Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i am bewildered about your apparent assumption that political officials have the expertise adquate to allow them to blow off review processes, ignore their own experts, etc, in the formulation of policy.
|
I don't agree that Chaney "blew off" the review process.
And I actually have more trust in Chaney's combined experience in government and in the private sector over almost any environmentalist who has never had to produce a good or service while dealing with oppressive government regulations.
Quote:
|
i am bewildered by your mode of argumentation, which seems only about superficial factoids buttressed by a faith in corporate actors operating within very specific types of bounded rationalities to be able to step outside that rationality and fashion policy that is somehow not predictated on corporate interest to the exclusion of all others.
|
Corporate interests are relatively clear. The interests of some groups are not. But that is not the point. Like I wrote the point is in the final product. Regarding clean air regulations, I think we are better served when those regulations are streamlined and allow for increased efficiency for corporations. Often regulators don't understand the impact they have and the unneeded costs they put into goods and services.
Quote:
|
i am bewildered by your apparent hostility to environmenal groups, which in the main function to raise political concerns that have to do with what is excluded from corporate internal thinking and imaging of their own performance and the impacts these exclusions have on stakeholders. in this, i am not making any argument that one side is entirely right and one entirely wrong--i just don't get the basis for your dismissal of environmental groups a priori.
|
Come now. There is a difference between "hostility" and the fact that I don't they they are always right and that I don't always understand their agenda. I think there is a role for environmentalist, I stated that.
Quote:
|
i don't really understand anything about where you are coming from politically--you seem unconcerned with democratic process altogether, animated by some quaint faith in the ability of corporate entities to transcend their organizational limitations and act in the best interest of--well who?--themselves, really.
|
I would argue that I have a better understanding of the democratic process than most. I think the process requires work. I think if your point of view is in the minority, you can change that. I think you have an obligation to change it. I don't complain that democracy takes work. I don't get offended when "my guy" doesn't have a seat at the table, if I failed to give "my guy" the power to command a seat at the table.
Quote:
|
when you are not bothered by the way in which bush/cheney formulated their energy policy and someone reading your posts ask themselves "why is this?"
|
First I mostly agree with the policy. Second the policy is the issue, not how it was written.
Quote:
|
the conclusion is that you don't care about procedural transparency.
|
I never said that. We know who Chaney met with and who he did not meet with. I further argue that we knew who he would meet with prior to his election. He did not hide the fact that he was pro-business. How more open can he be?
Quote:
|
when you say "i don' care about process, i care about results" it simply reinforces this. it doesn't matter whether you said it or not--the logic is in place throughout what you did say,
|
Perhaps clarification is in order. First is the final product. If the process was illegal, or fraudulent then I would be among those first in line to say there should be consequences. DC did not state that he thought the process was illegal or fraudulent, he simply stated regarding the process, the facts about who had audience with Chaney and who was forced to meet with staff. He said the people who had audience with Chaney support the Republican party financially and that they are in agreement with the administration.
Quote:
|
the end justifies the means, a disregard for process, a contempt for democratic procedures--all these are typically stalinist. again, it is of no consequence to me whether you like it or not.
|
I did not say "the ends justify the means". We are talking about regulations, not some life and death moral question. Given the fact we are talking about regulations, the point is not about the people who put the words on the paper, but the impact of the words on the paper. I can not explain this any clearer.
Quote:
|
and you conflate political ideology with a consumer choice. that one i have so little nice to say about that i'm not going to waste the energy to go beyond this period.
|
My political ideology is a choice, so is yours. Are you suggesting otherwise? Is there a political ideology gene or something?
Why do you folks get to a point and say "I am not going to waste any more energy on this" or that. What is the point of that? Why not just stop reading and responding. that is your choice. If you don't respond, I get it. Again, I think it is a red herring. Gee, you folks are confusing to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I would suggest it is far better to ask questions about ANY administration regarding specific policies and actions than to acquiesce based on a political ideology. (your seemingly "I voted for them, so I trust them" approach)
|
I trust them because they do what they say they will do. I would trust a guy like Kucinich as well, he would do what he says he would do, however I would not vote for him.
You mis-state my position, why?
Quote:
|
I would prefer that we stop making this so personal....but I'm not going to let your allegations or assumptions regarding my character and actions go unchallenged.
|
I ask specific questions, you make a choice on if you answer those questions or not. You can clarify misunderstandings or misconceptions. You make assumptions about me, you allege things about me or my views, isn't that the nature of an exchange? If I have stepped over a line, I am open to feed back from others or the administrator.