No offense taken. I agree with you that it is *always* good to check the background of the authors. But what is more important, is to determine whether what they are saying is complete and accurate.
As is often the case in emotional debates, critics of the "one and only true viewpoint" get labeled as stooges for the other side, so their research is dismissed WITHOUT serious consideration given to their objections. This is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Politicians in general LOVE using this rhetorical device. I always make a habit of casting a skeptical eye and doing a bit of research when the media becomes emotional, panicy, and opposing viewpoints are underrepresented. It doesn't matter whether we're talking religion, global warming, gun control, or video games.
Now in the spirit of poisoning the well, let's look at the background of PRWATCH:):):):). PRWATCH is produced by a non-profit known as the Center for Media and Democracy which was founded by environmentalist writer and political activist, John Stauber. Their stated goals include:
Countering propaganda by investigating and reporting on behind-the-scenes public relations campaigns by corporations, industries, governments and other powerful institutions.
Informing and assisting grassroots citizen activism that promotes public health, economic justice, ecological sustainability and human rights.
"Economic justice" and "Ecological sustainability"????????? It sounds like they might have an agenda.
The Village Voice, known as a bastion of conservative opinion:):), once stated, speaking of the Center for Media and Democracy,in a review of a book co-authored by Stauber, "These guys come from the far side of liberal."
From the book itself:
Activism enriches our lives in multiple ways. It brings us into personal contact with other people who are informed, passionate and altruistic in their commitment to help make the world a better place. These are good friends to have, and often they are better sources of information than the experts whose names appear in the newspapers. Activism, in our opinion, is a path to enlightenment.
- Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (from "Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with your Future")
So yes, the Center for Media and Democracy does have an agenda. Does that mean we should dismiss everything they report or say about a topic or a person? A most emphatic NO. You examine what they bring to the table and ask whether it is complete and accurate. That's the way it should be.
As a matter of fact, there was... from Newsweek "The Cooling World" April 28, 1975, page 64:
In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.
So, as a rough estimate growing seasons are about the same as they were in the 1950s. The researchers only went back 30 years so they wouldn't have to deal with this "anomaly". That is known in some circles as "cooking the data".
Strong assertion, let's apply a little deductive logic:
toxic -> deadly -> will no longer exist left untreated toxic to free thought -> free thought will no longer exist
Let p be defined as existence of religion
q be defined as existence of free thought
The assertion is that:
p -> ~q
or
The existence of religion implies the non-existence of free thought (eventual)
We know that from modus tollens
~(~q) -> ~p
simplifying
q -> ~p Or
Where there is an existence of free thought there is a non-existence (suppression, ban) of religion.
Let r be defined as the location where the non-existence of religion is/was enforced (China, North Korea, Soviet Union, California). Clearly,
~p -> r So we have,
q -> ~p
~p -> r By implication
q -> r Or
The existence of free thought implies that one lives in a country where the non-existence of religion is enforced. We now have mathematical proof of what has always been suspected:
You free thinkers are a bunch of commies:):):):)
Gotta ask the reviewer ....
on
Divine Proportions
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The same question I once asked a mathematics professor after a 45 minute session on a single proof: "Someone actually pays you to do this?"
Didn't get a good grade, but the resulting stunned silence from the class was worth it.
It's not that we don't know how to get there, we do... we just no longer have a man-rated vehicle, the ground support infrastructure, and budget to get there.
Yep, nothing better than using a wireless keyboard and mouse with batteries that *will* eventually fail in such diverse arenas as nuclear power, range safety, medical monitoring, etc. The article is completely right: The sooner we get rid of all of these wired peripherals, the better.
It's quite evident what Gore's motivation is. Al Gore's motivation is whatever is best for Al Gore. The man is a politician. He craves power. It's just that simple. Mr. Gore has not hesitated in the past to use every means available to him to suppress scientific dialog that he doesn't personally agree with (See Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking PDF files for more examples of the politicization of science)
From the article:
As Jonathan Adler wrote in the Washington Times on July 27, 1994:
"Concurrent with Mr. Lancaster's attack on Mr. Singer, Mr. Gore himself led a similar effort to discredit the respected scientist. Mr. Gore reportedly contacted 60 Minutes and Nightline to do stories on Mr. Singer and other opponents of Mr. Gore's environmental policies. The stories were designed to undermine the opposition by suggesting that only raving ideologues and corporate mouthpieces could challenge Mr. Gore's green gospel. The strategy backfired. When Nightline did the story, it exposed the vice president's machinations and compared his activities to Lysenkoism: The Stalinist politicization of science in the former Soviet Union."
In fact, the 2/24/94 Nightline edition which Adler refers to included a segment-end wherein the host, Ted Koppel, said (jaw-agape emphasis mine):
"There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, that he is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis."
.......
In an interview with Mike Miliard of The Phoenix, he recalled:
"Gore would run star-chamber hearings and invite the heads of funding agencies while he would try to get scientists [who doubted climate change's severity] to recant. . . . Everyone in the eld knows [that] when the funding went up to $2 billion a year under Bush the elder, that money didn't come because people thought climate was a wonderful thing. It came because of alarm."
Lindzen himself explains how "global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" in his 4/12/06 article, "Climate of Fear":
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."
So, effectively, Gore's intimidation tactics over the course of the last decade and a half have achieved his desired goal through a menacing combination of politics, words and financial control. At a glance, it would certainly appear that a significant number of American scientists have been molded into obedient, PC puppets.
.....
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I do agree that Mr. Gore along along with a myriad of other politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are men of principle. The one principle they cherish and have indeed adopted as their own was first espoused by H.L. Mencken:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed----and hence clamorous
to be led to safety----by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
I studied and researched global warming as a student some 12 years before Al Gore discovered it. At least then, the scientists and researchers could admit that their results were inconclusive or even ran counter to conventional wisdom in this arena without fear of losing their funding. It was, simply, because it was not an emotional politicized panic button issue the way it is today.
For the humor-impaired, the inclusion of the characters ":)" in the above posting is known as an emoticon or, as known more precisely in the industry, as a "smiley". It is also associated with an attempt, just an attempt mind you, at humour. For a complete list of emoticons please refer to the definitive article at Wikipedia. I'm sure that this tidbit of information will go a long way towards more meaningful and accurate moderation:-|
Expensive??? At $800??? Do you hear me laugh? I laugh at your little girlie toy camera:):). Now if you want a rather nice 39 MP medium format Hasselblad (H2D-39), B&H Video has one in stock right now for a bargain basement price of $29,994.95. I'm going to rush right over and pick one up before they run out.
Sad but true. But quite frankly, private enterprise, with very few exceptions, isn't doing that much better. From snake-oil hucksters to whiners who only have powerpoint presentations complaining that if they only had $100 million they could make it all work. There are others that are building hardware, but in their quite vocal rush to berate NASA, the FAA, and the large aerospace companies, they seem to intentionally ignore the 40+ years of research and operational experience that have led to relatively safe manned spaceflight.
Then there are the very few who are quietly building hardware, building infrastructures to support that hardware, innovating in ways that the large aerospace companies and the government can't without ignoring the lessons of the past. My prediction is that 5 years from now the landscape is going to be quite different than it is now.
You insensitive clod, rednecks have feelings too:). At least the rednecks that I knew while working there took pride in what they were doing. The problem is not with the guys that are on the floor turning the bolts and doing the real work. The problem is with the 15 layers of kingdom-building middle-management. Think of "Office Space" on stereoids and you start to get an idea....
My hats off to the ESA. In the 3 days since we first find out that ESA is planning to send a spacecraft to Venus , the ESA has managed to build the thing, launch it, cross the distance between the Earth to Venus, and are now ready for orbital insertion. I'm amazed.
- an astrounaut reads shuttle equipment manuals in space (!!!)
Astronauts once selected will train for a particular mission for about 10 months or much longer - it's not that unusual, especially when EVAs are involved, to start training a year and a half for a mission. So why should they need to read equipment manuals/checklists in space when they should have everything memorized?
The answer is safety. NASA strongly discourages its astronauts from memorizing things like checklists and other safety critical procedures simply because there is too much risk of forgetting to do something or not doing something in the proper order and not coming back alive. So as mundane and boring as it may be, the crew still has to follow the written procedures/checklists.
Just so this response isn't completely off-topic, I do have a fundamental problem with NASA spending large sums of money on "educational programs". Programs designed to get kids interested in science and math. As pointed out in a previous post, that is not central to NASA's mission. The excitement that comes from NASA going about its business of space exploration should be enough to encourage students to pursue involvement in the space program. If that means taking science or math or computer science courses to reach that, then so be it. But these are means to the end, not the end itself.
What do you expect? The rover has lasted *8* times longer than design. That's the equivalent of driving 400,00 miles on tires rated for 50,000 miles. It's a heck of an accomplishment and I can only applaud the terrific job the design engineers and builders did.
Hmmm, do you have any data to support your assertion that President Bush is indeed cutting school funding?
According to the Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2007 -- Section 4 -- Federal Government Outlays by Agency that is simply not the case. Spending for the Department of Education is much higher and increased much more sharply under Bush than his predecessor (2006 EST $83 Billion versus 2000 $33 Billion). There is a sharp dropoff at 2007 to EST $64 Billion but this is still above 2004 levels -- perhaps this is the cut that you are talking about?
These sorts of accusations are of course nothing new. I would like to make a bold proposal that Slashdot posters actually take the time to read the articles, fact-check, and follow up with relevant posts.
However, when a neutron flux is imposed on weapons grade uranium, sub-threshold nuclear fission occurs, and many more neutrons are emitted.
1) It seems to me that this would be NAGT (Not A Good Thing), particularly if you have a bad guy, who knowing that this generator would be used, would decide to ship a piece of U-235 just barely subcritical. There may not be much of an explosion, but it would be very dirty.
2) And how would this work at detecting PU-239? In order to sustain the proper "sub-threshold" nuclear fission, the neutrons would have to be at the proper energy level. See #1 above.
First, politicalisation of science has been going on since the dawn of time. No, it's not right, but it happens and will continue to happen. Too often research has not been guided by the scientific method but rather by the WBCTTCIWWTCTGF method ("we-better-come-to-this-conclusion-if-we-wish-to- continue-to-get-funding"). Anyone who doesn't believe that politics plays a role in what research gets funded and continuance of that funding is naive. I'm not only talking about the politics of the current administration, but departmental politics, university politics, professional organisation politics, review journal politics, agency politics, popular press politics, etc. Inherent with the politicalisation of scientific research is the suppression/minimization of the results of that research if it doesn't agree with the current mood. Suppression can also occur, especially in government agencies, as a result of turf battles. This leads me to my second point.
In NASA's case, the problem is with the NASA PAO (Public Affairs Office). They wield an incredible amount of power over all NASA employees and contractors, including astronauts and tend to get a bit incensed when you invade their turf (that is, communicating with the public). Keith Cowing (editor of NASAWATCH) gave some excellent testimony back in 1998 to Congress about the state of affairs at NASA PAO:
" Problem: Xenophobia at NASA Public Affairs: NASA's Public Affairs Office (PAO) is at fault by virtue of having become the de facto Propaganda Announcement Office with the singular role of preventing the release of damaging information. When bad news does get out, NASA PAO seeks to put the best possible spin on it. For information released voluntarily, NASA is often its worst enemy. I have seen far too many examples of amazing and exciting things NASA does "dumbed-down" for public dissemination. Instead of going out of its way to make the agency open to public scrutiny, NASA PAO seeks to keep the public out.
NASA PAO seems to have a mission focused only on purveying happy, positive thoughts. If you visit their Space Station or Space Shuttle websites, you'll see that they post reader comments. Have you ever seen a comment in anyway critical of NASA? No - nor will you. When NASA put together its 40th Anniversary exhibits of pivotal events in NASA's history, was there any mention of the Apollo 1 or Challenger accidents? No. NASA has become so xenophobic that it is incapable of admitting, much less dealing with any external criticism. Look at the way they craft their congressional testimony and you will get a regular reminder that they just can't admit that they are at fault.
NASA's greatest asset is its employees, civil service and contractor alike. Yet from the way NASA PAO overtly prevents them from acting as ambassadors to the outside world you'd think they were guilty of some crime. Indeed, recent surveys done by NASA itself show that an overwhelming portion of NASA employees do not feel that they can speak out freely with out fear of retribution.
When NASA contractor employees speak out, the fate is far worse. When Jim Oberg, Ken Hollis, and Tom Hancock (a.k.a. "BitFlip") exercised their constitutional right to free speech, and discussed NASA without PAO permission, they soon found their jobs in jeopardy such that they had to leave their jobs. These individuals spoke of nothing proprietary and often spoke and wrote things that made NASA look good.
Any organization, which is so eager to silence, those who do not agree with official agency dogma is an organization with a serious case of insecurity - one which is not in keeping with the best interests of its employees, its mission, or the taxpayers it is supposed to serve."
This has happened before - just not so publicly. The problem is not with whatever administration is in power. The problem is with the NASA PAO (Public Affairs Office). They wield an incredible amount of power over all NASA employees and contractors, including astronauts and tend to get a bit
incensed when you invade their turf (that is, communicating with the public). Keith Cowing (editor of NASAWATCH) gave some excellent testimony back in 1998 to Congress about the state of affairs at NASA PAO:
Problem: Xenophobia at NASA Public Affairs: NASA's Public Affairs Office (PAO) is at fault by virtue of having become the de facto Propaganda Announcement Office with the singular role of preventing the release of damaging information. When bad news does get out, NASA PAO seeks to put the best possible spin on it. For information released voluntarily, NASA is often its worst enemy. I have seen far too many examples of amazing and exciting things NASA does "dumbed-down" for public dissemination. Instead of going out of its way to make the agency open to public scrutiny, NASA PAO seeks to keep the public out.
NASA PAO seems to have a mission focused only on purveying happy, positive thoughts. If you visit their Space Station or Space Shuttle websites, you'll see that they post reader comments. Have you ever seen a comment in anyway critical of NASA? No - nor will you. When NASA put together its 40th Anniversary exhibits of pivotal events in NASA's history, was there any mention of the Apollo 1 or Challenger accidents? No. NASA has become so xenophobic that it is incapable of admitting, much less dealing with any external criticism. Look at the way they craft their congressional testimony and you will get a regular reminder that they just can't admit that they are at fault.
NASA's greatest asset is its employees, civil service and contractor alike. Yet from the way NASA PAO overtly prevents them from acting as ambassadors to the outside world you'd think they were guilty of some crime. Indeed, recent surveys done by NASA itself show that an overwhelming portion of NASA employees do not feel that they can speak out freely with out fear of retribution.
When NASA contractor employees speak out, the fate is far worse. When Jim Oberg, Ken Hollis, and Tom Hancock (a.k.a. "BitFlip") exercised their constitutional right to free speech, and discussed NASA without PAO permission, they soon found their jobs in jeopardy such that they had to leave their jobs. These individuals spoke of nothing proprietary and often spoke and wrote things that made NASA look good.
Any organization, which is so eager to silence, those who do not agree with official agency dogma is an organization with a serious case of insecurity - one which is not in keeping with the best interests of its employees, its mission, or the taxpayers it is supposed to serve.
Did anyone else other than myself first read the title as "Hooligans Help Protect Super Bowl"? I could see DHS temporarily importing some hard core football fans from the U.K. to handle security. At the least sign of trouble, they would be all over the terrorists with beer bottles, hot dogs, stadium seating, and whatever else they could use as improvised weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
As is often the case in emotional debates, critics of the "one and only true viewpoint" get labeled as stooges for the other side, so their research is dismissed WITHOUT serious consideration given to their objections. This is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Politicians in general LOVE using this rhetorical device. I always make a habit of casting a skeptical eye and doing a bit of research when the media becomes emotional, panicy, and opposing viewpoints are underrepresented. It doesn't matter whether we're talking religion, global warming, gun control, or video games.
Now in the spirit of poisoning the well, let's look at the background of PRWATCH
"Economic justice" and "Ecological sustainability"????????? It sounds like they might have an agenda.
The Village Voice, known as a bastion of conservative opinion
From the book itself:
Activism enriches our lives in multiple ways. It brings us into personal contact with other people who are informed, passionate and altruistic in their commitment to help make the world a better place. These are good friends to have, and often they are better sources of information than the experts whose names appear in the newspapers. Activism, in our opinion, is a path to enlightenment. - Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (from "Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with your Future")
So yes, the Center for Media and Democracy does have an agenda. Does that mean we should dismiss everything they report or say about a topic or a person? A most emphatic NO. You examine what they bring to the table and ask whether it is complete and accurate. That's the way it should be.
As a matter of fact, there was ... from Newsweek "The Cooling World" April 28, 1975, page 64:
In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.
So, as a rough estimate growing seasons are about the same as they were in the 1950s. The researchers only went back 30 years so they wouldn't have to deal with this "anomaly". That is known in some circles as "cooking the data".
You can have my captive bolt stun gun when you pry it from my cold-dead fingers ...
Same goes for my baby seal club
Strong assertion, let's apply a little deductive logic:
:):):):)
toxic -> deadly -> will no longer exist left untreated
toxic to free thought -> free thought will no longer exist
Let p be defined as existence of religion
q be defined as existence of free thought
The assertion is that:
p -> ~q
or
The existence of religion implies the non-existence of free thought (eventual)
We know that from modus tollens
~(~q) -> ~p
simplifying
q -> ~p
Or
Where there is an existence of free thought there is a non-existence (suppression, ban) of religion.
Let r be defined as the location where the non-existence of religion is/was enforced (China, North Korea, Soviet Union, California). Clearly,
~p -> r
So we have,
q -> ~p
~p -> r
By implication
q -> r
Or
The existence of free thought implies that one lives in a country where the non-existence of religion is enforced. We now have mathematical proof of what has always been suspected:
You free thinkers are a bunch of commies
The same question I once asked a mathematics professor after a 45 minute session on a single proof: "Someone actually pays you to do this?"
Didn't get a good grade, but the resulting stunned silence from the class was worth it.
It's not that we don't know how to get there, we do ... we just no longer have a man-rated vehicle, the ground support infrastructure, and budget to get there.
Yes, the CEV *is* a disappointment. It would have been way cooler if the capsule looked more like the Tardis
Yep, nothing better than using a wireless keyboard and mouse with batteries that *will* eventually fail in such diverse arenas as nuclear power, range safety, medical monitoring, etc. The article is completely right: The sooner we get rid of all of these wired peripherals, the better.
From the article:
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I do agree that Mr. Gore along along with a myriad of other politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are men of principle. The one principle they cherish and have indeed adopted as their own was first espoused by H.L. Mencken:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed----and hence clamorous to be led to safety----by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
I studied and researched global warming as a student some 12 years before Al Gore discovered it. At least then, the scientists and researchers could admit that their results were inconclusive or even ran counter to conventional wisdom in this arena without fear of losing their funding. It was, simply, because it was not an emotional politicized panic button issue the way it is today.
As
For the humor-impaired, the inclusion of the characters ":)" in the above posting is known as an emoticon or, as known more precisely in the industry, as a "smiley". It is also associated with an attempt, just an attempt mind you, at humour. For a complete list of emoticons please refer to the definitive article at Wikipedia. I'm sure that this tidbit of information will go a long way towards more meaningful and accurate moderation :-|
Expensive??? At $800??? Do you hear me laugh? I laugh at your little girlie toy camera :):). Now if you want a rather nice 39 MP medium format Hasselblad (H2D-39), B&H Video has one in stock right now for a bargain basement price of $29,994.95. I'm going to rush right over and pick one up before they run out.
Sad but true. But quite frankly, private enterprise, with very few exceptions, isn't doing that much better. From snake-oil hucksters to whiners who only have powerpoint presentations complaining that if they only had $100 million they could make it all work. There are others that are building hardware, but in their quite vocal rush to berate NASA, the FAA, and the large aerospace companies, they seem to intentionally ignore the 40+ years of research and operational experience that have led to relatively safe manned spaceflight.
Then there are the very few who are quietly building hardware, building infrastructures to support that hardware, innovating in ways that the large aerospace companies and the government can't without ignoring the lessons of the past. My prediction is that 5 years from now the landscape is going to be quite different than it is now.
You insensitive clod, rednecks have feelings too :). At least the rednecks that I knew while working there took pride in what they were doing. The problem is not with the guys that are on the floor turning the bolts and doing the real work. The problem is with the 15 layers of kingdom-building middle-management. Think of "Office Space" on stereoids and you start to get an idea ....
My hats off to the ESA. In the 3 days since we first find out that ESA is planning to send a spacecraft to Venus , the ESA has managed to build the thing, launch it, cross the distance between the Earth to Venus, and are now ready for orbital insertion. I'm amazed.
- an astrounaut reads shuttle equipment manuals in space (!!!)
Astronauts once selected will train for a particular mission for about 10 months or much longer - it's not that unusual, especially when EVAs are involved, to start training a year and a half for a mission. So why should they need to read equipment manuals/checklists in space when they should have everything memorized?
The answer is safety. NASA strongly discourages its astronauts from memorizing things like checklists and other safety critical procedures simply because there is too much risk of forgetting to do something or not doing something in the proper order and not coming back alive. So as mundane and boring as it may be, the crew still has to follow the written procedures/checklists.
Just so this response isn't completely off-topic, I do have a fundamental problem with NASA spending large sums of money on "educational programs". Programs designed to get kids interested in science and math. As pointed out in a previous post, that is not central to NASA's mission. The excitement that comes from NASA going about its business of space exploration should be enough to encourage students to pursue involvement in the space program. If that means taking science or math or computer science courses to reach that, then so be it. But these are means to the end, not the end itself.
Am I the only one who read the submission, RTFA, and read the submission again and said "huh"?
Hey, it's still within an order of magnitude of the right answer and I didn't confuse English with Metric measurments :)
What do you expect? The rover has lasted *8* times longer than design. That's the equivalent of driving 400,00 miles on tires rated for 50,000 miles. It's a heck of an accomplishment and I can only applaud the terrific job the design engineers and builders did.
'Make sure you are not indispensable!'
I don't know about you all, but I'm good to go on that one. Quite frankly, there isn't anyone that can't be replaced at a moment's notice.
Your argument is incomplete. You forgot to call me a Nazi
Hmmm, do you have any data to support your assertion that President Bush is indeed cutting school funding?
According to the Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2007 -- Section 4 -- Federal Government Outlays by Agency that is simply not the case. Spending for the Department of Education is much higher and increased much more sharply under Bush than his predecessor (2006 EST $83 Billion versus 2000 $33 Billion). There is a sharp dropoff at 2007 to EST $64 Billion but this is still above 2004 levels -- perhaps this is the cut that you are talking about?
These sorts of accusations are of course nothing new. I would like to make a bold proposal that Slashdot posters actually take the time to read the articles, fact-check, and follow up with relevant posts.
1) It seems to me that this would be NAGT (Not A Good Thing), particularly if you have a bad guy, who knowing that this generator would be used, would decide to ship a piece of U-235 just barely subcritical. There may not be much of an explosion, but it would be very dirty.
2) And how would this work at detecting PU-239? In order to sustain the proper "sub-threshold" nuclear fission, the neutrons would have to be at the proper energy level. See #1 above.
Just curious
I have two points:
- continue-to-get-funding"). Anyone who doesn't believe that politics plays a role in what research gets funded and continuance of that funding is naive. I'm not only talking about the politics of the current administration, but departmental politics, university politics, professional organisation politics, review journal politics, agency politics, popular press politics, etc. Inherent with the politicalisation of scientific research is the suppression/minimization of the results of that research if it doesn't agree with the current mood. Suppression can also occur, especially in government agencies, as a result of turf battles. This leads me to my second point.
First, politicalisation of science has been going on since the dawn of time. No, it's not right, but it happens and will continue to happen. Too often research has not been guided by the scientific method but rather by the WBCTTCIWWTCTGF method ("we-better-come-to-this-conclusion-if-we-wish-to
In NASA's case, the problem is with the NASA PAO (Public Affairs Office). They wield an incredible amount of power over all NASA employees and contractors, including astronauts and tend to get a bit incensed when you invade their turf (that is, communicating with the public). Keith Cowing (editor of NASAWATCH) gave some excellent testimony back in 1998 to Congress about the state of affairs at NASA PAO:
" Problem: Xenophobia at NASA Public Affairs: NASA's Public Affairs Office (PAO) is at fault by virtue of having become the de facto Propaganda Announcement Office with the singular role of preventing the release of damaging information. When bad news does get out, NASA PAO seeks to put the best possible spin on it. For information released voluntarily, NASA is often its worst enemy. I have seen far too many examples of amazing and exciting things NASA does "dumbed-down" for public dissemination. Instead of going out of its way to make the agency open to public scrutiny, NASA PAO seeks to keep the public out.
NASA PAO seems to have a mission focused only on purveying happy, positive thoughts. If you visit their Space Station or Space Shuttle websites, you'll see that they post reader comments. Have you ever seen a comment in anyway critical of NASA? No - nor will you. When NASA put together its 40th Anniversary exhibits of pivotal events in NASA's history, was there any mention of the Apollo 1 or Challenger accidents? No. NASA has become so xenophobic that it is incapable of admitting, much less dealing with any external criticism. Look at the way they craft their congressional testimony and you will get a regular reminder that they just can't admit that they are at fault.
NASA's greatest asset is its employees, civil service and contractor alike. Yet from the way NASA PAO overtly prevents them from acting as ambassadors to the outside world you'd think they were guilty of some crime. Indeed, recent surveys done by NASA itself show that an overwhelming portion of NASA employees do not feel that they can speak out freely with out fear of retribution.
When NASA contractor employees speak out, the fate is far worse. When Jim Oberg, Ken Hollis, and Tom Hancock (a.k.a. "BitFlip") exercised their constitutional right to free speech, and discussed NASA without PAO permission, they soon found their jobs in jeopardy such that they had to leave their jobs. These individuals spoke of nothing proprietary and often spoke and wrote things that made NASA look good.
Any organization, which is so eager to silence, those who do not agree with official agency dogma is an organization with a serious case of insecurity - one which is not in keeping with the best interests of its employees, its mission, or the taxpayers it is supposed to serve."
Amen to that
Did anyone else other than myself first read the title as "Hooligans Help Protect Super Bowl"? I could see DHS temporarily importing some hard core football fans from the U.K. to handle security. At the least sign of trouble, they would be all over the terrorists with beer bottles, hot dogs, stadium seating, and whatever else they could use as improvised weapons.
...
Just an idea