Posted on 01/03/2002 10:25:56 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Government scientists planted samples of lynx hairs in a third national forest, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.
"A preliminary investigation by the U.S. Forest Service said planted samples were submitted from the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington state, but the report did not say how many additional samples were submitted from that region.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
When the facts on that website are presented, we find that the only reason your nose is out of joint is because you have shoved your head in the sand. Bush is doing everything he can to limit the influence of the envirowhackos on policy, he doesn't need to kiss anyone's ass for votes.
Real, honest to goodness scientists, like myself, work long and hard on a project. We must produce volumes upon volumes of statistical data before we go to the next research step. That next step requires controlled testing and impecable record keeping, along with strict scientific analysis. All the way through the process the data must be kept "clean" and it must be analyzed by several different teams for absolute accuracy. Anybody gets caught "fudging", or presents falsified data they get canned (never to work in research again) and the entire project goes back to the beginning, do not pass "go", do not collect $200. Millions of dollars are wasted when this happens. Sometimes the project is dumped all together. Many of you that don't work in medical research don't realize that this has happened, and happens to this day. The people responsible for this are thrown out of the medical research community, they are branded, and they are never permitted to do ANY research activities again. The scientific community does not allow these breaches of protocol, they can't afford to.
Now, one might argue that this doesn't compare with medical research. Afterall, medicine deals with human life, and it should be held to a higher standard.......RIGHT? Well, are the lives of the farmers and ranchers in these areas any less important than a sick patient with a certain disease? Are the incomes and families of the people that live there any more important than that of those same sick people? Is the premise of the Constitution that accorded private property RIGHTS to the citizens of these here United States less important than the sick people with some terrible illness? Should environmental "science" be held to the same strict standards that medicial research is held to?
Those are a bunch of questions to answer, I know. I see it every day. Remember when the einvirals got their underwear in a bunch about alligators? They made all these "factoids" about the alligator is an endangered species. Stop killing the poor, innocent alligator. They came up with a statistic that supported their claim that the alligator was disappearing in north america. We believed it, and we stopped killing alligators for shoes, suitcases, and handbags. But, the Cajuns in the swamps of Louisiana didn't! Where they live they don't really get much "government intervention". Now we have an over proliferation of alligator populations in FLA (they were liberal enough to believe the "cooked" numbers of the envirals). They eat dogs, cats, potbellied pigs, and (sadly) little kids. When this debacle hits the envirals proclaim that they have saved the species and the harvesting of alligators can go ahead (regulated, of course). Here's the payoff----Louisiana never had this problem. They never stopped the hunt. Consequently, Louisiana never had to play catch-up with the rest of the south on this manure! Thank God for those defiant Cajuns in those southern Louisiana swamps. It turns out they were much better "conservationalists" than your average, run of the mill, ivy league educated, yankee, enviral, sommitch! How do you count alligators? You live with them, you hunt 'em, you eat 'em, that how! Believe me, those Cajuns, in those swamps are more of a scientist that 300 of those arrogant bastards that claim a degree!
Impeachment isn't the only narrow issue on disaffected constituents' minds. Social and fiscal conservatives have plenty of disappointments to choose from: Sen. Gorton was AWOL during last year's debate on banning race and gender preferences in state government. He is an unabashed supporter of corporate welfare for professional sports teams and timber companies. He co-authored an op-ed article last year with state Attorney General Christine Gregoire, a protege and potential opponent, in support of monstrous tobacco legislation that would have hiked cigarette taxes and given unprecedented regulatory powers to the Food and Drug Administration.He and his ilk are what you think we should all vote for, because they "have a chance of winning"? No thanks.
Instant runoff voting would allow people to vote positively, for those who best represent their views, instead of the "lesser of two evils", and end up with a candidate who most of the electorate agreed on even if it wasn't everyone's first choice. I urge you to look into it, if you are really interested in the best candidates being elected, and seeing that there are no "wasted" votes.
And in the absence of "instant runoff" you elected Maria.
You never know when they'll fire up a "cat survey" in my neighborhood.. whoops, they already have (Northern MN).
There was so little difference between the R and D candidates as to be negligible. This is usually the case. Two big-government candidates from the two halves of the Incumbent party arguing over who has the best government programs. When Republicans start offering real small-government candidates who will stand their ground and not cowtow and pander like a political whore to every special interest group who promises campaign contributions, and who will actually deliver on their endless promises to reduce government, then maybe they'll start winning back people like me. Until then they will continue losing elections.
Perhaps if the "R"s in WA want the votes of libertarians in the next election, they should field a candidate who pays more than lip service (or no service at all!) to his supposed commitment to smaller, less intrusive government.
Meanwhile, I will promote IRV to everyone I run across as a fair and reasonable alternative to current election procedures. I guess it must not seem as attractive to major party people as it does to me, since, if implemented, it might shatter the myth that 3rd party candidates are "unelectable".
In any case, I see no value in beating people over the head with a past election whose results were dissatisfactory, if one is interested in those same people supporting one's candidates in a future election. Seems almost counterproductive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.