Slashdot Mirror
Using the Open Records Law To Intimidate Critics
Layzej writes "On March 15, Professor Bill Cronon posted his first blog. The subject was the role of the American Legislative Exchange Council in influencing recent legislation in Wisconsin and across the country. Less than two days later, his university received a communication formally requesting under the state's Open Records Law copies of all emails he sent or received pertaining to matters raised in the blog. Remarkably, the request was sent to the university's legal office by Stephan Thompson of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, with no effort to obscure the political motivations behind it. In a recent editorial, the New York Times notes that demanding copies of e-mails and other documents is the latest technique used politically to silence critics."
It's not just Republicans doing this.
Look at HuffPo's website: http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
Type in the address of your neighbor, see what political groups they contribute to. They used this to pull a list of Prop 8 contributors in California, to intimidate them.
I could make some sort of argument about anonymity and free speech, I guess, but apparently these things only matter when it's the other guys doing these acts.
The is just as contemptible as the Democrats trying to reinstitute a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in order to silence Conservatives so I fail to see the newsworthiness of business-as-usual. Whoever is in power tries to topple whoever isn't.
It is politics which is sleazy and slimy and harmful for those of us just trying to live.
yes and some fanboi always feels a need to say "but the other guys do it too!" anytime a specific party is mentioned.
we get it. you are now vindicated. have been for a long while actually. you can relax now. we know it's not just "your team".
reminds me of the Coast to Coast show last night. that George Noory guy was talking about how much he loves radio. said he doesn't personally like to be on TV. then he felt compelled to add "but no disrespect is intended there for those who like to be on TV". really? really really? you can't have a personal preference anymore, stated in a non-inflammatory way, without reassuring everyone who doesn't share your preference that they don't need to get offended? i suppose next he can run his preferences by them first to make sure they approve.
is that where we're at in America, are we really that childish? i say let people get their oversensitive panties in a wad if that's what they want to do. fuck 'em. there is no good reason to coddle and accommodate hypersensitivity. some systematic desensitization is what is needed. fanbois like you aren't helping. you're just validating what's wrong with everyone.
If you're going to have an open records law then you don't get to make exceptions for political reasons. Otherwise you end up with the inevitable, "It's only OK to request records for a cause advantaging the sufficiently powerful." It's the listener flip side to declaring freedom of speech then listing a million forms of speech which don't really count as speech.
The role of the professor in open-minded contemplation / testing ideas / free academic discourse / blah is irrelevant. Everyone should be able to engage in all these things, and life would be even worse if only certain classes of people are exempted on account of being allowed to "think more freely" than others, or something.
This means that any open records law must be limited in application to specific people in specific roles which affect the public: legislative, executive or judicial. In particular, those representatives directly elected or those appointed by such representatives should expect to have all their correspondence scrutinised.
Exceptions may only exist when the exception is required to protect the well-being of a private citizen, and they must exist for only as long as that protection is required. For example, correspondence relating to a police investigation would not be appropriate to reveal until the investigation and any judicial wheel-turning is complete, but should be available for perusal after that unless certain private witnesses need protecting. If the witness-protection justification is used, it must be well documented so that, after the natural death of the witness (or as appropriate), records can be revealed and our descendants can study our performance and learn from it.
Remember also that, while today we think that we have an impossible mound of bureauratic record-keeping, in 100 years time computer systems may be able to intelligently search and analyse more text than we have ever created.
Alas, the most corrupt will communicate off the record anyway.
Almost all open records act requests are political. They're mostly made by organizations with an agenda.
Especially now days, it has become nearly impossible for government to help solve the many difficult social issues in America. No matter which side tries to take a step forward, the other side will tear it down. I'm hopeful that the recent trend towards social entrepreneurship will help us move forward.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
I don't see anything nefarious about this FOIA request. The author is a public employee, and his emails are public records. Here's the text of the request, in full:
If there's anything "chilling" about this request, I sure don't see it. When you write a blog article that is critical of a political party, and get over a half-million hits within days, you should expect a little attention from the people you're poking a stick at.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
It would be if the Democrats had tried to "reinstitute" the so-called "Fairness Doctrine".
You have any evidence that they "tried" to do this when they were in power?
On the one hand you have the Wisconsin GOP actually doing this repressive open records bullying and on the other hand you have this "trying" you speak of that never happened.
I'm surprised you didn't add "Frst Pst" to your comment.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A lesson that I learned a long time ago, keep your work life and home life separate. The attorneys for your workplace will have the company's interest at heart, not yours. Our company has a fairly liberal computer policy. You can use workplace computers for personal use as long as it does not interfere with work or break any laws. Nonetheless, in our ethics training, it was pointed out that if the company is sued, they may be required to give my computer to the other side. And they will. And anything private on it is open to discovery. They advised keep work and home separate. So I have separate email accounts, separate computers, etc. Never let the two mix.
The FOI is perfectly legal,
Except the cases in which is illegal.
TFA:
Let me offer just a few concrete examples.
A number of the emails caught in the net of Mr. Thompson’s open records request are messages between myself and my students. All thus fall within the purview of the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA, sometimes known as the “Buckley Amendment,” named for its author Senator James Buckley—the brother of conservative intellectual William F. Buckley). The Buckley Amendment makes it illegal for colleges or universities to release student records without the permission of those students, [...]
Many more of the emails that would be released under this open records request are communications with colleagues of mine at other institutions about various matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with Wisconsin politics or the official business of the University of Wisconsin-Madison—but they do involve academic work that typically assumes a significant degree of privacy and confidentiality. [...]The emails include, for instance, conversations with authors and editors about book manuscripts, and also the deliberations of two professional boards on which I sit, the Organization of American Historians (OAH) and the American Historical Association (AHA), the latter of which I now serve as President-Elect. Online email exchanges among members of these boards are expected to be confidential, so that all of us are admonished not to share each other’s emails lest doing so discourage colleagues from being candid in sharing their views.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
If there's anything "chilling" about this request, I sure don't see it. When you write a blog article that is critical of a political party, and get over a half-million hits within days, you should expect a little attention from the people you're poking a stick at.
A little attention would have been good. Seems rather a case of huge attention and too small of a care
TFA:
A number of the emails caught in the net of Mr. Thompson’s open records request are messages between myself and my students. All thus fall within the purview of the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA, sometimes known as the “Buckley Amendment,” named for its author Senator James Buckley—the brother of conservative intellectual William F. Buckley). The Buckley Amendment makes it illegal for colleges or universities to release student records without the permission of those students, [...]
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Er... The media is supposed to be liberal, isn't it? So the fairness doctrine, rather than silencing conservatives, should ensure they have a voice in the public debate, despite the media's liberal bias.
I remember the post-Vietnam era when "conservative" was a dirty word. Broadcasters, whatever their political position, didn't want to present unpopular positions associated with Vietnam and Watergate, so the only place you heard conservatives was on fairness doctrine mandated segments. I remember a number of local conservative radio personalities that I first heard giving their opinions in one of those times set aside for crackpots under the fairness doctrine. These segments were pretty amateurish affairs; the stations didn't have to help these guys with production values, but these guys learned. The fairness launched some conservative media careers that later proved to be influential.
Having to present opposing opinions doesn't mean you are silenced, unless your position is so weak that merely hearing an opposing viewpoint will obliterate it in your audience's mind. In the old days in which conservatives had to scrape fairness doctrine time to be heard, they didn't get anything like parity in time; they just got a few minutes now and then preceded by a disclaimer that the station had nothing to do with this nut. The fairness doctrine didn't sweep away the editorial power of the stations. It did keep opposition to the public's prevailing political mood alive.
Conservatives have done very well by the fairness doctrine, but now that the shoe is on the other foot they've discovered a whole new set of libertarian principles they didn't have when they needed the fairness doctrine to keep their viewpoint from being silenced.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But conservatives dominate the mass media, so the socalled effort by dems to demand fairness is nothing but more right wing BS
Look at , say, Charlie Rose: as R Nader recently posted on www.commondreams.org, a majority of Rose's guests are right of center corporate spokespeople.
Look at , say, the N Y Times: it acted as a cheerleader in the lies leading up to the Iraq ware (I think lies is an accurate word here)
Look at how, say the leaders of BofAmerica, Goldman or Citi are portrayed in the media: are they protrayed as crimminals, who ran vast fradulent enterprises (yes, crimminally negligent loan practices) or are they portrayed, say by Obama, as people deserving of their salarys ?
The truth is that radical conservatives, backed by a handfull of ultra wealthy people (Kochs, Murdoch) dominate nearly everything in this country except universitys and unions; thats why the right is so bent on destroying tenure and collective bargining - it is the one area that is still outside their control.
And I think "radical conservative" is fair, because, by definition, something that is to the right of what a majority of people in this country think is rightwing; say the union thing in WI; a majority of Americans are opposed; if this were not driven by Koch like money, it would never have got as far as it has
> is that where we're at [as humanity], are we really that childish?
Yes. Pretty much always been this way. A few people manage to grow up and are often the ones involved in public discourse. The Enlightenment was a particularly successful period of time where enough adults got together to come up with some great new ideas.
I think the proper comparison is to the letters that the police and fire fighters' unions sent to business that contributed to Governor Walker's campaign in last year's election that contained veiled threats if those businesses failed to publicly express opposition to the budget bill that Wisconsin just passed. There is also the cases of Democratic Party affiliated groups using the open records laws to gather the information of people who signed petitions for referendum they opposed and then protesting at those individual's businesses and/or place of employment.
I find it interesting that until the Republican Party starts to use Open Records laws in this way, no one expresses much concern over Democratic Party affiliated groups doing the same thing.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It wouldn't be "illegal". It just wouldn't apply in the case where communications are protected by other statutes.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There is a lot of time and effort that goes into fulfilling one of these Open Records requests, someone has to pay for it. I suspect that the vice chancellor of the university will have a little chat Professor Bill Cronon telling him what it cost and suggesting that he doesn't cause such an expense again or else ....
Looks like the professor has been label as an SP (suppressive person), and anything done to ruin him is considered "fair game". Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
One of the common mistakes at the heart of the matter:
"they do involve academic work that typically assumes a significant degree of privacy and confidentiality."
It strikes me nearly as tragedy that so many people see email as private and confidential. SMTP is unencrypted, most cloud services (gmail, hotmail, etc) are automatically reading every email that hits them, and I suspect the federal government either already has or soon will kick email out of the ever narrower sphere of "reasonable expectation of privacy" -- leaving it unprotected by the term "unreasonable" in The Fourth.
We (geeks, hackers, etc) did not make it easy enough for the plebs to encrypt their email, and did not make it common practice to do so. Now everybody uses postcards, even for their most intimate communications, and powerful entities get to read whatever they want.
Scarier: Give it a few more years, and I'd wager using encrypted communications will become reasonable cause for search and seizure, or used like removing the battery in a cell phone has been in court cases -- as evidence of foul intent. They won't have taken the freedoms of speech and association, we will have given them away.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Apparently the new 'in' thing for fascists is to use the freedom of information act to obtain emails sent by their critics about them. Apparently, academic freedom seems to be dissolving. I don't understand how the freedom of information act can be used to invade the private transactions of professors, but it has happened several times over the last year or so, and has been entirely perpetrated by the increasingly more rabid conservative undertow in this nation, not all conservatives, but a specific group of highly politically (as opposed to socially or morally) motivated people. I had the displeasure of hearing what conservative talk radio sounds like these days while I was driving through the highly conservative '3-corners' region of Missouri (i.e. Limbaugh's homeland), and it is astoundingly racial charged and disturbingly desperate and angry. These people are truly scary, and we really should keep our eyes peeled (as intelligent and reasonable people) for the horrible emerging attitudes in this country. If you asked an average German citizen about their attitudes on putting Jewish people in ovens in 1938, it is likely they would think you were crazy. And if you asked them what National Socialism meant, they would say it had something to do with purity and sexual abstinence, the words like 'Jew' or 'camp' likely would have never come up. No to compare these people to Nazi's, but it illustrates how quickly the most infamous act of hatred in human history can emerge from the consent of a naive population. I guess, ultimately, I am trying to say, that it is our job as being vigilant and morally informed people to see things like McCarthyism and National Socialism before it becomes a problem.
The only people I've ever heard talk about reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine are Republicans and their shills. It's especially been a talk radio talking point, and used repeatedly as a scaremongering tactic. I listen to Neal Boortz now and then, and I've heard him constantly harping on how Democrats want to shut down talk radio. The only problem is, I never hear any Democrats actually try to shut down talk radio. It's just a fabrication, another conservative scaremongering tactic just like all the others.
It's simply not true. I'm about as liberal as they come, and I have exactly zero interest in shutting down or changing talk radio. I mean, sure, some liberal out there has probably mentioned the Fairness Doctrine at some point, but I'm pretty liberal myself and I have exactly zero interest in pushing any kind of law to change or shut down talk radio and I don't know of anyone who does. This clatter all probably rose because someone made an offhand comment, and conservatives saw a chance to jump in and try to scare the bejesus out of everyone, thinking that the big, bad liberals are trying to take away the First Amendment or some crap.
I normally don't post "Mod parent UP!" posts, but damn, what a day not to have mod points of my own. :( I'd also mod the OP down. "Insightful?" Politics sometimes being sleazy isn't particularly insightful, and the claim that Democrats tried to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine is an outright lie.
"yes and some fanboi always feels a need to say "but the other guys do it too!" anytime a specific party is mentioned."
And whenever someone posts something pointing out the people you agree with do it too, just label them as a partisan "fanboi" and it makes it all okay.
If they really are against you, it helps neutralize their argument in the eyes of those on the fence. If they mostly agree with you, but aren't being sufficiently strident, it may well get them to go back to being more polarized to counter you. So, it's a win in either case.
Oh, and post as an AC so it's hard to link any other views to you. It lets you feign neutrality in the post. And if anyone mentions it, just say it's to keep from being harrassed.
"fanbois like you aren't helping."
Look in the mirror.
We've all of a sudden, had a lot of high-numbered Slashdot users appear with well-written, slick conservative opinions.
This doesn't seem right -- if anything Slashdot tends to libertarianism with a smattering of liberals.
Are we being subjected to some kind of conservative dirty trick -- or is it merely rutting season for right wing retards?
I *don't want* government to try to solve difficult social issues.
I think Stalin would consider you a bit too far left.
Yes, Stalin killed a lot of people that tried to stick to the ideals of the Russian Revolution and not to submit to him. Extra points if they had political influence (he killed most of the top members of the CP from the Lenin era.
So, what was your point?
Why can't
If the Egyptian people can get rid of Mubarak why can't the American people get rid of the republican party?
If these businesses really did get threatening letters they should take those letters to the police. If it turns out that the unions were doing this on an organized level it could potentially become a racketeering case, and would unquestionably be a serious crime. Well I suppose if the threat were "we aren't going to shop there" it wouldn't be a crime so I suppose the nature of the threat is key.
Here's the thing though, political contributions and signing electoral petitions are inherently public acts. It has to be that way in a democracy. In the California Prop 8 case no one was threatened with anything but a boycott. In that case it was entirely appropriate. If you ran a market in a predominantly black town and you made contributions to a campaign to reverse the 14th amendment it would be entirely appropriate for your neighbors to choose to boycott your shop. That is exactly what happened here. Yours is a very poor comparison, emails sent or received by a public employee are not typically subject to open document laws. Professors don't make public policy. Emails are not public documents like political contributions or signing petitions.
I can think of one excellent precedent to this kind of harassment. Last year the Attn. General in Virginia used open document laws to harass a climate scientist. Oh but that example wouldn't serve to illustrate your point, which as far as I could gather was, it's okay because those guys DID IT FIRST!!!
"Mom Susie hit me!"
"But he hit me first!!"
"Nu uh!"
"Uh huh!"
-- QED
But as a reader of history myself i can't help but draw parallels to other states in the past that have gone from less authoritarian regimes that are for the majority of the country to more authoritarian regimes that only benefit a select few at the expense of everyone else. Specifically the days and years before a state goes from a superficial multi-party state to a authoritarian dictatorship backed by a official party that outlawed all others. I am avoiding naming examples because if you take away the inflammatory names and the associated propaganda taught as fact about them you will realize underneath they both are the same.
I hazard a guess that if nothing external to the united states acts to change the situation. wither it be economical or geological or a combination of both, that in the next decade to decade to decade and a half the united states will shed what ever thin dressing of democracy that the current state of the democratic republic has in favor of a more authoritarian rule by a single party who seems organized to that very goal in mind. Frankly I view this as a fatal flaw in democracy in general, It seems to tolerate the existence of the very forces that seek it's destruction and then promotes that as a virtue worthy of praise like a smoker downing a pack a day and proud of it because it's their choice. It also brings into focus that the historical democracy's, even though they share the name only between them, were themselves temporary and led to the exact same ending. It's like the old saying, the best government is a good king, and the worst government is a bad king.
Last minute addition:
to RogueWarrior65. Scroll down to the bottom of the guy's blog post. He has a section with the word 'bibliography' in the title. Everything listed under it is where he got the information in his post.
The Republicans have yet to figure out how to reach the younger demographic of net users
That's a symptom of the main problem, which is this distressing anti intellectual, anti science attitude that the Republican Party has embraced.
They won't inquire into the facts of matters. They won't listen to anyone who has, preferring instead to make accusations of bias, ulterior motives, corruption, and lack of patriotism when they can't simply ignore the pesky researchers. They shape policy in deliberate ignorance. They act as if science is a big hoax, a diabolically clever machine for manufacturing rationales and manipulating the public. They set up their own institutes to manufacture rationales they like, and think that is science, that they're just doing the same thing that the other guys do. The manipulators among them think Big Tobacco's "Doubt is our product" campaign against the dangers of smoking is a great model to follow, and the idiots are only too happy to embrace the conclusions uncritically. Scary.
In case you think that does not matter, that it all works out, consider the biggest blunder in recent times. I refer to the accusation that Iraq had WMDs. That was the excuse for the Iraq War, and it turned out to be wrong. The costs are more than money, which is itself extremely large, estimated to be at a minimum a staggering $3 trillion. The West lost a lot of credibility, strained a lot of friendships. All that isn't enough to bring us down, nowhere close, but we can't keep making mistakes like that. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal prudence, but when they were in power, they couldn't abandon fiscal sanity fast enough. This sudden new concern the Republicans have for the budget, after that financial disaster (note that it's far more than the bailout), looks like empty posturing, deserving of the most cynical view possible. Do the Republicans have any principles left, or have they sunk to the party of Greed and Ignorance?
The Democrats, despite their many faults (such as supporting ACTA), have seldom interfered with scientists.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
The problem most Republican ideas face with the internet is that it has become trivially easy to reply and answer to it. Most ideas Republicans push forwards look really good on paper, as long as you only hear one side of the tale. And that just doesn't work well in a medium that can (and does) transport all viewpoints if you bother to look. And, well, people using the internet can and do look.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And whenever someone posts something pointing out the people you agree with do it too, just label them as a partisan "fanboi" and it makes it all okay.
I don't agree with any of them. They're all assholes.
Does that mean I have the right to call any political party supporter a fanboi? After all, I'm not being a hypocrite if I do.....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Only if you also run around claiming that the Republicans have floated a return to the Gold Standard because a Republican in the House talks about it.
When has Obama tried reinstating the FD.
When Speaker Pelosi try to reinstate the FD.
When did Majority Leader Reid try to reinstate the FD.
When have any Democratic-controlled committees tried to reinstate the FD.
But the GP here said "...the Democrats trying to reinstitute the so-called "Fairness Doctrine""
Let me ask you, jmac_the_man, would it be accurate to say that "The Republicans tried to impeach President Obama"? Now, there have been Republican members of congress mentioning impeachment, saying they're "looking into" impeachment hearings, being in favor of impeachment hearings, and even one especially loony member from Minnesota actually calling for impeachment. But would it be accurate to say "The Republicans tried to impeach Obama"?
Of course not. They way you try to impeach a president is by having impeachment hearings. That would be how you "try to impeach Obama".
It is also inaccurate to say that "the Democrats tried to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine".
Do you see the important distinction here? Does your "connection" to "reality" allow you to grasp this?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Mod parent up. Even if we did agree on what the issues were, and even if we did agree on what the best course of action for these issues was, doesn't mean we would agree that government is the institution to tackle it.
Umm, Climategate anyone? Or George McGovern's misguided advice on nutrition, which led to our low-fat/low calorie diet regime and USDA food recommendations that have increased carbohydrate consumption and chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease?
The Democrats have *always* been interfering with science, because any government intervention into science is by its very definition interference. Imagining the Republicans as "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual", and the Democrats as somehow "pro-science" and "pro-intellectual" is just as bad as stereotyping Democrats as the founders of the KKK, and Republicans as "the party of Lincoln". Both parties suck, and the naive belief that either of them is a "good guy" or "bad guy" fails to recognize what they really are -> politicians who will do anything to get elected again, with electoral bases that are biased, ugly and brutish.
That all being said, when you want to talk about a "big hoax", show me your falsifiable theory before asserting that the "science is settled."
Umm, Climategate anyone?
Yes, all those Democrats in England.
Isn't that a problem with Democrat ideas too?
There are certainly social issues where I'll align Democrat, and fiscal issues where I'll align Republican, but pretending, even for a moment, that you can take an idea, label it "Democrat" or "Republican", and somehow know *anything* useful about it without diving deeper, is an abdication of intellectual responsibility. In short:
Republicans: wrong on gay marriage
Democrats: wrong on natural climate change
Republicans: wrong on separation of church and state
Democrats: wrong on affirmative action and civil rights
Republicans: wrong on abortion
Democrats: wrong on supporting public unions
Republicans: wrong on the War on Drugs
Democrats: wrong on 2nd amendment rights
I'm sure the list could go on, and my particular flavor will find more "wrongs" on the Democrat side. Other's mileage may vary. The important thing to note though, is the *ideas* matter, not the parties.
If we can go by any time some politician makes a public suggestion or mutters some trial balloon at a public speaking engagement, the Republicans are making efforts to abolish Social Security, invade North Korea, China, Russia (not the former Soviet Union, modern Russia), every single Arab nation, and Venezuela. There have been Republican candidates publicly calling for lynching the entire staff of National Public radio, putting us back on the Gold standard, repealing the 14th amendment, and killing any woman who gets an abortion. Judged by the same standard you insist is fair, all those are attempts to pass legislation. You've just made a pretty good argument that the Republicans are a bunch of psychopathic lying traitors to the entire USA. Here I thought that was just some isolated remarks and we shouldn't judge a vast political organisation by a few outlying comments mostly coming from junior members on non-politician radio show hosts. Nope, you've convinced me, you all are a bunch of extremely dangerous pathological traitors, liars and murderers and the sane portion of the human race must defend themselves against your plans for triggering nuclear armaggeddon and holy war. I'm sure you've convinced many other people here today with the brilliance of your argument.
Who is John Cabal?
Actually, it did make headlines in conservative circles ->
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100043200/third-climategate-report-imminent-expect-a-shortage-of-whitewash-in-stores-this-weekend/
BTW, did you *read* any of the whitewashes? Here's a decent guide to the detailed problems with them - feel free to expound on any details you happen to disagree with:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/15/mckitrick-understanding-the-climategate-inquiries/
"Umm, Climategate anyone?"
Yes. In truth, over multiple investigations there has been no evidence of any actual scientific fraud.
It is as if, say, Nixon never ordered any breakin to the DNC, no staffer had any cover up, there was no 'enemies list', and after review of all the recordings (which had no excluded section) the only thing possibly 'scandalous' was frustrations at the Washington Post for lying and distorting everything they said.
"The Democrats have *always* been interfering with science, because any government intervention into science is by its very definition interference."
Any intervention by humans is by defnition interference. Clearly science should be performed by incorporeal angels.
" Imagining the Republicans as "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual", and the Democrats as somehow "pro-science" and "pro-intellectual" is just as bad as stereotyping Democrats as the founders of the KKK, and Republicans as "the party of Lincoln". Both parties suck, and the naive belief that either of them is a "good guy" or "bad guy" fails to recognize what they really are -> politicians who will do anything to get elected again, with electoral bases that are biased, ugly and brutish."
In practice, in recent years, the powerful politicians who have been railing at and acting against standard science have been virtually all Republican. This was not previously the case (say before 1994), when neither side did this.