Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Refused To Open Unwelcome EPA E-Mail

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the that's-one-way-not-to-have-seen-the-rules dept.

Government 497

epfreed writes "The White House lost a case in the Supreme Court about the need for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. So the EPA made new rule. And now the NYTimes reports that the White House did not want to get these new rules from the EPA about greenhouse gases. So they did not open the email."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The WH's boss is still we the people you know (5, Insightful)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939569)

Frankly I'm pretty sure my boss would give me the sack for that sort of BS.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (5, Insightful)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939589)

And legally, wouldn't fall under something similar to "willful blindness"?

i.e. deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing (as drug dealing in one's house) despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence Willful blindness involves conscious avoidance of the truth and gives rise to an inference of knowledge of the crime in question.

/not sure

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (5, Funny)

cavis (1283146) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939637)

I think it is like an ostrich with his head in the sand. Except the ostrich is "Dubya", and the sand that he has his head in is really his ass. Judging by these and other events, he likes the view in there.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (5, Interesting)

cez (539085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940171)

He's not the only one with their head in their ass, errr...sand:


The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

...did someone misplace a decimal?

Hey, please keep it clean! (0)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940183)

I think it is like an ostrich with his head in the sand. Except the ostrich is "Dubya"
Watch you words! As a member of the International Society for the Defense of the Dignity of Ostrichs, I demand that you retract from your previous comment!

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940215)

Personally, I think Congress should vote directly on such a massive regulation that could impact hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars of economic development.

That's far, far too much power to be wielded by officials not directly elected by the people. And, worse, have their non-election touted as a benefit by supporters...of the regulations. They don't have to "worry about politics."

Not a very Founding Fathers-ish attitude. Break part of the separation and limitations of powers simply because, you know, you can get your laws, i.e. regulations, jammed down the throats of people that way.

There was a reason Congress was expressly forbidden from delegating its lawmaking authority. This was so it couldn't avoid passing laws the people might not want, and would cause them to lose the next election. Shielded by this layer, with unpopular regulations they could just throw up their hands and lie, "Gee, I wouldn't have voted for that!" Uhh, you can vote to reverse it, though. "Yeah, we'll get around to that as soon as possible."

It isn't an issue of the value of the regulation, i.e. law. It's an issue of Constitutional propriety. If a law is so necessary, it should be passed by vote with little or no problem.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (5, Insightful)

Paranatural (661514) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939711)

It's like a never-ending spiral downward to see how absolutely slimy these people can be without actually getting forcibly ejected from the WH. Seriously, how badly do these bastards have to behave before they can be impeached? Bill got a hummer and has impeachment hearings brought against him, the Bush admins just flat out break law after law and absolutely nothing happens. What the hell?

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (2, Informative)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939785)

A thought occurs:
Bill Clinton: I thought everybody liked hummers.
George W. Bush: I thought everybody wanted a Hummer.
Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced articles of impeachment - and plans to keep introducing new articles (I heard 60 was the goal for the next round) until the Judiciary committee that tabled the articles puts them on the floor.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939855)

OK Liberals, pay attention, this is the last time we're gonna repeat it. HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR LYING ABOUT HAVING SEX, not for the act itself. Got it?!

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (5, Insightful)

srealm (157581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939941)

OK ... to further that then.

Where is the impeachment for LYING ABOUT WHY THE COUNTRY WAS DRAGGED INTO A PROTRACTED WAR! ... not for the war itself.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940207)

For one, because he was never under oath.
Second, he never exactly lied, they merely "selectively observed" some facts, and "selectively neglected" others. Obviously completely different from lying, and completely out of the realm of lying under oath.

More seriously, IMHO the Administration's problem is that they believe that they can force their wished version of reality into the world, and make is to, evidently by sheer force of will and political determination. Disagree with the facts? Reinterpret them until they agree with you!

The real and impeachable crime here is misfeasance - sheer incompetence.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939991)

And Dubya was NOT IMPEACHED for lying about WMDs and warrentless wiretapping and rendition and outing Valerie Plame. got it ?!

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (0)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940027)

He didn't get impeached, he was found guilty of perjury and then acquitted and continued his presidency.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (4, Informative)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940103)

He was impeached. He was not convicted.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940209)

Oh, you're right, I actually looked up what impeachment meant. I thought it was getting kicked out of the office, shows how typical of an American I am.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (1)

danbert8 (1024253) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939873)

Bill didn't get impeached for getting a hummer, he got impeached for LIEING about getting a hummer.

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939737)

Yeah, yeah. That's a really helpful analogy. Now go sack them, will you?

Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (1)

PsychosisBoy (1157613) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939865)

my boss would give me the sack

Isn't that sexual abuse in the workplace? You could sue him for quite a pretty penny.

time paradox (5, Insightful)

QuantumHobbit (976542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939573)

How did they know about the rules if they never opened the e-mail?

Also after 7 years, is anyone surprised?

Re:time paradox (4, Funny)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939635)

SUBJECT: NEW RULES
FROM: Dude@epa.gov

[x] Delete

(like that)

Re:time paradox (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939643)

They surely knew already what the email would contain. People talk to each other, the email was probably just the 'formal' notice of the change.

This also illustrates, for those who blame everything on any Administration, the Executive doesn't have absolute control over agencies that are ostensibly part of the Executive Branch. That goes for people who demonized Clinton and blamed him for each and every thing the bueraucracy did, and for those who blame every single such action on The Evil Bush.

Truth be told, the vast majority of the various Federal Agencies are made up of career bueraucrats who in many cases were appointed long the President is elected and will still be entrenched long after he's gone.

Re:time paradox (2)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939751)

the Executive doesn't have absolute control over agencies that are ostensibly part of the Executive Branch
The Executive doesn't have absolute control over the staff of the White House?

I doubt that very much.

Re:time paradox (0)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939895)

Do you really not understand the post you're replying to, or are you being intentionally obtuse? The White House is not an agency, nor is it the entity being referred to. The agency in question in that particular post is the EPA. The EPA is not the "staff at the White House."

Clearer?

Re:time paradox (2)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939971)

Do you reall not understand the HEADLINE? The White House refused to open the mail, not the EPA.

Re:time paradox (4, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939851)

They don't have to open any emails anymore, they just call the NSA to give them the gist of it...

They knew it was coming... (0, Flamebait)

FatSean (18753) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939875)

...so when they saw the email, they didn't open it.

When shit like this goes down, it makes me happy that most of Bush's demographic are the ones most hurt by the Iraq Fail and our economic woes. Serves 'em right.

works for /. (5, Funny)

notgm (1069012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939577)

i didn't want to rtfa. so i didn't click on the link.

Re:works for /. (1)

HitekHobo (1132869) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939789)

Worked against my mom too! She used to say things like "clean your ..." at which point I stuck my fingers in my ears and hummed "ohhhhhmmmmm".

Re:works for /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23940031)

Damn straight. She says all kinds of shit while I'm around, but I can never hear her because her thighs are wrapped so tightly around my ears.

Re:works for /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23940131)

What... is she trying to crush your head?

Re:works for /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23940177)

You're doing it wrong.

Re:works for /. (1)

cryptodan (1098165) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940227)

Damn straight. She says all kinds of shit while I'm around, but I can never hear her because her thighs are wrapped so tightly around my ears.

Re-read what you just wrote, and apply the logic of sexual abuse taking place. That is something I wouldn't admit too.

Re:works for /. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23940201)

I have a similar method of shutting your mom up. But instead of sticking my finger in ear, I stick it in her ass.

Well, if it works for the Whitehouse... (5, Funny)

seanonymous (964897) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939579)

Looks like I won't be opening many work emails from now on. Those emails from my bank might go unread, too. It's about time they showed some leadership!

Monkey See (1, Troll)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939581)

Monkey see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil? ... Monkey see no evil, hear no evil, do evil anyways?

Re:Monkey See (1)

cavis (1283146) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939665)

Did you ever think that maybe the monkey is just evil?

Re:Monkey See (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939831)

But the real question is: can a thousand evil monkeys at a thousand typewriters type out Dante's Divine Comedy in less time than a thousand good monkeys?

Re:Monkey See (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939907)

No :-(. The evil little bastards nearly type it out, again and again, making minor errors each time.

Re:Monkey See (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940189)

They should've paid more attention in typing class instead of picking on all the other monkeys.

Would you expect any less (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939593)

The only thing sadder and more despicable at this point than the Bush administration are the Democrats in Congress who have been on their knees for the last two years after promising to hold this imperial administration accountable.

Re:Would you expect any less (1)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939775)

Hey, if you want them to hold the president accountable then maybe you should elect more of them to office. They need a 2/3rds majority to do much of anything. Otherwise we still have this thing called checks and balances.

Re:Would you expect any less (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939859)

Hey, if you want them to hold the president accountable then maybe you should elect more of them to office. They need a 2/3rds majority to do much of anything
They don't need a 2/3 majority to kill the telecom immunity provisions (which, IMHO are really Presidential immunity as well).

Yes very dissapointing. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939915)

They remain the lesser of two evils, but evil nonetheless.

Comments from the Bush Administration (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939603)

A Bush official, with fingers in his ears, was quoted as saying: "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can't hear you! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! ...."

LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU (5, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939629)

Awesome! So it's cool if I just leave all that important-looking IRS mail in an unopened pile by the door, right?

I wouldn't open it either. (4, Insightful)

snarfies (115214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939639)

Given the government's poor record with computer security, I wouldn't open ANY documents emailed me. I would imagine there are policies in place that would forbid the acceptance of such messages. This story could well be somebody at the EPA insisting on total asshattery.

And if its something official and important, why is it being emailed anyway? Shouldn't it be, like, printed out and physically handed to somebody? Maybe signed, stamped, notarized, and whatever else?

Re:I wouldn't open it either. (3, Interesting)

antibryce (124264) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939919)

That was my thought as well. I'm half-tempted to start forging emails from the DEA to the White House laying out new rules to end the war on drugs, just to see if it gets anything accomplished.

It just doesn't matter, though (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939647)

No matter how bad this looks on the Bush adminstration, they just wont open the emails about not opening emails. They'll never know.

Re:It just doesn't matter, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939989)

No matter how bad this looks on the Bush adminstration, they just wont open the emails about not opening emails. They'll never know.
Perhaps we'll just have to disguise it as an email from a Nigerian bank owner looking for his next-of-kin.

"La la la!" (0, Redundant)

hiryuu (125210) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939661)

This strikes me as the administrative equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and sing-songing "I can't heeeeeearr yooouuuuuu!"

If your boss didn't want to read your email (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939671)

Then they wouldn't. They're your boss, and that's their choice. Backups not being done? Joe not showing up for work? Sure, they're responsible to their boss, in this case the US citizenry, but then they've already got the job and they're on their way out, so why bother?

Haven't you ever known someone who just didn't care when they knew they were leaving?

Wait a sec (4, Interesting)

DnemoniX (31461) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939691)

IANAL but doesn't this amount to the whole ignorance of a law isn't a defense kind of thing? If an individual or a company violates EPA standards and they get caught they get spanked with fines and such. So by their rational if the rest of us don't know about the new rules we get off the hook too right? Works for me!

Re:Wait a sec (3, Funny)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939759)

So by their rational if the rest of us don't know about the new rules we get off the hook too right?

Well, kinda. If the government doesn't publish or provide any way to read the rules, you'd be off the hook. Otherwise, you just violated Catch-22... oh, I don't have to show it to you.

Re:Wait a sec (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23940165)

Well, kinda. If the government doesn't publish or provide any way to read the rules, you'd be off the hook. Otherwise, you just violated Catch-22... oh, I don't have to show it to you.

Not to be overly pedantic, but it's not a violation of Catch-22; it IS the catch -- catch 22.

Re:Wait a sec (3, Informative)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939975)

It wasn't actually even about rules, it was an assessment. It stated that the country would save between 500 Billion and 2.5 Trillion dollars over the next 50 or so years by implementing some environmental protections through the clean air act. The White House didn't like the sound of that - so they refused to open/read the assessment until the EPA backed down.

Re:Wait a sec (1)

Rand Race (110288) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940051)

If ignorance is not a defense and I do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of the law shouldn't I claim the 5th for any and all questions asked of me in a court of law?

"I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself".

Subject of the Email (4, Funny)

Kentamanos (320208) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939695)

Maybe the EPA shouldn't have mentioned V1agra in the subject...

Re:Subject of the Email (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939861)

I know a certain president with a small penis. Or, at least he acts like a man with one.

Re:Subject of the Email (4, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939933)

Maybe the EPA shouldn't have mentioned V1agra in the subject...
I heard they put "BUSH: We found the WMDs!" in the subject line in order to trick them, but it didn't work because nobody in the White House believed it.

Re:Subject of the Email (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940213)

Or maybe they should have.

There they go again (2, Insightful)

lazyDog86 (1191443) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939697)

...one of the senior E.P.A. officials said, "That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work."

That's just it, isn't it? The Bush administration is convinced that the Federal government cannot work and they do everything in in their power to prove it at every turn.

Heck of a job Brownie!

Why use email? (5, Interesting)

adrianbaugh (696007) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939699)

This is a nuts use of email. For something this important you'd expect the documents to be sent by courier or registered post, signature on delivery etc. That way, you can prove they've received it and if they've chosen not to read it it's their bad. Anyway, why should the White House need to see this? The court has decided the EPA has the authority to introduce the rule and it's then up to the judiciary to enforce it. The legislature is surely out of the loop by this point.

Re:Why use email? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939883)

The White House is not legislative, it's executive.

It's funny how the Judiciary says "you have the authority to do this" and then goes and says "Oh, i guess it's up to us to enforce it". I think there might be some confusion on who is what...

Just in case, to clarify:

Executive Branch: White-House
Legislative Branch: Senate, House of Representatives
Judicial Branch: The Courts (specifically the Supreme Court)

Re:Why use email? (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940001)

I agree, something this important should be sent via some sort of priority post, not email, but I would imagine the email was sent in respect to the Paper Reduction Act. If it can be stored on a computer instead of killing a tree, opt for the electronic method. I'm sure the EPA is one of the greater observers of the act.

Re:Why use email? (3, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940093)

Um, no, that's not how it works. The legislature (that's the House and Senate) writes laws. The President either vetos or enforces those laws. After enforcement, the judiciary judges whether or not said law has been broken.

The primary law that all other laws must conform to is the Constitution. If the Constitutions doesn't say Congress has the power to pass a certain law, than said law doesn't have to be obeyed (in theory, of course).

White House Spam Filter (1)

UberHoser (868520) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939707)

**** White House Spam Filter****

IF TO: = *.EPA.gov MOVETO Trash

**** End Rules ******

Does this work for all mail? (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939731)

If I don't open my bills do they still exist? Sounds like a conundrum worthy of SchrÃdinger.

Re:Does this work for all mail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939779)

What the heck is "SchrÃdinger"? What encoding did you write that in? I know what characters are supposed to be there, and switching between ISO8859-1 and UTF-8 doesn't change it...

Re:Does this work for all mail? (4, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940053)

It's a special character encoding. It's only ö when you're not looking at it.

Re:Does this work for all mail? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939997)

Bob the Angry Flower [angryflower.com] has Schrödinger's fridge.

ignore them, maybe they will go away (2, Interesting)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939743)

Really show's the maturity of our leaders there.

EPA should have put in the subject line: (2, Funny)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939757)

Read this to get Free Paige Sex: Half of the Republicans in the office would have read it in a flash...

Re:EPA should have put in the subject line: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939893)

"Read this to get Free GAY Paige Sex"

will get the other half.

high five!

Re:EPA should have put in the subject line: (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940179)

Dam! Thought i missed out a word....:D

Better yet . . . (1)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940083)

Put in a spoofed "From:" line reading "Prince Bandar."

"Lost" email? (1)

Bomarc (306716) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939791)

I'm surprised it wasn't claimed as one of the "Lost" email messages. Oh, they can't claim it was lost, as the lost email was actually "read" messages.

Next step: dubya holds breath until he turns blue (1)

localroger (258128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939807)

We can't endanger the Executive after all by making him do something that might cause himself to pass out, leaving us without effective leadership.

Re:Next step: dubya holds breath until he turns bl (1)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939949)

We can't endanger the Executive after all by making him do something that might cause himself to pass out, leaving us without effective leadership.

Which is why they took pretzels off the White House menu.....

This is perfectly legitimate. (4, Insightful)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939809)

Based on the experience of the last seven years, non-reality-based decision making is a powerful tool for gathering and holding power. We should celebrate the Bush administration's success in contesting or ignoring every bit of evidence that contests their highly profitable worldview. After all, didn't a lot of people vote for Bush because they wanted a president who says what he means and means what he says?

Anyway, listening to scientists just encourages to make up stuff that upsets people. Evolution, the germ theory of disease, the greenhouse effect . . . we'd all be happier and more content if we all behaved like Ben Stein would like us to: God-fearing authority-worshipping dumbfucks.

Re:This is perfectly legitimate. (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940119)

After all, didn't a lot of people vote for Bush because they wanted a president who says what he means and means what he says?

First or second term? Oh, wait, you must mean the first, he lost the second vote.

Plausible Deniability... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939817)

Plausible deniability enters the 21st century. Except I don't think the current administration understand what the word plausible means. Pretty sure they also spell it a b s u r d.

the EPA doesn't use postal mail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939833)

Seriously. USPS, certified, return receipt requested.

That explains a lot... (2, Insightful)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939845)

This is like the behavior of a child who thinks that covering their eyes means no one around can see them. Does Pres. Bush have dementia? First his speech, and now his age behavior? A fellow at my church has Dementia and he's starting to behave a bit like a child in this way. It's not fun for anyone to go through, but the White House? Next we'll see folks walking around in diapers saying they forget how to use their computers.

Re:That explains a lot... (2, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940155)

He might be psychotic. He heard that Al Quida's (not even trying to spell it today) base of operation was in Iraq and he saw a lot of people were really happy about going to war with Iraq.

True test of ignorance? (4, Insightful)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939871)

If you think "If I ignore it, it'll go away", then you're probably ignorant. If you're the President of the United States and you think to yourself, "If I ignore this official message sent here by the EPA, maybe it'll go away", then you're criminally ignorant.

Subject line? (5, Insightful)

cavis (1283146) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939885)

I bet George would have opened it if the subject line said "Exxon reports $14B loss in first quarter"

Other possible subject lines: "Get Viagra / Cialis without a prescription"
"VP Cheney shot another friend in the face"
"Bum Fights Vol 3 now available on DVD"
"American Idol canceled"
"Mobilize the Navy! North Dakota invades South Dakota"
"Senator Byrd called you a pussy!"

Carbon Dioxide (5, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939913)

From TFA

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agencyâ(TM)s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled...
That doesn't sound controversial at all. That's because it's a piss poor summary. The greenhouse gass in question is Carbon Dioxide. [csmonitor.com] Which is far more controversial, considering it is emitted by everything in the animal kingdom, aside from those living near thermal vents. The term greenhouse gas also includes CFC's, but that's not the same, is it?

Re:Carbon Dioxide (1)

Phantom of the Opera (1867) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940067)

Makes sense, doesn't it? Everyone knows CO2 is utterly harmless. The scientists are just rocking the boat from their ivory towers.

I mean, its nothing at all like when it was completely obvious that the earth was the center of the universe and that malcontent Gallileo was stirring up shit.

Why the hell have an EPA if all this stuff is just completely obvious.

Re:Carbon Dioxide (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940261)

As I feared, you have completely missed my point. The effect of CO2 on global warming is for you to decide. I'm not condoning the Bush Administration's actions. I am merely pointing out that TFA left out an important nugget of information. This is the CO2 legislation. It is a much bigger deal than legislation concerning NOx, CFCs or even CO emissions.

Checks and Balances? (5, Insightful)

Illbay (700081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939929)

Thomas Jefferson said: "The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." [Letter of TJ to Abigail Adams, 1804, commenting on Marbury v. Madison]


For the past sixty years or more, judicial despotism has increased until now, you have governors and legislators of states waiting to see what some court will rule on an issue before they can proceed. This is NOT what the Framers intended, and unless we get things back to the balance of powers between the branches of government things are going to become more despotic.

Re:Checks and Balances? (3, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940135)

Dude, I'd really, really rather it be this way than the alternative [wikipedia.org] .

Without a "despotic" court, Bush et al. would have looked at Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [wikipedia.org] and just said "well, we don't agree, so fuck you!"

If judges are really overstepping their bounds, Congress always has the remedy of impeachment. If they're too afraid to pull the trigger, that's their problem in not asserting themselves.

welp... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939961)

I just found the *FIRST* situation where "email return receipts" could actually be useful!

Is it hot in here? (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 6 years ago | (#23939977)

Bush: Is it hot in here...because my face is feeling a little red.

Quantum theory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23939987)

Maybe they're just afraid that, by observing the rules, they could change the outcome. It's really safer if they just don't open it. :D

Email means nothing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23940013)

There's too many problems with it. If you're sending something official, there's no reliable record that it was even delivered.

What's next? The EPA sending an IM about new regulations?

Using email in this matter is completely inappropriate, and the ./ community shouldn't get so slackjawed because of it.

Does all this stuff get forgiven after election? (3, Interesting)

jd.schmidt (919212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940047)

Does anyone know? Does there have to be some kind of catch all pardon from the President or something at the end of his term? (I hearby pardon all members of the Whitehouse staff of all crimes) That thing about firing Federal Attorney's who wouldn't procecute opponents of the White House during elections seems like something that shouldn't be just dropped.

I'm going to do the same (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940127)

I'm never reading email again at home or at work and then no one can expect anything from me. I can't believe no one has thought of this before.

accountability (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940153)

Its about time they get held accountable for wanting to manipulate the rules to their benefit all the time, if we get pulled over by a cop when we didnt quite stop at a stop sign, we get a ticket, we can try to get out of it, but in the end we have to comply, so does the US when it comes to these rules

"Executive Privilege" (1)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940161)

From TOA:

Mr. Waxmanâ(TM)s committee is weighing its response to the White Houseâ(TM)s refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents relating to the E.P.A.â(TM)s handling of recent climate-change and air-pollution decisions. The White House, which has turned over other material to the committee, last week asserted a claim of executive privilege over the remaining documents.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said the committee chairmen did not understand the legal precedent underlying executive privilege. âoeThere is a long legal history supporting the principle that the president should have the candid advice of his advisers,â Mr. Fratto said.

Mr. Fratto could have saved himself some time and been more honest by simply smiling and saying "fuck you."

Once again (2, Insightful)

MoodyLoner (76734) | more than 6 years ago | (#23940187)

we se the "LA LA LA!! I CAN"T HEAR YOU!! LA LA LA LA!!!" theory of government in action.

I'd ask why the hell people would seriously consider anyone connected with this Administration for any sort of public service ever again, but I fear you'd tell me and I'm just not up for it anymore.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?