Science Marches On
 

My reference to "lobbyists and political hacks" was intended to include more than a single person, and not intended to suggest that each person was necessarily both. Though in this instance, he was also a former lobbyist, and undoubtedly a future one.

So?

Govenor Goodhair to gays: Get Out
 

Slave is governor of Texas?

Govenor Goodhair to gays: Get Out
 

No. But the bastard is clearly stealing my material.

Shock at the obvious?
 

Wouldn't it be more surprizing if they did not have a spy ring?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapc...mat/index.html

Shock at the obvious?
 

Yes.

Just started a book about a Polish spy (Ryszard Kuklinski) who helped us quite a bit in the 70s and 80s. It mentioned that when he first contacted our embassy in Bonn in 1972, one-third of the several hundred people working in the embassy were CIA.

Shock at the obvious?
 

Yes, though the part about kidnapping dissidents, while unsubstantiated, is a bit disturbing. Wonder if it's true.

Science Marches On
 

It's rather naive to think that anything that comes out of a government agency has not been subjected to scrutiny to be responsive to some of the administration's supporters' concerns. Even more so when coming out of the White House. Of course, any document coming from there is a political statement. Bush wasn't the first to get the idea that one might choose words and conclusions for political reasons.

Science Marches On
 

No, his innovation has been to run a White House that doesn't bother with policy. That's what K Street is for, right?

Science Marches On
 

My "So?" question was in response to your statement that the report came from a "disgruntled former employee." Does that make the report untrue, in your view?

As for the rest, the reports were not "coming out of the White House." They were government reports, already approved by the relevant agencies, that the White House changed.

It would be analogous to, say, the CIA preparing an intelligence assessment and having the White House dictate that the assessment be changed prior to release in order to suit a pre-determined agenda.

Science Marches On
 

So? Happens all the time . . .

The fact that it comes from a disgruntled employee doesn't make it more or less true. Instead, it makes it more likely to be highlighted, which was why I referred to naivety--I just don't see this as that uncommon, at least in general principle. Perhaps handled in ways that make it less obvious, but it happens.

Anyway, I'm just responding because I can't stand these online gaming geeks not taking it to the gadgets board. Or the nerds board.

Science Marches On
 

Wow. Bait hook, and it gets bitten.

Now, a cite for this happening in a non-Bush admin would be of interest.

2.

Sour Grapes on CAFTA?
 

In Sim City, I really like setting up a good highway system. Two big intersecting ones with a cloverleaf. I spend a ton of money on a chunk of that right off, first thing.

I am not a fan of the fact that you are totally screwed if you try to intersperse single-family housing with multi-family housing, though. It's kind of annoying. Also very un-Houston with the zoning.

For a while I wanted to do a program that Kellogg used to offer in Transportation Management or something. But I didn't get in to Kellogg with my crap work experience, and ended up in law school.

Pot, kettle?
 

Uh, dude, this is the nerds board.

Sour Grapes on CAFTA?
 

I had another friend who played way too much Civ and graduated near the bottom of our class. I think he's now working as an urban planner.

Science Marches On
 

You think I didn't catch the reference? Egad.

But are you saying that Bush is the first president to centralize policy (or non-policy--Hi, Ty!) [Hi, Burger!] in the way that he has? I don't really get it. Bush has a policy re global warming and the environment. It may be a sucky policy, but he has it. Why should government entities be coming out with reports that undermine those policy positions and goals?

The changes he made do not have appeared to have inserted psuedo-science in place of science. Rather they seemed geared primarily to tone, such as the degree of support. And they were *draft* reports. I suppose the white house could have no role, but if it has a role, why is this sort of editing not appropriate?