March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Vaughan's reply | Main | New Kendall Marshall x-ray »

Mar 20, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Billy Jones

So protection makes everything okay. Why don't we ask out local conservatives how they feel about letting their unmarried daughters do it as long as they use protection.

Fred Gregory

Not even funny

justcorbly

Fracking is pushed because it's supposed to create jobs, but since we now know that the lack of jobs doesn't concern Santorum, who knows. I doubt, though, that he'd suggest industry abstain from fracking rather than satisfy their desires using protection.

RBM

For NC info, via PA as case study:

Found at The Oil Drum - Fracking: Pennsylvania Gags Physicians

[i] A new Pennsylvania law endangers public health by forbidding health care professionals from sharing information they learn about certain chemicals and procedures used in high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing.

The law, an amendment to Title 52 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, requires that companies provide to a state-maintained registry the names of chemicals and gases used in fracking. Physicians and others who work with citizen health issues may request specific information, but the company doesn’t have to provide that information if it claims it is a trade secret or proprietary information ... If a company does release information about what is used, health care professionals are bound by a non-disclosure agreement that not only forbids them from warning the community of water and air pollution that may be caused by fracking, but which also forbids them from telling their own patients what the physician believes may have led to their health problems.

The clauses are buried on pages 98 and 99 of the 174-page bill, which was initiated and passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed into law in February by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.

The clauses are buried on pages 98 and 99 of the 174-page bill, which was initiated and passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed into law in February by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.[/i]

I have not verified this data.

Billy Jones

Fred, "Not even funny"

I didn't know that it was supposed to be funny.

sal leone

I am all against fracking, there are lots of cities that are having problems. My website has addressed the issue and has links. I read that Dr Wade is for it, not surprised, she is big business all the way. I will never support fracking and anyone who does is not thinking of the risks and only the money. I know what some are saying that I am a fool and I say I will go to Dimock, PA and pick them up some water and lets see if they and their families drink it.

Lex

The merits of fracking aside, gagging physicians w/r/t public-health risks is metaphorically criminal and ought to be literally so. I realize the odds that this law gets upheld aren't great, but 1) you can never tell anymore withe the federal courts and 2) someone is still going to have to go to the trouble and expense of litigating the case.

Memo to politicians: Your oaths of office require you to refrain from introducing legislation that is facially unconstitutional. I realize consequences are only for the little people, but it's still true for all that.

sal leone

You are so right Lex, consequences are for the little people and I hate that but if you have money then you got more rights. I got the feeling that the new Rep house and senate will aprrove any fracking bill. I am sure their will be jobs from fracking but how many and is it worth the risk of peoples health.
I will never support fracking, the world is way more important then money.

Billy Jones

Meanwhile, turns out they already have so much gas they will be putting the gas up conservatives' big ol' hairy butts very soon. Try lighting that one up.

Fred Gregory

Meanwhile refining in the US is withering away. Who you gonna call then.? Oh no worries, right. Down for maintenance.. sure !

Where have all the ... gone

Billy Jones

Fred, Fracking and refining are 2 entirely separate issues. US refining is going overseas-- deliberately being outsourced by those who control production. And you can bet that if those same controllers could figure out a way to frack for oil without paying US drillers Us wages they would be doing so.

And the funny thing is: the frackers you support plan to send their oil to overseas refineries as well.

Fred Gregory

Billy: Not really. The common thread is the invincible zealousness of the no fossil fuels period crowd.

EPA requires refiners to produce over 50 different blends of gas for various US geographic regions. Insanity.

Here read the regulations and slowly your eyes will Glaze Over

Billy Jones

Fred, "50 different blends of gas for various US geographic regions" are still required to be produced be it domestic or foreign. Yes, the regulations are insane but the fuel still has to meet the same specs no matter where it's refined.

Oh, and this website you linked to is in the business of making fun of conservatives like yourself.

So tell me again why the refiners are going overseas? No wait, I know: CHEAP LABOR so retired guys on the government dole can save a few bucks.

Get a job, Fred, you've too much time on your hands.

Billy Jones

Fred, from the sidebar of the website you linked to:

"Welcome to the Right-Wing Forward Museum

MyRightWingDad.net is a museum dedicated to following the course of American history through a unique lens -- the emails "Red-America" forwards worldwide. Take a look around the archive using the keywords below, and leave a comment or two.

This museum displays unedited, often offensive and untrue material with no endorsement intended by curators or contributors."

Dude, you really do need to find something to do.

Fred Gregory

Billy.

Life is too good be involved with anarchists like OWS.

Cheers

Fred

Fred Gregory

Er, Lex, would you apply that test to the Affordable Health Care Act ?

lex

@Fred: Certainly. However, the ACA individual mandate is not facially unconstitutional in light of the history of what the Supreme Court HAS allowed under the commerce clause, or else appeals courts wouldn't have split on the question and at least four justices wouldn't have voted to hear the resulting appeals.

bubba

"However, the ACA individual mandate is not facially unconstitutional in light of the history of what the Supreme Court HAS allowed under the commerce clause, or else appeals courts wouldn't have split on the question and at least four justices wouldn't have voted to hear the resulting appeals."

Another non-sequitur absurdity.

Are you getting your material from Sykes?

The comments to this entry are closed.