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. Inhofes staff. They dont comport with either this administrations policy on energy, our policy at EPA on environmental enforcement, nor do they comport with our record as well.
(...)
Armendarizs 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 senators 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
provis99
(13,062 posts)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!
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)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)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)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...)
provis99
(13,062 posts)you are on Ignore.