Federal Science Gets More Politicized 567
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."
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
They can't. Intelligent voters are about 1% of the population.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Optimist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The answer is simple. If you don't vote, don't count yourself as "intelligent".
Re:Optimist (Score:5, 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.
Re:Optimist (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Optimist (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Optimist (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, actually amending it takes time.
Getting an opinion from your Attorney General that you're allowed to completely circumvent the whole constitution takes almost no time at all. They do it all of the time. (So much so, that I'm forced to believe that Gonzales either got his law degree from a Cracker Jack box or has never actually read the constitution or
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Never confuse TV pundits with journalists. The latter need to have scruples and a respect for truth (and not just some preconceived notion of "fairness") to fit the definition, and are a dying breed in mainstream corporate media because of it; the former will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, right along with their corporate masters who would rather fight
We are the corporate masters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:We are the corporate masters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, most public companies have A class and B class shares where A class votes FAR outweigh B class votes. Guess which class shares you have...
The playing field is fixed and it is fixed for those in power and have money.
Re:Oh so wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
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. 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. True, but they hate getting fucked by some smiling guy in man-tan and hairspray. There are several dozen out-of-work GOP congressmen who would disagree.
We did, we like this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We did, we like this. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Reality's liberal biases? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your central argument is that Bush's low approval ratings translate into hoards of conservatives and moderate republicans ideologically buying into what the Democrats are offering, and that's just absurd. National attitudes are not changing, as evidenced by the simple polls that show that the vast majority of Americans:
a) are against lifelong welfare
b) are in favor of private gun ownership
c) are in favor of free speech
d) are in favor of torturing probable terrori
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And Murphy was an optimist.
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because only Cheney and his idiot crew didn't realize that this is exactly what would happen? Because they ignored every expert and general who told them that they needed to adjust their strategy to account for the reality? Because they actually believed their own crap about being "welcomed with roses"? Because they didn't even start to address the insurgency, even admit it existed, until
Bush is Freest President In Decades (Score:3, Insightful)
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, w
Re:Bush is Freest President In Decades (Score:4, 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 [wikipedia.org], 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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if it were balanced out by cutting pork barrel, and undesireable social programs spending, it would be a better idea. But, raising taxes slows down the economy, and lowers incoming revenue actually.
Taxes nee
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I put it into three separate sentences, but it still shouldn't be that hard to understand the one complete thought.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Open mind" does not mean "all things are equal". That's an ideological viewpoint that ignores reality. History doesn't repeat, it rhy
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind Regards
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone else? They're probably pretty smart in general. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until the prove otherwise. This ad
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush doesn't value loyalty. Someone who values loyalty welcomes (in private, at least) criticism of his actions for his followers, he recognizes that loyalty provokes questions about questionable actions and that the criticism serves his interests in the long run as long.
From all reports, Bush ostracizes anyone who questions him or his actions whether in private or in public. He demands that his followers unilaterally support his decisio
Oh, so it's OK then! (Score:2)
Oh that's insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
OOOOh! Scary! Our taxes are controlled by the Power Elite! (whoever they are, you know, the all purpose Bad Guys. The Man!) So all taxes are bad because they never do anything good for The People, only for the Power Elite. And all government is bad because it runs on taxes! Therefore (let me guess) Libertarianism is the only way to Freedom and Justice!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-- Thomas Jefferson^W^WMyself (What, you only listen to quotes if the person has long since passed away?)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple! All one needs is a dominant national culture that demands political accountability and effectiveness while staying vigilant and involved enough to ensure these outcomes, instead of a culture of lowered expectations that grunts, "them gummint bastards are all thieves anyway, shoot 'em all" while reaching for the next beer and the remote co
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is so sadly accurate.
It amazes me that there are fiscal conservatives who can still look me in the eye, and claim that the GOP is deserving of their support. I've stopped arguing with those people, because it has become far too obvious that they long ago lost interest in truth.
As such, there's nothing to do but to let them get more partisan, more radicalized, and more dangerous,
Disappointed But Not Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
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" [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fair enough to assert that control has to be exerted somewhere in any exchange of money, even where that money is being used for the good of all. But I think this stance assumes far more than that - I think you're assuming that ANY administration of ANY government using ANY tax system is inherently going to be ultra-biased and spend that mone
Control vs. Frameworks (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny thing. I find this to be a very common response from people who voted for these clowns, when confronted with any of the endless examples like this. It sort of sounds like "it's all a bunch of crap so nothing matters". As if there aren't degrees of good or bad.
In my country, a (now convicted) businessman started a national newspaper with the explicit goal of convincing people of his political views. When you ask people whether this is really a good source of political news, they respond with a sim
white house edits (Score:2)
Re:white house edits (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your point is well taken, but replace "political officer" with "scientist" and see if it sounds any better. Remember that unlike Soviet Russia or a dictatorship, in the US, "political officers" are elected directly or appointed by someone elected. Elected officials are beholden to the electorate and the Constitution. Scientists are not elected and have taken no oath to the Constitution. So while I
Re: (Score:2)
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you are not a scientist. Peer review is far more effective than elections, it's just really damn slow.
Re: (Score:2)
A political apointee is elected? wellt hats news to me, when did they redefine the word apointee.
Re: (Score:2)
Well .... mostly
There are many positions within the US Federal Government which are considered "Officer" positions. These are directly analogous to military officers. In fact, people who hold these positions are eligible to use military officer quarters and services if their duty requires them to visit a military installation. These positions, in the corporate world would be similar to Manager or Director roles in the private sector.
All "Officers" of the US Federal Government, military or otherwise hav
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually, the Senator has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. But it's really just for show, it's not like violating it has any real consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
I really should have added to my text to include the fact that the constitution only applies to what the government can do to the people. The constitution is not what makes it a bad decision to let scientists make decisions, it's the accountability involved in a publicly elected official that makes it the right person to make the hopefully informed decision.
Of course your statement is quite correct and it was entirely my fault for being unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course your statement is quite correct and it was entirely my fault for being unclear.
I was going to comment, but then I realized I better keep my mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is exactly what happens when the government controls the purse-strings.
How to fix it... how to fix it... hmmm....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine that: politicians in government.
The directive, according to TFA, "bans any regulation from moving forward without the approval of an agency's regulatory policy officer, who would be a political appointee."
Uh, isn't this a good thing? The alternative would be some guy hired for the job by some random person. This guy would have no accountability
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are missing the point. The point is that the Feds create Federal Regulations, based on scientific findings, not the scientists. Using your example, the logical solution to the pollutant problem would be to ban automobiles. Should scientis
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people here appear to have difficulty discerning between legislation and regulation.
Almost exclusively, regulation is the purview of experts working for federal agencies, who are often scientists. They decide safe levels
great (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't turn around. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Don't turn around.
Der Kommissar's [wikipedia.org] in town."
- Falco
There's an In Democratic Republic of Germany joke in there, but my regulatory political officer oversees me.
The problem is........???? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Except... (Score:2)
Unsafe cars provide automobiles for more people at lower prices. Safe cars are more expensive.
Forests? They have no value as trees. Company X makes paper, company Y makes furniture.
I was going to throw a similar kind of bomb about pornography, but I think you get the point.
Sadly, most of America have no clue where the dividing line between Science and Policy should be. Hell, they aren't capable of discussing
Mention Bush Three times (Score:2, Funny)
oh, how many books I read...... (Score:5, Insightful)
when do we start calling a spade a spade?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There needs to be a 'political officer' in every department in the US. Do you know why? Because this is a democracy. People elect leaders who then direct the government through their appointed agents. I presume you prefer that government agencies not be run by agents of an elected official but are instead unaccountable to the people vi
This is really funny... (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Americans: please impeach that chimp already (I am trying to stay polite here).
Dear American Scientists: I hope you'll still be able to work at a (non-federal) University. Good luck.
Dear Slashdot Republican supporters: please don't bother answering this post. Thank you.
Earth centered Universe (Score:2)
Nor more political than ever (Score:2)
An Idea (Score:2)
In related news... (Score:2)
More news at 10
You'all know what "G.O.P." stands for, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oubliettes
and
Pollution
(Thanks, Joel!)
Screenwriter and comic John Rogers wrote a great polemic called "I Miss Republicans," [blogspot.com] ruing the disappearance of practical, technocratic Republicans in favor of the screwball ideologues:
Sorry, folks, this isn't "business as usual" or "a pendulum swing" we don't have to worry about because it will swing back. It's the Wedge Strategy. It's Lysenkoism. It's the Ministry of Truth. It's 24 year old college drop-outs micromanaging NASA scientists' press activity.
Impeach the Criminal Tyrants Already (Score:3, Insightful)
Once upon a time... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Private sector (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate Change v Car Industry & Exxon
Evolution v Some Christian Fundy "private" research organisation
Effect of Torture v Halliburton
Saying that you have to prove where private research has failed is just offering those corporations a blank cheque to perform dodgy research. Federally funded research on things like Smoking, Asbestos, Drugs and more have consistently held private corporations to account specifically because they could start research on the basis of questioning data rather than having actual proof of failure.
It takes research to disprove a theory, unfortunately this is effectively about invalidating the scientific method. By requiring people to demonstrate failure of a theory BEFORE THEY HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH quite neatly makes sure that corporate research cannot be questioned.
Astonishingly dreadful
Stay and Fight (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Political Officers are in vogue again I guess (Score:2)
Way to go!
Mad Science: Where's the line? (Score:2, Offtopic)
So let's say we life the federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research funding and scientist's have a hayday creating embryos in dishes and kil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you possibly guarantee this? Do you have the expertise in cellular biology to make such predictions with any real accuracy?
Your argument is basically science fiction, each logical leap broader than the last. It depends on scientists as a whole being completely amoral and being given carte blanche. Organ transplants have been done for decades in
Read the E.O. (Score:3, Informative)
And when the next president comes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do I get the feeling... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway -
I don't know, maybe because a lot of slashdotters are anti-republican and anti-bush (and also anti-congress lobbying by the RIAA,anti-bipartisan and anti-big brother)?
Just because we're nerds doesn't mean we don't care about politics. In fact, we SHOULD care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you can't get an effective policy passed, it somehow justifies supporting an ineffective and costly policy instead? One more reason I will never be able to vote for a Democrat...
Re: (Score:2)
I do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A bunch of really smart people whose job it is to study the world in careful detail through the analysis of data notices that the data tend to support Democratic positions over Republican ones. Imagine that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The group that politicized science complains... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The group that politicized science complains... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they (UCS) didn't just "lobby against SDI". Instead, they very specifically pointed out that: (1) SDI as proposed is unworkable and (2) it's technologically impossible to implement anything that achieves stated goals of SDI without some radical breakthroughs in our understanding of physics. That is p
Re: (Score:2)
What you advocate is essentially the permission for government to define data in any politically expedient way, or even to ignore or manufacture data. That has been tried. J