I checked quite a few sources and I have to say that not only did Watt = deny making the statement, he also pointed out that his Pentacostal = faith required that we look after the earth and protect it. While I = think he was a pretty lousy Secretary of the Interior, I attribute that = to the development philosophy that he shared with his party and not to = his religious values. I do not see any evidence that he made the = statement and then backtracked.
Spiro Agnew on the other hand -- while I have not checked for = references, I personally remember when he made that statement (if you = have seen one redwood, you've seen them all) which was definitely a = rejection of the concept of habitat conservation, and he was no = conservationist! I might add that Agnew's comment hit the fan as soon as = he made it, while Watt's alleged comment only appeared much later. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Wayne Tyson=20 To: William Silvert ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:33 PM Subject: Intellectual integrity Truth and Fact Re: Overshoot, Homo = colossus, detrivore ecosystem, dirty commies, pestilence, nuclear = meltdown etc., ad infinitum. Whether or not it is written that Watt said ""God gave us these things = to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back," does the = statement truly reflect his attitude, actions, and personality? While I = respect Silvert's mea culpa, I don't doubt that Watt was capable of such = a statement, nor do I doubt that history was, at that time, commonly = rewritten, "misspeaking" was common, and "maximum feasible denial" was = THE mantra of the times. Times haven't changed much, eh? =20 Facts commonly fall short of truth, and truth is not a mere fact. = That's why a single datum is an inadequate basis for a conclusion. =20 WT
