Being the Continuing Adventures of a Woman and her Trusty Kayak in New York Harbor, the Hudson River, and Beyond.
(with occasional political rants just to keep things lively!)
Ugh. I saw that earlier. The law is an ass.
Take whatever you read in the New York Times with a large grain of salt. I doubt that every evil corporation in America will start dumping toxic wast in the water tomorrow. Dennis G
change subject.. Jessica vs. Abby. Alstralia - to Alstralia is a much shorter journey than California -- to California. And the boats are very different. Like apples and oranges.Dennis G
Not changing the subject. I don't think every corporation in America is going to start dumping, nor do I think corporations are inherently evil. Unfortunately a few dumb ones can do a lot of damage - and you can't deny they are dumb sometimes & terribly shortsighted when it comes to seeing beyond the bottom line. It would be nice to believe that in the years since the Clean Water Act was enacted, the heads of businesses would have wised up to the intrinsic value of something like the returned-to-life Hudson - but unfortunately a group of people thinking as a group tend to absolve themselves of individual responsibility. I bet that you wouldn't find one single individual who'd say "Why yes, that was my decision, aren't I a genius?" if you asked executives at any of those examples that the Times came up with who made the call to dump. And although I will grant you that the Times gives a liberal spin, they're not the National Enquirer. This sounds like bad news.
The point is not that corporations are evil, or that someone will jump up and pour PCP in the Hudson as a result of this ruling (or will they?). Point is that the toxins are already a problem and the perpetrators have yet another reprieve. They've spent a lot on lobbyists to insure that the issue is muddy (sorry) and that we will shrug it all off as boring and change the subject.
In spite of Supreme Court Rulings, in reality, corporations are not people. They are ruled by economics and as Michael B pointed out pay lobbyists to make sure laws work in their favor. If it is more profitable to pollute than not, pollute is what they will do if the law allows.Speaking of newspapers - A man buys a paper from a newsboy, scans the front page and tosses it aside. The newsboy says "hey mister, aren't you going to read the rest of the paper?" The man says "I'm only interested in the obituaries." The newsboys says "But sir, the obits are on page 9."The man snaps back, "Son, trust me, the SOB I'm looking for will be on the front page."
We don't have to worry about factories polluting the Hudson River. All the factories are closed and moved to China. And all the people who worked in those factories now work in Wallmart selling stuff that is made in filthy polluting factories staffed with ten year old girls that work 60 hours a week. Does anybody eat tillappia? It is farm raised in China!!! What do you think they feed those fish on the farms in China. I will take my chances on a stripped Bass out of the Hudson any day.Dennis GPS. I just spent four days without electricty. Trust me on this one.. It's not fun.
What Michael said...the Milwaukee River is filthy with PCB's from no longer existing factories. The fish are poisoned, and the stuff isn't going to go away on its own.
Wow, that's grim. When I was a boy, swimming in the Mohawk was just about unthinkable it was so dirty. It's so much better now. It's sad that the Supreme Court gives more weight to 'them the corporations' instead of 'we the people.'
Poughkeepsie-area facilities. That's an interesting map. Yellow dots are companies that have had regulatory issues. Blue dots are the ones with no issues. I checked for a town near Dennis G. Moonstruck, but that's got major towns across the country. I'm scared to even look at NYC.
P.S. Dennis - if you can get a signed statement from Pete Seeger saying he's got everything under control & the rest of us don't have to worry our pretty little heads about it, I'll drop the topic!:DDon't worry though, next post will probably be something more frolicsome.
It sounds like less blame should be attached to the Supremes, who are trying to figure out what the law is, and more blame should be dumped on that great institution that wrote the law -- Congress. Congress back in 1972 seems to have ducked out on a hard decision to either make the CWA's protection complete or specify what was really covered and not covered by using the "navigable waters" language instead of something more specific.You know, as in "con", the opposite of "pro" as in "congress" and "progress".
Post a Comment