Maybe we should schedule more photo ops for that putz in the White House?

[Satyagrahi]

For those of you who think that Dubya is anti-science, I have this for you.

According to this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/bush.energyfunding/index.html), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, a research facility, had its funding cut a couple weeks ago and had to lay off a major part of its staff.

Yesterday, our President came galloping to the rescue and its funding was miraculously restored. Science can march on in its attempt to give us energy independence within this century. Hallelujah!

The timing is of some significance, though. Or is it coincidental that Dubya will be making a visit to the lab on Wednesday for a photo op to show how committed he is to energy research?

The President's commitment to political expediency remains astounding and is matched only by my own political cynicism: I expect the funding to be cut again by Friday.

Putz! :rolleyes:

[rjung]

And what's to stop the funding from getting yanked next week, after the photo-op is forgotten in the next news cycle?

[Bricker]

The President's commitment to political expediency remains astounding and is matched only by my own political cynicism: I expect the funding to be cut again by Friday.



If it is not, do you plan to return here and confess your error?

[Giles]

If it is not, do you plan to return here and confess your error?
It would be nice to have the Bush Administration confess its error: "Sorry, my administration cut funding for this lab, but then I realised that it will contribute to our energy policy, so I ordered it fixed. My apologies to those who were laid off, as well, and I'll fully understand if you all vote for the other side next time."

[Satyagrahi]

If it is not, do you plan to return here and confess your error?It would be nice to have the Bush Administration confess its error: "Sorry, my administration cut funding for this lab, but then I realised that it will contribute to our energy policy, so I ordered it fixed. My apologies to those who were laid off, as well, and I'll fully understand if you all vote for the other side next time."

I'm with Giles: I will if he will.

[Satyagrahi]

And, while we're at it, Bricker, it has long struck me that you are far too staunch and regular an apologist for this administration to be totally disinterested.

My guess is that you're a White House Assistant Press Secretary. Obviously, you don't want to divulge a specific name or position title--and we shouldn't necessarily believe you if you did--but...am I warm?

[Larry Mudd]

There would have been no perceived need to rush in and restore the funding, if the cuts were, say, two weeks after the State of the Union address, when everyone had stopped talking about switchgrass and such and settled back into the routine.

The timing made it too attractive to write articles like this. (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3506521) Poor optics. Had to do something.[Carol Tombari] was among the disappeared from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, where 31 workers were dismissed seven days after President Bush read the words "addicted to oil" off the teleprompter and announced yet another "Advanced Energy Initiative." [...]

Ironically, Tombari said, "A lot of the hybrid technology was developed right here at NREL" - and ignored.

Detroit automakers knew how to build fuel-efficient cars; they simply chose not to. As a result, they ceded the technology - and the market - to the Japanese. [...]

While our commitment to developing alternative energy sources in the U.S. too often is just empty rhetoric - "greenwashing," Tombari calls it - around the world it's the Holy Grail.I think that's the first time I've seen the construction "greenwashing" outside of publications like Adbusters. But damn if they didn't do their best to make it topical.

[Bricker]

I'm with Giles: I will if he will.

How are the two tied together? My question is to you: will you 'fess up to error? You have excoriated the administration for its actions, saying that they'll cut the funding again by this week's end.

If you're unwilling to admit error after it happens, you cast yourself as a critic who simply remains silent when wrong; someone who will speak loudly about the administration's errors but refuse to praise them when they do well. That's hardly a bastion of intellectual honesty.

Why is your admission contingent on anything else?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

How are the two tied together? My question is to you: will you 'fess up to error? You have excoriated the administration for its actions, saying that they'll cut the funding again by this week's end.
I took that comment to be satirical: did you really read it as a serious comment?

Satya, did you really intend it as a serious prediction?

Daniel

[zamboniracer]

How are the two tied together? My question is to you: will you 'fess up to error? You have excoriated the administration for its actions, saying that they'll cut the funding again by this week's end.

If you're unwilling to admit error after it happens, you cast yourself as a critic who simply remains silent when wrong; someone who will speak loudly about the administration's errors but refuse to praise them when they do well. That's hardly a bastion of intellectual honesty.

Why is your admission contingent on anything else?


Bricker, is it your contention that the administration's many critics, of which I am certainly one, are hypocrites if we do not praise the administration for occasionally getting things right? After all, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Bricker]

And, while we're at it, Bricker, it has long struck me that you are far too staunch and regular an apologist for this administration to be totally disinterested.

My guess is that you're a White House Assistant Press Secretary. Obviously, you don't want to divulge a specific name or position title--and we shouldn't necessarily believe you if you did--but...am I warm?

Absolutely not. I am not an employee of the federal government.

- Scott- Rick

[RyJae]

The way I see it is one should praise when done well, chastise when done wrong. If Bush increased federal spending on going green, and a lab was opened to do so. No one would mention it, but because of an error it was mentioned.
As someone who dislikes many of the recent shortcomings of this administration, I see the current push for oil independence against the grain of what a lot of opinions people had on Bush but very little praise.

I have even seen some websites say "Bush is doing this to help his poll numbers"
That makes me laugh, as we all know everyone in the business of politics does about everything they do for poll numbers. If poll numbers persuade Bush to do even more things beneficial to us, I encourage that. It may be too late to change anyones opinion of him, mine included, but maybe the man can do some things right.

[Bricker]

Bricker, is it your contention that the administration's many critics, of which I am certainly one, are hypocrites if we do not praise the administration for occasionally getting things right? After all, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Not at all. In this case, however, he made a specific prediction; I think it's fair to ask if he's willing to come back and say he was wrong about it. I don't ask that he compile commentary on any random issue the administration does correctly. But I think it's unfair to toss out these sorts of dire predictions, especially when they cast their targets in a poor light, and then simply vanish when you're wrong.

I did something similar when I predicted the Democrats would filibuster Bush's nominee to replace O'Connor. When they did not, I cam back and highlighted the prediction and said I was wrong.

I had said for years, vocally, and on these boards more than once, that Roger Keith Coleman was likely an example of a innocent man executed, and inveighed against the death penalty in part on the strength of that claim. When DNA tests revealed that he was guilty, I posted a thread to publicly acknowledge that and admit my error.

[zamboniracer]

Not at all. In this case, however, he made a specific prediction; I think it's fair to ask if he's willing to come back and say he was wrong about it. <snip>



It wasn't a specific prediction though, as the context shows. It was a sarcastic BBQ Pit comment. Moreover, even if it turns out to be an inccorect prediction, maybe it would be nice if posters would acknowledge their incorrect predictions, but that it is wholly unrealistic to demand that they do so. Why should they do so when the pundits on TV never do? I've yet to see the talking heads on the McLaughlin Group, Crossfire, Mel Kiper Jr on ESPN, etc., acknowledge any errors in their predictions, so why should we Dopers venting in the Pit have to do so?

[Bricker]

It wasn't a specific prediction though, as the context shows. It was a sarcastic BBQ Pit comment. Moreover, even if it turns out to be an inccorect prediction, maybe it would be nice if posters would acknowledge their incorrect predictions, but that it is wholly unrealistic to demand that they do so. Why should they do so when the pundits on TV never do? I've yet to see the talking heads on the McLaughlin Group, Crossfire, Mel Kiper Jr on ESPN, etc., acknowledge any errors in their predictions, so why should we Dopers venting in the Pit have to do so?

Because the talking heads on the McLaughlin Group, Crossfire, Mel Kiper Jr on ESPN, etc., are not engaging in a dialog. Their communication is one-way. It would be great if they did acknowledge error, but they are talking to us, not discussing with us.

Now, if this prediction isn't serious... if it is, as you say, just a bit of Pit hyperbole -- then you're right; it means nothing. But if he meant it, then I say intellectual honesty demands at least an attempt to come back and correct the record.

[Stranger On A Train]

If it is not, do you plan to return here and confess your error?I'm still waiting to hear when our "Mission Accomplished!" is going to take effect.

I don't know whether this is the case of an opportunistic photo op, or a program incidentally cut and then miraculously restored at the last minute, but I'm willing to forego the notion of a deliberate conspiracy until some actual evidence of the like appears. In any case, it's clear that (as with most politicians on both sides of the aisle), Bush is talking out of the side of his mouth that looks most attractive in terms of poll numbers. Clinton did the same, only he was able to properly annunciate his polysyllabic pronouncements and thus was more appealing to the faux-intelligencia despite his Arkansas hick roots.

How can you tell when a politician is lying? (Supply your own punchline.)

Stranger

[NurseCarmen]

Let's hope he visits an elementary school, so they get full funding...

Let's hope he visits a bulletproof vest factory, so they get full funding...

Let's hope he visits an armored humvee plant, so they get full funding...

Let's hope he visits New Orleans...

the list could go on and on.

[Otto]

Can Bush visit my house? I could use some funding.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Careful, Otto. Sometimes he visits you and you're Golden; other times he visits you and you're a soldier in Iraq.

Daniel

[RyJae]

Can Bush visit my house? I could use some funding.


Bush did visit my neighborhood once, but he didn't leave any money. :(

[Satyagrahi]

As others have commented above, my prediction in the OP was absolutely a sarcastic comment for rhetorical effect. Bricker, this is the fucking Pit, not the copulational GD. So call me a goat-felcher; you'll feel better.

That said, however, I think it's not better than a fifty-fifty chance that the research lab will retain that funding beyond a month. If they do indeed retain the funding and I can find a solid citation for that, I will issue an apology as follows:

"I do acknowledge my error and completely and whole-heartedly apologize to the administration: They're not quite as stupid and hypocritical as I had thought. Wow. You could have knocked me over with a feather."

Will that help?

[Duckster]

Absolutely not. I am not an employee of the federal government.

Contractor?

:D

[Weirddave]

How are the two tied together? My question is to you: will you 'fess up to error? You have excoriated the administration for its actions, saying that they'll cut the funding again by this week's end.

If you're unwilling to admit error after it happens, you cast yourself as a critic who simply remains silent when wrong; someone who will speak loudly about the administration's errors but refuse to praise them when they do well. That's hardly a bastion of intellectual honesty.

Why is your admission contingent on anything else?
Never, ever going to happen. That would require the Bush Bashers™ to actually apply critical thinking to an issue rather than just chanting "Bush is teh suxx0r!!!". You'd have a better chance of getting blood from a turnip.

[Stranger On A Train]

Never, ever going to happen. That would require the Bush Bashers™ to actually apply critical thinking to an issue rather than just chanting "Bush is teh suxx0r!!!".Pot, meet kettle. Discuss pigmentation.

Stranger

[ElvisL1ves]

Contractor?

:DYou're not a whore if you give it away.

[Fear Itself]

If it is not, do you plan to return here and confess your error? :dubious:

You know Bricker, after you predicted that Democrats in the Gang of Fourteen would find "extraordinary circumstances" and filibuster the replacement for O'Connor, I was unable to find any such confession. I know, I know, the last time I asked you about this, you claimed to have done so in several places.

But upon review of your posts following the Alito confirmation, I have been unable to find any confession of error. Several times prior to the confirmation, you said you would have no problem making such a confession, but as far as I can find, you never actually did.

The time has come to either cite your post confessing your error, or do so prominently and publicly, preferably in the original thread.

Of course, if I am mistaken, I will confess my error.