I don't want to derail this thread too much, but on the subject of "it's the congresscritters' JOB to read every bill", I have to take issue with that. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for every member to read and understand every bill they have to vote on. Yes, this is a problem, but it's more a question of what to do about it that expecting them to do the impossible.

When the country was founded, bills were far simpler and there were FAR less of them. It was reasonable to expect the reps to know what they were voting on. Today, the committee members that the bill passes through should know those bills inside and out, and then they should be obligated to inform their colleagues in their party of the important points and try to convince them to vote for or against it. The leadership should also be obliged at this level.

Even with their significant staffs, I don't see how it's possible for every member to be knowledgeable about every point in every bill they vote on.

then dont vote on it. im sorry, but if youre going to support something that is either beneficial or detrimental to the country, you dont think YOU should know what the hell is in it?

You're really not dealing on the level of reality with your position here. "Don't vote on it"? Really? That's what you've got? So bills will pass based on how many people have read it rather than what's in it? Come on. Think about what is actually possible in the real world here.

well in the world i live in, i try not to put my signature on anything unless i am sure of what i am putting it on. how much time is given between a bill being introduced and the time it is being voted on? maybe instead of taking so much time off during the summer, maybe spend some time finding out what youre voting on?

You're not a member of Congress. I'd hoped my last post would have subtly made that point, but apparently I have to be explicit about it.

How often do you have to read an important document? A few times a week at most? How long are those documents? A few pages long at most? It's absurd to compare yourself and what you have to read and "vote on" to what a member of Congress has to read and vote on.

I'm a lawyer, and my job is to read long documents, analyze them, know them backwards and forwards, and even I sometimes skim over parts that I believe I know what is in them just to save time. What I do is NOTHING compared to the shear volume of text in the legislation that passes through Congress.

What you're expecting them to do is physically impossible.


It's not an issue of how much time. It's an issue of how many bills are being considered SIMULTANEOUSLY at any given time, and how many pages each of them are. It may be six months between the time a bill is introduced and when it comes to a vote, but there were hundreds of other bills moving through during that time that also needed to get attention.


Even if members of Congress didn't deserve to travel home to see their families and constituents, they couldn't do what you are expecting of them if they worked 300 ten-hour days a year. Do the math.

To get back on topic, another issue that came up in the film is that the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were written to focus on large single-source polluters. However, since the gas wells are small, and there are thousands of them, each single one is exempt under certain provisions of teh Acts. But there was a scientist who had done a study of the Fort Worth area's gas wells and found that in the aggregate that the hundreds of wells around Fort Worth produced a virtually equal amount of carcinogens and other harmful chemicals as all of the automobile traffic in teh city. So you double the smog, but they are unregulated under the Clean Air Act.

i didnt run for election on the premise i would serve the people of my area. I'd hope knowing that i work in the IT field would have subtly made that point, but apparently I have to be explicit about it. dont want to do it or think its too big a job, resign. noone said serving the people would be easy



then maybe bills shouldnt be so lengthy as to hide pork projects secretly and tucked in between pages 7654a and 7898c. take the work home with you. its not like they dont get the summers off for sometimes two months at a time or so

yeah

So much for your liberal pragmatism. There's nothing in this world that is absolutely anything, life is full of risk. What happened to putting science back into its rightful place? There are plenty of solutions to the rare occasion that fracking contributes to environmental destruction. That can be coped with. Lawsuits can be doled out. But taking the side of "water" versus "energy" is almost to the point of absurdity. There are equally compelling arguments to favor energy as water. Especially when you can, ya know, buy a box of Poland Spring at the store for about $5.

awesome logic.

This might be the stupidest thing you've ever written.

What happens if the NYC watershed is contaminated (which is a very real possibility considering that the gas companies want to drill in the middle of it). Are 8 million people supposed to get Poland Spring?

Of course not. Ony the 3 million who can afford the Poland Spring get clean water. The rest, well FUCK THEM, they can drink dirty water. They demanded cheap sources of energy, this is a risk of that demand.

logic fail is the theme of the day apparently.

The stupidest thing I've ever written, yet not nearly as stupid as you concluding that there is a very real possibility of ruining the aquifer of NYC. I hate to tell you this, but it's far closer to an impossibility than it is a very real one. Fracking has been done all over the place for a while now, and there are a couple places where aquifers have gone sour, and none of them point to fracking. The NYS DOE is all over the groups who are going to be fracking.

This is called much ado about nothing. I suppose we need more windmills.

I'm sorry that I used short terms and phrases that confused you. Perhaps you should look up the word logic before you start attaching the word fail to it.

Sorry, I was just using PD style logic.

The people on this board are too smart for me to waste their time showing why your attempt at analogy is utter idiocy. I'll suffice it to say that the people of NYC are not INVESTORS in their municipal water supply looking to make a quick buck, and water is a LITTLE bit more critical to, y'know, LIFE ON EARTH than money.

Their water may get contaminated by the drive for cheap energy sources. This is a risk they take everytime they complain about the price of energy, safety budgets may be cut and companies may lobby for legislation that may not be in safty's best interest. Everyone consumes energy and damn near everyone complains about the price of it. So FUCK THEM if they're too stupid to even make the correlation between their demands for cheap energy and safety concerns. If it's greed on BP's part when they choose money over safety and you adopt a FUCK THEM attitude, you should be doing the same to the greedy consumer who demands cheap energy.

.