15 ms·

It is constantly amazing to me that "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected off

It is constantly amazing to me that "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected officeholder to have. What a world we live in.

Frost1x 7y ago
Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship--there are many protections in place to keep things from falling apart but nonetheless I feel as though we're in the decline in the respect of being democratic. The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests and people would elect people who would represent their interests, all of course with hopeful protections for minorities. Obviously, this doesn't work. We need to really set expiration dates on how long people can run campaigns and how long they can stay in a given office. Politics should be about solving problems and seeking continuous improvement of well-being for citizens in a given society, not convincing people they're happy, constantly lying, and playing manipulative popularity contests but that's where we are.
- nck4222 7y ago
  >Democracy is mostly a facade in the US anyway. But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or existing republics/democracies to base their new government on. It honestly seems like like they intended the US government to function a lot more similarly to the EU than what we currently have. Although the EU has its own sets of problems, but at the very least seems more representative of the people than the US government.
  - lubujackson 7y ago
    I am not so sure it is far from its intentions. The founders knew and expected most politicians operating as fronts for various groups and making bad faith arguments and backroom deals. That is nothing new! Most of what they did was try to prevent the government from being wholly brigaded by one minority perspective, and if so it would be moved along after a short time. So far, so good, despite warning signs to the contrary. Spielberg's "Lincoln" is particularly clear about displaying this dynamic at the country's most fractured moment.
    - nck4222 7y ago
      Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. That alone upended a great deal of how the different bodies were supposed to interact. Half of congress is now lead by the executive branch, which completely undermines the checks/balances between them, which is the basis on how the government is supposed to be function. Never mind the judicial branch, which also frequently votes on partisan lines.
      - pinkfoot 7y ago
        Is it a fact that they didn't foresee political parties? After all, the Whigs were founded in the UK in 1678.
      - a_tractor 7y ago
        >Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. Not sure where you get this idea, but they most certainly did foresee such a thing, so much so you could say that it was the guiding and overriding concern arguing in favor of the United States as a federal Republic. At least two of the famous Federalist Papers dealt with this topic directly, no. 9 and no. 10. James Madison refutes your idea in the opening line for Federalist Paper no. 10[0] "AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." Really hammering home his well-formed understanding of the problem of faction or political parties: >There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. >It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. Please tell me this does not show a perfect understanding of the unavailability of political parties: >The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. He goes on to enumerate a number of opposing interests that tend to form, especially that which exists between "Those who hold and those who are without property." He understands this potential to be "sown into the nature of man" and you think they didn't foresee political parties? To the point: >The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. And again: >To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. To think that the Founders did not understand the problem of "factions" between free people and the resulting consequence of the formation of political parties is not only wrong, but is to believe that the Founding architects of the United were themselves naive fools completely ignorant of history and the nature of man, which is completely absurd. [0] https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10 https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Feder...
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  "If by "democracy" we mean the form which the Third Estate as such wishes to impart to public life as a whole, it must be concluded that democracy and plutocracy are the same thing under the two aspects of wish and actuality, theory and practice, knowing and doing. It is the tragic comedy of the world-improvers' and freedom-teachers' desperate fight against money that they are ipso facto assisting money to be effective. Respect for the big number—expressed in the principles of equality for all, natural rights, and universal suffrage—is just as much a class-ideal of the unclassed as freedom of public opinion (and more particularly freedom of the press) is so. These are ideals, but in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune. The representatives of the ideas look at one side only, while the representatives of money operate with the other. The concepts of Liberalism and Socialism are set in effective motion only by money." "...the Jacobins had destroyed the old obligations of the blood and so had emancipated money; now it stepped forward as lord of the land. There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact. The great movement which makes use of the catchwords of Marx has not delivered the entrepreneur into the power of the worker, but both into that of the Bourse." - O. Spengler, "The Decline of the West", Vol. 2 (1928)
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    What a fantastic verse. I have never read this author.
- patentatt 7y ago
  The argument against term limits is that it empowers the ‘consultants’ and advisors who have the historic and institutional knowledge with none of the public scrutiny or oversight.
- chongli 7y ago
  I think democracy was always problematic. Its original form, direct democracy, was vulnerable to the tyranny of the masses. Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect them to be purely faithful executors of their respective mandates. What we did not expect, and perhaps are now beginning to, is that human beings are endlessly resourceful when personally motivated. Laws, norms, and institutions are static structures, simple obstacles for people to overcome when they really want to. It has always been far more difficult to build defences than it has been to build new weapons to overcome them. This is the great challenge for lawmakers, judiciary, law enforcement, and anyone who is interested in the preservation of a free and open society.
  - techslave 7y ago
    > Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect them to be purely faithful executors of their respective mandates. That’s irrelevant isn’t it? You elect based on your own self-interest and expect your candidate to follow theirs. There isn’t a single “what’s best for society” anyway so the pull between competing ideas means the most popular ones win. With a tempering effect from the courts. What we did not expect was political parties. These are in effect conjoining at least the legislative and executive branches. Also the electoral college ruined things. Not for the trivial reason you may think but by eliminating runoff elections.
    - SamBam 7y ago
      I think the parties part is the key, especially how it has infected the judicial branch as well. Madison claimed that the defense against the tyranny of the majority was that "...the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights [...] consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects." It seems that parties, and particularly blind obedience to the head of the party (whether the president, the speaker, etc), has diminished the "number of interests and sects." (Note, this is my understanding of Madison, but not as a scholar of US history.)
- amalcon 7y ago
  Campaign duration limits run into the same free-speech issues that campaign finance limits run into. It's all well and good to restrict what the office holder is doing, but how do you stop "unrelated third parties" from "expressing their genuine political beliefs" without simultaneously stopping real unrelated third parties from actually expressing their genuine political beliefs?
- skummetmaelk 7y ago
  Democracy can only work when the voters are interested in making life better for _everyone_ and not just themselves. The "fuck you, got mine" mentality that has developed is what will cause democracy to fail.
  - Accujack 7y ago
    Lots of hyperbole there. That mentality is more or less unique to one large generation in the US, it's not universal and not perpetual. Also, there have been democracies for more than a thousand years that have withstood this sort of thing.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      Which ones? (Genuinely interested, not being snarky)
      - rootusrootus 7y ago
        I am betting Accujack was referring to boomers. And in particular, those of the conservative persuasion. I could be wrong, though.
        bilbo0s 7y ago
        I think Arethuza might have been asking which democracies have survived the self interest that was being discussed? (I assume s/he is looking for democracies that didn't end in chopped heads.)
        rootusrootus 7y ago
        That may be. The downside of ambiguous questions. I made my assumption based on the "not being snarky" qualification. And even then, got downvoted for it ;-). People identify so strongly with their political party.
- pelliphant 7y ago
  america uses a first past the post voting system. Please don't assume that every form of democracy has the same problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
  - mcguire 7y ago
    Absolutely! Other forms of voting systems have new and unique ways of failing. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/#VotiPara https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/#VotiPara
    - pelliphant 7y ago
      Interesting article. Thnx for the link.
- lcfcjs2 7y ago
  Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Good english.
- phkahler 7y ago
  >> The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests ... For that to have a chance at working we need to get the outside influence out of government. I propose that each state ban political ads funded by anyone outside the state - including the national parties. If you dont live there, your input is not wanted. Another problem is that we ship our representatives off to Washington, away from us and surrounded by outside influencers. Not sure what to do about that, but it's a recipe for not representing the people who they ostensibly should.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship That's because it isn't needed. If the elite can get the same benefits with less harsh methods, why go all dictatorship? E.g. it's not like free speech by most has any consequence to their profits/tactics, so it's fine to exist. It's mere idle talk. When it gets dangerous, it's jail time (e.g. Snowden, Manning), censorship, character assassination (of whistleblowers, etc), firing, etc.
- jrobn 7y ago
  I generally think we are seeing the the sunset of a “representative” democracy in the United States. Fake News and propaganda is unchecked and rampant. Public intelligence and understanding is at an all time low. Income inequality is at an all time high. Which leads to millions of Americans making their mind up based on emotions and not facts. “Build a Wall” is not a logical decision. “Abuse of power is not impeachable” is not a logical decision. “Socialism is evil” as you collect your Social Security check and rely on Medicare is not a logical decision. I fully expect another decade or more of racial unrest and outright politically sanctioned violence in the US as mass migrations pick up due to climate change and unrest caused by a resurgence of Nazism and “not one of us” movements.
- darawk 7y ago
  Democracy is more alive today than it ever has been in history. What you are seeing is democracy. I think in the west we've been taught that 'democracy' is by definition good, and therefore anything bad is 'not democracy'. But the reality is that people are voting for this.
  - tclancy 7y ago
    I get what you mean in the larger sense, but here that would suggest there are masses of people who voted for poisoned water, which no one would do. You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change. And yes, I am definitely biased.
    - darawk 7y ago
      > I get what you mean in the larger sense, but here that would suggest there are masses of people who voted for poisoned water, which no one would do. It may also suggest that they see things differently than you do, and don't believe that they have voted for poisoned water. > You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change. I think that's an extremely reductionist, and honestly objectively false characterization of what's happened. And it is that very perspective that has caused them to do this in the first place. These people had real and genuine concerns that were not being addressed by anyone other than Trump. Globalization hollowed out the middle of the country for the benefit of the coasts. This has been more or less the explicit economic agenda of the last 30 years. We can certainly debate whether this has been a net positive for the world, but there is no debate that it has been a net negative for the middle states in the US that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
  - gregcrv 7y ago
    The original democracy was actually designed to appoint random representatives. What we are seeing is not democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  As I keep saying, we're using 18th century social technology to solve 21st century problems. Thus we are treated to spectacles like the Chief Justice of the United States reminding everyone that that the US Senate is 'the world's greatest deliberative body' literally at the midnight hour following a day of blatant partisan hackery punctuated with ceremonial roll calls, whose outcome is well known in advance and whose architects make sarcastic comments on their role in the process. For the first time in history, we have technology that would allow every resident of the US to both receive transmit information more or less instantaneously; such delays as exist are not between our ears, nor do we lack for access to long-term knowledge or choices for how to share it. Vast libraries of knowledge fit in a pocket and participation in national conversations is not merely possible but expected; our every impulse and idea is recorded weighted, traded, and incorporated into a cathedral of civic participation. At the center of this wondrous contrivance the national rituals are conducted, like psychic engines of historical propulsion whose operation is sacrosanct even as it propels us toward another iceberg, and woe to those who interrupt the comforting rhythms with anxious facts.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests and people would elect people who would represent their interests, all of course with hopeful protections for minorities. Obviously, this doesn't work This doesn’t seem so obvious to me. PFAS is a perfect example. It’s used in literally everything from clothing to food containers, because it’s an engineering marvel. I want my elected official to push back on people who want to jump the gun issuing radically lower guidelines for PFAS unless we have rock solid evidence not only linking them to harm, but quantifying that harm in relation to the benefits they provide. I like my non stick pans and stain resistant clothes and carpets, and as an Asian man who can expect, statistically, to live well into his 80s in the United States, I want a concrete assessment of how much longer I’d be living if we took a different approach to PFAS. And I fully accept that DuPont will have to be the one to tell the government: “hey, we use this stuff in a whole bunch of products people like”—because who else is going to articulate that essential part of the story? Regulating this stuff is complex. For example, banning leaded gasoline was undoubtedly a win. (Which the EPA did after extensive cost benefit analysis.) By contrast, the dangers of DDT, which was and continues to be banned, probably we overstated: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-needs-now-is-ddt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-n...
ebiester 7y ago
...and it's both Democrats and Republicans to boot! This seems like it should be an issue that someone can run on.
minikites 7y ago
Lots of people think it's fine because it a way to "spite the libs", i.e. if it makes liberals angry, it must actually be a good thing: https://cospringsrealestatenews.com/running-behind-the-ddt-truck/ https://cospringsrealestatenews.com/running-behind-the-ddt-t... >I remember them with great fondness, and I’ve survived for over 60 years after breathing those fumes… >We are all alive and kicking well. I have NEVER heard of anyone becoming sick, due to DDT. The reading I have done, showed the woman that declared it bad, never did any research regarding DDT. They took it off the market without proof. I am not a fond follower of the EPA. I think they are a complete mess. They would ban Milk if they had their way. I am all for bringing DDT back. It was a great product. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme... >“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.”
Pfhreak 7y ago
This is pretty much the end state for Neoliberalism (which has been the prevailing mode for both parties). There's such an emphasis on protecting business and capital, and almost none on protecting the people.
- corey_moncure 7y ago
  In your view, what happens to the people when business and capital fail?
  - cbayram 7y ago
    Temporary ripples, but mainly not much. What happens? Opportunities for people and local geographies, innovation. Words of Nassim Nicholas Taleb ring in my head. Failure is healthy to the overall health of a system. When you hide risk and prop up failure, it blows up spectacularly. Never has there been so many bureaucrats benefiting from the benefit of the true harbingers of innovation.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    They turn to populist leaders for help. Usually this means some variation of either socialism or fascism.
  - grive 7y ago
    The business disappears, people turn to a competitor or create new ones if the need is still there. Business are allowed to fail, that's healthy for the overall system.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    You are presenting an extreme. Business and capital will not fail if there is more emphasis on the people. We won't turn into Venezuela or communist Russia if business doesn't get 100% its way.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    The same thing that's been happening for thousands of years -- we adapt. We gather together and support each other. Capitalism wasn't the dominant mode for most of human history, and Neoliberal capitalism especially so (coming to prominence in the US in the 70s). There are other ways to organize work/workers, for example into workers co-ops which have been shown to be efficient even at scales of billions of dollars of annual revenue.
dfxm12 7y ago
It just goes to show the priorities of the electorate. If one assumes people vote in their own best interest, the question then becomes, what are they interested in? Maybe not the physical health of themselves or their children...
- _-___________-_ 7y ago
  Nobody runs on a platform of contaminating the drinking water and then covering it up, so you can hardly say that this outcome represents the interests of the electorate.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    Plus there are a million things to worry about and everyone prioritizes the issues differently. I don’t want to drink water that will give me cancer in 50 years, but if the only candidate running on a platform to clean the water also wants to [insert some policy I strongly disagree with], they’re probably not going to get my vote. Not to mention the entire USA, all 330 million of us, only get ONE president, each state only gets ONE governor, etc. Its hard to say “the US doesn’t want [blank]” when all of the candidates policies need to match such a large and diverse group of people.
chrshawkes 7y ago
This sounds very much like something communist Russia did during the Chernobyl incident. Why are our governments so corrupt?
- skolos 7y ago
  Nitpicking: Chernobyl happened in Ukraine, so initially communists in Ukrainian Soviet Republic covered things up, not Russian. But I imagine they did consult with Central Party Buro in Moscow.
  - chrshawkes 7y ago
    They did. RGB prevented people from leaving the city or from people within the city to use phones to call out.
- monadic2 7y ago
  Power corrupts.
blaser-waffle 7y ago
Sure, but what about The Economy?
- Stubb 7y ago
  "Son, it doesn't matter if the oceans turn to acid, the land turns to desert, millions of species go extinct, or if billions of people suffer and die. All that matters is we make that line go up and I will get my bonus, we need to do everything we can to keep that line going up." https://twitter.com/thefaceberg/status/1030550915348975616 https://twitter.com/thefaceberg/status/1030550915348975616
molteanu 7y ago
I agree with your comment, but just for the sake of the argument, let's look at it like this. The elected officials are also responsible for the functioning of the society in general. Sometimes you need quite the acrobatics to achieve that, I suppose. In this very case, what would happen if this report would circulate widely and become common knowledge among the population in a short time? One outcome would be that safety measures and/or alternative water sources would be sought after. One other possibility is that no such short-term solutions are in sight, meaning, you, as the "democratically-elected officeholder" have no way of realistically supply clean water to tens of millions of people. I would bet chaos and panic would ensure. We're talking about health-related problems, and not only about the water having a bad taste. So, in that view, I suppose that not every truth can come out to light. Some truths can simply be unbearable or have no immediate solution even though the people demand a solution to it. One other alternative might be to promise, publicly, that it will be solved. The years will pass, another promise, another elected official, and on and on.
- vasilipupkin 7y ago
  More importantly, based on this article, we literally do not know anything. How bad is this really? Is the draft report accurate ? Etc etc. let’s not jump to conclusions, let’s just be comfortable admitting we don’t know what’s going on.
  - molteanu 7y ago
    Well, imagine that. I'm from Eastern Europe. How bad can it be around here since we don't get any kind of info or measurements? You can just hope for the best!
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  This truth came to light and the world did not end. I appreciate your point, but I do not think the motivation behind suppressing this report was the benevolent desire to "protect the population from unreasonable panic or overreaction".
Nasrudith 7y ago
I suspect it is a problem of information density and control that create essentially a societal logistical hell in decision making. There are too many damn things packed together for a ballot in the US's case for issues and any capacity for long term thinking is disturbingly /rare/ in general which means the foregone and horrifying get procrastinated without issue until somebody gets hurt - hell even a while afterwards. And that even those who attempt to practice long term thinking are generally pretty horrible at extrapolation and planning for side effects of "success" because that is a pretty hard task. Direct democracy has downright massive logistical issues for everyone to learn sufficiently capable of being informed on the issues while adding more may diffuse power it also diffuses responsibility. Simply subdividing more doesn't solve problems as not only would it result in squabbling fiefdoms instead of concern for the whole and lose the advantages of large scale. Even if we had a known and proven better solution getting it implemented over the status quo would be fiendishly difficult to bootstrap or carry /massive/ side effects like say literal Civil War or Coups and the latter usually make things worse since the winners are based upon their ability to do violence instead of their ability towards any constructive pursuit let alone to govern. Compound that with the evolution of emotional manipulators - the demagogs and propagandists as an electorally dominant force and every special interest after their own piece of the pie. An educated populace helps as always of course but that is a very long term project. It is a "plant trees and decarbonize 70 years ago" sort of solution. The kicker is that despite the paragraphs of advantages it is still better than dictatorships and oligarchies. Their bread ans butter are lies, cohesion and the ability to rationalize absurdities to make travesties.
at-fates-hands 7y ago
> "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected officeholder to have. I'm not sure if you actually read the article, but the EPA has known about this since 2001. Attempting to make this all about the Trump administration is quite myopic. From the article: The EPA has known since at least 2001 about the problem of PFAS in drinking water but has so far failed to set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit. The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS. The EPA said it has helped states and communities address PFAS and that it is working to put limits on the two main chemicals but did not give a timeline. If you want to blame someone, blame the EPA for not doing anything for over 17 years.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Then let's make it about the George W administration. They spent 8 years ceaselessly hammering TERRORISM and GAYS GETTIN MARRIED -- why take action on this? See also: "History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922215/
  - deadEndDave 7y ago
    Which the Obama Administration then spent 8 years reversing so what's your point? FYI gay marriage wouldn't be legal without the votes of two conservative supreme court judges.
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  I was referring to this quote from the parent comment (and the article): "In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published."
rayiner 7y ago
Maintaining the status quo is an incredibly valuable position for democratically elected politicians to have. Joe Biden’s entire campaign is built on “I won’t change anything except spruce up the ACA a bit.” Representative democracy involves various groups focusing attention on one issue or the other. When it comes to things like drinking water or food, people’s fear of “impure” food can cause public panic vastly out of proportion to the actual problem. Nobody is thinking “hmm, would I give up stain resistant carpets and clothing and non-stick pans for a negligible lower risk of getting testicular cancer?” PFAS are, at this point, a cause for study, not a cause for dramatic action: https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/pfas-chemicals-should-you-be-concerned/ https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/p... The two most studied, PFOA and PFOS are no longer produced in the US. The others are not well studied: > But the health effects of the PFAS chemicals used instead of PFOS and PFOA are less known. As these newer chemicals accumulate in the drinking water in some areas of the U.S., scientists and state officials are trying to determine how they affect humans. At least some of them can be eliminated from the body more quickly than PFOS and PFOA and may be less toxic, according to DeWitt—but they still might cause problems, she cautions. PFAS chemicals have been in wide use since the 1950s. Clearly they are reasonably safe. The question is whether the potential health benefits of reducing their use outweigh the cost of losing their advantages. Here, there was no “cover up.” Nobody was hiding the measurements of the levels of PFAS in water systems. The question was whether the DHHS should issue a guideline that would set the PFAS target at a level 1/10th as high as what is present in many public water systems is not something that necessarily should happen. After all, how are they deriving that guideline? When you have exposure dependent chemicals, you can’t set the limits at the lowest levels where no harmful effects are detectable. (Remember how everything in California has a cancer warning?) There needs to be a global optimization process that balances benefits and costs. In that context, it was entirely reasonable and proper to refrain from setting such a guideline at this time. (PFAS are just one example of things that trigger a panic completely out of proportion to actual risk. Another example is alcohol during pregnancy. The medical community in the US has taken the position, with the support of the government, that the only acceptable level is 0. That is even though women in Western Europe routinely drink moderate amounts of alcohol during pregnancy, with seemingly little ill effect.)
- 7y ago
papito 7y ago
I don't know. I've always scoffed at the Socialist paradise of Western Europe, but I've changed my mind after traveling to Denmark a few months ago. The government employs a lot of people, and they seem to make sure that they themselves work for the public good. The public. You know, people who all live in the country. Everything is clean and the trains are on time. Let's not bundle everyone under "Democracy". Our system is becoming badly broken for many reasons. * Citizens United (didn't even seem like a good idea at the time) * Gerrymandering * The Electoral College (seemed like a good idea at the time) * Self-interest vs. principals and very basic patriotism The latter one really bugs me. We would benefit a lot as a nation if everyone had to go through mandatory 6-week bootcamp. Not even service. Just hold a rifle next to your fellow citizen for a bit, and share some food in the chow hall. See how it is out there. Some team building at a national level. Because, guess what. The Russians have a team. The Chinese have a team. We don't have one. We have a bunch of profiteers in Congress waiting for even bigger lobby and board windfalls after they are done. This will only get much worse.
- mnm1 7y ago
  Why should we have to force socialize people in a context of killing others? We force socialize people in plenty of other contexts like 12 years of schooling, most of which is mandatory. That hasn't gotten people to play in a team. Why would six weeks be any different? The only thing that will come out of mandatory boot camp is resentment and hate towards the government, institutions, and people that demand it. My parents and other relatives of their generation grew up in the type of culture you describe. They risked their lives and risked torture to run away from it. The six months of boot camp certainly didn't make the society more cohesive or the make the people trust each other. No one wanted to be there and people were still afraid of themselves, the police, and the government. If it wasn't on a different continent, in a different era, I'd think I'm talking about the US. Needless to say, forcing people to socialize against their will does not lead to social cohesion or patriotism. It leads to resentment. Especially when you force it on people who think that patriotism really is for scoundrels.
  - GcVmvNhBsU 7y ago
    I’d argue that 12 years of schooling does get people to play as a team, it’s just that the team is smaller and more local. If I grow up in a smallish town in South Dakota I will go to school with and know people who mostly look like me. I won’t meet someone from a big coastal city and get to learn their worldview and how it was shaped. I won’t (probably) experience what it feels like to be in a minority role (as in race, political belief, etc). I will, however, grow up with people and maintain longer relationships with them. I will vote and act in the interest of my community’s shared beliefs. I also think there are other intangible benefits to conscripted service aside from exposing people to a wide diversity of their country. We were able to end the Vietnam war because we had a draft. We’ve been at war with terror for 19 years with no end in sight. Too few families are affected now and the nation doesn’t have the will to stop this forever war. I do generally agree that socializing in the context of killing people is probably not ideal. That said, a very small part of the military actually kills people. The vast majority of the military is either in a support role, or do not find themselves in a situation where they actually need to kill someone. So, I want to discount your first paragraph a bit. That said, I support the idea of a 2 year mandatory service which unlocks benefits like tuition (university, trade, etc). I don’t think that service needs to only be military - I would happily revive the Civilian Conservation Corps, use the Peace Corps, etc to fulfill that service.

Frost1x 7y ago

Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship--there are many protections in place to keep things from falling apart but nonetheless I feel as though we're in the decline in the respect of being democratic. The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests and people would elect people who would represent their interests, all of course with hopeful protections for minorities. Obviously, this doesn't work. We need to really set expiration dates on how long people can run campaigns and how long they can stay in a given office. Politics should be about solving problems and seeking continuous improvement of well-being for citizens in a given society, not convincing people they're happy, constantly lying, and playing manipulative popularity contests but that's where we are.

nck4222 7y ago
>Democracy is mostly a facade in the US anyway. But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' Although it's worth noting that 'as the forefathers intended' carries more weight than it typically should. Their intentions were mostly based on philosophical guess work, as they didn't have a whole lot of empirical data or existing republics/democracies to base their new government on. It honestly seems like like they intended the US government to function a lot more similarly to the EU than what we currently have. Although the EU has its own sets of problems, but at the very least seems more representative of the people than the US government.
- lubujackson 7y ago
  I am not so sure it is far from its intentions. The founders knew and expected most politicians operating as fronts for various groups and making bad faith arguments and backroom deals. That is nothing new! Most of what they did was try to prevent the government from being wholly brigaded by one minority perspective, and if so it would be moved along after a short time. So far, so good, despite warning signs to the contrary. Spielberg's "Lincoln" is particularly clear about displaying this dynamic at the country's most fractured moment.
  - nck4222 7y ago
    Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. That alone upended a great deal of how the different bodies were supposed to interact. Half of congress is now lead by the executive branch, which completely undermines the checks/balances between them, which is the basis on how the government is supposed to be function. Never mind the judicial branch, which also frequently votes on partisan lines.
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      Is it a fact that they didn't foresee political parties? After all, the Whigs were founded in the UK in 1678.
    - a_tractor 7y ago
      >Well they didn't foresee the formation of political parties. Not sure where you get this idea, but they most certainly did foresee such a thing, so much so you could say that it was the guiding and overriding concern arguing in favor of the United States as a federal Republic. At least two of the famous Federalist Papers dealt with this topic directly, no. 9 and no. 10. James Madison refutes your idea in the opening line for Federalist Paper no. 10[0] "AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." Really hammering home his well-formed understanding of the problem of faction or political parties: >There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. >It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. Please tell me this does not show a perfect understanding of the unavailability of political parties: >The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. He goes on to enumerate a number of opposing interests that tend to form, especially that which exists between "Those who hold and those who are without property." He understands this potential to be "sown into the nature of man" and you think they didn't foresee political parties? To the point: >The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. And again: >To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. To think that the Founders did not understand the problem of "factions" between free people and the resulting consequence of the formation of political parties is not only wrong, but is to believe that the Founding architects of the United were themselves naive fools completely ignorant of history and the nature of man, which is completely absurd. [0] https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10 https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Feder...
jstewartmobile 7y ago
"If by "democracy" we mean the form which the Third Estate as such wishes to impart to public life as a whole, it must be concluded that democracy and plutocracy are the same thing under the two aspects of wish and actuality, theory and practice, knowing and doing. It is the tragic comedy of the world-improvers' and freedom-teachers' desperate fight against money that they are ipso facto assisting money to be effective. Respect for the big number—expressed in the principles of equality for all, natural rights, and universal suffrage—is just as much a class-ideal of the unclassed as freedom of public opinion (and more particularly freedom of the press) is so. These are ideals, but in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune. The representatives of the ideas look at one side only, while the representatives of money operate with the other. The concepts of Liberalism and Socialism are set in effective motion only by money." "...the Jacobins had destroyed the old obligations of the blood and so had emancipated money; now it stepped forward as lord of the land. There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact. The great movement which makes use of the catchwords of Marx has not delivered the entrepreneur into the power of the worker, but both into that of the Bourse." - O. Spengler, "The Decline of the West", Vol. 2 (1928)
- Supermancho 7y ago
  What a fantastic verse. I have never read this author.
patentatt 7y ago
The argument against term limits is that it empowers the ‘consultants’ and advisors who have the historic and institutional knowledge with none of the public scrutiny or oversight.
chongli 7y ago
I think democracy was always problematic. Its original form, direct democracy, was vulnerable to the tyranny of the masses. Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect them to be purely faithful executors of their respective mandates. What we did not expect, and perhaps are now beginning to, is that human beings are endlessly resourceful when personally motivated. Laws, norms, and institutions are static structures, simple obstacles for people to overcome when they really want to. It has always been far more difficult to build defences than it has been to build new weapons to overcome them. This is the great challenge for lawmakers, judiciary, law enforcement, and anyone who is interested in the preservation of a free and open society.
- techslave 7y ago
  > Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect them to be purely faithful executors of their respective mandates. That’s irrelevant isn’t it? You elect based on your own self-interest and expect your candidate to follow theirs. There isn’t a single “what’s best for society” anyway so the pull between competing ideas means the most popular ones win. With a tempering effect from the courts. What we did not expect was political parties. These are in effect conjoining at least the legislative and executive branches. Also the electoral college ruined things. Not for the trivial reason you may think but by eliminating runoff elections.
  - SamBam 7y ago
    I think the parties part is the key, especially how it has infected the judicial branch as well. Madison claimed that the defense against the tyranny of the majority was that "...the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights [...] consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects." It seems that parties, and particularly blind obedience to the head of the party (whether the president, the speaker, etc), has diminished the "number of interests and sects." (Note, this is my understanding of Madison, but not as a scholar of US history.)
amalcon 7y ago
Campaign duration limits run into the same free-speech issues that campaign finance limits run into. It's all well and good to restrict what the office holder is doing, but how do you stop "unrelated third parties" from "expressing their genuine political beliefs" without simultaneously stopping real unrelated third parties from actually expressing their genuine political beliefs?
skummetmaelk 7y ago
Democracy can only work when the voters are interested in making life better for _everyone_ and not just themselves. The "fuck you, got mine" mentality that has developed is what will cause democracy to fail.
- Accujack 7y ago
  Lots of hyperbole there. That mentality is more or less unique to one large generation in the US, it's not universal and not perpetual. Also, there have been democracies for more than a thousand years that have withstood this sort of thing.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    Which ones? (Genuinely interested, not being snarky)
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      I am betting Accujack was referring to boomers. And in particular, those of the conservative persuasion. I could be wrong, though.
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        I think Arethuza might have been asking which democracies have survived the self interest that was being discussed? (I assume s/he is looking for democracies that didn't end in chopped heads.)
        rootusrootus 7y ago
        That may be. The downside of ambiguous questions. I made my assumption based on the "not being snarky" qualification. And even then, got downvoted for it ;-). People identify so strongly with their political party.
pelliphant 7y ago
america uses a first past the post voting system. Please don't assume that every form of democracy has the same problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
- mcguire 7y ago
  Absolutely! Other forms of voting systems have new and unique ways of failing. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/#VotiPara https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/#VotiPara
  - pelliphant 7y ago
    Interesting article. Thnx for the link.
lcfcjs2 7y ago
Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Good english.
phkahler 7y ago
>> The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests ... For that to have a chance at working we need to get the outside influence out of government. I propose that each state ban political ads funded by anyone outside the state - including the national parties. If you dont live there, your input is not wanted. Another problem is that we ship our representatives off to Washington, away from us and surrounded by outside influencers. Not sure what to do about that, but it's a recipe for not representing the people who they ostensibly should.
coldtea 7y ago
>Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship That's because it isn't needed. If the elite can get the same benefits with less harsh methods, why go all dictatorship? E.g. it's not like free speech by most has any consequence to their profits/tactics, so it's fine to exist. It's mere idle talk. When it gets dangerous, it's jail time (e.g. Snowden, Manning), censorship, character assassination (of whistleblowers, etc), firing, etc.
jrobn 7y ago
I generally think we are seeing the the sunset of a “representative” democracy in the United States. Fake News and propaganda is unchecked and rampant. Public intelligence and understanding is at an all time low. Income inequality is at an all time high. Which leads to millions of Americans making their mind up based on emotions and not facts. “Build a Wall” is not a logical decision. “Abuse of power is not impeachable” is not a logical decision. “Socialism is evil” as you collect your Social Security check and rely on Medicare is not a logical decision. I fully expect another decade or more of racial unrest and outright politically sanctioned violence in the US as mass migrations pick up due to climate change and unrest caused by a resurgence of Nazism and “not one of us” movements.
darawk 7y ago
Democracy is more alive today than it ever has been in history. What you are seeing is democracy. I think in the west we've been taught that 'democracy' is by definition good, and therefore anything bad is 'not democracy'. But the reality is that people are voting for this.
- tclancy 7y ago
  I get what you mean in the larger sense, but here that would suggest there are masses of people who voted for poisoned water, which no one would do. You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change. And yes, I am definitely biased.
  - darawk 7y ago
    > I get what you mean in the larger sense, but here that would suggest there are masses of people who voted for poisoned water, which no one would do. It may also suggest that they see things differently than you do, and don't believe that they have voted for poisoned water. > You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change. I think that's an extremely reductionist, and honestly objectively false characterization of what's happened. And it is that very perspective that has caused them to do this in the first place. These people had real and genuine concerns that were not being addressed by anyone other than Trump. Globalization hollowed out the middle of the country for the benefit of the coasts. This has been more or less the explicit economic agenda of the last 30 years. We can certainly debate whether this has been a net positive for the world, but there is no debate that it has been a net negative for the middle states in the US that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
- gregcrv 7y ago
  The original democracy was actually designed to appoint random representatives. What we are seeing is not democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
anigbrowl 7y ago
As I keep saying, we're using 18th century social technology to solve 21st century problems. Thus we are treated to spectacles like the Chief Justice of the United States reminding everyone that that the US Senate is 'the world's greatest deliberative body' literally at the midnight hour following a day of blatant partisan hackery punctuated with ceremonial roll calls, whose outcome is well known in advance and whose architects make sarcastic comments on their role in the process. For the first time in history, we have technology that would allow every resident of the US to both receive transmit information more or less instantaneously; such delays as exist are not between our ears, nor do we lack for access to long-term knowledge or choices for how to share it. Vast libraries of knowledge fit in a pocket and participation in national conversations is not merely possible but expected; our every impulse and idea is recorded weighted, traded, and incorporated into a cathedral of civic participation. At the center of this wondrous contrivance the national rituals are conducted, like psychic engines of historical propulsion whose operation is sacrosanct even as it propels us toward another iceberg, and woe to those who interrupt the comforting rhythms with anxious facts.
rayiner 7y ago
> The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests and people would elect people who would represent their interests, all of course with hopeful protections for minorities. Obviously, this doesn't work This doesn’t seem so obvious to me. PFAS is a perfect example. It’s used in literally everything from clothing to food containers, because it’s an engineering marvel. I want my elected official to push back on people who want to jump the gun issuing radically lower guidelines for PFAS unless we have rock solid evidence not only linking them to harm, but quantifying that harm in relation to the benefits they provide. I like my non stick pans and stain resistant clothes and carpets, and as an Asian man who can expect, statistically, to live well into his 80s in the United States, I want a concrete assessment of how much longer I’d be living if we took a different approach to PFAS. And I fully accept that DuPont will have to be the one to tell the government: “hey, we use this stuff in a whole bunch of products people like”—because who else is going to articulate that essential part of the story? Regulating this stuff is complex. For example, banning leaded gasoline was undoubtedly a win. (Which the EPA did after extensive cost benefit analysis.) By contrast, the dangers of DDT, which was and continues to be banned, probably we overstated: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-needs-now-is-ddt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-n...

ebiester 7y ago

...and it's both Democrats and Republicans to boot! This seems like it should be an issue that someone can run on.

minikites 7y ago

Lots of people think it's fine because it a way to "spite the libs", i.e. if it makes liberals angry, it must actually be a good thing: https://cospringsrealestatenews.com/running-behind-the-ddt-truck/ https://cospringsrealestatenews.com/running-behind-the-ddt-t... >I remember them with great fondness, and I’ve survived for over 60 years after breathing those fumes… >We are all alive and kicking well. I have NEVER heard of anyone becoming sick, due to DDT. The reading I have done, showed the woman that declared it bad, never did any research regarding DDT. They took it off the market without proof. I am not a fond follower of the EPA. I think they are a complete mess. They would ban Milk if they had their way. I am all for bringing DDT back. It was a great product. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme... >“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.”

Pfhreak 7y ago

This is pretty much the end state for Neoliberalism (which has been the prevailing mode for both parties). There's such an emphasis on protecting business and capital, and almost none on protecting the people.

corey_moncure 7y ago
In your view, what happens to the people when business and capital fail?
- cbayram 7y ago
  Temporary ripples, but mainly not much. What happens? Opportunities for people and local geographies, innovation. Words of Nassim Nicholas Taleb ring in my head. Failure is healthy to the overall health of a system. When you hide risk and prop up failure, it blows up spectacularly. Never has there been so many bureaucrats benefiting from the benefit of the true harbingers of innovation.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  They turn to populist leaders for help. Usually this means some variation of either socialism or fascism.
- grive 7y ago
  The business disappears, people turn to a competitor or create new ones if the need is still there. Business are allowed to fail, that's healthy for the overall system.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  You are presenting an extreme. Business and capital will not fail if there is more emphasis on the people. We won't turn into Venezuela or communist Russia if business doesn't get 100% its way.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  The same thing that's been happening for thousands of years -- we adapt. We gather together and support each other. Capitalism wasn't the dominant mode for most of human history, and Neoliberal capitalism especially so (coming to prominence in the US in the 70s). There are other ways to organize work/workers, for example into workers co-ops which have been shown to be efficient even at scales of billions of dollars of annual revenue.

dfxm12 7y ago

It just goes to show the priorities of the electorate. If one assumes people vote in their own best interest, the question then becomes, what are they interested in? Maybe not the physical health of themselves or their children...

_-___________-_ 7y ago
Nobody runs on a platform of contaminating the drinking water and then covering it up, so you can hardly say that this outcome represents the interests of the electorate.
- freehunter 7y ago
  Plus there are a million things to worry about and everyone prioritizes the issues differently. I don’t want to drink water that will give me cancer in 50 years, but if the only candidate running on a platform to clean the water also wants to [insert some policy I strongly disagree with], they’re probably not going to get my vote. Not to mention the entire USA, all 330 million of us, only get ONE president, each state only gets ONE governor, etc. Its hard to say “the US doesn’t want [blank]” when all of the candidates policies need to match such a large and diverse group of people.

chrshawkes 7y ago

This sounds very much like something communist Russia did during the Chernobyl incident. Why are our governments so corrupt?

skolos 7y ago
Nitpicking: Chernobyl happened in Ukraine, so initially communists in Ukrainian Soviet Republic covered things up, not Russian. But I imagine they did consult with Central Party Buro in Moscow.
- chrshawkes 7y ago
  They did. RGB prevented people from leaving the city or from people within the city to use phones to call out.
monadic2 7y ago
Power corrupts.

blaser-waffle 7y ago

Sure, but what about The Economy?

Stubb 7y ago
"Son, it doesn't matter if the oceans turn to acid, the land turns to desert, millions of species go extinct, or if billions of people suffer and die. All that matters is we make that line go up and I will get my bonus, we need to do everything we can to keep that line going up." https://twitter.com/thefaceberg/status/1030550915348975616 https://twitter.com/thefaceberg/status/1030550915348975616

molteanu 7y ago

I agree with your comment, but just for the sake of the argument, let's look at it like this. The elected officials are also responsible for the functioning of the society in general. Sometimes you need quite the acrobatics to achieve that, I suppose. In this very case, what would happen if this report would circulate widely and become common knowledge among the population in a short time? One outcome would be that safety measures and/or alternative water sources would be sought after. One other possibility is that no such short-term solutions are in sight, meaning, you, as the "democratically-elected officeholder" have no way of realistically supply clean water to tens of millions of people. I would bet chaos and panic would ensure. We're talking about health-related problems, and not only about the water having a bad taste. So, in that view, I suppose that not every truth can come out to light. Some truths can simply be unbearable or have no immediate solution even though the people demand a solution to it. One other alternative might be to promise, publicly, that it will be solved. The years will pass, another promise, another elected official, and on and on.

vasilipupkin 7y ago
More importantly, based on this article, we literally do not know anything. How bad is this really? Is the draft report accurate ? Etc etc. let’s not jump to conclusions, let’s just be comfortable admitting we don’t know what’s going on.
- molteanu 7y ago
  Well, imagine that. I'm from Eastern Europe. How bad can it be around here since we don't get any kind of info or measurements? You can just hope for the best!
matthewdgreen 7y ago
This truth came to light and the world did not end. I appreciate your point, but I do not think the motivation behind suppressing this report was the benevolent desire to "protect the population from unreasonable panic or overreaction".

Nasrudith 7y ago

I suspect it is a problem of information density and control that create essentially a societal logistical hell in decision making. There are too many damn things packed together for a ballot in the US's case for issues and any capacity for long term thinking is disturbingly /rare/ in general which means the foregone and horrifying get procrastinated without issue until somebody gets hurt - hell even a while afterwards. And that even those who attempt to practice long term thinking are generally pretty horrible at extrapolation and planning for side effects of "success" because that is a pretty hard task. Direct democracy has downright massive logistical issues for everyone to learn sufficiently capable of being informed on the issues while adding more may diffuse power it also diffuses responsibility. Simply subdividing more doesn't solve problems as not only would it result in squabbling fiefdoms instead of concern for the whole and lose the advantages of large scale. Even if we had a known and proven better solution getting it implemented over the status quo would be fiendishly difficult to bootstrap or carry /massive/ side effects like say literal Civil War or Coups and the latter usually make things worse since the winners are based upon their ability to do violence instead of their ability towards any constructive pursuit let alone to govern. Compound that with the evolution of emotional manipulators - the demagogs and propagandists as an electorally dominant force and every special interest after their own piece of the pie. An educated populace helps as always of course but that is a very long term project. It is a "plant trees and decarbonize 70 years ago" sort of solution. The kicker is that despite the paragraphs of advantages it is still better than dictatorships and oligarchies. Their bread ans butter are lies, cohesion and the ability to rationalize absurdities to make travesties.

at-fates-hands 7y ago

> "cover up the existence of poisonous chemicals in your drinking water" is a viable position for a democratically-elected officeholder to have. I'm not sure if you actually read the article, but the EPA has known about this since 2001. Attempting to make this all about the Trump administration is quite myopic. From the article: The EPA has known since at least 2001 about the problem of PFAS in drinking water but has so far failed to set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit. The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on two of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS. The EPA said it has helped states and communities address PFAS and that it is working to put limits on the two main chemicals but did not give a timeline. If you want to blame someone, blame the EPA for not doing anything for over 17 years.

blaser-waffle 7y ago
Then let's make it about the George W administration. They spent 8 years ceaselessly hammering TERRORISM and GAYS GETTIN MARRIED -- why take action on this? See also: "History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922215/
- deadEndDave 7y ago
  Which the Obama Administration then spent 8 years reversing so what's your point? FYI gay marriage wouldn't be legal without the votes of two conservative supreme court judges.
matthewdgreen 7y ago
I was referring to this quote from the parent comment (and the article): "In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published."

rayiner 7y ago

Maintaining the status quo is an incredibly valuable position for democratically elected politicians to have. Joe Biden’s entire campaign is built on “I won’t change anything except spruce up the ACA a bit.” Representative democracy involves various groups focusing attention on one issue or the other. When it comes to things like drinking water or food, people’s fear of “impure” food can cause public panic vastly out of proportion to the actual problem. Nobody is thinking “hmm, would I give up stain resistant carpets and clothing and non-stick pans for a negligible lower risk of getting testicular cancer?” PFAS are, at this point, a cause for study, not a cause for dramatic action: https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/pfas-chemicals-should-you-be-concerned/ https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/p... The two most studied, PFOA and PFOS are no longer produced in the US. The others are not well studied: > But the health effects of the PFAS chemicals used instead of PFOS and PFOA are less known. As these newer chemicals accumulate in the drinking water in some areas of the U.S., scientists and state officials are trying to determine how they affect humans. At least some of them can be eliminated from the body more quickly than PFOS and PFOA and may be less toxic, according to DeWitt—but they still might cause problems, she cautions. PFAS chemicals have been in wide use since the 1950s. Clearly they are reasonably safe. The question is whether the potential health benefits of reducing their use outweigh the cost of losing their advantages. Here, there was no “cover up.” Nobody was hiding the measurements of the levels of PFAS in water systems. The question was whether the DHHS should issue a guideline that would set the PFAS target at a level 1/10th as high as what is present in many public water systems is not something that necessarily should happen. After all, how are they deriving that guideline? When you have exposure dependent chemicals, you can’t set the limits at the lowest levels where no harmful effects are detectable. (Remember how everything in California has a cancer warning?) There needs to be a global optimization process that balances benefits and costs. In that context, it was entirely reasonable and proper to refrain from setting such a guideline at this time. (PFAS are just one example of things that trigger a panic completely out of proportion to actual risk. Another example is alcohol during pregnancy. The medical community in the US has taken the position, with the support of the government, that the only acceptable level is 0. That is even though women in Western Europe routinely drink moderate amounts of alcohol during pregnancy, with seemingly little ill effect.)

7y ago

papito 7y ago

I don't know. I've always scoffed at the Socialist paradise of Western Europe, but I've changed my mind after traveling to Denmark a few months ago. The government employs a lot of people, and they seem to make sure that they themselves work for the public good. The public. You know, people who all live in the country. Everything is clean and the trains are on time. Let's not bundle everyone under "Democracy". Our system is becoming badly broken for many reasons. * Citizens United (didn't even seem like a good idea at the time) * Gerrymandering * The Electoral College (seemed like a good idea at the time) * Self-interest vs. principals and very basic patriotism The latter one really bugs me. We would benefit a lot as a nation if everyone had to go through mandatory 6-week bootcamp. Not even service. Just hold a rifle next to your fellow citizen for a bit, and share some food in the chow hall. See how it is out there. Some team building at a national level. Because, guess what. The Russians have a team. The Chinese have a team. We don't have one. We have a bunch of profiteers in Congress waiting for even bigger lobby and board windfalls after they are done. This will only get much worse.

mnm1 7y ago
Why should we have to force socialize people in a context of killing others? We force socialize people in plenty of other contexts like 12 years of schooling, most of which is mandatory. That hasn't gotten people to play in a team. Why would six weeks be any different? The only thing that will come out of mandatory boot camp is resentment and hate towards the government, institutions, and people that demand it. My parents and other relatives of their generation grew up in the type of culture you describe. They risked their lives and risked torture to run away from it. The six months of boot camp certainly didn't make the society more cohesive or the make the people trust each other. No one wanted to be there and people were still afraid of themselves, the police, and the government. If it wasn't on a different continent, in a different era, I'd think I'm talking about the US. Needless to say, forcing people to socialize against their will does not lead to social cohesion or patriotism. It leads to resentment. Especially when you force it on people who think that patriotism really is for scoundrels.
- GcVmvNhBsU 7y ago
  I’d argue that 12 years of schooling does get people to play as a team, it’s just that the team is smaller and more local. If I grow up in a smallish town in South Dakota I will go to school with and know people who mostly look like me. I won’t meet someone from a big coastal city and get to learn their worldview and how it was shaped. I won’t (probably) experience what it feels like to be in a minority role (as in race, political belief, etc). I will, however, grow up with people and maintain longer relationships with them. I will vote and act in the interest of my community’s shared beliefs. I also think there are other intangible benefits to conscripted service aside from exposing people to a wide diversity of their country. We were able to end the Vietnam war because we had a draft. We’ve been at war with terror for 19 years with no end in sight. Too few families are affected now and the nation doesn’t have the will to stop this forever war. I do generally agree that socializing in the context of killing people is probably not ideal. That said, a very small part of the military actually kills people. The vast majority of the military is either in a support role, or do not find themselves in a situation where they actually need to kill someone. So, I want to discount your first paragraph a bit. That said, I support the idea of a 2 year mandatory service which unlocks benefits like tuition (university, trade, etc). I don’t think that service needs to only be military - I would happily revive the Civilian Conservation Corps, use the Peace Corps, etc to fulfill that service.