In 2005 we received an excellent example of the quality and results of placing a political appointment in a position of authority.  That was Brown at FEMA.  To consider replacing scientists with political appointees in the evaluation of Air Quality, is the equivalent of letting George Bush quarterback your team in the Super Bowl.

Did you hear Harry Reid's response to Bush's blaming him for the dying immigratiion bill? Something like "Bush is about as much an authority on immigration as he is on Iraq". Likewise, we can trust politicians to make the right decisions about air quality regulation as much as we can trust industry to 'self-regulate'. We see here yet another example of industry puppets trying to give themselves more power at the expense of the people. All I see from the people is apathy- exactly what politicians want. The Senate is in the same pockets- I say we ditch the Senate, along with the electoral college. Both were needed largely because the people were too many and too far away to be heard, so they needed representatives (and so did businesses). Today, with the internet, the people could vote on every bill- security and identification could be guaranteed, with the right software and procedures. Imagine- no politicians- only educated and empowered citizens. I wonder what would change?

I can see the get-rid-of-the-Senate part. But where do the "educated and empowered citizens" come from? Do we import them?

That's the beauty of it- when you take away the politicians, people will lose the apathy- if they know their voice will be heard, they will speak out, even think about it. Now, they just do as they are told, believe what they hear, and have faith that what they know is right won't happen anyway. I don't see any other way to empower the people and to get them interested than to take away the barrier of politics. Maybe I'm wrong- maybe people like being told what to think- but we'll never find out if the puppets are in control.

   Birdboy, you are a total optimist!!  

   Frankly, I would settle for either enlightened or educated, but suspect we are likely to get neither.  Remember that 15% of Americans don't know where New Jersey is, and many thought Iraq was South of Chicago someplace.

   Also remember that the people in power stay there not only by controlling the institutions of power, but by manipulating information and our response to it.  

   Who will educate us? Exxon-Mobil??  

   I do agree with you though on dumping the electoral college and reforming the senate.  Both of those were originally set up to protect the interests of certain small states so that they would join the union.  Now, they benefit conservatives in places like Utah, Wyoming and the Dakotas over the more liberal states like California.  We would be better off with true "one person, one vote".  IMHO.

Patrick

Ahh, thank you, kind sir, you have no idea how good that sounds. But closer to truth is that I am a dreamer. And I will continue to dream. I dream that people could get their information from the internet, radio, and TV. Sure, some folks would listen to conservatives or industry talking heads, but unlike mainstream media (bloob-tube, that is), a web-site is not expensive to put up, and scientists can offer their brand of bland facts and "liberal philosophy" for those who care to listen. Only fools get all their information from one source. I think most folks are not as dumb as they may seem- OK, gullible and easily manipulated, but I still think that if you took away the lying politicians who make your vote irrelavant in the current system, more people would vote, and discuss the issues, and find the truth, whether they want to hear it or not, regardless of the lies that some will tell. When the source of the information is disclosed, most people can make the connection. Look at what happens when local propositions are put to citizen votes- turn-out is often huge, and people talk about it and even change their minds when learning more information. Every new law and change to regulations could be the same way- popular media would have to get in line and answer to all available information instead of offering the same 'party line' and 'talking points'.

Wow, this is weird, playing the optimist. Am I believable?

People LIKE to be told what to think. It's sad but, very true.

One HUGE example is Clinton's Roadless rule. A giant percentage of eco-types surveyed overwhelmingly were for the rule, even though it specifically allowed logging and mining in them. I wonder how many people STILL think the old rule "saves" Roadless Areas from logging and mining. (BTW, I'm all for keeping them roadless but, it's kinda hard to remove the roads ALREADY in them. Clinton's rule only provided a miniscule additional amount of protection over the old rule. Bush's plan is NOT my cup of tea, though.)

This brings me to one of my favorite Zappa lyrics:

"Information is not knowledge...Knowledge is not wisdom...Wisdom is not truth...Truth is not beauty...Beauty is not love...Love is not music...Music is THE BEST"

This Orwellian mantra rings true today, and Walmart STILL won't sell his musical Oracles. grin

It seems that some of us think that the American people are (on average) too stupid to be trusted with making policy/law decisions... and if so, who should make the decisions? While I too am not impressed with much of what I hear and see in Redsville (i.e., 'proud to be a redneck' stickers on F350's), I've always given them the benefit of a doubt, assumed that they were horribly misinformed, isolated from the truth by powerful influences (whom I won't name in my role as optimist). For years, I've thought that other places had a preponderance of somewhat more rounded and open minds than this place. Please tell me it's still true? Since I don't wish to be called an elitist, or to make all the decisions myself, and since there is no candidate we can all get behind and trust to make decisions for us, I wonder if we shouldn't just let ignorant America vote itself into chaos (if it will) and see what comes out of it?

I'll be in my cabin in the woods for a few years, and maybe I'll check in on ya'll later... nnn-kay?

Au contraire, birdboy. We MUST continue to strive for a candidate from "somewhere" who the enlightened masses CAN all get behind. Obviously, that candidate won't be coming from from either major political party, as those groups are all too entrenched in their comfy fortifications.

We MUST rely on truth, conviction, inspiration and self-determination. Alas, this almost reeks of revolution but, that may be just what is needed, in a sense, to overcome the greed and corruption so pervasive in the American hierarchy today. Someone who can convince the capitalist machine to share the wealth, as well as the burden of pulling the world together for the sake of all the souls on board.

(Yeah, it's kinda cheesy but, I'm feeling a lil emotional and heroic tonight. It DOES convey my true feeling, though.)

We can only hope the entire Bush lineage gets a very pernicous cancer that can only be caused by pollution. Perhaps then they'll get their mind off their money and their money off their mind.

I work in a regulatory program that reports directly to the EPA. We have a joke, in our office, that the best way to make a problem go away is to report it to the EPA. We'll never hear about it again, and nothing will happen. It is also common knowledge that our direction will change every 4-8 years, so we can't ever see any long-term projects to their completion. It is pointless to argue about who should define Clean Air, when the person in charge of the EPA is always a political appointee with little or no experience neccesary. If you want to fix the problem, start there. After all, if the head of the EPA doesn't support the new definition of the NAAQS, they'll never make it into the regs.

Positions like the Chief of the Forest Service and Interior Secretary should be de-politicized. Just as Supreme Court judges are supposed to disconnect themselves form politics, science-dominated positions should also be divorced from the scourge of partisan politics.