In previous post, a commenter took me (and by proxy, Chris Mooney) to task for not providing citations in accusations of political hackery of the Bush Administration. That’s a fair cop, so I will elaborate.
I have many examples of such behavior by the White House in this blog, including the hackalicious George Deutsch, who tried to undermine science at NASA. A search on his name will provide spectacular examples of how this Bush demagogue ham-fistedly tried to insert religion into NASA.
Looking around the web, I found another fine example. Bush has undermined regulations to make it harder to put lead in children’s toys and lunchboxes. Lunchboxes! That article has citations and quotations from experts. Bush has repeatedly and with malice aforethought put incompetent lobbying boobs into positions of not only power, but also where their incompetence or shilling for corporations has put people in direct risk.
Or how about the guy who’s going to oversee the investigation of the recent Utah mine disaster? Richard Stickler is the Mine and Health Safety Administrator, and when he was a mine executive, his mines had twice the national average of accidents. Guess what? Bush appointee. In fact, he was a recess appointment, since Bush couldn’t get this guy past even the Republican congressmen.
Remember Katrina? Heckuva job, Brownie. Or do a search on how the EPA is doing. Or General Petraeus’s surge report. Or how the White House created "’asset deployment’ meetings held to discuss the use of federal resources to promote the reelection of President Bush and Republicans in Congress" (which is very, very illegal). Or the Undersecretary of Natural Resources and Environment, Mark Rey, who was a former logging industry lobbyist and who is now under fire for allowing the Forestry Service to dump a flame retardant on a fire that killed up to 20,000 fish in Oregon in 2003, and also for blocking a review of that event by a court of law.
Had enough?
Sure, I’m a scientist, and I make it known when I think science is under attack. But this White House, this Administration, George Bush, is destroying far more than just science. He’s killing all of us, and it really seems to me that he cares far more about who gave him money and who can help him consolidate his power as unitary executive than who can do a good job.
And don’t give me that static about "every President does it". Every President does not. I refer you again to this article where Clinton appointed a consumer advocate as head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Someone who cared for people over corporations? Quelle damage! And in this current Administration, quelle impossible.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 am
Typical. The horrors of this administration almost leave me numb to their actions. After all it is almost relentless. Topics like this really get my ire up and give me ammo to argue with foolish family members. Keep up the good work. Till logic and reason prevail.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 am
[...] House Bush political hackery puts kids at risk » This article link is from an article posted at Bad Astronomy Blog on Thursday, August 23, 2007 [...]
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 am
[...] Forest University Bush political hackery puts kids at risk » This article link is from an article posted at Bad Astronomy Blog on Thursday, August 23, 2007 [...]
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 am
> Quelle damage!
Quellcrista Falconer would have to say something about it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:26 am
You give Bush far too much credit. This is classic cheap-ass republican, where everything is measured in short term dollars and cents.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 am
I am not a US citizen, but US being the hundred pound gorilla in the community of nations, I do keep an eye on US affairs. And I am very curious – if Congress can commence impeachment proceedings against Clinton for alleged perjury and obstruction of justice, why doesn’t there seem to be even any talk of impeachment against Bush if even some of what the media (and yourself) say can be substantiated?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:55 am
There’s no talk in Congress of impeachment because the Democrats are (a) in a slender majority in the House and no majority in the Senate (49-49-2) and there’s no way Lieberman will go for impeachment if all Democrats did, and (b) not all the Democrats, especially in the House, are in favor of it anyway, since a lot of them support the president so see (a), both of which means that Pelosi and Reid feel that it’s a losing proposition to start. They’re also afraid of the vitriolic and virulent right-wing media machine manipulated by the administration – see the recent votes which were motivated by the cries of “traitor! terrorist-lovers!”
In short: more Americans want impeachment than Congressmen.
It’s a sad situation. I personally think they should talk about it – loudly and often – because nothing else seems to be stopping these criminals.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 am
Linguistics is a science too, and it hurts to see french mangled so :
Quel dommage !
‘damage’ translates in french as ‘dommage’ and is masculine so needs ‘quel’ and not ‘quelle’ (feminine).
Quelle impossibilité !
‘impossible’, in french, is an adjective or adverb and can’t be nominalised as easily as in english.The corresponding name is ‘impossibilité’ (feminine) so the quelle is justified.
Not that it invalidates in any way the content of the article which is interesting, but I think mangling a foreign language to look smart is most counterproductive.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 am
Euterpe, check http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=149269&zoneid=35 it’s a good summary of the situation.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 am
CS: Thanks for the link! Very informative!
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:48 am
“Every President does not”
should read,
“Not every president does.”
The first statement implies that even the current president, whom you are criticizing, does not do “it” either.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:12 am
shoeshine boy,
The style of the passage is colloquial.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 am
[...] at Bad Astronomy, Phil has made a post which gathers together some specific citations of the damage directly caused by GW Bush & C… by ignoring science and political [...]
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 am
Ha ha, yes, you must get every word exactly right, because obviously the message isn’t getting through otherwise.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 am
Oh, and please let us not forget Julie MacDonald’s lovely little career as a science censor for the administration. John Dennehy has a fairly recent update on the skeletons falling out of her closet, to the tune of a $9,628 “thank you” gift, just under the limit for triggering a review.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:42 am
THIS is why I love your blog!
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:54 am
Thanks, BA – as I said in my previous post to which you linked, I’m playing devil’s advocate on this.
I honestly hadn’t gone back and looked at the replies to my post until now, but they were fun(ny). Probably 80% against me (I didn’t count, this is a gut guess), which I expected, but of those, a vast majority were ad hominem attacks. (I particularly liked the assertion that I live in a cave, and that from someone in /Iowa/. Oh, the irony. (Ok, that was me being nasty back, I apologize.))
Anyway, a few other broad categories of responses:
* I was wrong in my use of “superlative”. Maybe so, but, like another poster mentions, the use of “everything” and “nothing” certainly fulfills the same purpose.
* It’s a newpaper article and not a scientific paper. Alll-right, fair enough. Then don’t use it as anything but an opinion piece. It’s ok to use as factual when it supports you, but not so much that it requires references? C’mon guys, I know you are better than that.
* A few people gave me further places to look, even BA (thanks!), but then soiled the sentiment it with passive/aggressive nonsense like “Had enough?”, “If you don’t agree, duke it out on his blog”, and so forth. The whole POINT of these blog entries is “don’t let passion get in the way of objective research/science/(provable) truth/etc.”, right? Physician, heal thyself.
But, for the links and recommendations, I thank those of you that provided them.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Euterpe, Congress did not merely commence impeachment proceedings against Clinton. They impeached him. Not even Nixon let things go that far before resigning in disgrace. If Clinton had had the integrity of Nixon, then there would have been a President Gore before the 2000 elections.
And it wasn’t for “alleged” perjury and obstruction of justice. The impeachment proceedings are legal proceedings, and Clinton was convicted. For Clinton, that was probably the best possible result, considering that he committed perjury (and incited others to do so) to avoid being charged with rape.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 am
bush is anything but a “classic” republican.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 am
The Bush administration is also attacking another science — psychology. They’ve come up with the final solution for American soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder: simply declare that they were already mentally ill before they were recruited, so that it’s not the government’s problem.
This from Bush, who, when he was of age to serve, was a cowardly, drug-addled deserter. (Not that that’s stopped him from beating the drums for total victory in Vietnam, now that he’s nice and safe!)
The traitors must be impeached!
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:13 am
Phil, I admire your passion and agree completely. But you are wasting your time; the Republican faithful simply do not care what this man does. He is a Republican and that is all they care about. People can die, the Constitution can be shredded and they simply do not care. They will never care; only party loyalty matters to these people.
Bush doesn’t even pretend not to be in the pocket of the corporate lobbyists…after all, God wants him to be president (that’s what he said) so God must approve of everything he does.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
Ed Minchau, you don’t appear to understand what impeachment is. Impeachment is somewhat like a grand jury trial. It’s purpose is not to determine whether someone has or has not done something wrong specifically, it is to determine whether there is sufficient cause to determine whether someone has or has not done something wrong. It was determined that there was sufficient cause, but it was determined that he had not done anything wrong enough to be removed from office.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 am
The only problems I have with saying Bush has acted “with malice aforethrought” are:
1 – Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
2 – “Aforethought” requires “thought”.
And, while it may be (partly) true that “every president does it”, the “it” only applies to “appoints cronies”. Most presidents will at least appoint someone who is capable of doing the job, even if they’re not the best candidates. Bush appears to be of the mindset of “a position openned up — who’s next on the ‘I owe him one’ list?”
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 am
> [...] George Bush, is destroying far more than just science. He’s killing all of us [...]
Your rhetoric self-impeaches.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 am
Here’s the Bush administration’s latest attempt at suppressing scientific evidence of global warming. Thank goodness Judge Armstrong saw their folly. “U.S. Told to Issue Global Warming Plans” http://www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2007/08/22/745740.html
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
For Clinton, that was probably the best possible result, considering that he committed perjury (and incited others to do so) to avoid being charged with rape.
Just wow. So you’re actually accusing Clinton of having *raped* Monica Lewinsky?
On further investigation, I see. It appears you get your news from places like NewsMax and WorldNetDaily. Places that love to put together narratives about evil democrats, and wonderful republicans.
If you really like reading news from the lunatic fringe, I strongly suggest you read lunatic fringe blogs that you disagree with as well.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Two suggestions:
If you don’t like how the president uses his power, then elect congressmen with the guts to make decisions, instead of congressmen that abdicate and then bitch about the results. The president hasn’t seized any power that congress didn’t freely give him.
If you don’t like how federal offices are used or abused, then vote to eliminate those offices. Not one of the positions listed here is necessary at a federal level for society to function. Why make science, or safety, or health, vulnerable to politics in the first place?
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Go to a Lunatic Fringe blog? Until recently, I might have thought that to be a legitimate statement. However, if all this political drivel continues to spew out of BA’s mouth, I will have to reconsider my opinion of the BA blog when it comes to Lunatic Fringe.
BA should stay out of politics on his blog, as he gets far too emotional and loses his patented objectivity. I believe, if he continues down this path, he will damage his otherwise stellar reputation.
And truly, it doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong in his assertions, nor does it matter whether he has citations to back them up. What matters is the tone of his rhetoric, and it it beginning to “sound” more and more frenetic.
And I think he should know better.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
I tried, Will, I tried! I voted for Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary in connecticut, and he won! He beat the Democratic incumbent, Joe Leiberman, a Bush apologist. Then Leiberman ran as an independent, and all the Republicans dropped their candidate to vote for Leiberman.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
There are plenty of good reasons why the BA sounds frenetic.
Bush is scaring the hell out of a lot of people, and not just in the US.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
BA: He’s killing all of us….
Frank Ch. Eigler: Your rhetoric self-impeaches.
I think Frank has you there, BA. Bush, so far, has only really killed some of us.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
Mike: You’re welcome to depart. I personally, will not miss you.
Gary 7
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Ed Minchau said, “The impeachment proceedings are legal proceedings, and Clinton was convicted.”
Unless the subterranean depths of Gehennom have reported a blizzard recently or porcine flight has been achieved Clinton was never convicted. Impeached yes, convicted no. Indeed assertions that Clinton perjured himself at this point are libelous, even if no one objects. While Clinton was in office I was never a fan, even now the best I can say about him is that he was better than Bush, but facts are facts.
As for Mike, I really don’t think you should be telling someone what do with their blog, it’s not nice, and more importantly it’s juvenile. Disagree at will, but last I checked you are not the “content provider”. The fact is that the BA is making a case and defending it with available evidence. If that’s not scientific, I don’t know what is.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
Reading this blog does not change my opinion about the president. I’m not particularly happy with the current state of affairs, but any politics-related post here is so over the top (“killing all of us”? Please) I sense very little interest in objectivity. The comments get downright comical to me, and I rarely have anything to add.
Let me propose looking at this scientifically. If someone made a claim that ANYTHING in science was unprecedented (like, in this case, the unprecedented actions of our President), one of the first things that would be questioned is the measurement method.
I propose that a complicating factor in all of this is the increased scrutiny allowed through independent research by the now internet-enabled public. That is the new measurement method of any political action today. When a new measurement method is introduced in science, there’s always the possibility that the method is wrong (unlikely that all of it is wrong in this case) or measuring things which weren’t seen or weren’t reported before (this is my theory). Congress is not fairing well (under another party’s leadership, I might add) either under this new scrutiny. Groups such as Porkbusters (.org) are pushing for more transparency in the earmark process within Congress, and either as direct or indirect result, their approval ratings are down to historic lows. Some of these groups are chasing valid problems; others (at times created by a candidate or party…though they’re rapidly found out) are deliberately trying to undermine a particular officeholder or idea. The largest group, I think, are people looking to reinforce their already strongly-held opinions.
So, while this President and Congress aren’t the first to carry out questionable actions while in office, they are the first to do so in the rapidly developing and changing glare of increased public scrutiny. I think increased public scrutiny is a good thing, and I’m in favor of reasoned debate over discoveries made in such a process. That kind of debate will produce new ideas.
In my opinion, posts here and responses to them don’t count as reasoned debate.
I look forward to thoughtful responses.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 am
[...] Continues Its War On Science Tying in with this article by the BadAstronomer about the war on Science by the George W. Bush Administration, allow me to add an update to one of [...]
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 am
Thanks CS and Ed Minchau for the information. I thought Clinton was acquitted though of the charges by the Senate, because if convicted he would be removed from his position, no? But he was cited by civil contempt of court – see Wikipedia summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
You guys have an intriguing system – you try so hard to put in checks and balances, and have separation of powers etc etc, but sometimes the results of all these are just baffling to an outsider.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 am
It seems you can only choose to impeach Bush or to blindly follow him. I guess I was mistaken to think I had more options. I thought Phil had a good idea, we can start a list of all the bad bureaucracy done under every President. I thought I’d start on Clinton, being the preceding prez, but got distracted by on article on Marvin Lewis’ surgery and this one in newsweek; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20381551/site/newsweek/
Personally, from what I’ve seen so far, I’m not expecting much from the next president either.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Thanks to The Ridger too!
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Ibrahim,
If I were going to tell the BA to stay out of politics, I would have said, “BA, stay out of politics.” THAT is telling someone to stay out. I didn’t say that, because I agree that is not within my purview. What I was offering was an opinion. “BA should stay out of politics” is my opinion, not an order. I then followed up my opinion with what I believe the result will be if he does continue down the political path.
Incidentally, the subject of politics could have been any other subject. You’ll notice that I did not say that he was right or wrong. I have avoided that. What I did say is that the tone of his political entries goes against his normal, entertainng, logical approach. He could have been talking about Tiddlywinks in this manner, and I would have the same opinion.
If you think, therefore, that offering my opinion is “not nice,” then you are just plain wrong. Offering an opinion is never “not nice.” It is only an opinion, after all…IMO
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Well said Tom.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
Okay, so I don’t particularly like defending the R’s; however, lumping the current neocons in the Bush administration (and the seemingly intellectually-challenged GWBII) with ALL Republicans is far too generalizing a condemnation of the GOP. While I agree that the current Republican members of the Congress for the most part are (and have been) in the grasp of the far right wing of their party, still not ALL of them are blindly following this faction, just as not all of the R’s in the country continue to support Bush’s (and the neocon’s) war mongering – at least not now, given the polls which cite 68% of the country against the continuation of this war. Remember, Ms. Clinton only yesterday cited her support for the “surge,” showing her true middle-of-the-road, please everybody, keep the war profiteers and big campaign donors happy attitude. There is enough shame to go around for all the current Dems, including the seemingly gutless Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who refuse to bring impeachment proceedings to a vote, in spite of the 41 Blue Dog Democrats who would most surely vote against such a measure.
Impeachment as a symbol of upholding democratic and Constitutional principles – in spite of the fear of a likely failure – is something none of these hard-core pols in the Democratic party are willing to undertake.
As for the unchecked and rampant politicization of the government: this is in keeping with the neocon’s overall strategy of making the federal government irrelevant by privatizing its public agencies, by appointing unqualified hacks or special interest shills to head critical agencies, by shrinking budgets, by destroying via neglect or cancellation the social programs begun with the Roosevelt administration and continued by H. Truman (and even Nixon), and especially for the idea that the U.S. should become the most feared nation on the planet. From No Child Left Behind to the assault on Social Security, to the fiasco that has become the FDA’s watchdog role, this administration must take responsibility for the shambles that has tarnished our image with the rest of the world, squandered our resources to prosecute an illegal war, and sent thousands of Iraqis and over 3,600 of our young men and women to their graves, while leaving so many others maimed, both physically and mentally, for life.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
@ Ken,
Personally, I’m good with impeachment. No further choices are necessary for me.
That is after all, the proper recourse for credible accusations that the PotUS has broken the law. There are certainly plenty of those, and as I have said before, were I to be elected the next PotUS, His Holiness, The Glorified Houseplant Who Would Be Caesar would be leaving my inauguration platform in handcuffs.
First stop, Congress. Next stop, The Hague.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Mike,
I sympathize with what you are saying. For whatever combination of reasons, political discussions sometimes make people angry. BA is a complete human being with a full complement of attitudes and feelings, and he likes to express himself.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Brian,
Agreed. I only hope that BA’s expressions do not harm his excellent reputation.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Tom,
In my opinion, posts here and responses to them don’t count as reasoned debate.
You are right – about the responses anyway. Most (or all) of us are just here for recreation. We post whatever we feel like posting (just as BA apparently does). Some posts are intended to be funny, others to be illuminating; some are polite, some are rude. It’s a potpourri.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Mike: I only hope that BA’s expressions do not harm his excellent reputation.
In the political domain, science should be more like a referee than a player. By expressing strong liberal political viewpoints, BA runs the risk that his views on scientific matters like global warming, views which are objective, will get conflated in peoples’ minds with his political views, which, despite his apparent certainty, are subjective and involve value judgements. Many people may then assume that his views on global warming, for instance, stem from his political outlook, which they don’t.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
(Changing my displayed name, as there is another “Ken” here.)
I don’t think BA is “getting into politics” here, at least not directly. The only “political” postings that I recall have all been about how politics is affecting science. I don’t recall postings about war or foreign affairs, for example.
This entry is the closest to a “political entry”, but it sounds like it was triggered by previous posts which talked about the science part of things, and left implied Phil’s general feelings about Bush.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
ZOMG! Weesa all goings to dieeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!x10^9
>>> Bush has undermined regulations to make
>>> it harder to put lead in children’s toys and
>>> lunchboxes.
Eeek! It grand intercontinent conspiracy to make the chillduns into biologikal bullet factory!
>>> Lunchboxes!
LUNCHBOXES! WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK O DA CHILLDUNS!?
>>> allowing the Forestry Service to dump a
>>> flame retardant on a fire that killed up to
>>> 20,000 fish in Oregon in 2003,
Oh noes! They should have left fire burn! Fire am endangered species!
>>> He’s killing all of us,
OH NOES!!!!!! Me dying right now! I gots the vapors. Oh deary, deary me! (Swoon)
>>> Had enough?
NO WAY! Give ‘em hell, Phil! Fives billions angry political ranting threadz on teh interwebz isn’t enough! We needz fives billions and ones.
But seriously…
>>> If you don’t like how the president uses his
>>> power, then elect congressmen with the
>>> guts to make decisions
We can’t. The American voter has been gerrymandered into a position of irrelevance. And when I use the word “Gerrymander” with typical voters, I get glazed looks of confusion. People don’t even know.
>>> If you don’t like how federal offices are
>>> used or abused, then vote to eliminate those
>>> offices. Not one of the positions listed here is
>>> necessary at a federal level for society to
>>> function. Why make science, or safety, or health,
>>> vulnerable to politics in the first place?
Because the Libertarian candidates never win. And people here who think the Democrats are going to magically make it all better need to hand in their skeptics badges and decoder rings, and be forces to wear a scarlet I. That’s stands for Idiot or Ideologue. They are synonyms in my book.
But, oh, wait until the Democrats get control of Congress again! Just you wait- oh, wait a minute… hmm…
>>> however, lumping the current neocons in the
>>> Bush administration (and the seemingly
>>> intellectually-challenged GWBII) with ALL
>>> Republicans is far too generalizing a
>>> condemnation of the GOP.
Blasphemer! Heretic! Kill the unbeliever! Kill!!!!
>>> I’m not expecting much from the next
>>> president either.
Me neither. On the GOP side we have Yet Another Religious Doof (Romney), an annoying New Yawk guy (Guliani) and a host of other dumb white guys. And this is coming from a white guy (hopefully not dumb). Only Ron Paul evokes any intrest from me.
On the Dem side we have Hillary the megalomanic sociopath. If you don;t understand why I call her that, you have NOT been paying attention to reality. Then there’s the godamnned trial lawyer John “I’m So Pretty” Edwards. Bleah… The only point of light over there is that Obama came out in favor of nuclear power, but as far as I can tell he’s just another Big Gummint guy, too. I’m always suspicious of any politicain described as a “great speaker”. So are used car salesmen and other scam artists.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
The problem is that Impeachment of Bush is a losing scenario for the Democrats.
One of the big issues with the Impeachment of Clinton was that it was seen by many people as “politics gone wild”, the Republicans stooping to new lows to get Clinton out of office. Come on, impeaching him over a blow job (or whether or not he would admit to a blow job in front of the American public)? While Hillary Clinton received a lot of flack for her “vast right-wing conspiracy” remark, it was not completely unfounded, merely poorly worded. It is documented that there were numerous conservative Republicans working with similar goals to malign Clinton’s character. (See Richard Mellon Scafe.) Certainly Clinton did not use the best judgment, but he hardly did anything to violate the people’s trust.
But here’s the problem for the Democrats. After that, any attempt to Impeach Bush will be regarded in some circles as “retribution”, exactly the same kind of dirty politics played in reverse. The Right-wing rumor mongers would spin that so hard as to make Earth wobble on its axis.
It will take a staggeringly huge act of deliberate malfeasance on the part of Bush before it will be politically viable for the Democratic leadership to advocate impeachment. Quite apart from the fact that the office of President should be viewed with a certain amount of respect and thus require gross injustice before impeachment is considered. It’s a certain amount of patriotism and protection for the office of President.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
>>> I don’t think BA is “getting into politics†here,
>>> at least not directly
This was fine as it had actual science content.
Phil just needs to calm down a bit and watch the Bush clock.
http://www.backwardsbush.com/?gclid=CL7Qn7iqjI4CFRPdPgod_xZCDA
The firey rhetoric is tiresome. Every generation likes to think it’s fighting the ULTIMATE BATTLE FOR LIFE AND LIBERTY! Sorry, but the Founding Father’s generation sort of have a lock on that title for the foreseeable future. Maybe the WW2 and Civil War generations can claim ties.
The Republic has withstood FAR worse threats. We will survive this, and maybe even learn a lesson or two.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
That’s twice you have gone off on a partisan rant in less than a week. I used to come here for ASTRONOMY news. Now I have to wade through your political nonsense.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Ken B,
I agree with you to a point. He diverged from the “science-related only” pattern (which I felt more comfortable with) in his post on August 15, entitled “Science, the White House, Iraq, and Iran.”
“Bush political hackery puts kids at risk” is really about GWB’s contempt for facts, but the language is sufficiently personalized and party-oriented that people may relate to it as a generalized political rant, even though it isn’t. Just read the responses above. Many of them extend beyond the questions about the suppression of science.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
test:
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
For numerous examples of political interference in science, fairly well-referenced, check the Union of Concerned Scientists listing:
http://ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html
Note that interference in previous administrations is acknowledged (as by Clinton’s Surgeon-General, Satcher (and Reagan’s Koop), the general theme is that current levels of interference are unprecedented and unacceptable.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“That’s the way every president does it” is the worst possible example. Disregarding the fact that history does not remotely support the claim, it doesn’t matter if “every president does it”. In NO WAY does that make irresponsible behavior less outrageous, less unconscionable, or less unacceptable. There are no excuses, no free passes for incompetent behavior.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Quiet_Desperation says: “The American voter has been gerrymandered into a position of irrelevance. And when I use the word “Gerrymander†with typical voters, I get glazed looks of confusion. People don’t even know.”
Elbridge Thomas Gerry – A representative from Massachusetts during the revolutionary period, later the governor and eventually Vice President under James Madison. He is (in)famous for creating the process of re-drawing political districts to keep representatives in office. His own district was referred to in political cartoons as “Gerry’s Salamander” because of it’s bizarre shape. This was rapidly contracted to “Gerrymander” which is used as both an adjective and verb.
- Jack
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Irishman says: “Come on, impeaching him over a blow job?”
Despite the effort of Clinton apologists and revisionists, Clinton’s impeachment had nothing to do with Monica. It was for obstruction of justice, specifically lying to congress (a federal felony) and perjuring himself before a Federal Grand Jury (a federal felony).
This is exactly the same charge that the Nixon impeachment was to be based on.
- Jack
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Bush is a politician.
What do people expect?
Honor, Integrity, Conscience.
To become a politician, is to have those “glands” removed.
Folcrom
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
>>> To become a politician, is to have
>>> those “glands†removed.
It’s the process. Even in races where gerrymandering has no effect, like the presidential election, any candidate with common sense has been winnowed out even before the primaries.
And I can’t STAND the fact that some states get to go first. It’s a national office. The primaries should be at the same time. I’m just not buying the state’s rights arguemnt on this one. And the “oh, but then they can’t focus their campaigns” crowd can go cry me a river. This is the information age. They don’t need to focus on one state at a time, and it’ll prevent them from spining their message to local quirks.
Seriously, just put ME in charge, will you?
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
“This is exactly the same charge that the Nixon impeachment was to be based on.”
Except Nixon was lying about a criminal burglary and cover up committed by Republicans, for Republicans; Clinton was lying about a legal (if immoral–but cheating on one’s wife is not a crime) activity. Big difference.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Daffy says: “Except Nixon was lying about a criminal burglary and cover up committed by Republicans, for Republicans; Clinton was lying about a legal (if immoral–but cheating on one’s wife is not a crime) activity. Big difference.”
I believe (and I’m sure to be corrected if I’m wrong) the investigation was into illegal activities regarding the Whitewater scandal.
Even if it was over his relationship with Miss M., lying to Congress is still illegal. Nixon didn’t commit the burglaries, but he did lie to Congress. Clinton lied to Congress. Both committed the same illegal act regardless of the former activities that led to it.
- Jack
August 24th, 2007 at 7:14 am
A President that appoints someone because they believe in the President’s political stand?
The HORROR!
Impeach him!
Convict him!
Throw him out of office!
(But only when his political stand disagrees with mine.)
Science has become politics by other means.
Recently Steve McIntrye discovered an error. He had become curious about a jump in temperatures around the year 2000 in some USHCN sites.
He contacts NASA and asks for the data sets and computer codes so he can replicate what NASA did. He didn’t receive them. He then had to ‘reverse engineer’ what NASA did. He then told NASA what he thought they did wrong. NASA then changes the data without credit to McIntyre and McIntyre has to contact them about that oversite. McIntyre blogs about this and all hell breaks loose.
From Real Climate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
“Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear. ”
Rewrite:
Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000 and that he had analyzed it and had found that it looked like that there was a switch between two sources of US temperature data. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that his conclusions were correct.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Daffy,
“…the Republican faithful simply do not care what this man does.”
That’s not true. I’ve been one of the faithful since I became old enough to vote, and I’m truly ashamed of the things my chosen party has done since taking office. My biggest problem now is that, as far as the next presidential election is concerned, I don’t see a much better option on the other side, either.
And for those of you who complain every time BA writes about politics, one of the reasons my “faith” has been shaken is because of BA’s political writings (or rants, if you prefer).
For me, the political atmosphere has become so poisoned that I’m having a hard time finding someone I can support. Bloody hell…
August 24th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Brian,
You hit the nail on the head, as far as I’m concerned. I came to this site because I was interested in astronomy. Through this site and others, I became aware of the philosophical skeptics movement and found that I agreed with it wholeheartedly.
I loved the idea of using logical reasoning and pointing out the use of logical fallacies by people like creationists, ufologists, and other followers of any form of pseudoscience.
I find it disconcerting that the BA will apply good rigorous skeptical thinking when attacking pseudoscience, but falls victim to many of the same logical fallacies when attacking the political right and George Bush. These include, but often are not limited to blanket ad hominem attacks (“He’s killing us all!”, name-calling), and post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. Several posts back, he lamented the rise in gas prices as from a certain date, and tied that with the date GB took office. Post hoc rationalization.
I appreciate a good debate, but I would love for it to take on the same character that is used when approaching pseudoscience. Use evidence (not that the BA doesn’t of course), and try to lay off the overwhelming ad hominem. It muddies the water.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the election of “professional politicians” would be the death of the Republic. His feeling was that ONLY amateurs should be in political office. I think he was right. Thus, I’m inclined to vote for Obamma, as he is the least “professional” of all those running.
GAry 7
August 24th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Jack Hagerty said:
> Despite the effort of Clinton apologists and revisionists, Clinton’s impeachment had nothing to do with Monica. It was for obstruction of justice, specifically lying to congress (a federal felony) and perjuring himself before a Federal Grand Jury (a federal felony).
Nothing to do with Monica is a stretch. Yes, the actions that were charges were lying to Congress and perjuring before a Federal Grand Jury. However, the lies were about getting a blow job from Monica.
> I believe (and I’m sure to be corrected if I’m wrong) the investigation was into illegal activities regarding the Whitewater scandal.
The original investigation began as a probe into Whitewater, and that was what Kenneth Starr was originally appointed to investigate. During investigation, Whitewater was not leading anywhere (he could never get conclusive dirt on Bill or Hillary), and the net widened to include the Paula Jones lawsuit, and Clinton’s involvement with Monica and how that may or may not have been relevant to the Paula Jones case.
In the end, there was never any evidence or suggestion that Clinton lied about Whitewater. The obstruction of justice charges did not pertain to Whitewater. The obstruction charges were about the Monica blowjob and Clinton’s lawyeresque parsing of “sexual relations” as a euphamism for sexual intercourse vs sexual activity. Clinton felt he was safely in the realm of ambiguity where he could imply no sexual activity but answer the question by saying he did not have sexual intercourse. Ultimately, the Senate and the judge in the Paula Jones case both disagreed. Also, the American people seem to have thought him especially smarmy for that attempt.
Look, I don’t particularly care to defend Clinton. I think he should have kept his zipper up and showed better judgement. But that’s been his character flaw all along, that and his penchant for lawyering excuses (“I didn’t inhale”). Still, nothing he did in my mind warranted the attention of an Impeachment hearing. The Senate ended up agreeing that he would not be kicked out of office. It all boils down to weaseling over a blowjob.
Bill H said:
> A President that appoints someone because they believe in the President’s political stand?
That’s not what the complaints are about. The complaints are about the blatant disregard for, interference with, and corruption of science to further that political agenda.
I don’t know the relevance of the rest of your post.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Didn’t see this earlier:
Kevin said:
> For Clinton, that was probably the best possible result, considering that he committed perjury (and incited others to do so) to avoid being charged with rape.
> Just wow. So you’re actually accusing Clinton of having *raped* Monica Lewinsky?
I thought he was saying that, too, but after closer examination, I believe he was referring to the Paula Jones sexual harrassment suit. Clinton lied about a blow job from Monica in testimony to a Grand Jury regarding what he did or didn’t do to Paula Jones.
Will said:
> The president hasn’t seized any power that congress didn’t freely give him.
That’s false on the face of it. This President has shown a pattern of trying to assert Presidential powers into new areas. Like “signing statements”, whereby he signs laws approved by Congress with an additional statement by himself interpreting them to be the opposite of what the law says. Like his insistence on Policy meetings between Cheney and oil companies as being privileged and refusing to hand over records to Congress. Like his broad interpretations and redefining of terms to allow indefinite holding of “enemy combatants” that aren’t “prisoners of war”, and use of aggressive interrogation techniques that are not “torture” because they aren’t life threatening and permanently disabiling.
> If you don’t like how federal offices are used or abused, then vote to eliminate those offices.
Right, the cure to corruption is to get rid of the office. Why don’t we just eliminate the office of the Presidency? Then we don’t have to worry about a President appointing incompetant cronies, giving false justifications to the American people, lying about blowjobs, getting Alzheimer’s so they don’t remember authorizing weapons deals with Iran to provide support to South American “freedom fighters”.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Irishman — you haven’t described a new or novel presidential power in any of your examples.
The signing statements have been used in this manner going back at least to Reagan, though I admit Bush has used them more than most. Congress could have addressed this with a proposed act (don’t remember the name of it, I believe it was authored by Specter) that would allow congress to challenge signing statements in court, but once again they failed to step up. I’m not arguing that the creep in presidential power in this case is good, I’m arguing that congress’ failure to do their job is the problem. Case in point – congress authorized the president to effectively go to war, without declaring war, thereby absolving themselves of responsibility.
The policy meeting privilege issue was raised during the Clinton administration regarding Hillary’s meetings with the health care reform panel, and the court found in her favor.
The POW issue is not a new one, and the president’s interpretation is not novel; note that the U.S. has not ratified Protocol I in all of this time (since 1979?) for this reason.
If you desire the congress to control or constrain the executive (careful how far you go with this one), you may need a constitutional amendment to do it – the constitution is not clear on this, and the supreme court has carefully avoided broad rulings here.
I never said eliminate branches of government, but I do absolutely say minimize their role to what is necessary for the nation to function.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Irishman,
Clinton entered into a conspiracy to obstruct justice in a civil law suit, in furtherance of that conspiracy he lied under oath several times about various things. He lied in answer to a question from his own lawyer. He got caught, tough luck.
Your post about what I wrote proves that science has become politics by other means.
I can think of legitimate reasons for the delay, even if I disagree with the delay.
The rest of my post was about scientists not telling the truth, telling half-truths and so on when it suits their politics.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
As one of the few conservatives that read this blog, I can tell you that we’re even more frustrated than you are. The man has betrayed every principle conservatives believe in: smaller and hence more effective government, fiscal discipline, prudent foreign policy, federalism, simpler and more effective regulation, respect for individual rights. They’ve confused tax-cutting with spending restraint; free markets with business cronyism; and thuggery with strong national defense.
Trust me, the anger among conservatives who have seen the light is greater than you can imagine (witness the Ron Paul boomlet). A blogger friend of mine said it best: Bush has made true everything liberals have ever said about conservatives.
What a waste.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Regarding Clintons impeachment charges of just a few years ago, Perjury and Obstruction of justice. Yes they used to be felonies but not anymore, now they are buzzings of the ‘little’ people. Witness Scooter Libby, witness Abu Gonzales, witness the Dickster, Karl Rove, Harriet Meyers, Bolton, Roberts, so many others who have been given free rein of the Justice system. This administration has no concept of accountabity for their actions. The contempt they show for the process of government in this country is truly criminal.
That anyone can defend their actions shows the myopia of the right. My side, right or wrong.
FSM help us.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Mike, JohnG,
I would keep coming here for the astronomy, if I were you, because BA does such an excellent job on that. You might also enjoy
http://www.bautforum.com which has wonderful discussions of scientific topics, particularly astronomy. The ba in bautforum is actually BA, who cosponsors the site. They have strict, I mean strict, strict, strict rules against rudeness, pugnacity, and politcal or (anti-)religious comments. First-timers are encouraged to read the rules, which are enforced politely but firmly by an outstanding group of moderators.
A pleasant, collegial relationship has evolved among the long-time users, so that it is easy for newcomers to adapt. You can even start your own threads, if you want.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Steve: “That’s not true. I’ve been one of the faithful since I became old enough to vote, and I’m truly ashamed of the things my chosen party has done since taking office. My biggest problem now is that, as far as the next presidential election is concerned, I don’t see a much better option on the other side, either.”
And yet you still imply you’ll keep voting the party line. And if you did switch, the people I am referring to would call you a traitor and worse.
My whole thesis has always been that we cannot let either party control both the White House and Congress. That way lies rampant corruption…as shown by the last 7 years or so.
There was a reason the budget was balanced in the 1990s…both parties canceled each other out.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Daffy,
I don’t think I implied a continuation of my past voting practices at all. My point (obviously poorly made) was that I’m so disappointed in pretty much everyone running that I can’t find anyone I really support.
And not everyone would call me a traitor (well, maybe my sister would). My parents, however, would welcome me with open arms, the yellow-dog democrats that they are!
The ideal, of course, would be to have people in Congress who don’t stick to the party line, but instead do what’s best for the country, or at least what’s best for the people who put them in office.
August 25th, 2007 at 4:42 am
I’m shocked, I’m stunned. I have followed this amazing website until traveling as a volunteer on a global expedition sailing vessel for the last year and 6 months which put me out of touch with the internet. Thank God I have revisited this site returning the US to find out I should not be referring my brilliant friends to it anymore.
I don’t know who took over this site, but Phil does not write the way I have read whoever is authoring this site now. This is not about Politics it’s about science, astronomy and it is certainly not just another chatroom to blast the leaders of our country, whoever they may be or the mistakes they may have made. I’m ashamed of all of you who have never spent any time out of the US besides Spring Break in the ABC’s that will support the demise of what was once a great website and turn it into your personal debates and/or attacts on our country’s leaders. There are other sites for that, I never saw this to be one of them.
August 25th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Steve: “The ideal, of course, would be to have people in Congress who don’t stick to the party line, but instead do what’s best for the country, or at least what’s best for the people who put them in office.”
That would be nice, wouldn’t it? Sadly, I fear it will never happen under our current campaign finance system.
August 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I am a little confused at the comments above saying things like
I love astronomy and science, but I don’t like your political posts…etc.
I don’t understand why the things Phil mentioned are considered a political issue. Can we all agree that poisoning children with lead is bad and shouldn’t be allowed? How about agreeing that appointing someone with an abysmal safety record as a mine owner as administrator of the Mine Health and Safety Administration is just silly? Would you be ok with a registered sex offender as the principal of your child’s school? If you love science and astronomy so much, how come you aren’t outraged at the political suppression of science? Instead of bellyaching that Phil shouldn’t say bad things about the emperor, how about explaining to everyone why allowing lead in lunchboxes is a good thing.
I am sure that if a democrat had done such evil and idiotic things as GW has done, Phil would be just as critical.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I find these negative comments vaguely humorous in a sad way.
Did you miss the point of my post entirely? I was asked to provide evidence of my (and Mooney’s accusations). I did, with links, and it’s all fairly solid. Yet I am accused of being illogical, of ad hominems, and so on.
“Killing us all” is not nearly as big an exaggeration as some make it out to be. Somehow, allowing dangerous levels of lead in children’s lunchboxes doesn’t strike me as something a President who wants to help us would do, or veto legislation to provide health care to children, or any of the other items I linked to.
Cripes, how much evidence do you want?
As for Karen, you may send people here or not. You have at least given me cause to, for the first time, and as I expected, send someone to the relevant post on this topic.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Bill H said:
> Your post about what I wrote proves that science has become politics by other means.
I’m sorry, I don’t follow you. My post proves that? How?
> I can think of legitimate reasons for the delay, even if I disagree with the delay.
I must have missed something. Delay?
> The rest of my post was about scientists not telling the truth, telling half-truths and so on when it suits their politics.
I read the linked comments, then followed up with Steve McIntyre’s blog. I still don’t see telling half truths, etc. Your proposed rewording of the description was not any more accurate. Yes, Steve did identify the discrepancy in the numbers, and email that to the parties involved. He may have identified what caused the discrepancy, but his email did not explain it. The folks at GISS went back and dug out the cause of the error themselves. Perhaps they were duplicating his steps, but they didn’t have an itemized list of his steps that they were following, they dug out the error themselves based upon his pointing out there was an error. Ergo, the description as written is valid, and they did acknowledge Steve McIntyre for finding the problem in the first place.
What I see is that you appear to be filtering events through your politics.
Will said:
> I never said eliminate branches of government, but I do absolutely say minimize their role to what is necessary for the nation to function.
I was just taking your advice to the full extent of application. Your approach to curing corruption is eliminate the role of government rather than dealing with the culprits.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:34 am
BA: Did you miss the point of my post entirely?
Some people did, and some people didn’t. Some people who clearly understood your point mentally segued over to a tangentially related issue that interests them more. Reading comprehension and amount of time and attention allotted are factors in the impression created in a specific person by an article, but so is perceived salience. If I’m told, “Your son punched Freddy”, I basically hear, “Your son punched someone.” Freddy’s mother may hear, “Someone punched Freddy.” If your thesis is “Bush suppresses science,” one person may focus on “someone is suppressing science,” and another on “Bush is suppressing something.”
When I attempt to communicate something to somone else, I try to avoid pushing any of their hot buttons, because I don’t want the person to become distracted from my main point. As soon as you say “Bush,” a whole bunch of alarms, whistles, and gongs begin to sound in peoples’ minds.