The Great Society housing projects were superior to the slums they replaced or they were not.

In a word, Yes.

(When I say “SIR!” what I am saying is, “Thank you for your service.” )

Great answers to both my question and Pat’s. Most people I know, regardless of philosophical or political stripe, are not only not influenced by “facts” but wouldn’t recognize a “fact” that doesn’t dovetail with their worldview if it bit them in the ass. Your view of things is very refreshing.

Yes. very deliberately. It is a direction that far too few consider.

I’m concerned with the White House’s relation to the public. They hired the guy to do the job.”

Mmm, no, actually. Dr. Hansen is career NASA and was around long before the Bush administration. Dubya did not hire him, he merely inherited him.

“Then non-scientists changed what he wrote and passed it off as if the person credited was the author of the information. No disclaimers that the original words were altered. Wouldn’t that have been the honest thing to do?”

It was NASA itself that X-ed him. Not Dick and dubya in some darkened, smoke-filled room with smirking oil execs lurking in the shadows.

His report was a NASA report. He was speaking as an employee of NASA and on NASA’s behalf. Dr. Hansen could have withdrawn his report or had his name removed. If he could not live with it or felt the report was dishonest he should have resigned. NASA cannot force him to say anything. By the same token, he cannot force NASA to say anything, either.

But what takes the cake is that Dr, Hansen has made his own views known very clearly, very publicly, and in complete detail. When he does that, he is speaking for himself. He has never had anything he says on his own censored. As for that bird-with-a-broken-wing act he is affecting …

“Or, if they didn’t like what he wrote they should have fired him and picked somebody else, not tried to make the public think the report was his.”

In my opinion they should have bounced him out four years ago. (So far as I know, he serves at the pleasure of the president.)

It is totally within NASAs rights to control what is released on behalf of NASA. That is not censorship. It is only censorship if they prevent him from speaking on his own private behalf. They have not done so.

Let me try to explain this another way.

If you work for, say, the New York Times and they spike or alter your story (which they do all the time) they are under zip obligation to announce that fact. ZIP. It would, in fact, be unheard of.

When will you ever pick up a newspaper and read a byline declaiming “well, actually we changed the story around, edited and X-ed it”? You should live so long!

Either the reporter negotiates with his editor or he withdraws the story. If he can’t live with it, he resigns. Heck, maybe the paper gets fed up with him and fires him. The newspaper is under no obligation or expectation to comment one way or the other. THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP. To thus claim is risible.

“By the way, did you actually see the show”

Oh, yes. (Another hour of my life I will never get back.)

Facts are facts. They know no politics.

The temperature is either being measured correctly or it is not being measured correctly.

The world is either running out of resources or it is not running out of resources.

Paul Ehrlich’s predictions are either correct, partially correct, or incorrect.

“Supply-side, trickle-down” economics either produce the effects intended or not.

Mankind is better off today than he was 100 (50, 500, 1000, whatever) years ago or he wasn’t.

The “surge” is either working or it isn’t.

“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” or not.

War doesn’t “solve anything” or it does.

No. No. Incorrect. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Does.

These are empirical issues. They can be observed. They can be tested. Measured. Calculated. Tracked. Graphed. Evaluated.

They are not liberal Vs conservative considerations. They are demonstrable and not subject to value judgement.

Values are a different question entirely. But this blog deals in, well, facts. (If I were to be identified with one of the current political candidates, I suppose It would probably be Rudy Giuliani. Sigh.)

Evan, I think you’re going in another direction here. I’m concerned with the White House’s relation to the public. They hired the guy to do the job. Then non-scientists changed what he wrote and passed it off as if the person credited was the author of the information. No disclaimers that the original words were altered. Wouldn’t that have been the honest thing to do? Or, if they didn’t like what he wrote they should have fired him and picked somebody else, not tried to make the public think the report was his. By the way, did you actually see the show?

And, Jeff, you didn’t really answer my question O.o
it does make a difference.

There is something that has been puzzling me. On a number of occasions, you’ve described yourself as a “bleeding heart Liberal”, but I have yet to see a comment of yours that would suggest you lean even remotely to the left. In what way/s does the term Liberal apply to you?

Sorry about the OT post, Anthony.

The term “Pythonesque”, per se, is not mine, but in the common domain. (The “embarrassment” thing is mere application. )

Oooh, that’s good, Evan. I’ve got to add that to my list of great descriptions. (You will, of course, get attribution if I use it.)