Chris Mooney wrote an article for the UK Guardian Unlimited where he lets the Bush White House have it both barrels in regard to their quashing of scientific progress. I wish we could have been seeing more of this all along, especially from the main stream media (y’know, the "liberal" ones) who have hardly said anything on these topics… or gotten right when they did say something.
Here’s my favorite bit by Chris, echoing his HuffPo piece:
The broadest way of stating the problem is that throughout his presidency, Mr Bush has let politics rule everything and left virtually nothing to dispassionate analysis. Preconceptions, rather than critical thinking, have driven policy. Indeed, the US federal government is staffed with legions of political appointees who think in raw political terms, often with a disregard for the long-standing professionalism of the agencies they find themselves lording it over. As a consequence, the US government has become a place where loyalty and the rewarding of prior supporters wins out again and again over careful analysis and expert judgment.
Sing it loud, brother!
With the world watching, in 2009 we’ll be working to step back from the abyss.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Canada has, as of yet, escaped the vice of politically driven education. There are of course problems, but from a spectator’s view there is no similarity between the plight of Canadian schools and curriculum and that of the American.
However, ideologies creep north. The fight is worth fighting.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Interesting, since the quoted paragraph is self-describing. I think I see at least 1 superlative in every sentence, save the last, which is clearly opinion, and nary a single citation, number, or reference. (There is some vague hand-waving in TFA, I will grant.)
I’m not saying it’s not true, but has he any actual *data* to support all those assertions? If not, well, the whole thing is no better than what he’s attempting to rage against.
Again, I’m playing more devil’s advocate here than anything; I’m not really fond of the current administration, but the religious fervor that is being so often attacked BY those against the administration is hardly any worse than the same fervor used to do the attacking.
> Mr Bush has let politics rule everything
Cite? Numbers?
> left virtually nothing to dispassionate analysis
Cite? Numbers?
> Preconceptions, rather than critical thinking, have driven policy
Cite? Numbers? Examples?
> Indeed, the US federal government is staffed with legions of political appointees who think in raw political terms, often with a disregard for the long-standing professionalism of the agencies they find themselves lording it over.
Examples? Names? How many is a Bush (Jr) era “legion”? Can you give examples of this “lording”? Exactly HOW often?
> As a consequence, the US government has become a place where loyalty and the rewarding of prior supporters wins out again and again over careful analysis and expert judgment.
Concrete examples? How much of this has happened vs. not?
August 20th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Chris said, “…the US government has become a place where loyalty and the rewarding of prior supporters wins out again and again over careful analysis and expert judgment.”
How is that different from the US government of 50, 100, or 150 years ago? If Twain & Dudley’s portrayal of the innards of federal government in “The Gilded Age” is accurate, then cronyism and purely political decision-making is a long-standing US tradition. I know there’s a tendency to think people in “the old days” were more reasonable and honorable, but I tend to think it just ain’t so.
And *everybody* is always talking about stepping back from the precipice, or making things right when their favorite people get in charge. Wake me up when it happens. I’m not saying that it’s not worth trying to change things; it’s just that the people who seek out these positions are predominantly disposed to act just like the current occupants.
I don’t know what kind of thinking or political system could improve the situation, or how you’d uproot the current system and replace it with the better one, but I wish somebody knew.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I’m glad you posted this. I think the most egregious “preconceptions, rather than critical thinking” from the Bush administration has been their co-opting of 9/11 and the hideous Iraq war. Horrifying.
(And in the distance, we can hear once again the hoofs of the Neo-Con cavalry, riding into the blog with empty shouts of “Not fair and balanced!” – “Clinton was just as bad!” – “Liberal bias!” and “Stick to Astronomy!”)
Thanks Phil – I’m glad there are folks out there such as Chris Mooney, you and many more opening up people’s eyes.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Alan,
I don’t think Mooney (nor I) objects so much to the fact that the appointees are cronies as to their elevation of politics above the proper functioning of the the agencies under their purview.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Alan,
Well, I am sure that none of us were alive during “The Gilded Age”, but I would assume that most of us have lived through the tenures of other presidents, both Republican and Democratic. Why did I never feel the same way during any of their times in office as I do during President Bush’s? I never felt that Ronald Reagan was making a concerted effort to suppress scientific inquiry, so I know that my feelings are not merely the result of party affiliation, and I do not feel that every president has been the same in this regard.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Phil, aka Bad Astronomer, thanks for pointing this out.
And to those who say ‘how is this different, blah blah blah’, may I state the obvious: the present administration takes disregard of science to new heights (or ‘lows’, rather) orders of magnitude worse than the rest.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
MC,
You must have a tough time on dates.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
There is in fact only one superlative in the entire paragraph (“broadest”).
The reason the press has neglected the suppression of science under Dubya is most likely that the press is nearly entirely scientifically illiterate.
One particular gem:
“They say the food gives you energy, but they don’t tell you the energy is calories” (heard on local (Wash DC) broadcast news)
Science has now, in many people’s minds, become one opinion among many.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
MC, if you want evidence you can go here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/
August 20th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
MC,
I apologize for my insensitive post at 3:31 pm. I guess a better reply would be that there are different types of situations. I enjoyed the paragraph, and I agree with Moody’s point. I like the way he chooses his words and crafts his sentences. All in all, I’m all aglow and ready for dinner.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
The guy’s writing a newspaper article probably limited to a certain number of words, not trying to get a paper published in Nature.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
a good example is the mess of the nasa’s hansen reports…
August 21st, 2007 at 12:52 am
MC – Mooney’s written a whole book on the subject (“The Republican War on Science”). You’ll find the details in there and if you don’t agree with him you can always duke it out with him on his blog.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:58 am
While you’re at it, you might like to advertise the rally in Washington DC organized by ImpeachBush.org et al. for September 15th. It appears that the White House is keen to hush it up, what with General Petraeus’ report and all.
They seem so keen to hush it up, in fact, that they slapped a $10,000 fine on one of the organizing groups, with the threat of more to come, for sticking up posters to promote the event.
I understand that posters have been put up before for earlier demonstrations. They conform to the government regulations and are, apparently, completely legal.
Isn’t this prosecution against the First Amendment?
–
August 21st, 2007 at 6:16 am
BaldApe said:
“There is in fact only one superlative in the entire paragraph (â€broadestâ€).”
While “nothing” and “everything” technically may not be superlatives, they are used in this context to pronounce broad conclusions which the author fails to support by specific citations and references. In the rest of the article, the author does go on to cite fairly specific examples of his case: it would be helpful if he cited source documents as well.
But it’s a newspaper column, not a term paper. Columnists rarely provide a bibliography for their comments. If this write up was a term paper, the author would be in hot water. Since it’s a newspaper column, we can just argue about who agrees or disagrees with him, and not let facts interfere with our fun…
August 21st, 2007 at 6:52 am
I certainly agree with Chris Moody about the gross anti-intellectualism of the Bush administration. Unfortunately while things will be different in 2009, I don’t see anyone running for president with much of a track record for vision.
For now we will have to look more closely at who we send to congress and make sure we stay in contact with these people who might actually listen to us. The presidents in the recent past only look to opinion polls.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:18 am
Gosh, BA, I thought you said you were tired! I, for one, don’t think there’s anything wrong with you discussing politicky stuff on here, although space is usually where I go for escapism and to be happy, metaphorically speaking, of course. In 2009, back from the abyss, and onward to the moon!
August 21st, 2007 at 7:39 am
David Tyler: Unfortunately while things may be different in 2009, I don’t see anyone running for president with much of a track record for vision.
Remember, though, Moody only addresses one issue – suppression of science. President Bush’s treatment of this one issue seems to me to be singular among presidents in my lifetime at least. We don’t need an exceptional president to rectify this one problem – a typical, or even just nonsingular one, will do.
So many people merge this issue into their whole list of all the many other things that they are either for or against. I never thought of suppression of science as being either a more liberal or a more conservative stance. I don’t know whether science flourished more under Reagan than Clinton or Clinton than Reagan, more under Ford than Carter or Carter than Ford.
I wish everybody could divorce this one particular issue (encouragement vs. suppression of science) from what almost resembles a team sport, with the “liberals” supporting all the “liberal” viewpoints, and the “conservatives” supporting all the “conservative” viewpoints. I wish this situation had not devolved into the maw of partisanship. Any well-run company, faced with a major decision, tries to ascertain the facts as accurately as possible. Could we just not treat this as a pro-Bush or anti-Bush or Republican or Democratic or liberal or conservative issue?
August 21st, 2007 at 8:34 am
MC, sorry to hear you’ve been living in a cave for six years. Welcome back to society, and I hope you can find the information you’re looking for which the rest of us have been watching as it comes out.
Again, welcome back.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:46 am
For those wondering why we should or how we could impeach the Bush, I include this readers post to an Impeachment article. It’s pretty succinct.
GAry 7
Constitutional Rights and Checks & Balances Posted by: IrregardlessNH
on Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:48 pm
Since when did the Bill of Rights and Constitutional checks and balances become a controversial partisan issue? Throwing the violators of our Constitution out of office is no longer the point. They’ll be gone in 2009. But unless the Constitutional remedy of impeachment for their assaults is invoked as REQUIRED by the Founders, future presidents, both Democratic, Republican and other will inherit these unchecked powers. One of the comments stated that the administration committed inexcusable blunders, but not impeacheable offenses. How about:
1-Intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, and intentionally conspiring with others to defraud Congress in this regard. These actions are not just criminal in a rhetorical sense. They are felonies, violating the federal anti-conspiracy statute and the False Statements Accountability Act.
2-Ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, as required by law, specifically, Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805. Bush has openly confessed to this crime but claims to have the right as president to commit it. The right of a president to secretly violate the laws of Congress, while lying to the public about it, does not exist in the US Constitution. The right of the same president to continue his criminal behavior after it’s discovered is also not to be found in US law.
3-Conspiring to commit the torture of prisoners. Bush and Cheney say they do not torture. The evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise. This crime violates the “Federal Torture Act” Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C. It also violates the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which are U.S. law under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which makes treaties ratified by the US part of US law.
4-Ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge, and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
5-The President has recently issued an Executive Order authoriziing him to take over any and all branches of government and private companies in the event of his declaring a national emergency.
Wake up! This is the rise of totalitarianism. If it is permitted to stand, it will be the end of America as we know it. This is not a partisan issue. Senator Dodd is dead wrong. America – love it (defend it) or lose it. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance!
August 21st, 2007 at 10:04 am
BaldApe: “The reason the press has neglected the suppression of science under Dubya is most likely that the press is nearly entirely scientifically illiterate.”
Maybe. But let’s not forget that the same global corporations that are funding this administration’s campaigns are the same ones who own virtually all the news outlets in America. And the last thing they want is an educated, informed American public.
A cowering, obedient populace serves their needs MUCH better.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:41 am
Technically, under the U.S. Constitution, the President is allowed to waive Habeas Corpus during wartime. SCOTUS later ruled that they couldn’t, but the argument could be made that he does have this right since congress did invoke the War Powers act.
All your other examples are valid to the best of my knoweldge, and I am sure there are many others as well.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Newsflash! Some guy criticizes a President everyone already hates! Sycophants orgasm in glee! Various alarmist predictions concerning Evil Empirism and Dirty Filthy Corporations put forth! Much heat generated, but no sign of light! Film at 11, or not.
Politics! Where skepticism goes to die! Wheee!
August 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I seem to have a problem with the concept of impeachment. My reservations formed when the Republican Congress tried to impeach Bill Clinton, so I don’t think I can be accused of partisanship now that those qualms extend to the question of impeaching George Bush.
My hesitancy begins with the fact that the people elected the President – he was their choice through whatever combination of circumstances, but that, no matter what the justification, it is members of the opposing party who are attempting to unseat him or her, to in a sense (in my mind) steal the position from the people who elected this person.
I am aware that the constitution specifies the procedure for impeachment, but would anyone really suppose that either Bill Clinton or George Bush would be impeached by members of his own party?
I would call impeachment of a President by members of the opposing party, almost no matter how convincingly rationalized, opportunistic at best.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I’ve been reading a book (“Burn Before Reading”) by former DCI Stansfield Turner looking at the way presidents have been interacting with intelligence. Though science is not the same as intelligence, scientific information is still something the president must act upon at times. I haven’t reached the section on this president yet, but so far it seems that there are two categories of presidents. One category, including the likes of Truman and Eisenhower preferred dispassionate analysis and information uncolored by political considerations, and based their decisions on the information they had. Others like LBJ and Nixon would actually send intelligence reports back to meeker DCIs who would change them to justify increased spending or involvement, so they could then show them to congress. The fact is when the evidence doesn’t lie, the president always does.
We, as mature dispassionate analysts of scientific evidence amateur and pro alike, know how things go as far as global warming is concerned.
As for what TheBlackCat said, “Technically, under the U.S. Constitution, the President is allowed to waive Habeas Corpus during wartime.”
Technically, no. The constitution specifies in the cases of *rebellion* or *invasion*. If this were the war of 1812, or even the Civil War (despite SCOTUS) I’d agree, but it isn’t.
For a book on that subject, I recommend “In the Name of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power And the Reynolds Case”. It shows that Bush is not the first, the fact is presidents don’t throw away powers given to them by previous ones.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Interesting that the focus is on one man. I question: is there ANYBODY in power – in any of the three legs of our government – who isn’t a self-serving, lying sack of bovine excrement? Is there a single one of these individuals who actually listens to his constituents instead of doing what he “thinks is best for them”?
Sure, the president is the most visible – but I suggest that it may well be time to tell the whole structure that they work for US, not the other way around. Vote them ALL out of office and see what happens.
(and, though I don’t think it’s ever been used, I am STRONGLY in favor of “a vote of None of the Above”. I am increasingly sorry our founding fathers didn’t include that)
August 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Ibrahim,
During WWII FDR clearly suspended the rights of many US citizens and there was no invasion or rebellion.
Executive Order 9066
August 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
jrkeller,
Are you suggesting that FDR and GB were both wrong, or are you suggesting that they were both right or are you suggesting neither?
August 21st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Lurchgs: is there ANYBODY in power – in any one of the three legs of our government – who isn’t a self-serving, lying sack of bovine excrement?
Yes.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
jrkeller,
On rereading Ibrahim’s post, I see that you were supplying an example for his last paragraph and weren’t necessarily implying anything beyond that.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Brian,
What you said is what I was implying. I you look through the various executive orders you will see plenty of constitutional questionable orders or those that violate existing laws.
For example, FDR siezed coal mines, the railroads, and the rubber industry. He also increased the work week to 48 hours.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:27 am
I believe FDR also invoked the War Powers Act during the depression, in order to deal with that bag of worms unimpeded and as far as I know, the WPA was never rescinded, allowing succeeding presidents to exercise exceptional power. We’ve essentially been on the slippery slop to Imperium for nearly 70 years. I am put in mind of the decline and fall of the roman empire. It (the Republic) didn’t fall in a day. It actually took centuries. As far as our US of A is concerned, I expect the FAll will take a LOOOONG time. Slow enough that citizens will not feel the boiling until it’s to late to do anything but run or die,,,
Hopefully, by then we’ll have somewhere to run to,,,(ok, I admit it, I’m a SPACE NUT,,,)
GAry 7
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Gary,
WPA stands for Works Progress Administration, which provided jobs and income for the unemployed during the Great Depression. Most of the jobs involved building infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and libraries. The War Powers Act was signed in 1973.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 am
[...] previous post, a commenter took me (and by proxy, Chris Mooney) to task for not providing citations in accusations of [...]
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
It’s okay, Gary Ansorge, I’m a SPACE NUT, too. In the future, our exploration NOW of places we will THEN live will matter more than any of our wars, or other fobiles. I sometimes have a daydream of children in a school on Mars. The two most important names from our era that they learn are Spirit and Oppertunity.