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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (45051)	1/24/2006 1:31:00 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

Loophole allows pesticide testing on pregnant women and children truthout.org The loopholes which allow continued testing on pregnant women, infants and children are contrary to law and widely accepted ethical guidelines, including the Nuremberg code. The fact that EPA allows pesticide testing of any kind on the most vulnerable, including abused and neglected children, is simply astonishing," said Senator Boxer. "The regulation is an open invitation to test pesticides on humans, which is the exact opposite of what Congress intended," said Rep. Waxman. "The Administration predicts that over 30 pesticide experiments will be submitted to EPA each year under the new rule. That's an enormous step in the wrong direction." "This is yet another example of the Bush Administration choosing to ignore the letter of the law and going its own way. Congress passed legislation to curb the practice of unethical pesticide testing on humans, but with this rule the Bush Administration is authorizing systematic testing of pesticides on humans which not only fails to meet its congressional mandate but which will increase the number of unethical studies," said Congresswoman Solis. "Americans should be concerned about just how far the Bush Administration will go to allow pesticide testing on pregnant women and children and, the ease at which it chooses to ignore the law. The Bush Administration must revise this rule to meet its Congressional mandate and give Americans a policy which is moral, ethical, and safe." "This rule has not been signed by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson yet. It's within his power to fix this regulation, and we are calling on him to do so," said Senator Boxer.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (45051)	1/24/2006 9:44:38 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

CR, I think the big problem is that while anyone with half a brain disapproves of Bush, that doesn't mean they like the Democratic alternatives any better. Though I think Bush is the worst choice possible (O.K., Osama might be a worse President <G>), I can see why the slate of Democrats aren't getting anyone fired up. Hillary, Kerry and Gore seem to be the front runners. Of these, Hillary is by far the smartest, but she carries a lot of baggage (not the least of which is being a woman). And many hard core progressives can't get behind her support of Bush's aggression in Iraq, and I'm one of them. I would vote for her vs. Cheney, Rice or Jeb, but it would be voting against them instead of for her. If I thought Bill would be the power behind the throne, I'd be enthusiastic. But I don't believe that would be the case. Warner, Obama, etc. don't have much in the way of experience. Of course, it isn't disastrous experience, like Bush's resume and I'd still vote for them vs. the Banana Republican. Progressives have a better chance against the GOP criminals in Congress. But I doubt they'll take control of either house.