Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Fairweather

Net Neutrality

Recommended Posts

Sorry, Fairweather, but you are like many others on the right who deny reality here.

 

The Republican Party has absolutely fought a war on science. And it is not just on environmental topics.

 

Take evolution, for example: in states like Kentucky and Texas the Republican Party is saying that evolution is just a "theory" and that creationism should be taught in public schools.

 

On rape: the human body has defenses and in cases of legitimate rape a woman will not become pregnant.

 

On the "dismal science" they try to tell us that "trickle down economics" is an "accepted" fact even though it has never been found effective anywhere.

 

Yes, kook's on the left have their silly ideas - but for just plain ignorance and deliberate ignoring of the facts, Republicans have the Democrats beat times ten.

 

 

Insults?

 

Sorry, Matt, but you are like many others on the left who deny economic reality here.

 

In any event, I don't know any of these evolution-denying Republicans you speak of. Of course, they exist, but are largely on the margins. Probably on par with avowed communists on the margins of the Democratic Party. Straw men are easy to build and knock down--and Democrats have mastered the art. It appears, for this last election anyway, that their fictitious "war on women" boogeyman failed to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Rubio told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientist are portraying it,” .

Ron Paul can say of evolution, “I think it’s a theory and I don’t accept it as a theory.”

 

Rick Perry can call evolution “it’s a theory that’s out there, but one that’s got some gaps in it.” And it’s on that same basis, that same rejection of science, that Perry can say, “I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.”

 

Then there’s Michele Bachmann, who has embraced the idea that the HPV vaccine can cause mental retardation, although not a single piece of medical evidence backs up her claim. How, then, did she come to that conclusion? That’s simple: A woman came up to her at a debate and told her so.

 

Lamar Alexander is demanding oversight of the National Science Foundation decisions on grants as chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology – an unprecedented move by someone who has voiced the opinion that we don’t need the NSF.

 

Bobby Jinal, though a biology major – can’t say if he believes in evolution.

 

James Inhofe (R-OK) will be taking over the Environment and Public Works Committee says this about climate change: “[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

 

Bush officials repeatedly ignored or altered reports by the National Academy of Sciences, the E.P.A. and other groups tying global warming to fossil fuel emissions. Senator Daniel Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican and chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, who once said human-induced global warming might be "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

 

Ted Cruz will take over the Science and Space panel (stop laughing). Joni Ernst – newly elected to the Senate, vows to dismantle the EPA.

 

Opposition to stem-cell research, teaching of sex education, teaching of evolution, teaching of climate change – others?

Ronald Reagan was pushing for a space-based defense against nuclear missiles, called Star Wars, that a chorus of scientists dismissed as technically unfeasible. Reagan stalled on acknowledging the dangers of acid rain and the buildup of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere.

 

Warming the hearts of his religious fans, Reagan voiced doubts about the theory of evolution, and he urged C. Everett Koop, the surgeon general, to investigate whether abortion harms women physically and emotionally – he refused.

 

And in 2002 the administration appointed the Kentucky gynecologist and obstetrician W. David Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration. Hager has advocated treating premenstrual syndrome with Bible readings and has denounced the birth control pill.

 

In 2003 the World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization (W.H.O./F.A.O.), citing concerns about rising levels of obesity-related disease, released a report that recommended limits on the intake of fat and sugar. The recommendations reflected the consensus of an international coalition of experts. The Sugar Association, the Grocery Manufacturers of America and other food industry groups attacked the recommendations.

 

William R. Steiger, an official in the Department of Health and Human Services, then wrote to W.H.O.'s director general to complain about the dietary report. Echoing the criticism of the industry groups, Steiger questioned the W.H.O. report's linkage of obesity and other disorders to foods containing high levels of sugar and fat, and he suggested that the report should have placed more emphasis on "personal responsibility." Steiger later informed the W.H.O. that henceforth only scientists approved by his office would be allowed to serve on the organization's committees.

 

Then there are the political hacks the GOP puts in to run agencies such as EPA, Interior, National Parks, NOAA, Agriculture, and others – usually picked for industry ties - such as mining leads for Interior. Really, there isn’t a comparison.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denying the reality of the GOP's behavior should come as no surprise - denial is the party's number one way of absolving itself from solving real problems so it can get on with the business of attending to its base's short term business interests. When denial gets played out, manufacturing problems works, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably on par with avowed communists on the margins of the Democratic Party.

 

Joe would be so proud...

 

220px-Joseph_McCarthy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guy on the right looks like his lower half was dipped in a thrift shop.

appears to be unable to stop sharting golf-balls neither :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Denying the reality of the GOP's behavior should come as no surprise - denial is the party's number one way of absolving itself from solving real problems so it can get on with the business of attending to its base's short term business interests. When denial gets played out, manufacturing problems works, too.

 

[video:youtube]G790p0LcgbI

 

hmmm...

 

Voters, and pre-voters (high school age) never fail to impress me with their intelligence, decision making, presentation (many of these sessions are interactive and require very rapid synthesis and presentation to the rest of the group), and grasp of the issues of our time. My fellow speakers share my favorable opinion of the public. Guess you actually have to get out there and do the thing to understand the thing.

 

I'd say American voters are doing just fine, no small thanks to social media.

 

Edited by Fairweather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably on par with avowed communists on the margins of the Democratic Party.

 

Joe would be so proud...

 

220px-Joseph_McCarthy.jpg

 

Context. Snippet. Reading comprehension. Yes, little d, it's a complicated world out there. Especially in green and socialist and racist Wisconsin. Take it slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Rubio told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientist are portraying it,” .

Ron Paul can say of evolution, “I think it’s a theory and I don’t accept it as a theory.”

 

Rick Perry can call evolution “it’s a theory that’s out there, but one that’s got some gaps in it.” And it’s on that same basis, that same rejection of science, that Perry can say, “I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.”

 

Then there’s Michele Bachmann, who has embraced the idea that the HPV vaccine can cause mental retardation, although not a single piece of medical evidence backs up her claim. How, then, did she come to that conclusion? That’s simple: A woman came up to her at a debate and told her so.

 

Lamar Alexander is demanding oversight of the National Science Foundation decisions on grants as chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology – an unprecedented move by someone who has voiced the opinion that we don’t need the NSF.

 

Bobby Jinal, though a biology major – can’t say if he believes in evolution.

 

James Inhofe (R-OK) will be taking over the Environment and Public Works Committee says this about climate change: “[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

 

Bush officials repeatedly ignored or altered reports by the National Academy of Sciences, the E.P.A. and other groups tying global warming to fossil fuel emissions. Senator Daniel Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican and chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, who once said human-induced global warming might be "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

 

Ted Cruz will take over the Science and Space panel (stop laughing). Joni Ernst – newly elected to the Senate, vows to dismantle the EPA.

 

Opposition to stem-cell research, teaching of sex education, teaching of evolution, teaching of climate change – others?

Ronald Reagan was pushing for a space-based defense against nuclear missiles, called Star Wars, that a chorus of scientists dismissed as technically unfeasible. Reagan stalled on acknowledging the dangers of acid rain and the buildup of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere.

 

Warming the hearts of his religious fans, Reagan voiced doubts about the theory of evolution, and he urged C. Everett Koop, the surgeon general, to investigate whether abortion harms women physically and emotionally – he refused.

 

And in 2002 the administration appointed the Kentucky gynecologist and obstetrician W. David Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration. Hager has advocated treating premenstrual syndrome with Bible readings and has denounced the birth control pill.

 

In 2003 the World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization (W.H.O./F.A.O.), citing concerns about rising levels of obesity-related disease, released a report that recommended limits on the intake of fat and sugar. The recommendations reflected the consensus of an international coalition of experts. The Sugar Association, the Grocery Manufacturers of America and other food industry groups attacked the recommendations.

 

William R. Steiger, an official in the Department of Health and Human Services, then wrote to W.H.O.'s director general to complain about the dietary report. Echoing the criticism of the industry groups, Steiger questioned the W.H.O. report's linkage of obesity and other disorders to foods containing high levels of sugar and fat, and he suggested that the report should have placed more emphasis on "personal responsibility." Steiger later informed the W.H.O. that henceforth only scientists approved by his office would be allowed to serve on the organization's committees.

 

Then there are the political hacks the GOP puts in to run agencies such as EPA, Interior, National Parks, NOAA, Agriculture, and others – usually picked for industry ties - such as mining leads for Interior. Really, there isn’t a comparison.

 

You've mixed a lot of issues together there, Jim. Not all of them science-related. But yes, I'll agree, any Republican (or Democrat) who fails to understand and acknowledge the logic of evolution is lacking. It's 150 years vetted--and no other model explains the diversity of life on this planet as completely. That said, there are a lot of Americans who weigh religion--or even philosophy--more heavily than science. Not sure they are worthy of the scorn you are serving up. Many of them are otherwise intelligent folks. Even Michelle Bachmann--a true ditz re science--somehow managed to earn an LL.M. from Ivan's old Alma mater. No small task.

 

As for the other Republicans you name, yes, they are all the usual suspects. Here are a list of Democrats you might want to add to your list:

 

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/5-democrats-who-dont-get-global-warming/nope-we-still-dont-get-

 

No big deal; I appreciate your civil engagement.

 

But, anyhow, what are your thoughts on net neutrality? :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a quote. It does appear you two share a world view...

 

As far as the net neutrality thing, isn't this just part and parcel of the great, diabolical, left wing conspiracy?

 

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Michelle Bachmann--a true ditz re science--somehow managed to earn an LL.M. from Ivan's old Alma mater. No small task.

 

i actually attended thomas jefferson's socialist experiment - bill and fairy (as we fondly call W&M) was jefferson's alma mater, and you'll note his lack of faith in it as expressed by building his own school.

 

pretty much just need a pulse to get into william n' mary :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They used to bus W&M debutants to USNA dances for date fodder. Not the brightest bulbs on the marquee. I'd say Bachmann represents her alma mater quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No big deal; I appreciate your civil engagement.

 

But, anyhow, what are your thoughts on net neutrality? :blush:

 

Oh, that subject.

 

My first reaction is yes - net neutrality all the way. But there is a sticky issue here. The firms that built the fiber optic network (as much as we hate Comcast and its ilk) are now seeing traffic escalate and need to keep improving the infrastructure. They look at it as "hey, we built the highway and you guys (providers) are using it to make a bundle - so we need to put in tolls"

 

Seems that some type of compromise is needed - or else the conduit will be filled by those frustrated teachers at the end of each day playing Call of Duty and paying the needed premium.

 

What are the Euros doing about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What are the Euros doing about this?

 

Not sure what's happening in Euroland but in NZ in 08/09 you paid according to the amount of data you used. They sold packages aimed at people who only used the internet for e-mail all the way to up to unlimited.

 

Seemed quite rational and fair - so it has zero chance of ever being implemented here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, Fairweather, but you are like many others on the right who deny reality here.

 

The Republican Party has absolutely fought a war on science. And it is not just on environmental topics.

 

Take evolution, for example: in states like Kentucky and Texas the Republican Party is saying that evolution is just a "theory" and that creationism should be taught in public schools.

 

On rape: the human body has defenses and in cases of legitimate rape a woman will not become pregnant.

 

On the "dismal science" they try to tell us that "trickle down economics" is an "accepted" fact even though it has never been found effective anywhere.

 

Yes, kook's on the left have their silly ideas - but for just plain ignorance and deliberate ignoring of the facts, Republicans have the Democrats beat times ten.

 

 

It's clearly no contest on the evolution issue - but I think there are enough formal policy safeguards in play and informal cultural defenses, such as mockery and ridicule, that I'm not particularly worried about the direct policy consequences that will follow from that conviction, and suspect that they'll be short lived to the extent that they materialize.

 

Since you're making a rare appearance here and seem to be a Keynesian by default if not by conscious choice - I couldn't help but wonder if you also found the "trickle down" benefits of stimulus/infrastructure spending dubious or if you think that mode of distributing hunks of the economic pie is more effective.

 

E.g. what's the tangible difference to the trickleees if, say, the government decides to pool tax money and build a generator factory in Flint versus a private business pooling money and doing the same thing. In each case what you are talking about is a mechanism to convert profits into investment of X dollars to build Y - the only difference is who made the decision. Ditto for stimulus funded construction vs private construction - etc, etc, etc. What - in your view - is the differences to the people selling the construction materials to the contractors, the people who are getting paid to build whatever's being built, the owner of the bars and strip-joints where they are spending the money, etc, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old from the party of No Ideas.

 

Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.

 

 

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.

 

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.

 

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.”

 

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would speak in defense of the epa, but i just simply watched ghostbusters too many times as a kid to trust them walter peck types :)

 

fuckit, what am i saying, even walter peck probably wasn't a big enough asshole to fit in w/ these boys...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same old from the party of No Ideas.

 

Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.

 

 

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.

 

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.

 

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.”

 

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

 

Your summary doesn't seem to match the legislation. The legislation says board members acting as advisors are forbidden from reviewing or evaluating their own work. Maybe I need to be a scientist in the EPA to fully understand the magnitude but on the surface the legislation appears as though it is trying to reduce conflicts of interest.

 

(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education,

training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical

information on matters referred to the Board under this section. The

Administrator shall ensure that--

``(A) the scientific and technical points of view

represented on and the functions to be performed by the Board

are fairly balanced among the members of the Board;

``(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board

are from State, local, or tribal governments;

``© persons with substantial and relevant expertise are

not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or

representation of entities that may have a potential interest

in the Board's advisory activities, so long as that interest is

fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and

appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18,

United States Code;

``(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a

particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member

having an interest in the specific party shall participate in

that activity;

``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory

activities that directly or indirectly involve review or

evaluation of their own work;

``(F) Board members shall be designated as special

Government employees; and

``(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the

Board.

 

The entire legislation: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1422/text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps we should replace our republic with a directorate composed exclusively of the best and brightest scientists?

 

How retro. Although at least these guys recognized that they might want to have some engineers on there too. You know, to make sure things worked.

 

technocracy-flag.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×