![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 20:00:27
you will get a strictly civil news article (I am a bit reluctant to link anyway, not only do incivilities lurk behind every bush- no pun intended!- but I am a bit worried an overly zealous snooper might trace the link to my ISP and would there find out that I display the flag dear to Colonials, "Don't Tread on Me," and somehow construe that as expressing outrage that my Fourth Amendment rights have been violated-)
anyway, article edited for civility's sake, those looking to snoop out the complete article on their own do so at their own risk- but DON'T TREAD ON ME-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Judge [uncivil verb deleted] Ex-EPA Chief Over Sept. 11 By [name omitted for reasons of my own, DON'T TREAD ON ME], Associated Press Writer
40 minutes ago
NEW YORK - A federal judge [deleted] former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman on Thursday for reassuring New Yorkers soon after the Sept. 11 attacks that it was safe to return to their homes and offices while toxic dust was [uncivil word deleted, but I assure you, being a native New Yorker, that uncivil word is most accurate, and by the way DON'T TREAD ON ME] the neighborhood.
U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts refused to grant Whitman immunity against a class-action lawsuit brought in 2004 by residents, students and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who said they were exposed to [uncivil word deleted] materials from the destruction of the World Trade Center."No [word I delete for reasons of my own, perhaps deleted words are stronger than ones plain as day] person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," the judge said.
She called Whitman's actions "[deleted]" saying the EPA chief knew that the collapse of the twin towers released tons of hazardous materials into the air.
Whitman had no comment, according to a spokeswoman. A Justice Department spokesman said the government had no comment. An EPA spokeswoman said the agency was reviewing the lengthy opinion.
The judge let the lawsuit proceed against the EPA and Whitman, permitting the plaintiffs to try to prove that the agency and its administrator endangered their health.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and reimbursement for cleanup costs and asks the court to order that a medical monitoring fund be set up to track the health of those exposed to trade center dust.
In her ruling, Batts noted that the EPA and Whitman said repeatedly — beginning just two days after the attack — that the air appeared safe to breathe. The EPA's internal watchdog later found that the agency, at the urging of White House officials, gave [uncivil word deleted- you realize that my sanity is challenged by this cleanup project- the truth WILL come out- DON'T TREAD ON ME] assurances.
Quoting a ruling in an earlier case, the judge said a public official cannot be held personally liable for putting the public in harm's way unless the conduct was so egregious as "to shock the contemporary conscience." Given her role in protecting the health and environment for Americans, Whitman's reassurances after Sept. 11 were "without question [I leave to your imagination, it is more shocking that way anyway, even though it is truly an uncivil praqctice, this deleting of words]-" Batts said.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said in a statement that New Yorkers are still depending on the federal government to describe any ongoing risk from contaminants.
"I continue to believe that the White House owes New Yorkers an explanation," she said.
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat whose district includes the trade center site, said the many people who worked at the site and developed respiratory diseases deserve answers.
"It is my assumption that thousands of people — workers and residents — are rapidly returned to fine health they never lost because these workplaces and residences were never properly cleaned up," Nadler said in a telephone interview.
Apologies to Representative Nadler for changing a few words. He is to be forgiven any mutilations I have wreaked on his words to avoid shaking anyone's faith in current gov't's care of you , because he is merely saying in fact what any patriotic American would: DON'T TREAD ON ME.
-z
Posted by James K on February 4, 2006, at 12:40:47
In reply to White House blameless after 9/11, so, posted by zeugma on February 2, 2006, at 20:00:27
I don't have any tatoos, but that flag is on my short list if I ever make the leap. It expresses my patriotism and sense of history much better than the stars and bars or the confederate flag.
I live in a very polluted area of my country. Several local politicos recently voted against increased monitering and enforcement because their constituents are 20 miles away from the sources and are less interested in the issue. I am paraphrasing their exact words, but I don't think I've perverted their meaning. I can check the original articles if anyone doubts.
What does this have to do with New York, other than Texas republicans, I'm not sure. Christine was one of the administration appointees who left early. It appears that she was frustrated because she couldn't even ensure some minor enviornmental protection in her postition as head of the EPA. Again, this is based upon my personal opinion based upon my analysis of her interviews after the fact. The current administration is exercising their right to keep only like minded people around them. I'm more of a consensus guy myself. So I personally feel "slightly" bad for her, but the boss is reponsible for her department's actions whether they are her's alone. (which is unknowable)
James K
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2006, at 22:17:13
In reply to Re: White House blameless after 9/11, so » zeugma, posted by James K on February 4, 2006, at 12:40:47
> The current administration is exercising their right to keep only like minded people around them.
Please respect the views of those who support the current administration and be sensitive to their feelings.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by zeugma on February 6, 2006, at 5:37:24
In reply to Re: please be respectful and sensitive » James K, posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2006, at 22:17:13
> The current administration is exercising their right to keep only like minded people around them.
Please respect the views of those who support the current administration and be sensitive to their feelings>>
Dr. B, as a mental health professional, you must be aware that we do not wish to offend anyone. Please send us a list of Administration-approved adjectives so that we do not mischaracterize Attorney gen. A. Gonzales, President Bush, or the secretive head of NSA.
Is a spectre (whose name begins with A.) haunting you, too, Dr. B?
-z
Posted by James K on February 6, 2006, at 8:38:15
In reply to Re: White House blameless after 9/11, so » zeugma, posted by James K on February 4, 2006, at 12:40:47
Along with winning the most electoral college votes, comes the ability to determine the makeup of the executive branch. Positions are filled by a variety of individuals for a variety of reasons. Many presidents have brought with them people who have helped them along the way and that they trust. Off hand, I can think of Clinton and Vince Foster, or Bush and Karl Rove. Some people have worked for different administrations such as Henry Kissenger or Madeline Albright.
How a president fills his cabinets and appoints his appointees his totally up to him. Some of the positions are subject to congressional oversite or approval which is one of the systems of checks and balances our system entails. Each president gets to choose his own philosophy.
Some members of an administration will leave along the way. I think Rod Paige wanted to remodel his house. Scooter Libby was indicted. Vince Foster committed suicide (if I'm thinking of the right guy). George Stephanophoulus moved into the television business. I don't remember why C. Powell or C.T. Whitman left. Some get medals for their service when they leave. Some write books. There are many ways to enter and depart government service. The important thing is that the winner of the election gets to pick his people. That is part of what he wins.
James K
Posted by gromit on February 6, 2006, at 23:07:48
In reply to A president's perogatives, posted by James K on February 6, 2006, at 8:38:15
> Some members of an administration will leave along the way. I think Rod Paige wanted to remodel his house. Scooter Libby was indicted. Vince Foster committed suicide (if I'm thinking of the right guy). George Stephanophoulus moved into the television business. I don't remember why C. Powell or C.T. Whitman left. Some get medals for their service when they leave. Some write books. There are many ways to enter and depart government service. The important thing is that the winner of the election gets to pick his people. That is part of what he wins.
The thing is this President seems to keep a VERY small circle of people who seem to think so much alike they might as well share the same brain. As for Colin Powell, a man with integrity and tact, he may have felt out of place...
Rick
Posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 8:15:10
In reply to Re: A president's perogatives, posted by gromit on February 6, 2006, at 23:07:48
Are you far enough away from the fire?
Posted by gromit on February 7, 2006, at 13:44:25
In reply to Re: Off topic » gromit, posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 8:15:10
Hi AM,
> Are you far enough away from the fire?
We are not too close, the wife's work and the daycare are fairly close but not in any real danger except maybe from the smoke. Nice to hear from you!
Rick
Posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 14:49:31
In reply to Re: Off topic » AuntieMel, posted by gromit on February 7, 2006, at 13:44:25
Nice to hear from you, too.
Smoke shouldn't be a problem. You guys are used to brown air, right?
Glad to know you're safe. My in-laws aren't in the area, either.
Posted by gromit on February 8, 2006, at 21:05:23
In reply to Re: Off topic » gromit, posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 14:49:31
> Smoke shouldn't be a problem. You guys are used to brown air, right?
Yeah but the particles are usually not visible to the naked eye.
> Glad to know you're safe. My in-laws aren't in the area, either.I thought they were pretty far south of there? Well glad they are ok, sorry my memory is spotty sometimes.
Rick
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.