EPTI hear it's how they're transporting the Loch Ness Monster and Voldemort's basilisk. Good thing Texas is on it!
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1927
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
I hear it's how they're transporting the Loch Ness Monster and Voldemort's basilisk. Good thing Texas is on it! | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Living down to our worst expectations, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology voted Thursday to cut deeply into NASA's budget for Earth science, in a clear swipe at the study of climate change. The committee's markup of the NASA authorization bill for fiscal 2016 and 2017 passed on a party-line vote, Republicans in the majority. The action followed what appears to be a deliberate attempt to keep Democrats out of the loop. According to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee's ranking Democrat, her caucus "did not even know [the markup] existed before last Friday. ... After we saw the bill, we understood why." As outlined by Marcia Smith at SpacePolicyOnline, the measure would cut NASA's Earth science budget to at most $1.45 billion in fiscal 2016, from $1.77 billion currently -- a cut of $323 million, or nearly 20%. Under some circumstances, the budget could shrink even further to $1.2 billion, a cut of nearly one-third. Compared with President Obama's request for fiscal 2016, which is $1.95 billion, the proposal would amount to a cut of at least 26%. The budget plan perfectly reflects the House GOP's glorification of space exploration, which masks its disdain for research on climate change. Unsurprisingly, it has created consternation among experts. The American Geophysical Union observed just before the vote that NASA's Earth science programs involve more than the study of climate change as such, but "provide a basis for knowledge and understanding of natural hazards, weather forecasting, air quality, and water availability." The Earth Science division, the organization continued, helped monitor the movement of oil into Gulf of Mexico coastal waters after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, track severe storms and tornadoes, and assisted with flood predictions and earthquake response. Source | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
With so many committee members and leaders of government-run science programs explicitly denying realities like climate change, I'm not surprised (just depressed) that cuts like these occur. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
What the actual fuck. Lol I really want to be there when the state guard tries to monitor the military. "hey guys what ya doing....." Lmao Never change Texas. | ||
|
always_winter
United States195 Posts
The most depressing part of this situation? These dumbfucks actually represent their constituencies: bible-thumping, hardline conservatives that would sooner look to an imaginary deity than allocate proper resources to find real, human solutions. We won't see meaningful change in this country for quite some time. Edit: Whenever I hear the new tourism slogan on the Hulu commercials: "Texas...It's like a whole other country," the first thing that comes to mind is...."Can it be?" | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:12 zlefin wrote: Pity the system isn't designed to screen people like that out of high public office. it's called voting, the problem is, voters are just as stupid as the people they elect. just a reminder, 100 iq is average. 50% of the population is BELOW a 3 digit iq. lol, think about that for a second. Our governing body is elected by a majority of people who's iq is below 100. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:12 zlefin wrote: Pity the system isn't designed to screen people like that out of high public office. It would be nice if candidates had to take some sort of relevance exam to show that they at least understand the fundamentals of the position they're being nominated for. That, and we should totally have some sort of test to be eligible to vote as well. And I think it'd be interesting if we removed the words Republican and Democrat from the voting screen/ paper, so that people are more likely to vote based on the name rather than the party. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:15 zlefin wrote: voting is not a mechanism designed to screen people like that out. voting is essentially an oversized committee who votes on who is the most qualified candidate, obviously gerrymandering and having people run unopposed is an issue, but my point still stands. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:14 wei2coolman wrote: it's called voting, the problem is, voters are just as stupid as the people they elect. just a reminder, 100 iq is average. 50% of the population is BELOW a 3 digit iq. lol, think about that for a second. Our governing body is elected by a majority of people who's iq is below 100. To be fair, IQs and IQ tests are always restandardized so that the population mean is 100. In other words, even if the whole population jumped up a few intelligence points, it would still be modified so that the mean is 100. It's called the Flynn effect. After recalibration, IQ will always be relatively normal with mean 100, and the standard deviation is typically around 15 points iirc. Also, I'm sure plenty of government officials and citizens have an IQ above 100 but still reject science and facts for random political or religious reasons (or a lack of experience in the field, for that matter). | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:19 wei2coolman wrote: voting is essentially an oversized committee who votes on who is the most qualified candidate, obviously gerrymandering and having people run unopposed is an issue, but my point still stands. no, your point doesn't stand; it's simply NOT a mechanism designed to do that. it doesn't measure qualification, it measures popular support and speaking ability. and it's not meant to screen for understanding of complicated issues, or any sort of high level ability. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Seems to me that NASA has run its course as an agency. Time to shutter it, put the military aspects within DOD explicitly then, if wanted, create a climate change agency plus a Mars exploration agency. This is really just pure beaurocratic mission creep at IRS worst. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:22 zlefin wrote: no, your point doesn't stand; it's simply NOT a mechanism designed to do that. it doesn't measure qualification, it measures popular support and speaking ability. and it's not meant to screen for understanding of complicated issues, or any sort of high level ability. again, it's supposed to measure qualification, the problem is people are dumb and get hamstrung by popularity contest and charisma that it no longer doesn't. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23246 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:26 wei2coolman wrote: again, it's supposed to measure qualification, the problem is people are dumb and get hamstrung by popularity contest and charisma that it no longer doesn't. I think I agree with you. But I get the point being made. I think he is talking about strictly voting. Whereas you are talking about voting with the additional qualifier of informed rational voters. Which is what I think you meant in the first place, and the confusion is over meaning versus text. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:26 wei2coolman wrote: again, it's supposed to measure qualification, the problem is people are dumb and get hamstrung by popularity contest and charisma that it no longer doesn't. dude, just stop arguing, you're not arguing against the point I made, so you're just being unhelpful. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On May 05 2015 09:35 zlefin wrote: dude, just stop arguing, you're not arguing against the point I made, so you're just being unhelpful. i'm clarifying your point. no need to get so antsy about it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
voting is not a system designed to screen out unsound argumentation. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
| ||
