Crew Rushes to Get to Trapped W.Va. Miners

[shield772]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e_explosion_21

TALLMANSVILLE, W.Va. - A coal mine explosion that may have been sparked by lightning trapped 13 miners 260 feet below ground Monday, and rescuers went in to find them after waiting almost 12 agonizing hours for dangerous gases to clear.

Not really a debate, just asking for good thoughts and prayers, want these guys all out.

[Chris]

If you don't mind I will move this to Breaking News. (as other news outlets are treating it as such)

[Jimmy the Pro]

why put something on a debate forum and then ask not to debate it?

prayers to them.

[Chris]

No he asked not to debate it... placing it in Gen Disc. But I moved it here so that when someone wants to start a thread about it in the breaking news folder. They dont overlook this one as it was started first, and make a duplicate thread.

[Scribbler1]

I wish them all the best luck.

[Osborn F Enready]

A damn shame about the bad information that they spread around like wildfire.

A damn shame period.... :(

[lsbskins1]

I have a question for all you "Free Marketers" out there... News is, this mine had 96 major safety violations in the last year, and something like 206 total violations. Can I, as a consumer, use the free market to my advantage and refuse electricity from coal that was pulled from this mine? How, exactally, without "evil government regulation", i.e., real enforcement from the government in the form of fines that mean it is more expensive for these assholes to say "screw safety" than it is for them to do the right thing. Maybe this was a freak, natural accident. I doubt it though.

[Osborn F Enready]

How much are the fines? Where does the money go? Is the fine LESS than the money it would take to conform to the laws?

I would say no, you don't have a LOT of choice in boycotting the company, since almost all that exist today are monopolized to a point of essentially a few owners anyway.

Thanks to the 14th amendment, and its abuse by corporations, this is about to become the "norm" in all markets in this nation, and others.

[lsbskins1]

Osborn-

I was basically employing sarcasm as a means of making a point. Obviously, I can't turn off my water-heater from 6 pm till 9 pm because that is when this companies coal is in the furnace at Appalachian Power Company. That was the point. I mean, I just would like those who believe that government regulation is a great evil to give me a viable alternative. How does the market correct for this? They don't believe in Unions, so collective power exerted by the workers can't fix it. They don't believe in government regulation, so voter outrage and demands for legislation and enforcement can't fix it. How do they fix it? Or, do they believe that the price you pay for a paycheck and black lung exposure is taking your chances that you will die underground. Just wondering?

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said:
That was the point. I mean, I just would like those who believe that government regulation is a great evil to give me a viable alternative. How does the market correct for this?

I say:
In a free market? The market would have never let it get so far out of hand. Companies like this get out of hand because they have long ago swallowed or merged with any real competitors, thanks to our abuse of our laws that goes unquestioned, unchallenged, and uninvestigated.

This is NOT capitalism in a free market dude. This is a market that is regularly affected by global sanctions of one type or another, by one nation or another, mostly our own though. This market is affected by tons of false information and false agitators.(like war) The numbers are manipulated at every facet, from state to federal. Just arriving at a TRUE number is a problem these days, since both major parties claim different sets of numbers, and they are both fuged in their own favor.

A free market put in place today, without any regulation would be a critical mistake if the monopolies weren't broken up, and the Constitution wasn't in place as written at ratification at the minimum. I obviosuly am against slavery and unequal rights for women also, so that would have to stay too since we should by now all understand the fallacy of slavery whether based on skin or sex. I am not an anarchist, I am closest to a libertarian, and they are not anarchists either.

Libertarians are not anti-regulation, they are for regulation as DEFINED in the contract that GRANTS government power at the PERMISSION of the people, through CONTRACT.

Isbskins said:
They don't believe in Unions, so collective power exerted by the workers can't fix it.

I say:
Who doesn't believe in unions, and do you care to clarify which type of union?

Isbskins said:
They don't believe in government regulation, so voter outrage and demands for legislation and enforcement can't fix it.

I say:
You are being incredibly vague and sweeping, which of course means...... incorrect.

Isbskins said:
How do they fix it? Or, do they believe that the price you pay for a paycheck and black lung exposure is taking your chances that you will die underground. Just wondering?

I say:
Thanks to science we don't depend on our corporate leaders for health information anymore.

Do you have to read the warning on a Bic lighter to know that flame emits when stroked correctly, AS INTENDED?

Libertarians believe in free markets, where the market regulates itself, and business is made or broken on efficiency and public service. To be efficient, one must have at least content workers, if not happy. They also educate as opposed to dumbing down, since education prevents accidents. The place value on the good, and the cost of extracting it, as well as the service with which it rendered, all be default through supply and demand, and fair market competition.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would say no, you don't have a LOT of choice in boycotting the company, since almost all that exist today are monopolized to a point of essentially a few owners anyway. Thanks to the 14th amendment, and its abuse by corporations, this is about to become the "norm" in all markets in this nation, and others.

Don't forget the power grid. One of the peculiarities of the electric utilities is that you might be using electricity generated FAR from where you live, even if you have a power plant in the area. Your choices are these: use electricity or don't.

[lsbskins1]

You mean the era before Progressive legislation is your ideal? Or is it the 14th Amendment that started all the trouble? I mean, workers had it so good back then and the food was safe and drug companies were never succesful and profitable when they were marketing opiates and cocain as cure-alls, because market forces stepped in and those companies stopped being money makers?Bla, Bla , Bla! Excuse me, but find that point in time when, free of regulation, the markets protected anything except profit. Find the era? Unregulated business in modern economies lead to consolidation and monopoly. The only force that works agaist that trend is regulatory force. That is what history teaches us. I challenge you. Was it from 1789 to 1850 that everyone was so happy and no one was exploited for any extended period of time? How do you impose that model on todays world, even presuming the fallacy that everything was perfect then? I say, your contention is not supported and unsupportable, because it is not true.

I contend that when the ideal of "Free Markets" was developed, what it was fighting was not government regulation per se, but government support of monopoly. This company has the government charter to market tea, this one sugar, etc. Free Markets meant the government could not, by fiat, lock you out of business.The idea behind the ideal was to allow for competition, not to prevent any government involvement at all. The ideal of self government, in and of itself, shows the lie behind this presumption. Government, that represents only the will of a King or Powerful Dictator or an Oligarchy of a Powerful Elite, was the evil, not Government Power itself. That government power was meant to be harnessed to the will and protection of the people, not eradicated. That power is necessary to protect the people and that power is expressed through government action, not through governmental weakness.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said:
You mean the era before Progressive legislation is your ideal? Or is it the 14th Amendment that started all the trouble? I mean, workers had it so good back then and the food was safe and drug companies were never succesful and profitable when they were marketing opiates and cocain as cure-alls, because market forces stepped in and those companies stopped being money makers?Bla, Bla , Bla! Excuse me, but find that point in time when, free of regulation, the markets protected anything except profit. Find the era?

I say:
If you pay attention to history, you see that corporations started trying to circumvent the legal system at the same time the first World War started, and the introduction of the income tax.
Most of the anti-tax arguments that I know of that were argued before the Supreme Court, were corporate entities protesting the right of the corporation to protest taxation based on the rights of the individual. It is through this method, that the individual is unjustly linked into the argument through misuse of "rights of the individual" in the argument being brought by corporations.
Where was there a public outcry in this nation, other than by corporateers who were abusing the market (Anslinger, Dupont, Hearsts) for federal intrusion and prohibition of alchohol OR drugs, of ANY kind?
What started labor unions?
What effect has minimum wage had?

If you want to debate, lets get all the facts on the table!

Also, I never, EVER have claimed that the system was PERFECT before, only BETTER than it is now. As Jefferson said, we can't expect to remain ignorant AND free, it doesn't go together, nor does any government other than the one we founded, have an example of absolute power being laid at the feet of the people, as Washington did. This speaks volumes for the credibility of the first several Presidents characters, and ideals, since it was their blood risked for the words and actions they spoke.

Isbskins said:
Unregulated business in modern economies lead to consolidation and monopoly. The only force that works agaist that trend is regulatory force. That is what history teaches us.

I say:
Sure, if you look at history post corruption. Show me one point where regulatory force has unquestionably answered a problem, without DIRECTLY causing other problems. What history are you reading, and please enlighten me to some examples.

Isbskins said:
I challenge you. Was it from 1789 to 1850 that everyone was so happy and no one was exploited for any extended period of time?

I say:
Yes, roundabout, but I never have made a claim that those that lived then "weren't exploited", or abused by the system in ANY way. I said in comparison, all of our problems today are directly linear in effect to the causations enacted between the late 1800's and today. Most of those only deal with a few key issues.

The right to tax citizens directly, without apportionment or census, under threat of force.
The right to create a federal bank.
The right to remove the gold standard.
The right of citizens to un-incorporate corporations who violate their stated promises to the respective community who grants the "right" to incorporate.
The right of a President to remove Constitutional limitations, through executive order.
The right of a President to ignore Constitutional process for amendment of rights and regulation therof.
The right of a President to consolidate power, without approval of the people, for any length of time, especially greater than his term.
The right of a agents of federal of state level, being able to suspend due process and Constitutionally defined process under orders from the Attourney General, President in Chief, or any agents therof.
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

really, this is listed in many of my other posts.

Isbskins said:
How do you impose that model on todays world, even presuming the fallacy that everything was perfect then?

I say:
Who claimed I said perfection? You did! Not me. The way to implement it on todays system? With common sense, a direct form of communication for conscensus and voting by the people, a re-emplacement of all checks and balances, and removal of all laws that contradict with the written laws of the Constitution. In any areas where difficulty would ensue (for instance, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) public conscensus, intrests, and overall necessity would have to be voted on and dealt with in a Constitutional fashion.

I have no problem with Constitutional forms of regulation, or oversight. I in fact have proposed changes to the original Constitution, and don't advocate blind loyalty to the written document, but you would know that if you read any of my rants or posts about the topic.

So I say in reply.....
I say, your contention is not supported and unsupportable, because it is not true.

[shield772]

White House Promises Mine Investigation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/...losion_federal

WASHINGTON - The White House on Wednesday promised a full investigation of the West Virginia coal mine disaster that killed 12 people, and President Bush said the entire nation mourns the loss

[lili462]

I dont pray often, but before i go to bed tonight i'll pray for these folks.

[Osborn F Enready]

I feel for them all, especially in light of the false hopes from the misleading news story.

A tragedy.

[Osborn F Enready]

Scribller said:
Don't forget the power grid. One of the peculiarities of the electric utilities is that you might be using electricity generated FAR from where you live, even if you have a power plant in the area. Your choices are these: use electricity or don't.

I say:
Yes, but you can with personal expense, become indpendent of the grid,. or even sell power back.

You can also while doing this actively petition and write your represenatives in hopes of pressing the issue.

You could use electricity or not, or become independent. It is a viable option, that is getting more and more realistic everyday.

[lsbskins1]

Osborn-

If you do not advocate for a "hands off business" model, I have less of an arguement with you. If you suggest that the average citizen is worse off today in his safety, his disposable income and his ability to pursue happiness than he was before the era of government regulation (ie, before the progressive era), I have a very strong arguement with you. You need not claim perfection to imply that we were MUCH CLOSER to perfection. Lets not nit pick on semantics. Let me place a few facts on the table:

1) Every institution is subject to corruption. Government, big business, unions, churches, police departments. The fact that there is a history of some level, or even great levels, of corruption in any institution is not an arguement for it's destruction. It is an arguement for finding ways to thwart the corruption.

2) In order to justify a return to a flawed policy, one must demonsrate that the cure was worse than the disease. So, if you want to go back in time, erradicate the income tax, return the country to non-regulated drug, food, and over-all business policy, demonstrate how the average citizen is worse off under the current system than he was under the system you want to return to. Otherwise, your contention that the previous system was "more perfect" does not hold water.

3) The application of a policy can be flawed without rendering the policy itself inopperative. The simple truth is that dishonest people look for weaknesses in the law, just as hackers look for weaknesses in security systems. If you argue that getting rid of secuity systems is the answer to the problem rather than arguing for bolstering the security system by some new method, you have answered and solved nothing.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said:
Osborn-

If you do not advocate for a "hands off business" model, I have less of an arguement with you.

I say:
I am close to hands off business model, but there are certain things that have been built and are now relied upon to a point of dangerousness., even lethality. In these cases, regardless of how the problems end up, they must be dealt with, and in every case of corruption I have mentioned, they could have effected more of the DESIRED result through less regulation, and more common sense.
This corruption that I speak of is far too frequent, far too obtusely sproradic, to even be considered a "coincidence", or accidental steps toward any different plan. The players names and bloodlines, associations and croney networks are "too blatantly obvious to be considered, right?" Yea, right, sure! Wanna buy a bridge?

The only time I recommend a "hands on approach business model" is when foreign nations seek to unbalance the scale, or playing field through currency manipulation and or dishonest trading practices based on the system they partake in when entering our market in this country. Right now, thanks to Greenspans common sense, we have made it through a lot, despite a system that is soured and dragged down by socialist welfare programs, and educational system focused on funding increases more than results, systems of welfare that reward parents for having more kids they can't pay for, by the head. An ever-growing system of government, that has less and less oversight at all levels. This is truly the onset of the next major empire, in many ways. The only thing that keeps the illusion of liberty going is the 24-hour propaganda channels, extending credit while increasing debt, and a non-stop foreign panic that always seems to appear as soon as it seems government may be less necessary, and due for some fat trimming. When the natives get restless, you incite a panic, circle the wagons, and point the finger away from the problem, wherever it may land..... Vietnam, Somalia, Indonesia, Iraq, Columbia, Iran, North Korea, China.... ANYWHERE but here, because there is nothing going on behind that curtain MR! You just be a patriot, join the service, support the troops and be sure to submit to the nice men in the uniform anytime they may choose to question, stop, search, observe or monitor you..... in the name of "peace & security".... thousand points of light.... New World Order.......

Isbkins said:
If you suggest that the average citizen is worse off today in his safety, his disposable income and his ability to pursue happiness than he was before the era of government regulation (ie, before the progressive era), I have a very strong arguement with you. You need not claim perfection to imply that we were MUCH CLOSER to perfection. Lets not nit pick on semantics. Let me place a few facts on the table:

I say:
Fine, let us aire these differences and debate them till we are blue and tired of the topic. This should prove beneficial to someone, even if it isn't one of us, though it could be one of us. I am always open to new proof, and never disregard skeptical thought.

Isbskins said:
1) Every institution is subject to corruption. Government, big business, unions, churches, police departments. The fact that there is a history of some level, or even great levels, of corruption in any institution is not an arguement for it's destruction. It is an arguement for finding ways to thwart the corruption.

I say:
You neglect the other facts of history though, to be fair, as well as partially assuming a bit much in my opinion. I don't want to destroy government, I want it to live within its PRE-determined rules, that it agreed to SERVE ITS CITIZENS under. I want it to hold itself to the same lights of fact, and the same points of reason it uses in its fights and debates with others. I want it to seek true liberty and justice, as was our stated goals as a nation, through less government, not more. To do this through education, not force, through enlightenment, not programming, through skepticism of power and a constant wary eye on any who wields it, at any time, no matter how seemingly beneficial, or minscule it may seem at the time. I want compassionate politicians who argue until the wee hours of the morning, and most have gone home, as well as an honest dialogue between the people and the legislators. I want to end pork, and PREVENT corruption as much as STOP it, and you don't prevent corruption by growing the bodies that you already have trouble tracking, and holding accountable. I also want my pre-specified ability to petition government, withold my support from them without fear of death or loss of property with no fair trial, and the ability to work legally without having a social security number.

You are trying to uphold the claims that the constitution was violated by lawmakers in all cases "because they had no other option", or what? If so, I would like to address this issue by issue.

Isbskins said:
2) In order to justify a return to a flawed policy, one must demonsrate that the cure was worse than the disease. So, if you want to go back in time, erradicate the income tax, return the country to non-regulated drug, food, and over-all business policy, demonstrate how the average citizen is worse off under the current system than he was under the system you want to return to. Otherwise, your contention that the previous system was "more perfect" does not hold water.

I say:
Look, first you have to get past "legal vs. illegal", and then we can debate problems and answers, for which I have many answers for all the problems that were solved by unconstitutional provisions, if not answers, than several VIABLE, REALISTIC, ideas and theories as well as proven historical backings.
What do you value liberty for? Life, indpendence and the ability to be what you wish to be, or do you value the ability to buy cheap commercial, non necessities, while living under a false guise of security that has been proven to be a "FALSE" sense of security, after 9-11. Why do you value justice, and what is justice? To me justice is arriving at the best possible decision based on all available evidence, taking into account all rights and respects to citizens and their property. What is justice with a law book that eats its own tail under the microscope, or is false on its own face? What is word, and honor with hypocrisy, other than a lie that changes with the prevailing wind?
My points are simple. Today, as a citizen, you are less free in every single way, from property ownership, to laws and regulations so numerous NO man can live within the law. Today, depending on what I.D. you have on you, you could be arrested, deported, interrogated, tortured and returned, with no explanation, no questions, no answers, no recognition, no inquiry by a NON-partisan panel, all based on SUSPICION. Today a police dog has more rights than I do, in the case of a police traffic stop, in the sense that if it attacks me for ANY reason, and I fight back, I can be held for ATTEMPTED MURDER of an AGENT of the LAW!!!! They are placing more belief, more trust, more power, in the dog than an average citizen. You are assumed guilty, until you PROVE your innocence, and each day we lose another portion of due process. Today, if I use my CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFINED RIGHT of protecting myself against a person who seeks to do me harm, even if the criminal was in the wrong, and guilty of illegal trespass, I can be found guilty due to technicality and jailed as a criminal goes free. Today, a President, can suspend or remove any part, portion or the entire Constitution, as did F.D.R. with the New Deal,, and have little if no protest from the people, based on the fact that there are SO MANY accepted laws most can't tell you what is or is not legal if questioned and held to their answers, hell, most can't even name the three branches of government, since they don't matter anymore due to their political castration, corruption, and marginalization.

First we must address the legality that has been crossed, and then we can address the problems in a lawful, sensible way.

Isbskins said:
3) The application of a policy can be flawed without rendering the policy itself inopperative. The simple truth is that dishonest people look for weaknesses in the law, just as hackers look for weaknesses in security systems. If you argue that getting rid of secuity systems is the answer to the problem rather than arguing for bolstering the security system by some new method, you have answered and solved nothing.

I say:
That is some analogy, so good I lost the meaning as in how it applied to my beleifs. I believe in empowering the individual, and reducing the government. I believe in strong states rights, as opposed to a strong central government. I believe that no matter what need, what cause, what claim is made, there is no problem that cannot be dealt with in a manner that does not violate, remove, or void the Constitution.

Perhaps I should ask what you fear so much of this change, which should have sounded revolutionary back in 1776, but should now be common knowledge and proud heritage?

I find it funny that so many are quick to call the claim " athiests/agnostics/secularists are assaulting our christian heritage and culture", yet they take not a second to notice, let alone discuss how we are losing our legal system, our ideals, and our constitutional foundation.

[brien]

Quote by: shield772 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e_explosion_21 Not really a debate, just asking for good thoughts and prayers, want these guys all out.

Last night's (Wed, 1-04-06 @ midnight) shameful actions on behalf of the news media pointedly demonstrates how they go for the sensationalized story no matter whether the truth gets in the way or not. They should be ashamed of themselves the way they lifted the hopes of all of the miners' families.

It reminds me of election night and calling the states for one candidiate or another, only worse, because this was human dignity and the feelings of the loved ones who had perished in that awful accident. No one ever corroborated the story of the supposed survival with the mining company.

They owe the entire community a heartfelt apology. And you trust them with their reports from abroad? I yi yi :rolleyes: