Slashdot Mirror
Federal Science Gets More Politicized
amigoro writes to let us know about the noise a group of scientists is making to call attention to Executive Order 13422, going into effect today, that gives political appointees final say regarding science-based federal agency regulations. The Union of Concerned Scientists wrote a letter to two Senate committee chairs urging that questions about this executive order be asked at the confirmation hearings for the nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget. "UCS urged the Senate committee to ask [the nominee] Mr. Nussle how he would ensure that political appointees would not interfere with the work of agency scientists." Late last month the House voted to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from spending federal money on Executive Order 13422. Democrats called the order a "power grab."
When are you guys going to re-take your country?
I can't imagine how it would be possible to fund anything through tax money and not expect the outcome to be determined by the power elite who control that money.
scientists: car exhaust and industrial pollutants have caused increased rates of cancer in the Los Angelos area. white house edit: car exhaust and industrial pollutants have not caused increased rates of cancer in the LA area. do you think they'll abuse this?
if it means that we finally get the accountability that Bush promised to us 7 years ago, then sure, go ahead and make his appointees actually have to approve and be responsible for the actions of their departments. No more heads of agencies going "LOL Dunno \O.o/" whenever someone gets fired for reasons unexplained, no more agencies doing a "heck of a job" by spending more time blaming everyone else than doing their own damn job.
Chances are, though, this executive order does absolutely nothing to hold Bush's administration members responsible for their actions.
Now that Mr President can control scientific results. A few simple changes to the laws of thermodynamics should solve all of our energy problems.
"Don't turn around.
Der Kommissar's in town."
- Falco
There's an In Democratic Republic of Germany joke in there, but my regulatory political officer oversees me.
I see this as a good thing. Many times Government sticks their noses in at the wrong time and end up making a problem much worse. This will allow the private sector to fix the problem before hand. And believe me, this is an incentive because the last thing many folks want is the Government coming in.
On the other hand, if we're going to talk about the mining industry (and other like them who get a free ride on the backs of the tax payer) and how they count on Government coming in to clean up their mess, I would want some penalties against the private sector when the Government is required to come in. It's just not fair for the American Tax payer to clean up the mess that the private sector causes and allow them to go away free and clear.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Yes but do they mention Bush's name three times on every page of their letter?
.....where in the Soviet Union a political officer was attached to just about every governmental agency, department, road crew etc.
when do we start calling a spade a spade?
Especially when you remember that some of these political appointees were, shall we say, totally unqualified for any job, given their only major was in law from a fundamentalist christian "university". Read (or re-read): "Are We Rome?"
Dear Americans: please impeach that chimp already (I am trying to stay polite here).
Dear American Scientists: I hope you'll still be able to work at a (non-federal) University. Good luck.
Dear Slashdot Republican supporters: please don't bother answering this post. Thank you.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Here we go back into the dark ages where the 'Earth Centered Universe' held sway for 1500 years.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
this is what you get when the people of the United States no longer value knowledge and are far more willing to believe a comfortable lie. It simply floors me that there are people that exist on this planet that actually believe they can vote on reality. Things either exist or they don't, it has nothing to do with what you want to believe. in short, you can vote/believe that you can walk on water but I am going to bet good money on science that you're going to drown in the attempt.
to the United Gulags of America.
It's just that the current Administration has all of the subtlety and finesse of California mudslide.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Thank goodness. We're off the hook!
How about a tenured science ministry, overseeing all research funding and hirings/firings. It seems to work OK for the best research institutions in the world.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Anyway -
I don't know, maybe because a lot of slashdotters are anti-republican and anti-bush (and also anti-congress lobbying by the RIAA,anti-bipartisan and anti-big brother)?
Just because we're nerds doesn't mean we don't care about politics. In fact, we SHOULD care.
Are you saying that as a republican, you don't mind a little censorship, as long it used to promote our corporate ideals?
Why exactly do you love bush so much?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
They lie about everything anyway.
Government is political.
More news at 10
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Politicians are the absolute worst scientists. If you were any kind of nerd you'd fucking know that.
Oubliettes
and
Pollution
(Thanks, Joel!)
Screenwriter and comic John Rogers wrote a great polemic called "I Miss Republicans," ruing the disappearance of practical, technocratic Republicans in favor of the screwball ideologues:
Sorry, folks, this isn't "business as usual" or "a pendulum swing" we don't have to worry about because it will swing back. It's the Wedge Strategy. It's Lysenkoism. It's the Ministry of Truth. It's 24 year old college drop-outs micromanaging NASA scientists' press activity.
This type of interference with science was always possible under government-funded science; it has simply become more common and obvious in recent years. Even if you replace the current crop of crooks in Washington, the politicians who control the money will still be a threat to the process.
And as long as it's our tax money, it's right they oversee how it is spent, in accordance with our wishes -- even if our wishes are irrational. Our money should not be spent in the pursuit or correct over incorrect, accurate over inaccurate; it should be spent however the fuck We The People want it, integrity and scientists' opinions be damned. Government must work that way when it comes to our involuntarily-paid money, or we're screwed.
And yet, that is incompatible with science. Science unlike politics, isn't about what we want or what is fair; it's about how things are.
The only resolution that is compatible with the needs of science and the needs of fair politics, is to stop spending tax money on science. Give your money to a private foundation instead of the tax man.
Tax man, stop collecting it. We'll decide what scientific pursuits are worth funding on our own, without guns to our heads. And yeah, we'll probably all go in different directions. It will be wonderful.
There's no example where industry spends money that doesn't somehow contribute to their profits.
Unsafe cars provide automobiles for more people at lower prices. Safe cars are more expensive.
Forests? They have no value as trees. Company X makes paper, company Y makes furniture.
I was going to throw a similar kind of bomb about pornography, but I think you get the point.
Sadly, most of America have no clue where the dividing line between Science and Policy should be. Hell, they aren't capable of discussing the concept of a gray area between Science and Policy. Sadly, you fall in there somewhere.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
because science has become politicized. They started promoting a political agenda by the 80's (I think they actually started doing so from day one, but I'm not sure), by lobbying against SDI. SDI was many things, but it was not a science issue. The UCS starts with a political agenda and then looks for science to back it up. The UCS support for Global Warming is one of the reasons I have been so skeptical of it. I used to give a lot of creditability to UCS, then I noticed that they always oppose Republicans and usually support Democrats (I would say always, but I might have missed the occasional opposition to a Democrat idea).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Just define those who control taxes (our elected officials, mind you) as "The Power Elite" and you've got an instant "argument" against government and taxes.
OOOOh! Scary! Our taxes are controlled by the Power Elite! (whoever they are, you know, the all purpose Bad Guys. The Man!) So all taxes are bad because they never do anything good for The People, only for the Power Elite. And all government is bad because it runs on taxes! Therefore (let me guess) Libertarianism is the only way to Freedom and Justice! Am I right?
You know, there are actually cogent arguments against our form of government, and against a system of taxation enforced through the threat of violence. Not saying I buy them, just that in comparison to your argument, they're decent and well thought out.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I get it, we are supposed to think everything is OK and just go back to sleep. Why didn't you say that to begin with?
We need Congress to impeach Bush/Cheney already. This national nightmare has gone on far too long.
--
make install -not war
Once upon a time in a land far far away, I was helping Mr. Nussle record a radio ad that he was recording in response to his candidate attacking him. I watched him go over the script and when he got done reading some of the critical points he just looked at me and rolled his eyes and muttered "Yeah, right." I simply grinned as to not reveal what I really thought of that statement and his character.
I was very happy the day I was able to cast my vote against him and he lost because I got to see the true side of this man and do something about it. People would be shocked and awed (sorry for the terminology) if they heard half the crap that comes out of these politician's mouthes.
Right now Michael Vick is in big trouble over a dog fighting ring he was in the middle of, and the first thing the media jumps all over is how we hold our athletes to such high standards. Well, when politicians are caught lying, cheating, stealing and whatever else they ALL do... I cannot help but wonder why the media doesn't ask why we hold our politicians to such high standards as well.
I don't think we will ever know the answer to this unless some real political and campaign finance reform is put into place, but I like to ask questions. I still blame the fluoride.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
You don't need to use your imagination, Anonymous Republican operative Coward. You can look at the last 218 years of America's government, and see that it's never been anywhere near this bad. Even though tax money has always funded the government, and been determined by the "power elite" who control that money.
Because the proper and usual traditional functioning of the US government has not been through the power monopoly that Bush's Republicans had for the last 6 years. Following 6 years just controlling Congress, after 12 years controlling just the White House, which came 5 years after Nixon got kicked out for trying a smaller-scale tyranny.
The Constitution balances conflicting powers to control that money. But Bush/Cheney's government has united all the power into a "unitary executive" exploit of weaknesses of our system: a king and his court routinely ignoring Congress, rigging/endrunning the courts and making "laws" without the process that don't apply to them when they break them.
Congress has to impeach these criminal tyrants. That might surprise you, Anonymous Republican operative Coward, because you thought impeachment was just to attack a popular president. But anyone else who cares about our Constitutional democratic republic should have seen it coming for a long, long time.
--
make install -not war
Quit trying to make sense. Don't you realize that Bush is the reason babies die. When his term ends, everything will be all butterflies and puppy dogs. Either that, or somebody else will now be the reason babies die and the whiners will continue.
One of the worst areas of this is where it asks for justification of where the private sector has failed, but of course leaves the judgement of the failure up to the executive. So lets ask ourselves
Climate Change v Car Industry & Exxon
Evolution v Some Christian Fundy "private" research organisation
Effect of Torture v Halliburton
Saying that you have to prove where private research has failed is just offering those corporations a blank cheque to perform dodgy research. Federally funded research on things like Smoking, Asbestos, Drugs and more have consistently held private corporations to account specifically because they could start research on the basis of questioning data rather than having actual proof of failure.
It takes research to disprove a theory, unfortunately this is effectively about invalidating the scientific method. By requiring people to demonstrate failure of a theory BEFORE THEY HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH quite neatly makes sure that corporate research cannot be questioned.
Astonishingly dreadful
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. It's well documented how the Bush administration let unqualified and biased political operatives rewrite science policy in direct contradiction to the science. The only difference is now it's official.
What I'd like to do is address anyone out there who works for one of these federal agencies. While orders like these usually result in mass resignations, it's important to remember that the Bush administration's goal is to eventually populate all levels of government with sympathetic lackeys (ex. DOJ). Any resignations play into their hands. The best way to fight this is by obstruction. Keep these people out of meetings. Go over their heads. Release all unedited documents to the public over the web. Do anything you can to get the real science out. This is the only way to keep Americans from being fed lies to support bad policy.
I came here for a good argument
When you find a Republican position which either is well-supported by science, or supportive of science, let us know, okay?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
This sounds exactly like the old Soviet Political Officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar) system.
Way to go!
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Ok, admittedly this is a slippery-slope argument, but Science is all about slipper-slope (sometimes good, sometimes bad) and we see it all the time from cloning research to end-of-life medicine care where the 'terminal, no more care' line keeps trending younger and younger and more and more people being condemned as not-worth-treating-anymore (look at the Netherlands).
So let's say we life the federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research funding and scientist's have a hayday creating embryos in dishes and killing them with reckless abandon and harvesting whatever they harvest.
I guarantee you that in a few years they'll realize that actually zygotes are better... "it's just a lump of cells... well more cells" everyone will say.
Pretty soon you'll have several-weeks-olds being raised in order to harvest early heart cells for cardio treatment in adults, etc. The 'lump of cells' argument won't work here, then we'll here more of the 'it's for the greater good' arguments that the unborn's rights are somehow less important than that of a 40 year old lifetime smoker who ate bacon 3 times a day, etc, etc, etc.
Where's the line? Who determines it? The Government? The Scientists? The voters? Ultimately it's the voters, I guess. But it seems that if we want any hope of having true respect for human life, we better protect it at both ends because we're giving up our rights left and *ahem* right. Pretty soon only life from 5 to 55 will be considered 'valuable' and everyone will go 'WTF OMG!!!111 PWNED!!'
Be careful what you wish for. By the time this all comes down, most of you will be in your elder years and could be headed for the chopping block.
You don't think abandoning scientific research methodology in behalf of political agendas is "news for nerds"?
I do.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Sun Tzu's classic document "Art of War" makes it very clear that you should NEVER have a politician actually commanding the armed services. The same logic goes for all other departments. Politicians are very good for looking at the big picture (well, in theory) in a way that specialists in individual fields cannot. That makes them good for determining priorities, allocating resources, setting long-term objectives, etc. But once they have issued those decisions, the rest should be entirely left to those who are competent in the field -- with one exception. Governing entitles politicians to penalize those who violate the rules necessary for a coherent organization.
The modern idea that politicians should be in control is a bastardization of the entire concept of a democracy or republic. Plato's Republic is a little dated, but does explain the difference between a ruling class and a governing class. This is an important distinction and one that many have apparently forgotten. Rulers rule. They impose. That is their nature, that is their job. If that is how you see American politics, then you are saying America has an elected monarch. (I believe the archaic term is Bretwalda, and yes elected kings have existed throughout history.) Governors govern. If the populace is the clay and the civil service are the artists, the government is nothing more than an art critic sponsoring the latest work. Nothing more.
Now, personally I don't believe that quality government exists. Here, there, or anywhere. I also generally believe that most existing Governments in the world are indeed elected monarchies... with the rest being hereditary monarchies, dictatorships and fiefdoms of various sorts. Despite the roots of constitutional law being over 5,000 years old, the notions of democracy reaching back over 2,500 years and the concept of politics as a science being studied and researched for many centuries, I can recall no time in history or in the modern world where anyone has actually applied any of these ideas.
To me, the question boils down to this. If everyone in America treats the Federal Government like a kingdom and the States like princedoms (yes, the term does exist), why not cut to the chase and cut costs at the same time by declaring it such? If people truly, honestly, believe that's what they have, then what are they going to miss by making it official? If, however, you believe that the Government is truly restricted to governing and nothing else, then you not only should imagine the government spending tax money without controlling how it is spent, you should require it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Political hacks "rewording" scientific findings to suit their own purposes is exactly why we now have so many environmental problems. And one Al Gore hasn't helped that situation one bit. We need to listen to REAL scientists who MIGHT actually have some idea what we should do. But with all the government interference, the real stuff keeps getting drowned out by bogus scare tactics. Oh shit, I sound like a dork here and I'll probably get flamed for it. But I am a "real" scientist. And I know what we should do about global warming, just as I know we won't do it. Because too many special interests want their profit more than they want the world to survive. Sorry, it's a sore topic with me. I hate political "peer review" screwing over the real work. Only PEERS should do peer review.
The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
Nuclear power. The UCS is against it even though it is safer and cleaner than other sources. I just OWNED YOU BITCH!!. Go back to school, little boy.
Here's a thought. Let's amend the constitution so that only people with PhDs in science, engineering, or math can hold office. That's the best way to guarantee that scientists, and only scientists, get to make policy decisions. This is desirable because, after all, scientists are good at science, so they must also be good at setting policy.
Its just niche marketing. Most people on this site are leaning to the left, so by putting out news that appeals to them, no matter how stupid the story may be (for example, the Fox news story from yesterday fits into that category), it strengthens the fan base. Slashdot does have ads, you know.
(And before the accusations start to fly, no, I'm not a Bush fan.)
The UCS is a notorious left wing group
No, the UCS only speaks up whenever politicians try to interfere with science. They spoke up plenty under Clinton. The fact that they speak up more under Bush is a symptom of Bush's actions, not of the UCS political bent. Besides, they aren't the only ones who have complained about the current administration's attempts to censor science.
Any more? +5 points if you can come up with one that doesn't revolve around padding the pockets of an energy baron.
Smack!
I think if we are going to discuss this issue. We need to go straight to the source and decide for ourselves what it means. Here is the link to EO 12866 including admendments set forth by EO 13422. No conspiracy theories! no partisanship! Lets just read the thing and make our own minds on the implications.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
"It's well known that reality has a strong liberal bias."
-- Stephen Colbert
In what parallel universe is it appropriate for anyone other than elected officials or political appointees to have "final say regarding federal agency regulations???" Anything else would fail to qualify as a democracy. Who the heck is this Union of Concerned Scientists? They don't happened to be named Dr. LeRoga, Dr. Gorael, Dr. Reagol, do they?
The thing that kills me is that "liberals" and "conservatives" have this entire issue backwards. You start by the basic principle that the climate of the Earth can, is, and does change and that staying our current course only speeds up the climate change. So if conservatives want things to stay the same, shouldn't they be FOR green laws to reduce our emissions to slow the process of change?
Given all the reasons to go green it baffles me that people are against it. I think slow change is better than fast change when it comes to the world at large. I have been called crazy in my time though.
Normally, I don't reply to Anonymous Coward types, but you might reflect on the reality that no Repuke, archconservative hacker has ever been known to exist.....And the phrase "notorious left wing" only exists in the lowbrow lexicon of Michael (Wiener) Savage groupies.....
If it's really the latter, we should consider electing or appointing our scientists, so we can keep that democracy thing alive and well.
"When are you guys going to re-take your country?"
Why do you trust any politician? Harry Reid and Patty drafted the whole thing and pinned it on Bush. Science has been politicized for centuries. Why do you think Bush invented it now? Wow, I didn't realized the American public such suckers.
Yeah, God forbid that someone who was elected to run the country also gets to run the government.
The Kuhnians started doing this shortly after Kuhn wrote "On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions". (It should be pointed out that Kuhn pointedly stated that he was not a Kuhnian.)
OTOH, the ones doing it now don't actually think facts are relative. They just think the facts are what they say they are. That's not the same at all as saying that my facts are as good as yours. They clearly want everyone to believe in only their "facts".
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Evil is rarely a useful adjective. I think they believe in a certain ideology and believe that the ends justify the means. Their particular priorities do not line up with yours (or mine), but to describe them as evil is probably not productive. What are their priorities? Well, other than their selfish priorities (which everyone has to a certain degree), they value, um, well, OK, I'm having a hard time here. But seriously, I'm sure they do have at least some priorities that could be considered good by a large group of people (e.g., protecting blastocytes), and I suspect that others whose priorities line up more closely with theirs could more easily identify them.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
> I can't imagine how it would be possible to fund anything through tax money and not expect the
> outcome to be determined by the power elite who control that money.
Even better, I can't imagine any sane person who doesn't WANT the politicians making our laws over unelected, unfireable civil service drones. Should the government have 'scientists' (remember your Heinlein people, most 'scientists' are nothing more than button sorters and bottle washers) on staff to advise? Of course! Would I want to live in a country where they made the laws based on their supposed superior reasoning abilities and education? Hell no!
The final authority has to remain in the hands of those accountable to the political system, and there is a word for em, politicians. You can't vote out some pinhead GSA drone. You can't even blame the current administration for em, because most are unfirable without an act of Congress or God and have been slaving away in some cube farm for decades and will remain there for several more administrations. But the political appointees ARE subject to political pressure and that is a GOOD THING.
Democrat delenda est
You fuckers are pathetic. Everytime a loser leftie says "Give me just one example....", and then a right winger gives a perfect example, the response is always, "Well just give one more, huh."
Admit it. The nucular power argument is a major point that you can't make go away, no matter whose pockets it pads. So shut up and go hug a sheep, they miss you.
By protesting this legislation the experts are effectively asking for political power since the politicians are only clarifying their natural position in regard to experts. I would rather the experts didn't have such power, even if I don't much like politicians.
Further, if you believe in democracy (and there are plenty of mathematical reasons not to - 'arrows' theorem) then the opinion of the experts needs to be tempered either by subjecting the experts to direct democratic process, like politicians, or having politicians.
So effectively the experts in this case are indirectly calling for a tyranny, ruled by themselves.
The mark of a politician/ruler who has sold out to a lower authority is that who "accept all the recommendations" of the experts. It happens in the UK all the time. In the UK we are becoming a nation of slaves to these experts. And in addition we have the bane of secret courts on our own soil. Tyranny is already upon us.
The only defense I can think of for the scientists/experts to insist on such power is that science gives objective truth. However in the first place that is highly improbable (ref: Karl Popper: falsifiability etc) and in the second, even if 'science' holds objective truth, 'scientists' don't: they are as prone to pride and bribery as anyone.
And the reason so many Scientist fled to the US?
Only one problem, where do you go now to avoid censorship of science truth?
Need I say more.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Everytime I read something like this, it reminds me of Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Is our administration any different from the religious fanatics running Taliban? Are our policies any different? We have less freedom now than we had 10 yrs ago. Are we moving backwards? I thought America symbolizes freedom and democracy. Apparently its not anymore.
I have never heard any news org discuss the fact that the US went to war with a peace-time military. the Lack of progress in Iraq is due to lack of military manpower. I believe that President Bush went to war with an army meant to keep the peace. This a catastrophic failure of leadership. Since the population would not tolerate a draft we should not have gone to war undermanned.
when politics comes before science, as is clear with Executive Order 13422.
As I recently said last week on a similar Slashdot story, the steady rollback of the Enlightenment *is* news for nerds.
As an aside, if this executive order were to stand, a future Democratic administration could misuse it for their own ends just as easily as the current administration. In fact one of the links in this story points out that this executive order builds on a previous (and probably equally dubious) directive from Clinton. Feel free to RTFA.
That kdawson had no qualms linking to that article doesn't jibe with your claim of partisan hackery on Slashdot. (Not that it matters.)
The appointment of commissars looking over the shoulders of scientists is an issue of right and wrong, not an issue of right and left.
Impeach now!
You're right! I hadn't been sure, but now I know I really must have been hallucinating yesterday when kdawson posted this article bashing the democrats for coming down on file-sharing. I'm sure it was just a dream when I noticed that all the right wing trolls were chortling through the threads about how democrats were no different than republicans and tagging the article "demoncrats" and other such things. Surely I was, since that sort of thing would never happen in this bastion of liberalism all we neo-hippies call slashdot.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
NSERC, one of the Canadian government funding agencies for science, manages this to a good degree (obviously no system is perfect). The government gives NSERC a pot of money. This is then divided up between the disciplines using a pre-agreed formula that is adjusted by internal competition between the grant selection committees (there is one for every subject area). Each selection committee is made up of scientists from that discipline both from within Canada, and more importantly, from outside Canada i.e. foreign scientists from Europe, the US and elsewhere, have input on which grant proposals are the best. In this way scientists with no financial interest in the decisions help get to make them.
So the main government input is "how much money do we give to science". Of course there is some politics, even with scientists making the decisions, but it is certainly kept to a minimum and not of the "vote for me" kind. For big ticket items the government obviously has more of a say but that is not unreasonable: if the cost is large enough then it is a political decision since the money cannot be spent on other things and so politicians should be involved, however much we would like it to be otherwise.
Late last month the House voted to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from spending federal money on Executive Order 13422. Democrats called the order a "power grab."
So it'll get enforced with oil industry money funneled through the RNC? Could just as well. The White House has it's own email system run through the RNC so they don't have to be accountable. Funding the "anti-science" wing of government would be an even better tax write-off for corporations.
Especially bumpy road in U.S. news this week with a handful if "interesting" revelations. And it's only Tuesday.
I am not happy with the Dept of Homeland Security or USA PATRIOT, but, even with those issues aside, I could make the argument that in total, Bush has done more to EXTEND freedom to the American people than Democrats would have.
a) By continually deregulating everything, Bush gives the small business owner and entrepreneur more rights, whereas Democrats would take them away. Bush has made it easier for people to use their land as they best see fit, and made it easier for business's to hire whom they want, when they want. Democrats, on the other hand, would make it harder for a person to use their land the way they want, harder for businesses to hire flexibly, and harder to adjust to market conditions for wages.
b) George Bush has reaffirmed the right to revolution by changing the Justice Dept stance that 2nd Amendment implies an individual right to keep and bear arms, and backed that up by letting the assault weapons ban lapse.
c) George Bush's tax cuts have allowed people to keep more of their money, and, more importantly, his cuts on the death tax allow people to decide what their life's work is for, not the government.
d) Although the execution was botched, while Democrats and liberals bemoan dictatorships around the world, George Bush put 200,000 boots on the ground to try and bring about democracy in a severely troubled part of the world.
By contrast, Democrats argue for MORE laws about how we use our property, for a wide variety of pet causes, call for more TAXES, not less, call for an end to the idea that the USA should intervene against dictatorships, and call for increased regulation in general. Sure, you might like what the Democratic vision offers, but at the end of the day, Republicans will give you more freedom than you can ever want, leaving you to the chaos of the marketplace, whereas the Democrats inevitably argue for less freedom in favor of social stability!
So please, knock off the double think that the left wing has instilled in you. You can't be free if the government takes more of your wealth and makes more laws.
This is my sig.
Contrary to protestations of the left, many of us Republicans like what the President is doing just fine.
This is my sig.
Of course he didn't trade arms for hostages. He traded his memories for them. Duh
Too soon?
Ask some guy sitting in front of a TV in Central Missouri what he thinks of the testimony of Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress today, and it may pain them to say it, but their instincts tell them this is one bad actor.
The reality is, most people don't know who Albert Gonzales either. There was a very funny Sean Hannity skit, where he had one of his guys go to a left wing "impeach Bush" rally, and asked them some basic questions:
a) Who is the vice president
b) name 4 justices on the supreme court.
And the vast majority of these peace protestors flunked.
The reality is, most Americans don't give a shit about most left wing causes, really, and honestly, they don't even really care that much about the war. What they do care about is the stock market, the real estate market, and the price of gasoline, and as long as one of those is screwed up, then, they think the economy is doing badly.
If the price of gas were 30 cents a gallon, Americans would have re-elected Republicans easily, despite the war. As it is, the real estate market is soft, gas is expensive, and they are pissed off at both parties. Bottom line is, we have to get some black gold out of our Iraqi prize (I mean, liberated ally in the war on terror).
This is my sig.
I used to think that they were smart but duplicitous.
Stupidity, raised to high enough level, is indistinguishable from malice.
I think that's what confusing about them. They're so certain about everything it's natural to assume there's a plan. Even when things go horribly wrong, they'll absolutely refuse to accept reality. If the news isn't good, change the news. Failing that attack the messenger. Never seen anything like it in my lifetime. I'm a little young to remember McCarthyism.
People I know supporting them, until just recently, were every bit as determined to hang on to their almost delusional views. Although now the justifications have gotten so ridiculous defense is largely half-hearted. I've seen several Bush bumper stickers in various stages of being scrapped off.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You know who the corporate masters are? It is the biggest joke that you don't. WE, that is, you and I and just about everyone else on this board that has a 401k of some kind, are the corporate masters. There's not some kabal out there of people trying to conspiratize anything. There's only a bunch of CEOs that are getting paid a ton of money by a board of directors who, in turn, take their marching orders directly from what you and I decide to do with their stock.
Every time you shop at Walmart, or buy something made offshore, you indirectly encourage other corporations to do the same. I'd be more than willing to bet that the vast majority of Democrats , that's right, Democrats, are as heavily invested in the likes of McDonalds, Walmart as are Republicans. I'd be even more willing to bet that the vast majority of Democrats, that's right, Democrats, would invest in a company that dumped nuclear waste on children in the 3rd world while making adults convert to Christianity, if that company had an annual rate of return of more than 30%.
There's no conspiracy. There's no fingers to point or people to blame except that the ones we see in the mirror in the morning. There's no country to "take back". We've got it! The so-called powers that be spend billions of dollars trying to figure out what we want, from Amazon with its data mining, to all the spyware, to all the web, tv, and radio demographic surveys, from opinion polling, cross selling, it is all about what WE WANT.
We have invented the most perfect democracy in the world, and also the laziest. We don't even have to protest to get what we want. We just live out our lives as normal, and whoever wants to get rich, will do so, but only if they sell us what we want. The whole illusion of power in Washington or in the corporate boardroom is just that, an illusion. We are the power. And, if we don't like the society that we have, its only because we are doing it to ourselves.
This is my sig.
It's the left that's overusing the word evil. Sure it is.
My point is, whether or not you think someone is evil (e.g., terrorists), labeling them as such really hasn't provided you with any useful information. You need to understand what motivates them. If you don't, you won't really be able to destroy them any more than you could kill Hydra by chopping off one of its heads.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
economy?
About 80% of policies supported by Democrats are direct affronts to Economics 101. Some currently debated ones are minimum wages, CAFE standards, protectionist trade policies, and many more.
The left also hates genetically modified foods and nuclear power, despite the science that confirms that there is no reason to fear them more than the alternatives.
Neither side is very good at dealing with data that refutes their beliefs.
Let's move in and tear this nasty little beast apart.
This is the first step to a troll's trap-- appeal to the general groupthink, although avoiding, at all, costs at sounding too cliché. This troll has already failed the first step.After subtly nudging his prey into a vulnerable position, most trolls (at least the most primitive ones) attempt to throw in a surprise curve ball. This serves to throw the unspecting reader off guard. Fortunately, it looks like this one got walked to third base and is claiming a home run early. ??? Scholars still aren't sure what trolls try to do when reaching this stage in their ancient rituals. Debate still persists yet no firm conclusions have been found. Several conspiracies have emerged, but all have been rightfully dismissed as they provided no logical explanation and has no evidence or backup. This is generally where a troll would claim their rewards. Unfortunately, it appears that one poor moderator has been successfully lured in.
Have faith though. Authorities have revoked this mod's geek badge and thorough investigation is underway to determine how human resources could have let this idiot in in the first place.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that your government (and my own Australian government alas) seems to exhibiting a massive case of Groupthink.
You have a leader who is more than willing to express an opinion on any and every topic. Irrespective of the complexity of the issues involved.ie stem cells, climate change.
A cabinet that is filled with several "mindguards", people who will attack opinions that don't agree with the leaders. ie Don Rumsfeld's refusing to allow his department to prepare for life after victory.
A cabinet that is composed of people from similar backgrounds. Bush, Cheney and Rice all have strong connections to the oil industry and have served on the boards of oil companies.
A cabinet that fundamentally does not trust outsiders and their advice. See their immediate dismissal of their Generals assessments on the number of troops needed to invade and hold Iraq.
Their only devil's advocate (Colin Powell) was pretty much outmaneuvered, ignored and browbeaten into towing the party line.
Unlike Kennedy, I don't think Dubya is smart enough to see the flaws in his thinking and it will keep going on like this until they're thrown out.
You can't take the sky from me...
Just yesterday I was making this point, and I get an avalance of crap about Clinton and Whitewater and shady deals, all put forward in response to my objections to torture and the gutting of habeus corpus. People view these debates as a tennis match in which all volleys are of equivalent import--I say torture, you say Whitewater, so we're even and the issue of whether torture is wrong is never really discussed. It's just political point-scoring, and you can't find a person to actually discuss whether or not torture is morally okay, excepting those who already think it's wrong.
Is this nihilism? Maybe not in the strict philosophical sense, but I think people don't really care about torture and Abu Ghraib and civilians being kept forever without trial--their own personal ethics don't come to bear, because it isn't happening to them. Yes, if their own mother were kidnapped off the street, flown to Syria to be tortured, was kept for 5-6 years at a secret prison with no access to lawyers, the Red Cross, or any visitors, and photos surfaced of her being sodomized with broomsticks by laughing US troops, then yes, morality might suddenly, as if by magic, become part of the conversation. Then, it would be wrong, an abomination, and it might reflect a teensy-weensy bit on the administration that either explicitly developed or negligently allowed these policies.
But right now it's just brown people, poor brown people who speak a different language, and their stories, if told, are irrelevant in the context of thousands of hours of talking heads on Fox News. Ergo, they don't really matter. At least, they don't matter to the extent they would matter if cops in, say, Seattle or Dallas did the these things to a pretty blonde white woman and the investigating officer was explicitly forbidden from investigating up the chain of command to see how far up the approval of the interrogation policies went.
"Federal Science"?
"Federal Science" is to science as "Religious Experiment" is to experiment.
Hmmmmm..... I need to add that to my new list of Government Oxymorons:
City Worker
Congressional Representative
Military Intelligence
Protected Class
Secret Service
Rising Deficit
Bureaucratic Efficiency
Tolerant Liberal
Great Depression
United States
Religious Experiment
Federal Science
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
My point wasn't that they believed in an ideology, but rather that it might not be completely clear from their actions which ideology they believe in, if they also believe that the ends justify the means. I don't feel like I'm communicating very well here (because I really should be asleep right now), so let me say again that it might be difficult to deduce from their actions (or speech) what exactly their ideology is, when it's clear that part of their strategy involves misdirection.
And to be fair (as much as it pains me), many people on any part of the political spectrum will allow that, in at least some cases, misdirection is not always an evil thing. (Extreme example: if I'm a kindergarten teacher and I've hidden my students in a secret room, telling gunmen that the children have left for the day is not evil.) Gah! I can't help myself - the harder it is to defend these people, the more I find myself wanting to do it!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Nuclear power. The UCS is against it even though it is safer and cleaner than other sources. I just OWNED YOU BITCH!!. Go back to school, little boy.
Hardly. Go check out their site on nuclear power. They are concerned about safety, not "being against it". Looks more like YOU are the bitch.
I don't think that one counts. If you look at their site, all their stated concerns are for *safety* in nuclear energy, not preventing its use.
Governmental scientific inquiry is a contradiction in terms.
Atlas Shrugged
If the executive order stands I guarantee you that executive order will stay right in place when the next president comes into office, democrat OR republican.
http://www.ucsusa.org/
...
- kevin-knobloch.html
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/experts-at-ucs
Kevin Knobloch
President
In addition to his positions at UCS, he served as director of conservation programs for the Appalachian Mountain Club in Boston. During six years on Capitol Hill, he was the legislative director for then-Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) and legislative assistant and press secretary for Representative Ted Weiss (D-NY).
----
It's difficult to take the average Slashdotter seriously.
The words of Richard Feynman keep echoing in my head. "Nature cannot be fooled"
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Smells Like Republicans! The "Science Schmience" Special!
But Bush's proposal wouldn't have fixed solvency issues with Social Security--depending on the exact plan chosen, it might have a negative effect, but certainly not a positive one. It was essentially a proposal to get rid of Social Security as it's understood and replace it with something completely different under the same name.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
+25 Insightful.
Support SETI@home
Or is it distortions? I'd argue the latter.
Your central argument is that Bush's low approval ratings translate into hoards of conservatives and moderate republicans ideologically buying into what the Democrats are offering, and that's just absurd. National attitudes are not changing, as evidenced by the simple polls that show that the vast majority of Americans:
a) are against lifelong welfare
b) are in favor of private gun ownership
c) are in favor of free speech
d) are in favor of torturing probable terrorists
e) are anti-islam
f) prefer cars with big engines
g) are against a socialized economy
h) are against amnesty for illegal immigrants
i) prefer a balanced budget
j) remain against tax increases
The list goes on and on and on. Bush is in trouble yeah because of the war, but, if he had balanced the budget and kicked out all the illegal mexicans, he'd be more popular than FDR. Bush's problems are because he bought into the Rovian nonsense that he had to pull to the left to form a ruling majority, when the reality is, he needed to veer right.
America is a conservative country.
This is my sig.
Oh, I do. I absolutely do. If they weren't idiots, the war would be going better.
[...]
They ignored any military adviser who told them something they didn't want to hear, such as that Rumsfeld's fast & light military strategy was retarded. They just didn't want to hear it, even though if they heard it and acted on it then their goals would have been better served. That means they're stupid. Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as a naval aviator and flight instructor. [...] Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 -- his fourth term -- to serve in the Nixon administration as Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity [...] (1971-1972).
In 1971 President Nixon was recorded saying about Rumsfeld "at least Rummy is tough enough" and "He's a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that."
In February 1973, Rumsfeld left Washington to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium. He served as the United States' Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council and the Defense Planning Committee, and the Nuclear Planning Group. In this capacity, he represented the United States in wide-ranging military and diplomatic matters. [...] Chairman Emeritus, Defense Contractor, Carlyle Group (1989-2005);
You mistake their stated goals for their actual goals.
Rumsfeld made sure that ammo would be needed in great quantities for years to come: He's ruthless, not stupid.
You can't take the sky from me...
The idea of bringing democracy to the severely troubled part of the world mainly came around after the WMDs never materialized. The
Except that, the PNAC had posted this sort of thing way back before even Bush was elected. In fact, that is the very basis of the charge that Bush "lied about the war". He was out to bring democracy to Iraq all along, regardless of their involvement with 9/11 and WMD, and just used both as an excuse to goad the public into buying it.
So, Bush lied for the greater good. So what. I think it was the right thing to do.
This is my sig.
No, AC. That was the point I was hoping someone would make. Any possible system of government is oppressive if it is the only possible choice. Even something like anarchism is still based on a set of first principles that not everyone agrees with. Libertarianism posits strong property rights, but what if I don't believe that individuals have a right to own natural resources? If the whole world is Libertarian, what am I to do? We need a "free market" of governmental systems. No country should be able to keep you in, and you should have access to any country whose contract for citizenship you are willing to sign.
Personally, I think everyone should be guaranteed access to the resources necessary for them to live. Not comfortably, but survive. And that guarantee should be universal. Otherwise, we have the problem where (for instance) the whole world decides to go Libertarian, all natural resources are bought up by a few people, and the only possible way to survive is to enter into a very unfavorable (to you!) contract. Hey, you freely chose to become a slave rather than starve, right? So you benefit, and should shut the hell up, right?
Or conversely, if the whole world became socialist and you really felt like you should be able to own some property, well, you should be able to own enough to survive on by yourself.
The real problem is that of upholding basic rights without imposing a set of beliefs. Who decides what rights are important? Who decides what belief structures are used to determine what rights are important? I don't have all the answers, which is why I enjoy discussing the topic. But from your snide tone, it sounds like you think you do. Perhaps you'd like to share?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What do I think about it? Well, there isn't anyone alive who wouldn't prefer unanimity. I mean, you just always would like everyone to stand up and say, Way to go! That's the right to do, United States.
Now, we rarely find unanimity in the world. I was ambassador to NATO, and I -- when we would go in and make a proposal, there wouldn't be unanimity. There wouldn't even be understanding. And we'd have to be persuasive. We'd have to show reasons. We'd have to -- have to give rationales.
You think he has failed?
Then you do not see what he had set out to do.
You can't take the sky from me...
That's it. All of this political stuff, from the weird Halliburton conspiracies or Gonzales crap invented by the left, isn't even on the public radar. The only thing that matters to the American people is the price of gas, so therefor, they hate Congress and Bush. If Iraq pans out ultimately, and oil craters back down to $20 a barrel as Exxon drills everywhere in Kurdistan and the Shia south, then Bush will wind up on his own coin.
This is my sig.
1) I want a car with a big V8 engine, and lo GM first brought the GTO and then the G8.
2) I like most McDonald's food. I think the Big and Tasty is, well Big and Tasty
3) I like Windows, for the most part. And, I like Visual Studio and C# for business development. Hell, I wrote in my blog a big blast at Visual Studio 2005, and I wound up getting an email from the head of the Visual Studio Team, and the guy was cool.
4) I like Linux for C++ development.
5) I like faster processors, faster graphics cards, more CPUs, higher resolution monitors at cheaper prices and faster internet, and, for the most part, I can get any of the above.
The bottom line is, companies DO give people what they want, otherwise, they wouldn't exist. Your problem is that not only do you want McDonalds to give you what you want, but you want McDonalds to give me what you want them to give me. Suck it up. If you don't like McDonalds, don't eat there, but don't judge the rest of us that do.
This is my sig.
I didn't get 0wned. I didn't post the original question. I was asking a serious question, not asking for one more example. You might have replied that President Bush had asked Congress for an increase in technology funding. Or that he's proposed providing extra money to the states to get more math and science teachers into the schools. Then we could have discussed whether that was enough, and if it wasn't negated by his unmoving views on stem cell research and climate change.
But my guess is that you didn't know these things. It's really sad if your idea of political debate ends in someone getting "0wned". But the Republican party is a party that seems to revere intellegence in a select few demagogues and denegrate it in the public at large. I guess I shouldn't be suprised that your rhetorical skills are lacking.
This being the case, I don't see how he can legally suspend the elections next year to avoid a transfer of power. Even in a state of emergency, it isn't legal or even constitutional to suspend elections.
You'd *think* that the President would be bound by the Constitution. However, Presidents have come up with this little thing called "Executive Orders" which are, basically, monarchial fiats. They can't be overridden by anybody -- even Congress. "Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government." (From Executive Orders FAQ's.)
Considering Bush's theory of the "Unitary Executive" and his flood of signing statements, in which he declares that he need not follow laws that Congress has passed, and his endless cries of "Executive Privilege", it would not surprise me at all to see him issue an Executive Order *suspending elections* due to some crisis or other.
Maybe that is what is needed to get the Democrats into an impeachment mood -- assuming they are not, by that time, cooling their heels in some military stockade.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
[...]
Otherwise intelligent individuals may also become stupid when their rational thought is derailed by strong opinions or rigid beliefs. In this case the victim falls into confirmation bias and begins selecting data: becoming intentionally blind and deaf to contrary evidence, while at the same time collecting evidence which supports the beliefs. Rather than being based on low intelligence or missing knowledge, this is the stupidity of closed-mindedness and willful ignorance.
I see what you mean.
But listen to what this guy has to say about Rumsfeld, especially from 3:26 to 5:04, because where I disagree with you is where I feel your are dismissing him as an idiot, and therefore underestimating him. I know what he's capable of, so I do not deny his keen intellect: I refer to him as evil... another charged word that I'll gladly abandon as soon as I find an upgrade to this placeholder. I thought you were going to tell me how what looked like failure actually wasn't, because this failure somehow fit in with their nefarious plans. I don't have any conspiracy theories about failures that are actually clever moves.
I believe he had two years to get a job done, and that the main objectives were met. Once his two years were up, he took his leave. He would have gone for two or four more years, had he had the chance, but luck did not favor him. But what he did cannot be undone, and he's leaving others to clean up the mess he did. I think that's... unethical, but not stupid per se.
The fact that pawns were lost at what seems to us to be an alarming rate does not mean that he failed to topple the sad little king of a sad little kingdom, as he set out to do.
Before 2003, American forces only flew over and occasionally bombed a spot here and there. Now they still do that, but also occupy the land, pump the oil, rebuild at great cost the infrastructure that they bombed at great cost, wrote the constitution, and offer 'suggestions' of constitutional laws that will allow for more profitable ventures in the future.
You can't take the sky from me...
Carl Rove is a political genius. He knows how to play the Washington game like no other.
Karl Rove is a one trick pony, and that trick worked out very nicely for four elections (Bush as Gov, 2000, 2002, and 2004). However, Rove's political shenanigans, combined with the Iraq war, has doomed the Republicans to minority status for decades, even at the glacial rate that Democrats pull their heads out of their asses. And also might net several criminal convictions as well (USA purge, Tillman, etc).