Jayjay:
The “they started it” rationalization for justifying and perpetuating unnaceptable behaviors and circumstances is not one of 10 mistakes that you humans keep repeating.
But it should be.
Did it ever occur to you that the EPA may just be doing their job (or trying, anyway) but because the facts don’t agree with this administration’s beliefs, they’re trying to ignore and/or suppress it? Frankly, I haven’t seen this administration really try to do anything other than give their business friends and donors more money, keep the people from getting anything useful out of the government, and fuck up every other thing they’ve touched. But maybe that’s just me. And 73% of the rest of the US population.
No.
They are openly atagonistic to the policy setting arm of the government. They attribute motivations. They attempt to set policy themselves.
This is not in the EPAs job description.
As I stated, “my side bias” is a very common failing. You do it over and over again. It’s kind of amusing.
Combining the “my side bias” with your vox populem version of the argument from authority logical fallacy as you have done is giving me a headache.
I need to go commune with more highly evolved creatures for a while to restore my equilibrium. I will try to return later.
Uh-huh. You don’t have to bother. Unless you have a funny story to tell. You write really good funny stories, but your politics suck.
I read that when the EPA toned down the suggestions ,that Bush opened the new envelope. The paperwork i, when seen in future reports, will not show the true findings of the EPA. Nor will he look like he was so far removed from the agency findings . He won.
I have received e-mail containing all manner of offers and information, but none of it ever gained any credence for having been read.
How much “my side bias” is shown by a president who will not even read the words of someone who may disagree with him?
I submit that the job of any agency with a research or fact-finding component to its mission is to try to form policy to the facts, rather than forming the facts around policy. It has been the constant action of this administration to first set the policy and then ignore or massage the facts to fit that policy. That is NOT the way to run an effective government agency. You cannot effectively administer policy that doesn’t even nod at the facts in passing.
This administration has been dumbing down every science-based agency in the executive branch since they got into office. They’ve broken the federal government to the point where it’s going to take at least 8 years of an Obama administration to try to get it back to the state it was in before Georgie Porgie grabbed hold of it and began banging against a wall.
If he finds the EPA hostile, he can simply apply the techniques he used with the Justice Department. One can almost see that bright day before us…
[Announcer, voice over]…Behold, the new American river. How pure it flows, no turtles, no alligators, it’s bottom unblemished by fish poop! See how easily Nature’s water bonds and mingles with the industrial solvents that have made America great! Gaze in rapture at the rainbows bestowed by pure, natural petroluem byproducts as they float on the serene surface…Freedom Film, we folks at EPA like to call it…
Oh please do! And tell us how it is over there in Freeperland where the sky is green and everyone agrees with you.
Ahem:: I was referring to Kaylasdad
Should you wish to deliver an apology, I’ll be easy to find. I’m the one with air of smug superiority.
Thank you.
You only think so because you disagree with them. My side bias, again.
I sincerely find much admirable in your politics though we disagree on much.
That’s why I’m so cool!
You are half right. They should not attempt to form facts around policy. That would compromise their impartiality.
Attempting to form policy in any fashion also compromises their impartiality, as now they have put themselves in the place of a having a position to defend. If one is defending a position than it is hard to be biased to that position.
My place here is not to defend the administration but simply to point out the faulty arguments you are using. This one is a simple assertion of opinion. Uncompelling.
This is not building an argument, so much as demonstrating a bias. As if I could have forgotten that you think the Bush administration sucks! Every piece of information you receive is seemingly culled for its ability to support this position of yours. “Adverse selection” is simply another symptom of “my side bias.”
What are the other nine?
That depends on whether and how far they have applied the same hiring policies at the EPA as at the Justice Department.
But the majority ruled that the final decision was not merely bad policy but illegal, in terms of what the EPA was charged by Congress with doing.
In a nutshell, Congress allocates funds and enacts statutes, which are codified in the U.S. Code, updated annually. Congress authorizes executive-branch agencies to write regulations, which have the force of law, and are much more detailed and fine-tuned, and can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. It all comes under the heading of administrative law. How much independent power the agencies have in this regard has been the subject of much litigation, as in the Supreme Court case cited above. So has the scope of the president’s authority to make policy through executive orders.
- Not Stopping to Think
- What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
- Not Noticing
- Not Seeing Yourself
- My-side Bias
- Trapped by Categories
- Jumping to Conclusions
- Fuzzy Evidence
- Missing Hidden Causes
- Missing the Big Picture
Well, you had to ask, didn’t you, BG? Just couldn’t leave it alone, could you?
Sorry. Human nature. You just can’t throw out the mystery meat without sniffing it first. (A weakness that didn’t make the list, for some reason.)
That’s a strength.
A feature.
All righty then. Thanks for all the info.
I recall reading somewhere in the links that the EPA was hesitant to regulate something that wasn’t fully proven yet (i.e. the effect of greenhouse gases).
Do you feel that to a valid defense, not just with AGW issues, but with any of the topics the EPA must manage? (I feel that the EPA must not “knee jerk”, but use it’s powers responsibly, and with the assumption that if an activity is not dangerous, the EPA should not get involved.)
I also recall that the case was originally (not in the Supreme Court, but in the lower courts) sometime in 1999.
Do you feel that, in this specific case, the EPA deliberately denied the dangers of greenhouse gases? (I don’t recall how far along the global warming science was in 1998 or 1999.)
Thanks again for your time.