Prosecute the torture.

May 4, 2012

The Trib Omits Important Info. Again

From today's op-ed page at the Tribune-Review:
An Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator's resignation over his 2010 enforcement comments heightens concerns about the Obama administration's jobs-killing, politically driven handling of energy and pollution issues.

A YouTube video documented Al Armendariz likening his enforcement approach to a tactic of ancient Roman conquest: "(T)hey'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them. ... And so you make examples out of people ... . There's a deterrent effect there."

It's one thing to make deterrent examples of polluters. It's another to order the regulatory equivalent of summary executions, something at which the EPA has shown it is quite adept.

And Mr. Armendariz's comments are especially troubling because they targeted hydraulic fracturing -- a proven and quite safe way to extract oil and natural gas and on which the nation's prosperity and security increasingly depend.
Pretty damning - until you see what the Trib left out - what they decided you didn't need to know.

From Slate.com we can read more of what Armendariz said.  I'll highlight what Scaife's braintrust used in their editorial:
It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don't want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it's time to clean up.
Huh. Look at all that stuff in the middle - all that stuff in between the braintrust's selective quotations.  They even try to say his words were not about deterring "examples of polluters."

But that's precisely what he was talking about.  It's even in the second half of a sentence the braintrust "quoted."
Here, come closer.  I'll show you.  They took this phrase:
And so you make examples out of people...
Out of this sentence:
And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law.
And they took this phrase:
There's a deterrent effect there
Out of this sentence:
Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there.
See the difference?

The Trib doesn't want you to.

4 comments:

Heir to the Throne said...

Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there
Sorry the EPA does not get the benefit of the doubt when they ignore the courts when they say that people are not breaking the law.
Like in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

EdHeath said...

Actually, HTTT, as far as I can see, the Sackett decision says these people can petition the courts when the EPA hands down an administrative ruling. The Supreme's had no comment on whether the EPA's administrative judgment had merit, and I believe the lower courts had ruled against the Sacketts. But you should distort the facts of the case, otherwise we might stupidly not understand how evil the EPA is. Killing all our jobs just because some whiny poor people choose not to work hard enough to have the money to live out in the exurbs with all the good people of our country. Because those poor people don't get themselves health insurance, they deserve to die painful deaths, since otherwise they are a burden on the rest of us.

Oh yeah, and I better say all unions, police, teacher and otherwise, are evil, else you accuse me of defending them. Let's bring back the seven day, 12 hour work day, and put children back to work. After all, they can't afford college anyway, and public schools are just blood sucking leeches, taking hard earned tax money from job creators, giving it to society's lazy parasites who pay no taxes, and brainwashing our kids to vote for Democrats to get even more money from the rich.

Heir to the Throne said...

I believe the lower courts had ruled against the Sacketts.
The lower courts only agreed with the EPA that you "may not challenge the order (in court) until the EPA first seeks judicial enforcement of it."

Reason.tv: Sackett v. EPA - How One Couple's Battle Against the Feds Might Protect Your Land
The EPA refused to offer any documentation or evidence for its position, even after the Sacketts hired their own scientists to refute the wetlands claim. Feeling they had no other choice, they tried to take the EPA to court. Unfortunately, not even this was an option, because the EPA maintained that a compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines, which were racking up by the day.

"The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order," said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which took up the Sacketts' case. "EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up."

EdHeath said...

HTTT, you complain about Dayvoe using Media Matters and then you turn around and link to Reason dot org? Incredible hypocrisy. Repeating exactly what the Koch brothers want you to say, to destroy our democracy.

We have no way to evaluate the Sackett's claim based on what you tell us, and in fact since you choose such a biased source, we have reason to think you are concealing something from us.