Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”
Imagine the following scenario:
The guy in charge of directing regulatory policy on chemicals for a huge conglomerate is given a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Once there, he participates in sidelining a long-awaited study on a suspected carcinogenic chemical produced by his former employer—and only recuses himself from the matter after the fact.
All this is allowable under current federal ethics guidelines because several companies—not just the former employer—produce the chemical in question.
Yes. That happened.
I could highlight some words in that quote to underline the contradictions in behavior it demonstrates. But everyone here is smart enough to pick that up. I will just observe that presumably the only thing missing from his recusal was the sentence “My work here is done.”
There are two issues here, it seems to me. The obvious one is the formaldehyde. Most of us may remember formaldehyde from high school biology classes. Many of us probably went home with headaches after those lab sessions. Some of may have also developed a headache or other symptoms if we spent any amount of time in a fabric store, since formaldehyde is an ingredient in the sizing used on new fabrics. The World Health Organization, as well as some divisions of our Department of Health and Human Services, consider it a “known carcinogen.” Our EPA, however, calls it only a “probable” carcinogen.
Did Mr. Dunlap deal with formaldehyde in his eight years and four months working for the Koch brothers, where his title was “Director, Policy & Regulatory Affairs“? Almost certainly. As Koch’s “lead and subject matter expert with a primary focus on … chemicals and chemical management,” he had to be aware of industry groups working to prevent the government from linking formaldehyde to cancer. Particularly since Georgia Pacific, a Koch corporation, is one of the largest producers of formaldehyde.
As the number two administrator of the EPA’s main science office, Mr. Dunlap took place in the process which sidelined – halted – an EPA study on formaldehyde which had been progressing for almost twenty years.
After that, he recused.
And there’s the other issue. There was no requirement for him to recuse in the current ethics rules. Sure, he had worked for an employer manufacturing formaldehyde. But there are other companies in the United States producing formaldehyde. Therefore, he was not required to recuse.
What kind of “ethics” is represented in that provision? It sounds like saying that there is no ethics violation in Traitor Tot steering foreign diplomats and anyone who has business with the administration to stay in Trump branded hotels, because, well, after all, there ARE other hotels. Oh, wait.
Well, I doubt we’ll see any correction of this in ethics guidelines any time soon.
I know this is short, but I’m going to just stop now, except for one disclaimer: the Koch brothers are so morally schizophrenic that they also donate, through the Charles Koch Institute, to the Project on Government Oversight, my major source for this information. There is a lot more, including an additional link to House testimony regarding Executive Branch conflicts of interest. But I have stated the two main points.
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, I know it’s like beating your heads against stone walls, but I wish you strength. And luck. You’ll need both.
The Furies and I will be back.
Cross posted to Care2 HERE.
