No, that’s not true at all. The EPA can still set specific standards on what, when, how much, and how often they can dump.
They just can’t offload responsibility for ensuring water quality to the dumper: They have to actually enforce their dumping standards.
Fair enough. I leave you and your merry band to continue on your irrelevant way.
Basically, the EPA has been saying “we don’t care what you actually release, so long as the water you release it into is at least [this] clean” after you do it." With this approach, the city has to monitor the water, and they become responsible for whatever anybody dumps in the water anywhere, even outside the city’s jurisdiction. When a cruise ship dumps its sewage tanks overboard 30 miles up current, the city is responsible for that dumping, even though they have no jurisdiction over the ship.
The court said this isn’t acceptable. They said the EPA - not the city - is responsible for the water. The EPA must specify exactly what can and cannot be released. If they aren’t satisfied with the water quality, they have to tell the city to release less, and/or go after the other entities doing the dumping.
This ruling is much ado about nothing.
Excellent.
Might I suggest that instead of targeting fellow victims for undue harassment, you direct your attention toward the actual perpetrators and their supporters? For environmental causes, might I suggest some sort of shop where an oil-based product like gasoline or diesel fuel is sold? Perhaps an entity that sells or services the vehicles that consume those fuels.
Perhaps you could publish a manifesto telling the public and these businesses alike what businesses need to do in order to avoid Molotov-flavored “civil disobedience”. Things like “a majority of the cars on a dealer’s lot must be EVs” and “EVs should be priced lower than comparable ICE vehicles”. Or “fuel stations should have at least as many charging stations as fuel pumps”.
When you publish your manifesto, make sure it gets sent to insurance companies, preferably the companies insuring the businesses responsible for the environmental catastrophe we are facing.
We have enough laws against public use of the street. There is no need to demonstrate for more.
Give JSO time to lobby your legislators. They’ll get around to it.
Excellent retort, but I can cite the legislative record supporting my point.
You would have a point if “protesting” was “life”. But it’s not.
When demonstrators were pissed off at Elon Musk, they didn’t picket grocery stores and kindergartens. they didnt blockade old folks homes, delay firefighters and ambulances.
They burned Tesla dealerships.
JSO could learn a thing or two from these anti-Musk demonstrators.
I mean, Daylight Wasting Time is probably going to finally end this year, so what are you going to do next year?
What are you going to do next year?
In terms of pure numbers, if you removed all of the US carriers, China will have a similar number of aircraft in their navy.
To be fair, I assumed 30 aircraft on the Wasp and America class ships. 20 is a more realistic number, so my estimate was high. I don’t know why I had it in my head that they could carry 30 aircraft each, but that was the basis of my claim. I was also under the impression that that 003 was another STOBAR carrier, rather than a CATOBAR.
Still, 9 US ships times 20 STOVL aircraft:
001, 002, and 003 are reported to carry 24 STOBAR, 24 STOBAR, and 50 CATOBAR aircraft, respectively:
My claim of “more than twice as many” was wrong, but by single-digit margins.
Their Type 075 and 076 ships are described as “Helicopter Docks”. To the best of my knowledge, China doesn’t currently have any STOVL aircraft to operate off these ships. They are developing a STOVL aircraft, the J-35, which would almost certainly be able to operate off 075/076, but it’s not operational yet. I’m disinclined to count the four operational 075s, and the 076 they are building.
The US Navy has 13 “Landing Platform, Docks” (San Antonio Class) that I’m not counting, because they only carry helicopters (up to 78 total) or tiltrotors (up to 65 total). They did do some evaluations on using them with the Harrier, but I dont think that went anywhere.
Pretty much every large ship in both navies can embark a couple helicopters; I’m not counting any of them either.
Blocking roads in protest has proven effective at exactly one thing: Increasing the enforcement and penalties for jaywalking.
It is counterproductive at everything else.
did you think that huddling on sidewalks holding signs was supposed to do something?
Where did I say huddle on sidewalks?
I think JSO should be firebombing ICE car dealerships, gas stations, muffler shops, and other entities and agents of the oil industry. Not harassing victims of that industry.
The helicopters and personal assistants and private jets and staffed mansions aren’t the problem. With all of those, money is moving from the rich person to pilots, crew, maintenance staff, laborers, builders. Workers are making a living, earning paychecks from all these expenditures. Their lavish lifestyles are not the problem.
The problem is their stock portfolios. They aren’t converting their wealth into worker paychecks. They are leveraging their wealth to take more and more wealth from workers throughout the economy.
You say that. And yet, certain people need to be reminded of this simple fact.
The underlying cause of our hyper-polarized political environment is the profound lack of comprehension in the distinction between populism and democracy.
Again: Democracy is government by the consent of the governed. The system you described made no effort to ensure constituent consent. You described a populist system, not a Democratic one.
There are many good ways to popularly elect a singular representative. The one you described is one of the better ones, but it is still two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. It is still populist: the sheep does not consent to a “government” that can put it on a menu.
A democratic system would be one in which the government lacks the power to put the sheep on that ballot: the minority has no cause to protest.
There are no good ways to democratically elect a singular representative. As soon as you allow that representative sufficient power that the minority protest, the appointment of that representative over the minority may be populist, but it is not democratic.
most of the electorate
You just defined “populism”.
I am not sure where you are getting that “theoretical” bit. It’s not theory.
In theory, you can purchase a gun with no training whatsoever. In practice, you’ll have a tough time avoiding the bare minimum safe handling instruction the seller is going to give you. Upon receiving that instruction, you can’t really say you have had “no training” whatsoever.
Looking at it another way: I don’t personally know anyone over the age of 6 who has never received any sort of training on safe gun handling. In Theory, such people exist and can suddenly decide to buy a gun on a whim with zero research or experience. In practice, not so much.
Huh. Well, that’ll make things easier.