Coal Miners deaths less important to Congress than brief glimpse of a breast

[perry]

It took Congress about 40 days to pass laws for unintentional "indecent" exposure after Janet Jacksons "Wardrobe Malfunction."

It has now been 3 or 4 months after the major coal mine disaster this year - and congress has not yet passed any new mine safety legislation - and realistically there is no idea when such legilation would pass.

The Congress has just passed a new bill upping the fines for a "wardrobe malfuntion" by 10 as part of a bill dealing with communication issues; it is expected to be signed into law.

5 More coal miners are dead this weekend.

Golly - a womans breast must surely cause significant mental and physical harm, even death - especially if a guy sees one... (Perhaps I''m making an assumption that they are not upset if a gal sees a womans breast - I guess I don''t know that for sure: maybe they feel that it would be inappropriate for girl or lady to see a breast as well).

Now I know that coal mining is a dangerous occupation - and perhaps nothing could really have been done to prevent the latest tradegy. But, looking at congresses response to various issues makes me wonder...

Where are our priorities?


Perry

 

[colormyworld]

Where are our priorities? They are where ever those with the deepest pockets say it is. Follow the money!

 

[strmrdr]

Its not that easy.
Mining is governed by regulations not laws as such.
No one set of laws will cover every mine.
Basicaly the way it works is that goverment hired experts working with consultants set the rules for that mine and the rules are different for every mine.
So literaly there isnt anything congress can do.

As long as there are mines there are going to be deaths thats a fact.
There is no such thing as a 100% safe mine.
Even pit mines have occasional deaths because someone does something stupid.
And yes there are several miners in my family out west and some that have been killed in mine accidents.
Its going to happen no matter what anyone does until robots replace human miners and even then there will still be some.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

There is no such thing as a 100% safe breast.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/22/2006 8:44:10 PM
Author: Mr Majestyk
There is no such thing as a 100% safe breast.

Huh?

Do you think you are answering Storm's points?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/23/2006 5:20:39 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 5/22/2006 8:44:10 PM
Author: Mr Majestyk
There is no such thing as a 100% safe breast.

Huh?

Do you think you are answering Storm''s points?

Once again, you pretend to fail to get the humor and sarcasim in his/her post.

I don''t get your point in doing such?

...not to mention that mining has a huge lobby base that has the ears of their people.

 

[movie zombie]

f&i, i, too, read it several times before i realized it was an attempt at humor....or hoped it was an attempt at humor.

movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/23/2006 9:04:32 AM
Author: fire&ice
Once again, you pretend to fail to get the humor and sarcasim in his/her post.

I don't get your point in doing such?

First, if I am doing this "once again", that means I did it before. When? Did you point out the error of my ways the last time in order to help me improve myself? If you didn't, you must forgive me for not knowing I had been in error before!

Second, you give me too much credit if there actually is humor in MM's posting, because if it's there, I did miss it (as opposed to pretending to).

Third, I don't get what the point of pretending not to get the humor is, either. That's why it would be highly unlikely that I did that.

Deb

 

[colormyworld]

Seems like a pretty sad attempt to make light of five miners deaths
I stand by my statement regarding the lobby being able to quash tougher regs. in order to allow the companys to profit more. I guess this is a sign of the times we live in. Profit above all else.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/23/2006 6:47:38 PM
Author: colormyworld
Seems like a pretty sad attempt to make light of five miners deaths

Oh PLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAASEEEEEEEEE - spare me the slap.

It''s a simple way of pointing out - we are talking apples to oranges.

What is truly funny - why all the outrage NOW? Again, with 100 news channels - they have to report something - do you really think this is a present day problem?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/23/2006 7:11:18 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 5/23/2006 6:47:38 PM
do you really think this is a present day problem?

Mines are safer than than pretty much anytime in history in the US.
In the early 1800s to 1970 time frame 5 a week wouldnt be unexpected.
It makes news for the very reason that its rare now.
I forget the exact year but it was in the mid 70s that they cracked down on it even going as far as making some mines shut down.
The reason I remember it is a a couple of my cousins out west were mad about it because they got put out of work.

The eviro-wackos want all mining stopped is one of the reasons its being over-played by the media.
Next time you complain about the price of gold and silver remember that there is a whole lot of it right here in the US that cant be mined because of the enviro-wackos and some of it for mine safety reasons.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/23/2006 7:35:47 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/23/2006 7:11:18 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 5/23/2006 6:47:38 PM
do you really think this is a present day problem?

Mines are safer than than pretty much anytime in history in the US.
In the early 1800s to 1970 time frame 5 a week wouldnt be unexpected.
It makes news for the very reason that its rare now.
I forget the exact year but it was in the mid 70s that they cracked down on it even going as far as making some mines shut down.
The reason I remember it is a a couple of my cousins out west were mad about it because they got put out of work.

The eviro-wackos want all mining stopped is one of the reasons its being over-played by the media.
Next time you complain about the price of gold and silver remember that there is a whole lot of it right here in the US that cant be mined because of the enviro-wackos and some of it for mine safety reasons.

PRECISLY! Yeah, and I - maybe you - were old enough when they said enough was enough. And, again - it didn''t make some employees happy.

I think you should have a safe environment for all workers - but even if you follow OSHA to the tees - your going to have problems.

 

[colormyworld]

Hmmmmm, We sure do seem to be having a lot of coal miners killed by lighting strikes latley.

 

[colormyworld]

Granted minning is dangerous work but there is no excuse for safety gear not to be in working order or to not have that gear within reach at all times in such a dangerous environment.
I guess it is easy for some to blame the sad state of affairs on the "enviro wackos." If left to the people who don't believe in any such sort of controls I feel we would live in a much more polluted world. Heck we would be full of DDT the water would be unfit to drink. Maybe we should dump all of all our toxic wastes in the oceans. Like the navy was doing with its chemical warfare agents in the late 60's early 70's.
Love canals for everyone. Maybe we should go back to the good old days. Is that what we should do?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/23/2006 8:04:25 PM
Author: colormyworld
Maybe we should go back to the good old days. Is that what we should do?

NO!
find a happy medium.
It was too far one way and has swung too far the other.

 

[colormyworld]

And where is that "happy medium" Do we know what all the effects of what we do today, will be in the future?
i do know for a fact that most companys will cut corners to save money( edited to add) unless FORCED to do other wise!

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/23/2006 8:04:25 PM
Author: colormyworld
Granted minning is dangerous work but there is no excuse for safety gear not to be in working order or to not have that gear within reach at all times in such a dangerous environment.
I guess it is easy for some to blame the sad state of affairs on the ''enviro wackos.'' If left to the people who don''t believe in any such sort of controls I feel we would live in a much more polluted world. Heck we would be full of DDT the water would be unfit to drink. Maybe we should dump all of all our toxic wastes in the oceans. Like the navy was doing with its chemical warfare agents in the late 60''s early 70''s.
Love canals for everyone. Maybe we should go back to the good old days. Is that what we should do?

And, it''s all the government''s job to regulate safety? Do you really have to have a law for people to buckle their seat belts? Isn''t that good common sense? Is it the government''s job to check to see if the safety equipment is working? The foreman & miner''s have a responsiblity. You must not work in a dangerous environment. My husband kicked someone off the job because they show up in shorts, not the proper shoes & no hard hat. HELLO - I''m sorry it''s the workers responisblity to be responsible. QUESS WHAT? He caught flak from the other worker''s for DENYING his day''s pay.

 

[MINE!!]

It never ceases to amaze me how one minute people want the government to butt out and the same people turn around and fuss cause the government is not involved enough.. *sigh* Pick one...

 

[colormyworld]

Yes I feel the government should step in if the company will not provide the proper saftey gear. They should be FORCED to provide a safe work eneviroment.
How does the government spying on us have anything to do with this thread other than just trying to stir the pot?????

 

[MINE!!]

LOL... looks to me as if there is a lot of stirring happening here without me.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/24/2006 4:40:16 PM
Author: colormyworld
Yes I feel the government should step in if the company will not provide the proper saftey gear. They should be FORCED to provide a safe work eneviroment.
How does the government spying on us have anything to do with this thread other than just trying to stir the pot?????

FIrst, that''s the discounect. I don''t think the government should legislate safety issue after safety issue. And, the company DID provide the proper safety gear. SOMEONE didn''t keep it up or check on it. That is the responsibility of the workers or at least their foreman. The government can not possibly micro manage whether all equipment is working at all times.

Huh -how is the Government going to legislate safety & follow up on it w/o unannounced visits (which is just what OSHA does)? How is that not considered spying? It''s all in the name of "safety".

Legislation has replaced personal responsibility. It''s very sad when you have to put a disclaimer on a bottle of Jack Daniels b/c a pregnant mother drank an ENTIRE bottle & she didn''t know it was going to affect the baby? Maybe they should put a disclaimer on the cocaine "baggy" that don''t snort coke if you plan on breast feeding your baby.

 

[colormyworld]

Do we have the same right to privacey in our working life as we do in our personal life??
The foreman is an agent for the company.
Maybe they should be locking those " mothers " who drink the JD and ruin thier childs life before they even have a chance!!!!! I have never heard of that happening. Why????
Mine what do your posts have to do with this thread?????

 

[colormyworld]

It sounds as if you are saying the companys should not have saftey standards regulated by the government. If not the government, Who? The companys?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/24/2006 6:00:53 PM
Author: colormyworld
It sounds as if you are saying the companys should not have saftey standards regulated by the government. If not the government, Who? The companys?

They are regulated by the government. That is what OSHA does. They simply can not micro manage everyday to see that each and every complicance is being carried out each and every hour. It IS the responsiblity of those in the field to make sure their area is in compliance. Like in construction, you HAVE to know the safety "codes" for the workers and be in compliance or you are faced with heavy fines from OSHA. They, the government, have the right to shut down your job - right then and there. Where''s is the outrage when that happens by people who believe in government intervention in the workplace. Of course, it means money is lost for the company, etc. But, money is also lost by the 100''s of workers working on the job in the form of pay.

It''s a catch 22.

I see Mine''s point. I simply don''t understand why people are outraged when personal liberties are taken away. Nothing can be more intrusive than taking your job/livelihood away.

And, precisely such legislation that makes it O.k. for a company to fire or not hire people who smoke only outside of the workplace.

Be careful what you wish for.

At this point, you may be able to bring the mother who endangers her baby by drinking EXCESSIVE alcohol b/c the warning label is on the bottle. The reason the warning is there because of a lawsuit that was brought to Jack Daniels by a alcohol consuming mother. But, that''s a slippery slope. If you prevail in putting that women in jail, what other erosion chips may fall. See where I''m going with that? It could be a landmark case involving fetus''s.

The mother who breast fed her baby after snorting coke WAS brought up on murder charges. The baby was outside the womb & - my guess - she was brought up on poisioning charges.