Energy Department Refuses To Give Trump Team Names of People Who Worked On Climate Change (businessinsider.com) 858
The Department of Energy said Tuesday it will reject the request by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to name staffers who worked on climate change programs. Energy spokesman Eben Burnhan-Snyder said the agency received "significant feedback" from workers regarding a questionnaire from the transition team that leaked last week. From a Reuters story, syndicated on BusinessInsider: The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place. The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years. "Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people," Eben Burnham-Snyder, Energy Department spokesman said. "We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team."
Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
The management has to know this will get them sacked, and yet they still protected their team.
Good on them, and may they be showered by job offers once sacked.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)
Also, since te website won't render properly with basic security enabled in the browser, here's the page source copypasta:
>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday
it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald
Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people
who have worked on climate change and the professional society
memberships of lab workers.
The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky
transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential
friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain
in place.
The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by
Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a
list of all department employees and contractors who attended the
annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within
the last five years.
Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said Tuesday the
department will not comply.
"Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at
our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and
the important work our department does to benefit the American
people," Burnham-Snyder said.
"We are going to respect the professional and scientific
integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and
across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with
all publicly available information with the transition team. We
will not be providing any individual names to the transition
team."
He added that the request "left many in our workforce unsettled."
Reuters reported late Monday that former Texas Governor Rick
Perry is expected to be named by Trump to run the Energy
Department. The agency employs more than 90,000 people working on
nuclear weapons maintenance and research labs, nuclear energy,
advanced renewable energy, batteries and climate science.
The memo sought a list of all department employees or contractors
who have attended any meetings on the social cost of carbon, a
measurement that federal agencies use to weigh the costs and
benefits of new energy and environment regulations. It also asked
for all publications written by employees at the department's 17
national laboratories for the past three years.
Trump transition officials declined to comment on the memo.
"This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies
list," a Department of Energy employee, who asked not to be
identified because he feared a reprisal by the Trump transition
team, had told Reuters.
Republican Trump said during his election campaign that climate
change was a hoax perpetrated by China to damage U.S.
manufacturing. He said he would rip up last year's landmark
global climate deal struck in Paris that was signed by President
Barack Obama.
Since winning the Nov. 8 election, however, Trump has said he
will keep an "open mind" about the Paris deal. He also met with
former Vice President Al Gore, a strong advocate for action on
climate change.
(Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, how I would love for EVERY department of the US Government to do this to Trump's team. Those people were hand-picked to destroy the very departments they will oversee. It would be glorious for every department of the government to simply rebel this way and refuse to acknowledge these new anti-leadership goons and just continue to do their jobs as if they don't exist.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but don't you see how this plays into their hands? If the people who believe climate change is real all stand up for it and get fired then they will just get replaced with more cronies.
Its better to stay employed and do what you can from the inside.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Its better to stay employed and do what you can from the inside.
If the institution has turned against what you believe is right, then the odds of making any positive change "from the inside" are extremely low.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the institution has turned against what you believe is right, then the odds of making any positive change "from the inside" are extremely low.
I don't believe this is true. Bureaucracies have tremendous resilience, and are notorious for their institutional resistance to change. For once, this force may be used for good.
Bureaucracies also have a long history of turning "reformers" into allies of the status quo as they "go native". It is easy to advocate destruction of, say, the EPA, but once you are the chief of the EPA, then is is your organization, and there is a natural desire to defend your turf. The people you wanted to fire are now real people sitting in your office and doing your bidding.
But it's not "his" if they're not following orders (Score:3)
It is easy to advocate destruction of, say, the EPA, but once you are the chief of the EPA, then is is your organization, and there is a natural desire to defend your turf.
But if you're the head of the organization and the rest of the organization don't obey your orders, it's not "your" organization, is it?
And if you think the organization should be disbanded, or gutted and rebuilt in your image, this gives you just a DANDY excuse. It's "insubordination" (the bureaucratic equivalent of "mutiny") and cause
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)
First...what exactly does the "Department of Energy" do for us in the US?
They have quite a few general energy-related projects, but a major thrust of DoE contractors LANL, LLNL, Sandia and others is maintenance of our nuclear weapon stockpile. Since we're not testing any more, we put a lot of work into making sure our nukes will function as designed.
Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Funny)
Great Trump ... piss off a department with access to Nuclear material ... yeah ... nothing could go wrong there.
(Next he'll be pissing on the military)
Re: Good for them! (Score:4, Informative)
First...what exactly does the "Department of Energy" do for us in the US?
I honestly don't know and will look it up, but if anyone can enlighten me, I'd be interested in a quick read.
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States Government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. It also directs research in genomics; the Human Genome Project originated in a DOE initiative.[3] DOE sponsors more research in the physical sciences than any other U.S. federal agency, the majority of which is conducted through its system of National Laboratories.[4]
The agency is administered by the United States Secretary of Energy, and its headquarters are located in Southwest Washington, D.C., on Independence Avenue in the James V. Forrestal Building, named for James Forrestal, as well as in Germantown, Maryland.
From Wikipedia, opening to article on said department. You can also visit their website.
That being said...aren't the departments pretty much at the behest of the Exective Branch? Could the new President not just completely disband them with the stroke of a pen?
No. It is not an executive office, and the president is not a dictator.
I mean, these are NOT part of congress, etc. They are set up by the Exec. branch to help enact and follow laws from congress, but they really aren't constitutional established or protected government entities are they?
The United States Government is established in a variety of laws, not just the Constitution. The President is obligated to faithfully execute them. Failing to do so would be an impeachable offense.
For example, from the above page:
1920 â" Federal Power Act
1935 â" Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935
1946 â" Atomic Energy Act PL 79-585 (created the Atomic Energy Commission) [Superseded by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954]
1954 â" Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended PL 83-703
1956 â" Colorado River Storage Project PL 84-485
1957 â" Atomic Energy Commission Acquisition of Property PL 85-162
1957 â" Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act PL 85-256
1968 â" Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act PL 90-481
1973 â" Mineral Leasing Act Amendments (Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Authorization) PL 93-153
1974 â" Energy Reorganization Act PL 93-438 (Split the AEC into the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
1975 â" Energy Policy and Conservation Act PL 94-163
1977 â" Department of Energy Organization Act PL 95-91 (Dismantled ERDA and replaced it with the Department of Energy)
1978 â" National Energy Act PL 95-617, 618, 619, 620, 621
1980 â" Energy Security Act PL 96-294
1989 â" Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act PL 101-60
1992 â" Energy Policy Act of 1992 PL 102-486
2000 â" National Nuclear Security Administration Act PL 106-65
2005 â" Energy Policy Act of 2005 PL 109-58
2007 â" Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 PL 110-140
2008 â" Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 PL 110-234
Even attempting to unilaterally disband the department would likely merit an ethics complaint.
I may be wrong here, but that's my 30K foot level of understanding of these departments.
I submit that you are suffering from oxygen deprivation at that altitude.
I'm sure they don't *have* to answer to a president-elect, after all, he's not president yet.
There are some laws that do require cooperation with a president-elect, but I'd have to r
Re: (Score:3)
First...what exactly does the "Department of Energy" do for us in the US?
I honestly don't know and will look it up, but if anyone can enlighten me, I'd be interested in a quick read.
One of the big jobs of the DOE is to be in charge of handling our nuclear security, including running the nuclear weapons program. The DOE also manages, through contractors, many important national labs involved in basic atomic and subatomic research, including Sandia Labs, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos, among others.
So no, it's not a department that you want to fuck up with inept cronies and anti-science appointees.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, they *can*..but I do wonder of all these departments and agencies...how many were actually set up and mandated by law vs just being set forth as a decree from the Executive Branch, in order to help enforce the laws from congress....?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All of them were set up by law. Executive branch discretion doesn't go nearly as far as you are imagining. Among other things, Congress funds all of the departments.
This is easy-to-find stuff - for DOE, it's in the second graf of the history section on wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (Pub.L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565, enacted August 4, 1977), which created the Department of Energy.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't they civil servants? Good luck firing them.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point and brings up one of the rally cries Trump has made during the campaign. Reform of Federal employee rights. He's not been shy one bit about it either. He intends to remove the protections many of the civil servants enjoy under his soon to be purposed "Reduction on Government Waste and Spending" program. So yeah, they are protected like you said, but Trump is literally gunning to remove that very thing and fire anyone who isn't an ass kisser. So great point you bring up but already addressed. This proposal from Trump to Congress is all but a forgone conclusion. The bigger question will be if Congress will give the President this new power. Who knows, but if anything is for sure, it's that there will be massive amount of spin from every direction when it finally hits committee.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
The strength of government comes largely from the fact that the civil servants who actually know their jobs and do the work do not change every four years. The skilled boots-on-the-ground can make up for the incompetence of the political-appointee-of-the-week. Government competence concentrates in the middle.
It is very different from private industry, where (according to legend) people rise through the ranks based on skills and accomplishments, and you would never put someone in charge of a trillion dollar company on the basis of a Prom Queen contest. Corporate competence concentrates at the top. So they say.
If Trump really does manage to turn the whole government into a top-to-bottom herd of bootlicking sycophants that completely reverses policy with every election, he will destroy the stability that makes USD the global currency.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
"So they say". Exactly, the people at the top claim this. In reality it is more a competition to be the most ruthless and confident bullshitter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Trump really does manage to turn the whole government into a top-to-bottom herd of bootlicking sycophants that completely reverses policy with every election, he will destroy the stability that makes USD the global currency.
Uh, the problem is that it's already filled with a herd of bootlicking sycophants. In a pre-election poll, 35% of federal workers said they'd consider quitting if Trump won. Hopefully they'll do it - we can easily get by with 65% of the federal government.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know. All the Departments in the cabinet are established by Federal law as passed by Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a bit different slant on your question. And I really do not know my civics well enough, but I was wondering....
Are not these Departments (Energy, Education, EPA, etc)...not merely constructs through Executive Dept. decree?
Some yes, and some no. Many of the bigger departments are Independent Agencies [wikipedia.org]. These agencies are regulatory bodies that are created through an act of Congress. While the president may have the power to appoint and remove the heads of these agencies, their power to regulate derives from Congress, and the President has no official power to order their agenda.
Now practically, since the power to enforce the rules and regulations put forward by these agencies falls to the executive through the DOJ, FBI, etc
Re: (Score:3)
Well the Constitution vests the entire power of the Executive into the President and Vice-President, and they two alone run it.
Now of course, not even the people who founded the US thought two people could run the entire country, which is where Article 2 Section 2 comes into play. However, there is a stipulation. The President, if he or she wants to "delegate" a part of their executive power, they must do so with consent of Congress. The President just can't say, "Oh this person is going to be responsibl
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Reagan had no problem doing so.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)
If they "rebel", he will just shut down the entire department. If they do a job worth doing (energy does not), then he will reform it with new people.
Trump can try. But the reality is that shutting down departments is extremely difficult because each department has supporters in Congress and a network of lobbyists. He can't fire an entire department without violating Civil Service laws that protects workers from politics.
Trump will teach you.
I work in government IT. No one is worried about Trump. No one.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)
I work in government IT. No one is worried about Trump. No one.
The last president that promised to cut government and eliminate entire departments was Ronald Regan. He eliminated zero departments and greatly expanded the size of government. The only post-war president to cut the size of government, as a percentage of GDP, was Bill Clinton. But he had it easy after the bloat of the Reagan years. Conservatives didn't love Reagan because of what he did, but because of what he said. Same for liberals and Bill Clinton.
The lesson Donald should learn from this is that what he says means a lot more than what he does. Talk big, do little, blame others, be popular. If he sticks to this formula, he should coast to reelection in 2020.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
>He might have the mindset of , damn the torpedoes, I'm going to do what I wish in my 4 years, and then, hell with political currency left over to get elected.
>I think that would actually be a nice bit of fresh air....
The problem is that Trump is a moron. Hell, the entire clown-car of Republicans this cycle was a mish-mash of morons, wannabes, absolute psychopaths, and "low energy" candidates. Compared to every one of them, a dead Richard Nixon is a savant. I would have actually voted for a Zombie Nixon for President, given the field of candidates. Indeed, given a choice between Trump, Clinton, and Zombie Nixon, I'd have to go with Zombie Nixon. I voted for Jill because non-swing state and "fuck this shit." I kinda regret not voting for Vermin Supreme. I'd like a pony to give to the grandkids.
The difference between Trump and the rest of the clown-car was that Trump, like Reagan, knows how to play the media. Every single other candidate on the R side didn't, including Cruz (because after listening to him for more than a minute, anyone with functioning brain cells /hates/ him (this includes his colleagues in the Senate)).
He talked big, had a "vision" to sell (for various values of "vision" > 0)and basically re-ran Reagan's "Morning in America" meme in his own way. Contrasted to Clinton's "I'm not him" campaign, with no vision *at all* of the future except "more of the same", it's no wonder why she lost the campaign. That's what makes this Russian nonsense so fucking laughable - Clinton ran one of the most uninspiring campaigns I've seen in my half-century of life. It's not that Trump won, Clinton LOST to a know-nothing, incurious psychopath (I think Clinton is also a psychopath of a sort - she just hides it better) because she had nothing to sell.
To a low-information voter, Trump is a breath of fresh air, for sure, compared to Clinton. "No one in this world, so far as I know - and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me - has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby." -- Mencken. But to those of us who actually give a shit about what world we leave to our grandchildren, the times ahead look to be "Chinese Curse" interesting.
--
BMO
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that Trump is a moron.
I disagree. Trump is a con man, pure and simple, and he's pretty good at it.
Re: (Score:3)
If they "rebel", he will just shut down the entire department.
You forget that Rick Perry ("he") as a 2012 Presidential candidate, did in fact want to shut down the Energy Department. [usatoday.com]
He had a brain-freeze when trying to remember this in 2012. (Hey, it happens to all of us.) But perhaps he's going to get his wish fulfilled.
Re: Good for them! (Score:5, Funny)
I voted for Trump.
I did not vote for idiotic anti science know nothing twerps...
Sorry, but these two statements cannot both be true.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
translation: Oh how I would love for the gov to grind to a halt for about a month while everyone gets fired and Trump puts in his people anyway.
You are so pissed off you would burn our gov to the ground. It was fucking balls on retarded when the republicans did it a few years ago and it still is.
Trump is the one burning our government to the ground, and this exact move he tried to pull underlines that exquisitely. What possible reason would Trump, an avowed climate-change denier have for asking for the names of every individual who worked on climate change EXCEPT to initiate a purge? How is a mass-firing within an organization for explicitly greed-oriented political goals going to have any result that isn't destructive to the department in question? It also sends a blatant message of "don't do your job to the best of your ability - STFU and ignore anything that isn't in line with what we say to do." THIS is what is going to "burn our gov to the ground".
Want to know what would be 'glorious'? If you decided to work with 'the other side' instead of being a smug jerk.
If "the other side" had any intention of actually "working with us" that may be possible. But from day one, these fuckers have declared war. One look at the proposed cabinet shows that 100% - these people were not selected for expertise, they were selected because they have deep-seated antipathy and aggression towards the very government agencies they're supposed to oversee. There is no "working with" someone who has publicly declared themselves your enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the reason Trump won is because a lot of the voting public believes that the federal government is far too massive and invasive. His supporters want to burn some of these departments to the ground. The EPA is a prime target because while the intent may be good, it is a barrier to being able to do business in the US for a number of industries. When you take jobs away from the coal miners, as an example, they're going to vote for someone they think is "on their side" and who will abolish the agency
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)
Coal's lunch was eaten by cheap natural gas. Incidentally, that lunatic is also on the record for opening federal lands for more oil and gas.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can prove that a company intentionally polluted knowing that the pollutants were harmful then by all means, have the EPA bring a lawsuit against them. But I don't believe in punishing everyone because of the possibility of misdeeds by some. I especially don't believe in it if no one realized the pollution was dangerous when the pollution was occurring, unless you could somehow prove that they intentionally didn't look into it or blocked that research.
Uh, this shit is PRECISELY what went on throughout the last century (and still continues to this day).
It has been proven countless times that companies will do blatantly illegal and harmful things, knowing full well how harmful they are as long as they believe their risk:benefit ratio is good enough. (See: Flint, Bhopal, Love Canal, Hinkley CA, etc. etc. etc.)
Oh, and as for the "if they knowingly use harmful pollutants use a lawsuit" is bullshit. The legal system is set up so that all they need to do is say they didn't know and they'll get off with a warning, or force the public into a long drawn-out civil legal battle that can take decades to decide. The point of all the EPA regulations is so that these companies can't claim that they "didn't know". These regulations are there so this shit doesn't have to turn into a decades long civil battle, with lots of "did they or didn't they know" going on.
Your argument is like saying that food safety regulations aren't needed, because restaurants will figure out if they make people sick on their own, and we can TOTALLY trust them to stop doing something that does, even if it costs them extra money, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I applaud what the DoE management is doing but it just means that if the new administration pushes they will replace more staff than originally intended they have that authority.
But in doing so, they will show they have integrity, and take their jobs seriously. That is what these agencies are supposed to do - they're not supposed to be partisan tools for the current ruing party; they're supposed to be an impartial apparatus that does a job mandated by Congress to the best of their abilities.
To put it differently, if you rebelled against what your boss tells you how long do you think you will be around to keep saying "no"?
There are things more important than a paycheck. And I'd consider not supporting a totalitarian regime with a flagrant disregard for reality one of those things.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what these agencies are supposed to do - they're not supposed to be partisan tools for the current ruing party; they're supposed to be an impartial apparatus that does a job mandated by Congress to the best of their abilities.
But they're currently partisan tools for the Obama administration. So you agree with replacing them?
Howso? When did Obama go through and hand-pick every single employee, checking if they had any beliefs that disagreed with his worldview? At various points in his Presidency different agencies said and did things that weren't in 100% support of what he wanted. But no purges ever happened.
Impartial does not mean "doesn't do what is asked of them". It means they do their job - and part of that includes doing what is asked of them by the President as long as it doesn't mean betraying their mandate . It also means not firing anyone simply for having differing opinions from the President - and especially not for conducting research that the President doesn't like when it's exactly what your department is mandated by Congress to do.
There is a world of difference between shaping legislation to lead agencies into doing what you want, and destroying the agency if it doesn't do exactly what you demand, ethics be damned.
Re: (Score:3)
Not even close.
Agency mandates do not come from the president.
The Mandate of an agency is a description enshrined in law by congress as to that agency's function at the agency's inception.
It's a legal term and not one the President has any say over other than when he signs the bill establishing the agency in the first place.
POTUS can Direct agencies within that Mandate.
But he does create or modify the Mandate.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
And spoils system was dismantled in 1883 with the establishment of the Civil Service reforms manedated by the Pendleton Act. This has generally been regarded as A Good Thing.
Re:Liberals Can't Win Elections (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd hardly call meeting the standards the Constitutional (you know, law of the land) mandated method of choosing a president, a mere "technicality".
If you think that, I'd suggest you start boning up on your old civics classes.
You are a member of your state FIRST, and then a member of the United States second. There is a valid reason it is set up the way it is.....to balance the power of the States and the States' voices for who the president is.
Re:14th Amendment (Score:3, Informative)
The Fourteenth Amendment made you a citizen of the United States first.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a valid reason it is set up the way it is.....to balance the power of the States and the States' voices for who the president is.
There's a reason it's the way it is, it's so my vote counts more than yours and I like it that way. The actual reasons are not what you claim. You are ignorant of history and rationalizing away a real problem.
Re:Liberals Can't Win Elections (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats did get more votes than Reps. However this argument is moot and irrelevant.
In response to a "going against the will of the voters" argument, it is in no way irrelevant. It is not being brought up to try claim HRC is the real president - it's being brought up to refute the claim that DT has some sort of mandate from the masses.
Re:Liberals Can't Win Elections (Score:5, Interesting)
No, we won't. Stop being delusional. First off, Biden is not part of the Sanders camp, he's a lot closer to the Hillary camp, though admittedly he isn't remotely as scandal-plagued or charismatically-challenged as her. Secondly, Biden and Sanders are both quite old now; it's really doubtful either one of them is up for a 2020 run. They'd both probably be the oldest contenders in history for those offices.
Regardless of all that, I simply cannot believe that the DNC would back Sanders again (or a Sanders clone). They're simply too corrupt; they proved it in this election. They even re-elected Pelosi to her position.
I think what's going to happen is one of 2 things: 1) Hillary will be backed, yet again, and will lose, *again*, to Trump, even amidst a terrible recession caused by Trump's policies. I think the DNC just isn't ready to throw in the towel on pushing their queen to the Presidency. 2) Some other (younger, slightly less scandal-plagued, but obviously sold-out corporatist) Hillary clone will be nominated again, again with dirty tricks by the DNC just like this year, and they'll lose, again.
And cut it out with your comments about "real democratic candidates". See the No True Scotsman fallacy. Candidates like Hillary and DWS are *real* Democrats. They epitomize the Democratic party, and this was proven this year by the DNC's backing of them.
Face it: the Democratic party has a *long* history of running establishment-backed losers. Every once in a while there's a big upset or exception, but most of the time they pick the most uncharismatic people they can find, and frequently the most corrupt. They ran Mondale and Dukakis, both horribly uncharismatic. Then they picked Bill Clinton; corrupt (though it wasn't so obvious back then) but he made up for it in charisma and the Republicans' vote was split by Perot so he won with a minority. He got lucky and presided over an economic boom fueled by the internet so he got re-elected (Dole had no charisma too). Then they ran Gore, who had the charisma of a wooden pole, and he lost (partially thanks to the vote being split by the much more progressive Nader) to Bush, who had some charisma though he was dumber than a chimp and looked like one too. Then they tried running Kerry against Bush, and Kerry too had no charisma and was totally unlikeable. Then they tried coronating their corrupt and utterly unlikeable queen Hillary, but Obama (who had lots of charisma) threw a wrench into their machinations there and beat her in the primaries in a big surprise. So now that Obama can't run for a 3rd term (which is too bad, I'll take him over Hillary any day), they did it again, and succeeded this time with lots of dirty tricks against another charismatic upstart named Sanders, and just as Michael Moore predicted, she lost to Trump, the second most unpopular candidate in history.
If the Democratic Party can't learn their lesson after at least 32 years, I have no idea why you think they'll suddenly change their ways now.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, no. Go read the 22nd Amendment. Presidents can't run for more than 2 terms, consecutive or not.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Insightful)
'black balled'
McCarthy, is that you?
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're perfectly OK with unelected personnel refusing to perform perfectly legal tasks assigned to them by the legally elected leadership of the US government?
Personally, I hope he stops their paychecks. Bureaucrats don't get to anticipatorily refuse lawful instructions from their employer because he *might * do something they disagree with later.
Sure. And let's mandate that those people start wearing yellow stars on their clothing as part of a new dress code while we're at it. Dress codes aren't illegal, either. Next, we'll have all those people moved from their offices over into other offices on the other side of town. Nothing illegal about moving someone's office either, right? Something odious and unethical doesn't have to be illegal in order for refusal to be the right option.
If you don't think this is the first step of a purge, you're a complete fucking idiot. Those in charge know exactly what this is because they aren't complete fucking idiots. And when something so obviously unethical (and illegal) is coming down the line, the only ethical thing to do is refuse to comply with all the orders that will facilitate it. Just because each step along the way is legal does not mean you should blindly do it when you know exactly what the end result will be.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I hope he stops their paychecks.
I thought Trump's MO was stopping payment once the work was done, not before.
Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're perfectly OK with unelected personnel refusing to perform perfectly legal tasks assigned to them by the legally elected leadership of the US government?
These people did their jobs as instructed for years, and Trump is apparently looking to punish or fire them for it. That is not acceptable.
If their jobs are eliminated because Trump believes climate change is a fairy tale, they can avail themselves of whatever job transition/placement programs the government has. But to target them off the bat because they worked on climate change is appalling and wrong.
Bureaucrats don't get to anticipatorily refuse lawful instructions from their employer because he *might * do something they disagree with later.
He's nobody to them until Inauguration Day. He cannot issue lawful instructions because he has no lawful authority until he assumes office.
Even then, it should be illegal for an employer to punish employees for doing exactly what they were told.
If Trump tells the DoE to stop doing climate science, it can do that without making a public spectacle of the employees. The department can look at its tasking and make its own decisions---management can assign these people to other tasks they are qualified for, or it can let them go.
Those people deserve a fair shake at keeping a job---whatever form that takes in the government---not a witch hunt.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)
Short version: There is more than a century of precedent to protect federal employees, both their privacy, as well as their employment.
Longer version:
From the US Merit System Protection Board [mspb.gov]
Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards.
Employees should be protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes
Also see the Wikipedia Article [wikipedia.org]
And for an even longer version, read up about the US "Spoils System" [wikipedia.org], and how it lead to the assassination of a President. It was then replaced by the Merit System, in 1883.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this information is being used as a witch hunt to identify low level employees for removal. These low level employees may not have been the decision maker when it came to selection of who would go or not, and as a result, the questions in the questionaire may incorrectly represent actual responsibility or functionality of the employee beyond that single question. Additionally, you can't arbitrarily remove government employees from their jobs without a substantive reason - as opposed to an ideological one (last time I can think of was the air traffic controller's strike during Reagan years - which directly impacted public safety)
As a result, the responsible leadership is saying "this is my responsibility; we can get into details at my level." This is the right thing to do, and also serves the people at the same time.
Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
... aligned with the Anthropogenic Climate Change dogma;
You pronounced "universal scientific consensus" wrong.
The Obama Administration (Score:3, Funny)
The Most Transparent, Ever!(tm)
Re:The Obama Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, let the purge of climatologists began. After all, King Trump will demonstrate, unlike King Canute, that he can stop the tides!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, let the purge of climatologists began. After all, King Trump will demonstrate, unlike King Canute, that he can stop the tides!
I think the term we've chosen is "Orange Julius Caesar"
Re: The Obama Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
If he defunds climate research and fires all the government climatologists, not to mention depriving university researchers of satellite monitoring (which the move against NASA's climate research is clearly meant to do), the damage to US science will be incalculable. In four years, you'll probably see the amount of atmospheric and oceanic research dwindle.
Of course, the laws of physics won't change, so AGW will keep getting worse, but Trump and his band of anti-science fanatics will be long gone by the time the morons who voted him in begin to find out just how much of a fucking moron he was. The only thing that I can think of that comes close is the incompetence of the Administrations prior to Lincoln when trying to deal with the free/slave state issues, making the Civil War inevitable. History doesn't remember Buchanan fondly, though it did very little for the tens of thousands of soldiers that died during the Civil War.
Re:The Obama Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Try harder! Calling people Nazis stopped being effective about 3 weeks ago.
Reagan Air Traffic Controllers Strike again.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not a lawful request since like the illegal act Bush performed, the act is designed to fire people who were doing their job and upholding the Constitution. Not rubber stamping an edict.
Also, Trump is not their new employer. They are employed by the taxpayers. Trump is only their manager and from what is being shown already, and as he has shown throughout his life, a very poor manager. One who refuses facts but quick to blame others for his inco
Re: (Score:3)
Or is it too hard to grasp that allowing the future president to write himself a long list of people to dispose of the moment he takes office is a Bad Thing?
But that's his job. Running the executive branch. That's literally what we put him there to do.
Re:Reagan Air Traffic Controllers Strike again.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Refuse a lawful request from your new employer.
They have done no such thing. Trump isn't their employer yet.
Re: (Score:3)
How the fuck did this guy get modded up?
Trump is NOT his employer. Trump is fucking civilian until he actually takes the office.
Re:Reagan Air Traffic Controllers Strike again.... (Score:5, Informative)
How the fuck did this guy get modded up? Trump is NOT his employer. Trump is fucking civilian until he actually takes the office.
And even then he will NOT be their employer (and he will still be a civilian). He does not own the United States or Federal Government. He is temporary management hired by the voters, and lacks unlimited powers, even within the executive branch which he manages. We do not elect gods, or kings, or tyrants (only tyrant-wannabes).
So, wait 5 weeks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Come January 20th and the team stops being "transition team" and becomes "Executive Government". Though we'd rather not, we can wait 'till then...
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how a political cult that proclaims the sanctity of "original intent" is ignorant about the intent of the Electoral College. It is to prevent unwise popular passion from selecting an unfit executive.
From Federalist Paper 68:
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United
What makes him "unfit"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Khm, "unfit"? When I called Obama "unfit", you called me racist. If I called Hillary Clinton "unfit", you would've called me sexist.
You are calling Trump unfit — what do you call yourself? He won — fair and square. Suck it up, cupcakes...
Has anyone bothered to ask why they want the list? (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of just immediately refusing the request, has anyone bothered to ask the Trump Transition Team why they want the list? Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them. Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions. Especially to ask for the list this early in the game, it seems weird that it would be for a blacklist. Generally you would wait until you were in office to go after the opposition.
Re:Has anyone bothered to ask why they want the li (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Has anyone bothered to ask why they want the li (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Has anyone bothered to ask why they want the li (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them. Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions.
Then why did he make a climate change denier the head of the EPA to start with?
Re:Has anyone bothered to ask why they want the li (Score:5, Insightful)
So his opposition to some of the purely political "solutions" to climate change make him a climate change denier? His urge to see countries like China held to the same standard as, say, France or the US - that makes him a "denier?"
No, the article he wrote for National Review in which he trotted out the old denialist tropes about scientific uncertainty shows he's a denialist:
That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.
It must be wonderful to be able to set any arbitrary standard rather than "preponderance of evidence" for your preferred policy position -- in this case unanimity of all scientists in the world (apparently without regard to their particularly disciplinary qualifications going by past appeals of denialists to "scientific disagreement").
Re: (Score:3)
your post nicely demonstrates how common sense isn't.
Re:Has anyone bothered to ask why they want the li (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what losing an election like this means...it means your time of screwing over the other side is up and now you best lube up yourself. Then it will sawp back and be same as always.
And this is what is wrong with America. So many people want to cheer and say "screw the other side" or "lube up" as you put it. Well, you realize the "other side" is a good 30-40% minimum of the population of America. You screw that many people over and what you are really doing is screwing the country over, yourself included. I mean hell, Americans didn't hate each other as much during the Civil War as they do now. We are on a downward path of animosity, fiery rhetoric, obstructionism, and retribution that would leave America in such a state that even Nero would put down his lyre. Make America great again? With the current state of our politics I'm not so sure we deserve to be great anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
With the current state of our politics I'm not so sure we deserve to be great anymore.
Newsflash: You never did.
Greatness isn't deserved, it just happens, often as an accident of history. In the case of the USA, because Europe tore itself apart in two wars that a) destroyed its industrial base b) either killed or drove away a lot of its most capable scientists and engineers, many to the USA and c) make the transition from colonial empires times to modern times more rough, so places like the British Empire simply disintegrated and still haven't recovered.
The USA is the big winner of WW2 and wa
Whatcha huntin' Doc? (Score:5, Funny)
Gov: Whatcha huntin' Doc?
Trump: Ducks.
Gov: This is wabbit season.
Trump: Why. You. Little.... Grrrr (steam comes out of ears).
Let's hope the Electoral College does their job (Score:5, Insightful)
and rejects this monstrosity. Not likely, but that's the reason they exist.
Re:Let's hope the Electoral College does their job (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's hope the Electoral College does their job (Score:5, Insightful)
If it does, then we probably need one I hate to say. The Founding Fathers were very smart and chose to make the Electoral College full of people who could vote however they chose. They knew full well they could simply do the numerical apportionment we all assume today's EC is, but they didn't - it's people. The only reason that could be is because they were expected to make their own choice, and the only time that's meaningful is if it's different from what the popular vote in their state was.
If the Electoral College exercises their intended autonomy and doesn't elect Trump, they are doing the very thing they're there for. If that - following the letter and intent of the Constitution - causes a revolution then we are a very sick country indeed.
On the other hand, if the EC rubber-stamps Trump's nomination, I have to ask: what purpose does the EC serve? Under what circumstances would they exercise that autonomy? Do we even need an EC at all in that case? And if we're changing things, how should we elect the president considering the urbanization of the country? The current system gives far more weight to citizens in rural states than urban ones, and we should have a conversation about that as well.
Honestly the country is very, very ill. I sometimes wonder if the "liberal" and "conservative" areas would consent to a sort of a "trial separation" - say 6 or 10 years, something with a fixed end date that would result in a vote to continue or reunite. The details are extremely complex but it's the only thing I can come up with that might get people appreciating their countrymates.
Re: (Score:3)
And no, he won't lose his supporters; we have no love for politicized science and the patron elite that rely on it to enforce their will
I am genuinely confused by this. If you have no love for politicized science and the patron elite, then why do you support Trump? He's been deep into both those things for a long time.
(I tried hard to find a way to ask this question without sounding like a troll. I hope I succeeded. This is an honest, and earnest, question.)
Leaked transcript of Rick Perry's 1st speech... (Score:5, Funny)
4 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what the US situation with respect to international relationships will look like in 4 years time.
When I first heard that Trump had won, my first thought was, how much damage could he really do?
As I see what he is doing, it seems a lot. ;)
Take for example China. Most of the EU countries have already privately told China that they will follow the status quo regardless of that Trump does or says.
Most of the world is pretty angry about the anti-climate change stuff and there is already talk about locking the US out of the market.
Naturally this would have a huge impact on EU companies as well.
The more I see what this ass hat is doing though, the more I think this is really a turning point for the US and its decline in prominence from the world stage. I guess that is natural. Countries come and go, rise a fall. I do not imagine that will stop just because it is the present.
It is not just about climate change either. Heck, he is even gutting the FCC and forbidding them to protect consumers. Remember how the FCC made those carriers stop the millions in over billing? Those days are over.
The carriers, under Trump will literally be able to do what ever they want.
I have customers who cant wait for Trump because they think they can stop testing their devices for the US market and just sell it.
Still, I really do wish those of you in the US the best of luck. There is a good chance though that you fuckballs screwed us all. At least we dont have to worry about your F35 shooting down our planes though
Re: (Score:3)
Never underestimate the power of the status quo. In the end, the government is run by the people working in the various government offices, departments and such. The boss at the top makes big waves, but underneath, the ocean is calm.
The same was thought about Bush Jr. - he would destroy the USA, drive it against the wall, etc. etc. - in the end, he was a terrible president but the boat didn't sink.
Re: (Score:3)
And also the world leader in installed wind & solar power. They even planted the most trees. China is the biggest in a lot of things, but at least they're not sitting on their arses blaming the US for some global climate conspiracy theory. They learned from experience where witch hunts get you.
They're going to get the names (Score:3)
There certainly are records of who worked on what project, who traveled to what conferences, and who belongs to what professional society. You don't work at DoE without the government knowing that information, it's part of the job.
Ignoring this request is easy: "We'll be happy to perform this important data collection, we think the budget required for this effort is approximately $2.4 million. As soon as Congress appropriates that, we'll get right on it." Delay, re-direct, give the task to the biggest fuck-up in the department... this could never get done.
It's kind of mind boggling to me (as someone who worked as a government scientist) that the management would fight instead. You get constant calls for information reports and surveys as a federal employee. A good number of them are for nothing other than identifying political enemies of the current administration, the GAO, the EPA, some important Congressman, your Secretary... lots of people try this technique. Ignoring them carries far less risk than responding.
Keep your head down, and work on what you're paid for, and you'll stay out of trouble. As a civil servant, any attention is bad attention. I've seen someone get hit with a BS lab safety investigation based on an award talk he gave.
Fighting, on the other hand, is a sure fire way to lose your position and your project. There is nothing that management likes better than finding reasons to de-fund or transfer "troublemakers." Also, all government scientists are "troublemakers."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I call it a witch hunt against scientists by evil men, enabled by morons like yourself.
CO2 won't stop magically absorbing solar radiation and heating the lower atmosphere just because Trump and his science-hating peons get rid of the scientists. The universe doesn't give one flying fuck about Donald Trump or some halfwit who goes around by the handle SuperKendall.
Re:This is how you drain the swamp (Score:5, Insightful)
Science doesn't just stop. More research is always needed in virtually every area of research.
There's no real trade off. Don't start curbing CO2 emissions substantially now, and the cost to national and global economies in fifty years will be beyond astronomical.
Re:This is how you drain the swamp (Score:5, Insightful)
If you genuinely want to know what to *do* about climate change, don't you think it would be helpful to better know exactly how it's going to happen, along with where, when, and of course how much? So we can predict in detail what will happen, and prepare appropriately for it. You do want to use your mitigation and adaption budget as effectively as possible, right?
Re: (Score:3)
And CO2 won't stop magically absorbing solar radiation and heating the lower atmosphere just because we keep hiring more scientists that keep telling us the same thing over and over again. We don't need thousands of researchers researching something on which there is basically broad consensus.
Where there isn't broad consensus is what to do about it. That's a tradeoff between economic growth and carbon emissions. Climate scientists are not qualified to speak to that, and their beliefs, opinions, or research results are irrelevant to that question.
Figuring out what to do about it requires climate research. We need to understand the mechanisms in much greater detail, to be able to predict the effects of various actions, and to figure out just how bad the problems are going to be so we know what kind of actions make sense.
Re: (Score:3)
> You also have yet to prove why 2C (current prediction) of potential warming does anything except bring unprecedented prosperity to humanity.
The 6 meters of sea-level rise that will eventually happen as a consequence of 2C in temperature increase will put major parts of coastal areas underwater.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, modded insightful, because it actually supports science, instead of a pack of delicate right wing snowflakes that want a government that tells them happy stories about how CO2 doesn't lead to vast increases in energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Evolutionary dead ends do not care.
Re:This is how you drain the swamp (Score:4, Insightful)
Well yeah, philosophically there isn't any really good comeback to nihilism.
How about this (said to a self-proclaimed nihilist): "You are a liar and a hypocrite. If you really thought nothing mattered, you not bother to continue living." Every living self-proclaimed nihilist is a lying hypocrite. The "nihilism" is only selectively deployed against things they don't like (yet again proof of their lying hypocrisy).
Re:This is how you drain the swamp (Score:5, Insightful)
Leftists don't believe in guns, and definitely not for using them in a civil uprising.
The Bolsheviks would like a word with you...
Re: (Score:3)
The left in the US has blue haired feminists and drug-addled pajama boys packed into the cities with no food, supplies, survival or weapons training. The right has the rural areas and farmland, the police, the FBI, the rednecks, the veterans, most of the military. How exactly is the left going to stage an armed insurrection?
Re:Is the EPA violating the establishment clause? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, and since the science is settled abuot climate change, the EPA obviously doesn't need anybody to research it... right?"
Actually since so many are rejecting facts, we need to keep proving the fact as many times as possible until it gets through their thick heads or they give up. If those that reject facts would get out of their feelings and look at the data for what it is, not what they want it to be, we could have stopped researching "is it happening" and we could be on , "how do we fix it." But as usual, science deniers are holding all progress back, because it just does not feel real.
Re:Insubordination (Score:4, Interesting)
I think he will sack entire agency, and you cannot find a better reason.
Sack the entire Department of Energy? Ridiculous. They're responsible for some of the most critical government research, including nuclear energy (including weapons), renewables, and even supercomputing. Trump isn't just going to replace a scientist with 30 years' experience working on laser energy sources with some college kid because he doesn't believe in climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that Trump has no idea whatsoever what the Department of Energy does. So many people joked about what a moron G W Bush 43 was when he got elected, and now we have an actual ignoramus who is probably borderline senile in office.
Bush was a moron when he got elected. The problem was he let a war mongering psychopathic VP and cabinet run the show. Trump is in a similar situation although I think his cabinet is looking much more clueless than Bush's. I'm hoping these clowns can do less damage
Re: (Score:3)
When you submit budgets that your own party tries to prevent coming to the floor for a vote and even when they do, receive votes in the single digits between both houses I don't think you could really say a real budget proposal was submitted.