For my part, I have and do hear people protesting what's happened in Flint... Just not to the same degree. I certainly heard Sanders, Clinton and the Dems speechifying on it.
I think the difference in scale is that the folk in ND are protesting an eminent disaster, trying to stop something before it happens and can't easily be undone.
Seems reasonable to me. Do you support them?
Do you think the police/hired security action against them has been extreme? Horrifying?
1. I think that at least some of the inconsistency in how the two are being treated is that the Flint crisis is closely linked to the political affiliation of those who have historically controlled the government in MI and Flint/Detroit.
2. The Flint crisis has been going on for months? Years? yet virtually nothing has been done to correct it.
3. At this point the ND protests are about something that might potentially happen at some possible point in the future, as opposed to something that is actually happening now.
4. It does seem as if the LE response has been disproportionate, but virtually everything I've seen has been pro-protesters propaganda so I can't speak authoritatively on it.
5. I think the ND situation hits so many hot button issues for the left (while the Flint situation draws attention to failure on the left) that it's just easier.
6. I also think the ND situation lends itself to this faux social media activism and the ability to frame things in a propaganda sense that Flint just doesn't have.
7. Interestingly, your response actually agrees with my point. That the level of protest is significantly disproportionate and that the coverage of Flint is virtually non existent when compared to ND.
Perhaps you don't circulate in left-ish circles, but there is plenty of anger towards/speaking out against what's happened in Flint (which damage was begun by the GOP governor, although mistakes/missed opportunities have happened all around). As to "who's to blame/what went wrong," here's what the GOP governor's own task force had to say, according to an article in The Atlantic... The task force the Republican governor appointed delivered its report on Wednesday, a scathing 116-page chronicle of how residents of the state’s seventh-largest city ended up with high levels of lead in their drinking water—as well as contamination by carcinogenic compounds and an outbreak of Legionnaire’s disease. “The Flint water crisis is a story of government failure, intransigence, unpreparedness, delay, inaction, and environmental injustice,” the report declares at the outset. Taken as a whole, the report places the majority of blame on the state government and its executive branch. In particular, the report blames Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality and emergency managers appointed to run Flint by the governor as the primary culprits in the disaster. It notes that Flint was not under the control of elected officials at the time, and confirms it was the city’s emergency manager who made the decision to switch Flint’s water supply. (For why that switch occurred, go here.) And it takes Snyder to task, noting that ultimate responsibility for Michigan’s executive branch rests with him. I guess, for many of us, one can't constantly criticize and actively strive to diminish and pull teeth from the EPA (and its state counterparts) and then, when something goes wrong, blame the EPA for not being vigilant enough. You don't get to have it both ways, is a reasonable conclusion to reach.
IF we want to have strong environmental protection to prevent/alleviate problems like this one in Flint, THEN you support environmental regulatory work.
IF some work to undermine and defund the EPA, etc, THEN those who worked to undermine it get the blame when something goes wrong, not the EPA.
Seems reasonable to many of us on the Left who have been outraged and working for justice in Flint.
One way to work for justice in Flint and in ND is to work to see a strong EPA. Can we find common ground in that effort?
your response actually agrees with my point. That the level of protest is significantly disproportionate and that the coverage of Flint is virtually non existent when compared to ND.
Not disproportionate. You misunderstand. The damage has been done in Flint. There are efforts to correct it underway and people have been warned away from consuming water.
In ND, the damage is looming. They are trying to PREVENT a water disaster before it happens. Thus, the urgency in protesting to stop the potential of harm BEFORE it happens.
That makes the larger protest apt.
Now, do you agree that we should support efforts at preventing Flints and ND-type disasters before they happen? Will you stand with Standing Rock?
Given that there is no actual ND disaster. Given that the pipeline folks went through years of approval process. Given that these people are protesting something that might happen at some point in a hypothetical future. No, I see no reason to stand with them in protesting imaginary possibilities.
I do decry any and all overreaction on the part of authorities. I also support their right to peacefully and lawfully protest things whether in reality or imagination.
FYI you might want to check out the approval process they went through. From the news reports I've read, they went to great lengths to address safety concerns as well as to involve all interested parties.
I'd be interested to know how many often protesters are locals, and how many of the non locals are being paid to be there.
A point of confusion: the Atlantic article states...
It notes that Flint was not under the control of elected officials at the time..."
If this is the case, how can elected officials at the time be held accountable. Are they not responsible only for that which is under their control? Why not hold them accountable for that which happens in Alaska, for all that occurs there is also not under their control.
8 comments:
I and my community support clean water in both places.
I'm glad that people in ND are fighting for it and support people in Flint doing more of it.
You?
For my part, I have and do hear people protesting what's happened in Flint... Just not to the same degree. I certainly heard Sanders, Clinton and the Dems speechifying on it.
And protests have happened in Flint...
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/150_crowd_michigan_capitol_in.html
I think the difference in scale is that the folk in ND are protesting an eminent disaster, trying to stop something before it happens and can't easily be undone.
Seems reasonable to me. Do you support them?
Do you think the police/hired security action against them has been extreme? Horrifying?
1. I think that at least some of the inconsistency in how the two are being treated is that the Flint crisis is closely linked to the political affiliation of those who have historically controlled the government in MI and Flint/Detroit.
2. The Flint crisis has been going on for months? Years? yet virtually nothing has been done to correct it.
3. At this point the ND protests are about something that might potentially happen at some possible point in the future, as opposed to something that is actually happening now.
4. It does seem as if the LE response has been disproportionate, but virtually everything I've seen has been pro-protesters propaganda so I can't speak authoritatively on it.
5. I think the ND situation hits so many hot button issues for the left (while the Flint situation draws attention to failure on the left) that it's just easier.
6. I also think the ND situation lends itself to this faux social media activism and the ability to frame things in a propaganda sense that Flint just doesn't have.
7. Interestingly, your response actually agrees with my point. That the level of protest is significantly disproportionate and that the coverage of Flint is virtually non existent when compared to ND.
Perhaps you don't circulate in left-ish circles, but there is plenty of anger towards/speaking out against what's happened in Flint (which damage was begun by the GOP governor, although mistakes/missed opportunities have happened all around).
As to "who's to blame/what went wrong," here's what the GOP governor's own task force had to say, according to an article in The Atlantic...
The task force the Republican governor appointed delivered its report on Wednesday, a scathing 116-page chronicle of how residents of the state’s seventh-largest city ended up with high levels of lead in their drinking water—as well as contamination by carcinogenic compounds and an outbreak of Legionnaire’s disease. “The Flint water crisis is a story of government failure, intransigence, unpreparedness, delay, inaction, and environmental injustice,” the report declares at the outset.
Taken as a whole, the report places the majority of blame on the state government and its executive branch. In particular, the report blames Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality and emergency managers appointed to run Flint by the governor as the primary culprits in the disaster. It notes that Flint was not under the control of elected officials at the time, and confirms it was the city’s emergency manager who made the decision to switch Flint’s water supply. (For why that switch occurred, go here.) And it takes Snyder to task, noting that ultimate responsibility for Michigan’s executive branch rests with him.
I guess, for many of us, one can't constantly criticize and actively strive to diminish and pull teeth from the EPA (and its state counterparts) and then, when something goes wrong, blame the EPA for not being vigilant enough. You don't get to have it both ways, is a reasonable conclusion to reach.
IF we want to have strong environmental protection to prevent/alleviate problems like this one in Flint, THEN you support environmental regulatory work.
IF some work to undermine and defund the EPA, etc, THEN those who worked to undermine it get the blame when something goes wrong, not the EPA.
Seems reasonable to many of us on the Left who have been outraged and working for justice in Flint.
One way to work for justice in Flint and in ND is to work to see a strong EPA.
Can we find common ground in that effort?
your response actually agrees with my point. That the level of protest is significantly disproportionate and that the coverage of Flint is virtually non existent when compared to ND.
Not disproportionate. You misunderstand. The damage has been done in Flint. There are efforts to correct it underway and people have been warned away from consuming water.
In ND, the damage is looming. They are trying to PREVENT a water disaster before it happens. Thus, the urgency in protesting to stop the potential of harm BEFORE it happens.
That makes the larger protest apt.
Now, do you agree that we should support efforts at preventing Flints and ND-type disasters before they happen? Will you stand with Standing Rock?
Given that there is no actual ND disaster. Given that the pipeline folks went through years of approval process. Given that these people are protesting something that might happen at some point in a hypothetical future. No, I see no reason to stand with them in protesting imaginary possibilities.
I do decry any and all overreaction on the part of authorities. I also support their right to peacefully and lawfully protest things whether in reality or imagination.
FYI you might want to check out the approval process they went through. From the news reports I've read, they went to great lengths to address safety concerns as well as to involve all interested parties.
I'd be interested to know how many often protesters are locals, and how many of the non locals are being paid to be there.
A point of confusion: the Atlantic article states...
It notes that Flint was not under the control of elected officials at the time..."
If this is the case, how can elected officials at the time be held accountable. Are they not responsible only for that which is under their control? Why not hold them accountable for that which happens in Alaska, for all that occurs there is also not under their control.
Post a Comment