Very interesting. Sourcing?
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
- Status
Very interesting. Sourcing?
Devildoc
Verified Military
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,249
Anyone have the time to read the report for the context behind every one of those quotes?
I have seen many quotes like these that sound really bad, but they normally pertain almost wholly to the human impact of climate change, not that the world isn't warming at a rate we haven't seen before, which is difficult to find causation.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I don't have a dog in the whole pro/con argument, and what I think is or isn't happening is irrelevant (just as what color I think the sun is, is irrelevant). But what I DO think is that the enormous consensus ain't as enormous as it has been, or as it has been thought to be. The other thing I find interesting is that a lot of scientists who speak out against global warming are marginalized and made pariahs, their perspectives belittled, irrespective of the science.
Let the parody roll on. The Donalds' latest gaff regarding the non-reporting of terror attacks is interesting. Some is inaccurate but most have been reported, particularly the larger ones. It's a demonising of the press which is plain silly. How much publicity is an attack worth? The difference in reporting in France & in Germany is a contrast. French press get Gaullic and
I'm prepared to hear both sides of a complex argument, and remain open minded. Two issues stand out for me however: as a surfer since Adam was in short pants, I have noticed the sea temperature change since the '7o's, not by much but there has been a change. The fundamental issue for governments is for consumers to have affordable base load power, which currently ( here anyway) is still rocky and expensive.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,900
Right - there's a time and place for that.
When it's a government that's been aiding and abetting our enemies, and is giving shelter to public enemy number one, game fucking on. When it's a government that's been rendering whatever assistance it can come up with to our SOF elements, it's time to back the fuck off and figure out just how far you want to piss them off. And that's before considering what end state you want for a place like Yemen, who you might want to be seen as legitimate, and the effect that saying "fuck your borders" has on that goal.
And that's not counting logistical and operational concerns like basing and overflight.
If you're going to allow your statements to be completely devoid of anything resembling intelligent analysis, it's probably time to stop typing.
Yeah, I'm a lot more sympathetic to arguments by experts saying they're not sure of the consensus, are skeptical of aspects of an argument, and are uncomfortable with any 'unassailable' scientific position. I'm less sympathetic to arguments that use doubt or questioning to say - see, that proves nothing/this counter-hypothesis from experts/my counter-hypothesis using shit I downloaded from the internets is thus 100% correct.
The quotes though do highlight the danger of politicizing any question of analysis - scientific or other. If questions about a conclusion are used to push an agenda - then it runs the risk of questions/dissent being suppressed - which I think is almost always bad, even if the consensus is correct. On the other side if a conclusion is promulgated as unassailable in order to avoid a political agenda - that's a political agenda itself.
I tend to think politicians on the right - maybe not citizens or scientists - use doubt about climate change as a wedge to push pro-fossil fuel industry policies. Not because of their deep respect for scientific process, dissent, and analysis. Maybe others feel the same about pro-climate change politicians, citizens and scientists - that they don't care about the science, only about getting loans for Solyndra or whoever.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Ladies and Gentlemen, your next AG: Amid deep partisan rancor, Senate confirms Sessions for attorney general
If they couldn't stop the confirmation of DeVos, how were they going to stop this one?
ETA-
Marco is a great Senator:
If they couldn't stop the confirmation of DeVos, how were they going to stop this one?
ETA-
Marco is a great Senator:
Last edited:
Mission was planned under Obama, so why blame Trump (other than you being a Liberal)
I suppose there's that whole "leadership" thing and that the buck stops at the top.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,684
Her confirmation was really an embarrassment. The only way it makes sense is if they plan to eliminate the Department of Education at the Federal level; a concept that is occasionally thrown out and one to which I'm not entirely opposed; the argument is this is primarily a States issue.
Devildoc
Verified Military
The Department of Education was created in 1979. Now if education outcomes across the country had been rising since then, sure, there's a strong case to keep it. But why do the states want to relinquish their rights (education is a states-level mandate) to the feds? It's a cash cow for sure, but if it was a business entity it would be out of business.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Even Rahm Emanuel is over the pissing and moaning....
Rahm Emanuel tells Democrats: ‘It ain’t gonna happen in 2018’
Rahm Emanuel tells Democrats: ‘It ain’t gonna happen in 2018’
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
The problem I have with doing away with the Department of Education is the likelihood of differing standards and concepts being taught by different states. Each state would prioritize what was important based on their demographics, politics, religious beliefs, or whatever social craze is popular. Instead of teaching basic subjects we all need to know. Wait till one state prioritizes religion over science, or arts over math. Think college is a joke now? How many of us that are recent college grads or students, have come across fellow students that write as they speak? Or have abysmal communication and writing skills? I am willing to bet a lot.
Personally, living in part of the Bible belt, I do not want my child growing up being taught creationist theory as the only theory in the land (preferably not at all but that is for another thread). Or if we were living out on the west coast and being taught revisionist history. Putting education standards and criteria into the hands of states would likely hasten the fracturing of our country. A bit dramatic, but a very likely possibility. Given how the states have been shown in the past to be unable to handle some responsibilities. Just look at slavery, civil rights, commerce, firearms, marriage licenses and drivers licenses (their acceptance across the nation), marriage equality, and more. Otherwise, why have a union of states at all instead of fifty individual nations? The balance between states rights, and the rights of the union is a very delicate and careful process. I am for a Dept. of Ed, it just needs to be gutted and reformed into something useful and practical. Give the states a set of standards they all must meet, but let them figure out how best to get there.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,684
But if that's the argument, why have states at all if the Federal government knows best?
As Devildoc pointed out earlier, Dept of Education wasn't formed until 1979. How did we possibly progress prior to that?! We certainly weren't faltering as a nation.
So, disbanding it is not something that will lead to a cataclysmic event for the nation. Standardization is only good to a point; sometimes the bureaucracy stifles innovation. We still need to be competitive at a global level, that helps serve as a free market check.
Last edited:
Devildoc
Verified Military
I respectfully disagree. Set the standard: grade 1 must have these component, grade 2, etc. Then anything above and beyond can be up to the state in the form of...electives, whatever.
Whatever reason they invented the DOE in 1979, it really hasn't worked. Kill it, distribute the tax money that would have supported it to the states DOEs.
The cabinets were established to set, enforce, and promulgate national policy. To dictate to a state how to run a state-mandated program is crazy. Or, do this: get rid of all the states' DOEs, and just federalize it (no, please don't). But the animal they created does not work.
I think when one looks at any program that is supposed to be results-oriented, you have to ask: "are we getting the results we desire?" Outcome-based education is nothing new, but in it's current form, does not work.
Do we need a Department of Education, or could a "gutted/rebuilt DoE be an agency in another Department (HHS foe example?).
Devildoc
Verified Military
I think there is so much damn overlap and redundancy, which is such a freaking peeve of mine. I try to view government operations like a business or a family (I know, I probably shouldn't). I know when I eliminate redundancy in my job or in my family, I usually make things more efficient and I sometimes save money.
How many intel agencies do we have? Law enforcement agencies? How many cabinet-level departments with tentacles spread into other departments? Yeah, it can be done. But it is to no one's advantage, especially the government's.
- Status
