![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jakeman on June 20, 2006, at 22:22:17
I post this at the risk of getting blocked. This program is a documentary about the decisions and maneuvering that lead up to the war with Iraq. I watched it tonight but it will be shown later and is available online I believe. What's interesting about it is that the interviews are all are with administration insiders, past and present.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
This is an important discussion that affects the foundation of our government as well as US relations with the world. If you are afraid to post your comments here post them on the forum at the PBS website.
BTW, I admire President Bush's decision last week to set aside a portion of the Hawaiian Islands as a national monument.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by zeugma on June 21, 2006, at 5:09:25
In reply to PBS Show About Iraq, Frontline, posted by Jakeman on June 20, 2006, at 22:22:17
I post this at the risk of getting blocked>>I know the feeling
What's interesting about it is that the interviews are all are with administration insiders, past and present.>>
It is interesting. The harshest words I have ever seen in print about the Administration policies are from Admin insiders such as Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former *ss't secretary of state.
BTW, I admire President Bush's decision last week to set aside a portion of the Hawaiian Islands as a national monument.>>
me too. It's also worth noting that the Admin's newest member, Dirk Kempthorne, Sec. of the Interior, has announced that the National Park Service will return to its mandate for protection of our most beautiful and vulnerable landscapes, rather than, as with Gale Norton, who exited a month ago, privilege recreation and the encroachment of industry.
-z
Posted by Jakeman on June 21, 2006, at 18:55:22
In reply to Re: PBS Show About Iraq, Frontline » Jakeman, posted by zeugma on June 21, 2006, at 5:09:25
>
> me too. It's also worth noting that the Admin's newest member, Dirk Kempthorne, Sec. of the Interior, has announced that the National Park Service will return to its mandate for protection of our most beautiful and vulnerable landscapes, rather than, as with Gale Norton, who exited a month ago, privilege recreation and the encroachment of industry.Hopeful news. This change should help the sagging morale of NPS employees.
Jake
Posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 20:29:01
In reply to PBS Show About Iraq, Frontline, posted by Jakeman on June 20, 2006, at 22:22:17
Nice about Hawaiian Islands. On the environmental front, however, the news is not altogether good. As the following story from the NYTimes indicates, there are four votes on the Supreme Court for undermining current application of the Wetlands Act, which defines which lands are to be protected as such.
If one justices who wrote in opposition to the change were to be replaced by someone who joined the four who supported it, there could be major retrenchment on the act. Plus knowledge that such a large bloc exists on the SCOTUS could spur legislative and other administrative actions that would have a detrimental effect on definition and treatment of wetlands.
From the NY Times:"WASHINGTON, June 19 — The Supreme Court on Monday came close to rolling back one of the country's fundamental environmental laws, issuing a fractured decision that, while likely to preserve vigorous federal enforcement of the law, the Clean Water Act, is also likely to lead to new regulatory battles, increased litigation by property owners and a push for new legislation.
With four justices on one side arguing for a sharp restriction in the definition of wetlands that are subject to federal jurisdiction, and four justices on the other arguing for retaining the broad definition that the Army Corps of Engineers has used for decades, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy controlled the outcome in a solitary opinion.Justice Kennedy said that to come within federal protection under a proper interpretation of the Clean Water Act, a wetland needs to have a "significant nexus" to a body of water that is actually navigable.
He then made clear, in his 30-page opinion, that whether such a relationship existed in any specific case was largely a technical and scientific judgment on which courts should defer to the federal regulators. The four parcels of land at issue in the case, all in Michigan, were likely to meet the definition, he said.
Environmental advocacy groups reacted to the decision, which sends the cases back to an appeals court, as if they had dodged a bullet, which in many respects they had. An opinion for four justices, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, would have stripped protection from many areas that federal regulators have treated as wetlands under the 1972 law."
Jost
Posted by Jakeman on June 21, 2006, at 20:46:27
In reply to Re: PBS Show About Iraq, Frontline, posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 20:29:01
That's true, this ruling could have vast implications. I work in land planning. A change in the Clean Water Act rules would affect every city and millions of properties. Even simple things like putting in silt fence to prevent runoff and pollution from construction sites because they are too close to a tributary could be eliminated.
> If one justices who wrote in opposition to the change were to be replaced by someone who joined the four who supported it, there could be major retrenchment on the act. Plus knowledge that such a large bloc exists on the SCOTUS could spur legislative and other administrative actions that would have a detrimental effect on definition and treatment of wetlands.
>
>
> From the NY Times:
>
> "WASHINGTON, June 19 — The Supreme Court on Monday came close to rolling back one of the country's fundamental environmental laws, issuing a fractured decision that, while likely to preserve vigorous federal enforcement of the law, the Clean Water Act, is also likely to lead to new regulatory battles, increased litigation by property owners and a push for new legislation.
>
>
> With four justices on one side arguing for a sharp restriction in the definition of wetlands that are subject to federal jurisdiction, and four justices on the other arguing for retaining the broad definition that the Army Corps of Engineers has used for decades, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy controlled the outcome in a solitary opinion.
>
> Justice Kennedy said that to come within federal protection under a proper interpretation of the Clean Water Act, a wetland needs to have a "significant nexus" to a body of water that is actually navigable.
>
> He then made clear, in his 30-page opinion, that whether such a relationship existed in any specific case was largely a technical and scientific judgment on which courts should defer to the federal regulators. The four parcels of land at issue in the case, all in Michigan, were likely to meet the definition, he said.
>
> Environmental advocacy groups reacted to the decision, which sends the cases back to an appeals court, as if they had dodged a bullet, which in many respects they had. An opinion for four justices, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, would have stripped protection from many areas that federal regulators have treated as wetlands under the 1972 law."
>
> Jost
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.