loophole.
Post #32,531 by mmoffitt 3/17/02 7:38:38 PM Reply	That is indeed a fascinating notion.
Post #32,539 by a6l6e6x 3/18/02 12:50:51 AM Reply	Perhaps competing companies are better at working a loop... hole. In other words, "This rule would hurt us, but it will hurt XYZ a lot more". Is you deviousness mode switch turned off? :) Alex "Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
Post #32,679 by Brandioch 3/18/02 9:46:51 PM Reply	Possibly. But it requires a great deal of knowledge of your competitor's business.
Post #32,147 by mmoffitt 3/14/02 8:58:27 AM Reply	You changed your hypothesis. In this post, you say that no public official will ever become aware of problems: >> Noone is ever going to speak to public officials in your regime. You will >> never find out about these things. But in your example, the public official already knows about the problem: >> Clean Water Act. - Company x had found a loophole that has allowed them >> >legally< to dump more than they would have been allowed to otherwise. >> I, as official #1, know this and want to discuss this with people from >> company x. Is this one of your much touted "rule changes" to accommodate your argument? I don't think I have anything of real value to add to Brandioch's comments. bcnu, Mikem -I'd have a sig, but we Americans have to "watch what we say, watch what we do now."
Post #31,682 by Brandioch 3/11/02 3:26:10 PM Reply	Hmmmm..... But didn't the Clinton admin release just TONS of paperwork after it was obviously dead? I can understand not releasing SOME information. I am reminded of the concept of "honest graft". If the policy requires that the government acquire some land that is currently worthless, making such a policy public would mean that people would grab said land and then turn a profit selling it to the government (eminent domain notwithstanding). Hmmmm, but that tends to get back into the realm of what the advisors advise and whether their advice is "good" or "bad". The simple solution to all cases would, in my opinion, be to release ALL of the records AFTER the policy is made public and implemented. And when I say "after" I mean "right after". Within 12 months of the first step of that policy going into effect. Again, if they're on the up and up, all that this will prove is that they're good people looking out for the country as best they can. If they're not, well......that will be shown also.
Post #31,738 by Simon_Jester 3/11/02 8:09:07 PM Reply	Well..it does happen with ever administration... but I find it interesting that the ... er... other side is also there for every administration. (After all, Republicans did take the issue to court as well to attempt to get the documents released, correct?) Finally... I must admit that I do love the comparision to the Clinton Health plan...didn't that fail and leave the Clinton administration with a HUGE black eye? (And Bush et. al. expects differently?)
Post #31,860 by jb4 3/12/02 2:12:27 PM Reply	Rant for rant... I like mmoffitt's better. After all, he doesn't resort to reductio ad absurdum[sic?] like you so often do...like now, for instance.... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)

Welcome to IWETHEY!