Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him 543
Lucre Lucifer writes "The top climate scientist at NASA, James E. Hansen, says that the Bush Administration tried to silence him(NY Times) after he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth 'a different planet.' The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions."
Open and Shut (Score:4, Insightful)
"Mr. Acosta said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen."
They just don't want scientists running around spouting off all kinds of ideas/theories only to result in the media latching on to these ideas as some sort of "official NASA position." The public is a fairly skittish beast, and as soon as they hear some "expert from NASA" telling them one thing, even if it is a theory, they'll run with it for miles. Next thing you know "The next ice age could be coming in the next several thousand years" has turned into "RUN FOR THE HILLS, THE GLACIERS ARE COMING!!!"
At least that's all this seems to be about to me.
Re:Tried to silence him hey (Score:1, Insightful)
Sheesh.
No policy statements here (Score:5, Insightful)
Heaven forbid we let experts make policy!
Ugh.
Spying, Wars, Deceipt, Lying, Oil, Profits (Score:4, Insightful)
Who pays his salary, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open and Shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Now before the flames begin, Bush has made a lot of mistakes and I am by no means a Bush supporter. I just think that this kind of journalism continues to mislead the public on an import subject. The guy is mad, so what, it doesn't mean there is a government conspiracy to silence scientists.
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA does a lot of things -- not all directly involve space travel. This guy happens to be in charge of climate simulations; in particular we should listen to his opinion about how changing our behaviour might affect the climate.
What's more disturbing is the politicians telling us to "leave the policy decisions to [them]". While it's true that they are the one who will make decisions, they are not experts on anything -- we put them there to choose among options offered by experts. The scientists should be saying "if we don't do anything now, the climate situation will get worse". The politicians might then decide "doing something now will have more negative impact than the climate change it averts" (that's up to them), but they shouldn't try to diss the scientists.
My personal take: the politicians prefer lobbyists to be the ones offering the options, since in that case they are paid to make the right decision instead of having to think.
NYTimes Sensationalist Headline (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a strong believer in environmental causes but dishonest or misleading reporting hurts our cause and makes people disbelieve everything we say.
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)
He says other politicians in the past tried to ignore him/quiet him down in the past, but since a speech last December, the current administration has been actively trying to muzzle him and he has been threatend with "dire consequences" if he doesn't quiet down.
I don't see anything open and shut with this case.
Read the article, it's interesting if nothing else. Others are just trying to paraphrase/summarize it in their bias for you.
Re:Open and Shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. That's what it's superficially about. One step down is the question of whether the public should be trusted in a democratic, free society. Now, I know lots of Chinese who claim that the People's Republic of China is a democratic, free society, and by their personal standards, they are correct. Many outside China see it otherwise.
The article is about asking what definition of "free" you want. Believing that the public is a "skittish beast" is a very divisive opinion.
Re:Who pays his salary, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that George Bush seems to have the notion that the government exists solely for his benefit, but not the people's. This is why people in the government are being silenced when they speak about things that upset George Bush and/or his friends.
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)
"The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone. There scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing."
I'd say that senior scientists in these institutions are mature enough to be making their own decisions about when interviews and writings are appropriate.
Re:Err, "tried to silence"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silenced! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you cite a single time the president has told the truth about any issue? (about something not immediatly verifiable. Yes, when he lit the capitol christmas tree, and then said "It's lit!" he was telling the truth.)
The answer is no, you can't, but feel free to try if you really like the guy. Every statement this president has made which involved delayed verification has been false. Thank you TV for making us all idiots.
Why are we still listening to GWB? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wonder how my prime minister manages to get along with Bush, what do they have in common? Why would Blair want to cut emissions when Bush clearly thinks its not a problem? Why is Blair's government scared of finding out that it may have allowed CIA 'torture flights' to use our airspace and that the public may be pissed off about this, when the White house is so brazenly non-committed to completely denouncing torture and is running a prison which goes against every single founding ideology of the United States?
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand and sympathize with the administration's position, it's hard when the facts are biased against you, but the law is the law. While I've got plenty of bones to pick with the NYT over unobjective reporting, calling this liberal only works if, by liberal, you mean objective. The behavior of the administration described in the article is like a cancerous tumor that will destroy our nation if we let it. Dr. Hansen's refusal to be silenced and those who support him have taken the most honorable position a scientist can take. It's a pity some people can't see that.
Re:Err, "tried to silence"? (Score:3, Insightful)
No? None of that? Damn, this lousy government of ours. They can't even silence anyone!
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we needed to wait until it was that bad before we took a stand. Perhaps your historical conjecture that brownshirts and political prisoners suddenly appear overnight along with totalitarian governments in formerly democratic nations was what threw me off. Sorry, I'll go back to being a good complacent citizen until I have to risk my life instead of writing my congressmen after reading a newspaper article or two. Does your pattern recognition not work or are you just trolling? Were you out sick the days they covered the American Revolution and civil liberties at school?
The government is not allowed to propagandize by law. We pay taxes for this guys research, we get to hear his opinion, no matter how bad it makes another one of our employees, the president, look. If he thinks he knows something his employers (we the people) should hear and would be most concerned if we didn't hear, he is under every obligation to release the information into the public, regardless of what sycophantic political appointees think. They serve us.
Re:NYTimes Sensationalist Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
The scariest quote from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Silenced! (Score:5, Insightful)
If Clinton is literally the antichrist and the example of every possible vice this does not make Bush any better. Bush IS a liar. Bush DOESN'T tell the truth. It is not a defense to point at other liars in an attempt to change the subject away from something that makes you uncomfortable.
4 more years (Score:1, Insightful)
I gasp when I hear anyone suggest that the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" amounted to more than stealing from a cookie jar and lying about it- when Bush lies to us daily, spies on us, and breaks our laws; setup to keep the government from doing just that.
If you want to argue about this, please don't bother- I'm not hanging around for responses. Like the rest of the country, I'm tired of this guy being in office and I'm ready to split the country in half and move if my half has to have him as president. I'd be happy to give the religious right their own country and leaders because I don't want them in my life. The scary thing is that they'd probably immediately declare war on the other half because the last thing the extreme republicans and the religious right want is freedom of religion and beliefs in the world. I sometimes believe such a war is coming...just like the middle east, we can't escape these morons whose belief in imaginary deities cause them to butt into the lives of others and attempt to legislate their religious edicts into law. Whether you're talking about the Taliban or Bush Administration, both hope to legislate their religious beliefs and both are a threat to freedom.
You know what really bothers me? People will turn their heads the other way when this hits all the papers. "So what if Bush tries to silence scientists...its bad, but what am I going to do about it?" What you can do about it is vote for Democrats in the coming election so we can get enough seats to boot this guy based SOLELY on the countless laws he has broken. Donate money to the DNC. Throw out your politics, just count the number of laws he admits he has broken, but claims authority to break in the name of the American people! No President is above the law. If the president can break the law, then we have no law and he's not the President and we owe no allegiance to him- because the law is the only thing that makes him the President. Once he shows us that the law means nothing to him, he ceases to be the President of the United States. I don't care if he is "protecting the american people". The American people don't need a King who protects us- we had that- and we delcared independance and wrote our own constitution.
We are not going back to a ruler who thinks they know better than our laws. Impeach today.
My first thought was that NASA was going all KGB (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tried to silence him hey (Score:5, Insightful)
Criminals often say they are innocent. Makes you wonder about people who claim they are innocent when you see what company they are in.
Read the article. The scientist in question is an expert on climate science who's been at NASA for 38 years. The guy who's trying to shut him up is a recently appointed public affairs officer, loyal to Bush. The scientist's story is backed up by other NASA scientists, and also by another of the public affairs officers.
Re:Open and Shut (Score:3, Insightful)
Dept. of State running around saying "Personally I think ABC about this country" when it is known that the administrations position is XYZ? It is one thing to speak about the details of your research, another entirely to propose policy when you are not in a policy making position.
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to agree that seperation of church and state is critical, but if the man wants to preach on his own time, the fact that he happens to be a government employee shouldn't be important, right?
On the other hand, if he was speaking for a government agency, I can see the problem. I know Global Warming is a very popular religion these days, with many followers on Slashdot (some of whom will no doubt mod me down just on the assumption I'm a non-believer, even though I'm not even questioning their deeply held religious beliefs), but that's no excuse to endorse that religion when speaking for NASA.
Re: yes, I've hear the conspiracy theories before (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you're not a fan of the quaint notion that "a better world starts with me".
You can justify anything, if all it requires is finding someone doing worse.
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Volcanic eruptions of that magnitude occur once a century. Puny motor vehicles emit the same quantity of emissions every day. You do the math, brainac.
PS: one of these days you're going to realise that you're not the most brilliant person on the planet and those "dumb scientists" had thought about volcanoes already.
Re:Clear Case of Free Speech Restriction (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect most governments, not just the US, have tight controls over who gets funded. This is an easy way to censor views that are inconvenient, especially if they are true.
I guess Hansen is getting close to retirement, and thus is less scared of reprisals. It is still a brave thing to do.
Perhaps we should only listen to folk who are close to the end of their paid working lives, as they may be more likely to tell the truth without fear or favor.
Re:Silenced! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe instead of praying toward Washington 5 times each day like a good republican you can join the debate.
Re:My first thought was that NASA was going all KG (Score:1, Insightful)
I've heard this argument made before, and frankly, it's really, really dumb. Pollution is okay because things dying is part of natural selection? Give me a break. Do I need to even explain the many ways in which this argument is flawed? I'm not going to waste my time -I doubt you'd understand anyways.
Re:My Conspiracy Theory: American Agribusiness (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Silenced! (Score:5, Insightful)
Possible lie:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- Sept 12, 2002
Certain lie:
"We found weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." --May 29, 2003
Why? lie:
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot." -- Dec 04, 2001 (There was no video of the first plane hitting WTC on television until days later. Bush was informed of the second strike while already in the classroom.)
Care to give an example of the president telling a truth? (It has to be something that isn't immediatly verifiable, we aren't to emperor has no clothes territory.. yet)
NOAA is now under aparachik control, too (Score:5, Insightful)
At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
The weather scientists need clearance from Washington and a PR hack listening on the phone when they talk to the media??!
That at least rates as 'repressive'.
Holy crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's try that again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Never mind what is "right" or "better," the question is: if you pay for something with public money and it isn't classified military actions, do you have the right to bury the results?
I'm siding with the little guy on this one.
Re:Did you vote for Nader in 2000? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Democrats stop acting like Republicans, I might feel a little more apt to vote for them come next election. Until then a vote for Gore or Kerry is a vote for Bush.
Re:Bush lies? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll go along with you long enough to say OK, he did. Sure.
Now you, he and I are all a part of the overall problem. Whoopee.
Please ensure you capture context of Saddam the undeniable bad guy, engaging in systematic brinksmanship with the rest of the world. Counterfactuals about the two madmen-in-training, his sons, would also be interesting.
I'm not so much after letting Bush off the hook as I am in asking what other real ideas of what to do are out there. Clinton's efforts in the 1990's were less than impressive, and I edit myself heavily here because the gentleman brings out the troll in me.
Whether or not Bush is remembered as the American Stalin or simply a leader applying some necessary effort in the Middle East shan't be known for a couple decades, at least.
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Active volcanoes (each) release more like 10 to 20 million tons a day of Sulfur Dioxide.
Humans don't put out that much and that's the stuff that will cool a planet.
Kilauea spews out tons of H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide) every day.
True about measureable CO2 Volcanos vs. Humans but what isn't measured are ocean vents (ocean flatulence)
"accept much of the earth becoming uninhabitable and keep going about our merry ways" is not acceptable.
I agree that it's not acceptable. No matter if a volcano makes the northwest uninhabitable or crates new land near Hawaii and Iceland, what the Earth does (i.e. plate tectonics, ocean flatulence, magnetic shift) is all part of the ecosystem. As inhabitants of this planet, we're part of the ecosystem and spewing out CO2 is part of what we do. Earth doesn't give a shit what we do. It's core will do what it will do without our intervention.
If we make our air unbreatheable, we die and it's our own damn fault and the ecosystem will adjust. Volcanos will still spew, plates will still shift.
Our current lifestyle won't change because humans are lazy. AIDS is 100% preventable yet it still runs rampant because of the lack of willing to change. Education has little to play with it other than basic comprehension.
My angle is that there is alot of America hating going on we're led to belive that it is American drivers that are the cause of Global Warming because of their love for the road.
Australia is given carte blanche to pollute their air and ocean and their air is much more toxic than the US due to the fact that they have no restrictions on pollutants as the US does.
Same for India and China and China has like 1/3 of the population of the planet.
Someone explain to me how it's Americas fault that ice is melting in Antarctica.
We're not going to change. We'll have to adapt when we're forced to. Look at the US fiasco over 'airport security'. Americans and foreign travelers put up with it.
When some super volcano happens http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm [solcomhouse.com]
people will be forced to change.
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sure that NASA wants its employees to talk about NASA projects and not what he does in his free time.
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the map of California. Imagine that Los Angeles , San Diego, and San Francisco are just black, nasty, unbreathable poison. Compare that to the rest of the square footage area of the state.
Inanity 1: Wind blows air around
Inanity 2: There are more cities and more roadways than just those three large cities.
Now compare that to the San Andreas fault line
Inanity 3: Cars don't cause earthquakes.
What will cause more damage?
Inanity 4: A wildfire will "cause more damage" to your home than a small leak in the roof. Does that mean you shouldn't patch the leak?
The vents of Yosemite do more toxic spewing than the rest of the US driving public day per day.
Inanity 5: Unreferenced assertion aside, even if it's true: tomatoes contain natural toxins, therefore there's no reason to think adding more could be bad?
If I were an alarmist, I'd be moving the hell out of the northwest too.
Inanity 6: "Too"? Who said, "Mount St. Helens is erupting, I'M LEAVING THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOR FEAR OF THE VOLCANO!!!!"
There wasn't a single rational or applicable point in your entire post.
What you were, I think, trying to say is that "Nature kicks more ass by 6AM than the rest of us kick all day". That is most definitely true, but that doesn't make the air in Los Angeles any cleaner. That doesn't keep large swaths of the Amazonian rain forests from being cleared. That doesn't keep us from depleting our supplies of oil and fresh water. Your premise is shown false by countless examples. We're not independent observers to nature, we are part of nature. If we wanted to, we could send the entire planet into an ice age (how many gigatons would that take? certainly less than we have stockpiled amongst us). We could also eradicate, just by logging alone, most of the world's forests in short order. Don't you think that would have an affect? So why do you think that somehow running millions (billions?) of small greenhouse gas generators spread all across the temperate sections of the northern hemisphere won't affect nature? Of all the inanities of your post, the worst is the implied inanity, which is fundamental to your argument, that we do not affect the system within which we live.
An automobile is a dynamic system which is self-regulating. Increase fuel flow rate, and it speeds up. It can sustain massive amounts of explosive force and high temperatures. Yet on a hot day, a hot day that is only a fraction of the temperature inside the cylinders, a car engine can overheat and fail. It would be foolish to dismiss the possibility that a hot day can contribute to engine failure just because the air temperature is so much less than the temperature within the cylinder.
Re:My Conspiracy Theory: American Agribusiness (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this one. Forty years ago scientists measured global cooling effects and they were right. It was related to global dimming - burn a lot of high sulfur fuels and you end up with reflective sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere. We've cleaned up our fuels and this effect has been reduced.
We currently get about 4.0 watts/M^2 of 'forcing' due to carbon dioxide, methane, and a cocktail of other stuff I can't spell without Googling for it. We lose about 2.0 watts/M^2 due to sulfate and other aerosols reflecting sunlight.
All of this information and more can be found at http://realclimate.org/ [realclimate.org]
Re:Why are we still listening to GWB? (Score:3, Insightful)
They are both born again christians. Both of them have said they pray together.
Maybe they have other things in common but it seems to me that is the relevant one here.
"Why is Blair's government scared of finding out that it may have allowed CIA 'torture flights' to use our airspace and that the public may be pissed off about this,"
My theory is that these guys think they are fulfilling some sort of prophesy in the middle east. They are hastening the return of christ somehow.
Re:Bush lies? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are lots of madmen in the world, why go after saddam and his sons first.
For that matter if there are three madmen in a country why not simply kill them. Why invade and occupy a country? Why spend two hundred billion dollars and counting just to get rid three madmen.
DOn't get me wrong. I am all for getting rid of madmen but I am for getting rid of all of them, not just the ones with oil.
Re:yes, I've hear the conspiracy theories before (Score:1, Insightful)
This stupid line just allows you to blunt any criticism, since in order to be 'valid' and not 'hypocritical', all criticism of anything must now be preceded by a laundry list of other people's evils, even though they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The point is that it's nice to do your little atrocity top ten, but in the end making the world a better place starts at home and moves outward. Reasonable people don't step past the woman being raped in the street in front of you to get on a plane to Bumfuk, Egypt to stop someone being murdered there. Apply some common sense and do what's at hand first. Get your own house in order before you start trying to fix other people's problems.
I criticise the U.S. first because I love her best, and I expect her to hold a higher standard of behavior than a brutal military dictatorship in some third world hellhole. If we can make both better, great, FANTASTIC, but if we don't wipe the dirt from our own hands first, we lose the respect and moral authority needed to solve problems elsewhere. Ever notice how little help we're getting from the rest of the world in Iraq? A little moral authority goes a long way, but as long as we play "forget about what we're doing, look at that guy over there!" we can't wield it.
Bush accidentally tells the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - Aug 5, 2004 [thesmokinggun.com]
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the 'truth' to sink in. You gotta catapult the propaganda." - May 25, 2005 [onegoodmove.org]
"Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision and they end up alienating decent people across the globe." - Oct 27, 2005
Re:Why are we still listening to GWB? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway Bush can't stop talking about god. Maybe it's an act but it doesn't seem that way to me. Didn't he say that god speaks through him? I think he did.
As a scientist myself (Score:3, Insightful)
Science cannot answer any question about what we "ought" to do. Period. Any scientist who uses his platform to attempt to answer them is doing so as a citizen, not a scientist. If Hansen wants to do this on his own time and dime, that is just fine. Doing so on the public's time (you think HE was paying for his trip to the conference and using up vacation time?) is another matter entirely.
In any case, I really don't care about this guy's opinion. His science may be right, but he seems to be refusing to even hint at applying economic rational to his policy process. Yes, Mr. Hansen, we "have the technology" to reduce emissions - to zero even. We could just shoot everyone! The question is not whether we "do we have the technology?" but "at what cost"?
Since Hansen is ignoring even basic economic tradeoffs, his policy opinions are completely and utterly worthless.
Re:Bush lies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bush accidentally tells the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bush lies? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about waiting, drinking tea and look at the Iraqi regime crumble to dust? I would have given the Saddam regime another two years before it would have fallen in. Dictatorship only carries so far, and a dictatorship that isn't even able to cater for the persons supporting it will be dead tomorrow.
The U.S. led invasion took the Iraqi people the chance to help themselves and get rid of their oppressors themselves and be proud of it. Didn't you ever wonder why nearly no one ever cheered for the U.S. troups? Because they were seen as just another foreign force taking foothold in their beloved land.
And about the dead poll: Look at the numbers for the last two years: The yearly account of Iraqis dying by violence is about the same as we know for the worst years of the Saddam rule. I guess for the families there is no difference if their loved ones die from Saddamists or Terrorists or Criminals or as "collateral damage" from military actions against them. The terms are exchangeable. The people are still dead.
Difference in lies (Score:2, Insightful)
In Clinton's case - he was lying about sexual relations more than anything, which in the end is what anybody actually can laugh at. Utterly harmless but obvious lies. (At least nobody died as a direct cause of that event unless somebody got a stroke while laughing...)
In the cause of G.W.Bush it is too obvious that it was necessary to lie to get through to political means of being able to serve two periods as a president. Starting a war against a real or inventend enemy is one way to gain popularity in the short term, but in the long term the result may be that he will end up as the least popular president since Nixon (or ever). - In war, the first victim is the truth.
As I see it - as soon as Bush declared war on terrorism - the terrorists had won their case by proving that "United States is the great Devil". Of course - Afghanistan was a little more understandable than Iraq, but the use of silent infiltration may never have to be underestimated - even if it may pop up brown spots on your uniform now and then they tend to be more of an annoyance than a real problem if you were able to catch up and prevent a terrorist action.
Sometimes the best action against a threat is just to take no action - even if it seems strange and causes an outrage for the moment. Not all terrorist groups may be infiltrated, but then it may at least be possible to identify them and circumvent their options. Just don't show the terrorists that you are desperate.
Current administrations policy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
A millenia ago our ancestors cowered in caves during thunderstorms, believing lightening to be the act of spirits who were angry with them for some reason. We've come a long way since then. Ignorance is emminently fixable.
Oh yeah, I hate that "skittish" public (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be the scariest thing I've read on Slashdot all day. It betrays a fascist or oligarchical point of view, where the Leaders know best and the Public are ignorant rubes who must be led to a greater future against their will. It implies that it is right to control information or withold from the "skittish" public because it would just upset them and cause trouble.
I don't know where you're posting from, but in my country, the U.S., that goes against everything the country was founded on and stands for. We are a government for the people, by the people. The public rules the roost around here and if you don't like it you can move to Myanmar or North Korea or some other fascist state where daddy knows best.
Since 9/11 the U.S. federal government has become more and more fascist--seeing the need to control and limit information to the public for their own good, making decisions in isolation and resisting the efforts of others to inform or influence them. Opinions like the parents are wholly part of the problem and should be attacked wherever they are expressed.
I'm an adult citizen, responsible and free, and legally entitled to hear all sides and make my own decision about things, thanks.
The second-greatest success of the special interests and political elites was convincing the public that they are powerless to direct their own country. The greatest success was convincing them that they don't want to.
Re:4 more years? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the only thing in your post I agree with.
What a lot of this "they're all the same" mantra sounds to me like is Republican apologists desparately trying to prevent the public from taking their anger out on the Republican party for Bush Jr. The problem of course is that it is the Reps who put an unqualified man on their ticket, and did absolutely no oversight on his admin after getting in office, and then defending him as his incomptentence and arrogance gets Americans killed and puts the Constitution in danger. So you're trying to hide the scary truth from people by repeating this mantra over and over, aka the Big Lie:
Before the Religious Right takeover of the Rep party, I would have agreed with you and the others that the Dems and Reps acted similarly, but not any more. Now your vote between Dem and Rep DOES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE, at least until such time as classical conservatives can retake their party.
Sorry, but this Big Lie mantra isn't going to work anymore, just as many of Rove's other Big Lie mantras are starting to wear real thin on an increasingly cynical population, especially given the fact that Bush Jr. is going to inflict a lot more damage on our country in the 2.5 years he has left, and the Reps as you say, won't stop him.
Clear and Present Danger (Score:2, Insightful)
If scientists who speak out against such a behaviour are silenced by official pressure, that is not merely a worry; it is appalling and undermines every hope that a meaningful agreement to protect the climate can be reached.
The question we have to ponder is what other measures we can take to stop US pollution, if the USA itself refuses to cooperate. Maybe we should consider punitive taxation on all imports from the USA, or an agreement with the oil-procuding nations to restrict their exports to the USA.
Re:Did you vote for Nader in 2000? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silenced! (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. I always wonder why the right wingers inevtiably try to bring up Clinton in defense of Bush. They paint Clinton to be the worst, immoral, ineffective President of all time and then are satisified to make Bush out to be only slightly better.
They also seem blind to the fact that one can dislike Bush and Clinton! I didn't vote for Clinton and voted for Bush the first time but not the second. While I am currently leery of the Republicans, I don't think I could ever vote for Hillary!
Re:The lecture itself (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bush lies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did you vote for Nader in 2000? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democratic party isn't going to come back to your definition of the left, not in the next few years, because--well, what happens if they begin speaking out en masse against the death penalty? (Never mind that the Democratic position at the state and national level is already much less favorable to it. Even John Kerry opposes it on principle.) Then they'll maybe win your vote, but they'll lose ten more in the political center (see above). No, as I said, change happens incrementally, and voting for hopeless candidates outside the current political mainstream reeks of angsty spitefulness and selfish uncaring for people for whom there is still a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans.