Slashdot Mirror
US Government Restricting Research Libraries
An anonymous reader writes: "In a move that has been termed 'positively Orwellian' by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Executive Director Jeff Ruch, George W. Bush is ending public access to research materials at EPA regional libraries without Congressional consent. This all-out effort to impede research and public access is a [loosely] covert operation to close down 26 technical libraries under the guise of budgetary constraint. Scientists are protesting, but at least 15 of the libraries will be closed by Sept. 30, 2006."
I believe the article and editorialization need to be marked (-1, Troll)
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
For a more useful story, please see http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365379.ht ml
Some points:
- The information will be made available online
- The information will be available through library loan
- Not all the libraries are closing
- Bush is not defying Congress. He sent them a budget which they either approve or amend
Boy, it certainly made for a good story though! For about 2 minutes... *sigh* Do some research before posting or blogging next time.
The Republican War on Science
Despite the inflammatory name, the book doesn't assert that Republicans are inherently anti-science, but it is a chronicle the past few decades of politicization of science, and how even though Liberals do their own part to misrepresent science, the overwhelming lions share of open distortion percieved by the overwhelming majority of scientists has been unfortunately solidly Republican. It's a rather impressive, well-documented book that I highly recommend showing a trend of scientific limitations and games like today's story.
Ryan Fenton
my source on the document reclassification is here.
;-)
Not for long
You can't take the sky from me...
It's called the "golden shower" theory of economics.
Has any other US president ever done as much damage to the institution of science in the US as Bush has?
This is getting really old, too. This marks about the sixth time I've seen someone trying to compare Bush's presidency to Carter's. There is NO comparison. Carter was a nauseatingly honest individual who was elected largely in response to the nauseatingly dishonest Nixon administration. He entered the political game playing it straight at a time when the opposition was patently playing it crooked, and inherited (as another poster has mentioned) a terrible situation at a terrible time. What he didn't do was leave a huge mess for future generations to clean up -- most of the situations of Carter's presidency that people didn't like were strictly temporary.
On the other hand, Bush has destroyed a huge budget surplus and left trillions in debt to my kids. His deliberate neglect has more or less wiped one whole American city right off the map. He has ruined America's standing as the leader of the free world with his farrago of lies on Iraq, and he has opened a gaping crack in the Middle East which seems destined to consume innocent lives for decades to come. He has fundamentally damaged the conscience of the nation by actively condoning torture, and actively assaulting our cherished civil liberties -- the one aspect of America that truly makes us American. He has starved the middle class and pushed millions into poverty with his patently worker-unfriendly policies (better known as his "Ownership Society" initiative). He has contributed to the further decline of public education, ensuring that millions can't compete in a modern job market, through his unfunded No Child Left Behind. He has bitterly divided America with his lies and hateful, cynical rhetoric. He has flaunted his authority recklessly and led with all the gravitas of a 21-year old fraternity prankster. In a simple character evaluation of Jimmy Carter versus George W. Bush, there is no question who I'd rather have in charge.
My book, podcast
What came into my mind as i read this was a documentry i once saw on Discovery channel which talked about china.
China used to be one of the most advanced civilisations in the world. They developed so many stuff before any other country. Then suddenly some idiot in there decided to cut off china from the rest of the world and not only stop building technically advanced ships but actually destroy its unmatched fleet of ships. Shortly afterwards Britan was able to conquer the country using the technology that chinese themselves invented.
The fact that US seems to be closing libraries makes me wonder if its another version of the same events.
Doesn't anybody bother to look at the source data before flaming? Or is this news "too good to check"?
This is the EPA engaging in political tactics. To begin with, they haven't yet been asked to cut their budget, and they may never be. The closing of libraries is not Bush's idea--it's EPA bureaucrats saying "Look what you made us do!"
The proposed budget cut constitutes a fraction of of a percent of the EPA's budget, and it could be achieved with a minor reduction in the EPA's bloated administrative costs.
This is a standard tactic in every government in the world. Faced with budget cuts, the bureaucrats respond by threatening to terminate one of the few things they do that actually provides a service. The mystery is that they often get away with it.
The special irony in this item is that the EPA isn't planning to cut the service—just the way it's delivered.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Had Clinton taken ANY action in 8 years to answer Saddam's obvious disregard for international law...
Such as, and I'm just throwing this out as a really CRAZY hypothetical here, by continuing an effective policy of hardline trade restrictions designed to prevent the target nation from gaining the ability to engage in the proscribed behavior?
Yea. I mean, if only he'd done SOMETHING like that.... er... wait....
Paint with both hands, gang, or just be reduced to partisan whining.
Since when is it not fair to lay blame for a thing squarely at the feet of the responsible parties?
If you think that because an article attributes a decision to "the EPA" that means that the decision was not made by political appointees implementing administration policy, you're incredibly naive. Bush may well not have been personally involved in this decision, but it sure looks like a political decision, not something that EPA scientists and lawyers have come up with.
Yep, I missed it because it isn't in the article. What the article says is that "all EPA-generated materials will continue to be available by inter-library loan. That excludes material not generated by the EPA. You need to be more careful about accusing people of not reading the article. I've obviously read it more carefully than you have. Furthermore, even if this does mean that the boxed materials will be available by interlibrary loan, how easy do you think it will be to find what you need, and how long a delay will there be in getting the boxed materials out of storage? I know from personal experience that it can be a real impediment to research to have to wait several weeks or even days to get something out of storage, and that often it is difficult to identify what you need if you can't go look at it on the shelf online.
Not true. Bush inherited an economy that was tanking before he even took office. I'm not saying it was Clinton's fault, just a natural cycle after one of the biggest bubbles we have ever had. In addition, 9/11 happened within one year of his office. He has not had an easy time.
Do not mistake me taking up for Bush in approving everything he does. I'm quite disturbed by both this issue, the NSA Domestic Wiretapping issue, and our handling of the Iraq war. Those issues will definitely weigh in my political choices. It should be an interesting election cycle in November.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
Much of what Carter experience was fall out from U.S. and Western misbehavior years before. The Iranian hostage crisis was the blow back of the U.S. overthrow of a Democratic Iranian Government and installation of the Shaw. (a Government that ironically looked to the U.S. as a friend and respected it, the elected president we overthrew had gone so far as to visit the U.S. and claim we were natural allies because we had both overthrown English Colonialism while he was visiting the Liberty Bell). Then there is that little uncomfortable detail that Carters actions DID secure the release of the hostages, but allies of Regan bribed the Iranians to keep them just a little longer (they were released on the day of the administration change, come on, even if it was a coincidence it still means that Carters efforts succeeded.)
The economic disaster was as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo (note I didn't say price increase, this was a flat out embargo!) which of course was caused by the Arab - Israeli conflicts. It wasn't just U.S. double digit inflation; it was a world wide crisis. Notice that Carter made peace in the Middle East his top agenda and his efforts ended the embargo!
I think the worst thing Bush's done is turning most of the world's population against the US.
Res publica non dominetur
So his father's $250,000-$500,000 stake in a 12 billion dollar company is owning it?
My book, podcast
It was President Eisenhower that overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a wildly unpopular Shah that resulted in the hostage fiasco. So blame good ol 'Ike for getting us into the democracy-killing-for-oil business.
And his efforts were unfotunate. Having diminished our military ability to the point that we couldn't manage a rescue attempt without abject failure, Carter left us with not only a damaged economy, but damaged military and failed Middle East policy.
There's a saying, "Presidents fight with the army of the last administration". Why? Mainly because it takes time to train soldiers and keep them up to date.
Following Vietnam, the use of special forces fell out of favor and were downsized under the Ford administration. When the need for those forces came up under "Desert Eagle" they were not ready. (You can't blame Carter for not having filters on the helicopters. He wasn't the one that blew of the British's advice!) As a result, it was Carter who recognized the need for these units and restored funding - not Reagan. That's a matter of record - not spin.
And perhaps Clinton could be accused of being distracted from foreign affairs, having become preoccupied with his own?
Cute. But we were much more recognized and respected as a nation under Clinton. You know, back when we weren't endorsing torture and preemptive nuke strikes. Go figure.
And the army Clinton left for Bush won the battles quickly and efficiently. Now that they are essentially beat-cops in the worst neighborhood on earth, I pity the President that's going to have to restore their strength.
Paint with both hands, gang, or just be reduced to partisan whining.
Well gosh, why don't you just hustle on over to Iraq and bask in all the happy Iraqis that you helped free? They'll give you a 'warm welcome' (ala Blackwater) and make you the 'head'(minus body) of the parade.
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
Ummm in the mid 50's the CIA at the urging of British petroleum overthrew a legally elected government in Iran and put the Shah in power. The oppression of the Shah and the corruption of his dictatorship helped create the mullahs, the ayatollahs, the Iranian revolution, Hezbullha (sp?) and the Iranian nuclear program.
If you want to blame a president, blame Eisenhower.
BTW, I don't know where you were at in the 90's but the US flew *constant* combat missions over Iraq in the 90's to the point where, IIRC, some 50% of us pilots had combat time on their record. A number I heard was that in WWII only about 15% of US pilots had rated combat time.
Clinton also fired cruise missiles at Ossama. He missed, but he tried.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If you believe any one of those 8 statements, you're part of the extremist problem. There are MORE than 2 sides to every issue. People who want to limit your choices to either Bush is good or bad are simplifying things for their own manipulative purposes. It's not all black and white. Everyone's shit stinks. If support everything the Bush administration does, you're not paying attention. If you think the Bush administration has no rationalization for it's actions, again, you're not paying attention. To imply that Bush is actively working to ruin the country is as ridiculous as claiming that Bush is the messiah.
The facts are that there are people of good conscience on BOTH sides of the aisle. Both parties are working to prevent people of good conscience from coming together and working together, because they think compromise weakens the party.
I'd rather see the rhetoric turned down and the responsibility turned up.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
It was created - for the US - by Kermit Rooseveldt and the Dulles brothers. This was in 1953, when as a 'maiden voyage' for the international 'influence' of the CIA, they worked actively in the overthrow of Mossadegh, Iran's enlightened and democratically elected PM.
Iran had a constitutional revolution against the Monarchy in 1912 - unfortunately the events of the Bolshevik revolution in bordering Russia, and the two world wars, prevented many of the constition's provisions from seeing fruition. The bolshevik years in particular, led to the rise of the so-called "Reza Shah" - a cossack mercenary. He was crowned Shah with the help of british provacateurs.
By 1950, constitutional courts and the people managed to wrest power, and actually realize the vision of 1912. It was shortly lived. After the US covert actions destroyed teh Mossadegh government, Reza Shah's profligate, wastrel son was recalled from his position in the bordellos of Paris, and plopped on the Peacock throne of Persia.
Marcos
Pinochet
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi
Same smell. And it's a much bigger list.
You want the 'cause of terrorism'? Get your head out of fairytales about "freedom" and look what the US/UK axis has done to destroy LIBERTY throughout the world for more than 75 years.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell