Comments on: George Bush doesn’t like Science http://www.obfuscated.org/2006/05/george-bush-doesnt-like-science/ I will not explain what this weblog is all about in a few words. Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:27:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Christopher Smith http://www.obfuscated.org/2006/05/george-bush-doesnt-like-science/comment-page-1/#comment-406 Christopher Smith Tue, 30 May 2006 20:53:18 +0000 #comment-406 <p>This is one administration. At this point we have to worry at least as much about the next one as the current one. Unfortunately, rules and regulations designed to stop the worst abusers become significant impediments to everyone else (the aftermath of the Nixon era is a pretty good example of this). Somehow, you need a system where secrets can be kept (some might disagree with that, and if that is the case I'd suggest a constitutional amendment), which means you are going to have to entrust the decision making process of what should be a secret to a few individuals. As much as checks and balances are a nice concept, it relies on government being made up of more good folks than bad (the price of freedom and all that). When you don't have that you are basically screwed no matter what the rules.</p> This is one administration. At this point we have to worry at least as much about the next one as the current one. Unfortunately, rules and regulations designed to stop the worst abusers become significant impediments to everyone else (the aftermath of the Nixon era is a pretty good example of this). Somehow, you need a system where secrets can be kept (some might disagree with that, and if that is the case I’d suggest a constitutional amendment), which means you are going to have to entrust the decision making process of what should be a secret to a few individuals. As much as checks and balances are a nice concept, it relies on government being made up of more good folks than bad (the price of freedom and all that). When you don’t have that you are basically screwed no matter what the rules.

]]> By: Corey http://www.obfuscated.org/2006/05/george-bush-doesnt-like-science/comment-page-1/#comment-405 Corey Tue, 30 May 2006 07:16:39 +0000 #comment-405 <p>This isn't withholding specific information for national security reasons. It's a blank check to hold back anything that they disagree with. I can understand the need to hold some things back, but given the administration's history of ignoring and disregarding science in favor of religious zealots and corporate interests, I just can't get behind this.</p> This isn’t withholding specific information for national security reasons. It’s a blank check to hold back anything that they disagree with. I can understand the need to hold some things back, but given the administration’s history of ignoring and disregarding science in favor of religious zealots and corporate interests, I just can’t get behind this.

]]> By: Christopher Smith http://www.obfuscated.org/2006/05/george-bush-doesnt-like-science/comment-page-1/#comment-404 Christopher Smith Mon, 29 May 2006 21:15:41 +0000 #comment-404 <p>Hmm... I believe the specifics of lots of scientific information has been withheld from Congress and the public in general for pretty well accepted reasons, and this has been the policy going back through pretty much every president we've had. Under FDR and Truman (and most who came after), all kinds of specifics around nuclear weapons and nuclear energy have been witheld. I vaguely recall FDR holding back knowledge about radar, but I could be wrong about that. Under Kennedy specifics of the space program were witheld. All kinds of specifics about cryptanalysis and cryptography have been witheld over the years. While such actions always raise the cloud of suspicion, and certainly they have been done for the wrong reasons on more occasions than anyone would like, but I don't think any constitutional scholar would debate the merits of that particular signing statement.</p> <p>You can question the motives and the principles behind this particular President's "maneuvers" with science all you want. You can question whether any of his actions on this issue served the public interest or constituted holding back disclosures that would "impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch" under any but the most cynical of interpretations. However, like it or not, the principle is sound and consistent with how the US has operated since inception.</p> Hmm… I believe the specifics of lots of scientific information has been withheld from Congress and the public in general for pretty well accepted reasons, and this has been the policy going back through pretty much every president we’ve had. Under FDR and Truman (and most who came after), all kinds of specifics around nuclear weapons and nuclear energy have been witheld. I vaguely recall FDR holding back knowledge about radar, but I could be wrong about that. Under Kennedy specifics of the space program were witheld. All kinds of specifics about cryptanalysis and cryptography have been witheld over the years. While such actions always raise the cloud of suspicion, and certainly they have been done for the wrong reasons on more occasions than anyone would like, but I don’t think any constitutional scholar would debate the merits of that particular signing statement.

You can question the motives and the principles behind this particular President’s “maneuvers” with science all you want. You can question whether any of his actions on this issue served the public interest or constituted holding back disclosures that would “impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch” under any but the most cynical of interpretations. However, like it or not, the principle is sound and consistent with how the US has operated since inception.

]]>