j_b

Nobody claimed that regulations pushed by enemies of the social contract and by pols who sell out to private interests were in the public interest, but your current tune is a far cry from your usual all encompassing "regulations are strangling free enterprise" "The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB [Office of Management and Budget] from October 1, 2000, to September 30, 2010, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $132 billion and $655 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $44 billion and $62 billion. These ranges reflect uncertainty in the benefits and costs of each rule at the time that it was evaluated." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2011_cb/2011_cba_report.pdf

More strawmwen from the regulations-are-bad neoliberal corner. Of course, regulations have to account for the public interest, which demands that we elect politicians that will select competent bureaucrats and not enemies of the social contract like regressives have been promoting for as long as I have been alive.

Regulation can also be supported by big business to create barriers to competition...keep the little guys out. Its a double win, as the corporation also gets a public relations victory for "protecting the public" True, but isn't it ultimately about whether the regulation is sensible (both from a public interest and burden on industry aspect)? An article worth reading as it blows away most demagoguery about regulations: Why business love rules (really)

Could the difference be about disturbing breeding grounds?

well, it'd be anti-business because sensible regulations are good for business but it'd be pro-corporate because many modern corporations are mostly solely about short term gain.

Certainly is an issue on soft rock like limestone that becomes slippery and somewhat dangerous after decades of use. I always thought it presented a sustainability issue.

awww, poor kitty. I was told that cat meat was virtually not differentiable from rabbit. Any truth to it?

That's rich coming from a Bush dead-ender who never had anything to say about loss of "liberty" for the entire 2 terms.

Says who? You? laughable. I have extensively cited testimony against park creation from various interest groups a few posts above. Little is different today, including the rhetoric.

Some user groups, especially local pops, have always been opposed to extension of national parks. Nothing new. You haven't shown squat.

Advocacy for preservation is waning in your head. That's about the extent of it. Might I suggest you keep your spray in Spray? In other words, you have no evidence to substantiate your self-serving drivel (No, Connelly's opinion is not evidence of anything)

Right, there is a blackout on these issues and of progressive candidates challenging Obama from the left so it's not very surprising you don't hear about it. In the absence of progressive voices being given airtime to bring these topics to the fore, we are left with Mister it-was-all-better-during-robber-baron-time to posture as the champion of anti-warmongering. Sad.

I agree with you and I have been denouncing Obama's imperialist policies as well as his furthering of the security state. btw, Paul isn't the only player talking about these issues (rocky Anderson, green party candidate, etc) talk about the above and for the right reasons (contrarily to Paul)

right, I was being cautious in my formulation since I didn't have corroboration, which I have added to my post. btw, my quick perusal of the news shows that logging interests are still very much against any extension of the park as they were against its creation.

I suspect it's also unclear whether similar opposition by industry and various user groups existed for the creation of the park. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9789

Not very many politicians consider the 1850's as good as it gets.

Advocacy for preservation is waning in your head. That's about the extent of it.

There is a direct link between deregulation of the financial sector and trillions in bad assets owned by financial institutions that are at the core of a once in a century economic crisis yet trust libertarian nincompoops to claim that re-regulating is a bad idea. Same turds who claim their beliefs are evidence based

Smoking the carpet does strange things to one's brain.

Good article although it is obscenely mistaken in repeating that "Paul is on the right side of America’s most racist or racially fraught policies". Advocating that pulling oneself by ones bootstrap is the only social safety net needed for ethnicities discriminated against over the course of centuries is as racist as can be. I also find it telling that no challenge to Obama from his left is considered (green party, justice party, ..).

Well, all of this apparently started with an argument over guns during which he shot 4 people. I sincerely hope you don't work with vets in any official care capacity

Indeed, progressive supreme court justices and I (along with many others) will probably continue to fail seeing how legal business fictions are entitled to equal right protection intended for "we, the people".

Kev is right that effective regulation often isn't taking place but that's no reflection on the existence and effectiveness of regulations. It only shows that regulators aren't doing their job, which isn't surprising considering the free-marketeer ideology embraced by most elected officials.

I fail to see how extending 1st amendment rights to legal fictions like corporations reflects respect and support for the 1st amendment.