Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (159992)	2/4/2003 2:10:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583677

Another example of Bush's poor efforts in collecting environmental fines is discussed in this article. Of course, Bush's staff denies it.......not a big surprise. cyberdyaryo.com In addition to - "An EPA spokesperson responded that the study was flawed. "The report is an incomplete picture, since it only talks about administrative actions and fails to include the civil/judicial actions with the Department of Justice, which frequently involves major penalties and major environmental corrective action," said Teresa Libera. "For example, administrative injunctive relief totaled 488 million for fiscal year 2001, whereas judicial injunctive relief totaled 3.9 billion," she said. Libera also pointed out that the EPA forced violators to spend nearly twice as much on installing new pollution controls and conducting cleanups -- from 2.6 billion dollars in 2000 to 4.4 billion dollars in 2001." There is also the fact that a reduced number of fines does not show that Bush is subverting the law. There may be less violators or the violators may be beter at hiding it or there may be less money available for tracking down the violators. The rule that Bush is removing didn't allow much upgrading either. In caused a lot of very old plants that put out tons of pollution to remain operating. I find that hard to believe.......most if not all industries now must meet gov't standards. Under the old rule coal burning plants that were not expanded, renovated, or updated could emit polutions at rates that would be illegal for any new or renovated plant. "...No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." "A 1995 study commissioned by the US Dept of Labor found that claims of discrimination by white men made up a mere 2.15% of all US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission discrimination claims and of that number, it found no more than 2% of such claims as meritorious." nyu.edu It seems to me that the GOP's concerns are an overreaction. That only means that the discrimination by use of AA was determined to be legal. It doesn't mean that the determination was correct, or that discrimination did not occur. Tim