U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Finding 1171
tree3075 writes "The LA Times is reporting that a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has found hundreds of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists have been instructed to change findings to favor business interests. I'm not surprised anymore when I read these things."
Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Same story about "Global Warming". You have scientists that are paid by the oil companies to deny that global temperatures are increasing, when you have other "no biased' scientists that are giving direct proof of anthropogenic interference to the global climate system.
Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every year I fear more and more for our country, and every year the average American just seems to be that much more baffled by bullshit. We're never going to see anything resembling what we -thought- was a "clean" electoral process again, I'm afraid.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientific honesty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprised? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's so encouraging to know that this administration so thoroughly distorts and perverts "facts" that would potentially interfere with business interests.
Intelligence, economics, science ...yep, they've got all the bases covered. Covered in fantasy, but covered nonetheless.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
What really bothered me about your post, though, was this:
"1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;"
What, can we all just pick an arbitrary number of past years, whichever happens to overlap the point we want to push? Try 4 years? 20?
Thanks for the interesting tidbit though.
Welcome to the future of capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."
What's worse is that the American people didn't care to open their eyes to this and get rid of W when they had the chance. The scientists can only fight for so long before the next, brain washed generation is far more willing to churn out whatever studies are requested for the right price. Science is becoming another consumable, to be bought and sold like oil and food.
I guess there might be some hope left, but I'd look for a lot more of this in the next 4 years. I don't forsee a Worker's Revolution either, but I think we can do better and leave some things as unbuyable. Maybe I'm just a member of a dying breed that holds onto a bit of dignity. I mean, liars are going to have more money, and morals no longer seem to matter in our reltavistic society. I guess relativistic science is next, and I don't mean Special Relativity.
Property rights are NOT a "business interest" (Score:0, Insightful)
This story is about common people: folks like you and I who might happen to buy a nice slab of land on which to start a homestead and raise our families. The federal government has been VERY aggressive in recent decades in condemning the lands owned by private citizens due to the concerns of busybody environmentalists. This means that the land that YOU paid good money for and developed yourself has been TAKEN from you by the state, with no compensation, because they "suspect" that some endangered species might benefit from it.
Enough is enough - the pendulum has swung the other way. It is time for the government to RESPECT the property rights and the 4th Amendment rights of Americans. The federal government must STOP condemning privately owned land under "conservation" statutes. I for one am happy to see this new shift in strategy from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
How to let your enemy win, in one easy lesson -- become them.
typical republican response (Score:4, Insightful)
typical republican response:
its not happening.
it is happening, but clinton did it first.
left wing media conspiracy to slam bush. (which is pretty funny considering the whole talon news thing.)
cite another left wing conspiracy. BOOGIE MEN EVERYWHERE!
cite michael crichton.
cite a volcano! think of how many spotted owls have been killed by volcanos! think of how much C02 volcanos release.
like humans can actually damage nature, its so big!
but economic growth is important.
when the real response should be: really? lets fix this. remove politics from the system.
Still don't get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush sucks -- he sucks really hard. Just because Clinton was every bit as big an asshole, doesn't make Bush any less an asshole.
Face it -- America has become a fascist state, where science is censored in favour of business interests. All that matters anymore is that the trains run on time. The Democrats and the Republicans are both equally culpable, because they are exactly the same party. There's no difference between them anymore, nor has there been any difference for several decades. Clinton may have talked the liberal talk, and Bush may talk the conservative talk, but their policies are virtually indistinguishable.
let us make one think perfectly clear... (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, it does look like Activist Cash is partisan. But it's not like the rebuttal is coming from a totally neutral voice, either.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
He was planning ahead. See:
Example 1 [slashdot.org]
Example 2 [slashdot.org]
I'm sure there will be many more to follow.
He also brought it up because the group of scientists in the article (and always has been) are extremely leftist and always have been. It's the same as when Fox News gets mentioned, just in the opposite direction this time.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
If political pressure was allowed to alter "scientific fact" then:
1: The sun would orbit the earth, the center of our solar system.
2: It would be the nature of things to move, then stop.
3: People could breath in space.
4: The earth would have suddenly come into existance a tad over five millenia ago.
5: Humans would have suddenly formed a few days after the earth.
6: Evolution would NOT have been proven to occur in a laboratory.
In all honesty, posts like the parent show growth in a disturbing trend. To wit, very well-spoken idiots who can completely miss the obvious in attempting to bash rivals at every irrelevent turn.
By the way, you know how the neoconservatives always claim that they never went to college because it's "just liberal brainwashing"? To me, that just screams "Sour grapes".
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking back, it seems the UCS was correct. There is global warming, that is a fact. Almost no scientist will deny that fact.
www.archiphysics.com
A few issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so "more than half" of 30% makes it a little over 15%. So thats around 210+ scientists. Technically, the summary is right in saying "hundreds", but it sounds a whole lot more sensational than it really is.
Secondly, also from TFA
If that's not dodging the issue, I don't know what is. I would seriously like a spokesman for a scientific agency to give a better defense to his stand than that very vague statement that says nothing.False sensationalism and dodging aside, I believe this is a very serious issue. If the scientific integrity of this office has been reduced because of corporate pressures, there's very little faith left in me for any scientific agency. People generally assume that science works in the best interests of man, even though the results may go against him.
Re:Easy to point the finger. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some trees that probably shouldn't be cut down and some places where we shouldn't be building new houses. That doesn't mean we have to revert to the stone age.
But hell, I guess that's what passes for rational argument among right wingers these days. Bush has people lie about inconvenient facts. Since his mindless followers don't have that kind of power, they resort to building strawmen to tear down.
Re:Surprised? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
First, the question posed had no time period specified. It was simply "have you ever experienced this", not have you experienced it under the current administration. Anyone who's been employed for 8 years or longer has spent more time under another (Democratic) administration than the current one.
And, of course the Clinton administration would never [commondreams.org], ever [mindfully.org] put politics before policy. I love how these debates always degenerate into "your side is evil, my side is pure."
Hrm... 15 is the magic number eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
0
Nice "talking point" you have their chum. It should even last another 3 years. Don't wear it out.... OOOPS. Too late.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar who would just LOVE to see an end to all environmental concerns
Anyone is free to make up their own minds about this, but allow me to illustrate a point:
Republicans are pushing for voluntary environmental controls [cbsnews.com]. However, in publicly owned companies, the primary objective is to increase shareholder value. While it is an extreme example, a publicly held company could, in theory, be sued for complying with such regulations, as it would pull away capital but does not increase shareholder value in any way.
So how is it that the "voluntary controls" Republicans are doing something for the environment? I'm not calling the Democrats saints, either, but let's not disingenuously pretend that Bush or his friends give a rat's ass about the planet, eh?
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
I know what you mean. All those Nobelists in the Union of Concerned Scientsts are just hacks. Heck, you can't even get a Nobel prize in the physical sciences without being a liberal, everyone knows that.
Sheesh.
If you'd like to criticize the substance of their report, indicating what they did wrong and why their conclusions are flawed, that'd be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Until then, though, all you've contributed is ad hominem.
Put another way, your response is the equivalent of suggesting that General Relativity must be wrong because Einstein abused his wife.
Re:Easy to point the finger. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's anything that history has taught me, it's that it doesn't matter if the trains actually run on time. All that matters is that you say that the trains run on time, and keep repeating this over and over again until people actually believe it.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
"To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home--including safe, clean nuclear energy."
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't say anyone one the conservative side of the spectrum fits that description. Hell, I'm fairly conservative on a number of topics as are quite a few of my friends. But the handful of people running the Republican party right now are in fact greedy, money grubbing liars.
And one of their hallmarks is using arguments which are known logical fallacies. Since you seem to be doing the same thing, I'll address them.
1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;
There is nothing in the article relating to 15 years. I would probably classify this as "Unrepresentative Sample". You clearly chose 15 as it is the largest number for which your statement is true. Change that number to 5 years, or 20 years, and the opposite is true.
2. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" has been a liberal activist organization blah blah
This is simply an ad hominem attack. Good for emotional appeal, but logicially it's meaningless.
3. Most scientists in FWS reported no such pressure;
Does this even try to advocate anything?
I mean, economic development is always bad, and any edict on "endangered species", no matter how shaky, is always good, right?
And a perfect example of a straw man argument. No body is actually claiming that economic development is always bad. Well, except for the neo-cons when they want to beat up a straw man so they can feel superior.
All of that, and no where in your post is there anything which could actually be considered a reasonable argument that either a) political pressure is not being applied or b) it's OK that political pressure is being applied. Just the usual cloud of fallacies trying to obscure the actual issue at hand.
So let's analyze the data... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, 69% [~300 of the 420 people who responded] said they had never been given such a directive[to alter results]. And, although more than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been required to do so.
So of the 1400 people sent surveys, 420 responded IN SPITE OF ORDERS NOT TO DO SO and of those 420, only 42 said they had been forced to alter results.
That's not to say that science and politics shouldn't be mixed this way. It's bad. But it happens on BOTH SIDES of the political line.
Look at one of the last quotes:
"Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.
"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency.""
That's 12 years under Republican Administrations and 8 years under a Democratic one.
You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you high? Sure, they are very similar in terms of vapidity and love of spin, and are both beholden to (largely different) monied 'special interests', but try looking at *what actually happened* under recent Democrat and Republican administrations regarding... say... environmental policy. Bush II's enviro officials have me harkening back to the good days of James Watt...
You can't assume anything about the non-responders (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, so "more than half" of 30% makes it a little over 15%. So thats around 210+ scientists. Technically, the summary is right in saying "hundreds", but it sounds a whole lot more sensational than it really is.
And how is 210+ out of 420 scientists not "sensational"?
No such thing as liberal left leaning science. (Score:2, Insightful)
Science is scewed to serve the agenda of the politic, and as such has become perverted by money and politics. This problem has precious little to do with political leanings. I just wish that Americans would stop blaming the left and right politics. It has nothing to do with science and precious little to do with right and wrong. Afterall a bird cannot fly with only one wing!
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because as we all know, every single issue can and should be immediately broken down into a Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal dichotomy. Once you have the dichotomy you can then immediately discern what everyone's views on the issue must be based solely on which side of the Republican/Conservative dichotomy they fall on any other issue.
There's a saying:
"The more issues a person tries to arbitrarily shoehorn down into a Liberal/Conservative dichotomy, the more certain you can be that the person is an American."
Once you're done with the pointless partisan bickering that, frankly, has no real bearing on the issue at hand, feel free to actually get back to discussing the topic.
Jedidiah.
The March of Freedom (OT) (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush just knows how to get it done propping up our military industrial complex. Thank God for that! (No, really! Thank the invisible man in the sky.)
"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds?" - David Cross
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:1, Insightful)
Historically, those have been one in the same.
Re:A few issues (Score:5, Insightful)
I also wonder how many of these biologists "knew of" the same incident. Scientists of a given discipline are a pretty tight knit and gossipy group. Asking if they "knew of" an incident smacks of urban legend mongering, everyone knows a guy whose cousin swears it happened to his old roommate.
Re:Easy to point the finger. (Score:4, Insightful)
Statute of limitations on reality? (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad or annoying thing is that at least a few of them do know better. Dick Cheney, for example. However, the only concern of those few is with cashing the checks before the reality bounce happens. That's not a question of a statute of limitations, but rather the post facto law thing. Sure, in the future people will regard them as a bunch of criminals--but too late.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, aren't these environmental issues takes much too seriously. I mean, does it really hurt so badly if a rare bird species dies out because of a new bridge getting built. Likewise, does a redwood tree become worth more just 'cause it's 500 years old?
Nature is always in constant flux, and all that we humans do is at most accelerating the process a bit (if even that much... probably we are rather altering it slightly). It's not like there's a purpose is keeping a rare species in existance. Right? In particular, species die out and come into existance every day anyway -- I don't see the point in keeping one alive just because it would have lived if humans weren't there. It makes it sound as if humans were somehow "outside" the rest of nature, and that it would somehow serve a purpose to leave nature alone. That purpose I cannot see.
Re:Property rights are NOT a "business interest" (Score:5, Insightful)
But it IS a story of the Fish and Wildlife Service cooking science in favor of non-objective interests. That is damning, regardless of whether those interests are business or personal.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are totally correct in saying that science cannot answer many technological and political questions. Endangered species, stem cell research, abortion, cloning: these are ethical questions. Science can only contribute fact.
However, there is one thing which science is fantastic at. All worthy science must be reproducible and disputable. This is what makes it science. Because of this, it doesn't matter what the biases of the scientists are. This is the breakthrough that made positivist science paramount.
Don't trust scientists, but do trust the scientific process, because it doesn't trust anyone.
I think people got in a stir over this because it is not the first case of this administration pushing facts around, and pushing scientists around. They seem to like science's authoritative voice, but not the multiple voices it turns out to actually be.
Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. You might be interested in the book What's a Matter with Kansas? [amazon.com] It talks about how the poorest and least educated vote against their own interests all in the name of the "culture wars". i.e. Vote to end abortion. Receive the elimination of Social Security.
Re:Heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is that you're gratuitously bashing UCS and PEER. I'm sure that makes you feel good, but why does it make UCS wrong?
And for the record, I'm sure their findings are just fine. Funny, that's not what you implied earlier: But since it's an organization with a decidedly and unabashedly liberal political agenda, I guess they must be telling the truth 100%
As I said, post a fact if you want someone to care. I'm not slagging you because you're conservative, I'm slagging you because you're an overcaffeinated idiot.
Something you're not, you know, used to, I'm sure.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
you know what? They'd find the SAME FUCKING THING, assuming they asked the questions in the same way. That's the point I'm making.
No, that's the point you're making now, which I actually agreed with [slashdot.org] nine minutes earlier. Why didn't you say so the first time?
Re:Welcome to the future of capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)
For those left with the energy and the hope that things can be changed, I offer a suggestion from Governor Jesse Ventura:
Government is like a giant wheel. If one person tries to stand in front of that wheel and change it's direction, he will get crushed. It takes alot of people all pulling in the same direction to change government.
None of our leaders started as Senators or Presidents. Get out there, start campaining, start voting. Your school board, your mayor, your state assembly; these are the people who will be your children's leaders. This is where we must start, and it must be started a lot sooner than 2008.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is, if Clinton wanted to lower mercury levels in American drinking water, he'd have done it earlier in his presidency. Instead he did it at the last minute, knowing that Bush or Gore would veto it.
Re:Sad reality (Score:3, Insightful)
But on the plus side, 200 researchers came forward rather than buckle. That's actually amazing.
Re:typical republican response (Score:5, Insightful)
I was with you, right up until you suggested that we remove humans from science.
What, you don't think that's what you said? Well, you'll understand eventually. Either that, or show me a group bigger than 100 people that has "no politics" in which case I'll concede I might be wrong.... but even if you show me such a group it'll still remain the more probable outcome that you are simply blind to the politics. (Evidence: If you really think it's only "Republicans" bending science, it's probably because the bending done by "Democrats" is invisible to you. Caveat: The terms Republican and Democrat are not really meaningful in this context anyhow [jerf.org]; I'm borrowing your particular meanings.)
(When people say "remove politics from the system", what they are really saying, even if they don't realize it, is that the system should align with their politics, which are of course not politics, but merely and quite obviously the truth. Were it only so simple...)
This is not to say the diagnosis is inaccurate... oh, you've oversimplified to the point of effective absurdity but that's just what happens in a short Slashdot post, I have too but at least I labelled some of it. I'm just saying that you might as well phrase your "solution" as "Booga booga, grunt, wallabie wallabie smooger!" in terms of the useful, implementable solution content it contains.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Science is the most powerful way of developing new and accurate information about the world we live in. By all means, make policy on the basis of more than science, but don't subvert science to advance wishful thinking. Everyone loses that way.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:4, Insightful)
America has become a facist state? I'm all with you on the "both parties are assholes" thing, but who the fuck modded this post +5 insightful? Fascism does not mean "really annoying" or "extra mean", it is an oppressive system of goverment that in the past has had a penchant for murdering its own citizens on the scale of millions. You demonstate your magnificent ignorance by claiming the US is such.
If this WERE a fascist state, there wouldn't be any "pressure" for people to alter their findings: they would just be rounded up and killed or jailed. Fascist states have murdered people on a horrifying scale, and you using the term to villify your political enemies is a gross abuse of the word.
Also, the Dems and Rebubs are NOT the same party, by any stretch of the imagination. They advocate very divergent positions. Just because you and I disagree with BOTH sets of ideas doesn't mean they are the same ideas.
However, when you say this:
Clinton may have talked the liberal talk, and Bush may talk the conservative talk, but their policies are virtually indistinguishable.
Then I am in agreement with you. See also: This [shamusyoung.com].
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
just like the bush administration alledgedly has the motivation to alter the data to further their goals. UCS ALSO has the SAME EXACT motivation to modify the report linked to in the article to further their goals. Science and polotics CANNOT be allowed to mix
Does this mean that the bush adminstration didn't do these things they were accused of? No. It simply means that the report cannot be trusted on its own. It may be true, it may be false.
face it, we're inclined to blame our adversaries for any problems we face weather it is republican or democrat. the amount of political mudslinging in the comments on this post is astounding. has anyone thought that this may have been the original intent of the article?
UCS and Bush both have their political agendas -- I wouldn't trust either on a report on the enviornment.
Re:So let's analyze the data... (Score:2, Insightful)
People grossly underestimate that importance of the civil service in a democracy. It doesn't help that it has an undeserved reputation for slacking and waste.
For what it's worth, the same politicisation is happening here in Australia.
Acquiescence starts with cynicism (Score:5, Insightful)
If the public doesn't believe the system can ever work properly, it's all that much easier to manipulate it. This seems to be a recurring theme with the current administration. If you screw up, screw up big and everyone will let it slide:
1) Hey, this strategic intelligence stuff is difficult, how could we know there weren't WMDs there?
2) Wars are complicated. Taking control of a nation is complicated. Of course there are bound to be a lot of really, really serious screw-ups in our planning.
3) What is "torture?" I mean, really. Aren't we really just splitting hairs here? One man's "brutal interrogation" is another man's "questioning session." Besides, this sort of thing has always happened throughout history, but in previous American wars there weren't nosy reporters snooping around all over the place.
4) Everyone knows government is inefficient. We're trying to cut the size of the government. If we cut domestic spending, we can slice out the deficit and shrink government. And we all know that the military and government are two totally different things, which is why $8 billion in missing funds in Washington demands outrage, while $8 billion missing in Iraq is just the fog of war.
5) It's impossible to estimate the cost of war in Iraq before we go in. It's impossible to estimate the cost of the war once we're in it. Therefore it is obviously impossible to estimate its cost in the future, which is why it's not in the budget package.
Desensitize the public to gross incompetence by convincing them that it is to be expected, and over time the public will come to expect it. Those who are outraged will be promptly marginalized as hopelessly romantic idiots.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Which group gets heard more?
The people who actually care about the environment should worry about getting their acts together. Until they do that they will continue to be dismissed for the nutjobs a great many of them are.
Re:Interesting that I DO agree with your points... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's basic human nature. People value what's theirs. All it takes is to look at any public park and see the trash blowing through it (often dumped within feet of a trash can). Yet these same people who will toss a burger wrapper out of their car at 60mph will be just as likely to go home and obsessively groom their lawns and maintain their homes. It's the same thing on a corporate scale. "Big corporations" don't dump on and despoil land they own and intend to keep (it's worth money, they don't want to ruin it). Dumping always happens on public land somewhere. It sounds counter productive to the environmental movement, but the best way to preserve land is to privatize it. Public maintainership doesn't work. When everyone's responsible, no one's responsible ultimately. We see it every day in every aspect of our lives, yet refuse to see it in the environment.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy Crap, attach a turbine to you and we've got power, you're spinning that fast.
Not one paragraph up you were painting Clinton as evil for not doing it, and painting Bush as great for then doing it. Phase forward a few seconds and we now have you saying "OMFG it is totally inpractical, that's why he was scum for implementing it.".
PS: Before you accuse me of Democratic bias for pointing out your horrificly obvious flipflopping, I'm not even American.
Re:No such thing as liberal left leaning science. (Score:1, Insightful)
Lying (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your point? That it's okay to lie about the cost if you think it's worth it? From the article:
If I'm parsing the phony "on the other hand" journalism correctly,
That's not acceptable. I don't care how cozy your house is.
Re:The March of Freedom (OT) (Score:5, Insightful)
Leaving the issue of whether he actually is a lunatic mass murderer or not alone for the moment, which seems more likely: the digested sound-bite propaganda (hates our freedom) or the one that suggests that he might have had an actual reason based on things the US has actually done that he didn't like?
Partisan raving aside, the problem with the whole "hates our freedom" thing is that it is clearly designed to be wartime propaganda. Look at it. It takes the one thing that every American values -- our freedom -- and makes it out to be something that Osama hates.
The other takes things that, while certainly not warranting something like the WTC attacks, are considered bad by a great number of people nowhere near as crazy as Osama: namely, support for Israel in the face of its flagrant disregard for UN resolutions and support of the theocratic regime in Saudi Arabia.
See, no one is going to come away from "he hates our freedom" thinking that Osama, for all his lunacy, might actually have a point or a reason worth considering for his hatred of the US. It's a great way to make sure everyone is behind you, everyone supports you. Osama's reasons are a little bit more of gray area. I don't think anyone would say, "Damn, Osama has a point, I guess we should do what he says and not kill him slowly like we'd planned," but people might say, "After we kill him slowly, maybe we should evaluate how our actions in the middle east are affecting the way the US is viewed there, and how we can help stabilize the region by not generally coming off as total dicks."
I believe it was Sun Tzu who said, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
We are in a situation here where, by way of wartime propaganda, we are being encouraged to not consider the motivations of the enemy. This, from a strategic perspective, is very dangerous. There was a documentary about Robert S. Macnamara a while ago, called "The Fog of War"; did you see it? (I recommend it, it was very interesting.) Robert S. Macnamara was Secretary of Defense under JFK and Lyndon Johnson. He was around for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and Vietnam was called "Macnamara's war" back in the day. The guy was one of the west's primary strategists during the cold war; it's very interesting hearing his perspective now, years later, as an old man.
He comments on how he saw the North Vietnamese versus how they saw themselves, and it's really quite insightful. He says that at the time, he saw the North Vietnamese as being puppets for the Soviets and the Chinese, attempting to spread communism into South East Asia. Much later, he talked with his equivalent on the Vietnamese side and was told that from their perspective, the Americans were imperialists who wanted nothing more than to colonize where the French had failed. When presented with the idea that they were in fact acting as proxy for war with the PRC and USSR, his Vietnamese counterpart absolutely scoffed. "Vietnam was occupied by China before it was occupied by the French," he said (I'm paraphrasing). "We had never been our own country; we were fighting for our independance. No matter how many tanks or military personnel you had sent, we would have won, because we were not invaders -- we were fighting for our freedom."
While we Americans may laugh at the Vietnamese view of freedom, it's pretty apparent that he was absolutely right. They handed us our asses in Vietnam; they then did the same to the Chinese in 1979. It was a classic case of not knowing your enemy, and Robert Macnamara makes a point of using this and other examples from his life to illustr
Re:Great work, Americans (Score:1, Insightful)
But, I note that they are not quite unhappy enough to draw blood. In a political and historical sense, that means they are happy.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Similar rhetoric is used to defend the patriot act and DMCA (this is about our survival as a country, survival of the economy, respectively). A noble cause is not enough, you have to put together a workable plan that doesn't end up destroying people's livelihood in the process. It's easy to say "Stop Greenhouse Gases", it's hard to figure out how exactly to do so without causing economic collapse.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, by the stated definitions of the poster children of fascism, old Benito and his Chum, (I dare not say the N-word less Godwin's wrath smite me), fascism is about merging the interests of big business and the state.
Tell me, when last did Washington _ever_ do anything that wasn't in the interests of some Big Business or the other?
Re:The March of Freedom (OT) (Score:4, Insightful)
You left off two words... for themselves. Very few people have truly fought for the freedom of others, and I'm not seeing it from the terrorists.
Seriously, that changes everything, effectively invalidates the rest of your message, and if you don't see that you need those words to make a true statement, look around you, for Pete's sake. I'd lay money that you can name ten ways the "bad guys who support the war" (or whoever) are trying to restrict your freedom; in the opposite context you know that's trivially true. Why are you so swift to forget it when it comes to the terrorists?
The terrorists can, for instance, just go fuck themselves if they are fighting for the "freedom" to repress women, which is indeed one of the many things they are fighting for; this is essentially empirical truth. They may be fighting for "freedom" but that is not enough to be noble, or worth rooting for.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not saying that America has become a fascist state, but speaking as a history major, the definition of 'fascism' is a subject of hot debate and any dictionary definition is married to failure.
I agree with you that the degree of oppression immediately distinguishes the contemporary US situation from that in most states labelled fascist. However, even between the situation in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, there was a very big difference in the degree of oppression. And even in Germany (at least in the first few years) 'pressure' was often applied in lieu of overt force (where pressure is effective, force is not required).
[I]sing the term [facism] to villify your political enemies is a gross abuse of the word.
Indeed, and one of which the radical left has been particularly guilty. However, one needs to examine what the proponents of "America as (pre-)fascist" are really saying before judging it as simply gross abuse. As I understand it we being warned that there is developing, a similar mindset, (eg, a disdain for human rights and international law, a jingositic nationalism, privileding of large corporations etc...), what one might call a soft fascism. Again these allegations should not taken at face value, but it seems to me the way they are being levelled today is qualitatively different from the past abuse of the radical left, insomuch as it they are being made by friends, rather than enemies of an open society.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, no, not even close. We're outraged because we were right all along, knew we were, and yet were vilified and called liars, and now that the truth is known, we're still vilified and the liars are still rewarded as if they did nothing wrong and made no mistakes. The biggest failures are rewarded with congressional medals. We're outrage at how truth is denigrated and spin is elevated. We're outraged that those who were right are pushed out of power or ousted while those that were wrong are praised and promoted.
And even after the constant stream of lies for the past four years, the media and so many of the public are STILL taking every word out of this Administration's mouth as the gospel truth, and still are still following him, and are still believing in him. And that's even more outrageous. The man should have never won re-election. And he deserves nothing better than impeachment and being ousted and disgraced.
Re:Easy to point the finger. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:0, Insightful)
Both of the groups in this story are on the edge. They are enviro-wacos that literaly want man to go back to living in caves without fire. BTW, I am not exagerating. This is their target. They have been caugh so many times delibratly falsifing facts, its a wonder that anyone gives them any credibility. 2 out of 5 dollars earmarked for concervations is being spent in fighting the ceasless and baseless lawsuits of these enviro-nuts. They are doing all they can to insure that all enviromental protection projects fail. Its the politics of self-fullfilling prophesy. There was a massive forest fire in my home state. It was directly caused by these groups using the court system to block the forestry serves from taking the steps needed to prevent this fire. They were absolutly gleefull when the forest burnt. For them, political gain is far more important then there claimed goals. Let the fires burn as long as we can make Bush look bad.
The other day CNN "Bush slases EPA budget". Read the artical. The budget was not cut, the incress in the budget was reduced slightly. It effects one minor program that was only temporary in the first place ( and something cities should be handeling, not the feds). On the other hand funding was increased for brown field and toxic waist clean-up. But telling the truth does not make Bush look bad. Oh, CNN - Ted Turncoat - major funder of the enviro-wacos - coincidence???
One more point. I am also an enviromentalist with a deep involvment in the highly contencious Wolf reintroduction projects. This is why the two groups in this artical ( and two more I'm not going to mention because I will really be pissed [ american not british pissed, in case your not an USian]) are on my radar screen. Their activities are directly damaging all wolf reintroduction activities, all in the name of protecting the wolf. Unfortunatly, anyone not involved with the science behind these projects will fall for the decitfully crafted lies of these organizations. And its the wolf that will loose. Enviro-wackos do not care about the wolf. All they care about is their anti-freedom, anti-property, and anti-human agenda. And it really PISSES ME OFF. And yes I'm worked up and angry, and I should rewrite this whole thing. But I'm not going to becaus I'll just get more angry and more worked up, and I have a paper on the justification for the taxon C.lycaon to finish. Maybe I'll just work on my latest Coyote painting instead. Shit, if the enviro-wackos have their way, even the infinatly adaptible and irrepressible coyote will become extinct
Re:G.W. Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
At least, the bad genocides, where people we don't dislike are getting killed by people we do dislike.
I mean, even the Republicans would probably issue at statement condemning them or something.
As long as it wasn't someone we were actively trading with. Or might want to in the future.
Big Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, here in WA, we have a lot of land use issues. A common practice is for the environmental lobby to say that the "best available science" says that for a certain type of environment with a certain type of animal, a certain buffer size is required. But often they are just wrong.
There are many ways in which they are wrong. Sometimes they unscientifically compare different types of environments as though they are the same. Sometimes they don't take preexisting man-made structures into account. Sometimes -- this is no joke -- they mistake the size of the study for the recommended buffer size.
These sorts of things go on all the time. And there's no justification for taking their word for it, especially when they have their own political agenda.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the nobel is granted based on "benefit to humanity", an idea itself heavily tied to political bias and agenda-pushing, this is more true than you will ever know.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:1, Insightful)
Just because a group espouses enviromentalism and uses enviromental law to push their political agenda does not make them friends of the enviroment. In fact, it has been demonstrated numerous times that their activities are harming enviromental causes. The only reason I am on to them is that I am involved with Wolf recovery efforts, an enviromental cause I feel deaply about. These so called enviromentalists latest activities are deletarious to all wolf reintroduction efforts. That is becaus things have been going fairly well for the wolf, which is bad for them. When I started seeing the things they were doing, I got curious. Why would enviromentalist be doing things that are harmfull? Could they be stupid or misguided? So I did some googling. It did not take long to figure out what these people really were about. It is actually kind of scary.
Only one thing left to do (Score:5, Insightful)
America is no longer the land of the free, and the home of the brave. It's just a haven for corporate controlled special interest groups. Too bad, if people (meaning the government, and the corporations they're tied to) were less interested in making money, and more interested in helping their own country, and the planet as a whole, they really could be what they claim they are. As it stands, it's pretty much a lie. We see this all the time in things ranging from the war in iraq (which was based on a false premise to begin with), to ridiculous patent grants, to other environmentally important things like the Kyoto Accord. All the while, these people who make the key decisions are not held accountable for their actions. And when they are held accountable, which is rare, they're treated with more respect than they should be due. Got a CEO who made millions off the suffering of others? I got two words for you: General Population. Right beside the murderers, car thieves and rapists. Too bad it doesn't happen.
Frankly, I don't blame American individuals per-se. Some might say "well, you voted them in!" but if you have a good long look at the choices, there may as well not be any choices. Like people anywhere, they have their own worries on an individual level. It's not surprising that some of these scientists who are coerced by corporations with extreme power just comply. I mean, they have their own families to feed, and that has to be a primary worry of many of them. What would you do if someone threatened to take away your ability to provide for your kids? Lets face it, these people are caught in an economical machine they just can't change.
The truth is, capitolism doesn't work in favour of the base population. It's a system based on keeping the poor as poor as possible, and the rich as rich as possible, with a mid-point "hump" that's really hard to get past, even if you work your ass off. The government tends to make this whole thing far worse by letting large business entities get away with murder.
If I were American, I'd move. Anywhere has got to be better than where America is currently heading. You may wake up one day to find out your country has become the very thing you hate, assuming it's not there already.
To the Slashdotters (Score:1, Insightful)
Thank you for being able to cite evidence backing your points and for being able to debate without turning something into a flamewar.
To the rest of you:
[Group name/individual] is destroying (pick one)[our way of life/the economy/our country]! Those who disagree with me are all lying self-serving hypocrites painting a false picture of my side! Blame [the opposing side] for everything!
Just insert the appropriate phrases and presto! It's the average Slashdoter response.
For all of the shouting I see precious little debate going on. Mostly I see a lot of purely partisan bullshit flying from both sides. being a Slashdotter doesn't automatically make you smarter than everyone else. Cut the crap and take lessons from the Slashdotters who know how to debate.
Yes I know it's a rant, but I just had to get that off my chest.
Re:So let's analyze the data... (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.
Except that the current administration has a certifiable habit of being deceptive or outright lying. Trying to impose a false moral equivalence is inappropriate in this situation. System wide or not, the Bush administration has provided ample evidence that they are far more prone to executive abuses than any previous administration in recent memory.
-Ted
science is science (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The March of Freedom (OT) (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. You said muslims instead of terrorists. And people wonder why Muslims are upset by American attitudes against them. You are proposing to kill people solely for their beliefs. In what way do you differ from the people you think should be killed?
About 6 million Jews were exterminated because of ignorant people like yourself who will believe generalizations of whole peoples.
Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh fuck you and your worthless out-of-context sound bites. Kindly explain to the audience here exactly which one (or the aggregate) of those sentences said "We should immediately and unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq no matter what the consequences".
In short, you can't. There was always the suspicion that Saddam still possessed a limited amount of WMD material (based on his not having fully divulged information and allowed complete inspections). But NOBODY but Bush and the NeoCon ass-masters [newamericancentury.org] ever said we should use our standing as the world's sole superpower to enforce a Pax Americana on the world, starting with Iraq and continuing on to the rest of the Middle East.
You fail it, and all your ignorant ilk fail it too.
You want a fascinating read on Iraq, read Tricky Dick Cheney's own words about it [blogspot.com] (back in 1991, when he was defending Chimp Senior's decision not to engage in nation-building).
Re:Interesting that I DO agree with your points... (Score:2, Insightful)
People trash other people's private property all the time. So I don't see how privatisation would help.
The other danger of privatisation is that the owner can damage their property with impunity.
There are several other reasons to dislike your recommendation, but those will do for starters.
Re:So scientists can't be trusted. (Score:1, Insightful)
Scientist being fired by the current admin over pushing this.
The admin constantly fighting against this as well as anything that would hurt is oil imports (literally).
Yeah, yeah, all the scientists are liers. Instead, we should believe in a president who has fought in 'Nam, created companies that did awesome, ran a clean baseball team, fought against drug use all hist life, stopped terrorists attacks from occuring to us, currently stopping the deficit that was created during clinton's admin, got rid of all the Nukes in Iraq, and captured Bin Ladin and stopped all the terrorists attacks in Sadi Arabia, Iraq, and Isreal, and slowed down CO2 production. Oh, also is about to save out Social Security (hummmmmm). Yep. That is the man.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A few issues (Score:1, Insightful)
Uhm, are you saying the remaining 70% should not be considered to share the same characteristics as the replying 30%? Okay, one might question the motives for replying/not replying, but in general performing questionnaires with 30% replies from a population is a lot.
Re:typical republican response (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey jonpublic, looks like you were right.
Actually what they're saying is that they expect the scientists to follow the scientific method because the method isn't affected by politics or personal bias.
Just like you would expect a racist policeman to enforce the law without bias against race, or like you would expect an anti-abortion judge to respect a woman's right to abortion, you should also expect a scientist to devise experiments and report their findings without bias.
Humans being humans, sometimes personal bias does intrude on the job and they don't do what they're supposed to do. The policeman unfairly treats a particular race, the judge prevents a legal abortion, and the scientist gives false results that satisfies their own personal bias. But that simply makes them bad policemen, bad judges, and bad scientists. These people do not last long. Their inability to do their job is eventually discovered.
So when the grandparent said "remove politics from the system" they weren't being naive, like you seem to think, but they were instead wisely recognising that politics has no place in science. The method was devised to keep our bias and the science separate. Good scientists produce results that disagree with their politics. Bad scientists hide or falsify results to appease their politics. That's what this article was about - scientists being told to falsify their results - because the politics was intruding on the science. Fortunately these were good scientists who blew the whistle on the politicians attempting to pervert science.
The answer isn't to throw your hands in the air and say "everybody is biased", as you have done, because that naively assumes that the scientists allow their bias to decide their findings. As you should now be aware, because I have explained it to you so clearly, that is precisely what the scientist avoids by following the method.
Junk science (Score:5, Insightful)
"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics -- that is a very unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position I would just refuse to do it."
The "scientist" who alters data is simply not a scientist. Period. It's like a preacher who is an atheist. It simply doesn't make sense. Science is all about the data, and facts - even if your results fly into the face of your hypothesis, you have to accept them and find another explanation for them - not alter them.
If politicians found out that scientists cannot be pressured they'd have to stop doing it. You shouldn't be able to "rent" a PhD and tell them what to say. I might as well buy my degree on the internet if I let that be done to me. But there are always spineless individuals in every field and they give the rest of us a bad name.
Good for them for going public with this - one has to ask: exactly how long has this been going on, and where else has this junk science been taking place...
Re:So let's analyze the data... (Score:2, Insightful)
10% of those that responded said they had been forced to change results.
420/1400 responded despite orders not to do so. If anything, this is a prime example of why voting must be anonymous, but that's another discussion.
How many of the remaining 980 surveyed did any of the following:
*) Threw the survey in the trash, and ignored any discussion of it, just out of annoyance with "surveys".
*) Recieved the orders not to do so, but decided to keep quiet about it in order to not put any risk on funding for their life's work?
*) Were not on a project who's data was sufficiently damaging to warrant political pressure.
Note that none of these options are that far fetched, and could have a serious impact on why we got the numbers we did. The responses we got merit further discussion and concern. It's not a partisan issue, really, but a result of big corporate, big government, and most people without the faintest clue why this matters since it doesn't seem to affect their kids going to school and they've got to get some sleep for work in the morning.
~Rebecca
Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes I think we're living out Radio Free Albemuth [amazon.com]
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:1, Insightful)
And why all of the wasted money on the military? The world isn't impressed by the US's "mighty" arsenal. It's like the musclehead who goes around flexing his arms thinking that people will respect him because of it.
Re:The March of Freedom (OT) (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think I agree with that. If Americans valued their freedom, the majority would be libertarians if not anarchists. As it is, libertarians are generally considered the radical minority, and anarchists are considered lunitics.
No, I definitely don't believe that every American values freedom. I don't even belive the majority of Americans values freedom.
Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, just because Bush is a moron and a psychopath, doesn't mean that the opposition candidate (admit it, there's only one that matters) is somehow a good guy. To borrow a metaphor, we just vote for the lizards because if we don't, the other lizard will win.
Re:Since we're exposing sources... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe that we live in a fascist state. However, as a free-thinking liberal, I do think we have a responsibility to fight against fascist trends. One of those trends is the censorship of scientific research in the pursuit of a given political party's political ends.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought exactly that when I read your post. Amazing how hypocrisy pervades virtually every discussion here.
"Bush "bashing" isn't even necessary any more"
So why do you do it?
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:1, Insightful)
2) Maybe the Union of Concerned Scientests is loaded with liberals because the conservative scientests just don't give a damm....
Re:Junk Science - It Happended To Me (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Another nail in the coffin of journalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
[...]
Don't write this behavior off to stupidity. These people are voting based on their personal ethics, not their pocketbooks.
My point is every election cycle the Republicans promise to do end abortion, or put state led prayer in public school, or prevent gays from marrying, or outlaw flag burning, or whatever, and yet every election cycle they don't. Instead they push their crony-capitalist agenda that results in lowering standards of living for the majority of Americans.
The reason why the Republicans never do anything about these social issues is that they need them to promote the idea of besiegement among their grassroot supporters. If Republicans ever did outlaw abortion, as they could today given that anti-abortion supporters currently control all three branches of the federal government, then the Republicans would lose one of their most powerful rallying cries of the past 30 years, and they're not about to do that. Instead the Republicans use abortion to get out the vote, and turn around and use that power for their wealthy backers.
Every year, the Republican grassroots are worse off than the year before. Workers are laid off, as companies take advantage of promiscuous trade policies. Every year, education cut is, so there is less opportunity of the worker to be retrained and get a new job. Every year welfare is cut, so now the worker can barely feed his kids. Every year health care costs rise. Every year, the worker falls further and further behind. Every year laws and programs that would help him are weakened. And every year, the worker laments that this year is worse than the previous one. Yet, every election he happily votes for the person who helped put him in that situation because THIS TIME he's going to "keep the sodomites down". He never realizes he's being taken advantage of, and that is dumb.
Finally, I would imagine that the cost of living in Kansas is lower than many other regions of the country. $30k might not support one person in New York City, but would probably be a nice wage in a small Kansas town.
I didn't make a comparison of the purchasing power of x dollars in one part of the country, than another. "Rich" and "poor" are relative terms, of course they are going to be defined for whatever domain (in this case geographic) you're talking about. For your information, according to the census bureau [census.gov], the median household income is $40k, with a mean of $50k.
Here's a Kansan example of what I meant by the poor voting against their own interests. Kiowa County has a median household income 22% below the state average, 29% of which comes from government programs. Since 1995, it has received $40 million from farm subsidies alone Yet, that county is so desperate to get "big government off its back", in 1992, it voted to secede from Kansas. Every time they vote to eliminte these programs, they are quite literally voting to take money out of their own pockets.
As for education, don't confused schooling with learning. School is an excellent way to learn some ideas, but a very poor way to learn other ideas: Why do you think certain professions require apprenticeship? The average fulltime farmer isn't some ignorant country hick: He's a small businessman who needs to understand farming, science, finance and even a bit of law. There's a lot more to the job then digging a hole in the ground and dropping a few seeds.
It's quite interesting that you brought up the stereotype that everyone in Kansas is a farmer. They're not. In fact, one of the largest employers in Kansas is Boeing.
What really has touched me off about your "farmer's aren't dumb" comment, is that I'm willing to bet that between the two us, only one of us grew up with a cornfield less than a 100 feet from his bedroom window.
Re:Still don't get it? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why I voted for Nader. I've had four years to see how wrong that idea was.
Yes, Clinton was a Corporate Republican (TM) in many ways. One reason I didn't vote for him was the story about how Governor Clinton let Purdue Chicken turn an Arkansas river into, as the Fugs sung about the Mississippi, a "River of Shit".
But, no. I honestly believe, with history and political science B.A.s, that there has never been a worse presidency than W. Not Harding. Not Benjamin Harrison, Not Grant. Not John Tyler. This really is a fascist cult falling down the rabbit hole. Imagine where we would be if we had a president who never smoked or drank on principle and could speak coherently without a teleprompter like Hitler. Instead of a not very bright narcissistic dry-drunk spoiled rich kid cocooned in his "happy place" bubble. We lucked out there. But if Clinton and Gore were sliding down the fascist slope, Bush embraces it with apocalyptic joy and that is a difference. Since the odds are against me having a handful of decades left, personally I would have much preferred a slow decay than a headlong gallop into madness.
And, sadly, it doesn't look like the trains will run at all if Bush has anything to say about it.
Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
What does Democrat and Republican stand for? Both seem rather rightwing...
And why are only these two standpoints ever mentioned?
Are there only two parties? What if I'm not satisfied with those two? Am I allowed to start my own party?
If not: Why not? It's a free country, right? =/
*curious*
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans essentially stand for lowering taxes, decreasing the size/amount of government and government regulation, etc, etc. Recently they've also seemed to take a very socially conservative point of view (ie: wanting to regulate the private life), which is somewhat ironic. However, this may just be a momentary trend and go away in the future, as Republican ideals are consistently in favor of less Federal Government intervention.
Democrats essentially stand for government programs that benefit the people (though this is not always what we get in practice!), higher taxes for the rich (to support these new government programs) and Federal regulation on anything they believe needs it (which could be quite the slippery slope toward socialism).
And there are more than two parties: there's the Libertarian party, the Green party, hell, we even have the Communist and Nazi Party in the US. If you don't like those two parties, start your own! Until you get a moderate amount of votes for president, you won't recieve any funding to help you run your party, but there you have it.
Also, even if you belong to a party, you don't have to vote for them if you don't want to. You can write in "Micky Mouse" on the ballot if it really struck your fancy. It's your choice.
The big reason that these two standpoints are mentioned is because our country has, apparently, become completely incapable of respecting the intricasy of any argument, and tries to boil everything down to two base-line viewpoints. Everything gets simpliified down to sound bites and harped on and used as war cries, regardless of whether they even truly have any meaning for their particular point.
For example, we have the "anti partial birth abortion" people vs. "pro choice". They argued back and forth for weeks/months, but no one seemed to notice that the "pro choice" people weren't necessarily for murdering fully formed fetuses, per se, but only in wanting to allow the mother, if medically necessary, an "escape route", so to speak. I don't want to get into details on which side is right or wrong, but the point is, "pro choice" is a far cry from "wanting to make sure the mother's life isn't in danger by not allowing this". But instead, it was made to sound like these people wanted to go about aborting fetuses willy nilly, just for fun. It's really dishonest - and I don't blame the Republicans/Conservatives for this - it's rampant throughout America, and, in my opinion, a serious, terminal disease to the political process in America.
(Please note that I am not a political scientist, just a geek who takes politics very seriously. I'm sure Republicans would try to paint themselves in a different way and Democrats as well, but it's really difficult to determine what is fact and what is an offshoot of their respective Public Relations campaigns.)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
But then again, his budget cuts just about every single social program (including No Child Left in a Ditch).
However, defense and military are through the rough.
And I think it has been empirically proven that companies don't do anything voluntarily unless there is something to be made from it.
~X~
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:1, Insightful)
Why does everyone think that hard working people are the exception, not the rule. In fact the US has the MOST hardworking people in the world.
I can tell you right now that I'm pretty shit poor and I work a lot harder than some other employees where I work who make 3, 4, and 5 times what I make. This silly notion that hard work in America will get you everything is ridiculous.
My suggestion to you is to live your life a little while and see how tough it can really be without money in the US.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let us note that the entire time Republicans were harping on less federal government and getting government off the backs of the people they were consistantly an opposition party. It seems funny that once they were in charge all that changed.
Republicans when not in charge:
"Federal Government bad. Leave such things to the states."
Republicans when in charge:
"Federal Government good. States cannot make their own laws regarding marriage, etc."
Re:A few issues (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely, you have to assume the 70% that didn't respond hold opinions in the same proportion as those that did respond. After all, choosing to respond should have nothing to do with knowing of reversal cases.
So the probable total is 700+.
--Rob
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally, I hate President Bush just as much as anybody. I think the Republican party has lost its grip on reality and is wandering off in the direction of many former totalitarian regimes with fearmongering, scapegoating, restricting of rights, and use of force (admittedly it still has a long way to go before it becomes Sovient Russia. I can still say these things without fear of reprisal.)
However, my taxes did go down because of our president. That may be misguided due to deficits, or it may be a good way to boost the economy and generate more revenue (I am not an economist).
I like having a strong military, because we don't have to worry about being invaded, which is a problem that has plagued nations for all of history. Between our location and our military, we basically don't have to worry about wars for the forseeable future. That security is very nice, and most of us take it for granted. The "respect" you speak of is there. People don't insult the musclehead to his face, no matter what they think of him. As long as you aren't lacking in intelligence or social grace, there's nothing wrong with being strong. Whether we should be involved in foreign conflicts is a different issue. I haven't seen intelligent debates on whether we will ultimately be doing "good" in the middle east, just a lot of name-calling like yours. I haven't seem detailed analysis of how much of a threat these regimes pose to the United States and our interests. I don't think we want to get involved in every conflict in the world, or that we have any business telling other countries how their government should work.
I'm also a mechanical engineer, and the defence industry provides a lot of jobs. I'm not in it right now, but I might be at some point. Interestingly, the Bush Wars have hurt the engineering part of the defence industry, since the budget is paying for the wars and not for R&D. However, for the economy to be healthy there has to be a lot of money changing hands. Private parties (like the Republicans) want to horde money and get rich. The government is in a good position to spend money to keep the country rolling.
I gave up on politics because I try to keep an open mind. I can't agree with any of the major parties, because in order to get votes they oversimplify things to prove that they are right. That makes them wrong, and I move along.
Re:Only one thing left to do (Score:1, Insightful)
Really, then I guess WalMart will start paying their employees enough that they can get off food stamps? I mean they are the shining example of Corprate America, are they not? Hey, did you notice that a couple of days ago WalMart decided to shut down one of its newly unionized stores? Looks like those poor people almost got out from under, until the Walton money machine decided to stop that silliness. Of course, since WalMart caters to the poor, it is in their best interests to keep as many people poor as possible.
Ya, poor people like to have an excuse for being poor. Its what they do on weekends for fun, you know, get together and exchange excuses for why their kids only had 5 meals last week. Hell, they trade them like baseball cards. "Oh look, I got "Can't afford college", thats a keeper".
You have examples of Enron execs in jail? Who, where, when. Holly shit, Enron fell apart before 9/11. In the time it has taken to get anyone from Enron in jail, the US has invaded Afghanistan, invaded Iraq, destabilized Venezuala, destabilized Haiti, and god only knows what else. The execs from Enron should be getting ready for parole hearings, not about to be tried. It is a good point about the system though, if you are in bed with the prez, you can fuck over anyone you like, and nothing will happen to you.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrat - put a pillow between the boot and the face.
Actually -
Democrat - Pick your pocket so they can buy the pillow before putting the boot in your face.
lower taxes? (Score:1, Insightful)
Huh? I see no signs that the Republicans are trying to lower taxes. Take a look at the deficit.
It appears to me the Republicans are trying to increase power by whatever means possible, including telling people their taxes will be reduced, while at the same time spending money like drunken sailors on ends that, you guessed it, will increase power. The Republicans may have some redeeming quality, but reducing taxes is not it. End the brainwashing now, please. Or perhaps you are confusing them with the Libertarians?
Re:Read the source instead of the article for trut (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that the majority had NOT been pressured doesn't mean that it's OK. 30% of those who answered feel pressured.
Even 5% shouldn't be acceptable.
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
I attended two state GOP conventions and one national GOP convention during the mid-late 1980s. I saw the takeover in action. It is real.
I am no longer directly affiliated with the Republican party, but I still have a decent grapevine through old friends and even older family. The incidental party affiliation of "most of the people [you] know" is entirely irrelevant to the matter of who formulates the planks in the party platform in exchange for delivering a highly dependable demographic bloc on election day. What James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and the Wildmons say today will be blended with prettified supply-side economics and become the official GOP talking points six months from now.
The older Republicans were more moderate and accepted this as an expedient trade-off; the establishment only pushed the issues just enough to guarantee electoral victory. The reason George W. Bush arouses such instinctive loathing from "the Left" and such devotion from "the Right" is that he is simply the first of what will be many more generations who believe their own hype. Their party maturation began in the middle of the bargaining process between the plutocrats and theocrats, and therefore they do not maintain an acute awareness of the situation as a calculated political convenience. They have imbued their economic policies have the righteous conviction of morality, and thus they find it natural to make national policy serve their moral ends. We have been witnessing the modern birth of a religious tradition which combines spirituality with economics.
He who has an ear, let him hear.
Re:How is this "Your Rights Online" ??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Analogy alert: I will gladly take counsel from a fire marshall about how to make my home safe, but a fire marshall is the last person I would want to actually make policy in my home because I want to live my day-to-day life there.
Environmental scientists, like almost all specialists, see things very narrowly, and many place disproportionate importance on the unnatural preservation of some ideal, imagined, "human-free" ecosystem. People need to work; people need to eat. Sometimes commerce should trump the conclusions of "science."
Re:Only one thing left to do (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem in a nutshell. You blast one side fo rbehavior, then do exactly the same thing in response, and the worst part is you can't see it.
No matter your feelings about our current government, calling them fascist is just hyperbolic.
Of course, now we'll see the other part of the problem, the complete inability to acknowledge a lucid point, even though you disagree. Instead, I expect several ad-hominems, followed by equivocation, and attempts to justify the "fascist" comment.
Prove ME wrong.
Re:How is this "Your Rights Online" ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you asserting that the scientists are skewing the data and that the politicians are seeing through that and correcting the scientists? Don't mix up the science, observations, data, analysis, extrapolation etc. with politics where you take the data and set policy.
If the politicians are saying no to the recomendations of the scientists then that is fine. But that is not what the article is saying. To extend your analogy: I don't want to spend $$ on an expensive fire escape that my wife wants based on the recomendation of a fire marshall so I (being on the town board) tell the fire marshall to change his recomendation or else. That is not an honest or wise approach to making decisions that affect lives or (in the case of environmental science) the future quality of life.
Re:How is this "Your Rights Online" ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
The scientists are not the ones making policy. In a correct analogy, someone is bribing/threatening the fire marshall to lie to you about his findings.
Good luck when your house burns down.
Re:How is this "Your Rights Online" ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Politics should not trump the science. If people need to eat, and the findings get in the way of that, then OK, we should feed people. But you don't lie about the science to fit the situation. If there is a problem with the law that it makes things unnaturally hard, that is one thing, you don't cover up the truth of the matter to do it though.
This is the real "junk-science".
Re:The Union of Concerned Scientitsts (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't take your claim at face value, since opponents of the UoCS have a history of taking a position and then "proving" the validity of their position with data that was either very selective or just plain fabricated.
Since you've produced no evidence whatsoever to back your claim, I must conservatively assume the latter is the case here.
Re:How is this "Your Rights Online" ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
You won't see me hugging any trees or out on a Greenpeace ship saving the pygmy shrimp, but I simply can't agree with your statement or let it stand without comment. It's completely bogus. That's the exact same statement every industry uses to continue destroying [insert natural resource of your choice here] in a non-sustainable way. "I need to make a living," they say, "I have a perfect right to fish out every fish in the sea until there aren't any left! Damn you fruity environmentalists!" Or "My family needs to eat, so I have a perfect right to clear-cut every forest in the world! Damn you hippie freaks and your environmental laws!" This is no exaggeration, I've seen people say things just like this.
The problem is that people needing to work and eat today always seems to take precedence over people needing to work and eat tomorrow. I don't care if your family depends on logging to make a living, if that logging is being done in a non-sustainable manner that is damaging the ecosystem for future generations. If people working and eating today comes at the price of no work and starvation for the next generation, you're doing something wrong.
If a scientist can show evidence that some chemical presents a certain level of danger to our ecosystem, or a process is non-sustainable, it should ALWAYS trump commerce, because what the hell is commerce going to do when they just go ahead and destroy the resource they are using to make money? We also have to live our day-to-day lives on this planet, not just work here.We have to eat the food that grows in the soil, and drink the water that comes from the available fresh water sources. Money doesn't matter if your drinking water gives your wife and kids cancer. There is no such thing as "disproportionate importance" when it comes to the environment. Either something is sustainable or it isn't. Either something pollutes in a way that the environment can't filter out, or it doesn't.
If a scientist was ignoring science just to destroy business, you could use the available evidence to discredit them, prove them wrong. But somehow I just don't see that happening much. Sure, there are some eno-nuts out there who don't give a shit about science, but greed ensures that the business end will almost always be the one in the wrong, not the scientists. The proof is in the pudding. The world already contains many cesspools of pollution of unbelievable proportions, making vast sections of land basically uninhabitable for the next thousand years.
Most of us really don't care what you do with the environment, as long as it is done in a way that's sustainable and doesn't irreversibly damage people or natural resources like drinking water. "People needing to work and eat" will never be an acceptable reason to destroy the life support system of the only known habitable planet in the universe. It's actually the strongest argument to favor the conclusions of science. No quotes.