News makes me cranky
Nov. 28th, 2006 01:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eruthrosToday, in The Bush Administration Argues Like A Five Year Old, the EPA will be presenting the following case to the Supreme Court: Greenhouse gases aren't airborne pollutants so they're not legally subject to our regulation. And even if they were pollutants, regulation would be too big of a step because it might cause more harm than good. (No explanation provided for same.) Also, regulating greenhouse gases is unfair to the USA, because the problem is global, so the developing countries get a free ride while we do expensive regulation. (Note from the bench: who is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases? Hint: it's not India. Or China. Or any developing country.) Oh, and anyway, there's dispute about the causes of global warming so it wouldn't matter if greenhouse gases were pollutants because the EPA can't be expected to regulate without all the data. (One might then ask about the global-warming-global-causes logic statement.)
Okay, look, EPA and Justice Department guys: arguments that rely on a lot of "and, and, even if I had hit him, it would have been in self-defense?" Yeah, we laugh at those on CSI.
***
Oh, and people are talking about getting AH-nold to run against Barbara Boxer in the next California Senate race. PAH. Barbara Boxer = made of win. AH-nold = sucktastic but with really good image people. Voters = frequently idiots. "Arnold will kick ass! He's the Terminator!" You want someone to kick ass, you should have nominated his stunt double. DOUBLE PAH.
***
Jon Carroll, on the other hand, makes an effective argument in his discussion of the Warren Jeffs and FLDS trial. He does not make me cranky at all! Except, okay, he talks about the defense's argument that a fourteen year old girl was "happy" in her marriage and sometimes "volunteering" for sex to get to leave the house, so it clearly wasn't rape. And the very existence of that argument? Makes me CRANKY.
Okay, look, EPA and Justice Department guys: arguments that rely on a lot of "and, and, even if I had hit him, it would have been in self-defense?" Yeah, we laugh at those on CSI.
***
Oh, and people are talking about getting AH-nold to run against Barbara Boxer in the next California Senate race. PAH. Barbara Boxer = made of win. AH-nold = sucktastic but with really good image people. Voters = frequently idiots. "Arnold will kick ass! He's the Terminator!" You want someone to kick ass, you should have nominated his stunt double. DOUBLE PAH.
***
Jon Carroll, on the other hand, makes an effective argument in his discussion of the Warren Jeffs and FLDS trial. He does not make me cranky at all! Except, okay, he talks about the defense's argument that a fourteen year old girl was "happy" in her marriage and sometimes "volunteering" for sex to get to leave the house, so it clearly wasn't rape. And the very existence of that argument? Makes me CRANKY.
