Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Good for them! (Score 1) 858

why in earth do you think this is positive? do you not realize that all this crap will be revisited upon "your side" the next time rolls are reversed? Are there laws being broken? no? then do your job or leave. Do you want insurrection?

"My side" is the one who is against politically motivated purges of government offices. I don't care which party tries to do this - this is unethical, and leads to something illegal, and should be resisted at all costs. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, if you try to do politically motivated purges through a whole department, you should be fought tooth and nail.

Comment Re: Good for them! (Score 1) 858

Then by your definition every President that has failed to enforce the immigration laws should have been impeached. Is that correct?

If by "failed to enforce" you mean "eliminated the agency responsible" then yes, that would be something that Congress could consider impeachable. Deciding on direction of focus, so long as it still maintains the Federal mandate of the ICE is within the President's power (via the Director of Homeland Security).

Now, more directly to your point: If you're trying to get in a dig against Obama here (like you can even pretend you aren't), then you'll be happy to know that under Obama the ICE has deported around 300,000 illegal aliens per year throughout his Presidency. The ICE even reached their all-time high numbers for deportations in 2013. He has deported about 25% more illegal immigrants than GWB did. It's estimated that Obama will have deported more people under his Presidency than every single President in the 20th century combined.

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 5, Insightful) 858

If you can prove that a company intentionally polluted knowing that the pollutants were harmful then by all means, have the EPA bring a lawsuit against them. But I don't believe in punishing everyone because of the possibility of misdeeds by some. I especially don't believe in it if no one realized the pollution was dangerous when the pollution was occurring, unless you could somehow prove that they intentionally didn't look into it or blocked that research.

Uh, this shit is PRECISELY what went on throughout the last century (and still continues to this day).

It has been proven countless times that companies will do blatantly illegal and harmful things, knowing full well how harmful they are as long as they believe their risk:benefit ratio is good enough. (See: Flint, Bhopal, Love Canal, Hinkley CA, etc. etc. etc.)

Oh, and as for the "if they knowingly use harmful pollutants use a lawsuit" is bullshit. The legal system is set up so that all they need to do is say they didn't know and they'll get off with a warning, or force the public into a long drawn-out civil legal battle that can take decades to decide. The point of all the EPA regulations is so that these companies can't claim that they "didn't know". These regulations are there so this shit doesn't have to turn into a decades long civil battle, with lots of "did they or didn't they know" going on.

Your argument is like saying that food safety regulations aren't needed, because restaurants will figure out if they make people sick on their own, and we can TOTALLY trust them to stop doing something that does, even if it costs them extra money, right?

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 1) 858

Once again, someone who confuses the concepts of legality and ethics.

Just because something is not illegal does not mean that thing is ethical. People in positions of government power are expected to adhere to ethics. If need be, that includes refusing to carry out a legal order if it is ethically odious. (Just ask Nixon's AG about that.)

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 4, Insightful) 858

So you're perfectly OK with unelected personnel refusing to perform perfectly legal tasks assigned to them by the legally elected leadership of the US government?

Personally, I hope he stops their paychecks. Bureaucrats don't get to anticipatorily refuse lawful instructions from their employer because he *might * do something they disagree with later.

Sure. And let's mandate that those people start wearing yellow stars on their clothing as part of a new dress code while we're at it. Dress codes aren't illegal, either. Next, we'll have all those people moved from their offices over into other offices on the other side of town. Nothing illegal about moving someone's office either, right? Something odious and unethical doesn't have to be illegal in order for refusal to be the right option.

If you don't think this is the first step of a purge, you're a complete fucking idiot. Those in charge know exactly what this is because they aren't complete fucking idiots. And when something so obviously unethical (and illegal) is coming down the line, the only ethical thing to do is refuse to comply with all the orders that will facilitate it. Just because each step along the way is legal does not mean you should blindly do it when you know exactly what the end result will be.

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 5, Insightful) 858

That is what these agencies are supposed to do - they're not supposed to be partisan tools for the current ruing party; they're supposed to be an impartial apparatus that does a job mandated by Congress to the best of their abilities.

But they're currently partisan tools for the Obama administration. So you agree with replacing them?

Howso? When did Obama go through and hand-pick every single employee, checking if they had any beliefs that disagreed with his worldview? At various points in his Presidency different agencies said and did things that weren't in 100% support of what he wanted. But no purges ever happened.

Impartial does not mean "doesn't do what is asked of them". It means they do their job - and part of that includes doing what is asked of them by the President as long as it doesn't mean betraying their mandate . It also means not firing anyone simply for having differing opinions from the President - and especially not for conducting research that the President doesn't like when it's exactly what your department is mandated by Congress to do.

There is a world of difference between shaping legislation to lead agencies into doing what you want, and destroying the agency if it doesn't do exactly what you demand, ethics be damned.

Comment Re:Liberals Can't Win Elections (Score 4, Insightful) 858

Democrats did get more votes than Reps. However this argument is moot and irrelevant.

In response to a "going against the will of the voters" argument, it is in no way irrelevant. It is not being brought up to try claim HRC is the real president - it's being brought up to refute the claim that DT has some sort of mandate from the masses.

Comment Re:Liberals Can't Win Elections (Score 0) 858

You can't win an election so cheat in every way possible, even if illegal, to go against the will of the voters.

Democrats got ~3 million more votes than Republicans did for President. So, who's going against "the will of the voters", again? Just because your guy won on a technicality doesn't mean you have the populous behind you.

Also, exactly how is refusing to obey unethical demands "cheat[ing] in every way possible, even if illegal"?

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 3, Insightful) 858

I applaud what the DoE management is doing but it just means that if the new administration pushes they will replace more staff than originally intended they have that authority.

But in doing so, they will show they have integrity, and take their jobs seriously. That is what these agencies are supposed to do - they're not supposed to be partisan tools for the current ruing party; they're supposed to be an impartial apparatus that does a job mandated by Congress to the best of their abilities.

To put it differently, if you rebelled against what your boss tells you how long do you think you will be around to keep saying "no"?

There are things more important than a paycheck. And I'd consider not supporting a totalitarian regime with a flagrant disregard for reality one of those things.

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 4, Insightful) 858

translation: Oh how I would love for the gov to grind to a halt for about a month while everyone gets fired and Trump puts in his people anyway.

You are so pissed off you would burn our gov to the ground. It was fucking balls on retarded when the republicans did it a few years ago and it still is.

Trump is the one burning our government to the ground, and this exact move he tried to pull underlines that exquisitely. What possible reason would Trump, an avowed climate-change denier have for asking for the names of every individual who worked on climate change EXCEPT to initiate a purge? How is a mass-firing within an organization for explicitly greed-oriented political goals going to have any result that isn't destructive to the department in question? It also sends a blatant message of "don't do your job to the best of your ability - STFU and ignore anything that isn't in line with what we say to do." THIS is what is going to "burn our gov to the ground".

Want to know what would be 'glorious'? If you decided to work with 'the other side' instead of being a smug jerk.

If "the other side" had any intention of actually "working with us" that may be possible. But from day one, these fuckers have declared war. One look at the proposed cabinet shows that 100% - these people were not selected for expertise, they were selected because they have deep-seated antipathy and aggression towards the very government agencies they're supposed to oversee. There is no "working with" someone who has publicly declared themselves your enemy.

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 5, Insightful) 858

Oh, how I would love for EVERY department of the US Government to do this to Trump's team. Those people were hand-picked to destroy the very departments they will oversee. It would be glorious for every department of the government to simply rebel this way and refuse to acknowledge these new anti-leadership goons and just continue to do their jobs as if they don't exist.

Comment Re:eh (Score 5, Insightful) 176

i think most can argue even in true free markets that who cares what happens to people that like that.

The question is whether that data collection was legal, and fell with a scope that didn't amount to a fishing expedition. There are two main reasons everyone should care about this:

1) If it's not legal, then it risks these suspects going free on a technicality.
2) If it's not legal, but people decide to just let it slip by because "those people are horrible", then it sets a precedent that said methods are OK, and it gets harder for it later to be declared illegal when the government starts using it for less clear-cut or outright nefarious purposes.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban

Working...