What is Digg?4 Comments
- daonlyfreez, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Well, it's actually quite simple:
As soon as the EPA would acknowledge that the industry is externalizing their polution without repercussions, the industry would have to do something about it, and that would mean more filtering devices would have to be installed, and that costs money, and we can't burden our corporate saviours with costs, now can we?
Corporations are bound by law to act like parasites and leeches, because their only interest is profit. If externalizing/ignoring costs can be done, they will do it, that's how parasites and leeches "tick".
There will however come a point in time, and it will not be very far from now, that the parasites and leeches will get to feel _themselves_ that they are slowly but surely killing the host, and since there is no other host to go to, they will have to change their ways, one way or another.
/waiting for the serfs to defend their corporate saviours in 3-2-1... - HopalongMcGurk, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2From the article: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): “We cannot afford an Environmental Protection Agency that does not protect the environment. If Administrator Johnson cannot lead this great agency in the manner the American people deserve to see it led, he should step down and let someone else try.”
- rearlgrant, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3"In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Bush administration, it’s always the “quaint,” “outdated,” “burdensome,” and “ill-suited” laws that are the problem — never their reckless abandonment of principle and duty."
Wish I had written that. - inactive, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Can a judge tell the EPA what to work on? Just wondering about that "rule of law" comment. Seems like black robed gavel swingers could get a lot done:
"Hey, welfare system, get people to work!"
"US armed services, get out of everyone elses country and let them sort their own mess out!"
Why stop at telling the EPA what to do?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is