Republican efforts to destroy science continue apace..

[kentonio]

And for your information, if it matters so much to you, I got a 5 (out of 5) on the AP US Government exam (and this was one of the MAJOR topics on the exam).

The only thing this means is that the AP US Government exam apparently has appalling educational standards.

[regexcellent]

I can hardly believe this. You're mincing words over what I was talking about when I said "federal bureaucracy" which as I've made clear since, refers to the bureaucracy of the executive branch, as any American with half a bit of knowledge of our system of government could tell you. Then, in a hilarious display of ignorance, you declare that because your definition of the federal bureaucracy is different than the one on the AP exam, the AP exam is the one that is wrong and not you.

That's not even getting into the fact that whether I used the word bureaucracy correctly or not is totally irrelevant to my original point.

[kentonio]

I can hardly believe this. You're mincing words over what I was talking about when I said "federal bureaucracy" which as I've made clear since, refers to the bureaucracy of the executive branch, as any American with half a bit of knowledge of our system of government could tell you. Then, in a hilarious display of ignorance, you declare that because your definition of the federal bureaucracy is different than the one on the AP exam, the AP exam is the one that is wrong and not you.

That's not even getting into the fact that whether I used the word bureaucracy correctly or not is totally irrelevant to my original point.

I'm not mincing words over anything. You tried to pretend that federal government is some huge byzantine bureaucracy and pretended that congress wasn't a part of that. This is clearly completely ridiculous, given that congress is a huge organization with countless committees, staff, protocols etc etc.

You not being able to use the English language correctly was simply an added bonus.

[giblets]

Will you retards learn what words actually mean please, and stop pretending you can just pick a single definition off wikipedia.

Seriously, English is supposed to be your first language, by now you should actually be able to use it effectively.

If we accepted your definition of "bureaucracy" as including the entire federal government in the "federal bureaucracy" then the word would be useless for anything aside from its negative connotations. Now your definition isn't necessarily wrong, but that doesn't make regexcellent's usage incorrect, so I have no idea why you feel you have the right to lecture him on this.

[kentonio]

If we accepted your definition of "bureaucracy" as including the entire government then the word would be useless for anything aside from its negative connotations.

Give it a rest, he only used it in the first place because it carries negative connotations.

[MrFun]

The pathological, irrational hatred some of you have for anything having to do with government is fascinating, and yet, disturbing at the same time.

[giblets]

Unlike your pathological tendency to pretend that people you disagree with are raving lunatics?

[MrFun]

Unlike your pathological tendency to pretend that people you disagree with are raving lunatics?

Seriously, though. I don't understand why people are so simple-minded when it comes to the federal government.

"OMG! It's teh evil bearacraky!"

[snoopy369]

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). At least in America, it is very much intentional that bureaucrats do not set policy - the division of 'setting policy' and 'implementing policy' makes it at least a bit harder for bureaucrats to grow their departments for personal reasons. (Not really that hard, still, but at least a bit harder.)

Think back to China in the Ming dynasty. The Emperor served the function of our legislature, correct? Nobody would call the Emperor a bureaucrat (if he wanted to keep his head, anyway).

Wiki does a good job here:

A bureaucracy is a group of non-elected officials within a government or other institution that implements the rules, laws, ideas, and functions of their institution.

Now, this is also a really good explanation of why the Congress shouldn't be involving itself in the NSF grants - they aren't the bureaucrats, the NSF folks are. Bureaucrats are, among other things, apolitical (in theory) - so they can accomplish the goals (set by the political folk) without inherent bias towards one group or another. That's why 'non-elected' is an important part of that definition.

[regexcellent]

Give it a rest, he only used it in the first place because it carries negative connotations.

Oh for ****'s sake. Would you rather I have said "the collection of federal departments, bureaus, and agencies under the executive branch" for neutrality's sake?

[Dauphin]

Was HC suggesting that MPs in the UK are not elected? Else why bring the cabinet of the UK as an example of a bureaucracy whilst quibbling over definitions...

[Dauphin]

Ok. Got it. Makes sense now.

[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.

[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...

[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.