That's not the problem

Post #31,807 by drewk 3/12/02 10:33:50 AM Reply	That's not the problem If they (your company x's experts) are giving "good advice" (from the perspective of the public good, which is what the public's representative should be interested in) exactly how are they going to be flamed? Use my example. Reasonable people might conclude that nuclear energy is better overall than coal. Whether you agree with this conclusion or not, you would have to (if you are being reasonable) agree that there are drawbacks to coal-fired plants that nuclear doesn't suffer from. But as soon as a public official starts asking questions of a nuke plant designer, various environmental groups are going to start staging protests. The modern environmental movement has IMO become as much a religious movement as one of public policy. Their conclusions can not be questioned. Even those opinions which may have once been reasonable are not open to refinement in the face of new technology. The sad thing is that this (near-)religious intolerance to questioning their beliefs obscures the legitimate points that could be, and should be, made. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #31,831 by Brandioch 3/12/02 12:20:13 PM Reply	I don't see the problem. But as soon as a public official starts asking questions of a nuke plant designer, various environmental groups are going to start staging protests. So? The sad thing is that this (near-)religious intolerance to questioning their beliefs obscures the legitimate points that could be, and should be, made. Again, so? You'll find religious viewpoints on just about every subject. On the other hand, some of them might have very good reasons for opposing what the >CORPORATE< "advisors" advise. But, since the discussion will be held in private, with undisclosed individuals who have undisclosed personal agendas, I'm sure everything will work out fine for the public. Just so they won't have to face some protestors. Yep, that makes perfect sense to me.
Post #31,832 by boxley 3/12/02 12:23:44 PM Reply	During the years when the dems had the house I used to listen adnauseum to Rep Miller on the energy commmitee trying to lock up Alaska. He would trot out all the usual suspects who would spout their shopworn crap and pass a bill to close the arctic. Now the repos Don young energy commitee is different. He would trot out all the usual suspects who would spout their shopworn crap and pass a bill to open the arctic. Just not your turn anymore, get over it. thanx, bill There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #31,840 by mmoffitt 3/12/02 1:08:42 PM Reply	If you accept what they hand you, you deserve what you get.
Post #31,855 by boxley 3/12/02 1:52:32 PM Reply	each according to my needs of their abilities? There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #31,993 by mmoffitt 3/13/02 9:58:38 AM Reply	No. each according to THEIR needs ;-)
Post #31,999 by boxley 3/13/02 10:51:41 AM Reply	who decides? commisar=ceo same diff :) There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #32,014 by mmoffitt 3/13/02 12:33:11 PM Reply	How about letting me decide? :-)
Post #32,020 by boxley 3/13/02 12:41:30 PM Reply	equals each according to my needs of their abilities :) There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #32,027 by mmoffitt 3/13/02 1:04:39 PM Reply	No, I am more equal than you are :)
Post #32,044 by boxley 3/13/02 1:50:22 PM Reply	thats why (communism-people=works)(communism+people=doesnt) There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #32,186 by mmoffitt 3/14/02 1:28:39 PM Reply	How do you know? It's never been tried.
Post #31,870 by Brandioch 3/12/02 2:48:44 PM Reply	That's why we should do it in public. Forgive me for referencing another thread in another forum, but, as I have said, a person will filer which "facts" s/he will accept as "facts" (instead of "conjecture" or "fantasy" or "bad science"). This will be based upon his/her previous opinion. So, we drag the policy process out into the open. Then we try to avoid the emotional discussions ("but what about the children?"). Then see if you can hit a consensus for 90% of the population. Personally, I think things like opening Alaska up for resource exploitation >SHOULD< be discussed in public. If you make a mistake, you can do a lot of damage. But that doesn't mean that we have to skip all exploitation. Or that suitable safeguards can't be put in place. But doing it simply by pre-screening your "experts" for people who already agree with your policy is beyond stupid (but it does make good politics).

Welcome to IWETHEY!