SEARCH BLOG: ENERGY BILL
Today, The New York Times ran an article decrying the EPA's decision to prevent states from setting their own higher mileage and restrictive emission standards for automobiles.
I posted a comment that pointed out the so-called energy bill which ended up as an automotive mileage and emissions bill had neglected several areas of reality... including cost... and totally ignored areas that should have been part of a comprehensive energy policy.
The Times seems to have selectively eliminated my comments from the list because they did not agree with the position of the article. So much for "rational dialogue."Apparently, free speech only refers to speech that agrees with The New York Times.
In order to meet the censorship requirements of The New York Times, I posted the following:
December 20th, 2007 12:01 pmThe great thing about the free market is that if a person in California or Vermont wants to pay for a product that supports his political conviction, he can find one.
The great thing about political bureaucracies is that they can create an array of laws and regulations to ensure that the free market is crippled.
The great thing about a democracy is that you can vote for either situation.
So should states have the right to mandate random and inconsistent laws and regulations regarding vehicle emissions and mileage? Certainly, if that's what the voters want.
Just be careful what you vote for... you may get it.
— Bruce Hall, Michigan
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.Apparently not. Free markets choice is simply too "abusive" and "off subject" for The New York Times.
After I wrote an email to one of the authors of the article, my second (but still not first) comment appeared as a 12:37 post.