Republican efforts to destroy science continue apace..

[giblets]

Let's see, does congress consist of a few hundred elected people who travel to Washington and carry out all functions of congress? Or does congress basically consist of thousands of aides, staff and employees who have never been voted into anything in their lives working to write the bills and do the action work that the congressmen and women then rubber stamp or symbolically oppose long after the real work has actually been done? You know, the bureaucracy that makes things actually happen.

Even if it did and congressmen were only "rubber stamping" bills, that wouldn't be the federal bureaucracy. Maybe you should learn how the US government actually works before commenting on it.

[kentonio]

Ken, I think reg is generally right here. Government officials != Bureaucrat. Bureaucracy is the group of people involved in implementing the government's policies; congress itself is not a part of that group (they are a part of the legislature, or law-making branch of government).

Let's see, does congress consist of a few hundred elected people who travel to Washington and carry out all functions of congress? Or does congress basically consist of thousands of aides, staff and employees who have never been voted into anything in their lives working to write the bills and do the action work that the congressmen and women then rubber stamp or symbolically oppose long after the real work has actually been done? You know, the bureaucracy that makes things actually happen.

[Nikolai]

This thread needs more beer. Or some other means to lighten up.

[Sava]

The Webster's dictionary link?

Yes. The one that only specifies nonelective government officials IN ONE PART OF ONE DEFINITION

Oops! The first, that is primary, definition of the word explicitly specifies that the bureaucracy consists of nonelective officials. In other words, members of Congress are not part of the federal bureaucracy. So why did you ***** object to how regexcellent used the term?

I was responding to DD, not reg.

You and DD seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. It's mind boggling how dumb people can be.

Anyways, good luck with that whole stupid thing. It seems to be working well for you. Moron.

[regexcellent]

Why would the President make a pre-election or election promise to move the Israeli embassy? Doesn't exactly seem very important on the scale of things a president should be worried about...

Why don't you ask them? I was just using it as an example for the purpose of illustration. Congress and the President (several presidents) have tried to get the embassy moved loads of times but the DoS keeps holding it up for whatever reason.

[giblets]

maybe you should actually click on the link they reference

DUMB****

and to DD for the non-ironic thanks to that post

thank yourself for being tarded, dip****

The Webster's dictionary link?

1 a : a body of nonelective government officials
b : an administrative policy-making group

Oops! The first, that is primary, definition of the word explicitly specifies that the bureaucracy consists of nonelective officials. In other words, members of Congress are not part of the federal bureaucracy. So why did you ***** object to how regexcellent used the term?

[Sava]

Will you ***** please do me a favor and kill yourselves?

maybe you should actually click on the link they reference

DUMB****

and to DD for the non-ironic thanks to that post

thank yourself for being tarded, dip****

[Jon Miller]

This would add inefficiency and waste because you are putting those who have very different desires (political/bacon/etc) over the process instead of those who desire good research.

It would probably be better to have a committee made up of a combination of citizen action groups and corporate groups, there at least you would understand the biases.

The best would be scientists themselves who understand science and how to further science.

These scientists can create rules influenced by what industry, the president, and congress desire.

Wait, that is what we have now.

We already do a lot of stuff oriented towards fulfilling desires of congress/etc. My pure scientific discovery colleagues think that there is a huge waste of time and money that goes to this.

Jon

[Jon Miller]

This would add inefficiency and waste because you are putting those who have very different desires (political/bacon/etc) over the process instead of those who desire good research.

It would probably be better to have a committee made up of a combination of citizen action groups and corporate groups, there at least you would understand the biases.

The best would be scientists themselves who understand science and how to further science.

These scientists can create rules influenced by what industry, the president, and congress desire.

Wait, that is what we have now.

We already do a lot of stuff oriented towards fulfilling desires of congress/etc. My pure scientific discovery colleagues think that there is a huge waste of time and money that goes to this.

Jon

[The Mad Monk]

There's no irony. If there's no oversight, there is much greater potential for inefficiency and waste. A lot of government bloat comes from that.

[-Jrabbit]

What I find amazing is that all the small-government-keep-your-hands-off-my-healthcare crowd seemingly fails to see the irony of their support for additional federal oversight. Personally, I think they (whoever is behind this proposal) are much smarter than that, which is why "Koch brothers and other friends don't like the lack of support from science, we must put a stop to that" feels like the most likely explanation to me.

[snoopy369]

In any event, that's actually the benefit (as well as the detriment) of a bureaucracy. Having a combination of institutional memory and conservatism (not Conservatism, but change-avoidance) is good in the implementation of policy, because the populace needs some buffer from the political winds there.

For example, imagine that we changed presidents every 4 years, and each President was the other party (never an incumbent winner). Let's say the Republicans wanted the embassy in Tel Aviv, and the Democrats in Jerusalem. It's a terrible idea to switch it from place to place every 4 years; so the bureaucracy's conservatism is a good thing there. If both parties really want to move it, they eventually will (unless there are other concerns - I know nothing about the specific example here; perhaps the State department has valid reasons for opposing it, perhaps not).

It's certainly a two way street, sometimes the conservatism is annoying; but it's not all bad.

[snoopy369]

Why would the President make a pre-election or election promise to move the Israeli embassy? Doesn't exactly seem very important on the scale of things a president should be worried about...

[regexcellent]

The problem with the US bureaucracy is that each department has its own culture and political agenda among the career people, who then hire/advance other career people with the same agenda, and it's difficult for Congress or sometimes even the President to break them into doing what they're supposed to be doing as per the goals of the political leadership that was actually elected by the people. Case in point, moving the Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem hasn't happened primarily because of State Department resistance, despite every president making it an election or re-election promise to move the embassy.

[Dauphin]

Ok. Got it. Makes sense now.