Live data from Hacker News

EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

earthjustice.org

211–220 of 508 posts

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#211
post #127
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if someone thinks Animal Farm is a "simplistic work of fiction" that teaches nothing due to its author being an "avowed Socialist", that's a pretty poor "fan" of Orwell. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism no matter what the purported ideology is.

You told me to go read a satirical work of fiction to understand why real life executives might make certain decisions. This is like telling me to read Lord of the Rings to understand, by analogy, what insert politician you hate here is thinking and how it's informing his use of policy. Fiction is fiction. I prefer non-fiction for informing what I think about other (actual) people and their decision making processes.

Animal Farm uses metaphor to make statements and observations about non-ficticious events.

a non-fiction version of Animal Farm might be: "Authoritarianism is bad. Consider the case of the Russian Revolution leading to the rise and rule of Stalin. Imagine it's like the story of a farm taken over by authoritarian pigs: "

the word "fiction" here is doing work for your argument that it's not qualified to do.

the US Government is making the decisions they are in order to crush the population into submission. This is the simplest and most consistent explanation with many historical parallels and an approach (known as fascism) that is described by a tremendous amount of written literature, both academic and non-academic, fiction and non-fiction. The actions of politicians must be observed and the net effect of these actions forms the basis of the rationale.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#212

I understand that these dumb decisions are mostly profit motivated. But nobody stops to think that the reaction abroad may be: do not eat anything produced at USA?

I think there’s a deep fundamental psychosis of the right wing to get the world back to “survival of the fittest”. If you die of PFAs, poverty, other pollution, well then that’s just bad luck for you.

They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#213
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly it read to me more like Harris had a totally moderate response that was blown up by the right as something she is a die hard believer in. No one is dying on the hill of trans rights except for trans people as far as I see on the political stage. Republicans talk way more about trans people than democrats. Republicans pass way more laws about trans people than democrats. Republicans raise way more money on tra…

I agree that she had a moderate response. I think it appeared that she was dying on the this hill because she didn’t address it in her 2024 campaign yet it received so much air time in Republican ads. I also agree that it feels like Democrats don’t stand for anything. But I think by leaving that space open they let ads like this paint what they stand for.

Right, that’s what I’m saying. This is the opposite of a democrat dying on a hill. They cede everything and are killed for it on the spin.

My issue with what you said is the claim is not a hill to die on. They are not dying on any hills at all.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#214
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can agree or disagree with inmates having a right to medical care? That would require going to SCOTUS, at the very least. This right is well-established in the US. One can agree or disagree on the question of whether transgender care is medical care, but I think the sensible position for any political party (on virtually any such question) is to defer to the scientists and medical experts who spend all day workin…

Yes, politicians can agree or disagree with policy. That is their job. E.g., “here is a good policy we don’t have which we should enact,” and “here is a bad policy we should get rid of.” I’m not saying I agree or disagree with this policy but the point of politicians is to advance policy one way or the other which requires agreeing/disagreeing.

Again: this is not in any "politician's" hands. It's in SCOTUS's. Inmates have a right to medical care in this country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estelle_v._Gamble

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#215

At this point we should just create programs to promote RO filtration at home. If it's not lead then it's PFAS or some other thing. Then we have the issues with the chlorine and chloramine byproducts inhernet even in properly treated water - stuff that we already know as possible, probable, or known carcinogens.

Sounds like a band-aid solution for bad governance.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Palestine" issue is single-issue on the surface, but it is often used because it is a succint way to package a broad set of desired foreign policy changes: more cooperation with the Islamic world, less aggression/hegemony, and less money fed to insatiable MIC. Personally I do not see how we can afford to maintain the MIC for much longer, so these issues are very important to me.

Fair enough. Would you sit out an election over this issue, though? Especially where the other option is Trump?

Definitely not, I agree with you that it's counterproductive.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're referring to very far left circles that definitely don't represent liberals or more moderate Dems. I agree though, those circles consist of single-issue voters (e.g. palestine) that harm actual progress.

The "Palestine" issue is single-issue on the surface, but it is often used because it is a succint way to package a broad set of desired foreign policy changes: more cooperation with the Islamic world, less aggression/hegemony, and less money fed to insatiable MIC. Personally I do not see how we can afford to maintain the MIC for much longer, so these issues are very important to me.

The reason we can afford it is due to our GDP. We aren't that far ahead of other developed countries when you look at it as a percentage of GDP. The real issue is our debt, for which the interest payments are almost as much as our defense budget while adding nothing to the economy. But neither side is serious about tackling this issue.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#218

Elections have consequences, many people say both sides are the same, but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least. Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.

Let’s set our eyes on 2026 first, so that we can end this madness sooner.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#219

Elections have consequences, many people say both sides are the same, but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least. Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.

Kindly stop supporting a nation built on genocide and enslavement. The ethical path to engineering a system that's not intended to kill people is to stop it when it does and dismantle it, evolving the foundational principles used to design it in the first place. And to do all that without sacrificing more lives. Electoral reform is impossible because there's no way to say no to the entire system.

Re: EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

#220
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, politicians can agree or disagree with policy. That is their job. E.g., “here is a good policy we don’t have which we should enact,” and “here is a bad policy we should get rid of.” I’m not saying I agree or disagree with this policy but the point of politicians is to advance policy one way or the other which requires agreeing/disagreeing.

Again: this is not in any "politician's" hands. It's in SCOTUS's. Inmates have a right to medical care in this country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estelle_v._Gamble

That link refers to decisions made based the US Code and the constitution. Politicians write those. Courts have responsibility in interpreting them. It’s still a politicians job to take a stance and decide what they should be.
Post reply on HN