On 12/09/2009 05:51 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
You're right Rick that suppression can occur even in the US:
http://premiereslignes.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/12/08/enfumes.html
(in French, sorry)
Intéressant, peut-etre, mais je parie que Rick ne trouverait pas ce blog
très amusant.
The example of Patrick Michaels, evil climatologist churning out dubious
reports, would be more surprising if he hadn't been with the Cato
Institute. I mean, everybody already knows those guys are just a
mouthpiece for the far right and the oil lobby, don't they?
I actually had a serious (though maybe rather dumb) question, regarding
the last part of the blog: What was Philip Cooney's actual impact with
regard to the reports that he allegedly watered down? I mean, who
actually sees the publications produced by the Environmental Quality
Council of the Whitehouse? Was this stuff just being given to Bush
(i.e., was this a way of manipulating the Prez)? Or are their reports
widely published and read? I'm asking because I can't recall anybody
ever quoting documents from that office.
Michel
2009/12/9, Rick Monteverde<[email protected]>:
Stephen wrote:
<...> I can't help but think any assertion that expressing any particular
belief "should be ILLEGAL [in the United States]" must be nothing more than
a personal expression of frustration, or possibly a straw man set up to
start an argument.<...>
I think what NP was referring to was for the UK, and he said or implied that
there is precedence for such a thing there and that he was basically
optimistic that it could happen. We First Amendment huggers (believers) here
in the US tend to react less favorably to such moves than do the poor
blighted furriners in Europe who have demonstrated a tendency to embrace
true tyranny over the years. But like I said, our worst mistake would be
thinking it can't happen here.
- R.
