the dust that covers everything, even on a calm wind day. The respiratory diseases that accompany the fine particles.

The kochsuckers won't even cover the piles with landscape cloth nor will they water the piles down which is probably a blessing when you think of the poisons being washed into the watersheds.

It's a homophobic term that has no place in civil discourse.

"Kochs' suckers" is a better term for the rank-and-file of the Tea Party.

The politicians who take their bribes campaign contributions are "Koch snorters."

I just refer to the Koch brothers as "two Birch Society born-and-bred bastards."

Koch Cane is a now forgotten GOP presidential candidate from the last election cycle.

if someone were to make up a word to describe them that rhymed with or sounded very much like the most terrible racist euphemism you can imagine? If so, I guess there's nothing more I can say in trying to convince anyone to stop using a term that conjures up a word that is hurled - weapon-like on an everyday basis - as an attempt to insult, degrade and humiliate gay people in society?

On edit: the word is also hurled at heterosexuals, as though accusing someone of that act is the worst thing fathomable - and by extension, so is being gay.

When I first learned the term cock sucker, it was a dirty word to call someone that one found obnoxious in some way. Neither I nor the other nine-year-old who used term knew what a homosexual was. To this day, it has been a general term of insulence, not much different than calling some one stupid, which is in fact the case here.

It is insensitive of me, that is true. My disconnect with its more specific meaning is a generational thing. It has never conjured up any specific image to me. I've already one foot in the grave, so people like me won't use that term so freely much longer.

That is an apology. It explains where I come from and why I use, or misuse, the term as I do.

I'm sorry.

not nine anymore, so I'm old enough now to know better. There's no need to apologize to me, personally, as I'm not gay. There are plenty of members on DU who are, however, and I feel reasonably certain that none of them appreciate a word that sounds so close to an epithet that has been directed their way in anger.

I can't even call an asshole an asshole anymore?

and that includes my dialogue with the person to whom I was replying as well as my displeasure with the use of a term that sounds very much like a homophobic epithet. One can call the Kochs ten different kinds of assholes and that's alright with me, but remain opposed to the use of that *specific* term.

A day later, and people are still trying to rationalize using that word. Sheesh!

to win a war, it's better to make yourself stronger than deliver ammunition to your opponents.

It's also known as shooting yourself in the foot. Jerry Farber wrote "The Student as Nigger" years ago, and the truth it tells is perhaps more relevant now than ever. Yet people are afraid to pick it up or recommend it, because some of the very people who have been hurt by the actions in the paper, who might be helped by such understanding, have made the title dangerous. I know that because it caused no end of consternation when I introduced it in a college class on Educational Philosophy

Your opposition (which, mostly, isn't here) doesn't give a flying rat's ass about your feelings, and as long as you put them up front and say don't hurt them you make those feelings a prime target, and divert attention from the issue of freedom.

I am concerned, however, with various & sundry passersby who encounter the use of not-so-subtle wordplay that sounds unmistakably like an epithet used not only against gays but against straights - the implication being that homosexuality is the worst possible thing imaginable, so the user hurls it as a generic insult. This is not an intellectual exercise in a cloistered classroom setting; it's the real world, and in this real world, homophobic epithets have the power to hurt, and in this case, it's not the intended target. If you believe that co-opting a word in a half-assed attempt to insult these reprehensible sociopaths, then there's nothing further that I can possibly say to change minds. I still maintain, however, that when it's used, it doesn't reflect well on the user and - by extension - progressive causes in general.

That's what gives it power.

It's not my mind that needs to change - I'm not the one who is feeling offended, or diverting from the real issue to argue about how hurt they are.

I take issue with one word for reasons that I have elucidated, yet I certainly did not invite all the pilers-on who can find no fault whatsoever. Why don't you ask THEM why they'd rather rationalize using that word than talk about the issue at hand. I'd certainly rather discuss that pollution as well - pollution that for damn sure doesn't affect the neighborhoods of the 1% - instead of discussing that word. I'm tired of fighting that battle anyway. Oh, yeah...thanks for bringing this new angle to the discussion - an angle, BTW, which has nothing to do with the topic either. Does that make *you* guilty of using RW diversionary tactics as well? Discuss.

and BYE! to you too.

... eom

out of the citizens, I am hard pressed to call them anything else.

I did not think of it as being homophobic, or use it in that manner

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way but many of us twinge every time we see that word here.

so there's nothing more for me to say in the matter.

just like cockroaches.) They probably pronounce their name "Coke," but I don't.

the right to deny a business the right to move there. I can't remember the wording or what they called it, but it basically doesn't allow local communities the right to fight against someone like the Koch Industries Petcoke project from moving into their community. Ditto Walmart. It knew as soon as I read it the intention was to place polluting businesses into the poorest communities and give the residents no recourse. I haven't followed that law as much as the others that NC changed, but the NC tea party elected legislature has radically transformed the future of the state.

I haven't heard if they've been breathing that shit. That petcoke crap should be dumped on the Koch brothers front lawn.

My mom grew up just across the state line in Whiting IN. Her dad worked at the local refinery. A lot of refineries and other industry in the area.

My theory is that the Kochs want to test different cities and states to see how strictly they will apply their anti-pollution laws. Seriously, if they had even put a tarp over those piles they likely wouldn't have had a problem staying in Detroit. Instead, they insisted there was no legal requirement for any sort of covering or even permitting. Funny thing is that in our current political climate, a permit would likely have been very easy to acquire.

Fortunately, in Michigan we have MEPA which allows any citizen the ability to bring a case for possible environmental danger. That law made staying in Detroit too difficult for them, since they refused to take even basic protective measures, so they decided to test another state, apparently.

I hope Illinois has their own strong environmental protections. Good luck.

This is inexcusable, but Koch billions can buy what they want, no matter how many children, adults, pets and wildlife are harmed. Won't hear a peep from the Tea Party about this abomination, guaranteed.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-18/news/ct-met-petcoke-20131018_1_whiting-refinery-other-u-s-refineries-petcoke

Can residents file a class action lawsuit?

Now the EPA is just another corporate lobbyist group in sheep's clothing.

German immigrant descendent, just a single entry, in Jamestown, discovered by a family genealogy project.

Our name, at least supported by family lore, was re-spelled at that time to the closest English equivalent...Cook. I currently go by that name.

Just my two cents.

Families deserve better from their elected officials. This should be dealt with immediately.

Thank you for the post. I never heard of Petcoke before.