Fwd: [at-l] A.N.W.R. VOTE - conservation issue - not trail

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

At 09:51 PM 12/5/01 +0000, Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
>Ron Martino wrote:
>...clip...
>>To be fair, I have no proof one way or another, and I haven't had (nor
>>likely will have) the opportunity to track down all of the reports that
>>went into this synopsis. But is there any reason the elected officials
>>trying to open the 1002 Area to drilling would allow this report to
>>stand unchallenged if there were factual errors they could dispute?
>
>Maybe -- "if" they know about the site.  You'd be surprised what upper 
>level government management "doesn't" know.  I deal with that every 
>day.  Fact is, it doesn't take "factual errors they could dispute" - all 
>it takes is a memo from a Division head to shut the site down.  It's 
>happened.  You're assuming that the "government" knows what's going on, 
>who has what Web sites up, who's following the party line and who's not, 
>etc.  Wrong assumption.

Hmmm?  Let me see if I understand the logic here.  Who are the ignorant 
"they"?  Are you saying that because upper level management may be too 
ignorant of the real facts to dispute the reports they should be allow 
drilling based on their ignorance or is it because politicians who are too 
ignorant of the facts to dispute a report that *may* be fallacious because 
an ignorant upper management was duped by lower level employees with an 
agenda?  Either way it sounds like 'We can't really trust anyone to tell it 
like it is so, to hell with it, let them drill'.  That's way too cynical 
for my taste.

sAunTerer