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.
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?
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. Granted, a headless horse may not move quite right. So it's a toss up. I can see the reasons why, to consolidate power in the government from top to bottom and make it move as one. Great. Gone are the bureaucratic stumble blocks which kept us from moving forward with good ideas. Gone are the bureaucratic stumble blocks which kept us from moving forward with BAD ideas.............
Cool! Amazing Toys.
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)
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.
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
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
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
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.
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)
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.
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
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...