Post by Joe_Hillshoist on Mar 8, 2002 7:48:55 GMT -5
Clear Skies my arse.
Years ago, when I was studying a bsc, my housemate and I were discussing how to interperate communication from various government departments regarding the study benefit Austusy and any other social security payments.
We worked out that if a communication said something in the first paragraph the content of the message would be the opposite of that intro. For example:
"We are writing to inform you of a change in the system." Meant no change at all
"These changes are in name only and will have no effect on the ...." That usually meant the system was now so different that it may as well have been a different system.
This applies to every beauracratic communication. Even one called "clear skies".
Call it Joes 2nd law of beauracratic communication.
Post by RidesTheWind on Mar 8, 2002 8:01:36 GMT -5
Sounds like my rule of thumb I use....Whatever the govt.says to do, do the opposite. It works great everytime:) Interesting that this should come out just when CT's are coming to the attention of people through the heroic Kucinich bill....
Great find, RTW. There's a word for the linguistic rigamorole you describe, Joe; 'newspeak'...
The Clear Skies proposal is actually a clear rollback of current air quality protection mandates. It would allow power plants to emit more pollutants now and in the next decade than if the current air quality standards were left in place. Consequently, the Clear Skies Program, if passed by Congress, will actually increase the number of heart and lung disease deaths, skin diseases, eye diseases, caused by current air pollution levels. Let's not forget the respiratory, eye and skin diseases exacerbated by concomitant "experimental mitigation technologies" designed to reduce the global warming effects that environmental pollution has been the significant cause of. Such mitigation technologies (Chemtrails?) that propose injecting light refractive [aluminum, barium, titanium oxide] dust into the atmosphere to block growing UV ray damage, all of which can, and do, cause skin rashes, upper respiratory infections, most notably asthma attacks, and irritation of mucous membranes (eyes and mouth). These experimental technologies, it is presumed, will be exempt from Clear Skies regulation as they formally do not exist and you cannot regulate that which is not there. Keep those Chem-Jets flying...
Looks like you got it wrong again, Jimbo! Sulfur content 'has been increasing'! - J. Reynolds
Obviously there is now an opening for us rank and file both to defend the environmental benefits of air pollution.. what about some comment on whether the "air pollution is good" line is utilisable, perhaps in rallies? - Wayne Hall
What we're able to do now is inadvertent.- Patrick Minnis, NASA