He didn't. He said "er, umm... Let's not do that any more, OK?"
"Fuck no" would have included timely investigation and prosecution.
Much as we on the left would like to, there's basically nothing to give Obama an attaboy for.
I guess that prosecuting Bush and Cheney (Not to mention Tenet, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the bums) would have been 'inappropriate'. I suppose they could have arranged a sham 'Reagan Party' at the Hague and let the europeans capture and prosecute them as the war criminals they are. Sadly, I suspect that that would have started a somewhat one-sided "WWIII".
So, really, there is nothing we can do. However, a recent OP-Ed in the NYT made the case for a presidential pardon for everybody involved, because if Obama doesn't somehow recognize that this was a crime, it could happen again. Putting Bush in jail would be best, but it will never happen. Making him a pardoned felon could have some effect on future presidents.
And, I'm not even sure Bush understood what was going on. Cheney, yes. That guy is Darth Vader. Tenet? Yes. Rumsfeld? Yes. All those guys would be in jail in a perfect world.
Was there some state requirement to go into careers that you tested into? That would make women and men show up in equal numbers. However, the sharp drop off since '89 would imply that there is still cultural antagonism to (or innate bias against) women in sciences.
This is practically a troll.
Try as we do, we can't escape the reality that girls are not only physically different than boys, but as an aggregate group do lean towards certain behaviours and interests.
Some of it may be learned, and there are of course outliers, but you see similar behaviour tied to gender across very different and sometimes geographically isolated cultures. In the least technical terms, there really are "girl things" and "guy things". This becomes rediculously obvious to anyone who has spent any time around little kids.
I'm all for removing artificial barriers, but once they are down we're gonna have to accept that maybe girls really do want to be princesses and maybe guys really do want to be monster trucks (not drive, be damnit, BE!)
I really doubt this guys daughter is deciding to be a princess because she feels society has limited her career choices. She wants to be a princess because that's the kind of thing little girls lean towards. If she wants to play with lego, by all means encourage that shit, but if she just wants to dress up and play with doll, let her play with her dolls and leave her alone!
This is clearly true. I mean, in islamic societies, women just naturally want to cover every part of their body except their eyes, and are averse to driving. They want to be stoned for adultery.
Women in America, before those unnatural suffragettes, didn't really want to vote. They don't want equal pay. They want to be housewives, and live in suburban homes.
My point is that we've just come out from under many millennium of misogyny. How can you say with assurance WHAT women want? Or, for that matter, what men want? The political forces have skewed our desires so fully, and informed our prejudices so entirely that women themselves don't have a gut feel for what is 'natural' for women.
Your typical 4 year old has thousands of hours of TV watching under their belt. They have watched their parents reactions to their actions. They know what you want, and what society expects.
Saying that women are opting out of STEM due to choice is not a useful statement. Of course they are choosing to opt out. The question is why is this happening? I can assert that the moronic drivel you call your opinion has been posted because you choose to do it. Now, as to why you choose to post, the assertion that you chose does not have any power to explain, Choosing is an act, not a reason for the act. It is the reason behind the act that we should consider.
Now, I never said sexism was the only cause, just that it is well established by the literature, I've seen it occur myself, and there are lots of firsthand accounts of sexism in science and engineering. So, you are free to speculate on alternate causes for the 'choice' made by women who are choosing to leave STEM. Just saying, "well, they had the choice to stay, and they left, so fuck them" doesn't really cut it as a rational viewpoint, in my opinion. Blacks 'chose' not to vote for 100 years because they were being beaten up and hung when they tried to do it. I guess your view would be that they just "chose" not to vote, so fuck them?
As to your supposed hyper-rationality, you are using rhetoric rather than reason, claiming a straw man proposal (that I believe that sexism is the only cause of women leaving STEM), which can be easily defeated. There are clearly other causes, but the one I see, the one that affects MY DAUGHTER, and other women trying for engineering degrees, is sexism, probably originating from twisted little mama's boys like you. Try arguing like a man, and using your 'hyper-reason' instead of cheesy, transparent rhetoric
So, in summary, go fuck yourself, you ignorant little shit. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your 'hyper-rationality' doesn't seem to be cutting it today. Maybe you should go read ' harry potter and the methods of rationality' again.
The point is that the systems designed to stop it from bouncing failed for some reason. They wanted it to be in sunlight to collect solar power. They didn't achieve that.
They are really rocket scientist heroes in my opinion, but I'm sure they are kicking themselves nonetheless. Some of these guys have spent 20 years on the project. They deserve a bigger payoff.
You know, as much as a lot of people are looking at this as a failure, I look at this as a reminder of just how damned difficult this kind of stuff is.
Sadly, I recall that the devices that were on the lander that should have arrested its bounce both failed (the rocket, and the harpoons). So, there 'was' a failure. The mission, though, got lots of data, so it can't be seen a complete failure. It is amazing, awe inspiring, and wonderful. Just not as wonderful as it would have been if the lander had stuck to the first landing place, and been around to witness the out gassing.
You claim to be hyper rational, but I see what sexism does to women first hand. In fact, your supposedly hyper rational view is provably pathetic nonsense. Women are discriminated against in STEM fields. Your argument is a typical horns of a dilemma, "if not this, then clearly that". You can't see any other reasons than 'choice'? Either you are knowingly posting a misleading argument, or you have shit for brains. Those seem to be the only choices.
Try searching for 'discrimination against women in STEM' for more information. In case you can't figure out how to use google, here is one.
With everyone from the federal government to corporate America working to encourage more women to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math fields, you would think the doors would be wide open to women of all backgrounds. A new study shows that this could not be further from the truth and that gender bias among hiring managers in STEM fields is extraordinarily prevalent.
Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.
Concerning indians, here is another reference.
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. - Edmund Burke
