It is hard to believe the blatant, out N' out criminal activities that went on during the Bush/Cheney years, under the eyes of the law and without consequences. Illegal wars, spying on the people without their knowledge, torture, UNCONSTITUTIONAL LOOPHOLES. (Read This) Are we really free? This doesn't sound like freedom to me. If it weren't for the freedom of the press that produce media iconoclasts like Jon Stewart, our so called freedom would be in name only. I'm to the point that I don't trust any politician. When I see one of them speaking on TV, I turn off the sound and believe me, you could not tell if Mr. or Ms. Politician was an "R" or a "D"... their mannerisms are so similar. Just a bunch of greedy individuals all worried about their own rice bowls. They're supposed to represent us but they do anything but represent us. The only representing they do is for self interest. So again, if it weren't for people like Jon Stewart, Thom Hartmann, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and the like, we might as well be living in the closed society of Iran for all the truths we would be able to learn. thinkingblue
Please watch The Jon Stewart Show clip below and read The New York Time Opinion Article and learn, learn, learn.
Sir, I have been through it from Alpha to Omaha, and I tell you that the less a man knows
the bigger the noise he makes and the higher the salary he commands. - Mark Twain
"How I Edited an Agricultural Paper," 1870
PS: Sorry folks, Thom Hartmann blogs do not allow The Daily Show code: Click below link to see video:
A version of this article appeared in print on November 3, 2009, on page A28 of the New York edition.
Published: November 2, 2009
Among the many dubious provisions in the 2005 energy bill was one dubbed the Halliburton loophole, which was inserted at the behest of — you guessed it — then-Vice President Dick Cheney, a former chief executive of Halliburton.
It stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing. Invented by Halliburton in the 1940s, it involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals, some of them toxic, into underground rock formations to blast them open and release natural gas.
Hydraulic fracturing has been implicated in a growing number of water pollution cases across the country. It has become especially controversial in New York, where regulators are eager to clear the way for drilling in the New York City watershed, potentially imperiling the city’s water supply. Thankfully, the main company involved has now decided not to go ahead.
The safety of the nation’s water supply should not have to rely on luck or the public relations talents of the oil and gas industry. Thanks in part to two New Yorkers — Representative Maurice Hinchey and Senator Charles Schumer — Congress last week approved a bill that asks the E.P.A. to conduct a new study on the risks of hydraulic fracturing. An agency study in 2004 whitewashed the industry and was dismissed by experts as superficial and politically motivated. This time Congress is demanding “a transparent, peer-reviewed process.”
An even more important bill is waiting in the wings. Cumbersomely named the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, it would close the loophole and restore the E.P.A.’s rightful authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. It would also require the oil and gas industry to disclose the chemicals they use.
The industry argues that the chemicals are proprietary secrets and that disclosing them would hurt their competitiveness. It also argues that the process is basically safe and that regulating it would deter domestic production. But if hydraulic fracturing is as safe as the industry says it is, why should it fear regulation?