Mike Malloy controversial comments

[Avid Listener]

Not quite. It's not as bad or as obvious at it once was and your can thank the EPA for that.

No, thank the replacement of one generation of business management with a new generation. It was the people who changed what they did that made a difference, not a bunch of Federal bureaucrats working for the EPA.

 

[FredLeonard]

No, thank the replacement of one generation of business management with a new generation. It was the people who changed what they did that made a difference, not a bunch of Federal bureaucrats working for the EPA.

Really! And they changed what they did because they knew the EPA would come after them. You people on the right think cops deter crime. Same principle applies to corporate criminals. The new generation of MBAs is the same as the old one. Profits. Quarterly numbers. ROI. Fiduciary interests of the stockholders. Nothing else matters. Public be damned.

Corporate bureaucrats are no different than "federal bureaucrats." Look at GM.

 

[JeffM]

You're one of the nastiest people here, and until you realize that, you're going to continue getting shelled.

One more thing. Gleefully stepping over the bodies of dead children to make your point about gun control isn't a "civil" discussion.

All together, now...LOOK WHO'S TALKING!!

 

[FredLeonard]

All together, now...LOOK WHO'S TALKING!!

Post calls kettle black. I often disagree with SMG. He can get nasty but among us is perfect? He also gives specific opinions on the actual topics being discussed and contributes to the discussion - things that you never do. Please get back to me what you are willing to talk about radio (instead of people talking about radio) and willing to offer something other than juvenile insults.

 

[Avid Listener]

Really! And they changed what they did because they knew the EPA would come after them. You people on the right think cops deter crime. Same principle applies to corporate criminals. The new generation of MBAs is the same as the old one. Profits. Quarterly numbers. ROI. Fiduciary interests of the stockholders. Nothing else matters. Public be damned.

Corporate bureaucrats are no different than "federal bureaucrats." Look at GM.

There were many factors at play. The threat of EPA action played a small part. A much bigger part was played by threats of consumer boycotts. When the marketplace dictated to business that "green sells", businesses embraced being green. All of those things about profits are correct, but you left out the most important part. Profits come from customers, so ultimately, customers rule.

 

[JeffM]

Post calls kettle black. I often disagree with SMG. He can get nasty but among us is perfect? He also gives specific opinions on the actual topics being discussed and contributes to the discussion - things that you never do. Please get back to me what you are willing to talk about radio (instead of people talking about radio) and willing to offer something other than juvenile insults.

Actually, what I at least attempt to offer is a sense of humor, which is something most of you seem to have lost. No matter what the topic on this board, it always seems to turn into a p!$$ing contest between the same two or three posters, none of whom will ever budge the others one inch. I can't help but be amused by it, though my comments may not amount to more than Woody Woodpecker's "Guess who? Ha-haha-HAAA-ha!!" You and the rest aren't talking about radio, or even people talking about radio, you're just gossiping about each other,

 

[Avid Listener]

This is inaccurate:

Remember: rarely is someone's opinion or point of view changed by reading another's opinion on a message board. So don't expect to. Some people like snow, others like sun. Arguing that one is better than the other will not change anyone's opinion. Expect that you can share your own opinion and debate with other's about their's in a civil manner. Sometimes you will be right, sometimes you won't. The new paradigm on the Internet is not to win, but to share.

The more accurate observation is that almost never will one of two opposing advocates of any particular point of view convince his opponent to change his mind. However, for every person engaged as an active participant, there are many, many "lurkers" who simply read the posts and enjoy the show. And, it is not unusual for these lurkers to be persuaded to either change their mind or to at least take a position other than wishy-washy ambivalence based on what they hear.

In that regard, internet fora are like news/talk radio. There are casual listeners who sometimes tune in, and as a result of what they hear, reconsider their positions on issues.

In both internet fora and news/talk radio, the participants are posting more for the benefit of listeners and lurkers than they are for the benefit of those that they engage with.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Not quite. It's not as bad or as obvious at it once was and your can thank the EPA for that. But back the main point, do you really consider profits more important than public health? Do you think corporations should not have to pay to clean up their crap and any messes they make? If they are not required to clean up - either the rest of us pay for it or the rest of us have live with their mess (and the consequences of their mess).

Do me a favor. Tour a coal fired power plant sometime. Make sure you get to see the control room, where the emissions are monitored. Then tell me the EPA is justified in trying to destroy the coal industry.

There is obviously a reasonable job for the EPA to do. Pollution crosses state lines. But they're out of control.

 

[FredLeonard]

Do me a favor. Tour a coal fired power plant sometime. Make sure you get to see the control room, where the emissions are monitored. Then tell me the EPA is justified in trying to destroy the coal industry.

There is obviously a reasonable job for the EPA to do. Pollution crosses state lines. But they're out of control.

To the extent emissions are monitored, it's because of the EPA. Despite improvements, forced by the EPA, coal is inherently polluting and a major factor in global warming. Add to that the horrible working conditions. There are better, cleaner energy sources and still better ones need to be found. Coal should be shut down.

Do you own stock in a coal company?

 

[Small Market Guy]

To the extent emissions are monitored, it's because of the EPA. Despite improvements, forced by the EPA, coal is inherently polluting and a major factor in global warming. Add to that the horrible working conditions. There are better, cleaner energy sources and still better ones need to be found. Coal should be shut down.

Do you own stock in a coal company?

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. Not even close. Like I said. Find a coal fired plant and take a tour.

I don't own stock in any company. But I DO know about coal and how it works. You don't. Not a clue. The city where I live has three coal fired plants and I guarantee it's cleaner than wherever it is you live.

If you're serious about knowing the truth, tour a plant. Tour a mine. Learn the facts before you go saying things like we should get rid of the source of 40% of ALL of our electricity.

 

[FredLeonard]

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. Not even close. Like I said. Find a coal fired plant and take a tour.

I don't own stock in any company. But I DO know about coal and how it works. You don't. Not a clue. The city where I live has three coal fired plants and I guarantee it's cleaner than wherever it is you live.

If you're serious about knowing the truth, tour a plant. Tour a mine. Learn the facts before you go saying things like we should get rid of the source of 40% of ALL of our electricity.

Sorry, SMG, I haven't made it to a coal plant since yesterday. I have taken other industrial plant tours and such tours are tantamount to infomercials or press releases. These tours exist for companies or industries to promote themselves. They are hardly balanced presentations nor factual sources. You have said you worked in Wilmington. You should know how actively the chemical industry tries to create a favorable image for itself despite leaks, spills, industrial accidents, chemicals released into the air and local storage of nerve gas. How much of the environmentalist message or EPA reports have you read? Sorry but I don't give company promotional material greater weight the scientific or even EPA reports.

 

[Small Market Guy]

You have said you worked in Wilmington.

Never said that. I lived there but that was before I was in radio. But no, I wouldn't list it among the cleaner places I've lived. I also don't blame DuPont for that.

And you can make up all the conspiracy theories you want, but I have even more scientific proof that coal energy is clean and safe.

 

[FredLeonard]

Never said that. I lived there but that was before I was in radio. But no, I wouldn't list it among the cleaner places I've lived. I also don't blame DuPont for that.

And you can make up all the conspiracy theories you want, but I have even more scientific proof that coal energy is clean and safe.

If you care to post some links, I'll be happy to read them.

 

[umfan]

Clean and safe is relative. The generation of electricity will always have an environmental impact, no matter how it's done. Wind turbines impact birds and have a drying effect on the surrounding area far in excess of the footprint the turbines actually occupy. Dams alter river systems and marine wildlife. Coal can, and is, being burned with fewer emissions than in the past. It's plentiful and keeps electricity affordable. There are negative impacts to less available electricity as well.

It's senseless to take coal off of the table as a fuel. Further, since only a small fraction of atmospheric carbon is the result of human activity and will never be eliminated (unless humans are), regulating carbon as a pollutant is driven by ideology, not science.

 

[FredLeonard]

It's senseless to take coal off of the table as a fuel. Further, since only a small fraction of atmospheric carbon is the result of human activity and will never be eliminated (unless humans are), regulating carbon as a pollutant is driven by ideology, not science.

It takes only a small increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to change the climate. A small increase has already done it. An additional small increase can be catastrophic. That's what scientists say. What you say comes from politicians, preachers and right-wing talk show hosts protecting the profits of the elite. But why worry? It's a problem for people 100 years from now to deal with.

 

[Avid Listener]

Clean and safe is relative. The generation of electricity will always have an environmental impact, no matter how it's done. Wind turbines impact birds and have a drying effect on the surrounding area far in excess of the footprint the turbines actually occupy. Dams alter river systems and marine wildlife. Coal can, and is, being burned with fewer emissions than in the past. It's plentiful and keeps electricity affordable. There are negative impacts to less available electricity as well.

It's senseless to take coal off of the table as a fuel. Further, since only a small fraction of atmospheric carbon is the result of human activity and will never be eliminated (unless humans are), regulating carbon as a pollutant is driven by ideology, not science.

The issue isn't whether certain technologies are clean or dirty, it's whether the EPA is doing an effective, efficient job in keeping the environment as clean as practical, or if it's an out-of-control bureaucracy that's making things worse instead of better. The EPA's ham-fisted and unscientific blunders in attempting to carry out their charter demonstrate that instead of being part of the solution, the EPA is actually part of the problem. A BIG part of the problem.

The #1 accomplishment of the EPA has been to chase American jobs from relatively clean factories in the US to factories in China where there are no emissions regulations.

 

[FredLeonard]

The issue isn't whether certain technologies are clean or dirty, it's whether the EPA is doing an effective, efficient job in keeping the environment as clean as practical, or if it's an out-of-control bureaucracy that's making things worse instead of better.

One person's effective, efficient job in keeping the environment as clean as possible is another person's out of control bureaucracy.

But it highlights the key psychological difference between progressives and right-wingers. Progressives want to look out for people beneath them on the totem pole of life. Right-wingers, typically people with authoritarian personalities, defer to and seek to protect the interests of people at the top of the totem pole (even when this goes against rational self-interest).

"Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor - and that is why they will follow us."

 

[TheBigA]

The #1 accomplishment of the EPA has been to chase American jobs from relatively clean factories in the US to factories in China where there are no emissions regulations.

So you don't think the cost of labor is a factor at all? Really?

 

[boombox4]

So, overnight, read I did.

As recently as 1980 in the case of "U.S. vs. Miller", the United State Supreme Court continued to uphold the concept that ownership/possession of guns was linked to some kind or availability and/or participation in an organized Militia.

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court in "District of Columbia vs. Heller" finally caved in to the gun lobby and agreed that individuals had a right to own and possess guns not related to an organized Militia.

There is just tons and tons of writings by historians and the legal community indicating that it was commonly understood from the writing of the Constitution until that case in 1980, there was no mandate that gun ownership was an individual freedom. It was always assumed to be something you could do IF you were willing to be part of an organized Militia when needed and requested.

The Supreme Court only rules on things that come before it.

The fact that 44 states indicate an individual right to bear arms in their own State Constitutions shows that the individual right to bear arms was recognised well before the 1980 Miller case.

Pennsylvania's State Constitution has had this clause written in, unchanged, since 1790: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

The State Constitution of my own state, Washington, is even more explicit: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." This has been unchanged since the state was established in 1889.

State Constitutions like these would not have been able to have such clauses written into them if there had been no recognised individual right to bear arms.

I realise that the 2nd Amendment is a hot button issue and a lot of people have problems with the individual right to bear arms, for all sorts of reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that it's been a recognised right since at least 1790.

 

[boombox4]

One person's effective, efficient job in keeping the environment as clean as possible is another person's out of control bureaucracy.

But it highlights the key psychological difference between progressives and right-wingers. Progressives want to look out for people beneath them on the totem pole of life. Right-wingers, typically people with authoritarian personalities, defer to and seek to protect the interests of people at the top of the totem pole (even when this goes against rational self-interest).

"Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor - and that is why they will follow us."

Most people I know who are "right wingers" are either people of modest means who have strong religious convictions, disaffected people hurt by the mediocre economy, or small businesspeople who feel that their ability to prosper (or even continue) in business is being choked by unnecessary over-regulation.

Very few care a whit about the "people at the top" you feel that the right wing is protecting.

I know that there are many conservatives in talk radio, and probably a lot of them in the conservative movement, who look up to the "people at the top", and may want to see them protected for some reason.

But you get out among the actual people in day-to-day life who are conservative, most of them just want a fair shake at a decent job, or a chance to build and prosper their small business without having to take all the extra time to keep track of all the paperwork.

And it's not just the EPA. The EPA is just one of the more obvious regulation agencies -- it's a popular target because everybody knows about the EPA. The IRS is another one. Everybody knows about it, so it is also used as an example.

But most of the regulation that affects people -- especially small business -- is on the local level. When I hear small businesspeople talk about "government regulation", they may mention the big national agencies like the IRS and EPA, but the actual regulative mechanisms they are complaining about are on the local and State level, not Federal.