Over the past three decades the EPA believes it has finally done the work to show that this ban is the "least burdensome alternative," but there is no guarantee that the courts will agree this time either. The politicization of the judiciary is not new, certainly, but seems to have gotten worse over the past three decades.
Ah yes. Well-known for its general view that the United States is a diktat-by-judge, and that mere laws are irrelevant.
Wouldn't a change in law override the judges? (Unless the judges based their ruling on the constitution, which doesn't sound like the case here.)
1) "Conservatism" these days would arguably be a US phenomenon as leading democracy in the Anglophone world. They certainly didn't get started supporting a monarchy.
2) And it is really interesting to note that, while I think monarchies are stupid, it was a remarkably good strategy. As far as I know (my history might be about to betray me) the UK didn't have an equivalent of the Terror after the French revolution or the period where the French killed off people like Lavoisier. To say nothing of the debacles in places like Russia (Communists) or Germany (Nazis) when they moved away from monarchism.
The UK probably should get rid of the King; but in hindsight a slow transition is arguably the cleverer path. It is a complex topic; the aristocrats in Europe are systematically underwhelming.
The UK didn’t have the Terror, but afaik it did have at least a civil war because of the monarchy, a few centuries ago.
Rather than the monarchy in itself, I suspect it’s the monarch(s) that make it or break it…
Cromwell.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
I'll avoid suggesting the root is racism, but more and more its becoming harder to do that. Between the pretty blatant racist rants of the leader, to the embrace of far-right fundamentalists, it seems like a common thread.
As for public intrusion of private lives, even that seems hazy. Where does public intrusion end and private life start? For example are private medical choices a matter of public policy? Are the choices about which books to read at the library public or private?
In a two party system many voters can be left without a home when their preferred party swings off in a different direction. And while no voter is going to always be happy with their chosen group, the risk of homelessness goes up as the preferred choice swings away from traditional premises.
For many conservatives (small c) the current direction of Conservative Leaders (big C) is not ok. But changing allegiance is mentally traumatic.
I think your premise can be both accurate, and currently invalid. It sure doesn't seem like "minimal public intrusion" right now. If you had to decide which party represents "live and let live", which party wants personal freedoms, which party prioritizes individual choices, well, I'd argue it's not the nominally "conservative" one.
If I had to put a fence around it, I'd suggest the root of conservatism is more "govt working in the interests of the rich/aristocracy/establishment." The "people in power before there was a vote".
Charitably described as "keep things the way they are", or less charitably as "return to when our group had riches and power".
So "labor" is getting govt to work for the masses, "conservative" us getting govt to work for those already established, and libitarianism is scaling govt back, and letting people do whatever they like.
Political parties try and be all things to all men.
In some countries (where there are more than two parties) there's more likely to be different parties to cover these bases.
As a self-identified conservative, if I had to give as short a summary as possible of what it means to me: we (US, other developed nations) have a pretty good thing going. The least well off 10% here live better lives than the top 10% of a large number of places. That didn't happen by magic or accident, it happened because the people who preceded ud, over centuries of history, made some very good choices. We should figure out what they did right, and then keep doing it.
You're absolutely blind if you think that. Tell me, in what place do the top 10% live worse life than the bottom 10% in the USA? Keep in mind, the bottom decile of income in the USA is $10k/year - think about how a person that earns that lives.
That's before taxes and transfers. It's much more than that once you account for them.
Meanwhile, around 50% of the world's households make less than $10,000/yr: https://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-househo...
2. We're talking about comparing with the top 10%. Try to follow the context before replying.
Slavery, settler colonialism modulo a bit of indigenous genocide, toppling democracies and supporting dictators all over the place, exploiting the natural world until it cried "mommy" and then keeping at it until we now have a gigantic environmental and climate crisis, and let's not forget investing more than anyone else on the world's most powerful military which was then used to invade agrarian societies armed with their grandparents' hand-me-down pea-shooters, and of course dropping two atom bombs and killing a couple hundred civilians in one of the worst atrocities of the worst war in history just to show who's boss.
etc etc etc.
Edit: as a matter of fact, the US did get something very right that everyone else keeps getting wrong: it invested in human capital by keeping its borders relatively open during at least some periods of time, so that people could keep coming in that eventually became the most dynamic sections of society. Very few others have done that, and almost nobody got it as right as the US. And yet, it is the "conservatives" today in the US that try their damnedest to kick the door shut against the windfall of human capital that keeps dropping in their lap, even as they keep outsourcing the US' most productive industries to one of its biggest competitors, China. That's not conservative, it's reactionary and completely idiotic to boot.
It'd be helpful if you read about historical events before adopting an opinion on them:
https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-Invasion/...
>and of course dropping two atom bombs and killing a couple hundred civilians in one of the worst atrocities of the worst war in history just to show who's boss.
Is the book saying that:
a) two atom bombs were not dropped,
b) that they didn't kill a couple hundred civilians,
c) that it wasn't one of the worst atrocities in WWII,
d) that WWII was not one of the worst wars in history, or
e) that it didn't show how's boss?
or all of the above? To be honest I can't see any of the points above discussed in the summary of the book on Amazon. Explain?
Quite contrary, majority believes US falls back behind on almost everything (as it should be statistically).
But I belive the original snark, and explanation, wete referring to the majority of people living inside the US. From that perspective there's an implicit understanding that the US leads the way (in every field) and their approach to society is best (in all contexts.)
This is of course evidenced by the number of people who desire to live there, and hence the immigration issues. (Immigration issues being a uniquely US phenomenon.)
I live in US. I keep hearing stories how everything is better in Europe (they tend to cherry-pick good stories from different EU countries). The only areas where we get a consensus that US leads the way are probably gun rights and large pickup-trucks.
This ban eliminates immediately all use in the US, including chlorine plants.
The 2005 EU “ban” on asbestos has an exception for chlorine plants. This will eventually be phased out in 1 July 2025.
Jeeze EU, get with the times! Why does the US have to demonstrate the right path before you take it? /s
https://chemycal.com/news/e6b71d43-1892-454c-80a9-740207f556...
There is a ton of asbestos currently in Australian households. Plenty of aussies drink water collected in tanks off of asbestos cement roofs.
Historically, it was used a lot. My father even remembers playing around in the bush as a kid, and using asbestos for chalk a bunch of time to mark stuff on trees. My friends dad also remembers coming home covered in asbestos after work a bunch of times too.
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment about seeing asbestos in nice neighbourhoods. It depends how you define nice.
Asbestos was banned in 2003,but hasn't been used in housing since the 80s, so it's only going to be in older developments that you'll really encounter it.
Your wording regarding "plenty of Aussies" is also unclear to me. The numbers as a percentage are going to be very low, but it undoubtedly is a thing.
I agree my usage of "plenty" was more in absolute terms. It is probably thousands to tens of thousands, which is small in percentage terms. I also spent a lot of time on Australian farms, and they have lots of asbestos sheets buried in places. Most farmers would rather pile it up or bury it then pay the costs of having it removed properly.
Yet it’s heavily upvoted?