Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,037 posts)
Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:16 AM Apr 2012

EPA administrator rejects official’s ‘crucifixion’ comments

Source: Washington Post

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced herself Friday from comments by a top agency official who told a Texas community two years ago that his approach to enforcement was to make an example of polluters the way Romans crucified people to quash rebellions.

Republicans on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, demanded that Jackson fire the official,?regional administrator Alfredo Juan “Al” Armendariz.

“Frankly, (the comments) were inflammatory but also wrong,” Jackson said Friday when asked about a YouTube video discovered this week by Oklahoma Republican Sen. James M. Inhofe’s staff. “They don’t comport with either this administration’s policy on energy, our policy at EPA on environmental enforcement, nor do they comport with our record as well.”

(...)

Armendariz’s remarks came during a 90-minute speech in 2010 to residents of Dish, a tiny town north of Dallas where concerns over the environmental effects of a method of natural gas drilling called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, have moved center stage.

(...)

Inhofe spokesman Matthew Dempsey said the senator’s staff came across the video while searching the Internet for an administrative order the EPA withdrew against a Texas company, Range Resources, which the agency had accused of polluting water supplies in Texas.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-administrator-rejects-officials-crucifixion-comments/2012/04/27/gIQAHCLdmT_story.html



6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
EPA administrator rejects official’s ‘crucifixion’ comments (Original Post) alp227 Apr 2012 OP
why the hell is Jackson apologizing to polluters? provis99 Apr 2012 #1
Crucify? pipoman Apr 2012 #2
I suspect it wasn't meant to be taken quite so literally davidthegnome Apr 2012 #4
No, it wasn't. Igel Apr 2012 #6
I agree... Volaris Apr 2012 #3
that is a moronic response. provis99 Apr 2012 #5
 

provis99

(13,062 posts)
1. why the hell is Jackson apologizing to polluters?
Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:18 AM
Apr 2012

what the fuck is wrong with the EPA these days? This guy is SUPPOSED to want to crucify polluters; that what the EPA is for!

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
2. Crucify?
Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:13 AM
Apr 2012
cru·ci·fy
verb \ˈkrü-sə-ˌfī\
cru·ci·fiedcru·ci·fy·ing
Definition of CRUCIFY
transitive verb
1
: to put to death by nailing or binding the wrists or hands and feet to a cross
2
: to destroy the power of : mortify <crucify the flesh>
3
a : to treat cruelly : torment


It isn't the EPA's Job to want to "crucify" anyone, only to apply fair justice.

davidthegnome

(2,983 posts)
4. I suspect it wasn't meant to be taken quite so literally
Sat Apr 28, 2012, 09:21 PM
Apr 2012

Rather, used as a metaphor. You know, like when a kid does something really dumb, groans and says... "Dad/mom is gonna kill me..!"

The child isn't actually suggesting their parents will literally kill them. We all know this...

Igel

(35,323 posts)
6. No, it wasn't.
Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:36 AM
Apr 2012

But in the absence of any good will you're stuck watching every word. Metaphors, allusions, satire and sarcasm are all dangerous when the opposite has absolutely no interest in understanding what you mean and every interest in making you out to be incompetent or malicious.

When "cruficy" was used wrt Obama, it was taken as an assertion that Obama was Jesus.

When * said "crusade" it was taken as an assertion that the US would conquer Jerusalem and Palestine in order to impose Xianity over the Xian "holy places" there and kill Muslims because they were infidels. (Of course, it wasn't taken exactly that literally. Just literally enough to mean "kill Muslims for oil", which wasn't the main thrust of the Crusades.)

Only "our side" makes speech errors. Mistakes in speech on the other side is evidence that they actually believe their mistakes.

We all know this... But we intentionally forget it when it suits us.

Volaris

(10,273 posts)
3. I agree...
Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:19 AM
Apr 2012

I have an affinity for non-intrusive government the same as most people, but I think that where its been decided by we the people that Government SHOULD be intruding into your life, the Governments position should be "What the Romans did was CHILD'S PLAY compared to the power of the elected U.S. Federal Government, and fuck you if you think that's a bit harsh. If the IRS says you owe Taxes, you should expect your life to be a living Hell until the debt is paid. I don't care if your Bob from down the street of Exxon-Mobile." (probably more so if you ARE Exxon-Mobile, 'cause Bob from down the street isn't going to be Incorporated as a fall-back position...)

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»EPA administrator rejects...