More examples of Bush administration muzzling scientists

Maybe they can muzzle first name pee second name eee-are?

I have personal experience with this. I have several friends who work for the US Fish & Wildlife's Region One. One evening a year or two after Bush took office, a group of us were out for a movie (a documentary on global warming that came out a few years ago) and afterwards a couple of beers and pizza.

One member of the group, a PhD biologist, had been working on an ecological study on either Palouse grassland or sage-steppe ecosystems in eastern Washington for three years.

After her results became known, the study was suppressed because of implications for the management of federal lands in the area.

She wouldn't say anything more about it because she was forbidden to discuss what was being studied, exactly where the study was being done, nor the results of the study at the risk of official reprimand etc. She shouldn't've told us even the bit she did, but she'd just been told to shitcan her study a few days earlier and was furious, and was among trusted friends.

Three years work, down the tubes.

Nothing to do with the quality of the work, just the management implications (reading between the lines, that's cattle grazing policies on federal lands).

I suspect that just about any medium-sized group of researchers working for the feds would include at least one person who's had a similar experience.

AFAIK (and I'm 52) this has never happened before in the federal agencies. Not under Bush I, not under Reagan even when James Watt was Secretary of the Interior ...

She wouldn't say anything more about it because she was forbidden to discuss what was being studied, exactly where the study was being done, nor the results of the study at the risk of official reprimand etc.

I have to say I am extremely embarrased for your friend, and disgusted with our scientists if this is really the state of fear that they are in.

What happened to courage?

She's supposed to be a scientist, isn't she? She should have the power of objectivity, truth and the Scientific Method on her side. Who is going to fault her for following where the data leads regardless of the outcome? Instead it appears she's rolled over for the job security, or grant funding, or threat of a "reprimand" - from who, the Bush Administration? She could wear that as a badge of honor!

What if Galileo shut the F^%$ up when the church told him to? Where would we be right now? We have many great scientists who set the standard that no one has to apologize or answer to anyone for revealing the truth.

I'm sorry, but your friend is a coward.

What if Galileo shut the F^%$ up when the church told him to?

By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition [1], delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the center. The decree did not prevent Galileo from hypothesizing heliocentrism. For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy.
[...]
With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical".
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

Yeah good thing he didn't.

So, Nanny, you're outrage is directed solely at the scientists not at the people doing the censoring?

Galileo never signed a binding contract giving his employer all intellectual property rights to his wrok.

This is absolutely awful. The Bush administration is one huge Orwellian mess. Trying to control information. Sending reports down the memory hole. There are similar examples of Army recruiting statistics being withheld a year or two ago, and recently an FCC report about the effects of media industry consolidation on consumers was literally shredded.

The amazing thing is that this thought control is happening across so many bureaucracies.

How does it happen?

"nanny" has the typical right-wing Repukelican "blame the victim" mentality. Yeah, it's the scientist's fault for not speaking out when draconian hacks like Inhofe are breathing down their neck; or Hitler Youth types like that young Bush worker at NASA stifling scientists speaking to the press.

"She should have the power of objectivity, truth and the Scientific Method on her side."

Yes, the politicians really care about those things.

Nanny's sort of channeling Thomas Jefferson -- 'the tree of liberty' needs that fertilizer from the blood of patriots -- and arguing the scientists should be the first to go.

This guarantees we'll see the scientists sacrificed, not liberty strengthened.

"You go first" exhortations aren't patriotism.

I was going to write something about Nan's comment, but whenever I wrote something, I thought I might get disemvowelled for being abusive. I've never read a more odious piece of drivel, and I would love to see what Nan would do in such a situation. My guess is less than nothing.

The "nanny" types show their courage by bleating in unison their worship of Bush & the Iraq War, and more recently by making excuses for known pedophile Republican Senator Mark Foley of Florida.

You really have to hand it to Nanny thoguh 0 he has the art of redirection down flat.

Rather than trying to defend the Bush administration's actions or denying that it happened, he's managed to deflect discussion off onto a totally different track.

I'm surprised he didn't toss in a Nonica Lewinsky, "John Kery voted to invade Iraq" or Chappaquidick comment while he was at it.

I suppose we should look on this as a sort of concession of defeat on his part.

Defend the Bush Admin? Does anyone on this board have the slightest idea what "nanny-government sucks" means?

To add to my statement above in this thread, if you don't like being muzzled by politicians, then stop taking political (taxpayer) money.

What do you THINK politics is all about? It's not about science, it's about getting re-elected, making lots of money and staying in power. Your environmental study will be just a cog in that gigantic wheel if it agrees with the politicians in power at the time.

Blood of patriots. LOL! I'm still curious about what this "official reprimand" is supposed to be, and how people would supposedly see that as a "bad" thing. Losing one's integrity by giving in to sleazeball politicians has to be much worse.

where was I?

so what you're saying nanny is that scientists shouldn't engage in precommercial research since obviously the shouldn't take the government's filthy blood moeny and, by definition, such research isn't going to be funded by industry.

I guess the next time, the particle physicists want $10 billion for a fusion reactor or a particle accelerator they should hold a bake sale.

>Does anyone on this board have the slightest idea what "nanny-government sucks" means?

At a guess it means you're an adherent of the libertarian strain of the far-right ideology (to use that term in its original and narrow meaning of "false cosnciousness") which has run the US into the ground over the past six years.

Which means you bought into the "government is evil" rhetoric to justify looting the country's finances for the benefit of the utlrarich; bought into their climate science denalism' probably bought into the cretinous and incompetent attempts at imperialism (sorry "fighting the war on terror") but baulked at the scapegoating of gays and ethnic minorities.

But, assuming you're old enough to vote, I'm sure you toed the Republican line sicne we all know that the only rights that really matter are economic ones.

Now I'll leave you to put some more distance between yourself and that sinking ship you just left.

Quick question, nanny, can you name the last two American Presidents to actually cut government spending?

Here's a clue - their last names both started with "C".

Libertarians are just Republicans without the baggage of the usual psycho-religious zealotry/hypocrisy. As soon as they get a whiff of power (i.e. the Cato Institute hacks that joined the Bush gov't) they quickly abandon any ideas of Libertarianism from Ayn Rand through legalizing drugs; and become good little boys (too old for Mark Foley though).

Carl Christensen wrote, As soon as they get a whiff of power (i.e. the Cato Institute hacks that joined the Bush gov't) they quickly abandon any ideas of Libertarianism...

But so-called "libertarianism," as people usually understand it, is a political/economic philosophy whose fundamentals are grotesquely flawed and which actually has quite a bit in common with feudalism. And most so-called "libertarians" actually despise real liberty.

Here's an essay, written by an admirable, freedom-loving libertarian, which explains why.

nanny_govt_sucks wrote, To add to my statement above in this thread, if you don't like being muzzled by politicians, then stop taking political (taxpayer) money.

LOL!

So if someone eliminated the military budget entirely, those in the military shouldn't complain because it's just political money?

And if the government were to evict you from "your" land, you shouldn't complain because, while the land isn't "money," your legal ownership of the land is an instrument created by government, hence "politicians"?

Topic:

"What can I tell you? I was telling them something they didn't want to hear," said Richard Wetherald, a career scientist at the federally funded center. "But the public is not being informed when these things are zapped."

Wetherald, 70, a registered Republican, said the Commerce Department has quashed three press releases written to trumpet major findings stemming from his research at the lab near Princeton.

Did you mean Coolidge and Cleveland? Two of the best presidents we've ever had?

"At a guess it means you're an adherent of the libertarian strain of the far-right ideology ..."

LOL! Keep the humor coming.

"LOL"

From most people this would come off as desperate dissimilation, from you it comes off as one of your more cogent and closely reasoned arguments.

The two Presidents I was referring to were, of course, Clinton and Carter.

But hey everyone knows that the Democrats waste all the tax money they gouge from decent hardworking white folk like yourself on coddling lazy darkies, sorry, "welfare recipients".

You know why the swordfish and tuna are in such danger, right?

Trolling. They're suckers for baited hooks.

Clue, don't bite.

Cleveland was a Democrat, and a great president. Twice.

Why are you on this "rep vs dem" thing anyway? The more you go on about it the more you show your ignorance about libertarianism.

As a former (reformed) libertarian party member I can tell the readers that 1)the ideology is intellectually bankrupt and destructive to society and civilized cooperation and 2)anyone who signs with the pen name nanny_govt_sucks is not to be taken seriously by any thinking individual

the ideology is intellectually bankrupt and destructive to society and civilized cooperation

Well, I guess the voice of authority has spoken! I'm sure your statements are plenty enough for the small-minded followers here.

If, however, there are a few still reading who don't just buy into authoritarian-speak, I invite you to visit one of my favorite libertarian sites where you can find out more about libertarians and their thinking on current issues: http://www.lewrockwell.com

Ah dueling URLs. If there are a few still reading who still buy into nanny's brand of non-thinking I invite you to visit one of MY favorite anti-libertarian sites http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

My quarrel isn't with libertarianism (actually I have a number of quarrels with libertarianism which I've pursued at length on other boards with friends who happen to be libertarian) - it's with one self-proclaimed libertarian who demonstrates that with enough ignorance and selfrighteousness any system of beliefs can be thoroughly debased.

Libertarianism is the belief that your freedom to place your nose ends at the point where I begin to wave my fists wildly.