In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 09 2015 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm all for congress getting younger.
The picture does say a lot. one's pretty right on for that.
It's also true that she doesn't know much about guns. Ensuring a weapon isn't loaded isn't something you can trust an aide to do. I doubt she made sure the chamber was clear herself and she is breaking a lot of common sense gun safety procedures.
This bothers me just as much as the science crap or not even knowing what an ATM is. She thinks guns are dangerous and wants to legislate away the danger, but she doesn't/can't observe basic gun safety herself. Our legislators ignorance of the matters they legislate is bothersome regardless of where it falls politically.
They should institute a rule that any legislator must take a test on any topic they are a member of a committee for.
It doesn't even need to be a long or hard test, ANY test at all would be an improvement now.
On January 09 2015 08:57 farvacola wrote: Really now, let's not play the "who can find a picture of someone using poor trigger discipline" game because the knife cuts both ways, muchacho.
She claims to be so knowledgeable about guns that she has the authority to legislate about them, and yet she doesn't even know day-1 stuff. Hell, minute-1.
Yeah I think politicians on both sides get the benefit of the doubt that they have a clue what they are talking about too often.
I like the idea of a test but hard to imagine how it wouldn't be rigged.
On January 09 2015 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm all for congress getting younger.
The picture does say a lot. one's pretty right on for that.
It's also true that she doesn't know much about guns. Ensuring a weapon isn't loaded isn't something you can trust an aide to do. I doubt she made sure the chamber was clear herself and she is breaking a lot of common sense gun safety procedures.
This bothers me just as much as the science crap or not even knowing what an ATM is. She thinks guns are dangerous and wants to legislate away the danger, but she doesn't/can't observe basic gun safety herself. Our legislators ignorance of the matters they legislate is bothersome regardless of where it falls politically.
They should institute a rule that any legislator must take a test on any topic they are a member of a committee for.
It doesn't even need to be a long or hard test, ANY test at all would be an improvement now.
On January 09 2015 08:57 farvacola wrote: Really now, let's not play the "who can find a picture of someone using poor trigger discipline" game because the knife cuts both ways, muchacho.
She claims to be so knowledgeable about guns that she has the authority to legislate about them, and yet she doesn't even know day-1 stuff. Hell, minute-1.
Yeah I think politicians on both sides get the benefit of the doubt that they have a clue what they are talking about too often.
I like the idea of a test but hard to imagine how it wouldn't be rigged.
The same way juror selection for criminal trials works. The tests could be designed by a panel of experts in the field, half democrats, half republicans. They don't have to be hard, or in-depth tests, even just a simple, multiple choice vocabulary test would be better than what we have now.
Another politician not having any idea what she's talking about:
On January 09 2015 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm all for congress getting younger.
The picture does say a lot. one's pretty right on for that.
It's also true that she doesn't know much about guns. Ensuring a weapon isn't loaded isn't something you can trust an aide to do. I doubt she made sure the chamber was clear herself and she is breaking a lot of common sense gun safety procedures.
This bothers me just as much as the science crap or not even knowing what an ATM is. She thinks guns are dangerous and wants to legislate away the danger, but she doesn't/can't observe basic gun safety herself. Our legislators ignorance of the matters they legislate is bothersome regardless of where it falls politically.
They should institute a rule that any legislator must take a test on any topic they are a member of a committee for.
It doesn't even need to be a long or hard test, ANY test at all would be an improvement now.
On January 09 2015 08:57 farvacola wrote: Really now, let's not play the "who can find a picture of someone using poor trigger discipline" game because the knife cuts both ways, muchacho.
She claims to be so knowledgeable about guns that she has the authority to legislate about them, and yet she doesn't even know day-1 stuff. Hell, minute-1.
Yeah I think politicians on both sides get the benefit of the doubt that they have a clue what they are talking about too often.
I like the idea of a test but hard to imagine how it wouldn't be rigged.
The same way juror selection for criminal trials works. The tests could be designed by a panel of experts in the field, half democrats, half republicans. They don't have to be hard, or in-depth tests, even just a simple, multiple choice vocabulary test would be better than what we have now.
Sounds like it would still be more of a political tool than informative on their actual knowledge of the issues, but you're right that would be better than the rampant ignorance on both sides.
Personally guns are pretty low on my priority list though. People being ignorant on basic science on the science committee is a more pressing concern than people ignorant about guns legislating about guns. Guns at least have constitutional protection, requiring the members of the science committee have a basic common understanding of rudimentary scientific knowledge doesn't.
On January 09 2015 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm all for congress getting younger.
The picture does say a lot. one's pretty right on for that.
It's also true that she doesn't know much about guns. Ensuring a weapon isn't loaded isn't something you can trust an aide to do. I doubt she made sure the chamber was clear herself and she is breaking a lot of common sense gun safety procedures.
This bothers me just as much as the science crap or not even knowing what an ATM is. She thinks guns are dangerous and wants to legislate away the danger, but she doesn't/can't observe basic gun safety herself. Our legislators ignorance of the matters they legislate is bothersome regardless of where it falls politically.
They should institute a rule that any legislator must take a test on any topic they are a member of a committee for.
It doesn't even need to be a long or hard test, ANY test at all would be an improvement now.
On January 09 2015 08:57 farvacola wrote: Really now, let's not play the "who can find a picture of someone using poor trigger discipline" game because the knife cuts both ways, muchacho.
She claims to be so knowledgeable about guns that she has the authority to legislate about them, and yet she doesn't even know day-1 stuff. Hell, minute-1.
Yeah I think politicians on both sides get the benefit of the doubt that they have a clue what they are talking about too often.
I like the idea of a test but hard to imagine how it wouldn't be rigged.
The same way juror selection for criminal trials works. The tests could be designed by a panel of experts in the field, half democrats, half republicans. They don't have to be hard, or in-depth tests, even just a simple, multiple choice vocabulary test would be better than what we have now.
Sounds like it would still be more of a political tool than informative on their actual knowledge of the issues, but you're right that would be better than the rampant ignorance on both sides.
Personally guns are pretty low on my priority list though. People being ignorant on basic science on the science committee is a more pressing concern than people ignorant about guns legislating about guns. Guns at least have constitutional protection, requiring the members of the science committee have a basic common understanding of rudimentary scientific knowledge doesn't.
To me, that constitutional protection means we should actually try harder. It's relatively easy for the government to change its position on this or that scientific issue. Give a new subsidy here, remove one there, etc. But people very rarely get rights back once they have been stripped. Look how long the War on Drugs has lasted, even though its demonstrably been a huge failure.
I am all for preventing gun regulation bills written by people who don't know anything about guns as long as we can agree that legislators whose last science and math classes were remedial ones in high school can never air their opinions on anything pertaining to science.
On January 09 2015 10:15 IgnE wrote: I am all for preventing gun regulation bills written by people who don't know anything about guns as long as we can agree that legislators whose last science and math classes were remedial ones in high school can never air their opinions on anything pertaining to science.
Absolutely. I can't stand ignorance in any of its forms. Gun rights are just my main issue, so obviously ignorant anti-gun politicians bother me more than other ignorant politicians.
On January 09 2015 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm all for congress getting younger.
The picture does say a lot. one's pretty right on for that.
It's also true that she doesn't know much about guns. Ensuring a weapon isn't loaded isn't something you can trust an aide to do. I doubt she made sure the chamber was clear herself and she is breaking a lot of common sense gun safety procedures.
This bothers me just as much as the science crap or not even knowing what an ATM is. She thinks guns are dangerous and wants to legislate away the danger, but she doesn't/can't observe basic gun safety herself. Our legislators ignorance of the matters they legislate is bothersome regardless of where it falls politically.
They should institute a rule that any legislator must take a test on any topic they are a member of a committee for.
It doesn't even need to be a long or hard test, ANY test at all would be an improvement now.
On January 09 2015 08:57 farvacola wrote: Really now, let's not play the "who can find a picture of someone using poor trigger discipline" game because the knife cuts both ways, muchacho.
She claims to be so knowledgeable about guns that she has the authority to legislate about them, and yet she doesn't even know day-1 stuff. Hell, minute-1.
Yeah I think politicians on both sides get the benefit of the doubt that they have a clue what they are talking about too often.
I like the idea of a test but hard to imagine how it wouldn't be rigged.
The same way juror selection for criminal trials works. The tests could be designed by a panel of experts in the field, half democrats, half republicans. They don't have to be hard, or in-depth tests, even just a simple, multiple choice vocabulary test would be better than what we have now.
Sounds like it would still be more of a political tool than informative on their actual knowledge of the issues, but you're right that would be better than the rampant ignorance on both sides.
Personally guns are pretty low on my priority list though. People being ignorant on basic science on the science committee is a more pressing concern than people ignorant about guns legislating about guns. Guns at least have constitutional protection, requiring the members of the science committee have a basic common understanding of rudimentary scientific knowledge doesn't.
Lot of lives on the line for the gun issue.
Science mostly has as its stakes sinking Florida to the bottom of the ocean, which really wouldn't be all bad. :-P
The Pentagon announced a plan on Thursday to save a half-billion dollars annually in a major scaling back of the U.S. military presence in Europe — including a withdrawal from an airbase in the U.K. and handing back 14 other sites to NATO allies.
It also said that its presence at one British airbase would be beefed up as part of a planned deployment of the F-35 fighter aircraft.
The U.S. has more than 60,000 troops stationed primarily in Britain, Germany and Italy. The changes would affect mainly the Army and Air Force.
The Associated Press notes: "The restructuring will take place over the next several years, and the first F-35 aircraft would arrive in the U.K. in 2020. They will replace F-15 fighter jets, which are leaving."
Two operational squadrons of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter are eventually to be stationed at RAF Lakenheath, about 70 miles northeast of London.
Facilities in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Portugal would be closed between 2018 and 2021 under the plan, according to The Hill.
you don't need to be a lab technician to regulate the use and transport of chlorine gas. don't see why you need to be able to shoot an assault rifle to regulate it.
On January 09 2015 12:16 oneofthem wrote: you don't need to be a lab technician to regulate the use and transport of chlorine gas. don't see why you need to be able to shoot an assault rifle to regulate it.
1) "Assault Weapons" are not assault rifles. Assault weapon is basically a meaningless word that usually amounts to "gun some senator thinks looks scary".
2) Did you watch the video with Congresswoman McCarthy? Her bill would have banned barrel shrouds. She wrote the bill, and did not even know what a barrel shroud was. She said it was the "shoulder thing that goes up", which is complete gibberish. I don't even know what she means by "shoulder thing that goes up"; in any case its definitely not a barrel shroud. Isn't it kind of ridiculous that someone would want to ban something they cannot even define?
Sure, you don't need to be a technician to regulate the transport of chlorine gas, but you should probably know something about chlorine gas before you try. It's exactly the same kind of corrupt, ignorant bullshit as the legislators on the Science Committee not understanding climate change, evolution, or the internet.
On January 09 2015 12:31 oneofthem wrote: meh. this is rather trivial. she's just the political spokesperson not the person writing the laws.
i can't believe i'm responding to this bbl.
Then why even have legislators if they don't know anything about the bills they pass? Why not just flip a coin to see what ones get passed?
I think its funny you think its trivial. I think its because you don't care about guns. But imagine if she had wanted to ban something you do care about for absolutely no reason? Imagine if she wanted to ban the cable modem you used to post this because she thought it was a series of tubes and the signals caused cancer?
It does sound somewhat sloppy to write a law and not be more familiar with the topic. That said, there are experts around to review these things, and make sure the terms are used correctly in the legislation. I'd also note that while assault weapons may see some use in mass shootings, their overall contribution to criminal homicides is low; while their usefulness as a defense against potential government tyranny (one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment), is quite clear. Whereas handguns are not so useful in such a fight, but are the primary contributor to criminal actions with guns.
On January 09 2015 12:52 zlefin wrote: It does sound somewhat sloppy to write a law and not be more familiar with the topic. That said, there are experts around to review these things, and make sure the terms are used correctly in the legislation. I'd also note that while assault weapons may see some use in mass shootings, their overall contribution to criminal homicides is low; while their usefulness as a defense against potential government tyranny (one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment), is quite clear. Whereas handguns are not so useful in such a fight, but are the primary contributor to criminal actions with guns.
Even if there are experts around to be sure the words are used correctly, it doesn't matter if the legislators who vote on them don't know the words. So sure, the law makes grammatical sense, and you're less likely to end up with outright contradictions if you have experts review the laws, but that doesn't mean they make any more sense.
All a barrel shroud is is a plastic tube that goes around the barrel so you don't burn your hand if you brush up against it. Does that sound like a cop-killing baby-seeking murder device that needs to be banned to anyone?
It sounds like one of three things happened. Either there weren't experts around in the committee that wrote the law, there wasn't any expert testimony in the session that passed the bill, or simply a lot of legislators were absent/asleep during the expert testimony. None of which are encouraging.
Get ready for an embarrassing number of years for this country.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today announced who will chair its subcommittees in the 114th Congress. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will chair the subcommittee that oversees NASA, while Marco Rubio (R-FL) will chair the one with jurisdiction over NOAA.
The Senate is now in Republican hands, so all committee and subcommittee chairs are Republican and ranking members are Democrats (though there are two Independents, who usually vote with Democrats, who might also hold committee leadership positions). The full Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is chaired by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who announced the six subcommittee chairs today. The two of most interest to the space policy community are the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, which includes NOAA, and the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, which includes NASA and added "competitiveness" to its title this year.
Cruz was the top Republican on the Science and Space subcommittee last year, so his ascension to chair is not unexpected. He did not play a prominent public role in NASA matters in the last Congress, and is known mostly for his advocacy of reduced government spending overall and opposition to almost anything that the Obama Administration supports. Bill Nelson (D-FL) chaired the subcommittee in the previous Congress, when it was controlled by Democrats, and is an ardent NASA supporter, having flown on the space shuttle in 1986 when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. Nelson is now the top Democrat on the full Senate Commerce Committee.
Like Cruz, Rubio was the top Republican on the Oceans/Atmosphere subcommittee in the last Congress and now becomes chair. All of NOAA's activities are within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee and historically it has focused more on fisheries and coastal issues than on space.
On January 09 2015 12:52 zlefin wrote: It does sound somewhat sloppy to write a law and not be more familiar with the topic. That said, there are experts around to review these things, and make sure the terms are used correctly in the legislation. I'd also note that while assault weapons may see some use in mass shootings, their overall contribution to criminal homicides is low; while their usefulness as a defense against potential government tyranny (one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment), is quite clear. Whereas handguns are not so useful in such a fight, but are the primary contributor to criminal actions with guns.
Even if there are experts around to be sure the words are used correctly, it doesn't matter if the legislators who vote on them don't know the words. So sure, the law makes grammatical sense, and you're less likely to end up with outright contradictions if you have experts review the laws, but that doesn't mean they make any more sense.
All a barrel shroud is is a plastic tube that goes around the barrel so you don't burn your hand if you brush up against it. Does that sound like a cop-killing baby-seeking murder device that needs to be banned to anyone?
It sounds like one of three things happened. Either there weren't experts around in the committee that wrote the law, there wasn't any expert testimony in the session that passed the bill, or simply a lot of legislators were absent/asleep during the expert testimony. None of which are encouraging.
See while I agree the shroud issue is silly. That's also part of my point. It's not really going to be a big deal one way or the other.
NOAA and NASA that's important stuff that anti science people should not be in charge of.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today announced who will chair its subcommittees in the 114th Congress. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will chair the subcommittee that oversees NASA, while Marco Rubio (R-FL) will chair the one with jurisdiction over NOAA.
The Senate is now in Republican hands, so all committee and subcommittee chairs are Republican and ranking members are Democrats (though there are two Independents, who usually vote with Democrats, who might also hold committee leadership positions). The full Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is chaired by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who announced the six subcommittee chairs today. The two of most interest to the space policy community are the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, which includes NOAA, and the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, which includes NASA and added "competitiveness" to its title this year.
Cruz was the top Republican on the Science and Space subcommittee last year, so his ascension to chair is not unexpected. He did not play a prominent public role in NASA matters in the last Congress, and is known mostly for his advocacy of reduced government spending overall and opposition to almost anything that the Obama Administration supports. Bill Nelson (D-FL) chaired the subcommittee in the previous Congress, when it was controlled by Democrats, and is an ardent NASA supporter, having flown on the space shuttle in 1986 when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. Nelson is now the top Democrat on the full Senate Commerce Committee.
Like Cruz, Rubio was the top Republican on the Oceans/Atmosphere subcommittee in the last Congress and now becomes chair. All of NOAA's activities are within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee and historically it has focused more on fisheries and coastal issues than on space.
Not sure how I should feel. Bill Nelson was a little too in love with the space shuttle, which was a pretty bad program. But I can't imagine Ted Cruz being good for NASA either. Hopefully since he didn't do much about NASA in the past, he will continue to mostly ignore it and let other people run it.
On January 09 2015 12:52 zlefin wrote: It does sound somewhat sloppy to write a law and not be more familiar with the topic. That said, there are experts around to review these things, and make sure the terms are used correctly in the legislation. I'd also note that while assault weapons may see some use in mass shootings, their overall contribution to criminal homicides is low; while their usefulness as a defense against potential government tyranny (one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment), is quite clear. Whereas handguns are not so useful in such a fight, but are the primary contributor to criminal actions with guns.
Even if there are experts around to be sure the words are used correctly, it doesn't matter if the legislators who vote on them don't know the words. So sure, the law makes grammatical sense, and you're less likely to end up with outright contradictions if you have experts review the laws, but that doesn't mean they make any more sense.
All a barrel shroud is is a plastic tube that goes around the barrel so you don't burn your hand if you brush up against it. Does that sound like a cop-killing baby-seeking murder device that needs to be banned to anyone?
It sounds like one of three things happened. Either there weren't experts around in the committee that wrote the law, there wasn't any expert testimony in the session that passed the bill, or simply a lot of legislators were absent/asleep during the expert testimony. None of which are encouraging.
See while I agree the shroud issue is silly. That's also part of my point. It's not really going to be a big deal one way or the other.
NOAA and NASA that's important stuff that anti science people should not be in charge of.
Things being banned for absolutely no reason is always a big deal, regardless of how unimportant the banned thing is. I agree that the underlying disease is that legislators have no responsibility to not be complete morons, but that doesn't mean that the symptoms are any less important.
On January 09 2015 13:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Get ready for an embarrassing number of years for this country.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today announced who will chair its subcommittees in the 114th Congress. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will chair the subcommittee that oversees NASA, while Marco Rubio (R-FL) will chair the one with jurisdiction over NOAA.
The Senate is now in Republican hands, so all committee and subcommittee chairs are Republican and ranking members are Democrats (though there are two Independents, who usually vote with Democrats, who might also hold committee leadership positions). The full Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is chaired by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who announced the six subcommittee chairs today. The two of most interest to the space policy community are the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, which includes NOAA, and the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, which includes NASA and added "competitiveness" to its title this year.
Cruz was the top Republican on the Science and Space subcommittee last year, so his ascension to chair is not unexpected. He did not play a prominent public role in NASA matters in the last Congress, and is known mostly for his advocacy of reduced government spending overall and opposition to almost anything that the Obama Administration supports. Bill Nelson (D-FL) chaired the subcommittee in the previous Congress, when it was controlled by Democrats, and is an ardent NASA supporter, having flown on the space shuttle in 1986 when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. Nelson is now the top Democrat on the full Senate Commerce Committee.
Like Cruz, Rubio was the top Republican on the Oceans/Atmosphere subcommittee in the last Congress and now becomes chair. All of NOAA's activities are within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee and historically it has focused more on fisheries and coastal issues than on space.
Not sure how I should feel. Bill Nelson was a little too in love with the space shuttle, which was a pretty bad program. But I can't imagine Ted Cruz being good for NASA either. Hopefully since he didn't do much about NASA in the past, he will continue to mostly ignore it and let other people run it.
On January 09 2015 12:52 zlefin wrote: It does sound somewhat sloppy to write a law and not be more familiar with the topic. That said, there are experts around to review these things, and make sure the terms are used correctly in the legislation. I'd also note that while assault weapons may see some use in mass shootings, their overall contribution to criminal homicides is low; while their usefulness as a defense against potential government tyranny (one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment), is quite clear. Whereas handguns are not so useful in such a fight, but are the primary contributor to criminal actions with guns.
Even if there are experts around to be sure the words are used correctly, it doesn't matter if the legislators who vote on them don't know the words. So sure, the law makes grammatical sense, and you're less likely to end up with outright contradictions if you have experts review the laws, but that doesn't mean they make any more sense.
All a barrel shroud is is a plastic tube that goes around the barrel so you don't burn your hand if you brush up against it. Does that sound like a cop-killing baby-seeking murder device that needs to be banned to anyone?
It sounds like one of three things happened. Either there weren't experts around in the committee that wrote the law, there wasn't any expert testimony in the session that passed the bill, or simply a lot of legislators were absent/asleep during the expert testimony. None of which are encouraging.
See while I agree the shroud issue is silly. That's also part of my point. It's not really going to be a big deal one way or the other.
NOAA and NASA that's important stuff that anti science people should not be in charge of.
Things being banned for absolutely no reason is always a big deal, regardless of how unimportant the banned thing is. I agree that the underlying disease is that legislators have no responsibility to not be complete morons, but that doesn't mean that the symptoms are any less important.
If it's about banning things for basically no reason (I can imagine why they wanted to ban them) than Cannabis sits higher for me personally. That ban has actually already ruined peoples lives by the millions and continues to ruin lives and families every day.
Beyond that they are banning something with a practical and helpful purpose as opposed to something that is pretty pointless in general (talking about shrouds and bayonets and stuff like that).
You can't find one person who has a clue about cannabis who supports it being banned. Yet here we sit with people going to prison to enforce a ban no one can explain with any semblance of facts.
EPT
