Scott Pruitt, director of the Environmental Protection Agency, has announced that any scientist who receives a grant from the agency may not serve on an advisory panel. He says they have a conflict of interest.
However, representatives of the coal, oil, and gas industries may serve on these panels because they do not get grants to study the environmental effects of their activities.
Pruitt continues as a faithful servant of the industries that pollute the environment.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane Talk about twisted:
“Representatives of the coal, oil, and gas industries may serve on these panels because they do not get grants to study the environmental effects of their activities.”
They only get paid by the Bank of Ideological Limits. I never knew grants made for necessary bias; but I always thought the “industries” did, you know, like Brown and Williamson Tobacco? Wrong again. CBK
LikeLike
Follows the pattern of putting the profit seekers and/or incompetents in charge of everything. This disaster must end before there is nothing left to save.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES. Trump made it very clear before being elected that his business MO is, and has always been, “profit, profit, profit.” I don’t believe that he can fathom putting anyone in charge of any program or any office where protection, not profit, might be a consideration.
LikeLike
Evidently anyone who cares about protecting the environment has a conflict of interest in a Pruitt’s Eyes.
LikeLike
We just keep falling farther and farther down the rabbit hole.
I can only hope that this country eventually recovers from all that this administration has caused.
LikeLike
The question is how costly will an event have to be to reverse this . A economic crash being the least costly.
LikeLike
An
LikeLike
I was thinking more of the environment (which may not be fixable), the destruction of our public schools, and other things.
I am also worried that, when and if Trump is finally impeached or resigns, many of his followers won’t take that quietly. Or peacefully.
LikeLike
Joel Herman My guess is Bannon WANTS a constitutional crisis so that the whole power structure will change from democratic to authoritarian, of course, after the smoke clears. The change of the FED head is probably a clue? When things are good financially, why change the person in that position if you don’t WANT things to go south.
LikeLike
Catherine Blanche King,
Which is why that change at the Fed was seen as moderate who was not going to change Fed policy. . Which is why he has not changed trade policy . And probably wont. But one can hope .
LikeLike
I can’t get the link to work.
Sent from my iPad
>
LikeLike