Federal Science Gets More Politicized 567
amigoro writes to let us know about the noise a group of scientists is making to call attention to Executive Order 13422, going into effect today, that gives political appointees final say regarding science-based federal agency regulations. The Union of Concerned Scientists wrote a letter to two Senate committee chairs urging that questions about this executive order be asked at the confirmation hearings for the nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget. "UCS urged the Senate committee to ask [the nominee] Mr. Nussle how he would ensure that political appointees would not interfere with the work of agency scientists." Late last month the House voted to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from spending federal money on Executive Order 13422. Democrats called the order a "power grab."
Don't turn around. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Don't turn around.
Der Kommissar's [wikipedia.org] in town."
- Falco
There's an In Democratic Republic of Germany joke in there, but my regulatory political officer oversees me.
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple! All one needs is a dominant national culture that demands political accountability and effectiveness while staying vigilant and involved enough to ensure these outcomes, instead of a culture of lowered expectations that grunts, "them gummint bastards are all thieves anyway, shoot 'em all" while reaching for the next beer and the remote control/mouse/DVD.
And, while I'm at it, I'd really like a pony.
Once upon a time... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was very happy the day I was able to cast my vote against him and he lost because I got to see the true side of this man and do something about it. People would be shocked and awed (sorry for the terminology) if they heard half the crap that comes out of these politician's mouthes.
Right now Michael Vick is in big trouble over a dog fighting ring he was in the middle of, and the first thing the media jumps all over is how we hold our athletes to such high standards. Well, when politicians are caught lying, cheating, stealing and whatever else they ALL do... I cannot help but wonder why the media doesn't ask why we hold our politicians to such high standards as well.
I don't think we will ever know the answer to this unless some real political and campaign finance reform is put into place, but I like to ask questions. I still blame the fluoride.
Disappointed But Not Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the proper and usual traditional functioning of the US government has not been through the power monopoly that Bush's Republicans had for the last 6 years. Following 6 years just controlling Congress, after 12 years controlling just the White House, which came 5 years after Nixon got kicked out for trying a smaller-scale tyranny.
The Constitution balances conflicting powers to control that money. But Bush/Cheney's government has united all the power into a "unitary executive" [wikipedia.org] exploit of weaknesses of our system: a king and his court routinely ignoring Congress, rigging/endrunning the courts and making "laws" without the process that don't apply to them when they break them.
Congress has to impeach these criminal tyrants. That might surprise you, Anonymous Republican operative Coward, because you thought impeachment was just to attack a popular president. But anyone else who cares about our Constitutional democratic republic should have seen it coming for a long, long time.
Control vs. Frameworks (Score:5, Interesting)
Sun Tzu's classic document "Art of War" makes it very clear that you should NEVER have a politician actually commanding the armed services. The same logic goes for all other departments. Politicians are very good for looking at the big picture (well, in theory) in a way that specialists in individual fields cannot. That makes them good for determining priorities, allocating resources, setting long-term objectives, etc. But once they have issued those decisions, the rest should be entirely left to those who are competent in the field -- with one exception. Governing entitles politicians to penalize those who violate the rules necessary for a coherent organization.
The modern idea that politicians should be in control is a bastardization of the entire concept of a democracy or republic. Plato's Republic is a little dated, but does explain the difference between a ruling class and a governing class. This is an important distinction and one that many have apparently forgotten. Rulers rule. They impose. That is their nature, that is their job. If that is how you see American politics, then you are saying America has an elected monarch. (I believe the archaic term is Bretwalda, and yes elected kings have existed throughout history.) Governors govern. If the populace is the clay and the civil service are the artists, the government is nothing more than an art critic sponsoring the latest work. Nothing more.
Now, personally I don't believe that quality government exists. Here, there, or anywhere. I also generally believe that most existing Governments in the world are indeed elected monarchies... with the rest being hereditary monarchies, dictatorships and fiefdoms of various sorts. Despite the roots of constitutional law being over 5,000 years old, the notions of democracy reaching back over 2,500 years and the concept of politics as a science being studied and researched for many centuries, I can recall no time in history or in the modern world where anyone has actually applied any of these ideas.
To me, the question boils down to this. If everyone in America treats the Federal Government like a kingdom and the States like princedoms (yes, the term does exist), why not cut to the chase and cut costs at the same time by declaring it such? If people truly, honestly, believe that's what they have, then what are they going to miss by making it official? If, however, you believe that the Government is truly restricted to governing and nothing else, then you not only should imagine the government spending tax money without controlling how it is spent, you should require it.
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny thing. I find this to be a very common response from people who voted for these clowns, when confronted with any of the endless examples like this. It sort of sounds like "it's all a bunch of crap so nothing matters". As if there aren't degrees of good or bad.
In my country, a (now convicted) businessman started a national newspaper with the explicit goal of convincing people of his political views. When you ask people whether this is really a good source of political news, they respond with a similar sort of 'nothing matters' argument: there is no such thing as objective so what does it matter.
I actually don't think you really are nihilists - I think its just an easy thing to say when you want the issue to go away.
Re:Surprised? (Score:2, Interesting)
My own pet hypothesis is that they have extended the "cultural relativism" that has been around for several decades into "factual relativism." We certainly seem to argue about the facts, and keep saying that it depends on how you look at things. But I think what's happening now is an order of magnitude beyond all of that.
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh that's insightful (Score:2, Interesting)
Taxes are a route to perpetuate inescapable debt within the non-priveleged segment of the population; for example, those people who don't get to play a round of golf with their Senator every week and discuss the upcoming round of treasury disbursements.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most Americans, even those that can't articulate exactly why, know there's something rotten in the way things are going. I'm not talking about Republicans vs Democrats or liberals vs conservatives. Even those that voted for George Bush because they believed he would best avenge 9/11 now realize that something stinks.
Talk radio hosts have been wetting themselves over the fact that no matter how many times they trumpet what a great booming economy we have, more than 70 percent of Americans will reliably say that things are getting worse. Polls from all sides of the political spectrum are now showing a 25 percent approval rating for George Bush, and even less for a Congress that hasn't paid off on their promise to end the war in Iraq. Ask some guy sitting in front of a TV in Central Missouri what he thinks of the testimony of Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress today, and it may pain them to say it, but their instincts tell them this is one bad actor. There may be a lot of faults in the old USA, but watching this Nation slowly wake up is a thing of beauty to behold. The people who are touting this War in Iraq and the Global War on Islamofundamentaliberalism are going to pay a heavy price in the years ahead when they're fully exposed. There are real problems in this Country, in this World, and an increasing number of Americans are figuring it out. The problem is, the reality doesn't quite jibe with what we've been told. Even the captive media, who's been reliable in their ability to prop up a corrupt system, has been losing their mojo. If we can keep the Internet fairly free from the absolute control of corporate interests, we may still have a chance to turn things around. But it means that some of us are going to have to start learning that there are more important things than iPhones and PS/3s. But if you read some of the subtexts you find in the comments around here, it's clear that an increasing number of us are starting to raise our heads and look around.
There's a reason that the Establishment's candidate Mitt Romney has been falling on his face despite raising huge amounts of money and getting the backing of all the "Kewl Kids" in the Establishment Media. There's a reason so many people say they would never, ever, vote for Hillary Clinton despite her supposed "inevitability". And most important, despite the best efforts of pundits and phony ministers and talk radio big mouths, most Americans just don't want to walk around believing that half our fellow citizens are the Enemy. It just doesn't match up with our daily experience of one another as a basically decent sort who mostly still believe in "live and let live". Even here in Chicago, if I get a flat on my way to work, I'll have several people who stop and ask if I need help, no matter if they're driving an F150 with a yellow ribbon or a Prius with an IMPEACH sticker.
No, there are still plenty good reasons to be optimistic about our future.
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is so sadly accurate.
It amazes me that there are fiscal conservatives who can still look me in the eye, and claim that the GOP is deserving of their support. I've stopped arguing with those people, because it has become far too obvious that they long ago lost interest in truth.
As such, there's nothing to do but to let them get more partisan, more radicalized, and more dangerous, and hope that they alienate themselves before they can make things even worse.
Re:We are the corporate masters (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We did, we like this. (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason Bush is not at 50% is because of his stance on immigration and his budget. If he were to have come down hard on illegal immigration, then, he would have a much higher approval rating. The moral of the story is that the vast majority of the country remains conservative, and only really disapprove of Bush because of the liberal-sounding things that he has done. Republicans are uneasy about the war, to be sure, but, amnesty is the third rail of Republican politics and Bush touched it.
You watch. Hillary is the only candidate that has a shot at winning the presidency on the national stage because everyone else is too far to the left. Obama already has said enough during the primary to doom his national campaign. Yeah, run that footage of Obama saying that he would talk to the likes of Chavez unilaterally. Yeah, run that footage of Obama saying he would not retaliate if the USA had two cities attacked ala 9/11. He might take California and Massachusetts, but that's it.
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush doesn't value loyalty. Someone who values loyalty welcomes (in private, at least) criticism of his actions for his followers, he recognizes that loyalty provokes questions about questionable actions and that the criticism serves his interests in the long run as long.
From all reports, Bush ostracizes anyone who questions him or his actions whether in private or in public. He demands that his followers unilaterally support his decisions and carry out his orders without question or thought. This is obedience not loyalty.
Thus we can safely conclude that he values obedience and obedience only. They only call it "loyalty" because it conceals the truth about the pathetic nature of his cotterie of sycophants.
Re:Optimist (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, actually amending it takes time.
Getting an opinion from your Attorney General that you're allowed to completely circumvent the whole constitution takes almost no time at all. They do it all of the time. (So much so, that I'm forced to believe that Gonzales either got his law degree from a Cracker Jack box or has never actually read the constitution or any of the court rulings which pertain to it.)
This wouldn't be the first section or amendment of the constitution they've utterly bypassed by saying "because we're allowed to since we're at war and can do anything we need to".
Now, people might notice if he ran for a 3rd term or declared himself King and Emperor for Life. But, ignoring parts of the constitution hasn't required help from Congress so far. It's been fairly routine.
Who needs to suspend them when Diebold will fix them any way you like?
Cheers