But, wouldn't firing cruise missiles filled with butter-flavored silica into government buildings make us JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS?

I read an interesting comment on another blog site. The comment was in essense what if President Obama just said everything Bush did was cancelled? Who is going to stop it. One big presidential order to undo everything Bush wants to do for his friends. What do you think?

While I mostly agree with what you're saying here, I just want to point out that some OSHA regs do fall deep into silly categories when applied outside the industries they were meant for. For example, R&D where the chemicals are used on a tiny scale and with standard precautions, by highly skilled individuals. It's very common for company safety people to point to OSHA and demand those standards be upheld. So you end up with a theoretical chemist being required to learn how to don breathing gear because a lab down the hall is working with gram quantities of a listed chemical (true story).

Meanwhile, my most favourite epostolary ornament, Tom Friedman, has a thoroughly Panglossian column up at the NYT. The cream of his curdled ruminations of the day:

There is now, for the first time, a chance — still only a chance — that a reasonably stable democratizing government, though no doubt corrupt in places, can take root in the Iraqi political space.

Rick--

The reversal process takes essentially the same amount of time as the rule creation process, from what I understand when I asked the same question. Draft the new rule, get it approved within the agency. Publish the new real in the Federal Register. Request public comment for some reaasonably lengthy time period (60 days?). Review comments.

And so on.

Much more damage than removing all the Os on the keyboards. As digby has said, there are many minefields being laid.

But, wouldn't firing cruise missiles filled with butter-flavored silica into government buildings make us JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS?
Posted by: broomhead

Actually, no---Republicans hire "out-of-towners" to fly jumbo jets filled with human-flavored humans into government buildings. Civilian buildings, too.

Wishing that people be cut up by rotating knoves or bombed by missiles? I used to draw pictures like that in the margins of my notebook in 2nd & 3rd grade. Then I grew up.

"While I mostly agree with what you're saying here, I just want to point out that some OSHA regs do fall deep into silly categories when applied outside the industries they were meant for."

Rather than applying regulations on a case by case basis, maybe the answer would be to exempt industries on a case by case basis.

Hey, Jass @ 6:45; I'm a big Tom Friedman fan, too. True belivers like us will remember his, "Dancing Alone" column a couple of years back, in which he acknowledged- after months of cheerleading - that the war in Iraq had been so badly mismanaged and was so flawed on its basis that there was no longer any hope of its succeeding. But, amazingly, hope appears to be tougher to kill than he thought. In between these times he has wandered back and forth, of course, as journalists often do in their attempts to come out on the right side even though their experience lies in writing about wars, not their planning, execution or prediction.

As winner correctly pointed out just before the Tom Friedman distraction seized my attention, you have to be careful about the introduction of rules that are going to have a broad application, industry-wide. Not ten YEARS worth of careful, obviously, but the example cited is fairly common - if the letter of the law says you must be in a full protective suit to handle certain chemicals, then the ruling must be broadly applied regardless the concentration of that chemical, or the environment in which you have to wear such a suit.

In the case of diacetyl, you'd think they'd just ban it altogether. After all, there was a perfectly acceptable alternative flavoring for popcorn before diacetyl came along, and I've never heard of anyone dying from butter poisoning. The quest to make it possible for us to do even less as consumers results in some strange accomodations.

What could Congress do to restrict the Bush Administration's authority for this sort of thing for the next two months? What can Obama do to undo the Bush legacy with a broad brush - almost immediately?

The U.S. should consider a policy on occupational chemical exposures that is based on the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle requires that a chemical be proven safe (rather than proven harmful) under defined conditions. This is the standard that most other developed countries use and he U.S. is an outlier in this area. We could learn from the examples of others, especially the Europeans, who have years of experience and data. We should seriously consider the benefits and costs of making this foundational to our occupational and environmental health policy.

Jesus winner-total bull shit. Name one incidence of what you say actually happening. Company safety people? Nonsense.

Jesus Gandalf, as some one responsible for implementing safety policy for my employer, I find winner's story completely believable. The regs are fine, but interpretation and application to real-world situations can be challenging.

Not only must a company consider OSHA's requirements, but also liability should an employee be injured. It's easy to be over zealous.

Years ago I remember seeing Mary Matalin on some talking heads show railing about all the OHSA or EPA restrictions dry cleaners had to operate under. What she didn't mention was at the time dry cleaners were using some very nasty carcinogens not only endangering themselves and their employees but spewing them around the neighborhood. I could be wrong but I believe since then the industry has come up with new less toxic chemicals because of those restrictions.