• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

So, the Obama and Clinton Haters don't want to talk about Flint?

 
 
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
dismal said:
You bolded the wrong wow point.

You do understand the government actually pays people whose job it is to make sure the water is safe?
Click to expand...
He didn't bold the wrong part.

The suggestion made by members of the Governor’s executive staff in October 2014 to switch back to DWSD should have resulted, at a minimum, in a full and comprehensive review of the water situation in Flint, similar to that which accompanied the earlier decision to switch to KWA.

It should have doubled down on finding out the truth then, not a year later.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the fact that the Gov's office made the call had zero influence on MDEQ's manipulation of the sampling.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
He didn't bold the wrong part.

The suggestion made by members of the Governor’s executive staff in October 2014 to switch back to DWSD should have resulted, at a minimum, in a full and comprehensive review of the water situation in Flint, similar to that which accompanied the earlier decision to switch to KWA.

It should have doubled down on finding out the truth then, not a year later.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the fact that the Gov's office made the call had zero influence on MDEQ's manipulation of the sampling.
Click to expand...

Well, if they come up with some evidence that anyone was tampering with the water experts there might be something to this.

Up to now all we have is evidence they *gasp* listened to them.

Do you agree that generally it seems like a good idea for politicians to defer to their paid technical experts on matters involving the specific expertise those experts are paid to provide?
 
dismal said:
Horatio Parker said:
I'm sure the fact that the Gov's office made the call had zero influence on MDEQ's manipulation of the sampling.
Click to expand...

Well, if they come up with some evidence that anyone was tampering with the water experts there might be something to this.

Up to now all we have is evidence they *gasp* listened to them.

Do you agree that generally it seems like a good idea for politicians to defer to their paid technical experts on matters involving the specific expertise those experts are paid to provide?
Click to expand...
They weren't talking to the paid technical experts, but the yes heads they put in charge of MDEQ.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
dismal said:
Well, if they come up with some evidence that anyone was tampering with the water experts there might be something to this.

Up to now all we have is evidence they *gasp* listened to them.

Do you agree that generally it seems like a good idea for politicians to defer to their paid technical experts on matters involving the specific expertise those experts are paid to provide?
Click to expand...
They weren't talking to the paid technical experts, but the yes heads they put in charge of MDEQ.
Click to expand...

Really? The MDEQ had no water experts working on Flint water issues?
 
dismal said:
Do you agree that generally it seems like a good idea for politicians to defer to their paid technical experts on matters involving the specific expertise those experts are paid to provide?
Click to expand...

Sure, generally.

However, as in this case, when conflicting accounts start to arise it's more appropriate to start looking into what's going on rather than to keep blindly relying on the people saying there's nothing wrong.

From the recommendations section for the Governor's office:

R-16. Create a culture in state government that is not defensive about concerns and evidence that contradicts official positions, but rather is receptive and open-minded toward that information. View informed opinions—even if critical of state government—as an opportunity for re-assessing state positions, rather than as a threat.
Click to expand...
 
dismal said:
Horatio Parker said:
I'm sure the fact that the Gov's office made the call had zero influence on MDEQ's manipulation of the sampling.
Click to expand...

Well, if they come up with some evidence that anyone was tampering with the water experts there might be something to this.

Up to now all we have is evidence they *gasp* listened to them.

Do you agree that generally it seems like a good idea for politicians to defer to their paid technical experts on matters involving the specific expertise those experts are paid to provide?
Click to expand...

Yes, particularly when the technocrats provide the answer they know is required of them by the politicians.
 
ksen said:
Sure, generally.

However, as in this case, when conflicting accounts start to arise it's more appropriate to start looking into what's going on rather than to keep blindly relying on the people saying there's nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

But many of the people saying there were things wrong with the water were not the state's paid water experts whose job it is to determine if there's something wrong with the water.

Also, assuming you're right about ignoring your paid water experts on water issues, what do you do? Tell the EPA? They were already aware.
 
dismal said:
ksen said:
Sure, generally.

However, as in this case, when conflicting accounts start to arise it's more appropriate to start looking into what's going on rather than to keep blindly relying on the people saying there's nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

But many of the people saying there were things wrong with the water were not the state's paid water experts whose job it is to determine if there's something wrong with the water.

Also, assuming you're right about ignoring your paid water experts on water issues, what do you do? Tell the EPA? They were already aware.
Click to expand...

The states have the power, a fact convenient to those who wish to direct attention away from Snyder & co to the evil Fed EPA.

And Snyder is exempt from FIA.

It becomes very easy to direct the blame to bureaucrats.
 
dismal said:
ksen said:
Sure, generally.

However, as in this case, when conflicting accounts start to arise it's more appropriate to start looking into what's going on rather than to keep blindly relying on the people saying there's nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

But many of the people saying there were things wrong with the water were not the state's paid water experts whose job it is to determine if there's something wrong with the water.
Click to expand...

So what?

If some outside experts start providing evidence that the water has lead levels way higher than my paid experts are telling me and other outside experts are providing evidence that kids are showing much higher levels of lead in their blood and lead-related diseases are increasingly pretty dramatically a rational person would probably want to find out if his paid experts were telling him the truth or not.

Also, assuming you're right about ignoring your paid water experts on water issues, what do you do? Tell the EPA? They were already aware.
Click to expand...

You convene a separate group of experts to investigate the issues.

I don't think the correct answer is ever just do nothing.
 
Of course they want to talk about Flint.

They want to talk about how what happened in Flint is all the Democrats' fault, because, you know, they are the "party of personal responsibility" and all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom