Slashdot Mirror
In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice. (nytimes.com)
Anonymous readers share a report: As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics. Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.
"You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table," said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. "You can be sure the other side will have that." The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy. There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
"You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table," said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. "You can be sure the other side will have that." The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy. There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
The only way North Korea will rejoin with the south is if Kim Jong-un is allowed to rule it. Will you consider that a victory? I certainly would not. South Korea is a thriving regulated capitalist economy with it's own advanced industry and government. Would you turn the south over to a deranged socialist dictator?
Kim Jong-un isn't going to give up control of the North. Reunification would require bringing the north under control of the south.
Trump might, however, create some kind of deal. The only leverage he has is lifting economic sanctions or war. There's no guarantee that the North would either negotiate in good faith or adhere to the "new rules". They have never honored their agreements before.
The problem isn't the intelligence, prior attempts, or the people who worked on the problem before...
The problem is the North Korean regime. Sadly, Trump is over his head. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the character of the man.
All politicians are sociopaths. That doesn't guarantee intelligence or good decision making.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Nonsense. Trump will probably nod his head and agree to something Kim says that sounds good (like he did in the DACA 'negotiations' at the White House), and then when he gets home and his advisers tell him he can't agree to that, he'll reverse himself, and launch a Twitter attack on Kim to shift the blame and insist he didn't say what he plainly said.
The reason to have scientists and Korea experts in the room is to make sure Trump doesn't go off half-cocked and make a fool of himself. Of course, he's incapable of either seeing or acknowledging when he has made a fool of himself, so the whole thing's probably just a photo-op for him at this point.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
That's an...interesting take on the G-7 summit. Perhaps you missed (or are trying to miss) Trump's open treachery on lobbying to get Russia brought back into the G-8. The news shows don't want to use that word, treachery, and have just been calling it highly unusual and risky and whatnot, or with Sen Sasse calling it weak.
But there's plenty enough there to see in this one instance that he is betraying the interests of our country right then and there; the G-8 kicked out Russia for invading and annexing Crimea, and Trump is ignoring that and trying to reward Russia most likely for their aid in getting him elected. I guess Russian information and psychological warfare against the US is ok if it helps Trump, huh? Add in his pretty explicit attempt to start a trade war and sandbag on the other diplomatic measures with our allies, he seems pretty hellbent on tearing apart the post WWII western alliances.
If Trump's not a puppet of Putin, then it is getting to the point that is pretty hard to see that distinction, and maybe doesn't even matter anymore. He's giving Putin precisely what Putin wants: the US and our alliances divided, weak, and focused internally.
Where is the science that any of that is actually bad for either cows or humans? The FDA has some of the strictest regulations in the world, yet you say they're letting farmers poison the population with milk?
Fortunately, Health Canada puts their research online:
Executive summary: it's much worse for cows than for people, but there are still some concerns about immune responses in some people. So it's mostly about the health of the cows (and the milk produced by potentially unhealthy cows) rather than a direct effect of rbST in milk on humans.
Yaz
If you are too lazy to click on the chart, it shows that the Federal guilty plea rate is 97%. Only 3% go to trial.
So your position is that all the drug dealers, bank robbers, con artists, kidnappers, tax cheats, money launderers, counterfeiters, smugglers, mad bombers, interstate sex traffickers, etc were railroaded because "Indictments don't mean shit if you don't get a jury trial".
It's great to know that you support a cause that has been taken up by liberal advocacy groups all over the county. I know how hard it is to stand up for liberal causes on Slashdot because of all the right wing trolls, and I salute your commitment to freedom.
Why is Snark Required?
Both you and Yaz are falling for Trump's gimmick. If you think this is about DAIRY TARIFFS, you've already missed what happened.
Trump wants to destabilize the existing relationship so he can "renegotiate" a mafia strong-arm position that puts the US in an isolationist posture. He's going to do it on every front, Mexico, Canada, G7, everywhere. The exact tariffs themselves are just dog and pony shows. The fact that you guys are mired in discussions about dairy tariffs shows that you are missing the forest for the trees. Trump would do this NO MATTER WHICH TARIFFS are at issue.
And he insulted Trudeau as part of his bully strategy. Trudeau didn't say anything that he hadn't already said before. Trump would have taken any statement and pretended it was offensive. The goal of Trump is to bully and harass, laws and regulations be damned. He's the King of the US and he doesn't care what you, or any of the voting public think. He can break the law, shoot some guy on the street (his point, not mine), and pardon himself.
You're witnessing the birth of a Putin-esque oligarchic faux-capitalist government with a Supreme Leader. Stop arguing about milk and pay attention to the big picture.
Competence has nothing to do with it. Obama was a remarkable speaker. The man knew how to deliver a speech and his intelligence was there for all to see. But like his previous 4 predecessors he was unable to disturb the status quo in both domestic and international politics. Trump cannot give a speech without contradicting himself several times in a statement that is only 140 characters long.
His atrocious public speaking is drowning out some of the positive or potentially positive things he has done. The US economy has surpassed the estimated forecasts and unemployment numbers have decreased. And despite all the rhetoric there have been no tariffs enacted on any imports. Yet. He is giving the US allies a chance to do the right thing before he forces them to. And make no mistake. Despite all the BS the US can survive a trade war more than Europe or China can. Canada doesn't count since 80% of their trade is with the US so they have no power to effect the situation one way or another. Canada already slaps a 300% tariff on milk and lumber imports from the US and they import no US goods tariff free. Not one!
Trumps course public comments about unfair trade practices by both US adversaries and US allies has drowned out the simple fact that current policies are fair to everyone except the US. The US is stronger and wealthier and has always been expected to give more concessions than they ever receive so the smaller and poorer countries can compete. It's time to rebalance the trade policies and not just build on ones that have no bearing on current day conditions.
Trump is just the first President who doesn't mind calling countries out in public. He is challenging the status quo across the board but he will be gone in a few years and the next President should take office in a different political and economic era. The G7 countries are not upset because they think the current trade policies are fair they are upset because the trade policies are unfair and Trump is throwing a spotlight on the lopsided agreements that leave the US holding the shitty end of the stick. The economic well being of the US comes before the economic well being on any other country. The US doesn't have to bury or set out to harm another countries economy but the US shouldn't have to make any undue sacrifices either.
Trump called the NATO countries out as well about their penchant for never meeting their financial responsibilities to NATO. And the G7 countries better come up with a way to address the trade policies or they may find themselves trying to figure out how to protect themselves when the US stops bankrolling their collective security needs.
China started out with favorable trade policies with the US to help drag them from a destitute communist country to a world economic power. But China insists on negotiating trade deals as if they were an economic pigmy. China manipulates it's currency instead of letting it float. and their government heavily subsidizes it's industries to create cheaper exports. That way they can dump all the steel and solar panels on the world market for pennies on the dollar.
The Iran Nuclear deal is an example of a treaty that gives everyone involved something while giving nothing to the US. The Europeans, Russia, and China gained access to the Iranian market and were making billion dollar deals before the ink was dried. Iran got 50 billion in cash and assets that were frozen in US and other countries banks and they gained access to the international markets. The US got a pinky promise that Iran was done with developing nuclear weapons. Judging by the published Iranian nuclear program document library Iran just needed some more cash to continue their nuclear "research". Iran's windfall has financed their activities across the ME although the Iranians should really take a big step back before Israel solve the mad mullah problem for the rest of the world.
Partial listing:
Racism, Tax, Coverage, Equality, Freedom, Rights, Prosperity, Science, Rape, Marriage, Man, Woman, Left, Right, Unemployment, Inflation, Fair, Corrupt
I'm sure I missed a few...
When looking at it from the outside it is clear that Hillary wasn't a good alternative either.
If a female president is to be elected it has to be a new Iron Lady.
And if someone shall be able to challenge Trump in the next election it has to be a strong fast-paced person with light luggage able to shake up a movement as strong as Sanders had.
At least Trump has made politics unpredictable.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
And if someone shall be able to challenge Trump in the next election it has to be a strong fast-paced person with light luggage able to shake up a movement as strong as Sanders had.
I believe that if Hillary had picked Sanders as her running mate, Trump would have lost by a considerable amount...
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.
I believe that THIS STATEMENT in and of itself is part of the problem. The constant bickering between people that define themselves as being either 'Left' or 'Right', or 'Conservative' or 'Liberal'. I tell people that I'm a old school Republican, I believe in more power at the State level with a lean and efficient Federal Government. With that said, Trump is a fucking IDIOT who constantly and consistently contradicts himself, lies about everything, refuses to admit that he is or was wrong about anything and believes himself to be the smartest person in the room, on every subject. He holds himself above people that are experts in their field and he has no tact or grace. Trump would NEVER be able to accomplish any of the things you mentioned because he is not able to keep qualified people on his staff.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley