Wow, Bush blamed for the sago mine deaths

[Pepsei]

I'm speechless, even this is going too far, he's just unlucky for appointing Lauriski who happens rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals.


Heard it on the radio while driving home.

 

[sandorski]

You said why in your second half of the opening sentence. Another Bush appointee who sucks and leads to disaster.

 

[Aisengard]

That's not exactly fair, sandorski.

....

Okay, maybe it does have some merit. How much more can Bush screwup this country?

 

[Pepsei]

well if anyone is to blame, it'd be Lauriski. He appointed many people, Bush is unlucky that these accidents exposed how sucky these appointees are.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
I'm speechless, even this is going too far, he's just unlucky for appointing Lauriski who happens rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals.


Heard it on the radio while driving home.

Yeah I had to quit listening to Rush because it says stupid ******.

 

[glenn1]

I'm speechless, even this is going too far, he's just unlucky for appointing Lauriski who happens rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals.

I take it you're probably referring to the story on NPR. Some of the decisions were likely poor, and some good. Such as the repeal of the Clinton-era rule mandating that the conveyor belts carrying coal out of the mine be made more fire-resistant. Sounds good, until the materials engineers testified that the additional incremental fire-resistance would come at the price of releasing toxic chemicals if the belt did catch fire.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I'm speechless, even this is going too far, he's just unlucky for appointing Lauriski who happens rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals.

I take it you're probably referring to the story on NPR. Some of the decisions were likely poor, and some good. Such as the repeal of the Clinton-era rule mandating that the conveyor belts carrying coal out of the mine be made more fire-resistant. Sounds good, until the materials engineers testified that the additional incremental fire-resistance would come at the price of releasing toxic chemicals if the belt did catch fire.

Unlike most NPR pieces there wasn't enough time to demonstrate this logic is warped on all accounts.

If the conveyor is flame resistant, then the time during which it is STARTING to catch fire is time the miners have to escape. If your conveyor isn't flame retardant then it basically catches on fire AT THE SAME TIME as the conveyor. The industry got away with it by providing "fire detection systems" but what would you prefer . . . a smoke detector in your kid's room, flame resistant crib, or BOTH?

The other issue issue seems exceptionally idiotic even for Bushites. Only a moron (trying to save money) would blow fresh air DOWN the same tunnel carrying dust-laden coal UP. Obviously, if there's a fire you blow the flames/smoke INTO the workers.

So in the Bush Regime . . . if a fire starts (or worse an explosion) . . . coal dust and conveyor are on fire while the toxic flames and fumes are fanned onto workers that have no alternative source for clean air or easy escape.

Regardless, they are in the early part of the Sago investigation so there's no concrete proof that Bush's industry-lackey policies contributed to those deaths.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Regardless, they are in the early part of the Sago investigation so there's no concrete proof that Bush's industry-lackey policies contributed to those deaths.

That's the problem with adopting industry-requested "regulation," eventually it's going to result in an incident like this. And then you look like a major ass for letting industry do "safety" on the cheap. Or worse, you slash funding for a critical levee by almost 50% so you can pay for your ridiculous little war halfway around the planet. When the end-result of your policy is the deaths of human beings, you've got a serious problem with your critical thinking.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

While that may be true . . . sometimes . . . I would hold your fire until there's proof that Bush policies contributed to this episode. It's a reasonable assumption . . . but so was finding a little bit of WMD in Iraq.

 

[judasmachine]

bush asked to be our scapegoat. that's what you get for being on top is responsibility. you are responisble for making incredibly hard decisions, and good choices on who to delegate authority to, and a myriad of other things that would give most men a heart attack. can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

that being said, some do take it entirely too far.

 

[RichardE]

nvm

 

[CSMR]

Why do politicians get involved in mine safety issues? Of course for political reasons, but is it justified?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Or worse, you slash funding for a critical levee by almost 50% so you can pay for your ridiculous little war halfway around the planet. When the end-result of your policy is the deaths of human beings, you've got a serious problem with your critical thinking.

The decades prior to Katrina hitting, the levees were inadequate to withstand a hurricane of Katrina's magnitude...the Corps of Engineers have always struggled with finding ways to tame the entire Mississippi flood basin.

All the levees in the world cannot change the inevitable fact that a coastal city residing below sea level is vulnerable to natural disaster.

Perhaps we should surround Manhattan island with a 50ft high sea wall barrier...a once in a century hurricane of Katrina's magnitude, with a direct hit on Manhattan would destroy the city...similarly, many cities on the west coast are quite vulnerable to a catastrophic earthquake.

You cannot change the fact the there are no fullproof protective barriers to Mother Nature.

 

[Zebo]

"unlucky" huh?LOL

I'm convinced Bush's nomination was a yale alum fraternity joke just to see how dumb Americans really have become. Something along the lines: Let get our boy Bushy here - kinda slow - can't talk - can't lead - can't succeed and make him President, If they pick him then we know we can run totally rough shod over the rabble barbarians. Whatever happend to the buck stops here? If Bush appointed a person who is now acting in his behalf you don't think he has full faith and credit of the president?

There's nothing unlucky about it nor did he "just happen to recind" all the rules. Was by design my friend..

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
well if anyone is to blame, it'd be Lauriski. He appointed many people, Bush is unlucky that these accidents exposed how sucky these appointees are.

Unlucky? Either he is an utterly ATTROCIOUS judge of character or his motives and criteria for selecting government appointees is flawed beyond all comprehesion. Just becuase you owe someone a favor does not necessarily sponteneously endow them with necessary traits of character or suitable professional experience.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
I'm speechless, even this is going too far, he's just unlucky for appointing Lauriski who happens rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals.


Heard it on the radio while driving home.

What can you expect? These days liberals blame Bush when their toilet flushes a little slow.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
I'm speechless, even this is going too far, he's just unlucky for appointing Lauriski who happens rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals.


Heard it on the radio while driving home.

While the Propagandist is not directly responsible for the Sage mine deaths, the mentality of the modern-day GOP is to gut government regulation and let the "free market" determine the course of things. We all saw what happened when some corners were cut and some eyes turned away. It's the Norquist mentality: kill off the government except, essentially, the military. Look at what's happening in San Diego County, CA, for an example of the future the GOP has for America.

 

[Genx87]

Liberals wonder why Bush is referred to as being a king, they treat him like one.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: CSMR
Why do politicians get involved in mine safety issues? Of course for political reasons, but is it justified?

Anyone willing to tackle this one?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Pepsei
I'm speechless, even this is going too far, he's just unlucky for appointing Lauriski who happens rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals.


Heard it on the radio while driving home.

What can you expect? These days liberals blame Bush when their toilet flushes a little slow.

Oh, so now you are plagiarizing me?


Heck of a job, zendari!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Liberals wonder why Bush is referred to as being a king, they treat him like one.

Absolutely:

1) power largely unchecked b/c his feudal lords (corporations) own the government
2) position acquired by hook and crook NOT merit
3) operates as if serving "people like him" is the same thing as serving the "people's best interests"
4) will be remembered by most for being incompetent yet maintain delusions of grandeur by himself and his minions

 

[MadRat]

Bush gutted MSHA, the mining industry's OSHA equivalent, the first two months in office. Tell me how he isn't both directly and indirectly responsible.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
Liberals wonder why Bush is referred to as being a king, they treat him like one.

Absolutely:

1) power largely unchecked b/c his feudal lords (corporations) own the government
2) position acquired by hook and crook NOT merit
3) operates as if serving "people like him" is the same thing as serving the "people's best interests"
4) will be remembered by most for being incompetent yet maintain delusions of grandeur by himself and his minions

LOL, liberals treat Bush like a King?? It is you and the rest of his die-hard supporters who think the Emperor Wears Clothes. LOL, blame it on the liberals, really!! LMFAO!!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Bush gutted MSHA, the mining industry's OSHA equivalent, the first two months in office. Tell me how he isn't both directly and indirectly responsible.

Well if the Sago mine explosion was a function an atypical work related accident and it occured deep enough that it would have blocked the miners from escaping from TWO separate shafts . . . arguably Bush League regulation might be irrelevant.

That doesn't mean the policy changes will not kill someone in the future. It just means it didn't kill these guys.

Mines are dangerous places. Bushophiles will use that as an excuse to say, "shyte happens." More conscientious people will argue the tremendous demand for coal (and corresponding profits) mean reasonable efforts to maximize safety/minimize risk should be utilized.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Or worse, you slash funding for a critical levee by almost 50% so you can pay for your ridiculous little war halfway around the planet. When the end-result of your policy is the deaths of human beings, you've got a serious problem with your critical thinking.

The decades prior to Katrina hitting, the levees were inadequate to withstand a hurricane of Katrina's magnitude...the Corps of Engineers have always struggled with finding ways to tame the entire Mississippi flood basin.

All the levees in the world cannot change the inevitable fact that a coastal city residing below sea level is vulnerable to natural disaster.

Perhaps we should surround Manhattan island with a 50ft high sea wall barrier...a once in a century hurricane of Katrina's magnitude, with a direct hit on Manhattan would destroy the city...similarly, many cities on the west coast are quite vulnerable to a catastrophic earthquake.

You cannot change the fact the there are no fullproof protective barriers to Mother Nature.

Yes, that's true, there is no magic 100% solution, and yet you could almost let him off the hook had he kept levee funding at the same level. Or had he actually increased it -- you know after that FEMA study in 2001 that said a levee failure in New Orleans was one of the top three likely natural disasters in the country -- he could have said, "Well, we tried to do everything we could."

Instead, he cut the funding for N.O. levee upgrades by nearly 50%. Instead he has cut positions and funding for OSHA, MSHA, NIOSH and yes FEMA too as it was absorbed into the DHS. In every single instance, the Administration has either rolled back industry regulation or adopted industry-supported regulation. So what kind of assessment can you make when we have mass casualty events and you take even a cursory glance at the Administration's specific actions over the past 4-5 years with regards to worker safety?

It's pretty clear the administration puts worker safety and protection on a pretty low rung. And yet the apologists are running rampant claiming Bush is immune from criticism. Frankly, that's just not the case. When you make policy decisions like cutting worker safety programs, nixing industry regulations and cutting key personnel and cash from federal agencies tasked with overseeing safety, well then you reap what you sow don't ya?