Allow me to retort...

I write to my senators relatively often.  I hope that one day the amount I write will be considered minimal.  I recently wrote to my senators regarding H.R. 26 (REINS) and H.R. 998 (SCRUB).  As I believe these resolutions will pass the House, I felt writing to my senators was prudent.

I wanted to share a response I received from Senator Toomey and take this opportunity to respond.

... I am supportive of reasonable pollution controls that are designed to protect our natural resources and public health, and individual state agencies have the knowledge and experience necessary to safeguard these important assets...

Individual states you say.  I have to ask. Did Louisiana have the resources to deal with the Deepwater Horizons spill?  What percentage of the costs would Alabama contribute?  Although Alaska does benefit greatly from the oil industry, they did not benefit enough to deal with the Exxon Valdez disaster single-highhandedly.  In my own backyard, the borough of Ambler, PA contains a Superfund site.  Is the State of Pennsylvania ready to take on the cost burden associated with this site and the many others in Pennsylvania?

In all cases, the obvious answer is no.  The states do not have the resources or even the jurisdiction to oversee environmental protection.

Senator Toomey goes further to state:

..I am concerned about the excessive regulations coming out of the federal bureaucracy in recent years that needlessly impede job creation and harm Pennsylvania farmers..

Are we really going to go down this path yet again?  The last time industry was actually negatively effected by the EPA was in 1973 when the use of spray-applied asbestos was banned.  Even removing lead from our gasoline did not negatively effect an industry as one can see from looking at the profit margins of Exxon

I am not certain what regulation(s) Senator Toomey is referring to that "harm Pennsylvania farmers".  The regulations that have passed in the last 8 years have been focused on the energy industry.  As the United States is still the 2nd largest consumer of coal, I support all of these regulations as I have worked with coal combustors and know the effects of Black Lung.

The specter of "job loss" comes up again with:

.. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA and other federal regulators were especially aggressive in proposing new rules that raised energy prices, imposed onerous compliance costs, undermined economic growth, and put Pennsylvanians out of work...

Let us see.  According the U.S Energy Infromation Administration, the cost to "Ultimate Consumer" was 9.74 cents/KwH in 2008.  By 2016, that had risen to an amazing 9.96 cents/KwH.  In 2011, it reached a staggering 9.99 cents/KwH.  No adjustments for inflation or any tweaks.

Let's talk about unemployment.  Without any spinning, adjustment, etc. according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January of 2009, the Unemployment Rate was 7.8.  In January of 2017, the Unemployment Rate was 4.8.  Same organization, same calculation method.

I would be glad to discuss actual data with Senator Toomey at any time.  I do recommend that he consult other sources.  He seems to be getting his information from rhetoric and misnomer, both of which have horrible track records.

And just so everyone can see that I did not take anything out of context, here is the email in its entirety:

March 24, 2017



Dear Mr. Musick,

Thank you for contacting me about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate hearing from you.

Like most Pennsylvanians, I believe it is essential to protect our state's natural beauty and the quality of our environment. I am supportive of reasonable pollution controls that are designed to protect our natural resources and public health, and individual state agencies have the knowledge and experience necessary to safeguard these important assets. It is for these reasons that I have supported commonsense efforts in Congress to protect the environment and conserve lands for the enjoyment of future generations.

While I support sensible environmental protections, I am concerned about the excessive regulations coming out of the federal bureaucracy in recent years that needlessly impede job creation and harm Pennsylvania farmers. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA and other federal regulators were especially aggressive in proposing new rules that raised energy prices, imposed onerous compliance costs, undermined economic growth, and put Pennsylvanians out of work. I am hopeful that the Trump Administration will take a new direction and pursue a more balanced approach that is mindful of both our economy as well as our environment.

On March 16, 2017, President Trump released his fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint, which proposed reducing the EPA's budget by 30 percent compared to the current fiscal year. I understand your concerns about how federal budget cuts could impact environmental conservation in Pennsylvania, and it is important to know that the President's budget is only a proposal and has not been enacted into law. Please know that my staff and I are reviewing all areas of the President's budget blueprint, and I appreciate hearing your input.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

I'm going to be mean now...

.. because I'm letting emotion get the better of me.  That is not an apology.  We can not be cold and calculating.  We must have passion

And so, let me state several opinions very concisely:

• If you feel that providing for the lesser fortunate is a waste of money, you are cruel.
  
• If you feel that the current political and economic systems in the United States are fair, you are misguided.
  
• If you would hold others back so that you can advance, you are a loser.
  
• If you feel that health is a commodity, you are a fool.
  
• If you feel that any group of people is "... taking your...", you are a failure and are blaming your failure on others.  If you blame others for your failure, you will continue to be a failure.
  
• If you stand by, and watch, and do nothing, you are complicit.

I have been disgusted for so long that I can no longer be peaceable.  The counter-points no longer warrant consideration.  There is no common ground.  I no longer believe that ignorance is to blame.  I will no longer attempt to educate those who disagree.

The dismantling of social programs is barbaric and misanthropic, not misguided.  Reallocating funds from the arts to an already over-inflated military can only be the act of the hate-filled, not the insecure or those who have been lied to.  The lies are not the problem.  Those who have chosen to willfully deny facts to believe the lies are the problem.

I will now return to pursuing the avenues available to me to resist.

Because some people just don't get it

I am hesitant to write this, but also feel silence is complicity.

Black Lives Matter.  That is a simple statement.  It is also undeniable.  Yet when it became the name of an organization, it became an issue for some.  We started seeing "Blue Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" as almost retorts.

I am not a member of the Black Lives Matter Network.  I am not involved with their organization.  I do not speak for them.  I simply feel that their name is a powerful message in itself and that the responses to it and indicative of the need for the organization.

First of all, no one has ever really questioned if "Blue Lives Matter".  When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, streets are named after them, parades are held.  Murdering a police officer is a capital felony in many states.  Our popular culture is fascinated with law enforcement.  We believe law enforcement is a dangerous job.  In truth, taxi drivers are more likely to get shot than police officers while on the job and significantly more likely to do on the job period.  I am not going to belittle what law enforcement personnel do, their lives matter and we all know that.

Let me also state that in no rational world view are the lives of law enforcement personnel at odds with the people they serve and protect.  The use of deadly force should always be investigated simply because all homicides should be investigated.  Let me further state that the Black Lives Matter organization was created in response to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.  This heinous act was perpetrated by George Zimmerman, an insurance underwriter at the time.

On the other hand, we have individuals that seem to feel that we live in a post-racism society.  Dreaming of such a society is laudable.  Working towards such a society is a worthy endeavor.  But pretending we live in one is unconscionable.  If we filter out extremists, Gallup polls will still reveal that our opinions on guilt and innocence are shaped by the racial stereotypes that are a part of our culture.  The truth is that the deaths of certain members of our society are investigated with all the resources available and those found guilty are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  Obviously, no resource is unlimited, but no one can deny that our disparities and that those disparities align with demographics.

And thus we reach the point where there is a need for the phrase "Black Lives Matter".  Human beings destroy one another far too often.  The purpose of any system of justice is to evaluate guilt or fault and mete out an appropriate response.  What has happened time and again is that the justice system in this country has found individuals free of guilt despite significant evidence to the contrary.  It is not the tragic event, it is the response to the tragic event that is of concern.  In the last few years, video has been captured of some of these tragic events.  This has simply brought further light to an existing problem.

The simple fact is that the justice system in this country is not just.  This is not simply variations in media coverage.  That is a symptom, not a cause.  In the end, in dozens of cases that caught national attention and in hundreds of cases that didn't, the color of a persons skin was inseparable from the case.  

As long as any human being can fire multiple shots into the back of another human being and not be charged with and convicted of murder or manslaughter, there will be a need to stand up.  We can pretend that such an event does not happen.  We can pretend that such events happen equally across all demographics.  We can pretend that there are extenuating circumstances each and every time it happens.  

Or. we can stop pretending and start trying to fix something that has been broken for far too long.