Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Protection Agency Dumps a Million Gallons of Orange Mine Waste into a Colorado River

They were only trying to help.

|

Disturbing news of a real make-work program from the Environmental Protection Agency, reported by Associated Press via Huffington Post:

A million-gallon mine waste spill that sent a plume of orange-ish muck down a river in southwest Colorado on Thursday was caused by a federal mine cleanup crew.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that a cleanup team was working with heavy equipment Wednesday to secure an entrance to the Gold King Mine. Workers instead released an estimated 1 million gallons of mine waste into Cement Creek.

"The project was intended to pump and treat the water and reduce metals pollution flowing out of the mine," agency spokesman Rich Mylott said in a statement.

The creek runs into the Animas River, which then flows into the San Juan River in New Mexico and joins the Colorado River in Utah.

Officials emphasized that there was no threat to drinking water from the spill. But downstream water agencies were warned to avoid Animas water until the plume passes, said David Ostrander, director of EPA's emergency response program in Denver….The acidic sludge is made of heavy metal and soil, which could irritate the skin, he said….

The plume made its way to Durango on Thursday afternoon, prompting La Plata County health officials to warn rafters and others to avoid the water. The scenic waterway was the backdrop for parts of the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and is popular with summer boaters.

Durango stopped pumping water out of the Animas River on Wednesday to make sure none of the waste could be sucked up into the city reservoir. It also suspended the transfers of raw water to a local golf course and Fort Lewis College. Pet owners were advised to keep dogs and livestock out of the Animas.

NEXT: Defense Distributed Injunction Request Denied in Suppression of Gun-Related Internet Speech Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Question and Comment Time with Cytotoxic: what should be done with abandoned toxic/hazardous sites? To prevent them? What role if any does the government play?

    1. I don’t understand how this works. Are those your questions?

      1. Yes. I test and prod the commentariat with my well thought-out and insightful queries, mostly to your benefit but also somewhat to mine.

        1. Hitler?
          No, wait. That’s a different type of question.

          1. No, no – that’s always correct.

            What does Princess Trigger win?

            1. Dinner with Bo?

                1. “He said “Win”.”

                  Well, 2nd prize is *two* dinners, so…

                  1. Even I’m not that sadistic.

        2. Skeletor?…

          Damnit I screwed it up too

    2. What role if any does the government play?

      To fuck everything up via regulation, declare a market failure, then demand more regulatory power.

      1. Obama! What is BEST?!!

    3. The government plays the same role as always — to sanctify, or at least carry out with impunity, behavior that would otherwise horrify decent people if an individual or private group did it. Like dumping toxic waste into a river and then lying about the risks to people.

      1. In fact, this little disaster reminds me of Love Canal, which led to the EPA superfunds being established.

        Back then as today, a private company fucked up by trusting an agent of the government.

        1. +1 Rocky Mountain National Wildlife Refuge

    4. “What should be done with abandoned toxic/hazardous sites?”

      The government probably has a legitimate interest in seizing mines, etc that present a threat to other people’s property in cases when the company that created the pollution went out of business decades ago. After all, if government has any legitimate function at all, it is to protect our rights–and that includes our property rights.

      That being said, the government is often the biggest obstacle in getting problem properties cleaned up and privatized. We live in a pluralistic democracy, and our politicians also represent the interest of polluters. Government regulations and agencies reflect that fact.

      I think the government may have some legitimate function in making sure that toxic waste is disposed of stored properly, too. My understanding is that the waste is considered to be owned by the company that produced it. They’re typically required to store it in an approved facility, and they pay a private company to store it. That’s not a bad system. If a toxic waste producing company were no longer able to afford to store more of the toxic waste they produce, they would need to stop producing it–and that seems to be as it should be.

    5. Tricky one. My stab at it:

      – Good old liability deals with “abandoned” sites that still have an existing owner.
      – Regulatory measures should probably limit themselves to stopping attempts at unloading the liability (through a shell company subsidiary/etc) and ensuring there’s sufficient assets and or insurance for the risk.
      – Most pollution is a local issue, and that means the feds are really not justified in involving themselves here.

    6. The plan is, basically, to pave over the entire area, and get on with our lives.

    7. They’re sold off to whomever will buy them, likely for a pittance. Recoverable materials or further use will be the incentive. You’re buying the land and the resources thereon and the liability that the hazardous waste contaminates adjacent land, so you will probably need to not only give the land away but pay a premium to have the liability shouldered by someone else. I imagine there would be charities arranged to pay for and rehabilitate toxic sites. I also imagine that, properly priced, the negative value of liability would be disincentive enough to avoid producing many more of them.

      Spitballing here. I don’t know shit.

    8. Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. I think the winner is Ken but it’s tough to say.

  2. I think we can all agree that the color of the water is Pumpkin Pie.

    Roasted corn poblano chowder if you really want to get picky.

    1. Or a massive baby poo spill. Choice is yours.

      1. Baby poo? We all know what happens when sweet corn is in season…

    2. Nah, butternut squash bisque.

      1. “Harvest Gold”

    3. It’s goddamn squash and I’ll not hear another word about it.

  3. TOP. MEN.

  4. Of course, a follow-up will inform us of the EPA miscreant who is cashiered as a result.
    I’m sure…

  5. To be fair, one EPA mess does not invalidate the existence of the EPA anymore than the one mining spill in BC (which was actually a dangerous wall of water) invalidates the entire BC mining industry. There are lots better ways to invalidate the EPA.

    1. No, I really don’t think there are. When a “protection agency” causes the spill, they’ve pretty much arrived.

      1. What’s clearly needed is some kind of agency to prevent the EPA from doing this thing. I suggest the Environmental Protection Agency Protection Agency.

        1. +1 Department of Redundancy Department

        2. Or perhaps a Bureau of Sabotage.

        3. But who will stop the Environmental Protection Agency Protection Agency when they accidentally dump the toxic run-off from their EPA monitoring station?

          Who watches the watchmen watching the watchmen watching the watchmen?

          1. H…Hitler?

          2. It’s watchmen all the way down!

      2. Freedom is just another word, for nothing left to ooze…

        *grins, pops oxy and falls into bed*

        1. I don’t care how many kidneys you donated. No.

  6. “The project was intended to pump and treat the water and reduce metals pollution flowing out of the mine,” agency spokesman Rich Mylott said in a statement.

    Compared with:

    Officials emphasized that there was no threat to drinking water from the spill. But downstream water agencies were warned to avoid Animas water until the plume passes, said David Ostrander, director of EPA’s emergency response program in Denver….The acidic sludge is made of heavy metal and soil, which could irritate the skin, he said….

    These two statements are essentially contradictory. Trying to reduce metals pollution from mine runoff, they engage in a cleanup. Instead, the cleanup effort releases 1 million gallons of metals runoff in an incredibly short time… yet according to the EPA, there’s no problem with metals pollution runoff.

    This flash bang is perfectly safe.

    Ok, let’s set one off.

    No, that would be dangerous.

    1. “there was no threat to drinking water” because “Durango stopped pumping water out of the Animas River on Wednesday to make sure none of the waste could be sucked up into the city reservoir.”

    2. Understand though that there are other reasons to turn off water intakes… such as not wanting to put additional wear on a plant designed to deal with a different water chemistry that what they’re seeing with the spill. It’s easier to shut off, tell everyone to conserve, and wait for the plume to pass than to suck water into the plant that you’ll spend the next couple days or weeks dealing with.

  7. Gee, how will this affect the cut throat trout repopulation programs? Will the Colorado Division of Wildlife sue the EPA? Shouldn’t this be a state’s rights issue? Why do the feds get off when they pollute a state waterway?

    Wait a minute, why are the feds screwing around with pollution cleanup? Can someone please tell me why these boneheads are involved in this?

    Probably some ex-Christie bridge engineer…

    /Napolitano wannabe writer

    1. Why do the feds get off when they pollute a state waterway?

      Qualified Impunity, bitch.

      1. Or straight up “sovereign immunity”!

  8. This looks like the beginning of a brilliant Kool-Aid commercial.

    1. I think you mean “the end of a brilliant Kool Aid commercial.”

  9. clearly, not enough funding for remediation efforts. Like someone won’t say that, if they haven’t already.

    1. And “market failure”, besides.

  10. That idiot Elizabeth Price Foley who Instapundit inexplicably lets post at his site posted one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. Basically, the moderators in the Fox News debate were too mean to some of the candidates! SOOOO MEAN!

    An example of them allegedly being too mean is this question from Kelly to Ben Carson:

    “You are a successful neurosurgeon, but you admit that you have had to study up on foreign policy, saying there’s a lot to learn.

    Your critics say that your inexperience shows. You’ve suggested that the Baltic States are not a part of NATO, just months ago you were unfamiliar with the major political parties and government in Israel, and domestically, you thought Alan Greenspan had been treasury secretary instead of federal reserve chair.

    Aren’t these basic mistakes, and don’t they raise legitimate questions about whether you are ready to be president?”

    How DARE Megan Kelly point out Ben Carson’s staggering ignorance about policy! Truly, she crossed the line with that question.

    1. Honestly, if the crowds aren’t throwing rotten vegetables at the candidates, the debate wasn’t mean enough. If they start throwing rocks it’s probably too mean.

      1. BTW Irish, heard this on the radio today: “The Canadian federal election drinking game: Drink every time Harper says ‘obviously’ or ‘I have previously said’, every time Mulcair tries to smile and its creepy, and every time Trudeau says ‘middle class Canadians’ because he holds onto that goddamn crutch more than Tiny Tim.”

    2. when you are chasing what may well be the planet’s most stressful job, whining about some reporter’s questions seems second-rate if not juvenile. Maybe with Carson, what should have been obvious with Obama will be accepted – it takes a wee bit more than a single speech to make someone presidential material.

      1. *notes that wareagle is a DOUBLE racist*

    3. I didn’t watch it, just caught some of the tweets and comments here.
      Can’t see anything wrong with that question, and I’d hope he answered as honestly. If he doesn’t know the parties and politics of Israel, he’d better start studying.

      1. Honestly, I don’t give a shit if anyone knows the “parties and politics” of Israel. In MY administration, we’ll spend a lot less time worrying about Israel. And Syria. And Iran. And Canada. And Australia. And Mex…no, Mexico we’re gonna fucking PUT UP A WALL!

        And we’ll spend less time worrying about teh drugs, and moar time worrying about removing restrictions on drugs and alcohol and firearms and imported everything and…..

        1. Sorry, regardless of active intervention, the man’s gotta deal with folks. Even a turtle has to stick its head out once in a while.

          1. “Even a turtle has to stick its head out once in a while”

            We call that chili night.

        2. I admit I didn’t listen to 100% of the debate (on the radio) but this was my thought as well. Why in the hell — with ten supposed conservatives on stage — was the discussion about HOW to deal with the Middle East instead of IF we should deal with the Middle East.

    4. Whenever I read her or the other guy’s selected quotes I can instantly tell that instapundit wants to piss in my cereal.

      1. Yeah, been following Instapundit for years (which eventually led me here to this vile pit of woodchipperieness) and my impression is that (a) he is throwing a bone to his PJ media hosts and commenters who skew a lot more red and (b) he is tired of being the sole content provider for the site (see his past comments about blogger as a public utility). Its nice that he gets some input from the guy from FIRE but I ignore just about everything from EPF and Ed Driscoll

  11. If you guys want ‘dumb plans by the U.S. government that actively fuck up the natural state of the Earth, look no further than Project West Ford, an utterly insane plan to ‘improve’ the ionosphere’. If the tests hadn’t failed and they had actually went through with it they would have basically fucked space flight for centuries.

    1. Natch, it was for national security.

    2. Vast majority of the tiny atennae had very short orbital lifespans — re-entered within three years. Not a huge, centuries-long catastrophe by any means.

  12. I heard there was a debate-thingy recently? And some fella named Trump was in attendance?

    We just don’t hear enough about this reason.

    TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

    1. Just kidding.

      David Stockman explains why the end is nigh.

  13. OT: i just came from a regional meeting with medical program administrators (meaning office types who haven’t been near an actual patient in years). I almost wanted to have a drinking-game bingo card from everything I was hearing from these people, it was an amalgam of all the dumb derp we hear tossed about at H&R.

    One administrator talked about how we need to understand that many of our area’s patients have so much concern about being able to find a place to sleep or a meal for their ‘poverty-stricken bellies’ that they can’t possibly be able to remember a doctor’s appointment — so we really need to ‘check our privilege’ as people who can schedule ourselves. Another lamented that a residential hotel ‘only provides two meals per day’ for those people placed there — so these folks are ‘starving’ and we need to find more way to provide them services and more spending money so that they can eat better. (Jeez, I only eat two meals per day, why not just load up when you eat those free meals?) Another guy said on top of free housing, meals and medical care, the transients are ‘only’ supplied with $100 a month walking-around money — and since he himself probably spends that much a day on incidentals, how can anyone make it on that?

    I had to just nod politely and appear concerned or the ramifications could have been severe. It’s now after 6pm on a Friday evening — any suggestions on a powerful yet tasty alcoholic concoction I should indulge in pronto? Calgon, take me away!!

    1. Homeless people have really busy schedules.

    2. I’ve found that a Loaded Landshark starkly affects my species’ cognitive abilities.

      1. Taking advice from a lizard rarely turns out well…but maybe this time.

        1. Be sure to use Triple Sec instead of tequila. It’s much smoother.

    3. If someone can’t remember their appointments or to take their meds, isn’t that a problem that’s going to solve itself?

      1. Fortunately, sitting around in the circle jerk, I could feel relaxed knowing that despite the copious hand-wringing and plans for new committees, that nothing substantial is likely to happen from these folks in my lifetime. Just a waste of an afternoon. At least it ended soon enough for an early start to the weekend.

        Time to try a Loaded Landshark, thanks for the tip! (Tequila shot in Mexican beer, eh? Clever right after a debate about the dangerous Mexicans flooding our borders!)

        1. See above, use Triple Sec. The flavor will make it deceptively tasty.

          And remember: go ugly early, beat the rush

          Alternate: go ugly early, so you’ll understand Agile Cyborg

        2. Just got home, and already on break again, eh?

        3. Always be sure that you know how to convincingly fake a seizure.

          That, or feign confusion and wander out of the room, running once out of sight.

    4. Thanks for making me feel old. A Calgon reference? On the Intertubes!?!

    5. Late to the party but: rye smash. Repeat as needed.

  14. “Yes, it’s true. This man has no dick.”

  15. The Environment Perturbation Agency!

    Government is the waterways we pollute together.

    1. That sounds a lot like Barney, frankly.

      1. Thath not nice!

  16. “The creek runs into the Animas River, which then flows into the San Juan River in New Mexico and joins the Colorado River in Utah.”

    That’s really fucked up.

    A lot of people use that river recreationally.

    1. Not this season, they don’t.

    2. I’ve been know to drink from that river, as have you.

      1. Drinking water was not affected? Apparently no one hikes or camps between Colorado and the Gulf of Mexico.

        1. Gulf of California.

          And it’s where most of our drinking water comes from now.

          1. I knew when I was typing that that I should have done some googling.

            1. You would know if your laundry came out with a mustache. That’s how shitty CR water is.

    3. Orange is the New Gak.

    4. With friends like the EPA, who needs the Animas?

    5. Though the local paper did helpfully run the picture of the kayakers happily paddling in the -Baby Poo- -butternut squash- -harvest gold- water

      /tags suck

  17. Speaking of toxic waste…………..(via samizdata.net):

    Krugman and Bernanke are walking down the street and see a pile of dog shit. Bernanke says “I’ll give you twenty thousand dollars to eat that pile of shit.” Krugman does it, gets paid, and they keep walking. After a while they see another pile of shit on the road. Seeing an opportunity for revenge, Krugman says “Tell you what, I’ll give YOU twenty grand to eat that pile of shit.” Bernanke does it, Krugman gives him back the money, and they keep walking. After a while Bernanke says “I’m feeling pretty sick. We both ate shit and neither of us is any richer.” Krugman answers “You’re missing the bigger picture. We’ve increased GDP by forty thousand dollars and created two jobs.”

    1. (Krugman and Bernanke standing on a bridge)

      Krugman: “Dude! When this bridge collapses, think of all the labor and materials it will take to rebuild it! Think of the economic stimulus!”

      Bernanke: “Chill homie, it might be a while before that happens.”

      Krugman: “Hold up, I have an idea. Check it: we hire a demolition crew to blow up the bridge. Think of the jobs that will create. And all the explosives they have to buy. DOUBLE STIMULUS!!!”

      Bernanke: “Hmmm. How much will that cost?”

      Krugman: “Who gives a shit? We don’t pay for it.”

      Bernanke: “Damn straight. I’ll go warm up my printing press.”

      And they all lived happily ever after.

  18. OT: It’s that time of year where I get to hear and read about the horrors the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here in Japan, all the major channels run interviews with survivors and show grainy footage of severely burned children.

    I’m not gonna say, “Japan had it coming!” to my friends and family given it would only infuriate them. I’ve tried saying, “yeah, it was horrible. It was also horrible what Japan did in Nanking, Korea and elsewhere”. Even that accurate appraisal is met with anger. I truly hate Japan in early August.

    1. You could set up a huge party and call it ‘Rave of the Fireflies’ and see if that gets the point across.

      1. I hate missing a reference. Sorry, but I ams confuzzled.

        1. It’s a powerful movie set in late-war Japan.

          1. Thanks. Checking it out now.

          2. Firebombing of Tokyo, which killed more people than nucular bombs.

    2. About 10 years ago I went out to a fun sake bar in NYC (Decibel) with some japanese ex-pats … and we played some “cultural Q&A drinking games” (w/ translator) that were freaking hilarious.

      the atom bomb came up, and there was some awkwardness, but then one guy gave a speech which the others found hilarious, where he confessed =

      “Many people think the saddest part is the shame that we didn’t manage to do it to you first”

      in the discussion that followed, a few agreed that the outcome of WWII was mostly japanese admiration for American industrial power; there was little if any moral concern about the rightness or wrongness of mass-bombing (and every one of them was aware that fire-bombings killed many more people than the Atom bombs) – but rather just a lingering sadness and shame that so many died in a losing war.

      basically = “America was not guilty of atrocity, and Japan was not guilty of any atrocity – but War itself was what enabled atrocities, and that’s depressing.”

      1. If only the ‘bat bomb’ had worked out. We would have spend the entire Cold War building better bat bombs, having protests about the horrors of bat bomb warfare, etc.

        “No, goddammit, it needs to be bigger! And make the bats vampire bats.”

        1. Bats burning shit down is EXACTLY what this country needs.

          1. Your Bat Bomb proposal does not go far enough!

        2. I’ve seen the Bat Bomb test site @ Dugway Proving Grounds.

      2. Cool story bro. That completely alleviates any niggling doubt as to the ethics of nukes.

        Did any of them discuss the moral question of why it was correct to kill another person based solely on being on the wrong side of the border, drawn up by the long dead members of the ruling class?

        1. Who said the conversation was about the ethics of nukes?

          We just talked about different perceptions of the same history, which none of us actually lived through, and whos parents were kids at the time.

          “Did any of them discuss the moral question of why it was correct to kill another person based solely on being on the wrong side of the border, drawn up by the long dead members of the ruling class?”

          Is this how you announce your moral superiority to others by positing that “War Is Bad”, an idea that has never occurred to anyone before now?

          To answer your question – No. They were mature people and could talk about things in the abstract without needing to make authoritative moral pronouncements.

          1. Who said the conversation was about the ethics of nukes?

            I misread straffinrun’s post, so I’m going to call for a mulligan.

            Is this how you announce your moral superiority to others by positing that “War Is Bad”, an idea that has never occurred to anyone before now?

            Around here? Yeah. There are far too many here who don’t have any qualms with torching a village of the enemy. How many threads have there been on the supposed morality of the nukes? How many people equivocated that since the other side did bad things, or that our allies did the same, it made it OK for us to do.

            How many people do you run into in daily life who’s first impulse is to bomb the stones out of some diatant land for some apparent slight against the US or its interests?

            So yeah, it hasn’t occurred to a frightening number of people.

            1. “There are far too many here who don’t have any qualms with torching a village of the enemy. “

              You’ve arbitrarily determined me to be among them because i went drinking with some japanese people once, and we laughed about Atom Bombs?

              You’re not talking to me. You’re talking to some imagined population of Warmongers in your imagination. Not one thing you just ranted about applies to anything i just said.

              1. You’re not talking to me. You’re talking to some imagined population of Warmongers in your imagination. Not one thing you just ranted about applies to anything i just said.

                I was replying to your question. You do understand how that works, right?

                1. It was rhetorical. I don’t actually think you’re the first person who determined “war is bad”. It was just the way you announced it as though it was supposed to be news to everyone.

                  1. I’ll cop to being a tad twitchy on the matter.

                    I’m fucking done with the KILL ‘EM ALL baboons.

                    1. JW|8.7.15 @ 11:56PM|#
                      “I’ll cop to being a tad twitchy on the matter.”

                      You should cop to being an ignoramus about the matter.

                    2. Thanks sevo. Insightful and educational as usual.

                    3. JW|8.8.15 @ 12:05AM|#
                      “Thanks sevo. Insightful and educational as usual.”

                      Thanks, JW. Artful dodging by a bullshit artist as usual.

                    4. ” the KILL ‘EM ALL baboons.”

                      Cytotoxic?

                      is there another one?

                    5. He’s the most obvious one. There are others, but I don’t keep a running tally on handles.

                    6. I will say this = there is a strain of self-indulgent moral absolutism among the self-declared “Antiwar.com”-anarchist crowd that treats everyone “Not Them” as ‘war-enablers’….

                      …in the same way the radical-feminist left treats any rhetoric not identical to theirs as “rape-apology”

                      Its absolutely useless, self-defeating, ignorant and tiresome. And i personally think its mostly a moral-fashion-statement = a posture people adopt to reinforce their own self esteem.

                      Because they don’t seem to be at all interested in *convincing* anyone of anything, so much as denouncing everyone else as being ‘part of the problem’. It borders on religious zealotry.

                      Basically, i don’t think the Raimondo’s of the world do much for their own cause, so much.

                      take it for what you will. Its the same rough view i have of Occupy Wall St. If you really oppose something, take some time learning about it so you can talk to people intelligently about it, rather than just spit venom and guarantee everyone will ignore you.

                    7. Its absolutely useless, self-defeating, ignorant and tiresome. And i personally think its mostly a moral-fashion-statement = a posture people adopt to reinforce their own self esteem.

                      That smacks me as mostly cynical collectivism, designed to minimize an opponent. Sure, there are tiresome and shrill factions and people in these movements, but your blunt and dumb dismissal isn’t any more enlightened.

                      take some time learning about it so you can talk to people intelligently about it, rather than just spit venom and guarantee everyone will ignore you.

                      Dude, it’s a casual forum board, not an academic dissertation.

                      I’ve already backed off my initial statements as wrong. You need more than that?

                    8. No – i wasn’t talking about you.

                      i was talking about an actual collective of people about which i am cynical.

                      And by the way – that’s a pretty ideal descriptor of the way you just described your mythical War-mongering ‘baboons’

                    9. my point re: OWS was actually the general remark that has some broader application….

                      in that – the anti-war crowd in the US is utterly useless.

                      Which i think is pretty hard to deny. And why? mostly because of their own incompetence, and greater interest in demonizing ‘corporate interests’ than actually creating any broad-coalition that might support someone like Rand, who is far less likely to increase military intervention than any of the viable alternatives.

                    10. And by the way – that’s a pretty ideal descriptor of the way you just described your mythical War-mongering ‘baboons’

                      Touche. But, they aren’t mythical.

                      And why? mostly because of their own incompetence, and greater interest in demonizing ‘corporate interests’ than actually creating any broad-coalition that might support someone like Rand, who is far less likely to increase military intervention than any of the viable alternatives.

                      No disagreement.

                    11. word.

                      Here’s some good rock & roll-meets-cartoons

            2. The USG had not only the right but the OBLIGATION to win that war with as few American casualties as possible. They had an OBLIGATION to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

              1. Is this how you announce your moral superiority to others by positing that “War Is Bad”, an idea that has never occurred to anyone before now?

                To answer your question – No. They were mature people and could talk about things in the abstract without needing to make authoritative moral pronouncements.

                here is a strain of self-indulgent moral absolutism among the self-declared “Antiwar.com”-anarchist crowd that treats everyone “Not Them” as ‘war-enablers’….

                …in the same way the radical-feminist left treats any rhetoric not identical to theirs as “rape-apology”

                Its absolutely useless, self-defeating, ignorant and tiresome. And i personally think its mostly a moral-fashion-statement = a posture people adopt to reinforce their own self esteem.

                Because they don’t seem to be at all interested in *convincing* anyone of anything, so much as denouncing everyone else as being ‘part of the problem’. It borders on religious zealotry.

                GILMORE is perfectly describing how I feel about progressives.

      3. Yamamoto had great admiration for America and Americans. He was… Uncomfortable with the plans to attack pearl harbor. But he was samurai. When the emperor calls, you go.

        1. Paul.|8.8.15 @ 12:23AM|#
          “…He was… Uncomfortable with the plans to attack pearl harbor.”

          Well, no.
          Given that there was to be a war, he proposed Pearl Harbor and threatened to resign if he didn’t get his way.

    3. I said it the other day: The armchair general is the ultimate collectivist.

      People are no longer seen as individuals, who may not support their government’s actions at all, or, you know, are children, but targets grouped together in one convenient classification to slake their dimwitted bloodlust. It’s just another game to win.

      Oh, and tu quoque is not a legitimate military strategy.

        1. Not nearly enough for to stomach these apes.

      1. The purpose was not Tu Quoc. It was to get them to see what their own govt had done. If they really want to make a powerful statement against war, then admitting their own role is essential. I’m not a fan of the bombings and told them so at the outset.
        The slogan “never again” doesn’t seem to apply to Nanking, only Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is my point.

        1. I’m an anarchist BTW. You may want to lay off the hair trigger criticism before assuming people love state murder.

          1. I’m an anarchist BTW. You may want to lay off the hair trigger criticism before assuming people love state murder.

            Sorry, it all gets lost in the bloodlust of the howling nationalists this time of year. I went back with this context and completely see what you were saying now.

            1. “Sorry, it all gets lost in the bloodlust of the howling nationalists this time of year. I went back with this context and completely see what you were saying now.”

              Self-righteous twits whining about *the nukes* always manage to leave out what the preferable alternative would have been.
              I’m sure you’ve given it a LOT of thought, since you choose to be the conscience of mankind, so let’s hear it.

              1. It’s fucking abhorrent to deliberately target civilian populations. Full stop. War crime doesn’t even begin to cover it.

                How’s that work for you, chief?

                1. JW|8.7.15 @ 11:36PM|#
                  “It’s fucking abhorrent to deliberately target civilian populations. Full stop. War crime doesn’t even begin to cover it.
                  How’s that work for you, chief?”

                  And I see, oh, thoughtful twit, you STILL HAVEN”T COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE, have you?
                  Disregarding your specious claims of ‘targeting civilians’.
                  Now, alternative, please of STFU.

                  1. Your caps key was sticking there. You might want to blow it out with some canned air.

                    You’re right, of course. Not having a non-falsifiable answer on the alternate history of a 70 year old event completely validates your view.

                    Good to know that you’ll toss your morality aside when it’s convenient.

                    1. JW|8.7.15 @ 11:49PM|#
                      Your caps key was sticking there. You might want to blow it out with some canned air….”

                      ALTERNATIVE, shipile; still waiting.
                      Sorry you got called on your bullshit; you shouldn’t bullshit if you don’t like it.

                1. #1. Not a myth; it did exactly that.
                  #2. Possible true, more likely a million.
                  #3. Lies, as anyone who actually read about the matter instead of acting like some slimy moralist would know
                  #4. What? Did he run out of strawmen?
                  #5. Bullshit.
                  So, JW, wanna lear about it? Read “Downfall”, Frank. Until you do, you’re one more ‘moral’ ignoramus.

                  1. Oh, and Herken, who ever the fuck he is, left out the like millions of Japanese lives saved.
                    Ooops: now I see:
                    “Five myths is a weekly feature challenging everything you think you know. ”
                    It’s one of those ’10 controversial web sites” lists; GREAT resource for factual evidence.

                  2. Yeah sevo, I want to sit here and play with your loudmouthed, cranky old man character who always needs the last word. Who doesn’t enjoy that?

                    Isn’t there some sockpuppet around that you can curse at?

                    1. JW|8.7.15 @ 11:54PM|#
                      “Yeah sevo, I want to sit here and play with your loudmouthed, cranky old man character who always needs the last word. Who doesn’t enjoy that?”

                      Yeah, some slimy asshole who now plays butt-hurt when he’s called on his bullshit is whining about it.
                      ALTERNATIVE, oh moral wonder! Let’s see it.

                    2. Who could resist this kid of charm? Seriously, do you have a newsletter?

                    3. JW|8.8.15 @ 12:07AM|#
                      “Who could resist this kid of charm? Seriously, do you have a newsletter?”
                      Yeah, shitbag. The problem is it deals with facts instead of bullshit, so you wojn’t like it at all.
                      Fuck off.

                  3. 1. Not a ‘myth’, completely arguable. Unless you have some magical alternative history time machine you’re hiding from the rest of us.
                    2. Yes, what a brilliant strategic plan. Throw men into a meat grinder after spending millions on something that can ensure that the worse casualties are a half dozen bomber crew members. I would really want to be a soldier serving under you, someone willing to throw my life away so he can feel good about himself.
                    3. I’m sure the Koreans would have really appreciated a ‘conditional surrender’. ‘Conditional surrender’ to the Japanese was ‘we get to keep our colonies and continue to oppress the hell out of everyone non-Japanese in them’. And of course, allowing to an imperialist, expansionist Japan to continue would have been a great idea.
                    4. My god, logical intelligence analysis and battlefield planning? Has no place in warfare!
                    5. Stimson’s journal disagrees.

                    War is inherently savage. You seem to be elevating the atomic bombs above conventional warfare, but in reality the conventional methods were more destructive overall. Arbitrarily deciding that some methods of murder are good and others are evil is ridiculous.

                    1. *Shouldn’t have gone with ‘good’ and ‘evil’ at the end there, let’s go with ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’.

                    2. *Shouldn’t have gone with ‘good’ and ‘evil’ at the end there, let’s go with ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’.

                      I laid out the bright line above: deliberately targeting civilians in war. It was wrong in Nanking and Dresden as well.

                      You seem to be elevating the atomic bombs above conventional warfare, but in reality the conventional methods were more destructive overall.

                      You don’t see a difference in effectiveness between a single bomb and carpet bombing with 10s of squadrons of bombers? Seriously? That was the reason they pursued atomic weapons to begin with.

                    3. JW|8.8.15 @ 12:10AM|#
                      “…You don’t see a difference in effectiveness between a single bomb and carpet bombing with 10s of squadrons of bombers? Seriously? That was the reason they pursued atomic weapons to begin with.”

                      What a pile of shit.
                      Yes, there was a difference and if there weren’t the war would have continued.

                    4. I laid out the bright line above: deliberately targeting civilians in war. It was wrong in Nanking and Dresden as well.

                      Apparently the Japanese Second Army Command in Hiroshima and the massive military industrial production faculties in Nagasaki don’t count as military infrastructure.

                      You don’t see a difference in effectiveness between a single bomb and carpet bombing with 10s of squadrons of bombers?

                      What function to do both of them serve? To kill people (and set buildings on fire in the case of incendiaries). The only difference is that the atomic bomb did it more efficiently (and that’s arguable based on the cost). Again, you’re making a distinction that doesn’t exist.

                      If your problem is that the atomic bomb was too efficient then we might as well drop guns and go back to the spear phalanx.

                    5. Apparently the Japanese Second Army Command in Hiroshima and the massive military industrial production faculties in Nagasaki don’t count as military infrastructure.

                      Then why was the Aioi Bridge in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an airburst designed to maximize coverage? That doesn’t sound like targeting military facilities to me.

                      The only difference is that the atomic bomb did it more efficiently (and that’s arguable based on the cost). Again, you’re making a distinction that doesn’t exist.

                      I addressed that below. The line of reasoning that there is no functional difference between conventional and nuclear munitions is specious and unsupportable.

                      Nuclear weapons are designed to vaporize cities, not military installations.

                    6. Then why was the Aioi Bridge in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an airburst designed to maximize coverage? That doesn’t sound like targeting military facilities to me.

                      You mean that primitive bomber crews with no advanced radar had to use landmarks to plot bombing runs? That’s World War 2 Bomber History 101. And you mean an airburst over a massive industrial park in a valley that minimized overall damage to the city? Also, an airburst is actually better in the long run. Less localized fallout.

                      I addressed that below. The line of reasoning that there is no functional difference between conventional and nuclear munitions is specious and unsupportable.

                      You have provided no argument that actually supports that, you just keep saying that nuclear weapons are different from conventional methods because they’re more efficient. They perform the same acts. Again, you’re being consistent, let’s return to the use of spears rather than guns, since guns are more efficient at killing civilians.

                      Nuclear weapons are designed to vaporize cities, not military installations.

                      This is a completely and utterly ignorant view of nuclear weapon development and their actual intended uses in warfare. I recommend you read a book like Command and Control to actually understand atomic weapons policy.

                    7. You mean that primitive bomber crews with no advanced radar had to use landmarks to plot bombing runs? That’s World War 2 Bomber History 101.

                      Yes, I’m well aware of that. You failed to note that the landmarks weren’t specifically the not-secretly located military facilities. That was my point.

                      Also, an airburst is actually better in the long run. Less localized fallout.

                      Right. It’s designed to maximize damage over a broader area.

                      let’s return to the use of spears rather than guns, since guns are more efficient at killing civilians.

                      Not a bad idea. Fewer people killed. You agree that’s a good thing, right?

                      This is a completely and utterly ignorant view of nuclear weapon development and their actual intended uses in warfare

                      Truman intended the bombs to maximize damage and not to be limited to military targets, to drive Japan to surrender. I wasn’t talking about overall nuclear strategy over 50 years.

                      It’s late. I’m tired. good night.

                    8. JW|8.8.15 @ 1:26AM|#
                      “It’s late. I’m tired. good night.”

                      You’re a bullshit artist; not surprising you leave when you’re called on it.

                    9. conventional methods were more destructive overall.

                      I’d add that yes, they were, because they had been used for the past 4 years. The RAF dumped almost 1,000,000 tons in Germany alone.

                      There were 2 nukes on 2 days and they wiped out nearly as many people that were killed in the years of carpet bombing in Tokyo.

                    10. JW|8.8.15 @ 12:22AM|#
                      “I’d add that yes, they were, because they had been used for the past 4 years. The RAF dumped almost 1,000,000 tons in Germany alone.
                      There were 2 nukes on 2 days and they wiped out nearly as many people that were killed in the years of carpet bombing in Tokyo”

                      Which, of course, is relevant in that the nukes ended the war while the 4 years prior did nothing of the sort.
                      And JW thinks that supports his claims.
                      John, you are more welcome to spar with a bullshit artist; gutten abend.

                    11. There were 2 nukes on 2 days and they wiped out nearly as many people that were killed in the years of carpet bombing in Tokyo.

                      Again, so what? Your argument comes down to ‘the atomic bombs were more efficient at killing people quickly’ which does not elevate it to some monstrous act above conventional methods. It just means it was efficient at committing the same savage acts. You are constructing a distinction that doesn’t exist.

                    12. You are constructing a distinction that doesn’t exist.

                      Sigh.

                      You made the statement that the conventional bombings were more destructive, therefore, nuclear weapons shouldn’t be granted any special status. I illustrated as to why that’s an accurate statement, but wrong in absolute terms.

                      You’re making some kind of narrowly targeted, clinical argument looking at the end result and declaring them synonymous, as if that’s some kind of significant point. Under your terms, there’s no effective difference between a switchblade and .50 cal.

                      If you can’t see any difference in the killing 150,000 people in minutes as opposed to 3+ years, then we really don’t have much to talk about. I’m kind of speechless at that level of rationalization.

                    13. Asshole, do your dancing all you please, but answer the question:
                      WHAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE?.
                      You have none. You’re a slimy piece of crap who hopes the world would somehow be different than it is. Why you don’t admit you’re a proggy, I have no idea.
                      Now, DO YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE or are you hoping unicorns would make things OK and you wouldn’t be called on your bullshit?

                    14. “You seem to be elevating the atomic bombs above conventional warfare,”

                      That’s one possibility. The other, more common in my experience is simply the narcissistic presumption of moral superiority by those who realize it takes time and study to really understand an issue
                      It’s a low-cost alternative to that *studying*, plus, it FEELZ good, and sells well among the low-info crowd.

        2. Yeah, in my experience there’s a lot of bullshit floating around Japanese academic history in regards to a lot of their atrocities. The most common thing is to just roll with the lowest casualty figures, but some of the more nationalist historians go with flat-out revisionist “this didn’t happen and all those pictures of headless bodies floating in a river are just logs”.

          1. My favorite line, re: the ‘official’ Japanese history of Nanking =

            “Firstly = It never happened. Secondly = They deserved it.”

          2. “but some of the more nationalist historians go with flat-out revisionist “this didn’t happen and all those pictures of headless bodies floating in a river are just logs”.”
            I still don’t see the Japanese accepting what the military did at the time. For instance, a well-educated business man explained to me during a lunch that the Bataan death march was only because the Japanese didn’t have enough trucks.
            No, it wasn’t.

            1. It’s just depressingly hilarious that Japanese government keeps expressing ‘regret’ over what happened to China, but refuse to use the word ‘apology’. I believe some former Japanese PMs have personally apologized.

              1. And jackoffs like JW continue to post empty shit which has been debunked years ago.
                FFS, if you’re going to claim high moral ground, you have better have read every damn thing you can about it, or you’ll get it jammed back in your mouth the minute you open it.

        3. OK, I can get behind that. Sorry for misunderstanding what you wrote.

          1. No problem. The problem we have is explaining how not using the bombs would have saved lives. Saying there was no other choice than nuking the civilian population may be correct given they couldn’t think of any viable option at the time. How would I know? Point is we need to exhaust every other possible solution and provide evidence that using Nukes is unnecessary today. We won’t win by asking people to self immolate no matter the strength of the ethical argument. I’m talking strategy.

            1. “Saying there was no other choice than nuking the civilian population may be correct given they couldn’t think of any viable option at the time. How would I know?”
              OK, one more:
              Got one even in hind-sight?

              1. Which is why I said, “How would I know”. I prefer focussing on what can be done today to protect civilians from being torched. Hayek said (IIRC) that when goods cross borders, soldiers don’t. The things we can do today is fight for free trade and free association. Societies mutually benefit and the cost of war outweighs the benefit. Well before 1945, idiot lefties like FDR introduced liberty killing policies. If the US had experienced the economic growth it should have we may not have gotten to that point in the first place. The Japanese filled a power vacuum and are responsible for their atrocities.

                1. OK, I tend to get testy with ‘moral’ ignoramuses like JW who presume we could have just, uh, what was that JW? Somehow, JW has YET TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
                  IOWs, proggy assholes who wish the world were populated with fluffy unicorns.

                  1. I have no idea of JWs leanings. What’s the goal? Mine is to get people to realize the historical chain reactions that are set in motion when states gather power over their citizens. Clearly the Japanese imperial govt was worse, but the US also had a decade of soul crushing policies in place. I hate lefties as much as anyone and will not let them off the hook for their role in the circumstances leading up to the war.

                    1. straffinrun|8.8.15 @ 1:25AM|#
                      “I have no idea of JWs leanings. What’s the goal?”
                      Honesty. Sort of like Tony and commie kid to admit that their preferences results in far more deaths than the alternative. JW refuses to deal with the issue and that dishonesty deserves whatever pressure anyone can put on him. Spreading those lies are every bit as bad as supporting Stalin.

                      “Mine is to get people to realize the historical chain reactions that are set in motion when states gather power over their citizens. Clearly the Japanese imperial govt was worse, but the US also had a decade of soul crushing policies in place.”
                      Agreed but no comment on that under the circumstance; it’s another question entirely.

                      “I hate lefties as much as anyone and will not let them off the hook for their role in the circumstances leading up to the war.”
                      Do you let them off the hook for ‘blaming the victim’?

                    2. What’s your goal, Sevo? I’ve told you mine, which is to keep us away from having to make the choice btw killing innocent people or being killed ourselves. You can argue with JW over the morality of making that kind of choice. Every person is worthy of being killed bc of the action of leaders they may have opposed or merely tolerated? Not black and white, but opposing state oppression is. That is what I care about.

                    3. straffinrun|8.8.15 @ 2:26AM|#
                      “What’s your goal, Sevo?”

                      To call out self-righteous, lying, pieces of shit.
                      That would be YOU, JW.

            2. The problem we have is explaining how not using the bombs would have saved lives.

              It’s completely speculative and was also at the time, which is why I don’t bother with such claims. Talk is cheap and nothing is a zero-sum. But these utilitarian exercises aren’t relevant for me at all.

              There is no argument that will ever convince me that deliberately targeting civilians is a military necessity.

              Agreed on your statements of trade and avoiding war.

              ——————-

              sevo, you’re filtered out, so you can stop replying to me.

              Like Tony, Bo and Shriek, you aren’t worth my time.

              1. “sevo, you’re filtered out, so you can stop replying to me.
                Like Tony, Bo and Shriek, you aren’t worth my time”

                Get called on bullshit, stick your fingers in your ears. I remember that!
                Not only a lying piece of shit but infantile, too!

      2. JW|8.7.15 @ 10:51PM|#
        “I said it the other day: The armchair general is the ultimate collectivist.”

        Well, that, uh………..
        I said today that armchair moralists are shitbags.

      3. You don’t know what ‘collectivism’ is.

    4. I remember liking Dan Carlin’s take on this. I seem to remember that he did a good examination of the idea that war is corrosive to ethics and makes things like incinerating Dresden seem all right. But fuck, I’m not about to listen to 2 and a half hours of anything serious right now.

      1. Incinerating Dresden wasn’t just right, it was morally obligatory.

  19. Officials emphasized that there was no threat to drinking water from the spill

    yet.

  20. …Orange Mine…

    There’s orange in them thar hills! Orange I tells ya!

    1. Can you help a fellow American down on his luck?

      1. Hit the road!

  21. What’s up with all of that Santorum in the river?

    1. Makes me want to Kasich!

  22. You guys are never satisfied! The government workers got the hazardous waste out of the hazardous waste area. What more do you want?

    1. For them to drink it?

  23. It looks like a giant river of Nacho Cheese

      1. *Pictures Playa wakeboarding on a giant tortilla chip*

        1. I drink Red Bull and do extreme things.

          1. more than words

        2. Is that photo for real? Who in the world would kayak in that stuff??

          1. yes. those people.

            http://www.durangoherald.com/s…..4598063001

  24. So when the government owned Tennessee valley authority released all that ash that destroyed homes, after ignoring private companies that warned them their ash containment sucked, it was a war on ash. A war against the responsible companies though.

  25. Top…Men…!

  26. Brought to you by the bumbling, stumbling, Keystone Cops in the Obama Administration.
    “We had to pollute the river to save it!” says head of EPA in Colorado. “And, by the way, this was George Bush’s fault because…uh…Cecile, do you have that printout from the White House as to how we were to explain this away as the fault of the Bush Administration? Is this mic on?”

  27. If the EPA was the name of a private corporation, there would millions of people screaming online that we couldn’t believe their lies and that the mine waste was certain to give people cancer, and demanding a federal investigation and a lawsuit that would put the EPA out of business.

    None of which of course means that the EPA is lying, just that some people have some sort of psychotic hatred of private corporations that makes them paranoid about everything private corporations do.

  28. EPA, more like the EDA: Environmental Destruction Agency. Who’s the biggest polluter in the U.S., it rhymes with shrederal rubbermint.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.