posted
I find it very believable. Most voters don't understand the issue or care much about it (in fact, for some sticking it to scientists is a sufficient reason to vote for a politican), and the benefits in terms of donat^H^H^H^H^H goodwill from industry groups are immediately tangible.
Its the same sort of thinking that's led the Bush administration to shift a lot of regulation enforcement from government agencies . . . to the industries themselves! Unsurprisingly, violations suddenly drop off, yet there's "no change" in the standards or the enforcement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could make a fairly big list of Clinton distortions and political manipulation of science if I wanted to. But Karl's right - it's not relevant here.
I'll take classic rhetorical tricks for 100, Alex. Come on Dag, you think no one here has read Cicero?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Dag, you're a fair-minded person. Take a minute or two, and match Clinton's distortions and political manipulation of science line-for-line with President Bush's.
I think you'll run out of Clinton's long before you're even halfway through Bush's. Then, I guess, you could move on to Jimmy Carter's screw ups to keep the comparison going.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One biologist based in California, who responded to the survey, said in an interview with The Times that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not interested in adding any species to the endangered species list.
"For biologists who do endangered species analysis, my experience is that the majority of them are ordered to reverse their conclusions [if they favor listing]. There are other biologists who will do it if you won't," said the biologist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
