[at-l] Cheney Lackey vs. Nat'l. Parks (from LA Times)

[jestbill at yahoo.com (william fitzpatrick)]

I tend to repeat myself.

If you're interested in a subject that affects large numbers of people, you'll
eventually realize that decisions that count are made by politicians.  So, you
have to be interested in politics.  When one "side" or another makes a series
of decisions that you think are wrong, you will be forced to point out that
fact or admit that you really don't care after all.

The American people are generally thought to be pro-environment.  The American
people elected and reelected two oil company executives to run the show.  That
isn't necessarily a contradiction, but it is definitely not a statement that
Bush et. al. are pro-environment.

Someone posting to the list that the Bush administration has, or is about to do
something negative with respect to the environment may as well be saying "The
sky is blue."  It is not new and it is not news.  It's not something a sane
person would object to.

Now, asking again--just how could this topic be broached on the AT list in a
way that did not "bash" one side or the other?
----------------------------------------------------

--- Raphael Bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:

> At 09:32 AM 8/28/2005 -0400, Sly wrote:
> 
> >What's more telling is that it's NOT the "conservative" Washington Times 
> >reporting.  It appears conservatives aren't into conserving these days.
> 
> 
> Right. You won't hear about it from Coulter, Limbaugh,
> Dobson, Falwell or Fox News, either.
> 
> BushCo aren't conservatives in any sense.  They're
> radicals, in every sense of the word.  No respect for
> rules, tradition or even "states rights" when such things
> stand in the way of their agenda.
> 
> 
> rafe b
> aka terrapin
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com