Brownfields reclamation act. I don't like the environmental ideology behind it, but it's ability to finally rehabilitate some of the nastier inner-city blights has been remarkable.
Nope. But I am an environmental science/policy/engineering type person. The reclamation act made minute maid park possible. And the downtown aquarium, just off the the top of my head as it related to Houston. Like I said, I don't like the ideology, and as a whole Bush has been an environmental policy nightmare. I mean just flat-out terrible. But this move was a good compromise.
yeah i only have a general idea of this admins environmental policy. ok so add a point to the bush column.
These aren't my words...they come from an article from The New Yorker. By appointing first Colin Powell and then Rice to the most senior job in the Cabinet, a job of global scope, Bush changed the way millions of white Americans think about black public officials. This may turn out to the most positive legacy of his benighted Presidency. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/03/17/080317taco_talk_hertzberg One thing Bush did do to his credit was appoint more minorities in his cabinet than any other President.
I was going to post something along this line. Also, by posting Scott Evertz as Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, he made the highest appointment of an openly-gay person within the executive. (At least until Janet Reno comes out.)
If you're a parent, you're the first one I've heard say that. As a Dad of two school age kids, I hate it. My youngest has a high IQ but a slight speech impediment. Because she can't enunciate clearly, she fails some of the benchmarks leading the school to want to put her into Special Ed so that her scores don't count. We of course, don't want that because she's doing well in everything but reciting stuff back and we're getting speech help. Still, under NCLB you either meet the standard for her grade or you don't. There's no mark for improvement. She's in the best-rated elementary school in the state and we still may have to put her in private school next year even though she's fully functional and way ahead of her grade level in reading and math. The other thing I've noticed from participating in her class is that in order to meet the standards, teachers have to cover so much material per week. If you're a kid who is not getting it, there's little time for you to get attention from the teacher and you stand a good chance of getting left behind. It's a totally different dynamic from when I was a kid and even from just a few years ago... and it's bad. For example here's what my kindergartner's report card is titled: What the hell! In kindergarten, you should be having fun and you should be developing a love of learning that will carry through for the rest of your life. You shouldn't be worried... and your teachers shouldn't be worried... about the freaking Eight Keys to Employability. All that siad, public schools have some problems... but NCLB is not the solution. I think I could mount a reasonably credible third party run based on just opposition to NCLB.
I was speakin in terms of what material the students are held accounable for. Some people dont like kids just learning stuff to pass a test, but that is pretty much what an AP class is in high school. there is a certain amount of stuff that has be covered and the entire point of the class is to pass a test. But I geuss it doesnt determine you passing that grade or not. But kids test scores are higher since its been enacted
I think this pretty much sums up the Bush legacy. "President Bush is committed winning the War on Terror by defeating our enemies abroad so we do not have to confront them here at home." "The U.S. economy has created more than 7.8 million since August 2003." "More than two years after Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Coast is rebuilding." "President Bush has nominated outstanding judicial candidates." The President's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is helping the Iraqi people defeat the terrorists!!!11111 http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ Eh.
id have to disagree on a few points. 1a. the war in iraq has actually created a training ground for terrorists to hone their skill. its also given terrorists another battle cry against the west. 1b. antrax attacks, DC sniper, time square bombing of military recruiting office... there is no way to make america completely safe. you can "take the battle to the enemy" but youre forgetting that terrorists are fluid units that operate independently. the three examples above show that you dont need much to carry out a terrorist attack. 2. will give credit for bush's job w/ the economy before the recession. but you have to also take into account the debt has grown by 3 trillion. you cant keep living off the credit card. you eventually have to pay the bill. 3. bush initally said "good job brownie". then he fired him... cant give credit to bush on this one. 4. can agree on this. supreme court is doing a good job of keeping america from going too far left and too far right. leans a little on the conservative side but overall doing a good job. 5. the surge has reduced violence but up to this point. however, bush's strategy to rebuild iraq seems foolish. bush and rumsfeld ignored the experts and tried to do it their way and failed. the current strategy of seems to be working. with that said, there are still red flags. the current strategy seems like we are paying for the iraqi peoples loyalties. 50 locals being paid and armed to man a check point. the next block over, 50 more guys being paid and armed to watch the street... once the well runs dry, those same iraqis seem like theyll move on. also, once america does leave, the power vacuum will probably ignite a civil war. w/ all the tools bush had at his disposal, 1. white house 2. congress and senate 3. judicial brach 4. national debt acutally poised to decrease (at the beginning of his presidency) 5. international support after 9/11 youd think he'd have more to show for his presidency. the only subjective plus i can give him credit for is bringing democracy to iraq.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt on the debatable accomplishments, this is a sad sad legacy. Especially when you balance these "accomplishments" to the failures. And for those touting his environmental policy as an accomplishment, you need to take a closer look at the totality of his policies rather than a single bill. Here's a start. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9307833 http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/ http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-106349 http://www.foxriverwatch.com/nrda/bush_record.html
Bush: The destroyer The following is an edited extract from What We've Lost, by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on September 9, and printed in the Guardian on September 1 & 3 2004. George Bush's war on terror may have made the world a more dangerous place. But it is his atrocious record on the environment that poses the greatest threat, says Graydon Carter, in an extract from his new book - which also examines the influence of oil and mining companies in the Bush White House. 'Prosperity will mean little," declared George W Bush while on the stump as presidential candidate, "if we leave to future generations a world of polluted air, toxic lakes and rivers, and vanished forests." By the time Bush departed his job as governor of Texas in December 2000, Texas had - according to a report from within the ranks of his own party - become the number-one state in the nation in manufacturing-plant emissions of toxic chemicals, in the release of industrial airborne toxins, in violations of clean water discharge standards and the release of toxic waste into underground wells. Under Bush's governorship, Houston had even passed Los Angeles to become the city with the worst air quality in America. The Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) study could find not a single initiative by Bush during his term as governor that sought to improve either the state's air or its water. What would he do as president? On January 20 2001 - Bush's first day in office - he called in the chief of staff, Andrew Card, and told him to send directives to every executive department with authority over environmental issues, ordering them to put on hold more than a dozen regulations left over from the Clinton administration. The regulations covered everything from lowering arsenic levels in drinking water to reducing releases of raw sewage. Big Republican donors expected a return on their investment following the 2000 presidential election, and Bush was more than willing to deliver. Bush convened his National Energy Policy Development Group nine days after taking office. This was the panel that came to be known as the vice president's Energy Task Force. For four months, Dick Cheney, energy secretary Abraham, other cabinet secretaries and their deputies formulated the nation's energy policy behind the closed doors of the vice president's office and the cabinet room. Eighteen of the Republicans' top 25 donors from the energy industry were invited in and asked to contribute to the plan. Kenneth Lay of Enron, who had loaned Bush his company jet during his presidential campaign, met the group numerous times. Executives from such companies and organisations as Chevron, ExxonMobil, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Westinghouse, Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute consulted with the committee between six and 19 times. Upwards of 400 executives from 150 corporations and trade associations met with the taskforce from February to May 2001. The Cheney group did not speak to a single environmentalist during the hearings. Abraham said he didn't have time to meet them, and Cheney's office denied their requests for inclusion. Cheney and his colleagues emerged with a National Energy Plan in May 2001, which included 100 proposals and led to a massive energy bill with tax breaks for US energy interests estimated by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation at $23.5bn (£13bn) - a pretty good return on the $44m (£24.5bn) it had donated to the Republicans during the previous year's election. There wasn't a single line in the energy bill requiring an increase in the fuel efficiency of the nation's 204m passenger vehicles. (Nor, for that matter, was there any mention of global warming.) The plan did include proposals that would have a new power plant built every week for the next 20 years, however. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who joined the Democrats in eventually getting the legislation watered down, called the bill the "Leave-No-Lobbyist-Behind Act". After its passage, McCain said: "With a half-trillion dollar deficit, we're giving tax credits, for guess who, the [oil] industry in America, which last time I checked was doing really well." The Bush White House has produced its assault on the environment with little in the way of public scrutiny, which is especially remarkable considering the devastating effects its initiatives will have on America's land, air and water for generations to come. Reports or programmes that the administration must by law announce, but would rather go unnoticed, it gives to low-level officials to deliver. Environmental enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has plunged under Bush. Since 2001, monthly violation notices - the most important tool against polluters - are down 58% compared with Clinton's monthly average. Partly as a result, three decades after the passage of the Clean Air Act, almost one in three Americans still breathe air filled with nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, coal dust, mercury, and hundreds of other toxic pollutants. The pollution comes from myriad sources, but within the energy business, the prime culprit is coal, which powers half of the US's electricity and causes 90% of the electric power industry's pollution. Two years after Bush took office, the rollbacks of pollution regulations meant that dirty coal plants that upgraded their facilities would not necessarily have also to upgrade their pollution-control equipment. This easing of controls has been calculated to cause the release of an additional 1.4m tonnes of air pollution. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that the change in the law will result in 30,000 American deaths. In December 2002, an alliance of attorneys general from 24 states and attorneys from 30 cities and municipalities sued the EPA, arguing that the new rules would violate the Clean Air Act. A year later, the DC circuit court agreed, for now, and issued a temporary injunction preventing the EPA from implementing the new laws until the case is settled. Undeterred, Bush announced in 2002 that his Clear Skies initiative would lower most power plant emissions by 70% by the year 2018. In fact, environmental groups all say that Clear Skies targets are dramatically lower than those of the existing Clean Air Act. The EPA produced its own programme for reducing power plant emissions that was much tougher than the White House's plan. The White House rejected this proposal. And Congress rejected the Bush administration's plan. The Clear Skies legislation remains stalled in Congress. The other major source of air pollution, of course, is motor vehicles. The US has 5% of the world's population and uses between 25% and 30% of the world's oil. (The UK, by comparison, has less than 2% of the world's population and uses 2% of the world's oil.) The US imports 63% of that oil, and more than two-thirds of that foreign oil is burned as transportation fuel. Incredibly, overall fuel economy ratings in the US are worse now than in 1988. By comparison, in Europe, petrol mileage in 1998 was already close to 30 miles per gallon, and now averages almost 35mpg. Japan, by 2002, was averaging more than 34mpg, fast approaching its 2010 goal of 35.5 mpg. Even the Republican-controlled EPA estimates that a three-mile per gallon increase in overall fuel efficiency standards would save Americans $25bn a year in oil costs and reduce annual CO2emissions by 140m tonnes. Why is America so far behind? Simple: the 2.5m SUVs sold every year. SUVs produce almost 45% more air pollution than average cars. The federal government sets fuel economy standards for new passenger cars at 27.5mpg. But this excludes SUVs, which are not even categorised as "cars"; they are on the books as "light trucks" and therefore only have to average 20.7 mpg. Because of the complexities of the regulations, it is technically possible for SUVs to have fuel efficiency standards as low as 12mpg. Not only did the White House energy bill not set fuel standards for SUVs, the Republican-led Congress maintained a bill offering a tax benefit that encourages the purchase of the largest, least-efficient brands. If you're in the 35% tax bracket, and you buy a $106,000 Hummer for "business" use, the IRS gives you a refund of $35,000 on the purchase in the first year. Another of Bush's first-day-in-office moves was to order a moratorium on Clinton-era Clean Water Act regulations controlling the discharge of raw sewage from what the waste industry likes to call "sanitary sewers". By November 2003, the administration took the moratorium a step further when the EPA announced a plan to allow sewage treatment plants to release biologically untreated waste into rivers and other waterways. But only on rainy days. Clean water has been under systematic attack by the Bush administration, whose policies have sought to remove protection from 20m acres of wetlands and allow mountaintop mining companies to dump their waste directly into waterways. The Clean Water Act, passed by Congress over Nixon's veto, was established in 1972 not only to regulate the nation's drinking water, but to protect its rivers and lakes for activities such as fishing, swimming and other water sports. According to the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), 30 years later, 75% of Americans live within 10 miles of a polluted river, lake or coastal water. With water safety standards declining, the administration, ever mindful of the next election, was faced with two options: make water cleaner, or just tell the public its water was cleaner. The Bush White House being the Bush White House, it chose the latter. In early 2004, the EPA's own Office of the Inspector General issued a report that said the agency had repeatedly made false and misleading statements about the purity of the nation's drinking water. In 2002, the EPA claimed that 91% of Americans were drinking safe tapwater. In 2003, it upped the number to 94%. According to the NRDC, scientists within the EPA say the percentage of Americans drinking safe tap- water can be estimated at only 81%. Much of this pollution is due to insufficiently regulated industrial activity. By the 1980s, mining interests had pretty much given up on traditional coalmines, and had come up with a new technique that involved literally blasting the top off a mountain and then digging straight down. In the Appalachia region of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia, millions of tons of mountaintop waste has buried 1,200 miles of streams. A September 2003 EPA report finds nearly 300 Clean Water Act violations by the mountaintop mining industry. How does the Bush administration react? It moves to change the law by establishing the Mountaintop Mining Self-Reporting Programme, which would allow the industry to police itself and issue small fines for violations. The mining industry donated $3.3m to the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign and other Republican candidates. The despoliation of Appalachia is but a portent of things to come if the Bush administration gets its way. Three months after taking office, Bush announced that all public lands, including wilderness areas and national monuments, would be considered for oil and gas drilling. The industry, by the way, donated $46,620,134 to Bush-Cheney, the Republican National Committee and other Republican candidates in the 2000 and 2002 elections, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics. In order to prevent hundreds of thousands of acres from being placed under the protection of the Wilderness Act, the Bush administration is allowing the gas industry to stockpile leases and drilling permits on 34m acres of public lands in the Rockies, even though oil and gas is being produced on less than one-third of that land. Once an oil and gas company puts a road on a leased parcel, the land can no longer be protected by the Wilderness Act. It is something of a mystery, however, why the administration has been so fixated on giving up the 19m-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its 1.5m-acre coastal plain, to oil interests, since 95% of Alaska's North Slope is already open to drilling. Deputy interior secretary Griles has said that opening it up is his "greatest wish". Naturalists have called the ANWR, which is teeming with all manner of vegetation and wildlife, "America's Serengeti". Interior secretary Gale Norton calls it "a flat, white nothingness". Proponents of drilling in the ANWR coastal plain claim it "may" contain between 6bn and 16bn barrels of recoverable oil. The Geological Survey estimated that the coastal plain could profitably produce 3.2bn barrels of oil - enough for six months' worth of US consumption. In the end, even the Republican-led Senate felt the administration had overreached. It blocked all the White House's proposals for drilling in the ANWR. Bush vowed to keep on trying. Bush's attitude can be seen in the favours he has done to the logging firms, which donated $6,854,321 to the Bush-Cheney campaign and the Republicans in 2000, and which gave a further $3,617,921 in the 2002 election cycle. Almost a third of the US is covered in forest - some 737m acres. Only around 6% of that is protected by federal law. According to the NRDC, there are already over 380,000 miles of roads that cut through national forests - eight times more than the entire interstate highway system. The Clinton administration, under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, sought to protect a third of the true wilderness national forest area from further road- building. In its first month in office, the Bush administration set in motion a programme to reverse that plan. Henceforth, the industry would get logging and road-building permits whenever it asked for them. And the Bush administration has taken its reckless approach to the environment far beyond American shores, not only causing damage to global ecosystems, but also further eroding the US's already spotty reputation as a responsible superpower. In its first three years in office, the Bush White House has rejected, undercut or ignored many of the world's international environmental treaties. On February 14 2002, the day Bush announced his Clear Skies proposal, he laid out his plans for tackling global warming. "My administration is committed to cutting our nation's greenhouse gas intensity - how much we emit per unit of economic activity - by 18% over the next 10 years." In fact, the proposal's wording and its accounting would allow emissions actually to increase by 14% over the next decade, according to the NRDC - exactly the rate of increase for the previous decade. The Bush White House inherited an environment that had been all but saved by the Clean Air and Clean Water acts of the 1970s. The administration thus turned its back on more than 30 years' worth of advances in environmental legislation and global treaties in order to reward its campaign backers from the oil and gas industries - from whose ranks of executives so many important government posts have been filled. As with the environment, so it is for everything else: it is difficult to point to a single element of American society which comes under federal jurisdiction that is not worse off than it was an administration ago. One can only hope that this is not to be the story of our times, a terrible dream from which we will one day awake only to realise what we've lost. http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press420.htm
Did you put that $50 in the tipjar yet? I see you challenged someone else to note their educational level in this thread as well. I'm suprised you haven't learned your lesson. Well ok, I'm not really suprised.... But otherwise, have you at least paid up since you continue to ask that silly question?
Man, I was only pointing out the typoes and ridicolous hyperbole...on the White House's own site. XP But, with that said, am I the only one who finds it ironic that a thread dedicated to Bush's accomplishments has about half of it's posts dedicated to the legacy of a previous president?
