Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (133834)	3/28/2001 2:49:21 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Here's how Dem's make government policy: Gaming the System Two Clinton administration officials at the Bureau of Indian Affairs who overruled the advice of their professional staff and granted federal recognition to Indian tribes in the closing days of the Clinton administration have since gone to work for Indian interests in the private sector, the Boston Globe reports. Former BIA chief Kevin Gover quit three weeks before the end of Clinton's term, after overruling his staff and giving final recognition to the Chinook tribe of Washington state, the Boston Globe says. Gover "stepped directly from his government position to a lucrative job as a lobbyist-lawyer representing Indian gaming tribes with the Washington firm Steptoe & Johnson. One of the tribes he recently solicited for business was the Chinook." Michael J. Anderson, who became the bureau's acting chief when Gover departed, "gave final recognition to the Duwamish tribe of Washington state and preliminary recognition to the Nipmuc tribe of Massachusetts on Jan. 19, his last day in office," the Globe reports. Anderson now works for the firm Monteau, Peebles & Crowell, which represents Indian gambling tribes, the Globe says. opinionjournal.com

To: Neocon who wrote (133834)	3/28/2001 2:57:47 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Funny, I hadn't read your post and we said about the same thing in a different way. :)

To: Neocon who wrote (133834)	3/28/2001 6:01:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You are assuming that what is often a matter of indifference to the majority of citizens, or, in any case, one that benefits them marginally, outweighs the harm done to the corporation and its shareholders through aggressive regulation. Whoa, aren't you sticking your thumb on the scale here? assuming "marginal harm" vs "aggressive regulation"? The harm may be marginal or severe. The regulation may be unwarranted or justified by a clear public good. Each case has its own merits. The point is that under the current system the overriding factor in the political outcome of any debate is determined by the amount of money brought to the table, not by the merits of the case. Evidence of severe public harm will be ignored if enough money says "ignore it". How many chemical workers died because benzene went unregulated for many years after overwhelming scientific evidence proved its toxicity?