I'm flattered, really.
But I think the issue would benefit more from a genuine grassroots effort: lots of letters and participation at the meetings.
A hundred or a thousand Louisiana citizens imperfectly articulating heartfelt convictions regarding the proposed regulations will have a much greater impact that a single flawless expression of the viewpoint (even assuming that I could give a flawless expression, which I cannot).
I recommend that folks who feel strongly about the matter, review the scientific points with sufficient care to be able to express them in your own words, so that they come from the heart and don't come off as memorized "talking points."
Duck Butter seems frustrated at the repetition in the CCA, Tripletail, and Commission letter threads. I'm not. I believe that rephrasing, reconsidering, and covering the same ground from a different perspective are all important in the process of mastering a topic sufficiently to empower a compelling discussion or presentation, especially if one is a bit nervous about public speaking (as I am).
I remember years ago, how nervous I was giving a talk during my job interview for a position directing the forensic science program at a university in another state. I could barely get the first few sentences out. But once the ball got rolling, I was able to deliver the material fluently because I had been over it so many times from many different angles, and in spite of the knots in my stomach, the presentation made sense to both PhDs and undergraduates in the audience. I was enthusiastically offered the position.
|