New Coal Regulations Will Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills

[KissMy]

gee Im sure the corporations will.

Why is it you never believe anything but what the corps say?

They are generally about 1000 times more honest than the government. To understand why no one believes the later, just consider the recent example of Anthony Weiner.

Ken Lay.
Bernie Maddoff.
Michael Milken.
Scott Sullivan.
Ivan Boesky.
David Myers.
Jeff Skilling.
Dennis Kozlowski.
Mark Swartz.
Frank Walsh.
Richard Fuld.
Neil Bush.

Honest to a fault those guys. Only cost billions..no big whoop.

Compare & Contrast Corporate leaders with our 535 Congressmen.

* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

 

[Sallow]

They are generally about 1000 times more honest than the government. To understand why no one believes the later, just consider the recent example of Anthony Weiner.

Ken Lay.
Bernie Maddoff.
Michael Milken.
Scott Sullivan.
Ivan Boesky.
David Myers.
Jeff Skilling.
Dennis Kozlowski.
Mark Swartz.
Frank Walsh.
Richard Fuld.
Neil Bush.

Honest to a fault those guys. Only cost billions..no big whoop.

Compare & Contrast Corporate leaders with those in our Government.

* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a
credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

Link?

Cost?

And is DWI a big problem for ya?

Who'd you vote for in 2000 and 2004?

 

[newpolitics]

They are generally about 1000 times more honest than the government. To understand why no one believes the later, just consider the recent example of Anthony Weiner.

Ken Lay.
Bernie Maddoff.
Michael Milken.
Scott Sullivan.
Ivan Boesky.
David Myers.
Jeff Skilling.
Dennis Kozlowski.
Mark Swartz.
Frank Walsh.
Richard Fuld.
Neil Bush.

Honest to a fault those guys. Only cost billions..no big whoop.

Compare & Contrast Corporate leaders with those in our Government.

* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a
credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

Are you serious with these figures? spousal abuse? Fraud? writing bad checks? assault? DRUG RELATED CHARGES? 71 CAN'T QUALIFY FOR A CREDIT? HAHAHAHAHAHAH..... WHO GIVES A SHIT?! I can't even believe you think the petty thefts you listed are ANYTHING compared to Bernie Madoff or the incredible power wielded by these corporations.

 

[KissMy]

Ken Lay.
Bernie Maddoff.
Michael Milken.
Scott Sullivan.
Ivan Boesky.
David Myers.
Jeff Skilling.
Dennis Kozlowski.
Mark Swartz.
Frank Walsh.
Richard Fuld.
Neil Bush.

Honest to a fault those guys. Only cost billions..no big whoop.

Compare & Contrast Corporate leaders with our 535 Congressmen.

* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

Link?

Cost?

And is DWI a big problem for ya?

Who'd you vote for in 2000 and 2004?

Link to our 535 Congressmen criminal activities.

DWI kills more than Coal.

Congress cost us more & they even took money from everyone on your list.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you serious with these figures? spousal abuse? Fraud? writing bad checks? assault? DRUG RELATED CHARGES? 71 CAN'T QUALIFY FOR A CREDIT? HAHAHAHAHAHAH..... WHO GIVES A SHIT?! I can't even believe you think the petty thefts you listed are ANYTHING compared to Bernie Madoff or the incredible power wielded by these corporations.

Congress doesn't wield incredible power? Congress spends $4 trillion dollars every year. Congress has the authority to use guns to enforce its decisions.

You obviously don't care about the honesty and integrity of the people who have the power of life and death over you.

 

[newpolitics]

Are you serious with these figures? spousal abuse? Fraud? writing bad checks? assault? DRUG RELATED CHARGES? 71 CAN'T QUALIFY FOR A CREDIT? HAHAHAHAHAHAH..... WHO GIVES A SHIT?! I can't even believe you think the petty thefts you listed are ANYTHING compared to Bernie Madoff or the incredible power wielded by these corporations.

Congress doesn't wield incredible power? Congress spends $4 trillion dollars every year. Congress has the authority to use guns to enforce its decisions.

You obviously don't care about the honesty and integrity of the people who have the power of life and death over you.

Who have the power of life and death over me? Kiss my ass.

You can watch congress on C-Span for Christs sake. There is transparency there. There is NO transparency in the private sector. That is part of what brought the financial collapse. Derivatives trading is done on a black market that can't be regulated or even seen. Also, You can't go into a boardmeeting for a corporation to find out what their plans are, can you? There is no transparency there.

 

[idb]

I'm glad Obama is all for helping the middle class

Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills


Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]

What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background


Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Yeah, it's like the asbestos industry all over again.
The politicians just don't care about people.

 

[martybegan]

Are you serious with these figures? spousal abuse? Fraud? writing bad checks? assault? DRUG RELATED CHARGES? 71 CAN'T QUALIFY FOR A CREDIT? HAHAHAHAHAHAH..... WHO GIVES A SHIT?! I can't even believe you think the petty thefts you listed are ANYTHING compared to Bernie Madoff or the incredible power wielded by these corporations.

Congress doesn't wield incredible power? Congress spends $4 trillion dollars every year. Congress has the authority to use guns to enforce its decisions.

You obviously don't care about the honesty and integrity of the people who have the power of life and death over you.

Who have the power of life and death over me? Kiss my ass.

You can watch congress on C-Span for Christs sake. There is transparency there. There is NO transparency in the private sector. That is part of what brought the financial collapse. Derivatives trading is done on a black market that can't be regulated or even seen. Also, You can't go into a boardmeeting for a corporation to find out what their plans are, can you? There is no transparency there.

So every little thing every congressperson does is shown on CSPAN? You assume they do not do back door deals just like everyone else does.

You may not be able to go into a board meeting, but corporations must report thier books every year, and while the documents are not perfect, they are better than the fiction the congress puts out as a "budget" every year.

 

[Bfgrn]

Are you serious with these figures? spousal abuse? Fraud? writing bad checks? assault? DRUG RELATED CHARGES? 71 CAN'T QUALIFY FOR A CREDIT? HAHAHAHAHAHAH..... WHO GIVES A SHIT?! I can't even believe you think the petty thefts you listed are ANYTHING compared to Bernie Madoff or the incredible power wielded by these corporations.

Congress doesn't wield incredible power? Congress spends $4 trillion dollars every year. Congress has the authority to use guns to enforce its decisions.

You obviously don't care about the honesty and integrity of the people who have the power of life and death over you.

Here is what you need to do.

First: You need to understand that our founding fathers created an entity to address the needs and issues facing We, the People. It was not a private entity, it was not a corporation, it was a GOVERNMENT.

Second: There have been debates for over 200 years on our founder's intent on a number of issues. Most of it is regarding their intent and meaning of words and documents they authored.

Third: Our founding fathers outlived the documents they created and actually governed. So why don't you research how our founding fathers treated corporations?

Bring me back evidence of how they gave corporations autonomy and power over We, the People.

 

[daveman]

It's so ironic that your "Right Wing" leads to big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom.

Yes, it's so awful that during the Bush Administration, everything you saw and posted on the internet was highly censored, you couldn't travel around the country without showing your papers, and political dissidents were rounded up at night and never heard from again.

Or, you're just being an idiot.

 

[blastoff]

Higher energy prices? Hey, give Barry some credit for fulfilling a campaign promise.

 

[Bfgrn]

It's so ironic that your "Right Wing" leads to big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom.

Yes, it's so awful that during the Bush Administration, everything you saw and posted on the internet was highly censored, you couldn't travel around the country without showing your papers, and political dissidents were rounded up at night and never heard from again.

Or, you're just being an idiot.

Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations. ref

 

[martybegan]

It's so ironic that your "Right Wing" leads to big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom.

Yes, it's so awful that during the Bush Administration, everything you saw and posted on the internet was highly censored, you couldn't travel around the country without showing your papers, and political dissidents were rounded up at night and never heard from again.

Or, you're just being an idiot.

Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations. ref

Interesting you quote the MTBE thing, as that was added to gasoline for two reasons, one as a replacement for lead based anti-knocking agents (1979) and two, to increase the oxygenation rate in gasoline due to clean air requirments at the federal and state level.

Once it was figured out that the benefits of using MTBE as an oxygenator were outweighed by the problems caused in the soil/water when it leaked the federal oxygenation requirements were lowered, in 2005, during the administration of GUESS THE **** WHO?

 

[daveman]

It's so ironic that your "Right Wing" leads to big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom.

Yes, it's so awful that during the Bush Administration, everything you saw and posted on the internet was highly censored, you couldn't travel around the country without showing your papers, and political dissidents were rounded up at night and never heard from again.

Or, you're just being an idiot.

Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations. ref

Thank you, Mr. Non-Sequitur. What's that got to do with newpolitics' rant about "big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom"?

Hint: Nothing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, it's so awful that during the Bush Administration, everything you saw and posted on the internet was highly censored, you couldn't travel around the country without showing your papers, and political dissidents were rounded up at night and never heard from again.

Or, you're just being an idiot.

Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations. ref

Thank you, Mr. Non-Sequitur. What's that got to do with newpolitics' rant about "big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom"?

Hint: Nothing.

Well here is what you do:

1) Research the title of this thread. That should take less than an hour.

2) By eviscerating environmental regulations...WHO gains power to take away all individual liberty and freedom"?

3) Did you READ the article?

 

[newpolitics]

It's so ironic that your "Right Wing" leads to big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom.

Yes, it's so awful that during the Bush Administration, everything you saw and posted on the internet was highly censored, you couldn't travel around the country without showing your papers, and political dissidents were rounded up at night and never heard from again.

Or, you're just being an idiot.

You do know that under the patriot act they can take anyway away for however long they want without due process if they are a 'terrorist,' which is worded so broadly, anyone could be a terrorist. For example, film director SHAUN MONSON who made the movie EARTHLINGS, a movie about the unbearable suffering of animals at the hands of humans across a range of industries because he made a movie that affects the food industries profit margins.Who decides who is a terrorists? They are simply using this 'terror threat' to squash any dissidence in this country. If you are an activist, speak against the government... They can take away whoever they want, at their whim. People were rounded up and taken away... People put in jail for NO reason...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEofy7fsIGk&feature=related]YouTube - ‪9/11 TRUTHERS LOCKED UP FOR LIFE UNDER NEW US LAW (PLEASE SHARE THIS)‬‏[/ame]


Or, how about activists who speak out against corporate acitivity or the government, have a special 'mark' on their plane tickets. A 'SSSS.' What does that mean? Usually they are detained momentarily.

How about Blackwater being positioned now, IN the united stated. A domestic PRIVATE military force. Doesn't that concern you? YOU may not be affected or a target, because you are a good little republican that 'loves his country,' but others have been affected, and it is not made public or would never be reported about on fox news, because that would tarnish US credibility with the patriot act and their motives.

The patriot Act has invaded our constitutional rights. You who are always talking about American freedom should be more up in arms about it if you are so adamant about upholding our constitution.

Wikipedia on the marking SSSS on plane tickets:

Secondary Security Screening Selection (SSSS)

Secondary Security Screening Selection or Secondary Security Screening Selectee, known by its acronym SSSS, is an airport security measure in the United States and Canada which selects passengers for additional inspection[citation needed]. This may also be known as Selectee, Automatic Selectee or the Selectee list[citation needed]. The list contains 14,000 names, as of December 2009.

Selection Criteria

Neither the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) nor the airlines publish the criteria that are used when boarding passes are issued to identify passengers who will be given extra screening or be denied boarding.
Some criteria are:
Passengers with a one-way reservation.[2]
Passengers who pay cash for their tickets.[3]
Passengers who book reservations the day of their flight.
Passengers who "no show" a single leg of their flight.
Random selection, according to TSA spokeswoman Amy Von Walter in 2004,[4] and as suggested by a 2003 DOI newsletter.[5]
Flight to specific final destinations.
Flying without ID
Having one's name on a list of names supplied by the government to the airlines, according to an airline staff questioned.
Since neither the TSA nor the airline run a background check at the time boarding passes are issued, immigration status and criminal records are not taken into consideration during SSSS. Furthermore, personal information such as a passenger's addresses, employment history, and medical records are not taken into account during SSSS and may not even be readily available to government officials to modify the process and increase its validity.
[edit]

Procedure when selected

Passengers who have been selected for this secondary screening will have the letters SSSS or *S* (all capitals) printed on their boarding passes.[4]
SSSS passengers will go through a more intensive screening process which may include puffer explosive detectors. Their carry-on luggage may be also be inspected by hand. In the case of film or other items that cannot be X-rayed, the agent may perform a test for possible explosive materials. The screener may also use a hand held metal detector to search the passenger for metal objects.[citation needed]
[edit]

Randomness and Credibility

Since the process acts on the accumulation of certain criteria rather than mathematical probability[citation needed], it is expected that subjects may be selected more than once or more often than others. This has caused the public to believe the process is not random but instead discriminatory as those individuals selected are predominantly minorities or people of color.[citation needed] The TSA states that SSSS is a selective process in which candidates who fall under a pre-determined category are chosen.[citation needed] Nonetheless, the process may rely, intermittently, in randomness, when subjects do not fall under any category and this becomes the mathematical variable.[citation needed]
With British Airways and Alaska Airlines, the marking happens at check-in.[citation needed] Thus a potential miscreant is warned and has the opportunity to leave the public area of the airport or abandon an attempt to smuggle something on board, while other passengers will continue to be screened.[citation needed]

 

[daveman]

Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations. ref

Thank you, Mr. Non-Sequitur. What's that got to do with newpolitics' rant about "big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom"?

Hint: Nothing.

Well here is what you do:

1) Research the title of this thread. That should take less than an hour.

2) By eviscerating environmental regulations...WHO gains power to take away all individual liberty and freedom"?

3) Did you READ the article?

Fail. Utter fail.

 

[daveman]

It's so ironic that your "Right Wing" leads to big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom.

Yes, it's so awful that during the Bush Administration, everything you saw and posted on the internet was highly censored, you couldn't travel around the country without showing your papers, and political dissidents were rounded up at night and never heard from again.

Or, you're just being an idiot.

Are you serious?

Yes. If America is a police state, we suck at it. Look at how many people criticize and condemn the government every day...and nothing ever happens to them. Nothing.

 

[newpolitics]

Yes, it's so awful that during the Bush Administration, everything you saw and posted on the internet was highly censored, you couldn't travel around the country without showing your papers, and political dissidents were rounded up at night and never heard from again.

Or, you're just being an idiot.

Are you serious?

Yes. If America is a police state, we suck at it. Look at how many people criticize and condemn the government every day...and nothing ever happens to them. Nothing.

It just depends on how big of a pulpit you have, and how threatening they perceive your message to be. Threatening to the status quo, to corporate profits, I mean. Threatening to the idea of 'a war on terror' which in my opinion, is simply a cover to monitor our individual freedoms so they can take away whoever they want, which they can! this is real. This is happening. They don't need evidence, a judge, a jury... that is really scary. I never said this was a police state, but we are under surveillance.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thank you, Mr. Non-Sequitur. What's that got to do with newpolitics' rant about "big government, big brother spying (patriot act), and corporate power that takes away all individual liberty and freedom"?

Hint: Nothing.

Well here is what you do:

1) Research the title of this thread. That should take less than an hour.

2) By eviscerating environmental regulations...WHO gains power to take away all individual liberty and freedom"?

3) Did you READ the article?

Fail. Utter fail.

Yes, you did fail. We agree on something...