I was reading an article the other day about Milwaukee's Cryptosporidium outbreak in the '90s.  I remember it killing a small group of people with compromised immune systems but never realized that almost half a million people in total got sick from it. And then of course there is Flint.

I think it was Lewis Thomas in "Lives of a Cell" who wrote that the major driver behind peoples' increased lifespans in the 20th century were anti-biotics and improved public health systems like vaccinations and water and sewage plants.

Just remember - both parties are the same.

Odd. One party didn't just try to roll back California emissions standards and the other did.

The simple fact is that 30 or 40 years ago there were people in both parties who supported environmental cleanup. One party today is under control of those who went to college thinking Ayn Rand was a writer of gospel. That greed is good. Altruism is evil. And that even considering the greater good over individuals' desire for power is oppression of those who deserve to be rich and powerful because they are frankly, in their thoughts, superior to all the "takers" out there.

Whiskers Yellowbanks wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 3:37pm:



Since I know plenty of people who have voted GOP who don't fit that, I'll say, "Not so much."

...Just like I've said the same about people demonizing folks who've voted DNC.  I actually paid $30 this year to join a forum where dislike for Democrats rules, just so I could poke at them.  I'm enjoying it...

I'll stick with, "Anyone who thinks either party is looking out for the good of the people over the good of the party is blind to reality.", every day.  Twice on days that end with "Y".

We'd all be better off if we ignored parties and worked on what we agree on.

Party faithful live to divide, not to unite.  Same with anyone who puts party in front of results.  All of them.  All the time.

I've never, ever, seen a discussion that devolved into party politics that ended well.

Ever.

Let me be clear: I've no problem with folks who believe what they believe about either party...until they start telling us that is the only way to think.

"If you want clean water, you have to vote Democrat!"

"If you love business, you have to vote Republican!"

Nonsense...

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 8:36am:


That's good head-in-the-sand rationale, but the fact is that politicians create laws and regulations, not us.

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 1:15pm:


I was referencing your quote more than the context of your post.  But other than blowing up the whole system -- which isn't going to happen short of a revolution -- one has to pick his/her poison. 

Further North wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 6:48pm:


Seems to be a movement in that direction.  Whether it takes hold or not who knows.

https://www.kunc.org/post/colorados-unaffiliated-voters-grow-so-do-efforts-engag...

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-...

"Both parties are bad" is simply the battle cry of the republican who has just witnessed proof that his party is much, much worse on the environment, but is too stubborn to admit it.  It inspires a small chuckle and a  deep yawn every time the same two people on this site repeat it.

tannin wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2019 at 7:45pm:


No, it's not. 

Couple few things:

1) I'm not a Republican, regardless of how many times you make the specious claim.  I suspect that Jizzy's not either.

2) Because I dislike both parties (and I've been consistent about that for years, despite your spurious claims otherwise) I can be objective about the subject.  Some people can't.  That's their thing, and I'm fine with it right up to the point where they start telling me how to think and how to vote.  That's both parties, again, just so we're clear.  I'm happy to PM you a link to a forum where I'm often on the other side of the discussion...they think I'm a "liberal" or a "Democrat".  Follow me on Facebook and you'll see the same.

3) Democrats are generally better on the environment.  I've stipulated that, again, for years.  They offset that by being, IMO, worse on some other things.  Since I'm not a single issue voter (that's what works for me) I'm free to vote for people, not parties.  If voting for parties works for you, that's great...I have no problem with it.

4) Another thing I've been relentlessly consistent about is that party politics brings nothing to a discussion about conservation.  It almost always alienates half the audience, draws lines where lines don't need to be drawn.  Well over half the country could really care less about Rs, Ds, Cs, and Ls.  I've repeated consistently that we need to focus on the 90% we agree on and drop the party nonsense.  That kind of thinking for true believers of either stripe and is a hindrance to getting things done.  What does work is calling out individuals for things they've done that we don't like, and not allowing them to turn the discussion into a party or ideological discussion.

If you want to dislike Republicans, have at it.  I'm right there with you, as far as the party is concerend. I'd suggest refinement of your selection criteria so that you do a better job of focusing your dislike, but it's not going to keep me up nights if you don't.  Personally, I've not time for that kind of thinking in my life; there's things to get done and fun to be had.  I'll focus on that, instead.  It's more productive and feels better, to me.

tannin wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2019 at 7:45pm:


I'm glad you've progressed to yawns and chuckles, misplaced as they may be.  I like the new, calmer approach! Internet squabbles change no one's mind and, as above, draw lines where they don't need to be.

...sorry for the long meander...I have time while I'm waiting for the grocery order to get ready.  This retirement thing is pretty OK...