Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

US Government Restricting Research Libraries 753

Posted by kdawson
from the first-they-closed-the-libraries dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "In a move that has been termed 'positively Orwellian' by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Executive Director Jeff Ruch, George W. Bush is ending public access to research materials at EPA regional libraries without Congressional consent. This all-out effort to impede research and public access is a [loosely] covert operation to close down 26 technical libraries under the guise of budgetary constraint. Scientists are protesting, but at least 15 of the libraries will be closed by Sept. 30, 2006."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Government Restricting Research Libraries

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Bush (Score:3, Informative)

    by Epictitus (945324) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @10:26AM (#16007211)
    Carter inherited a bad situation from his predecessors. Bush has created this one all by himself.
  • by CXI (46706) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @10:28AM (#16007224) Homepage
    For a more useful story, please see http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365379.ht ml [libraryjournal.com]

    Some points:
    - The information will be made available online
    - The information will be available through library loan
    - Not all the libraries are closing
    - Bush is not defying Congress. He sent them a budget which they either approve or amend

    Boy, it certainly made for a good story though! For about 2 minutes... *sigh* Do some research before posting or blogging next time.
  • by CXI (46706) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @10:36AM (#16007296) Homepage
    If, unlike the person that submitted the story, you did some research you'd find that the EPA is scanning things themselves to make them publically available online. Additionally you may get them through inter-library loan at any of the libraries that are still going to be open (despite the claims of the sensationalist story). So, um, no.
  • Re:Bush (Score:3, Informative)

    by Epictitus (945324) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:13AM (#16007587)
    Ummm..if you actually know your history...you'd realize that the roots of the Iranian Hostage situation preceded the Carter administration by years. The military situation was caused by the aftermath of the Vietnam war also not to blame on Carter. The economy had already set a course for self destruction before Carter as well. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  • Re:Bush (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:15AM (#16007613)
    Much of what Carter experience was fall out from U.S. and Western misbehavior years before. The Iranian hostage crisis was the blow back of the U.S. overthrow of a Democratic Iranian Government and installation of the Shaw. (a Government that ironically looked to the U.S. as a friend and respected it, the elected president we overthrew had gone so far as to visit the U.S. and claim we were natural allies because we had both overthrown English Colonialism while he was visiting the Liberty Bell). Then there is that little uncomfortable detail that Carters actions DID secure the release of the hostages, but allies of Regan bribed the Iranians to keep them just a little longer (they were released on the day of the administration change, come on, even if it was a coincidence it still means that Carters efforts succeeded.)

    The economic disaster was as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo (note I didn't say price increase, this was a flat out embargo!) which of course was caused by the Arab - Israeli conflicts. It wasn't just U.S. double digit inflation; it was a world wide crisis. Notice that Carter made peace in the Middle East his top agenda and his efforts ended the embargo!
  • Re:Calling Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

    by rk (6314) * on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:21AM (#16007657) Journal

    "His deliberate neglect has more or less wiped one whole American city right off the map."

    I do not come to defend Bush, because I can't stand the guy, but The Corps of Engineers admit the failure was theirs [forbes.com]. The levee system in and around New Orleans was in a sad state of disrepair prior to Katrina, and it could be argued that Katrina saved lives by busting up the levees when many were already evacuated.

    Could you imagine the nightmare that would've ensued from a garden variety severe thunderstorm at high tide in the middle of the night causing a levee rupture? No warning, no news coverage, many people asleep... the death toll could've been 10x higher.

  • Re:Bush (Score:5, Informative)

    by Maximilio (969075) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:33AM (#16007784) Homepage Journal
    So his father's $250,000-$500,000 [colombiasupport.net] stake in a 12 billion dollar company is owning it?
  • Re:Bush (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:45AM (#16007891)
    Yes, it was OPEC that caused double-digit inflation, and NOT the federal reserve. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. That's why all prices came back down when the energy crisis was over. Err, wait...didn't prices in general continue to rise, but at a slower pace? Not a much slower pace, either. Dring the 80's and 90's, the way we measure the CPI was modified so that the current inflation rate appears to be 4%. If you used the 70's way of measuring CPI, the current inflation rate would be closer to 7%.

    When will people understand that the ONLY people who are responsible for a substantial decline in the value of the dollar relative to goods (inflation) can only be caused by the ones printing dollars? In other words, the Federal Reserve. Not congress, not the president, and not foreign companies or governments.
  • Re:Bush (Score:5, Informative)

    by plopez (54068) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:50AM (#16007948) Journal
    Ummm in the mid 50's the CIA at the urging of British petroleum overthrew a legally elected government in Iran and put the Shah in power. The oppression of the Shah and the corruption of his dictatorship helped create the mullahs, the ayatollahs, the Iranian revolution, Hezbullha (sp?) and the Iranian nuclear program.

    If you want to blame a president, blame Eisenhower.

    BTW, I don't know where you were at in the 90's but the US flew *constant* combat missions over Iraq in the 90's to the point where, IIRC, some 50% of us pilots had combat time on their record. A number I heard was that in WWII only about 15% of US pilots had rated combat time.

    Clinton also fired cruise missiles at Ossama. He missed, but he tried.

  • by Cerebus (10185) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:51AM (#16007961) Homepage
    The Carter administration left us with the biggest f'ing mess in our entire history. One that we are still fighting today: Iran and the Muslim problem at large.

    Um, no. That honor belongs to Dwight D. Eisenhower, who in 1953 changed the standing policy established under Truman that the U.S. would not back extra-diplomatic actions against secular and democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in the oil field dispute between Iran and the U.K., despite British pressure to do so. Eisenhower changed the policy, the CIA and MI6 funded the coup, and the Shah was installed--thus neatly setting the stage for the Islamic Revolution a generation later and empowering a fundamentalist jihadist movement.

    You can bet the Iranians haven't forgotten this, even if we have.

    Eisenhower was a Republican, in case you didn't know.

  • Re:Calling Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)

    by paulbd (118132) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:52AM (#16007965) Homepage

    a simple google for "budget surplus clinton" makes it clear that by the end of clinton's time in office, the federal government was running an annual surplus. it is true that there was still an overall federal debt, but that's quite a different issue. its also not clear if we can really thank clinton or serendipity for the surplus, but denying it was there is ridiculous.

    complaining about underfunding makes sense if you believe that there is massive overfunding of things that should not be high on our priorities list. military spending that exceeds that of the next 6-10 nations combined is the most commonly cited example.

  • Re:Bush (Score:5, Informative)

    by canadian_right (410687) <alexander.russell@telus.net> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @11:54AM (#16007983) Homepage
    The Clinton administration told the incoming Bush administration that their top security concern should be this group called "al qaeda". The Bush admin decided that Iraq was a bigger problem even though they KNEW Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had no ties to international terrorism, and that the USA had been bombing them daily since the first gulf war to enforce the "no fly zones". Then 9/11 happened.
  • Re:Bush (Score:5, Informative)

    by masklinn (823351) <slashdot@org.masklinn@net> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @12:02PM (#16008051)

    Al Gore never owned any share in Occidental Petroleum, even I as a european know that. His parents (mother & father) had quite a few shares, nothing impressive though.

  • by calhawk (921611) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @12:14PM (#16008162)
    Good ol' Wikipedia. Biased to a fault: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cheers.asp [snopes.com]

    From Mr. Johnson:

    "Last fall, in light of questions about the study design, I directed that all work on the study stop immediately and requested an independent review. Since that time, many misrepresentations about the study have been made. EPA senior scientists have briefed me on the impact these misrepresentations have had on the ability to proceed with the study.

    I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review. EPA must conduct quality, credible research in an atmosphere absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy."
  • Re:Bush (Score:2, Informative)

    by laughing rabbit (216615) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @12:19PM (#16008193)

    No, but he inherited the Iranian mess that that led to the hostage situation. Namely, the US backed overthrow of the popularly elected government of Iran in the '50s and the installation of the dictatorship of Reza Palahvi, the Shah of Iran. In 1979 the people stood up and took back their country from an often times brutal dictator (secret police, disappearing disidents, curtailed freedoms).

    What they got in return might not be so wonderful, but it was their choice.

  • Re:Bush (Score:4, Informative)

    by kfg (145172) * on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @12:40PM (#16008379)
    Clinton also fired cruise missiles at Ossama. He missed, but he tried.

    In fact, it was Clinton who declared him public enemy number one and set up the special "Get Ossama" bureau that under Bush . . .ummmmmmmmm, let him through, failed to get him in response and has been shut down.

    But I'm sure that after the US moves to "liberate" France from the French, sparking World War Last, people will forget all that.

    KFG
  • Re:Calling Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)

    by sqlgeek (168433) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @12:45PM (#16008416)
    It was Bush that insisted the levies were over-funded and cut the budget for their maintenance. And it was Bush that decided that FEMA was just pork barrel spending and replaced their career professionals with political appointees without any relevant experience.

    As far as blame for the levy failures, there's plenty to go around. The city didn't want to use enough land to build levies as wide & strong as the Army Corp indicated were necessary. That would have entailed destroying more peoples' houses under emminent domain and was about as politically popular as emminent domain almost always ends up being.
  • by Grendel Drago (41496) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @12:50PM (#16008479) Homepage
    Carter didn't inherit the Iranian hostage fiasco from anyone.

    I suppose you'd rather he have appeased the terrorists with weapons [wikipedia.org]. Why, they'd put you on the ten-dollar bill for that, I'd bet.
  • Re:Bush (Score:5, Informative)

    by Philip K Dickhead (906971) * <folderol@fancypants.org> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @01:27PM (#16008787) Journal
    It was created - for the US - by Kermit Rooseveldt and the Dulles brothers. This was in 1953, when as a 'maiden voyage' for the international 'influence' of the CIA, they worked actively in the overthrow of Mossadegh, Iran's enlightened and democratically elected PM.

    Iran had a constitutional revolution against the Monarchy in 1912 - unfortunately the events of the Bolshevik revolution in bordering Russia, and the two world wars, prevented many of the constition's provisions from seeing fruition. The bolshevik years in particular, led to the rise of the so-called "Reza Shah" - a cossack mercenary. He was crowned Shah with the help of british provacateurs.

    By 1950, constitutional courts and the people managed to wrest power, and actually realize the vision of 1912. It was shortly lived. After the US covert actions destroyed teh Mossadegh government, Reza Shah's profligate, wastrel son was recalled from his position in the bordellos of Paris, and plopped on the Peacock throne of Persia.

      Marcos
      Pinochet
      Mohammed Reza Pahlavi

    Same smell. And it's a much bigger list.

    You want the 'cause of terrorism'? Get your head out of fairytales about "freedom" and look what the US/UK axis has done to destroy LIBERTY throughout the world for more than 75 years.
  • Re:Bush (Score:3, Informative)

    by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000@NOspAm.yahoo.com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @03:34PM (#16009916)

    There was, of course, that little adventure in Afghanistan... Not just expelling the Taliban, but also tracking Osama who was assumed to ACTUALLY BE IN AFGHANISTAN AT THE TIME. And I'm the one who doesn't know their history? You people are too easy. rick

    Question:
    What US President gave the Taliban millions of taxpayer dollars shortly after entering office?

    Answer:
    Bush Jr.

    Falcon
  • by mangu (126918) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @03:41PM (#16009969)
    Yet it was another Republican president that started the fighting in Viet Nam, Eisenhower.


    Totally wrong. The fighting started against the French colonial domain, in 1946, and lasted until 1954, when the French suffered total defeat at Dien Bien Phu. The war between North and South started gradually, as a guerilla war, shortly after the country gained independence. The USA sent some military personnel to the South during the Eisenhower government, but they were training the South Vietnam military and weren't directly involved in combat.


    The actual fighting between USA and Vietcong started after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, during the Johnson government.

  • by Intron (870560) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:17PM (#16010254)
    "under the guise of budgetary constraint"

    There has been a report from the CRS or GAO, I forget which, that the closings will increase costs to the EPA, due to the reduced availability and longer waits for materials that they need. SO I would give this one full marks.
  • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000@NOspAm.yahoo.com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:47PM (#16010541)

    Yet it was another Republican president that started the fighting in Viet Nam, Eisenhower.

    Totally wrong. The fighting started against the French colonial domain, in 1946, and lasted until 1954, when the French suffered total defeat at Dien Bien Phu. The war between North and South started gradually, as a guerilla war, shortly after the country gained independence. The USA sent some military personnel to the South during the Eisenhower government, but they were training the South Vietnam military and weren't directly involved in combat.

    Yes, the fighting between the French and Viet Namese started years before EIsenhower was president but he sent the first military personel to Viet Nam. By that tyme there were ongoing peace talks. An agreement, the Genevas Peace Accord [mtholyoke.edu] or Geneva Conference [wikipedia.org] I believe, was made in which the people of North and South Vietnam would vote to decide if the north and south would reunite. Eisenhower was against this, so he sent in a team of military advisors led by Colonel Edward Lansdale [schoolnet.co.uk] to arm, gather, and train those from the south who were also against the vote for or against reunification. As tyme went on Kennedy sent in more and more advisors. Then as president Johnson used the falsified Gulf of Tonkin Incident [wikipedia.org] as justification to send regular troops to Vietnam.

    Falcon

The universe is all a spin-off of the Big Bang.

Working...