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.
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.
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.
.....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?
This reminds me of Soviet Russia or a dictatorship. Having a political "officer" involved in every decision.
Your point is well taken, but replace "political officer" with "scientist" and see if it sounds any better. Remember that unlike Soviet Russia or a dictatorship, in the US, "political officers" are elected directly or appointed by someone elected. Elected officials are beholden to the electorate and the Constitution. Scientists are not elected and have taken no oath to the Constitution. So while I don't trust politicians either, at least I can hold them to the Constitution or vote them out of office. I have no such power over scientists.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I must agree. This notion of "equal coverage for both viewpoints" has gotten out of hand. The universe exists independent of Gallup's latest poll.
(IANAL)
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.
huh? We're in the U.S. we're all equally bound by the constitution whether janitor or senator. It really matters not, scientists shouldn't be making decisions about public policy but they certainly should be making their recommendations unaltered by publicly elected officials.
I see no reason to change how this works as that's pretty much how it exists today. Unfortunately that means the publicly elected officials invariably listen to corporate wants more than what is best for the most people. It's the price we pay as we can elect somebody else if our representative is bad enough to warrant a change. Of course with political parties mucking up the whole thing the issue gets more complicated with seniority and affiliation affecting appointments to committees.
I think we agree on this issue though in that scientists are not the right people to be making decisions about public policy but their voice is certainly worth hearing along with the people adversely affected by the proposed changes. Change is hard, and in my mind, it should be.
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
We need Congress to impeach Bush/Cheney already. This national nightmare has gone on far too long.
--
make install -not war
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
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).
A bunch of really smart people whose job it is to study the world in careful detail through the analysis of data notices that the data tend to support Democratic positions over Republican ones. Imagine that.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
However, it is NOT reasonable for political considerations or the favor of particular individuals and industries to affect scientific reasoning. I also reject the notion that every organization should support Republicans and Democrats equally. If you are anti-abortion and that is an important issue for you, you would be unprincipled to support most Democrats. Likewise, it appears to me a pro-science citizen should lean toward the Democrats more often than not. Between evolution, climate change, AIDS, and sex education, and several other issues I could name, frankly, it would be hard to pick a worse party than the Republicans.
It is silly to think that "fair" people should always be split 50% between Republicans and Democrats. It all depends on the issue at hand.
This reminds me of Soviet Russia or a dictatorship. Having a political "officer" involved in every decision. This is why we hire experts, educate people, etc.
Imagine that: politicians in government.
The directive, according to TFA, "bans any regulation from moving forward without the approval of an agency's regulatory policy officer, who would be a political appointee."
Uh, isn't this a good thing? The alternative would be some guy hired for the job by some random person. This guy would have no accountability to anybody but his boss, who could also have little accountability.
This new directive will make politicians who appoint these people responsible for the actions of the department.
Regulation shouldn't move forward unless our elected officials say so. I'm shocked this wasn't in place before. I really hope they don't have any more agencies where this is necessary.
I mean, imagine a person writing regulations that affect your life who aren't even accountable to the person you voted for. Yes, it's bad to give the president more power, but if there's regulation happening, I want it under someone directly or indirectly accountable to the people. Having them appointed by an elected official is good enough. If it were up to me, I wouldn't even have most of these agencies, but since everyone loves government these days, I'll settle for accountability.
I think this group who wrote the article (UCS) is pretty obviously writing this article because they fear Bush (and specifically Bush, look at their site) will use this power to further bring this government away from environmental protection. That's a valid concern, but you can't have it both ways: either the government can regulate the environment, or they can't.
If you want to grant the government the power to mess things up, you have to accept that the people you elect may use that power.
Latewire
Well, they (UCS) didn't just "lobby against SDI". Instead, they very specifically pointed out that: (1) SDI as proposed is unworkable and (2) it's technologically impossible to implement anything that achieves stated goals of SDI without some radical breakthroughs in our understanding of physics. That is pure science. If Dept. of Energy suddenly decides to fund "perpetual motion" machine, opposing that won't be political either.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
I will try to make this as clear as I can: when scientists study data, and when from the data they draw a conclusion that heppens to support one political position over another, this is not a sign of political bias. This is a sign that one of the positions is right, and the other is wrong.
claim that science favors the Democrat position on everything...even when last year "science" opposed the same position because the Republicans were pushing it
Examples, please?
Also, what exactly is "the Democrat position?" I assume that what you're trying to say is "the Democratic position," but like many Republicans you seem to be having trouble with the "i" and "c" keys on your keyboard. You might want to get that fixed.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Your argument is basically science fiction, each logical leap broader than the last. It depends on scientists as a whole being completely amoral and being given carte blanche. Organ transplants have been done for decades in this country, yet we have yet to see the poor rounded up and harvested for parts as had been predicted. When rumors arise that this sort of thing is happening to political prisoners in other countries, it is roundly condemned. It is a much, much smaller step from organ donation to organ harvesting than it is from stem-cell research to Logan's Run-like prediction, but it is still not a step that has been made.
In any case, the other side of the slope is just as slippery. At what point does legally enforcing 'respect for life' become the enforcement of 'respect for God's grand plan?'
Take your woman outside and beat her because she is showing more skin than just around her eyes. Then report back your findings, please.
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.
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.
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.
As to your point, wikipedia's explano seems as good as any:A far cry from plastering the label on anything and everything that one doesn't like. Each side is never going to like what most of the other side does when they're in power. But one side consistently goes off-kilter in the verbiage department. The Right doesn't like Pelosi or Reid or a whole host of other left-wingers and what they do and say, but they're not called "evil", or compared to Hitler.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
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.
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.
Yeah, because Bush would really sign that into law, wouldn't he? So Congress is forced to take what they can get, and raising the minimum wage is better than nothing.
So if you can't get an effective policy passed, it somehow justifies supporting an ineffective and costly policy instead? One more reason I will never be able to vote for a Democrat...