It seems to me that you would be very surprised what kind of things there is room for at a University. There is plenty of pseudoscience going on in all manner of subject fields. Just look for the departments that have political or ideological litmus tests for its faculty and students and you will find it.
The conspiracy goes deeper than the GOP. The National Academy of Science is also involved - http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2.... How dare they criticize the science of these holy warriors? A pox upon both of their houses.
If you think the EPA is toothless, you are ignorant or living in a fantasy world. It is anything but toothless.
Obviously you have never dealt with the EPA. Much of the enforcement I have dealt with was arbitrary and capricious based on little more than opinion.
Don't forget Colonel Sanders - with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face - he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly
Faith in the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is easy to have. People generally act in their own self interest, which is the same reason that blind faith in the government is nuts.
That's funny - I worked with a lady in 1999 that claimed to have 10 years of HTML experience on her resume. We figured she was writing code in hopes of a browser that would some day run it.
Hold it just a minute cowboy. Don't get caught up on wording that you don't understand. Courts consider cases. The case here is whether they should reinstate the law or not. So they will consider reinstating the ban, that is NOT a prejudicial phrase, it is common usage when talking about court cases. Your last statement is very odd, as they will hear the case and make a decision the affects it. Any decision will absolutely have something to do with the ban, either to affirm the stay or affirm the ban.