[Chinasaur]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1015/p02s01-uspo.html

Toothsome quote - This week, the Environmental Integrity Project - headed by the EPA's former head of regulatory enforcement, who resigned in protest - amplified that concern, reporting that enforcement actions against air and water polluters has dropped 75 percent under the Bush administration.

Once more highlighting how the Bush adminstration has bent over the sink for GOP donors. Clean air and water is just bad for profits and so it's not needed.

Course..I'm sure the RWNJ's™ will say the Christian Science Monitor is a Far Left Liberal rag

[Chinasaur]

I'm thinking the Whistleblower protection law will get rescinded if Bush gets re-elected.

As GW himself said after viewing a parody website - "there should be limits on free speech".

[chabig]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
"there should be limits on free speech".

I thought the ACLU said that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
I'm thinking the Whistleblower protection law will get rescinded if Bush gets re-elected.

The Whistleblower protection statute is for whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are people who go to the authorities to report violations of the law. Despite what the article says, that is not what is happening here.

These civil servants are simply unhappy about the directions of their political bosses. Well, so what? When you become a civil servant for an executive agency, you agree to take direction from the president of the day regardless of whether or not you voted for that president or like his party. Unelected civil servants don't set policy. They are supposed to faithfully carry it out as neutral and apolitical professionals.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Whistleblower protection statute is for whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are people who go to the authorities to report violations of the law. Despite what the article says, that is not what is happening here.

These civil servants are simply unhappy about the directions of their political bosses. Well, so what? When you become a civil servant for an executive agency, you agree to take direction from the president of the day regardless of whether or not you voted for that president or like his party. Unelected civil servants don't set policy. They are supposed to faithfully carry it out as neutral and apolitical professionals.

They should do what they're told, that's true, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with them calling attention to what they're being told to do.

They're still citizens with full free speech rights, after all. In that vein, it is also unrealistic to expect them not to have an opinion on the best way to do their job. It's downright idiotic to expect them to be automatons without opinion.

So, yes, they should do what they're told, but only a fool doesn't have an opinion on the best way to do his own job, and they can and do retain their rights as citizens to speak out about the job they're being asked to do.

If you don't like it, Simey, I would have serious questions about your commitment to fundamental American values.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
They should do what they're told, that's true, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with them calling attention to what they're being told to do.

They're still citizens with full free speech rights, after all. In that vein, it is also unrealistic to expect them not to have an opinion on the best way to do their job. It's downright idiotic to expect them to be automatons without opinion.

So, yes, they should do what they're told, but only a fool doesn't have an opinion on the best way to do his own job, and they can and do retain their rights as citizens to speak out about the job they're being asked to do.

If you don't like it, Simey, I would have serious questions about your commitment to fundamental American values.

BlackGriffen

They have a right to resign. That's the way that employees generally voice their disagreement with their employer's instructions. If you work for a private employer and you disagree with your employer's instructions for how you are supposed to do your job, you can be fired. That isn't chilling your free speech rights. Your free speech rights don't give you immunity to criticize your boss' instructions for how you do your job without your boss having the right to discharge you for insubordination. If you want to criticize, be prepared to do so from the street outside the office.

In the civil service (and remember, I am a civil servant), you have a special responsibility to serve impartially of your personal politics. In exchange for this, you receive job protection. This was one of the core reforms of the Progressive Era. The idea is to avoid the evils of the patronage system by assuring each Administration a body of experienced, loyal, and impartial employees who will serve each administration equally regardless of party.

To me these people are undermining the ethos of the civil service and abusing the public trust. If they want to be partisan, they need to resign and seek appointment as Schedule C political appointees.

[OldManMac]

And here I am, thinking that Blind Faith was a rock group from the early 70s.

[Chinasaur]

Of course, there should be no protection for the traitor that outed Valerie Plame because that wouldn't come under the Whistleblower law.

Civil servants have as much right to speak out as anyone else. Nobody said they have to be bipartisan.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Whistleblower protection statute is for whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are people who go to the authorities to report violations of the law. Despite what the article says, that is not what is happening here.

These civil servants are simply unhappy about the directions of their political bosses. Well, so what? When you become a civil servant for an executive agency, you agree to take direction from the president of the day regardless of whether or not you voted for that president or like his party. Unelected civil servants don't set policy. They are supposed to faithfully carry it out as neutral and apolitical professionals.

even if the boss is committing treason? And all the people they could report it to are complicit in that treason, should the civil servants faithfully carry out their duties as neutral?

Just curious.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by warmspit:
even if the boss is committing treason? And all the people they could report it to are complicit in that treason, should the civil servants faithfully carry out their duties as neutral?

Just curious.

What the hell are you talking about? Whistleblower protection is to allow reporting of crimes. Obviously treason would be covered. Also murder, bribery, rape, arson, fraud, criminal copyright infringment and probably animal cruelty.

But that has nothing to do with the article.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What the hell are you talking about? Whistleblower protection is to allow reporting of crimes. Obviously treason would be covered. Also murder, bribery, rape, arson, fraud, criminal copyright infringment and probably animal cruelty.

But that has nothing to do with the article.

you missed the important part of my post: "And all the people they could report it to are complicit in that treason"

also, the article absolutely has to do with reporting crimes. what's your point?

[chris v]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They have a right to resign. That's the way that employees generally voice their disagreement with their employer's instructions.

As long-time, intelligent professionals at the top of their fields of expertise are doing, en-masse, throughout the civil services.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by chris v:
As long-time, intelligent professionals at the top of their fields of expertise are doing, en-masse, throughout the civil services.

the top terrorism expert, the top WMD expert (just to name two).....hmmm. And they were both castigated at the time of their resignations/terminations, both steadfastly held to their guns and both were proven correct.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by warmspit:
you missed the important part of my post: "And all the people they could report it to are complicit in that treason"

also, the article absolutely has to do with reporting crimes. what's your point?

The article has nothing to do with crimes. These civil servants in the Environmental Protection Agency are complaining that they don't think that regulations are being enforced as vigorously as they would like. That's a policy disagreement, not blowing the whistle on laws being broken.

It certainly has nothing to do with "treason." Do you even know what treason is? Go look in the Constitution. That's where it is defined.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The article has nothing to do with crimes. These civil servants in the Environmental Protection Agency are complaining that they don't think that regulations are being enforced as vigorously as they would like. That's a policy disagreement, not blowing the whistle on laws being broken.

It certainly has nothing to do with "treason." Do you even know what treason is? Go look in the Constitution. That's where it is defined.

why don't you define it for me, smartboy?

here's how I define it in THIS situation: The bin ladin family has bailed out Bush failed companies to the tune of 1.4 billion over the years. The Sauds are so close to the Bush family that their Carlyle Group employs Bush I. Lo and behold, Osama, the so called "black sheep" of that family attacks the US several times, both abroad and at home. Members of the bin ladin family, after their relative flies planes into the WTC, are secretly rounded up on airplanes when everyone else is grounded. Eventually, they are flown out of the country to protect them. Which also means they cannot be questioned about what they know or don't know. 14 of the 19 Hijackers are Sauds, and many were directly financed and run through the Saud embassy, coincidentally which is protected by 6 secret service agents.
Bush has made sure that whenever any report refers to the Sauds, its markered out, and references to James Bath, the go between financier between the Sauds and Bush.

so....consider: If Clinton had taken 1.4 billion dollars from the family that attacked WTC, and allowed them to fly away, and continued to protect them from scrutiny, do you think he would have avoided being charged with treason?

any president who protects attackers of the US and doesn't protect the US is a traitor. Got a problem with that? I frankly don't care.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by warmspit:
why don't you define it for me, smartboy?

here's how I define it in THIS situation: The bin ladin family has bailed out Bush failed companies to the tune of 1.4 billion over the years. The Sauds are so close to the Bush family that their Carlyle Group employs Bush I. Lo and behold, Osama, the so called "black sheep" of that family attacks the US several times, both abroad and at home. Members of the bin ladin family, after their relative flies planes into the WTC, are secretly rounded up on airplanes when everyone else is grounded. Eventually, they are flown out of the country to protect them. Which also means they cannot be questioned about what they know or don't know. 14 of the 19 Hijackers are Sauds, and many were directly financed and run through the Saud embassy, coincidentally which is protected by 6 secret service agents.
Bush has made sure that whenever any report refers to the Sauds, its markered out, and references to James Bath, the go between financier between the Sauds and Bush.

so....consider: If Clinton had taken 1.4 billion dollars from the family that attacked WTC, and allowed them to fly away, and continued to protect them from scrutiny, do you think he would have avoided being charged with treason?

any president who protects attackers of the US and doesn't protect the US is a traitor. Got a problem with that? I frankly don't care.

You've been watching Michael Moore, haven't you?

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You've been watching Michael Moore, haven't you?

have you? how does that address my point? If a president aids and abets the escape of the family of the man who attacked us, does that qualify as treason?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by warmspit:
have you? how does that address my point? If a president aids and abets the escape of the family of the man who attacked us, does that qualify as treason?

You might want to actually do a little research on that topic.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
You might want to actually do a little research on that topic.

thanks for the advice, you're very helpful. Are you this helpful to everyone?....

trea·son __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by warmspit:
thanks for the advice, you're very helpful. Are you this helpful to everyone?....

trea·son __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

You need to look in the constitution, not a dictionary.

I'd tell you where to look, but I get the impression that you have never read it. Because I think it is important that all Americans have at least a passing familiarity with the Constitution I will encourage you to read it all while looking for the treason clause. Understanding the Constitution is a lot more educationally important than regurgitating Micheal Moore's conspiracy theories -- and a lot more impressive in a debate.

[finboy]

Originally posted by chabig:
I thought the ACLU said that.

That was McCain-Feingold

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You've been watching Michael Moore, haven't you?

Time for the tinfoil hat and the Thorazine nightcap.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You need to look in the constitution, not a dictionary.

I'd tell you where to look, but I get the impression that you have never read it. Because I think it is important that all Americans have at least a passing familiarity with the Constitution I will encourage you to read it all while looking for the treason clause. Understanding the Constitution is a lot more educationally important than regurgitating Micheal Moore's conspiracy theories -- and a lot more impressive in a debate.

are you this much of an insufferable @ss to everyone, or just new people? Just curious.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You need to look in the constitution, not a dictionary.

I'd tell you where to look, but I get the impression that you have never read it. Because I think it is important that all Americans have at least a passing familiarity with the Constitution I will encourage you to read it all while looking for the treason clause. Understanding the Constitution is a lot more educationally important than regurgitating Micheal Moore's conspiracy theories -- and a lot more impressive in a debate.

okeydoke, here's your constitutional definition:

Section. 3.


Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

sounds just like the definition I gave from the dictionary.

Unless you're trying to be a real twit and point out the conviction part of two or more witnessess...well, einstein, that relates to the CONVICTION of someone for treason, not the DEFINITION of treason.

have a nice day!

[warmspit]

Originally posted by finboy:
Time for the tinfoil hat and the Thorazine nightcap.

Not sure why you'd think the rest of us would interested in your personal schedule.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by warmspit:
are you this much of an insufferable @ss to everyone, or just new people? Just curious.

No, just people who post the way you do. I.e. bringing in irrelevant concepts like treason because you watched a propaganda film and assume that everything you read fits in with its thesis.

To answer your stupid question. Even if Bush eeeeevilly conspired to fly Bin Laden's family out of the country (which is absurd, but let's go with it), that could not be treason. First and most simply because Bin Laden's family had nothing to do with the conspiracy and letting them go home wasn't helping al-Queda. Just being a relative of an evil man doesn't tar a person with his evilness.

Second, treason is a very hard thing to charge. It's the only crime defined in the Constitution as opposed to ordinary statutes. And note: dictionary definitions wouldn't help you with any crime. You have to look at what the law says, not what a dictionary says. So here you have to look at the Constitution. You have finally looked it up. Good.

Now, do you see that a person has to commit an overt act with two witnesses to the overt act, either levying war against the United States, or adhering to the enemy, giving aid and comfort to them. Or you can admit to treason in open court. But that's it. So when Jane Fonda made propaganda for North Vietnam -- not treason. When John Walker Lindh fought with the Taliban -- not treason. But Benedict Arnold committed treason. He adheared to the enemy and levied war against the United States.

But anyway, this is all just based on a nutty conspiracy theory and in any case it has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. The thread is about some civil servants in the Environmental Protection Agency and their concerns about environmental enforcement.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, just people who post the way you do. I.e. bringing in irrelevant concepts like treason because you watched a propaganda film and assume that everything you read fits in with its thesis.

To answer your stupid question. Even if Bush eeeeevilly conspired to fly Bin Laden's family out of the country (which is absurd, but let's go with it), that could not be treason. First and most simply because Bin Laden's family had nothing to do with the conspiracy and letting them go home wasn't helping al-Queda. Just being a relative of an evil man doesn't tar a person with his evilness.

Second, treason is a very hard thing to charge. It's the only crime defined in the Constitution as opposed to ordinary statutes. And note: dictionary definitions wouldn't help you with any crime. You have to look at what the law says, not what a dictionary says. So here you have to look at the Constitution. You have finally looked it up. Good.

Now, do you see that a person has to commit an overt act with two witnesses to the overt act, either levying war against the United States, or adhering to the enemy, giving aid and comfort to them. Or you can admit to treason in open court. But that's it. So when Jane Fonda made propaganda for North Vietnam -- not treason. When John Walker Lindh fought with the Taliban -- not treason. But Benedict Arnold committed treason. He adheared to the enemy and levied war against the United States.

But anyway, this is all just based on a nutty conspiracy theory and in any case it has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. The thread is about some civil servants in the Environmental Protection Agency and their concerns about environmental enforcement.

you continue to act is if the conviction portion, or how to convict someone of treason is the same thing as the definition of treason. read the paragraph before that, you know, THE DEFINITION PART.

And I called you an insufferable @ss because your first post to me was nothing but condescending and rude, and avoiding the question. you continue to be condescending and rude, so I see no reason to change my first impression.

[ThinkInsane]

And you haven't been insufferable and rude? Please

And my post was helpful, as you seem to have taken this 'Bush saved the Bin Laden family and is a traitor' thing from one source and not done one bit of research about what actually happened in that situation. My suggestion was to look into it and find out what really happened, instead of blindly believing what has been spoon-fed to you. Here's a hint, the guy that authorized the bin laden family to be evacuated was the Anti-Bush man of the hour a while back when he broke camp and wrote his tell all book. Go on, look it up, the entire Internet is at your disposal. Make good use of it instead of spouting off someone else's propaganda.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by warmspit:
you continue to act is if the conviction portion, or how to convict someone of treason is the same thing as the definition of treason.

That's because it is.

Legally, the definition of a crime is indistinguishable from the conditions needed to convict someone of it. When you read a statute, you have to read it in the entirety. You can't read one part without the rest. So for example, if the definition of murder were defined in a statute as "the intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought" and you showed me a person who killed a human being accidentally or without malice aforethought, you couldn't then say that person committed murder. Not even if you found some dictionary that didn't mention the intentionality and malice aforethought requirements. And not even if you read the statute as "killing a human being" -- leaving out the other parts. The statute in its entirety defines the crime. No other definition has any meaning.

The historical reason why treason is defined in the Constitution, and why it is defined with such a high burden of proof is because historically kings of England used treason oppressively to include a wide variety of political offenses. Basically, dissent and disagreement with the king could be tried as treason. The Founders wanted none of that. They wanted dissent and disagreement to be handled within the political process. That's the tradition that people like Michael Moore violate when they make trite accusations about treason. He doesn't like Bush and the decisions his administration have made. Ergo, he thinks Bush must be a traitor (with fabricated proof to back that up). It's a very sad commentary on contemporary politics that people take such wild charges serously.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
And you haven't been insufferable and rude? Please

And my post was helpful, as you seem to have taken this 'Bush saved the Bin Laden family and is a traitor' thing from one source and not done one bit of research about what actually happened in that situation. My suggestion was to look into it and find out what really happened, instead of blindly believing what has been spoon-fed to you. Here's a hint, the guy that authorized the bin laden family to be evacuated was the Anti-Bush man of the hour a while back when he broke camp and wrote his tell all book. Go on, look it up, the entire Internet is at your disposal. Make good use of it instead of spouting off someone else's propaganda.

funny, you don't give the same advice to those spouting off Drudg'es propaganda.

Thanks for pointing out this is yet another repuke political board masquerading as an open political board, like many others.

[ThinkInsane]

How so? I've stated several times that I am not voting for Bush. Just by saying your point is poorly researched nonsense, this is somehow implying that this board isn't open to discussion? You made a point, and haven't backed it up. I made the point that Richard Clark is the one who authorized the Bin Laden family to be taken out of the country, with the F.B.I.'s approval. It's a topic that has been beaten to death around here, long before you registered. I'm sorry if pointing you away from propaganda and towards the facts makes this a "yet another repuke political board masquerading as an open political board". I guess the to be a good political board, everyone must agree with your very wrong position. Good luck finding a board like that.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Sorry Warmspit, but they are right. Look at my posts on this board and you will see that I am very pro-Kerry but you are wrong on this one. My advice? Stay away from Michael Moore propaganda and stick to facts. There are plenty of facts to back up anti-Bush sentiment (economy, jobs, deficit, war on terror, etc.) Find them. Use them. But Michael Moore tripe does not fly on this board and will be shot down faster than you can post it. And this is coming from a Kerry supporter.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
How so? I've stated several times that I am not voting for Bush. Just by saying your point is poorly researched nonsense, this is somehow implying that this board isn't open to discussion? You made a point, and haven't backed it up. I made the point that Richard Clark is the one who authorized the Bin Laden family to be taken out of the country, with the F.B.I.'s approval. It's a topic that has been beaten to death around here, long before you registered. I'm sorry if pointing you away from propaganda and towards the facts makes this a "yet another repuke political board masquerading as an open political board". I guess the to be a good political board, everyone must agree with your very wrong position. Good luck finding a board like that.

but you don't make the same suggestion to drudge-quoters.....I'll say it twice since you ignored it once.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by warmspit:
but you don't make the same suggestion to drudge-quoters.....I'll say it twice since you ignored it once.

9/10 Drudge is only posting what major newspapers are printing. Sometimes BEFORE they print it. Not the same thing.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
9/10 Drudge is only posting what major newspapers are printing. Sometimes BEFORE they print it. Not the same thing.

ok, then, if YOU say this board is not populated by republican attack dogs that jump on anything they see that doesn't fit in with their manifesto, you MUST be right....What I see with my own lying eyes is invalid.

I enjoy the repuke welcome wagon, honestly. They are only comfortable when NOT being challenged to think they could be wrong.

[thunderous_funker]

Nice derailment. Kudos to the spin doctors.

Anyone care to tell me why we shouldn't be concerned when government employees are resigning in protest because they are being instructed to ignore violations of federal law?

So Simey, if D.C. cops resigned under protest that the police chief had instructed them to not arrest criminals or enforce the law, would you consider the police chief's actions criminal or just a matter of policy debate?

[warmspit]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Nice derailment. Kudos to the spin doctors.

Anyone care to tell me why we shouldn't be concerned when government employees are resigning in protest because they are being instructed to ignore violations of federal law?

So Simey, if D.C. cops resigned under protest that the police chief had instructed them to not arrest criminals or enforce the law, would you consider the police chief's actions criminal or just a matter of policy debate?

good point. my apologies for derailing the thread to defend myself.

I am appalled at the idea that because someone resigns and criticizes their dept, they are automatically wrong in the eyes of republicans. I'm sure, in Kerry's administration, if the same happened they would believe the opposite.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So Simey, if D.C. cops resigned under protest that the police chief had instructed them to not arrest criminals or enforce the law, would you consider the police chief's actions criminal or just a matter of policy debate?

It depends on the facts and how mandatory the enforcement is. In fact, almost all criminal law is subject to prosecutorial discretion, so it can be appropriate for political leaders to make judgments about what enforcement is appropriate.

For example, a few years ago when Virginia's sodomy law was still on the books (i.e. before it was struck down), the sheriff of Alexandria, Virginia, ran on a platform that included a pledge not to enforce the sodomy statute.

Now, suppose a bunch of conservative cops decide they don't like that damned liberal sheriff telling them they aren't supposed to enforce the law by arresting "fags", and so they are going to resign in protest? Are they right?

That's a good comparison because in every agency you get people in the agency with very strong views about the agency's mission and goals. To a large extent those strong views are what drove them to join the agency. But their ideas about what the agency should do aren't necessarily the best ideas viewed through the eyes of political leaders responsible to the public as a whole.

The fact is that enforcement policy is something that is legitimately within the sphere of political influence by elected officials. Below those elected officials are unelected officials who aren't legitimately in a position to set policy. The alternative is to go back to the old patronage system, which is what we had before the Progressive Era's reforms. That way, instead of a permanent but apolitical civil service headed by a few political appointees, we'd just have a partisan executive branch appointed by the president of the day.

A partisan civil service proved unworkable long before the New Deal expanded the government. I think it would be impossible now. So unless you want to give up entirely on the idea of an executive branch that responds to the change of party in the White House, you have to accept that civil servants have to put their personal politics aside about 50% of the time. Or they can resign and seek political appointment.

[thunderous_funker]

So not punishing polluters is akin to not enforcing ridiculous blue laws?

I don't understand why you keep harping about the apolitical role of civil servants. I don't even see how that is the issue. These people exercised their agency and resigned. They also spoke out against actions they felt were immoral or unethical. I would never discourage such behavior.

But why again are we not talking about the agency's decision to not aggressively prosecute and punish polluters?

The consequences of pollution are not theoretical or philosophical. We are talking about decisions that are literally a matter of life and death even in the short term. Not to mention the complicity in allowing companies to externalize the costs of their own unethical, illegal and immoral behavior onto the taxpaying public.

This so-called "prosecutorial discretion" has significant short term and potentially catastrophic long-term consequences. That is, after all, why we created pollution laws in the first place and empowered the EPA to enforce them.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by warmspit:
ok, then, if YOU say this board is not populated by republican attack dogs that jump on anything they see that doesn't fit in with their manifesto, you MUST be right....What I see with my own lying eyes is invalid.

I enjoy the repuke welcome wagon, honestly. They are only comfortable when NOT being challenged to think they could be wrong.

That's funny coming from someone who has been here for 57 posts. Read some threads and you will see that there are people from BOTH sides here. I'm not saying I am right, but I have been here longer and seen A LOT more posts. So, from MY experience, there are both sides represented here. And just because a Republican posts a different opinion than you does not mean he/she is ATTACKING you. Don't take it personally.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So not punishing polluters is akin to not enforcing ridiculous blue laws?

I don't understand why you keep harping about the apolitical role of civil servants. I don't even see how that is the issue. These people exercised their agency and resigned. They also spoke out against actions they felt were immoral or unethical. I would never discourage such behavior.

But why again are we not talking about the agency's decision to not aggressively prosecute and punish polluters?

The consequences of pollution are not theoretical or philosophical. We are talking about decisions that are literally a matter of life and death even in the short term. Not to mention the complicity in allowing companies to externalize the costs of their own unethical, illegal and immoral behavior onto the taxpaying public.

This so-called "prosecutorial discretion" has significant short term and potentially catastrophic long-term consequences. That is, after all, why we created pollution laws in the first place and empowered the EPA to enforce them.

I guess analogy isn't your strong point. You can't look at an analogy by going directly to the merits.

OK, since you have a problem with analogies, let's just reverse the facts. The Kerry Administration comes in with a belief in strongly going after polluters. If in doubt, he says, sue.

A bunch of conservatives at the EPA (I assume there must be a couple) decide they think that Kerry's people are regulating too strongly and using overly-zealous interpretations of the regulations. They decide in their infinite wisdom that they outrank the president and the way they think the regulations should be interpreted is per se the right way. They determine to undermine the president's authority and policy by leaks to the media, and generally, by trying to debate their political superiors instead of just doing as they are told or quitting if they really feel that they can't do as they are told.

The end point of this little tit-for-tat war is government chaos and the end of political accountability of government. It wouldn't matter who is in the White House if unelected civil servants just decide to do whatever they want regardless of what their superiors tell them to do.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guess analogy isn't your strong point. You can't look at an analogy by going directly to the merits.

Good analogy. Apply also to the CDC and just about every other bureaucracy which is at odds with the idea of smaller government.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guess analogy isn't your strong point. You can't look at an analogy by going directly to the merits.

OK, since you have a problem with analogies, let's just reverse the facts. The Kerry Administration comes in with a belief in strongly going after polluters. If in doubt, he says, sue.

A bunch of conservatives at the EPA (I assume there must be a couple) decide they think that Kerry's people are regulating too strongly and using overly-zealous interpretations of the regulations. They decide in their infinite wisdom that they outrank the president and the way they think the regulations should be interpreted is per se the right way. They determine to undermine the president's authority and policy by leaks to the media, and generally, by trying to debate their political superiors instead of just doing as they are told or quitting if they really feel that they can't do as they are told.

The end point of this little tit-for-tat war is government chaos and the end of political accountability of government. It wouldn't matter who is in the White House if unelected civil servants just decide to do whatever they want regardless of what their superiors tell them to do.

I'm not the one who compared enforcing pollution laws to enforcing sodomy laws. Give me a break.

I wouldn't have a problem with any civil servant resigning under protest or voicing their disapproval of policy or actions of the government that they find unethical or immoral or illegal. In fact, I'd be outraged if they didn't.

But then again I'm not someone who places loyalty above ethical conviction. By your standards it would seem I'm obviously unfit for public service or membership in yor political party.

Guilty as charged and damn proud of it.

[Wiskedjak]

People can blow as many whistles as they want. Not even Bush standing up on live television saying "I lied to ALL of you ... suckers!) will sway his supporters.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm not the one who compared enforcing pollution laws to enforcing sodomy laws. Give me a break.

It's an analogy. Feel free to pick any regulatory area subject to either strict or less strict enforcement according to the political opinions of the party in charge of the executive branch.

Actually, I think it is quite a good analogy. Someone who takes a strict Biblical approach to morality might feel as strongly about lax enforcement of a sodomy law as you might about law enforcement of pollution laws. They are both laws that on their face demand enforcement, but which in reality call for discretion. It's the political leadership who are properly placed to decide what to do.

I wouldn't have a problem with any civil servant resigning under protest or voicing their disapproval of policy or actions of the government that they find unethical or immoral or illegal. In fact, I'd be outraged if they didn't.

Me either. Nobody should be forced to stay in a job if it conflicts with their sense of morality. But that does not mean that the civil servant is right, and it certainly wouldn't give them the right to undermine a legal policy with which they just disagree while remaining on the payroll. That's the difference.

But then again I'm not someone who places loyalty above ethical conviction. By your standards it would seem I'm obviously unfit for public service or membership in yor political party.

Guilty as charged and damn proud of it.

The ethical conviction here is to the ideal of a politically neutral civil service that serves both parties equally and dispassionately. Yes, I guess you might be disqualified if you think that civil servants are supposed to disregard the ethos of public service that the Civil Service requires.

[thunderous_funker]

You seem to be arguing that the primary qualification for Civil Service is obedience.

Why do we bother hiring people with expertise in the field then, if their expert judgement is to be entirely subjegated to the political whims of non-expert political appointees who manage them?

The more you go on about it, the more I envy the Technocrat system of countries like France.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You seem to be arguing that the primary qualification for Civil Service is obedience.

Why do we bother hiring people with expertise in the field then, if their expert judgement is to be entirely subjegated to the political whims of non-expert political appointees who manage them?

The more you go on about it, the more I envy the Technocrat system of countries like France.

Oh my word, you are such a throwback to the 1930s and 40s.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh my word, you are such a throwback to the 1930s and 40s.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

I think I've realized where we disconnect on this.

I think that civil servants owe allegiance first and foremost to the public interest, not to their politician boss-du-jour.

They are not political appointees for a reason, and that reason is not to make them lackies to whomever is in political power. It is because not making them subject to the whims of politics should give them protection to apply their expertise to the public interest rather than padnering to whomever will ensure their next paycheck.

Your point about them working with whichever party is in power is well-intended, but the premise is not obedience but the underlying assumption that politicians and civil servants will both be working towards the public interest.

I would expect a political appointee to out any civil servant putting their own agenda ahead of the public interest just as I applaud any civil servant not cowed into violating the public trust by a political appointed boss.

It cuts both ways.

This is the fundamental difference between public and private service. In private enterprise, you do what your boss tells you or you quit. In public service, your boss is the public which is supposed to be represented by a political appointee. When your boss violates the public trust, public servants are supposed to say something about it.

IMO, the greatest mistake we can make is trying to make our government operate like a private company. This ill-placed faith in "business principles" ignores the fundamental difference in how private and public enterprises are supposed to work. As long as we hire politicians who want to act like CEOs, the more they will do exactly that: operate in the best interests of themselves and their share-holders (campaign contributors) rather than the public interest.

<edited to add last 2 paragraphs>

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Whatever that is supposed to mean.

I think I've realized where we disconnect on this.

I think that civil servants owe allegiance first and foremost to the public interest, not to their politician boss-du-jour.

They are not political appointees for a reason, and that reason is not to make them lackies to whomever is in political power. It is because not making them subject to the whims of politics should give them protection to apply their expertise to the public interest rather than padnering to whomever will ensure their next paycheck.

Your point about them working with whichever party is in power is well-intended, but the premise is not obedience but the underlying assumption that politicians and civil servants will both be working towards the public interest.

I would expect a political appointee to out any civil servant putting their own agenda ahead of the public interest just as I applaud any civil servant not cowed into violating the public trust by a political appointed boss.

It cuts both ways.

This is the fundamental difference between public and private service. In private enterprise, you do what your boss tells you or you quit. In public service, your boss is the public which is supposed to be represented by a political appointee. When your boss violates the public trust, public servants are supposed to say something about it.

IMO, the greatest mistake we can make is trying to make our government operate like a private company. This ill-placed faith in "business principles" ignores the fundamental difference in how private and public enterprises are supposed to work. As long as we hire politicians who want to act like CEOs, the more they will do exactly that: operate in the best interests of themselves and their share-holders (campaign contributors) rather than the public interest.

<edited to add last 2 paragraphs>

I think you need to do a little reading up on the history of the civil service, and the administrative state in general. You should start with the reason the patronage system was abandoned. But beyond that, your beliefs in government by experts is an antique.

In a nutshell, at around the time of the New Deal there was a strong belief in scientific, technocratic government that would be free of politics. Government officials were supposed to be able to devine the objectively "right" policy based on scientific criteria, free of messy politics (i.e. free of the input of the people affected by their decisions). To me it sounds very flash gordon, and it was pretty much abandoned by about the 1950s. But I guess in certain quarters, never died.

In fact, there really is no such thing as objective government officials. They all (including me) come into government with ideas and preconceptions. Plus the agency itself starts to develop strong ideas about policy. There are a lot of factors to this. Institutional inertia, a degree of rent seeking, and just the fact that people with certain opinions are drawn to certain government agencies because they think a certain line of work would be interesting. That's not a criticism, it's just reality. You don't tend to get many free trade, anti regulators in the EPA, nor too many pacifists in the Department of Defense, and probably not too many civil libertarians in the FBI.

So the question is how do you temper these built-in enthusiasms so that unelected public officials don't start running away with our government? In particular, how do you make sure that your government has some democratic accountability to it? Certainly not by saying that beaurocrats and technocrats presumptively know best. Most of those agencies are part of the executive branch. It is bad enough that we have increased the power of the executive enormously since the New Deal without cutting it off entirely from any accountability.

The problem with your "public good" model is that you leave it entirely to self-appointed, and unaccountable experts to decide what the public good is. You don't leave any room for accountability. Well, maybe as someone who works in Washington I should like that. That way we can stop listening to all those pesky yahoos with ideas about how there government should be run. Go home and play with the dog, you plebian ant, you, we know best.

No, on second thoughts, let's not do it that way. Let's strike a compromise. The Civil Service is a professional force of experts, but ones who are supposed to defer to elected and politically appointed officials on the questions on policy. It is not a pure government by experts, but nor is is a purely political system. It's a compromise that gives room for expertise where needed, but also gives a nod to accountability. And that means ultimately, the people - through their elected representatives -- decide. Not unelected civil servants.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you need to do a little reading up on the history of the civil service, and the administrative state in general. (bunch of other crap)

no, listen, really, I mean really, they're PUBLIC servants. get it? the problem with repukes like you is you feel basically that the public is working for the govt., not the other way around.

in 12 days, your chimp boy is going down.....then the rains will be in Kerry's hands, and THEN your opinion will shift 180* on this issue, I GUARANTEE IT.