4 ms·
FWIW, I have a lot more faith in a company that allows its engineers to communicate directly with the public. If there's something in particular that should rem
by dhfhduk 10y ago
FWIW, I have a lot more faith in a company that allows its engineers to communicate directly with the public. If there's something in particular that should remain quiet, then that should be handled as such on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, as others have noted, the EPA is a public institution, and should be answerable to the public.
This is authoritarianism, and nothing else. Control, intimidation, and fear.
The EPA functioned fine with Obama. Trump just doesn't want to be answerable for what he knows are unpopular policies.
He didn't win a majority of the vote, it's on his mind (he feels obliged to explain this with paranoid conspiracies regarding immigrants). He knows that what he does is going to get pushback from the public, and he doesn't want it.
- washadjeffmad 10y agoI've worked for the USDA-ARS. In general, you're overestimating the value and validity of what any independent public employee might have to say. Doubly so for the USDA-ARS. I mean, based solely on how people here are talking, that a bunch of old hippies, bucolic farmers, and bug ranchers holed up in their hillside facilities aren't the savviest ad people and shouldn't be given unfiltered loudspeakers on behalf of their departments would not be the most imprudent decision. I know PhDs who look like they fell out of King of the Hill and still go on about "that old bitch Pelosi". Great scientists, know the natural world with a depth and intimacy few can attain, but who will make you want to punch them in the face on every other topic, which they love to share their opinions on. As long as you don't cut off their research (whose direction is set by the president), the world will be alright. Just please don't ever give them the Twitter login.