For those of you who think that Dubya is anti-science, I have this for you.
According to this CNN article, 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.
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.”
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?
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. Poor optics. Had to do something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
