FORWARDED TO: abuse@emory.edu

your professor Lloyd Parker is posting this crap in the jeep newsgroup
news:rec.autos.makers.jeep+****** . this has NOTHING to do with jeeps and
is a clear violation of the newsgroup charter. for the record, he has
posted nearly 60,000 usenet messages (easily verifiable at
http://tinyurl.com/xjuf ) promoting his political agenda in inappropriate
newsgroups and all appear to be on company time using company resources.
please stop him from using your servers to violate our newsgroup charter
further.
thank you.

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql1lf$c29$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >z wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
> >> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> >> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> >> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
> >> feasiable
> >> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity
or a
> >> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china
feeding a
> >> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new
> plants
> >> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means
of
> >> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> >> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> >> >> >> > possible.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you
recall
> the
> >> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously
pled
> >> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil
fuelled
> >> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going
to be
> >> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to
upgrade
> >> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's
thirty
> >> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still
being
> >> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known
locally
> as
> >> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are
just
> >> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> >> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's
much
> >> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build
new
> >> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> >> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> >> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act
that
> >> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if
they
> >> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> >> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand
> their
> >> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to
> enforce
> >> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> >> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> >> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration
SIGNED
> >> the
> >> >> Clean Air Act
> >> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the
> Clean
> >> Air
> >> >> Act. Secondly, the
> >> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW
> PLANTS
> >> >> (new sources) to have
> >> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants
> would
> >> be
> >> >> initially exempted
> >> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these
older
> >> palnts
> >> >> would then be capped
> >> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities
(pollution)
> and
> >> >> production is shifted to
> >> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because
they
> are
> >> >> cheaper to operate due
> >> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the
most
> >> >> advanced pollution controls
> >> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or
> upgraded
> >> >> (when they WOULD be
> >> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to
> operate
> >> or
> >> >> they get too old to
> >> >> >operate anyway.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating
routine
> >> >> maintenance on plants as
> >> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written
law.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources,
which
> was
> >> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >> >
> >> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> efficiency,
> >> such
> >> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >> >
> >> >> If during 10 years of routine
> >> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet
under
> your
> >> and
> >> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls
because
> you
> >> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
> >> >
> >> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new
source.
> >> Try
> >> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and
> should
> >> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
> >
> >In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine
maintenance
> and
> >part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review.
This
> was
> >done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates
perverse
> >incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Treating it this way
> >> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
> >> >> requirements of new plants.
> >> >>
> >> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and
cleaned",
> >> that's
> >> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number
of
> >> utility
> >> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued
> until
> >> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
> >> >
> >> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN
in
> the
> >> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
> >>
> >> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
> >
> >You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its
records
> in
> >its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
> Clinton
> >EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
> Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
routine
> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
to
> >> defer
> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> operated
> >> in.
> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> expensive
> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> polluting
> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> extensively
> >> >> on this, and
> >> >>
> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never
met a
> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >
> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
with
> >> actual
> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >>
> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
have
> any
> >> credibility.
> >
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered
an
> objective source.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
that
> >> Daimler
> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> Exchange,
> >> as if
> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> didn't
> >> even
> >> >exist!
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >
> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
the
> New
> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your
phony
> claim
> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> NYSE
> >than ADPs.
>
> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
>
> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
York
> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
>
> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
>
> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
in
> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants
were
> >> TOO
> >> >> CLEAN because they
> >> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all
recorded
> in
> >> >> memos.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was not.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too
long
> >> ago. And
> >> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on
the
> last
> >> full
> >> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001
that
> >> Clinton
> >> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives
> destroyed,
> >> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
> >> Clinton
> >> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
> >> philosophy of
> >> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
> >> legislation
> >> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start
saying
> how
> >> ABC
> >> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But
it's
> >> easier
> >> >> for people to make
> >> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual
laws,
> the
> >> >> reason why they were
> >> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
> >> non-laws,
> >> >> or what is going on
> >> >> >in general.
> >> >>
> >> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment!
LOL!
> >> >
> >> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for
> plants
> >> NOT
> >> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they
> could
> >> become
> >> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel
fuel,
> >> the low
> >> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and
Bush's
> EPA
> >> is
> >> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
> >> Thanks for
> >> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
> >> government
> >> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record
that
> you
> >> needed
> >> >to erase it.
> >> >
> >> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you
conveniently
> >> forgot to
> >> >comment on it!
> >> >
> >> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison
Co.,
> tried
> >> to
> >> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam
turbines
> at
> >> its
> >> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than
the
> >> old,
> >> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
> >> energy--more
> >> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
Source
> >> Review
> >> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
> >> >
> >> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy
pollution-fighting
> >> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650
million
> to
> >> meet
> >> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single
new
> >> kilowatt
> >> >of electricity.
> >> >
> >> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to
perverse
> rules
> >> as a
> >> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that
at
> >> least
> >> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
> >> guidelines, it
> >> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its
policies.
> It
> >> simply
> >> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
> >> >
> >> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
> >> dioxide, the
> >> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
> >> tripling of
> >> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further
50%."
> >> -WSJ
> >> >11/26/02
> >
> >I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your
computer's
> clock
> >is wrong too.
> >

 

FORWARDED TO: abuse@emory.edu

your professor Lloyd Parker is posting this crap in the jeep newsgroup
news:rec.autos.makers.jeep+****** . this has NOTHING to do with jeeps and
is a clear violation of the newsgroup charter. for the record, he has
posted nearly 60,000 usenet messages (easily verifiable at
http://tinyurl.com/xjuf ) promoting his political agenda in inappropriate
newsgroups and all appear to be on company time using company resources.
please stop him from using your servers to violate our newsgroup charter
further.
thank you.

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql1lf$c29$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >z wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
> >> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> >> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> >> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
> >> feasiable
> >> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity
or a
> >> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china
feeding a
> >> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new
> plants
> >> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means
of
> >> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> >> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> >> >> >> > possible.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you
recall
> the
> >> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously
pled
> >> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil
fuelled
> >> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going
to be
> >> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to
upgrade
> >> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's
thirty
> >> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still
being
> >> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known
locally
> as
> >> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are
just
> >> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> >> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's
much
> >> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build
new
> >> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> >> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> >> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act
that
> >> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if
they
> >> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> >> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand
> their
> >> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to
> enforce
> >> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> >> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> >> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration
SIGNED
> >> the
> >> >> Clean Air Act
> >> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the
> Clean
> >> Air
> >> >> Act. Secondly, the
> >> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW
> PLANTS
> >> >> (new sources) to have
> >> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants
> would
> >> be
> >> >> initially exempted
> >> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these
older
> >> palnts
> >> >> would then be capped
> >> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities
(pollution)
> and
> >> >> production is shifted to
> >> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because
they
> are
> >> >> cheaper to operate due
> >> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the
most
> >> >> advanced pollution controls
> >> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or
> upgraded
> >> >> (when they WOULD be
> >> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to
> operate
> >> or
> >> >> they get too old to
> >> >> >operate anyway.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating
routine
> >> >> maintenance on plants as
> >> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written
law.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources,
which
> was
> >> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >> >
> >> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> efficiency,
> >> such
> >> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >> >
> >> >> If during 10 years of routine
> >> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet
under
> your
> >> and
> >> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls
because
> you
> >> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
> >> >
> >> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new
source.
> >> Try
> >> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and
> should
> >> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
> >
> >In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine
maintenance
> and
> >part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review.
This
> was
> >done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates
perverse
> >incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Treating it this way
> >> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
> >> >> requirements of new plants.
> >> >>
> >> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and
cleaned",
> >> that's
> >> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number
of
> >> utility
> >> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued
> until
> >> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
> >> >
> >> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN
in
> the
> >> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
> >>
> >> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
> >
> >You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its
records
> in
> >its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
> Clinton
> >EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
> Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
routine
> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
to
> >> defer
> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> operated
> >> in.
> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> expensive
> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> polluting
> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> extensively
> >> >> on this, and
> >> >>
> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never
met a
> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >
> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
with
> >> actual
> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >>
> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
have
> any
> >> credibility.
> >
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered
an
> objective source.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
that
> >> Daimler
> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> Exchange,
> >> as if
> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> didn't
> >> even
> >> >exist!
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >
> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
the
> New
> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your
phony
> claim
> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> NYSE
> >than ADPs.
>
> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
>
> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
York
> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
>
> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
>
> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
in
> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants
were
> >> TOO
> >> >> CLEAN because they
> >> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all
recorded
> in
> >> >> memos.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was not.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too
long
> >> ago. And
> >> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on
the
> last
> >> full
> >> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001
that
> >> Clinton
> >> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives
> destroyed,
> >> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
> >> Clinton
> >> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
> >> philosophy of
> >> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
> >> legislation
> >> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start
saying
> how
> >> ABC
> >> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But
it's
> >> easier
> >> >> for people to make
> >> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual
laws,
> the
> >> >> reason why they were
> >> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
> >> non-laws,
> >> >> or what is going on
> >> >> >in general.
> >> >>
> >> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment!
LOL!
> >> >
> >> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for
> plants
> >> NOT
> >> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they
> could
> >> become
> >> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel
fuel,
> >> the low
> >> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and
Bush's
> EPA
> >> is
> >> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
> >> Thanks for
> >> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
> >> government
> >> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record
that
> you
> >> needed
> >> >to erase it.
> >> >
> >> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you
conveniently
> >> forgot to
> >> >comment on it!
> >> >
> >> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison
Co.,
> tried
> >> to
> >> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam
turbines
> at
> >> its
> >> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than
the
> >> old,
> >> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
> >> energy--more
> >> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
Source
> >> Review
> >> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
> >> >
> >> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy
pollution-fighting
> >> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650
million
> to
> >> meet
> >> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single
new
> >> kilowatt
> >> >of electricity.
> >> >
> >> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to
perverse
> rules
> >> as a
> >> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that
at
> >> least
> >> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
> >> guidelines, it
> >> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its
policies.
> It
> >> simply
> >> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
> >> >
> >> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
> >> dioxide, the
> >> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
> >> tripling of
> >> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further
50%."
> >> -WSJ
> >> >11/26/02
> >
> >I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your
computer's
> clock
> >is wrong too.
> >

 

FORWARDED TO: abuse@emory.edu

your professor Lloyd Parker is posting this crap in the jeep newsgroup
news:rec.autos.makers.jeep+****** . this has NOTHING to do with jeeps and
is a clear violation of the newsgroup charter. for the record, he has
posted nearly 60,000 usenet messages (easily verifiable at
http://tinyurl.com/xjuf ) promoting his political agenda in inappropriate
newsgroups and all appear to be on company time using company resources.
please stop him from using your servers to violate our newsgroup charter
further.
thank you.

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql1lf$c29$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >z wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
> >> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> >> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> >> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
> >> feasiable
> >> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity
or a
> >> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china
feeding a
> >> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new
> plants
> >> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means
of
> >> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> >> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> >> >> >> > possible.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you
recall
> the
> >> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously
pled
> >> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil
fuelled
> >> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going
to be
> >> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to
upgrade
> >> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's
thirty
> >> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still
being
> >> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known
locally
> as
> >> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are
just
> >> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> >> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's
much
> >> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build
new
> >> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> >> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> >> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act
that
> >> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if
they
> >> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> >> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand
> their
> >> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to
> enforce
> >> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> >> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> >> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration
SIGNED
> >> the
> >> >> Clean Air Act
> >> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the
> Clean
> >> Air
> >> >> Act. Secondly, the
> >> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW
> PLANTS
> >> >> (new sources) to have
> >> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants
> would
> >> be
> >> >> initially exempted
> >> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these
older
> >> palnts
> >> >> would then be capped
> >> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities
(pollution)
> and
> >> >> production is shifted to
> >> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because
they
> are
> >> >> cheaper to operate due
> >> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the
most
> >> >> advanced pollution controls
> >> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or
> upgraded
> >> >> (when they WOULD be
> >> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to
> operate
> >> or
> >> >> they get too old to
> >> >> >operate anyway.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating
routine
> >> >> maintenance on plants as
> >> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written
law.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources,
which
> was
> >> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >> >
> >> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> efficiency,
> >> such
> >> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >> >
> >> >> If during 10 years of routine
> >> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet
under
> your
> >> and
> >> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls
because
> you
> >> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
> >> >
> >> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new
source.
> >> Try
> >> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and
> should
> >> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
> >
> >In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine
maintenance
> and
> >part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review.
This
> was
> >done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates
perverse
> >incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Treating it this way
> >> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
> >> >> requirements of new plants.
> >> >>
> >> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and
cleaned",
> >> that's
> >> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number
of
> >> utility
> >> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued
> until
> >> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
> >> >
> >> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN
in
> the
> >> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
> >>
> >> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
> >
> >You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its
records
> in
> >its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
> Clinton
> >EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
> Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
routine
> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
to
> >> defer
> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> operated
> >> in.
> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> expensive
> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> polluting
> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> extensively
> >> >> on this, and
> >> >>
> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never
met a
> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >
> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
with
> >> actual
> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >>
> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
have
> any
> >> credibility.
> >
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered
an
> objective source.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
that
> >> Daimler
> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> Exchange,
> >> as if
> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> didn't
> >> even
> >> >exist!
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >
> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
the
> New
> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your
phony
> claim
> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> NYSE
> >than ADPs.
>
> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
>
> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
York
> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
>
> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
>
> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
in
> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants
were
> >> TOO
> >> >> CLEAN because they
> >> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all
recorded
> in
> >> >> memos.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was not.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too
long
> >> ago. And
> >> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on
the
> last
> >> full
> >> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001
that
> >> Clinton
> >> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives
> destroyed,
> >> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
> >> Clinton
> >> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
> >> philosophy of
> >> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
> >> legislation
> >> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start
saying
> how
> >> ABC
> >> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But
it's
> >> easier
> >> >> for people to make
> >> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual
laws,
> the
> >> >> reason why they were
> >> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
> >> non-laws,
> >> >> or what is going on
> >> >> >in general.
> >> >>
> >> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment!
LOL!
> >> >
> >> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for
> plants
> >> NOT
> >> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they
> could
> >> become
> >> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel
fuel,
> >> the low
> >> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and
Bush's
> EPA
> >> is
> >> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
> >> Thanks for
> >> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
> >> government
> >> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record
that
> you
> >> needed
> >> >to erase it.
> >> >
> >> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you
conveniently
> >> forgot to
> >> >comment on it!
> >> >
> >> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison
Co.,
> tried
> >> to
> >> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam
turbines
> at
> >> its
> >> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than
the
> >> old,
> >> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
> >> energy--more
> >> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
Source
> >> Review
> >> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
> >> >
> >> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy
pollution-fighting
> >> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650
million
> to
> >> meet
> >> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single
new
> >> kilowatt
> >> >of electricity.
> >> >
> >> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to
perverse
> rules
> >> as a
> >> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that
at
> >> least
> >> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
> >> guidelines, it
> >> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its
policies.
> It
> >> simply
> >> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
> >> >
> >> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
> >> dioxide, the
> >> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
> >> tripling of
> >> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further
50%."
> >> -WSJ
> >> >11/26/02
> >
> >I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your
computer's
> clock
> >is wrong too.
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql146$c29$12@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...
> >
> >Huh!?
> >
>
> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.
>
> >> , what genders
> >> can marry,
> >
> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>
> Why does a government decide who can get married though?
>
>
> >But of course you want
> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
> >much sense.
> >
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>
> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to
pay
> for any expense of raising the child.
>
>

No, that's called rape. That's not what we're talking about. Unless you
mean I should be able to "dispense" with my children and demand the
government pay for their upbringing... or unless you want to ban adoption
(wouldn't want to stop an abortion, now).


> >Don't
> >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> >to pay for later.
> >
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
> >
> >
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql146$c29$12@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...
> >
> >Huh!?
> >
>
> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.
>
> >> , what genders
> >> can marry,
> >
> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>
> Why does a government decide who can get married though?
>
>
> >But of course you want
> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
> >much sense.
> >
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>
> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to
pay
> for any expense of raising the child.
>
>

No, that's called rape. That's not what we're talking about. Unless you
mean I should be able to "dispense" with my children and demand the
government pay for their upbringing... or unless you want to ban adoption
(wouldn't want to stop an abortion, now).


> >Don't
> >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> >to pay for later.
> >
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
> >
> >
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql146$c29$12@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...
> >
> >Huh!?
> >
>
> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.
>
> >> , what genders
> >> can marry,
> >
> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>
> Why does a government decide who can get married though?
>
>
> >But of course you want
> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
> >much sense.
> >
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>
> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to
pay
> for any expense of raising the child.
>
>

No, that's called rape. That's not what we're talking about. Unless you
mean I should be able to "dispense" with my children and demand the
government pay for their upbringing... or unless you want to ban adoption
(wouldn't want to stop an abortion, now).


> >Don't
> >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> >to pay for later.
> >
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
> >
> >
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql33p$c29$30@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of
---
> to
> >> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >> >
> >> Sodomy laws?
> >
> >Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws
were
> >enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of
laws at
> the
> >time.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
> courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted
to
> uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.

Once again, this should be a limited government issue. Heaven forbid we
should trust local jurisdictions to govern themselves. Heaven forbid Thomas
and Scalia should read the constitution *as written* and judge accordingly
notwithstanding leftist activism that can't win legislatively.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql33p$c29$30@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of
---
> to
> >> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >> >
> >> Sodomy laws?
> >
> >Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws
were
> >enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of
laws at
> the
> >time.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
> courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted
to
> uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.

Once again, this should be a limited government issue. Heaven forbid we
should trust local jurisdictions to govern themselves. Heaven forbid Thomas
and Scalia should read the constitution *as written* and judge accordingly
notwithstanding leftist activism that can't win legislatively.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql33p$c29$30@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of
---
> to
> >> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >> >
> >> Sodomy laws?
> >
> >Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws
were
> >enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of
laws at
> the
> >time.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
> courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted
to
> uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.

Once again, this should be a limited government issue. Heaven forbid we
should trust local jurisdictions to govern themselves. Heaven forbid Thomas
and Scalia should read the constitution *as written* and judge accordingly
notwithstanding leftist activism that can't win legislatively.

 

In article <bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> insurance
>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> Japan,
>>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> everybody?
>>
>>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>>
>>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
> of
>>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>>
>>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>>in the USA.
>>
>>
> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> Europe are healthier and live longer.

I would be healthier and live longer if I had a continous month of vacation
each year.