Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist
sciencehabit writes Valerie Barr was a tenured professor of computer science at Union College in Schenectady, New York, with a national reputation for her work improving computing education and attracting more women and minorities into the field. But federal investigators say that Barr lied during a routine background check about her affiliations with a domestic terrorist group that had ties to the two organizations to which she had belonged in the early 1980s. On 27 August, NSF said that her 'dishonest conduct' compelled them to cancel her temporary assignment immediately, at the end of the first of what was expected to be a 2-year stint. Colleagues who decry Barr's fate worry that the incident could make other scientists think twice about coming to work for NSF. In addition, Barr's case offers a rare glimpse into the practices of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), an obscure agency within the White House that wields vast power over the entire federal bureaucracy through its authority to vet recently hired workers.
So, in other words, The Tea Party.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
They should amend the Constitution where the government cannot ask questions like that. It's not their business. The government should do the best job it can and always assume the people will violently overthrow them if they don't do a good job. Case closed. If you're the government, you're not allowed to ask that question, because it's like violating the 5th amendment rights of your citizens. Any citizen who swore on the Constitution to protect liberties also swore on defending those liberties from government abuses, including overthrowing a failed government, and if anybody says no, I never belonged to such an organization, they failed as a citizen of the United States of America at their duty to defend basic Liberties. We always belong to such an organization at all times if we are true citizens. We would also violently fight off foreign invaders into the Homeland, such as another attack on Pearl Harbor, especially if they bring troops to the continental US. That's what the 2nd amendment right is there for, the right to own weapons. I have yet to see a weapon, that the 2nd Amendment applies to, that's not violent. They say the pen is mightier than the sword, but that weapon is covered by the 1st Amendment, and is more important, and should be resorted to always before the 2nd Amendment is ever resorted to. If Japan invades the Continental US, and you can talk them out of it by reasoning with them - such as Pope Leo did convincing Attila not to take Rome, and instead turn back - you should always use that method first, reasoning with people, show them respect, hoping they return it, as opposed to a violent weapon's disrespect. But the 2nd amendment made it to a very strong finish as 2nd place amongst all amendments, because violence, or the necessitiy of it sometimes, is that important. For instance, if a bear attacks you, it's difficult to use the 1st Amendment to combat it, and you better have a shotgun. Sometimes people act like animals you cannot reason with, and you have a right to a shotgun if they attack you. Even if they are animals you cannot reason with, hopefully they go about their business and do not attack you, so you never have to use your gun. I love all bears from a distance, I wish them all to live long and prosper, I'd even help them out in trouble, or feed them if I have extra food, but all the while I better my have weapons, like a shotgun, or at least a sword or a knife or a club or a wooden stick, something more than just a bare fist. Same goes for a government as goes for bears or people that attack you. If they can just be over there and leave you alone over here, you can both go about your business just fine and coexist peacefully in the world. If not, then you resort to reasoning with each other first, using free speech abuses, using the pen is mightier than the sword.
false question. pro-life radicals aren't in touch with reality.