|
Trump's War on Science Threatens Our National Security |
 |
|
Friday, 26 January 2018 14:45 |
|
Excerpt: "We are seeing three troublesome developments unfold: the loss of senior scientists in public service, the dwindling of new scientific and technical talent coming into public service, and the chilling effect on the work of scientists who decide to stay."
Trump and his family look at the solar eclipse. (photo: Getty)
Trump's War on Science Threatens Our National Security
By Andrew A. Rosenberg and Kathleen Rest, Scientific American
26 January 18
Budget cuts and layoffs threaten the nation's health and safety
 s scientists, we have watched with dismay as senior positions in our federal science agencies remain unfilled, science advisory panels get disbanded and science-based policies are undermined.
But amid this governmental turmoil, another, longer-term development is under way that will affect the lives of everyone in the U.S. and take its toll on others around the world—the loss of critical expertise and capacity in the science agencies of the federal government, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among many others.
The science-related cuts proposed by the Trump administration come in programs that deal with issues it opposes ideologically, such as climate change and the use of regulation to reduce pollution. These changes are only part of a larger effort to “deconstruct the administrative state,” as former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has put it, and they reflect this administration's uniquely antiscience attitude.
Thousands of highly trained scientists across a huge range of disciplines have worked diligently at the federal level for decades. These government scientists—and we were once among them at different stages in our careers—are critical to the missions of these agencies. These departments are essential to the health and safety of all Americans: protecting public health; ensuring clean air, water, and the safety of our food and consumer goods; protecting our natural resources; and responding to national emergencies of all kinds, from terror attacks to natural disasters.
Budget cuts are only one highly visible strategy. Other executive actions are eroding the capacity of our nation's science agencies. For one thing, Trump officials are taking advantage of additional methods to reduce agency staffing. In the fine print of the president's budget proposal are reductions in staffing by 20 percent or more in some bureaus (the EPA, for example), often with science programs faring the worst. There are buyout offers for eligible employees and staff transfers to shut down specific areas of work. Virtual hiring freezes have been put in place for most civilian agencies. And there are ongoing consultations on how to conduct “reductions in force,” otherwise known as layoffs.
We are seeing three troublesome developments unfold: the loss of senior scientists in public service, the dwindling of new scientific and technical talent coming into public service, and the chilling effect on the work of scientists who decide to stay. These issues have come up over and over again in many conversations with our colleagues who have experience as scientists and managers in the federal agencies.
A loss of senior scientists means a downgrading of expertise, institutional knowledge, and perhaps even entire programs and areas of work led by those scientists. This is the science that helps us identify, understand and deal with existing risks, as we anticipate future, unknown risks. Science that spurs innovation and incubates solutions. This loss of decades' worth of experience will take even more time to rebuild, precisely as the complexity and pace of the world's science-based challenges increase.
Then there's the pipeline issue—even more concerning from a public service perspective. All the signals seem to be telling scientists (and nonscientists as well) not to go into federal public service. Talented, highly trained scientists early in their careers are turning away from the idea of joining federal laboratories or divisions. Many of these younger scientists tell us they just assume there are no opportunities with federal agencies, historically one of the major employers of scientists in many fields. Or that they worry about working in the current political climate.
Our agencies need that new talent to draw on in years to come to protect our nation's public health, safety and environment. Government organizations, as with most large groups in any sector, depend on people. Without the influx of new talent, the Trump administration, whether by strategy or ineptitude, or some combination thereof, is threatening to hollow out these vital government bodies to the point at which they will cease to function as we need them to. We can't let this happen.
 |
|
FOCUS: The Stench of Authoritarianism Grows More Pungent |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 26 January 2018 12:11 |
|
Rather writes: "I have found that cover ups, especially of the brazenness and consequence hinted at by recent reporting, do not stay hidden for very long. And the truth will not be pretty in the verdict of posterity."
Journalist Dan Rather. (photo: CBS)
The Stench of Authoritarianism Grows More Pungent
By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page
26 January 18
  o man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." - Theodore Roosevelt
These sage words from an American President who understood that our democratic foundations are rooted in fair and independent law enforcement ring within me as I watch in disbelief and shock the coordinated and destructive attacks on this core value by President Trump and his accomplices.
There once was a time when the GOP proudly boasted that it was the party of law and order. They may continue to do so, but those assertions are now tainted with the stain of hypocrisy. Encouraged by President Trump's reckless Twitter finger, we see daily public attacks on law enforcement with evidence-free mudslinging by people who you would have thought would have known better.
But like a looming iceberg threatening our ship of state, the biggest danger may be what we don't see. Recent reporting suggests that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has sought complicity rather than justice from his subordinates in the Department of Justice. This kind of behavior is anathema to our national principles. The stench of authoritarianism grows more pungent.
I do not believe the majority of the American people will abide this. History will not be kind to those who seek to undermine the rule of law. And it's this type of behavior that quickly gets the attention of Special Counsel Robert Mueller - who we now know interviewed Sessions.
I have found that cover ups, especially of the brazenness and consequence hinted at by recent reporting, do not stay hidden for very long. And the truth will not be pretty in the verdict of posterity.
|
|
|
The Courts Take Aim at Partisan Gerrymandering |
|
|
Friday, 26 January 2018 09:37 |
|
Toobin writes: "Donald Trump so dominates the media landscape that he crowds out other news. So what may be the most important political development of our time - the death of partisan gerrymandering - may not be receiving the attention it deserves."
Ohio voters at the polls in Cincinnati for the state's primary on March 15. (photo: John Sommers/Getty)
The Courts Take Aim at Partisan Gerrymandering
By Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker
26 January 18
 onald Trump so dominates the media landscape that he crowds out other news. So what may be the most important political development of our time—the death of partisan gerrymandering—may not be receiving the attention it deserves.
Following the 2010 census, and the Republican landslides in the midterm elections of that year, G.O.P. leaders at the state level created remarkably cynical legislative maps for both state offices and the U.S. House of Representatives. They drew district lines that gave Republicans many more seats than were justified by their over-all statewide numbers. In Pennsylvania, for instance, Republicans received only about half the statewide votes, but they now control thirteen of the eighteen seats in the House. Yet the Republicans may have overreached. A series of court decisions in recent weeks—in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and at the United States Supreme Court—have demonstrated that the judicial branch of government is mobilizing to end this shameful and destructive legislative practice.
The legal assault began on January 9th, when, in a powerful two-hundred-and-five-page opinion by Judge James A. Wynn, Jr., a three-judge panel struck down the North Carolina congressional-district lines. What’s most important about Wynn’s opinion is that he seems to have solved the biggest problem with judicial review of gerrymandering: the standard of review. Drawing district lines will always involve some degree of political calculation, but judges have struggled with the question of how much politics is too much. What rule should judges follow to determine if a gerrymander violates the Constitution? Wynn’s test is straightforward. As Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, puts it, under this standard, “a district map is invalid if (1) it was enacted with the discriminatory intent of benefiting a particular party and handicapping its opponent; (2) it has produced a discriminatory effect in the form of a large and durable partisan asymmetry in favor of the mapmaking party; and (3) no legitimate justification exists for this effect.” In plain English, Wynn’s test means that if politicians draw district lines solely to protect their partisan interests, they’re invalid. (The Supreme Court put the decision on hold, but this is a routine step when the Justices are considering a similar issue.)
A comparable rationale seems to have motivated the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, earlier this week, to strike down the Republican gerrymander of the state’s district lines. In a brief order, with a full opinion to come later, the court held that Republican legislators violated the state constitution when they crafted districts that were so favorable to their party. Because the decision was based on the state constitution, as opposed to the federal, that means there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn it. The Pennsylvania court ordered new lines to be drawn in time for the 2018 midterms, including the primaries, so Democrats, who already have a favorable political environment in the state, have a new and better chance of picking up seats there.
Still, the Supreme Court could slow or even stop the momentum against partisan gerrymandering. Last year, the Court heard arguments in a case challenging the Republican-drawn district lines in Wisconsin, and the Justices have yet to reach a decision. But, in addition to sympathetic comments by Justice Anthony Kennedy during the argument of the Wisconsin case, there is another reason for optimism. In December, the Justices agreed to hear a Republican challenge to a gerrymander by Democratic legislators in Maryland. During the oral argument of the Wisconsin case, several Justices expressed worry that they would appear unduly partisan by striking down a Republican-led effort; the chance to eliminate a Democratic initiative at the same time would satisfy the Court’s desire to appear even-handed in its application of a new standard—and would serve as a warning to all states that gerrymandering had become an out-of-control affliction across the country.
In the short term, the effect of limits on gerrymandering would be clear: since Republicans drew so many of the lines after 2010, Democrats would be helped by a revision of those districts. (Although, because Democrats are increasingly clustered in cities, there is a limit to how much they can be helped by constraints on partisan gerrymandering; even with fairer lines, Democrats will continue to win urban districts overwhelmingly and struggle elsewhere.) But partisan gerrymandering damages more than just one party’s interests. By essentially giving most seats to one party or the other, thus eliminating competitive seats, the state legislators have exacerbated the polarization and the paralysis that afflict our democracy. Legislators in safe seats, who fear only primaries, have no incentive to work with their political adversaries and reach compromises. At long last, judges appear to be telling legislators that they have gone too far with their self-protection racket—and that it’s time for voters to have some real choices once again.
|
|
GOP Panics as Signs Point to Imminent Mueller Blockbuster |
|
|
Thursday, 25 January 2018 14:42 |
|
Budowsky writes: "The scorched-earth attacks against the FBI by a growing number of House and Senate Republicans demonstrate a high degree of fear that special counsel Robert Mueller will make blockbuster moves in the coming days and weeks that will define the fate of ongoing investigations of the Russian attack against America."
Special prosecutor Robert Mueller III. (photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times)
GOP Panics as Signs Point to Imminent Mueller Blockbuster
By Brent Budowsky, The Hill
25 January 18
 he scorched-earth attacks against the FBI by a growing number of House and Senate Republicans demonstrate a high degree of fear that special counsel Robert Mueller will make blockbuster moves in the coming days and weeks that will define the fate of ongoing investigations of the Russian attack against America.
In recent days, there have been an unusually high number of revelations and disclosures, with rapid-fire speed, of upcoming meetings between Trump and Trump associates with Mueller and his special counsel team.
Most likely, these revelations are coming from Trump associates who will be questioned by Mueller, or their attorneys, which is within their right whether or not this move is legally or politically wise.
The news that the special counsel and Trump’s attorneys are negotiating the terms of Mueller’s questioning of Trump, which appears poised to occur within three weeks if terms are agreed upon, suggests that some potentially decisive moves by Mueller are likely to happen in February and potentially could begin this month.
The prospect of Trump’s testimony under oath will be a precipitating event for either a climactic moment for the investigation or a true constitutional crisis if Trump refuses to agree to terms and Mueller moves to subpoena Trump to testify before the grand jury and an intense legal battle waged with high odds of a national political firestorm.
I have long warned readers that there is a strong chance that Trump will never voluntarily agree to testify under oath, no matter what he says. What Trump said to reporters on Wednesday, that he yearns to testify under oath, was totally meaningless because he also said his testimony is contingent upon the advice he receives from his lawyers.
Trump already knows the private advice his lawyers have offered, so when he adds that qualifier to his stated desire to testify, the odds are high that this testimony does not happen and all hell breaks loose legally and politically if and when Trump formally says no to Mueller.
Behind the scenes throughout official Washington, there is a bracing for the storm that could soon engulf the investigation.
This is the context for the extreme, often irrational and in some cases ludicrous frenzied attacks against the FBI that are coming from a growing number of Republican members of the House and Senate and their hardcore allies in the media.
Most of these attacks against the FBI are so preposterous that they will not be itemized here, except to suggest that these attacks against the FBI are horrendously wrong and create huge political danger for Republicans.
These growing GOP attacks against the FBI are politically self-destructive and legally disastrous because they suggest to reasonable people that they have no confidence that Trump and other Trump associates will be cleared by investigators.
Finally, America has now entered a very dangerous zone. If Trump ultimately intends to fire Mueller, grant preemptive pardons to those who have not yet been charged or grant pardons to those who have already been charged, those actions will be triggered by the imminent fact that Trump will either soon testify before Mueller under oath or refuse to testify.
This would set off a constitutional crisis and a huge political backlash against Trump and Republicans who defend him by attacking the FBI.
|
|
