Bush, Polar bears, freedom, McCarthyism and guns

[1948berg]

I take the liberty of starting a discussion of matters that is mostly none of my business
In Norwegian papers today: From the Bush administration; American scientists and officials(Federal Fish and Wildlife Service) are muzzled and are not allowed to discuss GW, polar bears and ice-melting with foreigeners.Any discussions shall be approved by the goverment!- It is argued in this forum that the Patriot act does not bother most of you, McCarthy did not bother most people either, I have the feeling that many of you can tolerate any injustice as long as it does not concern yourself.-
When the NRA and their members are standing on the barricades fighting any attac on the second amandment, the goverment is sneaking inn your back door taking away yout right of speech, write and having opinions of your own. Remember the schoolgirl that got the FBI on her door after having written negatively of the President?

[Melensdad]

In Norwegian papers today: From the Bush administration; American scientists and officials(Federal Fish and Wildlife Service) are muzzled and are not allowed to discuss GW, polar bears and ice-melting with foreigeners.Any discussions shall be approved by the goverment! Just a guess here, but I'm thinking that the scientist are not allowed to provide an "official" position on these topics.

However, nothing would prevent them from having "personal opinions" and nothing would prevent them from expressing those opinions. In fact they are guaranteed that right by law.

It is argued in this forum that the Patriot act does not bother most of you, McCarthy did not bother most people either, I have the feeling that many of you can tolerate any injustice as long as it does not concern yourself.- The Patriot Act is supported by many here. There are also many critics here. I think there are many who believe in parts of it and not in other parts. I'm not sure who is in the majority. I do know who is louder!

As for McCarthy, I think your assessment of him is correct for his early career. He was tolerated and supported until it became clear that he was on witch hunts.

I think those of us who are very skeptical of the Patriot Act are skeptical because of abuses like those of the McCarthy era. As a person who opposes a strong centralized government, I find myself in a position to be very wary of the Patriot Act, which places me squarely in the middle of the the liberal Democrats and the ACLU on this issue.


When the NRA and their members are standing on the barricades fighting any attac on the second amandment, the goverment is sneaking inn your back door taking away yout right of speech, write and having opinions of your own. I'm not sure what the NRA has to do with this. There are MANY single issue lobby groups. The NRA is just one of them. However there are many in the NRA who will equally suggest that we strongly support the 1st Amendment, to the point that there is a saying here in the US that goes something like "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it."

Now with that said, where is the government taking away my right to free speech? If you are a FEDERAL government employee in some postions and departments, you are allowed your "personal opinion" and you must clearly state that when you speak. However, if you do not state that it is your "personal opinion" then the Federal government, your employer, is allowed to reasonably say that you are not allowed to discuss policy. This is no different than a private employer who has work rules that restrict the employee from talking about specific topics. In my company we have such policies. For example, one of our work rules states that you cannot say anything harmful about OUR company OR about OUR COMPETITORS in front of any customer or potential customer at any time. Doing so may result in termination.

Remember the schoolgirl that got the FBI on her door after having written negatively of the President? Honestly I do not know of that story. I suspect she threatened the President with violence. That is illegal. I would like to know the WHOLE story, something tells me there is a lot more to it. I'm sure she did a lot more than write "negatively of the President" because that happens every day in our newspapers.

[Gatorboy]

I believe there are more polar bears now than there ever have been. I laugh at the pictures of a polar bear on a piece of ice that has broken free. Don't peope realize that polar bears can swim over 100 miles at a time? They are not stranded.

[thcri]

Paul McCarthy is having problems in his divorce situation! Sounds like it is turning ugly

[California]

Remember the schoolgirl that got the FBI on her door after having written negatively of the President? Honestly I do not know of that story. I suspect she threatened the President with violence. That is illegal. I would like to know the WHOLE story, something tells me there is a lot more to it. I'm sure she did a lot more than write "negatively of the President" because that happens every day in our newspapers. Bob, she didn't make any sort of realistic threat. She just posted her rude thoughts on her MySpace page for a few days, then thought better of it and took it down. She was 13 years old and in jr hi.

Months later (when nobody could read or be influenced by her page) two federal agents went out to intimidate her. Your Tax Dollars At Work. Why aren't they looking for Osama instead of scaring this mouthy kid.

I wrote it up at the time:
http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?p=62982#post62982

If our government got a real scare out of this then its intelligence analysis is even worse than we feared. Gross ignorance, or intimidation? I don't see any other choices.

[Melensdad]

Bob, she didn't make any sort of realistic threat. She just posted her rude thoughts Well I went and looked and it seems the actual article is gone. But this is apparently what she originally wrote: "People who want to stab Bush"

While it does sometimes seem silly, it is my understanding that EVERY threat on EVERY modern President is followed up on by the Secret Service. So I'd say it is not unexpected that they did show up on her doorstep. The problem with threats is that on the surface many seem pretty innocent but they don't always turn out that way.

[1948berg]

Paul McCarthy is having problems in his divorce situation! Sounds like it is turning ugly
Paul McCartney is a British popsinger and composer
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney
Joseph Raymond McCarty on the other hand was an extremist, violating many human rights in his Stalinistic hunt for people that had other opinions than himself, blaming it all on the communists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Red_Scare
I thought everybody knew that

[Doc]

Gunnar,
Most everyone does know that. I'm sure Murph does. He was just injecting a little humor into the thread. It made me laugh. :yum:

[1948berg]

Gunnar,
Most everyone does know that. I'm sure Murph does. He was just injecting a little humor into the thread. It made me laugh. :yum:
I doubt it, why do you embrace the the Patriot act then?
(Fantastic name by the way, surely invented by some advertising agency, if you dont like it are you unpatriotic then?)

[Melensdad]

(Fantastic name by the way, surely invented by some advertising agency, if you dont like it are you unpatriotic then?)
I totally agree with you on this. But let's both be very honest. Every political party plays the "name game" with its legislation. You seem to imply that the Republican Party in the US has a monopoly on this concept. Heck I have yet to find a piece of legislation that has an honest name no matter which politician introduced it.

Is it not like that in Norway? Do the politicians there not have hidden motives? Do they not bury some questionable policy inside legislation there? If you say no, then I suspect that everyone agrees on everything in Norwegian politics.

[daedong]

Paul McCarthy is having problems in his divorce situation! Sounds like it is turning ugly Murph, I would not go so far as to say your post was all that humorous, but it was appropriately light hearted. But how come if I post something much less provocative you take to me with a sledge hammer?

[1948berg]

Is it not like that in Norway? Do the politicians there not have hidden motives? Do they not bury some questionable policy inside legislation there? If you say no, then I suspect that everyone agrees on everything in Norwegian politics.
More or less, but the political distance from ultra conservative to ultra radical is much shorter in Norway. And there is less money involved in Norwegian politics.

[elsmitro]

More or less, but the political distance from ultra conservative to ultra radical is much shorter in Norway. And there is less money involved in Norwegian politics.
This is like the only thing I ever see you talk about. Such a one-track mind can only be produced by pure hatred of us. Be honest now, what have we done to you? Why is your need to see us fail so strong? GET REAL!
http://image.com.com/tv/images/processed/photo_viewer/19/e2/8326.jpg

[jonv92]

I take the liberty of starting a discussion of matters that is mostly none of my business
In Norwegian papers today: From the Bush administration; American scientists and officials(Federal Fish and Wildlife Service) are muzzled and are not allowed to discuss GW, polar bears and ice-melting with foreigeners.Any discussions shall be approved by the goverment!- It is argued in this forum that the Patriot act does not bother most of you, McCarthy did not bother most people either, I have the feeling that many of you can tolerate any injustice as long as it does not concern yourself.-
When the NRA and their members are standing on the barricades fighting any attac on the second amandment, the goverment is sneaking inn your back door taking away yout right of speech, write and having opinions of your own. Remember the schoolgirl that got the FBI on her door after having written negatively of the President?
Du har greid å få en del svar her!:tiphat:

[PBinWA]

Here's one of those poor un-biased scientists:


Climate scientist sees cover-up

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 20, 2007


A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out.
But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced.
"We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.

Mr. Hansen responded: "For the sake of the taxpayers, they should be availed of my expertise. I shouldn't be required to parrot some company line."
In a bitter hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating whether there was political interference into climate science, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of "smearing" the other's witnesses.
High-profile global warming hearings this week will include appearances by former Vice President Al Gore before House and Senate committees.
Mr. Hansen yesterday said the Bush administration threatened him and his office over his stance on global warming.
"It was an oral threat made to a public affairs person in New York and relayed to me," said Mr. Hansen, who is listed as a senior adviser to Mr. Gore and consulted on Mr. Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Citing what he called a "growth of political interference," Mr. Hansen said he was forced by NASA officials to deny an interview request from NPR because press officials believed the network to have a liberal bias.
But Mr. Issa noted that Mr. Hansen conducted 15 interviews in the month after accusing the Bush administration of censorship.
During the hearing, former NASA spokesman George Deutsch said he made an error in judgment by sending an e-mail to his superiors suggesting that several of Mr. Hansen's colleagues should grant the NPR interview instead of him.
Mr. Deutsch, who was 23 at the time, said Mr. Hansen was prohibited from doing the interview because of his prior refusal to notify NASA officials when he was granting interviews, not for political reasons.
Citing what he called his "constitutional right" to give interviews, Mr. Hansen admitted violating NASA's press policy but defended his actions.
"It's a very rare case of where you got it on paper," Mr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch's e-mail, claiming the blocked interview was not an exception. "This thing was going on all the time."
Mr. Hansen refused to denounce earlier comments he made referring to the White House as a "propaganda office," and saying, "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States."
"I was referring to the constraints of speaking to the media," Mr. Hansen said, when asked about his comments.
Mr. Hansen also claimed his department was put on a "going out of business budget," by the White House as payback from his global warming views and that press releases were routinely sent to the White House for approval before going public.
Republicans questioned him about his ties to prominent Democrats.
Mr. Hansen received a $250,000 grant from the Heinz foundation, which is controlled by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Mr. Hansen was a vocal supporter of Mr. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
"As far as I know, there's no political connection to this award," said Mr. Hansen, who has donated several thousand dollars to past presidential campaigns for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore. "It's an environmental award."
Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, accused Republicans of "smearing" the witness after Rep. Mark Souder, Indiana Republican, asked Mr. Hansen about the Heinz foundation grant.
In response, Republicans accused Democrats on the committee of unfairly criticizing Philip Cooney, former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Mr. Cooney said he and several other administration colleagues were responsible for editing documents that were produced by scientists including Mr. Hansen.
Mr. Cooney, who was previously employed by the Petroleum Institute, which lobbies on behalf of the gas and oil industries, denied that any of his changes were designed to conceal scientific research on global warming.
For his part, Mr. Hansen explained that he has not always disagreed with the administration's environmental positions, offering approval for increased research into nuclear power and praising the White House's support for a methane gas program.
"It is a success story, and the administration should be given credit for it," Mr. Hansen said.



Sounds like a bunch of politics to me. I'd say those that think there is some form of government conspiracy to stifle the opinions of scientists are highly gullible and are merely fostering their own preconceived prejudices.

[PBinWA]

:whistle: