- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Which is the problem here - what is the dynamic that underlies this sort of thing?
California approved a cancer causing pesticide for use - but they shouldn't have. The government ALMOST worked to keep the pesticide out of the fields because the government scientists had extreme concerns. However, the pesticide manufacturer decided to go around the scientists and talk to the politician in charge and had him ignore the advice of his own staff.
Does this mean that the problem was the government (but, if there was no government the pesticide manufacturer would have had no problems getting their pesticide used as there'd be no-one to tell them not to).
Or is it the fault of business who decided to run over the institution that is there to protect the best interests of the people of California?
Or is it just the fault of a lone corrupt or ignorant official?
Well, the government scientists seem to have had their stuff together but perhaps they weren't able to present their case forcefully enough (or perhaps, after filing their reports, they actually had other work to do instead of keep hammering on the politician).
The pesticide company carries some blame, they interfered politically, they had the money and resources to create fake data and lobby but as a straight business decision you have to be able to see their side. Winning the favour of the gate keeper is much cheaper than redeveloping a product and there is serious profit to be made without which companies can't survive. They are bound to try this stuff, after all, they have limited liability for fraud and for damages so there isn't much to lose.
(OK, the limited liability thing is a problem but it could be solved with political will but that needs to come from the people).
It seems to me that the problem is the man who was the gate keeper. Apparently he just didn't have the integrity or intelligence to carry out his duty to the people of California. And that is where the people can strike because a lot of the problems come down to the gate keepers and most of them are electable.
But what kind of gate keepers are perpetually presented for the people's approval? Business friendly gate keepers promoted and paid for by business. There really is more money on the business side of the equation. You just don't see many candidates that are brought forward and paid for or are funded by the people.
If people want their country back they have to start paying a lot more attention to who they are choosing to run the place instead of just voting for who the TV (Big Business) tells them to.
California approved a cancer causing pesticide for use - but they shouldn't have. The government ALMOST worked to keep the pesticide out of the fields because the government scientists had extreme concerns. However, the pesticide manufacturer decided to go around the scientists and talk to the politician in charge and had him ignore the advice of his own staff.
Does this mean that the problem was the government (but, if there was no government the pesticide manufacturer would have had no problems getting their pesticide used as there'd be no-one to tell them not to).
Or is it the fault of business who decided to run over the institution that is there to protect the best interests of the people of California?
Or is it just the fault of a lone corrupt or ignorant official?
Well, the government scientists seem to have had their stuff together but perhaps they weren't able to present their case forcefully enough (or perhaps, after filing their reports, they actually had other work to do instead of keep hammering on the politician).
The pesticide company carries some blame, they interfered politically, they had the money and resources to create fake data and lobby but as a straight business decision you have to be able to see their side. Winning the favour of the gate keeper is much cheaper than redeveloping a product and there is serious profit to be made without which companies can't survive. They are bound to try this stuff, after all, they have limited liability for fraud and for damages so there isn't much to lose.
(OK, the limited liability thing is a problem but it could be solved with political will but that needs to come from the people).
It seems to me that the problem is the man who was the gate keeper. Apparently he just didn't have the integrity or intelligence to carry out his duty to the people of California. And that is where the people can strike because a lot of the problems come down to the gate keepers and most of them are electable.
But what kind of gate keepers are perpetually presented for the people's approval? Business friendly gate keepers promoted and paid for by business. There really is more money on the business side of the equation. You just don't see many candidates that are brought forward and paid for or are funded by the people.
If people want their country back they have to start paying a lot more attention to who they are choosing to run the place instead of just voting for who the TV (Big Business) tells them to.
