HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cerridwen » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Las Vegas, Nevada
Home country: United Corporate States of the US
Current location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Member since: Thu Jun 24, 2004, 10:32 AM
Number of posts: 13,234

About Me

Hairy, scary, pro-abortion, 'rad fem', doing my best to piss off the "religious" right and MRAs everywhere.

Journal Archives

Earth Day: "Once upon a time in the US..."

"Once upon a time in the US..." or, how far our priorities have shifted.

Wiki has a pretty good write-up on this as it's not too controversial.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)


NEPA came into existence following increased appreciation for the environment, and growing concerns about ecological and wildlife well-being; indeed, the public outcry after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill was perhaps the leading catalyst. An Eisenhower-era Outdoor Recreation report, a Wilderness Act, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, along with Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, all reflect the growing concerns, public interest group efforts, and legislative discussion involved.[4] Another major driver for enacting NEPA were the freeway revolts that occurred in response to the bulldozing of many communities and ecosystems around the country as the Interstate Highway System was being built during the 1960s. The law has since been applied to any project, federal, state or local, that involves federal funding, work performed by the federal government, or permits issued by a federal agency. Court decisions throughout the law's history have expanded the requirement for NEPA-related environmental studies to include actions where permits from a federal agency are required, regardless of whether or not federal funds are spent implementing the action. Although enacted on January 1, 1970, its "short title" is "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969."


The preamble reads:

"To declare national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation..." (emphasis added)

Imagine my surprise when I read the:

Legislative history

- Introduced in the Senate as S. 1075 by Henry M. Jackson on February 18, 1969
- Committee consideration by: Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
- Passed the Senate on July 10, 1969 (Unanimous)
- Passed the House of Representatives on September 23, 1969 (372-15)

- Reported by the joint conference committee on December 17, 1969; agreed to by the Senate on December 20, 1969 () and by the House of Representatives on December 23, 1969 ()
- Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970 (emphasis added)

Or when I read that Nixon "expanded" the mandate of the CEQ and placed it "within the executive office":

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

The CEQ was modeled after the Council of Economic Advisers created by the employment act of 1946. Shortly after the act was signed into law, President Nixon expanded the CEQ's mandate by Executive Order directing it to issue guidelines to federal agencies for the proper preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and to assemble and coordinate federal programs related to environmental quality. The Council was placed within the executive office of the President and is composed of three members. These members must be appointed by the president and subsequently confirmed by the Senate. The CEQ has some fundamental roles which include assisting and advising the President in the preparation of the annual environmental quality report on the present progress of federal agencies in implementing the act, on national policies to nurture and promote the improvement of environmental quality and on the current state of the environment. (emphasis added)

Nixon was hardly an environmentalist. He was however, president during a time the US population appeared unified in its concern about the human impact on the environment. He was also president during a time in which the president was considered to be the president of the US; not just the president of the "red" or "blue" parts of the US.

Then I went on to read about the Freeway Revolts that contributed to the passage of NEPA and helps to show the sentiment of the people of the US and around the world during that time.

I have less faith in the freeway revolts wiki as it seems to have some opinion wandering around as fact. I include it, however, as you can follow the link and scroll to your state and read about how it impacted the freeway system there.

How far we've moved from those ideals in a short 43 years. How polarized we've become in that same short time frame.

ann rmoney is not trying to make herself "like us" or "mainstream".

she is trying to make herself *exceptional*.

You see, she was able to stay at home and bear and rear 5 boys and that is why it is "so despicable" that those "lazy welfare queens" and those "career women" are an "abomination".

Some are missing the dog-whistle.

Much like shlafley jetted around the US telling women to 'stay home and take care of their children' and few noticed the hypocrisy; annie is making the same point; and some will be so caught up in the manufactured "mommy wars(tm)" they won't notice her trust fund, her various homes, her gargantuan privilege, and so on.

brewer's AZ bill and "menopause babies".

This is what happens when legislation isn't based on science.

As I understand the new law, the gestational age of the fetus is counting back to the last menstrual cycle of the woman. Is that correct?

Now, read and think about this:

When a woman goes through menopause, her body phases out menstrual cycles until they stop all together. The woman may go for months or even a year between having one period and the next. This long time frame is at the heart of the undiscovered menopause baby.

During the time when the female body is not having a menstrual cycle, the body may still be releasing those last few eggs. If the egg is released and there is a viable sperm waiting to fertilize the egg, the female can, and will, get pregnant.

Thanks to the lack of a normal menstrual cycle, the female may not notice they are pregnant until they are months into the pregnancy. There have even been cases where mothers of climbing age have gone to the hospital with stomach and back pains only to leave the hospital a few days later with a baby in their arms.

From this link: http://www.babymed.com/gettting-pregnant-during-menopause

"A year between having one period and the next"

Based on an exceptional case, it is conceivable (pun intended) that the gestational age of the fetus - based on the AZ law - would make what would normally be a 16-week pregnancy (~4 months) into a 16 month pregnancy? I wonder how many 21-month-old babies will be born in AZ in the coming months and years? *sigh*

Why would neo-cons be anti-HIPAA?

This question is part rhetorical and part WTF?

Several weeks ago I took note of an article in my local neo-con, online, rag in which a neo-con pundit attacks HIPAA as 'anti sunshine'.

I won't provide a link as it's from a source known to go after DU for 'intellectual property rights.'

It is posted at the Las Vegas review journal site and is entitled " HIPAA an affront to sunshine" by glenn cook; our 'resident' neo-con pundit. It was posted March 11, 2012.

I took note of it because it didn't make any sense to conflate a criminal investigation into ethical standards of politicians (seriously?!) with HIPAA. It was too weird.

I have a long history of tracking the media's reporting of events and their spin on said events. My BS meter went ballistic.

Trial balloon? Foreshadowing? Whatever.

My best guess - somewhat informed - is that ALEC, neo-cons, the republican party, are going after HIPAA next.

I've found some vague dots to connect; but not yet anything substantial.

If you're in the medical industry, especially medical coding, please keep an eye out for a "Obamacare"=HIPAA="bad for business"="we want to invade your privacy while pretending PRIVACY is sacrosanct" theme.

There is something called ICD-10 compliance which adds to this puzzle.

Something is up. Stay vigilant. There will start to be many anti-HIPAA stories.

Go to Page: 1