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."

39 of 567 comments (clear)

  1. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When are you guys going to re-take your country?

    1. Re:So... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Informative

      When are you guys going to re-take your country?

      They can't. Intelligent voters are about 1% of the population.

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      We need to entice the other 99% with more reality shows and fried twinkies.

    3. Re:So... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When are you guys going to re-take your country?

      They can't. Intelligent voters are about 1% of the population.
      Sure, but I believe there's an innate sense of fairness and pragmatism in the American people that, although it takes a good long while to emerge, is pretty reliable, and fierce when unleashed.

      Most Americans, even those that can't articulate exactly why, know there's something rotten in the way things are going. I'm not talking about Republicans vs Democrats or liberals vs conservatives. Even those that voted for George Bush because they believed he would best avenge 9/11 now realize that something stinks.

      Talk radio hosts have been wetting themselves over the fact that no matter how many times they trumpet what a great booming economy we have, more than 70 percent of Americans will reliably say that things are getting worse. Polls from all sides of the political spectrum are now showing a 25 percent approval rating for George Bush, and even less for a Congress that hasn't paid off on their promise to end the war in Iraq. 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. There may be a lot of faults in the old USA, but watching this Nation slowly wake up is a thing of beauty to behold. The people who are touting this War in Iraq and the Global War on Islamofundamentaliberalism are going to pay a heavy price in the years ahead when they're fully exposed. There are real problems in this Country, in this World, and an increasing number of Americans are figuring it out. The problem is, the reality doesn't quite jibe with what we've been told. Even the captive media, who's been reliable in their ability to prop up a corrupt system, has been losing their mojo. If we can keep the Internet fairly free from the absolute control of corporate interests, we may still have a chance to turn things around. But it means that some of us are going to have to start learning that there are more important things than iPhones and PS/3s. But if you read some of the subtexts you find in the comments around here, it's clear that an increasing number of us are starting to raise our heads and look around.

      There's a reason that the Establishment's candidate Mitt Romney has been falling on his face despite raising huge amounts of money and getting the backing of all the "Kewl Kids" in the Establishment Media. There's a reason so many people say they would never, ever, vote for Hillary Clinton despite her supposed "inevitability". And most important, despite the best efforts of pundits and phony ministers and talk radio big mouths, most Americans just don't want to walk around believing that half our fellow citizens are the Enemy. It just doesn't match up with our daily experience of one another as a basically decent sort who mostly still believe in "live and let live". Even here in Chicago, if I get a flat on my way to work, I'll have several people who stop and ask if I need help, no matter if they're driving an F150 with a yellow ribbon or a Prius with an IMPEACH sticker.

      No, there are still plenty good reasons to be optimistic about our future.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Surprised? by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sometimes the greatest wisdom is to simply say, "I don't know, but this is my best effort, and I'm ready to be corrected."

      The most dangerous facet of this administration has been their certainty in every single thing they do, and their machinations to give that certainty free reign in every way possible.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Surprised? by feepness · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sometimes the greatest wisdom is to simply say, "I don't know, but this is my best effort, and I'm ready to be corrected."

      I know. If only the other guys would say that more often, since they are always wrong.

      Expecting our side to say that? Well, that's just plain ignorant!

    3. Re:Surprised? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Except that until now, the outcome has not been controlled by the people who control the money; it's been controlled by people hired by the people who control the money, and given the authority to do as they see fit.

      This is a lesson that every businessman worth his salt learns early in his career: don't micromanage. Just because you pay the bills doesn't mean that it's appropriate for you to tell your employees how to do their jobs. Hire smart people, make sure they understand the overall goals of the organization, and give them a free hand. If they screw up, that means you hired the wrong people; it does not mean you should try to control every detail of how the job is done.

      And it's a lesson the US government learned too, once upon a time -- but now, under our MBA President, is busily unlearning, like just about every other lesson on good governance which history can provide.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Surprised? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please. Plenty of leaders regardless of party say that. Reagen in my opinion was particularly good at recognizing when his ideals didn't mesh with reality on the ground. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, are all way off the charts of believing that whatever they think is right is right regardless of what anyone else says or what actually happens. Nobody has been as completely brazen about ignoring the advice of experts within their own administration telling them that their pet theories are wrong. Has there been a single failure in Iraq that was not predicted in advance by experts, including top generals? Even members of Rumsfeld's office were trying to prepare for the obvious problems, but he forbid them from doing so because he believed it wasn't necessary.

      I'm serious, drop the "oh, everyone thinks their party is great and hates the other guy" bullshit. It's crap. If you don't realize that Bush's administration is running on pure ideology and letting not a single fact get in their way, you're just not paying attention. If you care about what party they are in, then you're a partisan stooge. If you don't care, you're just ignorant. I don't care which is the case -- wake up, and stop saying "the other guy is just as bad, so this guy is okay". That's a lame and meaningless excuse. Start looking at the actual person, the actual decisions being made, the disconnection from reality that is by now well documented, the continuous stream of former officials saying they didn't know jack shit. I suppose they all just hate bush because he's a republican too. Or maybe, just maybe, what the evidence seems to say is actually true: The country is being run by idiots who think ideology trumps reality and thus reality can be ignored.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Surprised? by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The country is being run by idiots who think ideology trumps reality and thus reality can be ignored. I do not believe for a single instant that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are idiots (I'm not sure about the frontman though).
      I believe they are crimina... er... 'perfectly legal' masterminds, coldly going about their well thought out plan, and letting nothing stop them.

      They only seem like idiots if you actually believe their hearts are in the right place. They are acting perfectly rationally, and with great cunning, when you take into account that they are, well, I'd call them evil. That is what I call people who are willing to kill for money, again and again.

      They knew many people would die in Iraq, they knew they were lying about their motivations for going to war, they knew they had to act fast while the population was scared enough to believe them, and they knew they could get away with it. A fall guy gets sentenced here and there, sure, but you don't win a chess match of this magnitude without loosing a rook or two.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:Surprised? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but now, under our MBA President, is busily unlearning, like just about every other lesson on good governance which history can provide. I think you're missing what is going on here.

      Bush isn't unlearning anything.
      He is doing exactly what you said, with one caveat.
      He is also changing the "overall goals of the organization".

      In the past, the goal was to provide policy based on sound science.
      Now, the goal is to provide policy that jibes with the White House agenda.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Surprised? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do not believe for a single instant that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are idiots

      Oh, I do. I absolutely do. If they weren't idiots, the war would be going better. You think that wouldn't serve them? The American people would be pleased as hell to let our troops stay in Iraq for years while Halliburton builds huge army bases and all the defense contractors suck up billions of taxpayer $s, if the war were going better. They'd have their non-Saudi middle east military bases, their oil reserves locked up where our troops are close by, and a friendly government right next door to what they wanted to be their next adventure, Iran. Instead, they've botched everything up, more and more Americans are demanding we leave lucrative base-building contracts be damned, and they lost their pet Congress that was allowing them to get away with all this crap. No, no, if they were smart, they could satisfy whatever their desires are without all this blow-back. They have simply fucked up majorly because they never had any idea what they were doing.

      I used to think that they were smart but duplicitous. Then mistake after mistake after mistake after predictable mistake. When we found out that the administration had been taking most of their cues on Iraq from an Iranian agent, I knew they were fucking clueless. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and they believed it whole heartedly. 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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Surprised? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fell into what? The fact that if you don't recognize Bush's ideology-driven nature, and if it isn't because you're a partisan stooge, then it's because you just haven't been paying attention?

      I know I put it into three separate sentences, but it still shouldn't be that hard to understand the one complete thought.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Surprised? by xeno-cat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who cares if the times are unique? These are the times we are living. Should we be lese fare simply because it's "all happened before" like some cylon drama? I mean, what the hell is your point? You know, a guy broke into a house and shot a child. But it's been done before so lay off the dude. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with people? Don't you feel invested in your life?

      Kind Regards

      --
      "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
    10. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I never understood why some people consider loyalty to be a virtue. As far as I can understand it, "loyalty" means "standing by someone even when they're wrong" most of the time. Correcting someone when they're wrong is treated as disloyal by many...

  3. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that Mr President can control scientific results. A few simple changes to the laws of thermodynamics should solve all of our energy problems.

  4. The problem is........???? by iknownuttin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Requires agencies to identify "market failures," where the private sector fell short in dealing with a problem, as a factor in proposing a rule.

    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.
  5. oh, how many books I read...... by acvh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .....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?

  6. Re:white house edits by inKubus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  7. Optimist by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intelligent voters are about 1% of the population.
    No, voters are about 30% of the population, intelligent citizens are maybe 3% of the population, but you have yet to demonstrate that the intersection of the two sets is non-null.
    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Optimist by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, voters are about 30% of the population, intelligent citizens are maybe 3% of the population, but you have yet to demonstrate that the intersection of the two sets is non-null.

      The answer is simple. If you don't vote, don't count yourself as "intelligent".
    2. Re:Optimist by The+Spoonman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The answer is simple. If you don't vote, don't count yourself as "intelligent".

      Yeah, 'cause voting counts for anything anymore. We're trapped, and he's going to seize all of the power and make himself emperor. And, yes, I still vote. I just don't see the point anymore. I don't get to vote FOR anyone anymore, just against.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    3. Re:Optimist by OakDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're trapped, and he's going to seize all of the power and make himself emperor.
      Here's a challenge for you. If GWB does not step down on January 20, 2009, I will buy you breakfast. If he does step down, you will buy me breakfast.

      We don't have to meet. I will gladly pay for your breakfast if you email me a copy of your receipt. I can send you a check, or PayPal funds, whatever you would like.

      Be warned, I plan to eat a lot.

    4. Re:Optimist by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, 'cause voting counts for anything anymore. We're trapped, and he's going to seize all of the power and make himself emperor. And, yes, I still vote. I just don't see the point anymore. I don't get to vote FOR anyone anymore, just against.

      I haven't seen the death of the 22nd Ammendment yet, so no way he can run again. Getting a Constitutional ammendment rammed through Congress takes time, more time than what's left in his administration, even with zero resistance from the 'opposition'. 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.

      Personally, I'd like to see some real candidates for a change. None of this nonsense of voting for the 'lesser evil', the problem is, the lesser evil is STILL evil.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    5. Re:Optimist by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 4, Funny

      He will step down at that point provided he doesn't get himself assassinated while engaging in diplomacy in foreign lands.
      Bush's greatest defense against assassination isn't the Secret Service. His greatest defense is that if he dies while in office, Dick Cheney becomes President.
  8. Impeach the Criminal Tyrants Already by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need Congress to impeach Bush/Cheney already. This national nightmare has gone on far too long.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  9. Once upon a time... by NIN1385 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  10. Disappointed But Not Surprised by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  11. Stay and Fight by shma · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  12. Control vs. Frameworks by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Political organizations are supposed to define policies, management should be left to managers, and actual work should be left to the workforce.

    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)
  13. Re:The group that politicized science complains... by Ardeaem · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Science, because it is a principled method of determining how the world works, SHOULD have an influence over policy. However, policy and ideology should not have an influence over science. But this is what the Bush administration wants. A major problem with SDI, as many saw it, is that it was a massive waste of money. Scientists and engineers, who are the authorities on this matter, saw that the system was largely unworkable and required a huge amount of money. It is reasonable for them to have their say. This is science having an influence over policy. (I will not deny that some had other motives, and to the extent that scientists confused political arguments and scientific arguments, they were wrong.)

    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.

  14. Re:The group that politicized science complains... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  15. Bush is Freest President In Decades by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Bush is Freest President In Decades by Izaak · · Score: 3, Insightful


      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.

      This is hilarious. Even while pointing out the evidence of Bush's attack on the Constitution and our fundamental freedoms, you grasp for the opposite conclusion. Better yet, your automatic assumption that a Democratic administration (regardless of the character of those staffing it) must certainly be worse belies the very partisan bias you would accuse others of. I can only assume you are joking, that this is a parody of some sort. Nevertheless, though I come to this thread somewhat late, I think I must respond.

      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.

      The current climate of deregulation mostly benefits the largest corporations to the detriment of most small business owners. The best example I've run into is deregulation of the telecom industry wiping out many smaller phone and Internet companies, resulting in fewer choices, higher prices, and worse service for consumers. As a consultant and small business owner working in this industry, I've witnessed it first hand. You can find many similar examples in the energy sector, agriculture... almost anywhere you care to look.

      Rolling back environmental regulations has certainly made it easier for many big real estate developers, but this often comes at a high cost to working people. In my home town a developer pulled political strings to build a massive subdivision of condos, destroying the natural watershed that would normally be protected as a wetland. After the inevitable flooding of neighboring areas, the taxpayers were stuck paying for a massive concrete and steel water management structure to fix the problem. It cost an order of magnitude more than the condo project.

      And then there is the added medical costs we all carry as result of other environmental rollbacks. BTW, I am currently buying and renovating a Brownfield property, so I know a little bit about environmental regulations and business investment. 'Getting rid of government regulation' makes a great sound bite... but the attraction pales when the results turn up in your food or drinking water.

      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.

      The right to bear arms is cool and all... but personally I'm a bit more concerned about my right to privacy, due process, and habeas corpus, all of which have been eliminated or seriously curtailed under Bush. Just recently in fact, Bush released an executive order saying he can seize the assets of anyone they feel are interfering with the administration's Iraq plans. No warrant necessary, no trial... gone. Yeah, I feel a lot more free.

      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.

      Lower taxes are certainly nice, but never at the expense of higher deficits. That is unforgivably bad economic policy. Any benefit we might personally gain from those cuts is more than wiped out by the negative long term consequences (such as higher interest rates, inflation, and a weakening dollar... not to mention the obvious side effect that more

  16. We did, we like this. by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Contrary to protestations of the left, many of us Republicans like what the President is doing just fine.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:We did, we like this. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you think that a low Bush approval translates into an approval of liberal politics, you are smoking some good stuff.

      The only reason Bush is not at 50% is because of his stance on immigration and his budget. If he were to have come down hard on illegal immigration, then, he would have a much higher approval rating. The moral of the story is that the vast majority of the country remains conservative, and only really disapprove of Bush because of the liberal-sounding things that he has done. Republicans are uneasy about the war, to be sure, but, amnesty is the third rail of Republican politics and Bush touched it.

      You watch. Hillary is the only candidate that has a shot at winning the presidency on the national stage because everyone else is too far to the left. Obama already has said enough during the primary to doom his national campaign. Yeah, run that footage of Obama saying that he would talk to the likes of Chavez unilaterally. Yeah, run that footage of Obama saying he would not retaliate if the USA had two cities attacked ala 9/11. He might take California and Massachusetts, but that's it.

      --
      This is my sig.
  17. We are the corporate masters by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:We are the corporate masters by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would really like to agree with you, but the fact is that the American populace is generally pretty ignorant about stuff. At some point in the past maybe an argument could be made that it is our fault if corporations aren't acting in a socially beneficial manor or if politicians aren't enacting the will of the people, but in our current culture people are pacified to apathy by reality TV and the education system is getting worse and worse thanks to things like NCLB. The problem is that if people are ignorant they can be easily manipulated and any politician or media mogul who's read Fahrenheit 451 knows that and can take advantage of it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Republican's are so fond of defunding our public education system.

      And no, I won't deny my bias against the Republican's. Every time they attain power they've proven that despite all their talking points about big government, they run up debts and expand the role of government in our lives far more than any Democrat has ever attempted. Anyways, like it or not the Dems are too disorganized to play a part in any grand conspiracy theories.

      Oh yeah, and I never buy from McDonalds or Walmart and I try my best to buy local. I know I'm in the minority, but some of us actually do give a shit about where we spend our money.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  18. Re:Oh so wrong. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reality is, most people don't know who Albert Gonzales either
    Not true.

    I have a home in Central Missouri, in a town of 19,000 and I use my neighbors down there as a yardstick of what your "regular" Americans think. These are the folks who listen to Rush and Sean and you know what? They're getting tired of that spiel. They don't buy it like they used to. They have voted straight Republican since Reagan and now they're actually planning to vote for "any Democrat in pants" as my friend says. And they listen to AM radio and watch cable news at night and are increasingly able to see through the baloney. It would surprise you how well-informed they are. And because they are watching family lose their home to foreclosure or be forced into bankruptcy because they got a serious illness, they are becoming increasingly well-informed.

    I know the bit about how most Americans don't know who the vice president is. It's also a canard. You'll notice those bits are always on tape, never live, because it takes them a good long time to come up with one person who doesn't know Dick Cheney. I teach music in a summer camp at the church in my neighborhood for kids who live in one of the worst parts of Chicago. I asked a couple of 12 year olds who the VP was and they all knew "Dick Cheney", although a few used some colorful modifiers.

    What they do care about is the stock market
    That's really false. The stock market is at record territory and people are still saying the economy sucks. That's because, believe it or not, most people in the US do NOT have an IRA or 401k or KEOGH. Most people do NOT own stock. This is the real divide in the US. A good rule of thumb is that if you're wealthy enough to have purchased stock, the economy is good for you. If you're not, it's not.

    The reality is, most Americans don't give a shit about most left wing causes
    True, but they hate getting fucked by some smiling guy in man-tan and hairspray.

    they don't even really care that much about the war.
    There are several dozen out-of-work GOP congressmen who would disagree.
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.