Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
To be fair, it's harder to understand the negative consequences of lead poisoning if you suffer from lead poisoning.
LMAO
“But if my constituents stop drinking lead, they will become woke and will stop believing the bullshit I’m pouring down their throats”
So, Kobach et al's complaint is that the plan to replace lead pipes is underfunded and so probably won't cause enough of an impact on lead levels in drinking water to even bother, and yet the reason it's underfunded is because Republicans specifically voted to not fund it properly. So instead of funding it 100% (or close to 100%), they chose to only fund about 1/3rd of what it would cost to replace all of the lead pipes.
It almost seems like Republicans want potential voters to imbibe neurotoxins that will negatively impact their IQ, harm their ability to concentrate, and make them more easily swayed by emotional appeals. I wonder why that could be?
Since they were only given 1/3 of the budget, they should announce that they’ll only be removing lead from low income districts (which the Republicans have red-lined into being largely black neighborhoods). See if fomo changes their minds.
It won't change their minds, because they already think it's not their problem. Their water doesn't have lead, they presume.
It almost seems like Republicans want potential voters to imbibe neurotoxins that will negatively impact their IQ, harm their ability to concentrate, and make them more easily swayed by emotional appeals. I wonder why that could be?
This is my tin foil hat explanation. Also poor areas with more black and ethnic minority people are more likely to have lead pipes and it leads to increased crime and violence, thus further stoking racial tensions and increasing support for racist policy and therefore republicans
One of the problems with lead poisoning is you end up too stupid to know what lead poisoning is
Which is the way the GOP likes it. Dumb people don't question their authoritarian rule.
I love how they say it could cost 47 billion dollars and this was only for 15 billion so they fight to say replacing the pipes is highly underfunded. The request was for 45 billion and his party demanded lower amounts and only allotted 15 then went on to call it underfunded now to try to get it canceled.
They say it could take years to get inner city places like Chicago all taken care of... So let me guess, their plan is to wait longer and hurt us more, doesn't that usually mean you would start immediately?
He makes a logical argument with sound reasoning, logical conclusions and a definitive solution. The facts are clear and there is no ambiguity.
No wonder they dont understand, because its not the immigrants, trans- or black-people at fault here.
Fitting how the average republican consistently behaves exactly like a person suffering from lead-poisoning...
Maybe he should have said that Lead is black, and illegally coming to our country and stealing our jobs.
Should have led with "lead is woke" and they'd be tripping over themselves to ban it
I was listening to Know Your Enemy's recent podcast titled Why the Right Loves Foreign Dictators (would definitely recommend a listen), and I came to a realization:
American conservative beliefs are not based on reality. That seems obvious, especially to this crowd, but like, the conservative dispossession of reality-based beliefs goes deep. Their version of rationality is adherence to an ideology and that is how they interpret the beliefs of others.
In this case, it manifests as opposing the removal of lead water pipes in the honest belief that, regardless of their danger—which is speculative to this idiot—it's too expensive and "infringes" on rights. The value of lead pipe removal derives from whether its economically beneficial and its comportment with his idea of what infringes on rights, rather than on...you know...the scientifically proven damaging effects of lead.
Because he interprets the beliefs of others as perceived adherence to some ideology (which he almost certainly doesn't understand), he dismisses the solid scientific evidence as speculative. It's ideology vs ideology for him. Scientific claims are just another ideology.
To generalize, that's why the pro-life movement "helps" women, that's why be against welfare "supports" the nation, that's why supporting Putin "defends" liberty, and that's why voting for Trump makes America "great". It's not about real results, it's just pure ideological adherence from the bottom to the top. It's fitting that Trump is their messiah. He's the greatest bullshitter modern politics has ever seen.
that’s why opposing Putin “defends” liberty
You lost me here. Could you explain?
I’m guessing they meant to say supporting
Why do you help moderate the largest conservative Lemmy community then?
It seems you’re just helping legitimize their beliefs.
I came oh-so-close to moderating a conservative community and I am quite vocally opposed to conservatism.
I'm hoping that maybe some conservative communities on Lemmy are moderated by normal (non-conservative) people who can keep the conservatives within the bounds of their instance's guidelines. Perhaps this is one such moderator. That would certainly be better than letting conservatives moderate a community. We've seen how that turns out.
Their version of rationality is adherence to an ideology and that is how they interpret the ~~beliefs~~ motives of others.
Motives is a better word than beliefs. Other than that I've come to the same conclusion.
Conservatives deeply depend on ideology. This is why they say everything is a slippery slope, because their own plan is to keep going with their ideology. They can't understand that others want to do one action, without some secret grand plan to ____.
My conspiracy theory is on some level, conservatives are aware that their worldview is at least in part a symptom of lead poisoning induced brain damage, so they rely on lead poisoning for votes.
Those people coming to read you water meter, nope, that's just a cover! They're actually putting lead pellets into a secret chamber to contaminate your water so all the tests upstream of you show its safe!
Considering all the conspiracy theories involving fluoride in the water supply, you'd think they'd catch on to the actually dangerous lead in the water supply and come up with conspiracies involving that instead.
Lead paint was banned in the U.S. in 1978 because of its toxicity. This stuff can and will kill you.
Conservatives need to stop treating every deadly poison like a "who can chug the most beer contest." This isn't a game (unless you're a company seeking to bypass lead restrictions, in which case it's totally a game to YOU).
Here's something wild: it was only banned for residential use. As long as the paint is labeled 'for industrial use only', manufacturers can go crazy with the lead. Despite the common misconception of lead exposure via paint being primarily due to "eating paint chips", it's mostly due to the inhalation and ingestion of the dust formed by friction and the gradual breakdown of lead paint. To get to the point, living downwind of any business that still utilizes legal lead paint means you may be exposed to lead.
Ingesting lead can and will kill you, and it will impair your cognitive functioning in the meantime. Lead was banned from automobile gasoline in 1975, but it was too late. There are small amounts of lead in the air and water, almost everywhere, that will remain for centuries and that were not there before cars,
Yeah but the market provides a solution! If you don’t want lead in your water, just buy bottled water, silly!
As an actual water service professional, I kind of get it. If you control pH and add corrosion inhibitors like orthophosphate, lead pipe are not a problem. Flint fiscal managers decided to skip this to save money.
Unfortunately the plan is a largely unfounded mandate ($15B won’t even cover 10% of lead lines) with a timeline that will further jack up the price due to everyone competing for materials and contractors.
The vast majority of lead poisoning comes from old paint, not lead water pipes (and leaded gasoline before that … or now if you live downwind from a general aviation airport as piston aircraft STILL use leaded gas. Yet we won’t ban that ‘cause rich people own those planes).
Not that it isn’t good to remove lead. It’s just the aggressive timeline. It would be smarter to have a longer timeline where it is paired with replacing the main as well, as it is a smaller marginal cost to do both at the same time. The corrosion control can buy us plenty of time. I personally have a lead connection and a state licensed lab detected zero lead in my water.
But to phrase it as a state’s rights issue and claim the benefits are speculative is stupid.
As an actual aviation professional, I'm going to object to "waterworks made of lead pipes: too expensive to fix. 100LL aviation gasoline: Rich people refuse to change."
First of all, rich people own jets, which don't burn leaded gasoline.
Aircraft tend to last longer in service than cars do; airplanes are expensive machines. You'll also find that they don't change very quickly because certifying aircraft components such as engines is a very expensive thing to do. Plus, YOU go get an insurance company to cover a new type of aircraft they don't already have accident statistics for.
But, things are happening. So lemme tell ya what has, is, and will be done to reduce and eliminate leaded gasoline from our skies:
The Light Sport rule. in 2004 new certification standards for aircraft, pilots and repairmen were created which opened up the small end of general aviation. We basically didn't have anything that resembled Europe's "ultralight" rules. USA's Ultralight rules (FAR part 103) more closely resembled Europe's "Microlight" rules. The vast majority of light sport aircraft are powered by Rotax 900-series engines, or Jabiru or the occasional Continental O-200, all of which can run on unleaded automotive gasoline. Every single hour of instruction I've given to a student has been on unleaded gasoline. There's a proposal right now to expand the Light Sport rule that will do anything from increase the scope of what can be certified as a Light Sport Aircraft, and to open their operating limitations. For instance right now as I type this it is illegal to operate a Light Sport Aircraft for compensation or hire except to provide flight training. They're looking to open them up to things like aerial photography, pipeline patrol etc. which would not only allow these operations to be performed on unleaded gasoline, but less gasoline overall. A Cessna 172 burns between 6 and 8 gallons of 100LL per hour, a Flight Design CT burns between 2.5 and 5 gallons of premium MOGAS per hour. Every operation that can switch to a Light Sport Aircraft can reduce their carbon footprint and eliminate their lead footprint.
Diesel engines. I've seen both Cessna and Diamond install turbo-diesels based on some Mercedes-Benz engine, intending to run these on Jet-A fuel which is and always has been unleaded. It's been slow going though; Diamond only offers this on their Twinstar model (and they had some issues with it for awhile; there were some made with Lycoming gasoline engines) and Cessna canceled theirs.
The EAGLE initiative has set a goal to Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions by 2030 by finding a fuel acceptable to replace 100LL in service. This is non-trivial, the testing on all the various engines in service on some surprisingly old aircraft, not only their power plants but the fuel systems as a whole is significant. Many airplanes can't tolerate ethanol as a fuel additive because it will react with sealants used in the tanks and lines, for instance.
Rich people have prop planes. You don't have to be Elon Musk private jet rich to be rich. If you own even a 1960s Cessna 172 costs tens of thousands, not to mention thousands a year in maintenance to keep it airworthy, with regular inspections and overhalls, not to mention storage costs as you will need a hanger or at least a tie-down at some airfield. If you own an airworthy aircraft, you are well within the top 10% at least, and likely in the top 1%. I really am tired of people who act like because there are people far richer than them that it somehow means they cannot be rich. There are degrees of being rich.
Yes, planes last a long time. So what? Is that an excuse to poison people with lead? The fact is, children who live close to airports have higher lead levels..
If you want to talk about lasting a long time, try houses. My utility banned lead as a connection material in 1953. But there are 140,000 that were installed before then that are still active. We are not getting a pass on it in 2024 like aviation does.
Led gasoline was banned in 1996. The EPA started to phase it out in 1973. Aviation has had plenty of time to get moving on alternatives, but they have drug their feet. They don't get kudos for doing something about lead now.
First of all, rich people own jets, which don’t burn leaded gasoline.
I can't speak to the rest of your post, but if you own and maintain even the smallest Cessna for personal use, you are rich to me, and you are rich to anyone I've ever known personally, and you are rich to most people. That's like saying owning a Ferrari doesn't make you rich.
The Brookings Institution, a social policy think tank, noted that the actual cost of replacing all of the nation’s lead pipes is closer to $47 billion. The Biden administration originally requested $45 billion for the project, but congressional Republicans negotiated the amount down to $15 billion. The institute also noted that replacing pipes in crowded urban cities like Chicago could take 40 to 50 years.
So it is underfunded, because Republicans didn't want to fully fund the effort.
Also, when they talk about "homeowners" replacing their lead pipes, what they really mean is "landlords." Homeowners have an interest in replacing lead pipes because there will be an ROI when they sell, and also the improved quality of life (not spending money on lead filters or bottled water, no cognitive impairment, etc).
The losers in this situation are the corportate slumlords for whom it will cost more to replace water pipes, and who will not see most of the benefit. They'll have a hard time justifying raising the rent by saying "now the water is no longer toxic."
Rhymes with "I love the poorly educated"
"I love victims of lead poisoning"
Cue the lead truthers.
Having a nice buildup of lead in your body actually blocks the 5G signals that your COVID vaccine nanobots would otherwise be receiving from the government, actually!
Even Superman can't see through lead. Which means we should all be ingesting as much lead as possible to stop the guvmnt from tracking us.
How is this real. Yikes.
First time?
There was a republican senator who once brought a snowball into Congress to prove climate change is a hoax.
There was once a republican congressman who claimed a woman's body would self abort the fetus if it was a rape.
I don't remember their names, nor do I care to.
And another that was worried the island of Guam would tip over if overpopulated.
And MTGs secret Jewish space lasers thing.
Congresspeople have shockingly little oversight from their constituents.
There was also a congressman that asked an admiral if he was worried that the island would tip over if they put a navy base on it.
You know because that happens sometimes.
Roy Atkins was the rape senator. Happened my senior of highschool, and he was running to be our senator.
Todd Akin. He also died of cancer a few years ago, so that's one nice thing cancer has done.
Don't forget about Congressman Hank Johnson who was concerned about Marines being stationed in Guam because of his fear that "the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."