Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The Cycle of Insanity

Recs

4

February 17, 2011 – Comments (35)

Courtesy of our friends at Surfrider.

The Cycle of Insanity: The Real Story of Water from Surfrider Foundation on Vimeo.

Note to my biggest fans; Yes, I know you think Gov't is the cause of all problems, regardless of the presence of private individuals acting on free will, or with poor information.

And yes, I think we would all be much better off if Government enacted regulations that "distorted" free markets in favor of cleaning water, by hiring directly, not indirectly by subcontracting to the cheapest bidder.

Thank you for reading,

Steven

PS. David, who never phones his congressman and complains he is unheard and Gov't is unresponsive please take a gander at the surfrider web sites banner entitled "150 Victories".

35 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 17, 2011 at 9:45 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

The water story is interesting. 

PS. David, who never phones his congressman and complains he is unheard and Gov't is unresponsive please take a gander at the surfrider web sites banner entitled "150 Victories".

I don't call them (Ok, I called Grayson a couple times), I meet with them.

Ron Paul in his office 1

Do you like my goatee? I just grew it back. 

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#2) On February 17, 2011 at 11:08 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

So let me get this straight,

With very careful planning, big investment and big effort, we might be able to come up with a system that hopefully would accomplish the same thing as if we just respected property rights.

Report this comment
#3) On February 17, 2011 at 11:14 PM, FleaBagger (29.74) wrote:

Great pic, David!

Steven, somehow I doubt for-profit companies without government-granted monopoly status would go around poisoning paying customers, while the unregulated media would, in lock-step, just look the other way. But if they did, we could get rich starting a water company that does better and alerting the public to our competitor's abuses.

Report this comment
#4) On February 18, 2011 at 3:47 AM, spellsly (70.07) wrote:

 

 

I'm in favour of actively seeking complaints.

I wonder what % of complaining is venting about something other than the complaint, but I guess that's what passes for being a damn know it all. 

 I think Ron Paul should stop wearing a tie. 

 

Report this comment
#5) On February 18, 2011 at 7:04 AM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

With very careful planning, big investment and big effort, we might be able to come up with a system that hopefully would accomplish the same thing as if we just respected property rights.

Great! Lets agree on some entity we can both recognise has the right to enforce "rights".

The evidence stares you in the face, from every nation in the world. But I'll tell you what. First solve for all citizens voluntarily respecting property rights, then remove the mechanisms through which the world enforces respect for property rights.

Report this comment
#6) On February 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Great! Lets agree on some entity we can both recognise has the right to enforce "rights".

The evidence stares you in the face, from every nation in the world. But I'll tell you what. First solve for all citizens voluntarily respecting property rights, then remove the mechanisms through which the world enforces respect for property rights.

Ok, but you aren't gonna like it.

1) First allow private ownership of the oceans and rivers and their water rights. If people are allowed to own it, they will take care of it.

2) Eliminate the bureaucracy that corporations can bribe to pump pollutants into the public water that the bureaucracies control.

3) Watch the owners of oceans and rivers enforce their own property rights in a court of law.

As far as dictating to me that I have to first do this, and then do that, I played your game, but you don't get the right to decide how it should be done.

Your system doesn't work and your solution is even more of the same thing on a bigger scale, therefore your opinion on the steps to take should be taken lightly.

The evidence from all over the world is staring me in the face. The government in every one of those nations IS the problem, not the solution.

Report this comment
#7) On February 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

Excellent ideas Chris! I have heard them before and am still asking for an example of that resounding success story.

1) First allow private ownership of the oceans and rivers and their water rights. If people are allowed to own it, they will take care of it.

 Allowed by whom? A democratically elected Congress or you and a couple of buddys and the threat of violence?

Report this comment
#8) On February 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Doesn't have to be me, but if it's owned by government, it will be owned by tyrants and crooks.

Do you notice your circular logic here?

In one breathe you state that the system is flawed all around the world.

In the next breathe you denounce doing something different because it's never been done before.

The definition of stupid is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

You take it a step further, by trying to make the system that isn't working even bigger.

Report this comment
#9) On February 18, 2011 at 1:40 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

This might help

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#10) On February 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Videos are blocked at work David, but I'll take a look at it when I get home.

Report this comment
#11) On February 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

BTW, Am I the only one that noticed that David still rolls his sleeves like he did in the military?

Report this comment
#12) On February 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

LOL, ouch!

And I thought I had completely deprogrammed.

David in Qatar  

Report this comment
#13) On February 18, 2011 at 3:40 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

It's ok, David I still do that one too!

It took me about 2 years to stop rolling my socks before I put them in the sock drawer.

Report this comment
#14) On February 18, 2011 at 9:21 PM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

David,

Cute video for the brain dead. It has been an awful long time since "One individual has brought the natural resources out of nature and into a state of productivity".

Report this comment
#15) On February 18, 2011 at 10:03 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Cute video for the brain dead. It has been an awful long time since "One individual has brought the natural resources out of nature and into a state of productivity".

Aren't you currently an organic farmer?

Isn't that turning the soil, water, and sunlight into a state of productivity?

 

Report this comment
#16) On February 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

If sorry Steven, but I see so many paradoxes in your thought process, it just amazes me. Not too long ago, you were promoting ethanol which you know is horrible for the same water supply that you are trying to protect in this post.

This is pollution that would not exist without government support.

After repeated examples of why the government impedes the very goals that you want to accomplish, how can you keep turning a blind eye?

Have you heard of the Kingston Ashe spill? 

This spill was caused by the TVA.

The same TVA created by Roosevelt.

This isn't private industry, this is the government. 

There were horrific abuses of property rights here and people did try to sue, but those suits fell on deaf ears because they were suing the government. This abuse was made worse by the support of the EPA that refused to classify coal ash as toxic waste. (government cronies take care of their own.)

What did this lead to? Well it led to the wonderful TVA idea (they're still a government agency that are supposed to have the best interests of the people in mind)  into the idea of recycling coal ash. They built a golf course on top of it. (with ponds that I'm sure are very healthy for the water supply). They made concrete out of it. They made carpeting out of it. This stuff could be in your house right now along with the arsenic that it contains.

I'll give you a liberal type website to look at showing where the EPA protected their friends. 

I'll post a few videos in seperate posts. 

 

Report this comment
#17) On February 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Report this comment
#18) On February 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Report this comment
#19) On February 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Report this comment
#20) On February 18, 2011 at 11:01 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Report this comment
#21) On February 18, 2011 at 11:03 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Worst mainland pollution disaster in American history. If it had been committed by a private company, Devo would have dedicated 6 months of blogging to this case.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#22) On February 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Report this comment
#23) On February 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

This is not private industry.

This is your government!

You want more of this?!? 

Report this comment
#24) On February 19, 2011 at 12:59 AM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

Actually David and Chris, I hold those responsible for promoting a Gov't that lowered taxes and cut costs to the point it became innefficient and inneffective.

Anytime you are ready you could support Government subsidys away from coal and toward wind and solar power sources.

But, you don't want that - you want coal ash.

Report this comment
#25) On February 19, 2011 at 1:04 AM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

February 15, 2011 RE: Opposition to proposed cuts to SEC/CFTC funding under the proposed CR Support for amendments to restore funding to these agencies Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of more than 250 national, state and local organizations, and other undersigned organizations, we write in strong opposition to the funding cuts for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as proposed in the Continuing Resolution to be considered on the House floor this week. If amendments are offered to restore funding to these agencies we urge you to support them. These funding cuts starve the two agencies of the basic resources they need to police the safety and integrity of our financial markets, and increase the danger of another financial crisis. They undermine efforts to repair our nation’s financial system and facilitate productive economic activity for the benefit of the general public. The proposed $56 million cut to the CFTC’s $168.8 million budget is particularly disturbing. It is shocking that Congress would even consider a proposal that would have the effect of eviscerating the agency with central responsibility for assuring transparency and stability in the derivatives market, on which the health of the overall economy depends. It is difficult not to see these cuts as a back door effort to block new requirements for transparency and accountability, and not budget measures at all. While less draconian, the proposed $25 million cut to the SEC’s budget is equally irresponsible. Over the last several decades, millions of middle-income Americans have come to rely on our nation’s securities markets for their retirement security. The SEC has primary responsibility for overseeing the brokers and investment advisers they rely on for advice, the mutual funds they invest in to fund their retirement, and the disclosures that help them determine the best place to put their money. By inhibiting its ability to perform these and other essential functions, under-funding the SEC puts the financial security of these working Americans at risk. Under-funding these agencies is deeply irresponsible given the potential costs of a financial crisis. Indeed, the bulk of the deficits we are struggling to address today reflect the impact of the 2008 financial crisis. Although the economy has begun a slow and painful recovery, unemployment rates remain roughly twice as high as they were prior to the financial crisis. Even today, American households are some $10 trillion poorer than they were in 2007, before the Wall Street collapse. It is absolutely essential that the House of Representatives reject the inadequate funding levels for the SEC and CFTC proposed in the Continuing Resolution and instead insist that the agencies Americans depend on to protect their financial well-being and the health of the economy be adequately funded. We encourage you to support amendments that may be offered on the House floor to restore funding to these two agencies. With the economy still fragile, this is no time to further undercut investor confidence by defunding the regulatory agencies investors rely on to ensure that their interests are protected.

Report this comment
#26) On February 19, 2011 at 1:17 AM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

BTW - aren't you the one that said a free society would respond  to the BP disaster after it happened?

I guess a "captured" gov't works the same way.

Report this comment
#27) On February 19, 2011 at 1:42 AM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

 I suppose the EPA was getting "out of hand" when they tried to improve the storage of ash waste to reflect its true risk and cost.It is the respnsibility of the EPA to set standards for coal ash storage, are you going to be standing in their way again?

From Bloomberg

Potential Republican presidential candidate Haley Barbour criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday for being "out of hand" in its approach to regulating coal.

The Mississippi governor spoke privately to a group of Kentucky coal executives meeting in Lexington, but told The Associated Press afterward that the EPA under the Obama administration is imposing strict environmental standards that mining companies can't possibly meet.

"It's a deliberate way to try to halt coal mining, which would be catastrophic for Appalachian America," he said.

Barbour was the first candidate pondering a run in next year's presidential race to reach out to Kentucky's coal operators who have the inclination and the financial resources to help bankroll politicians friendly to their industry.

Most early presidential candidates bypass Kentucky because of its late primary. Nominees for each party usually are all but decided by the time the state's voters go to the polls in May.

But with corporate spending limits essentially lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, mining companies would be free to spend unlimited amounts of money in the next presidential election. That could turn Kentucky's deep-pocketed coal operators important players in presidential politics.

Kentucky GOP Chairman Steve Robertson said earlier this week that the Supreme Court ruling has changed the political playing field, raising the profile of coal-rich states that previously have been overlooked by presidential candidates.

Barbour said Thursday he won't make a decision about running for president until April.

"But it is something I am looking at, and I am working to make sure I make a sound decision," he told the AP.

Kentucky Coal Association President Bill Bissett called Barbour "clearly a pro-energy" politician.

"He has an excellent working knowledge of how coal production is directly tied to our economy and electricity production," Bissett said. "He also has keen insight on how the current administration in Washington has no energy policy or concern about how we're going to power this country."

Barbour scolded the EPA for denying permits to coal mines in Appalachia, and was especially critical of the agency's standard for "electrical conductivity" in water that drains from mine sites. Conductivity shows the amount of dissolved materials in water. Barbour complained that the conductivity levels allowed by the EPA are so low that even treated tap water can't meet them.

"The EPA is totally out of hand," he said.

Coal, Barbour said, should be a key part of the nation's energy policy.

"America's energy policy should be more American energy," he said. "Obama's energy policy is to drive up the cost of energy so Americans will use less of it. That's because they want to reduce pollution and make the currently very expensive, uneconomic alternatives more cost competitive. That's not energy policy. That's environmental policy."

The state of Kentucky and the state's coal mining industry group sued the EPA last fall challenging interim guidelines used in deciding whether to allow new mines to open.

The EPA has blocked numerous mining permits based on the interim guidelines. The state and the industry are asking a federal judge to stop the EPA from blocking any additional permits until it holds public hearings on new permit rules.

 

Report this comment
#28) On February 19, 2011 at 10:57 AM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

So 2 government agencys need more money in order to not purposely pump poisoned water into the water supply?!?

That sounds like extortion to me.

BTW - aren't you the one that said a free society would respond  to the BP disaster after it happened?

I guess a "captured" gov't works the same way. 

It would have if we were free, which we are not. 

I don't see where you see a captured government, all I see is where the government captured the population and their property rights are what they tell them they are.

Please tell me where a lack of EPA funding allows the TVA to purposely poision the population, violate the clean water, and basically murder a portion of the population.

Isn't the TVA an altruistic government organisation that should be allowed to do whatever they want because they have our best interests in mind?

 

Report this comment
#29) On February 19, 2011 at 11:10 AM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

Anytime you are ready you could support Government subsidys away from coal and toward wind and solar power sources.

But, you don't want that - you want coal ash.

NO! I don't want any freakin subsidies at all. The fact that we subsidised this BS and my tax dollars went to poison innocent people sickens me.

I know it doesn't bother you, because big government is your entire platform, but your tax money helped kill them too.

You are more than happy to poison more people with your ethanol subsidy as well!

Remember when you said that you wished that you could pick and choose where your tax dollars are spent. I was all for that at the time. I'm having second thoughts now since you seem to be willing to poison people when it fit's the party line. 

 

Report this comment
#30) On February 19, 2011 at 12:34 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Absolute total lunatic. Wilfully ignorant of both human action and opportunity cost. Willfully ignorant of the pricing system. Blindfully following inconsistent half-truths that allow him to shift blame as he feels necessary. Dismissing anyone with a consistent ethical stance as narrow-minded and quaint.

It is nice to have him back, though.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#31) On February 19, 2011 at 2:13 PM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

#29 and #30. Nice replies. Glad the evidence struck a nerve.

Report this comment
#32) On February 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

The only thing evident is that you are completely insane.

Your government didn't suffer from a lack of funding to stop people from pumping poison in the water.

Your government pumped the poison in the water!

It's there on video. You know it's true. If they had more money, the would have used it to buy a bigger pipe.

The people that were supposed to protect us from the evil people turneed out to be the evil people.

Your solution is to still give them more money.

Corporations can be evil too, but it takes an extra step. 

It's the same solution Mexican drug lords use.

If you want to be free to committ crime, just buy the police.

Just watch that last video one more time and tell me how our government did not commit a crime.

Tell me why you support the violation of the clean water act.

Tell me why it's a good reason to give more power to an agency that is abusing the power that they already have.

They are still poisoning people right now devoish. Do you support that too? Do they need more money so they can do it more efficiently?

What do the masses need protection from again?

Big Business?

Government?

Devoish?

or all of the above? 

Are you going to do anything to stop the poisoning that is happening right now devoish or is this something that you support?

When you call your congressman, are you going to bring the subject up or are you going to give him a pat on the back.

Tell me how corn based ethanol is good for us again devoish?

Do you still support it? 

Report this comment
#33) On February 19, 2011 at 7:00 PM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

Chris,

Your solution is to still give them more money.

This is actually not true.

My solution is to elect liberal environmentalists from greenpeace instead of the corporate apologists you promote and then give them enough money to do their jobs.

Your solution is to pretend that without Government everybody would be nice.

Never happened, never will.

Man do you guys need me.

Report this comment
#34) On February 19, 2011 at 7:05 PM, devoish (98.37) wrote:

Excuse me, let me rephrase.

Man did you guys miss me. It feels nice.

Report this comment
#35) On February 20, 2011 at 9:15 AM, ChrisGraley (29.80) wrote:

OH OK, So first we just have to elect the right people and then give those people more money!

We'll still poison people, but they'll be poisoned by good people and not bad people!

Now everyone line up and get your pills.

I do miss you devoish.

You make reality so much easier to understand. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement