A 30% belt-tightening at NOAA doesn’t leave me “overwhelmed by gloom and grief” or in one of the 4 stages of Democratic hyperventilating on display since the election. It’s more like a yawn for me.
I would imagine that is because you are one of those who are woefully uninformed about what NOAA actually does. It’s just a jumble of letters, right? Just a bunch of eggheads contributing nothing, right?
They just have a bunch of stupid satellites that go round and round the earth for no good reason, right? They don’t do anything good for you personally, right?
I wonder if it would be too much trouble for members of the public to educate themselves…
As you know by reading the sentence before the one you excerpted from, it is not just the NOAA cuts that fill me with gloom and grief. There are also plans to eviscerate environmental protection; to ramrod a right-wing program nationally against the education system; to encourage the financial sector to party giddily as it did in the run-up to the 2008 credit crisis; to expand the military at the expense of domestic well-being; to desert our long-term allies, perhaps favoring Russia instead; to sell off public lands at bargain prices; to act against free trade; to turn our free democracy toward propagandizing autocracy; to expand private prisons; to reduce legal protections for laborers; to increase the deficit; to anger a billion Muslims around the world; to encourage bigotry against gays, Hispanics and blacks; et cetera.
Anyone who isn’t filled with gloom and grief is unaware of the Administration’s purposes, or has a faulty design for the future.
+1…Farming interests will put some serious pressure to keep NOAA funded. Many other users of NOAA’s data will (I hope) add their concerns.
There is a difference between education and entertainment. Perhaps a thread about explosions and trainwrecks would bring the excitement you seek?
If we lose our ability to accurately predict hurricanes or other storms, fuck it. People should know not to live in Florida. Amirite?
Silver lining: 30% reduction in all those global warming, doom and gloom, worry wart, fake science reports. Amarite?
I think Trump should refuse to allow Amirites to immigrate. Ya think?
Amirites: yes. Amarites: NO.
Besides, all right thinking people know meteorology is a pseudoscience. Hurricanes are caused by God’s wrath against homosexuals.
Trump actually had policies and a platform on which he sought election. He was the candidate of jaw-jaw-not-war-war with Russia, he was the candidate against NAFTA and TPP and he was the candidate for allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices (although he’s abandoned that after the election).
Actual policies that can attract support.
What did Clinton have? “It’s her turn.” “I’m with her.”
In short, Trump was the candidate of Hope and Change, Clinton was the candidate of Like it or Lump it.
Uh, parody posts are supposed to go in the Pit.
Anyone who thinks Hillary didn’t have policies is living under a rock. She’s a damn policy nerd. She’s the Leslie Knope of real life.
Trump defenders HAVE to believe that she had no policies. Trump is manifestly terrible, so Hillary must have been worse–and part of being worse is ‘having no policies.’
Asking a Trump fan to confront the reality that Hillary had detailed policies for most issues is like asking a Yankees fan to believe that the Red Sox have some admirable features: they just can’t do it.
Other than people on the right complaining about people on the left, I never heard *anyone *say Hillary should win because “it’s her turn.”
Hillary had plenty of policies; no doubt about that. Problem is, she didn’t have the super-simple, super-short-and-clear mantras that stuck in voter’s heads the way Trump did. Everyone knew what Trump claimed to be about: Build a wall, deport illegal immigrants, “Lock her up,” “Drain the swamp,” “Bring back the jobs,” “Make America great again,” etc. Love Trump or hate Trump, his super-simple messaging stuck.
Hillary’s campaign, on the other hand, was akin to handing out a 5-page policy brief, like it was a college course syllabus, and asking people to read it. Nobody would read it or remember it.
“I’m with her” didn’t do it for you either, huh?
You can imagine whatever you like, but you’d be well-served to keep in mind that it’s just your imagination, and not based on reality.
FWIW, it looks like the figure being tossed around is actually 17% of NOAA’s budget (at least that’s what WaPo and USA Today said), but I wouldn’t mind a 30% cut. And not just to the NOAA either. I’ve worked with enough governmental agencies to see how they absolutely piss money away like it was their job. Have you ever worked with / been in meetings with government agencies as the end of their budget year approaches? It’s an “oh shit, we’ve got to spend this money NOW” mentality.
This place, since the election, has been plenty entertaining.