AltUSNatParkService

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach — crossposted from my blog, Skating Under The Ice

Let me start by saying that I’m a huge fan and frequent user of our National Park System. I’m also a dedicated and lifelong conservationist, concerned with our natural environment that is the basis of all life. So please don’t take the following as being opposed to true environmentalism. I’m not. I’m opposed to political activism under the name and imprimatur of the National Park Service.

After the Trump Administration told the Department of the Interior to shut down all their Twitter accounts because they were being used for partisan political purposes by Democratic government employees, some National Park Service employees got in a huff about how their rights were being violated. So they put together a new Twitter account called AltUSNatParkService. Here’s the header on their page, in case they change it:altusnatparkservice

I cracked up when I saw that, I thought “Man, they just hung themselves out to dry, they just blew it bad!”.

Setting that question aside for the moment, under the aegis of this new account they are all about the climate and other virtue-signalling subjects, viz:

altnatpark-2

They’re organizing meetings and the like because of these fears. Gotta say … I’m getting tired of people trotting out their fears and using these fears to justify all kinds of actions. I get it that folks are afraid. And I know that the fear they feel is real. But that is not sufficient reason for me to automatically take their fears seriously and buy into their fright, particularly if nothing untoward has happened to date. It’s just baseless fears.

In any case, they’ve shot themselves in the foot. They are putting themselves out as  if they represent or are part of the real National Park Service, both by their name and even to the extent of using the official arrowhead emblem of the Park Service on their Twitter site, as seen above. Clearly amateur hour. Here’s more about the arrowhead, it’s not some random symbol.

What is the origin of the National Park Service arrowhead?

The arrowhead was authorized as the official National Park Service emblem by the Secretary of the Interior on July 20, 1951. The components of the arrowhead may have been inspired by key attributes of the National Park System, with the sequoia tree and bison representing vegetation and wildlife, the mountains and water representing scenic and recreational values, and the arrowhead itself representing historical and archeological values. Read more about the history of the arrowhead and other elements of NPS visual design.

Why is their using the arrowhead a huge mistake? Because using it is not just a bad idea. It is a crime to use the official NPS “arrowhead” emblem without specific permission from the NPS:

Use of the NPS arrowhead symbol and badge is governed by 36 CFR Part 11Unauthorized use is a criminal offense, punishable in accordance with 18 USC 641 and 701.

And because that defines it a Federal crime (USC for “US Code”), that lets the Administration call in the FBI to identify the anonymous folks behind this account. And being NFS employees they can hardly claim ignorance of the law. When they sign on, in their New Employee Handbook they are given links to the following:

Documents Containing Selected Topic

As a result, it should be very easy to find and fire these government employees for cause, because they are falsely representing themselves by using the official NPS arrowhead, and they know or should know that’s both illegal and wrong. However … civil service laws may get in the way.

And if the civil service laws do get in the way, I sincerely hope Trump adds those laws to his list.

The best part to me about these kinds of spontaneous outbursts of righteous indignation is their generally Darwinian nature … and after eight years of government employees being allowed to run wild as long as it was the approved liberal and Democratic style of wild, I suspect we’ll see more of these outbursts before we run out of candidates for the Bureaucratic Darwin Award.

The tragedy in this is that it detracts from majesty and mystery of the parks that these folks are supposed to protect, and makes them into a political football. That we don’t need.

w.

PS-If you are commenting please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING. That way we can all understand just what your subject is.

UPDATE: 1/27/17 9:45AM

It seems they had to abandon use of the official park service logo shortly after this post by Willis was published:

altusparkservice-fixed2

And this is what their Twitter page looks like now:

altusparkservice-fixed

Alt-Idiots. They probably aren’t aware of the Acceptable Use Policy for the government run Internet accessible network. That will be their next challenge.

-Anthony

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pop Piasa

It takes some folks a little longer to catch on…

Darrell Demick

Just finished moving my entire retirement portfolio into the pulp and paper industry.
Gonna be a big demand for “pink slips” in the near term ……

Rich

I hope you included Depends in your portfolio. Gonna be some pants wetting/shitting going on too.

“Never underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people!”Einstein

Danny Thomas

“Use of the NPS arrowhead symbol and badge is governed by 36 CFR Part 11. Unauthorized use is a criminal offense, punishable in accordance with 18 USC 641 and 701.”
Just an indication of ‘too much regulation’. Maybe it’s an atlatl and not an arrowhead at all.
Life is too short to get worked up (on either side) about the minutiae.
Will be happy when we move on and return to discussing the science. We’ll never agree on the politics and associated.

Pauly

“Just an indication of ‘too much regulation’.”
Incorrect Danny. For most government organisations, these symbols are covered by laws equivalent of copyright and intellectual property rights that protect individuals and businesses from having their work copied, stolen, used for illicit purposes, or simply to defraud others. Much like it is an offence to impersonate a member of the police or a military service, or to wear medals representing battle honours that were never conferred.
These symbols are fundamental to the trust these organisations are given by the people of their country. So it is not about too much regulation, because these symbols matter. If you are still unsure about it, check with your nearest veteran.

Danny Thomas January 25, 2017 at 8:33 pm

Will be happy when we move on and return to discussing the science.

Sadly, Danny, these days this IS the science. These people are spreading all kinds of scientific half-truths and falsehoods, under the imprimateur of the US Government. That is both unacceptable and illegal.
My best to you,
w.

Danny Thomas

Willis,
While I respect your capability I respectfully disagree. This is not science, today’s or otherwise. Science is why I read here. Very little recently has been so oriented. In fact, IMO, you’re promoting today’s ‘science’ (by your own apparent definition—-> politics). Please utilize your abilities alternatively (or not, your choice).
As we do agree it’s unacceptable, promotion seems like a less than viable use of energies. It only leads to ‘yeah…….our team. Boo, theirs’ which has received much derision under prior administration. This isn’t useful. Your opinion may vary and is valid as is mine. But they’re both just opinions.
We’ve complained for years about the injection of politics and yet here we’re doing the same. Can we not do heighten the discussion? Please ignore this. It deserves not the attention.
Looking forward to reading that which excludes the ‘we won, get over it’ meme. The rest is deletion material. Having been a participant for a relatively short time (+/- 3 years) chastisement of interjection of politics has been a rampant theme. Please don’t provide greater reach under current administration. Bad behavior (no matter the side) does not deserve a larger distribution.
My regards.
Danny

markl

Sometimes you have to swim through the crap to get to the clear water.

Thanks, Danny. This site has never been just about the science part of climate science. It is also about the political aspects of climate science, of which this is one. This is not “Yay for us boo for you”, far from it.
The climate alarmists have long used the government to spread their radical ideas about the climate. Having often called for the government to get out of the climate advocacy business, I am overjoyed that this is occurring.
Now that it is occurring, of course, with reasonable regulations coming back into force, people are trying to get the word out in any way that they can. In this case they are doing it ILLEGALLY.
This site has very high visibility. It is important for people to understand what is going on. It is important to provide posts that people can point to when they are challenged, so they can say “Yes, what the alarmists are doing is illegal, not just anti-scientific, but illegal”. That is why I have researched the laws and regulations, so you and everyone else can be crystal clear about the underhanded methods used by climate alarmists.
So when you say “Please ignore this. It deserves not the attention.”, I totally disagree. For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing. I am not someone who sits by while the fight is going on. I provide ammunition for the fight in the form of knowledge, facts, and ideas that point the way to the future.
For example, some months ago I wrote about how the Palestinian entry into the UNFCCC gave us the chance to stop spending billions on climate madness. You would diss this as not being about the science … but today it looks like it might actually come true. Did I have a part in that? If so, only a tiny one … but I’m a guy who lights a candle instead of cursing the darkness.
So Danny, if I have a chance to push things in a direction that can save billions of dollars from being wasted on UN wankathons … should I not do that? Is that not just as important, and perhaps more important given that it is billions of dollars, than some soon-forgotten post on the uncertainties of the “climate sensitivity” value?
Best regards, and thanks for your thoughts,
w.

Danny Thomas

Willis,
Again, and completely with respect: “The climate alarmists have long used the government to spread their radical ideas about the climate. Having often called for the government to get out of the climate advocacy business, I am overjoyed that this is occurring.”
Some radical (IMO), some viable (also IMO).
Where I’m ‘overjoyed’ is when reasonable folks have reasonable discussion about reasonable topics. This topic, IMO, does not deserve the attention. I’m not a fan of promotion of bad behavior (either side).
Trump won. Time to move on. Give the man a chance. Speak up against that which one disagrees, sure. But a post? On this?
How does this post help save ‘billions of dollars’? I don’t see it. This is a gnat.
Should you speak up? You bet. I’ll stand with you if I agree or not w/r/t content. Just as I’ll stand with the scientists in white coats in the middle of a non violent ‘women’s march’ while I whine vociferously about exclusion of the ‘right to lifers’s as that is equally ‘a choice’ under the heading of pro ‘choice’.
“The climate alarmists have long used the government to spread their radical ideas about the climate. Having often called for the government to get out of the climate advocacy business,” yet here we are advocating for an alternative. Advocacy is advocacy and (again IMO) it’s politics informing science. Just once (actually perpetually) the science should inform the science. Politics be damned. WUWT can indeed be more of the same when it comes to a forum for political views. What’s the point? Your voice seems to be saying let’s involve the politics. My voice is saying the politics will never be settled let’s focus on the science. Eventually, filtering out the politics, the science should become settled. It’s not as of today, and interjecting politics to a greater extent insures it won’t.
I respect your view and your input. I don’t think one of us must be ‘wrong’. But continuation of the same only from the other side expecting different results…………well……….you know.
Palestinians and climate sensitivity are ‘off topic’, IMO.
Willis, I appreciate and read your participation. This does not equate to your always being ‘correct’ in your views. I may be off base, but you may be too.
I thank you for the interaction. Would there be more reasonable disagreement as opposed to ‘you’re wrong, I’m right’ (or vise versa) global temperatures may be reduced. 😉

Jeff Mitchell

Willis, you used the following Edmund Burke quote “For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.” I’ve always felt that “necessary for good men to do nothing” is an oxymoron as doing nothing is usually not considered a trait of a good man. Rather, evil will triumph if no one stands against it. Good men, like you, ARE standing against the deceit and corruption of the climate change crowd.

Frederik Michiels

imvho: science is a debate. i agree that there is also a political side.
but radically censoring is touching at the right of freedom of speech.
if rightfull AGW skeptics wish to be associated with that, i pass.
just ponder that little detail

JohnKnight

So, let them break the law, Frederik?

DHR

Danny Thomas,
“This topic, IMO, does not deserve the attention.” Then why are you giving it so much?

Danny Thomas

DHR,
Fair point. Please make note that my ‘attention’ comes in the form of a couple of comments from a post on a very well read website. Distinction?
Had the post not been presented, the comments would not have followed.

MarkW

Frederik, nobody is denying them the right to say whatever they want. However they can be prosecuted for falsely claiming to represent the government while using that free speech.

jorgekafkazar

Danny is ordering us to shut up. I’d call THAT bad behaviour. Do not feed the troll.

Danny Thomas

Jorge,
Ordering? I made a suggestion to Willis. He can accept or reject. It seems there are just better uses for ‘one of the best science sites’ with a header stating “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change’.
If you care to ‘feed the troll further’ please share what the beneficial result will be at the end of this thread. Greater edification? Expanded knowledge? Bouncing a ball?
Regards,

Hivemind

It isn’t minutiae. Misuse of Government symbols allows people to impersonate Government organisations, which is exactly what these people are trying to do. Protecting the symbols is fundamental to protecting the integrity of Government operations.

Danny Thomas

Hivemind,
Respectfully intended. As a citizen, I pay for it and own it.
As my T-shirt reads: “I AM, We the people”.

Greg

“… but you can never take our free time”.

Oops, there goes the other foot.
I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that these fools set all this up on work time.
Willis, maybe a direct link to their Twit page and a quick scan of the times they are posting would be of interest.

MarkW

Danny, then I can go around telling people that I am an FBI agent?
After all, we the people pay for the FBI.

Danny Thomas

Mark W,
They clearly state they are ‘alt’ and even comment the ‘official site’ had been ‘taken’.
You can wear FBI ‘branded’ clothing. Stating one is an agent is a different kettle o’ fish.

MarkW

I can only wear FBI branded clothing if I pay the royalty fee when I buy it.

Danny Thomas

MarkW,
Royalty fee? To whom (or what)?
Back to the NPS.
Cannot find the ratified version, but please see section 5.4 and 6.0: https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO-52D–45-day.pdf
In part, 5.4: “Within the body of published media when the use is descriptive or referential. This may include, for example, books and news media that reference the National Park Service, provided that it does not imply NPS authorship, review, or endorsement.)
When the Arrowhead is used in these ways, the context must not imply affiliation with or endorsement by the NPS. In addition, the Service may insist that it be accompanied by the registered trademark symbol (®) and/or a credit line or disclaimer stating (for example): “[This organization] is not affiliated with the National Park Service and our [products, services, activities] are not licensed or endorsed by the National Park Service.”
Entities outside the NPS may, with permission, use the Arrowhead to graphically identify a hyperlink to an NPS website, provided that:
 The context does not imply affiliation with or endorsement by the NPS;
 The graphic is accompanied by the registered trademark symbol (®); and
 A disclaimer similar to the example in the previous paragraph is included.”
This is referenced and follow from: https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder52A.html
An example in action which you may find of interest: https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/JonathanJarvis_Public.pdf (cited specifically on page 11 but the balance in an interesting read.)
Now of course we can nitpik from here if this use has been trademarked, disclaimed, and meets the subsection 5.4 requirements but there it is.

Phil R

Danny Thomas,
I’ve read your comments and respect your position, but seriously? Do you work in government? Many (if not most) of us who work in the private sector would be fired immediately if we did anything against company policies, and especially if we broke the law. Government employees work also according to rules and law and don’t have any special dispensation to ignore whatever they want to. are you saying that because they are government employees, their free speech rights allow them to break the law with impunity, but since I’m not a government employee I can’t? Sorry, you’re wrong, or you need to get me a government job.

Danny Thomas

Phil R,
Thank you. No I’m not a government employee, have never been. I assure you’d that if an employee of a private firm on their own time (making assumptions here) created an Alt-Exxon or Alt-Greenpeace site I would equally support their right to free speech and opinion. Caveat that they not publish proprietary.
I don’t suggest impunity, but neither do I suggest greater censoring.
IMO (FWIW) much like the marches this will likely wind up much ado. It’s what changes (if any) in real world that come about that matters.
I don’t follow any of the groups by the way. I respect that they choose involvement. Just like I respect Willis’ choice to ‘sound the alarm’ over the chosen methods. I just think there are improved ways for each to go about their business and Willis, to his credit accepted that criticism while agreeing to disagree and we’ve moved on.
Appreciate your viewpoint.

davideisenstadt

the atlatl was a tool that increased the utility (the speed, and range) of thrown spears, it wasnt a tip of a projectile.

Gloateus Maximus

But the points of atl-atl projectiles (often called darts) do resemble arrowheads, albeit usually larger.

Danny Thomas

David,
Thank you for the clarification. I should have use the term atlalt dart or atlatl dart point.

Gloateus Maximus

Dart is to atl-atl as arrow is to bow.

MarkW

An arrow is an arrow is a dart. It doesn’t matter whether it’s launched from a bow or an atlatl.

Gloateus Maximus

Mark,
Atl-atl projectiles are shaped quite differently from arrows. They can look more like spears or javelins than arrows. Atl-atls are also called spear-throwers.
Crossbow arrows are called bolts because they too are shaped differently from arrows.

Gloateus Maximus

A hunting dart might be nine feet long.

MarkW

Try using the McDonald’s symbol on your web site and see how long it takes before the lawyers are knocking.
The AGW has been about politics from the beginning.

Hans

Try using the Olympic rings and they will come a knockin as they have done several times in the past.

Phil R

+many

texasjimbrock

An atlatl? Your eyes must be giving you trouble. An atlatl is a spear-thrower.

Maybe it’s an alt-atlatal?

Chuck in Houston

James Schrumpf – “Maybe it’s an alt-atlatal?”
Too funny. +1

I recently had an exchange like this with an engineer at another website, who was all enthusiastic about new technology to control certain power-plant emissions (i.e., CO2 emissions). I brought up the issue of the basis of such technology’s being in question, and he accused me of focusing on politics rather than science.
My question to him was, as it is to you, … when politics dictates HOW science is applied, how can we NOT focus on politics in the same context of science ? We simply cannot separate the politics, since politics ENABLES science to operate in the real world. When politics abuses this, then it abuses/misuses/substitutes for science, and this is an insult to science that needs to be dealt with, before science can progress.

Jim Gorman

When politicians force people to give up their money either in taxes or costs due to regulation, it is incumbent on those politicians to to insure it is necessary and at the least cost. If you believe in CAGW then spending is ok, if you don’t believe then the spending is not ok.
I would have asked the engineer to elucidate on the benefits of higher CO2 to see if he had ever considered those or just took the word of the politician that there are no benefits and only costs.

Phil R

Erm…politics does NOT enable science to work, in the real world or anywhere else.

I went on the Yellowstone NP site to find this. I believe all the National Park sites and brochures promote this. The park rangers are trained to put out human caused climate change information as a given:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/global-climate-change.htm

I believe that this year snowfall in the western National Parks is above average:
http://cams.jacksonholewebcams.com/tetonvillage/tetonvillage.jpg
https://www.nps.gov/features/yell/webcam/oldFaithfulStreaming.html
There are many live webcams of the NPs.

Phoenix44

But it is the politics that is the problem. Frankly, if climate change was just science, i wouldn’t be very interested – other bits of science i find more interesting than endlessly arguing about models.
But the science is influencing politics, and that is why it is vital to get the science right.

Reasonable Skeptic

Hi Danny,
I come from the opposite position. To me, the science is the science and alarmists can trot out study after study after study to win any scientific debate by sheer volume.
I am more interested in the process that creates science. If you can demonstrate that the process that creates science is flawed, you can win the debate and get people to understand that the reality of climate science is far more open for discussion than they were led to believe.
This is an example of advocacy masquerading as a scientifically run agency and is thus important for people to understand. They are exposed to a tiny part of the process that is guiding the understanding of climate science by the voters.
Just my perspective 🙂

Phil R

Reasonable Skeptic,

I am more interested in the process that creates science. If you can demonstrate that the process that creates science is flawed…

With respect, no “process” creates science.” Science itself is not a “thing” to be created. Science itself IS a process, or a method of study to investigate the natural or physical world.

If you can demonstrate that the process that creates science is flawed…

Then you have demonstrated that science itself is flawed and an never win the debate.

Phil R

D*mnit. Where’s the edit?
and can never …

Duane Truitt

Exactly, Danny.
I’ve been visiting and reading on this website off and on for several years … I would have stopped long ago if I knew it was going to turn into the Official Donald J. Trump Promotional Website, as it seems to be these days.
And, as far as promoting worthless shit to argue over, as the author of this post is doing, does he really mean to suggest that the best use of government resources is to criminally prosecute private citizens for unauthorized use of an NPS graphic?
Oh, and by the way, posting the very same graphic on your web site here makes both the author and the website owner equally liable for unauthorized use of the NPS logo.
Really???

Phil R

Stop reading and go somewhere else.

Phil R

Oh, and no, it doesn’t. Fair use (dumb*ss).

Duane Truitt

Phil R seems to be a typical Trumpian blowhard, who seem intent on suppressing any speech they don’t like revealing them for the authoritarians that they are.
and btw … fair use applies, if it applies .. applies just as much to private citizens exercising their free speech rights as to blowhard anti-warmist rants here … sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander.

Tom O

Interesting. Law is NOT regulation. And whether or not you find this as minutiae or not something to get worked up about, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have significance to others. Your opinion is, your opinion, and unless the blog owner thinks it doesn’t belong here, then it does.

Jan

(It does not look like an atlatl. I’ve used one.)

observa
gnomish

don’t prosecute. that will simply cost.
fire them.

Pop Piasa

When ethics rules are violated, the usual ‘out’ is to resign with a deal to avoid prosecution, from what I have saw as an IL state employee.

Pop Piasa

“Have saw”?… kinda’ says it all for a retired state employee, doesn’t it? Remind me next time I poke fun at anybody’s typo…

gnomish

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 this one seems a big stretch to apply it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/701 this one is dead on point.

MarkG

No, don’t be a Cuck. That’s exactly what’s got us into this mess.
The snowflakes need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, pour encouager les autres.

gnomish

stuff your cuck
read the statutes and see that the fine/imprisonment is trivial.
but if you’re into virtue signalling instead of cost effectiveness, so be all you can be.
competing to be a joke will at least get you a participation trophy.

MarkW

Prosecuting the first sends a message to the rest.
Then they self deport.

NW sage

“However … civil service laws may get in the way.”
Doesn’t the Hatch Act apply here. It prohibits ANY federal employee (there are some specified exceptions) from participating in any political activity on the job or while performing their duties. Since the warmists have succeeded in making the ‘science’ of climate change – or not – a political issue it seems the Hatch Act is fully applicable. The punishments for Hatch act violations are specified in the act.

Deano

I sincerely hope that the new administration takes the opportunity to make an example of these clearly law-breaking individuals using these official symbols of the NPS for their petty political gain… just my take on it..

RD

Well said, Willis. **true environmentalism.** I for one would enjoy reading of your thoughts on this topic if you were inclined.

RD January 25, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Well said, Willis. **true environmentalism.** I for one would enjoy reading of your thoughts on this topic if you were inclined.

Sure thing …
From seven years ago
w.

RD

Thank you, but the link is broken.

I fixed the link, thanks for the heads-up.
w.

RD

Terrific read and thoughts, thanks.

Jim Watson

The saying used to be “everyone’s a comedian.”
Now it’s “everyone’s an activist.”

Pop Piasa

I’m still trying to achieve comedian status. Guess I’ve some catching up to do.

We are all Spartacus !

Phoenix44

I think the problem lies more in what Willis alluded to – everybody nowadays thinks their feelings are not just a guide to what is right and virtuous, but to what others must take seriously.
The elevation of feelings over reason and the increasing importance of self in people’s thinking is surely part of the reason we are in such a mess.

markl

Sigh, politics again. The Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives have infused their ideology into everything and everybody in government service. We the people don’t count. The day of reckoning is nigh.

Cam_S

If the park rangers are unionized it may be hard to fire / dismiss them. However, they could be reassigned. Like studying polar bear scat in Alaska, or some other chilly, and isolated place.

Leonard Lane

Maybe it is time to give federal employees a choice. Civil Service or unions, but not both.

Samuel C Cogar

Civil Service Laws were originally enacted for the sole purpose to protect federal, state or local government employees from politically motivated firings or terminations.
And that is why all government jobs (including public school jobs) have a “tenure policy” of three (3) years. If a newly hired employee is not terminated within 3 years ….. then he/she acquires “tenure” ….. then newly elected “4-year-term” Mayors, Governors or Presidents cannot selective fire or terminate the employees that were hired by the previous “office holding” elected politician.
Thus said, Civil Service Laws protect employees from politically motivated firings or terminations ……. but they do absolutely nothing to prevent the politically motivated hiring or employment of incompetent, unqualified, uneducated and/or “do-nothing” individuals.

markl

Civil servants should not have any “political reason” to be fired. Tenure for any job produces mediocrity.

Yirgach

Samuel,
The swollen Greek bureaucracy is a perfect example of Civil Service abuse. Every time the government changes, they refill all the government jobs, but never let go the current place holders. Of course everyone votes for their fav party in the hopes of perpetuating the scam. Sound familiar?

jorgekafkazar

Warm polar bear scat.

Steve Lohr

Once you have signed on to be a latter day Ed Abby, you do stuff.

J Mac

Whooo Boy….
That’s the equivalent of shooting yourself in one foot…..
and then reloading for another try at ‘quick draw’ from the holster on your other hip!

Wayne L

Three quarter of a million followers and only 22 likes?
Heard about the fake twitter accounts

Pop Piasa

I don’t think any company, organization, or public entity would take it lightly to have their trademark or logo used by employees to support a personal cause, particularly one which undermines the elected government.

And particularly right after you’ve tried to shut them down … nobody puts up with that.
w.

David Chappell

Forgive my ignorance of things Twitterish but that screenshot says “Joined: May 2015”. That, to me, implies that this is not a new account.

MarkG

The great thing about Twitter is that you no longer need to go hunting for the Commies in the government, because they post it to their Twitter feed.

KenW

Imagine some rogue employees at a company like Apple were to try a stunt like this – using a company Logo to criticize the CEO. They would be found – and Security would be escorting them off the premises within hours. That would just be the start of their legal misery.
——————
Of course, something like this could only happen if the company had enough really dumb employees to form a Critical Mass. Few functioning companies have the necessary concentration. The Stupidity Enrichment Process requires public financing to be viable. Some government departments are weapons grade, therefore prone to meltdown. The social media ban is like the first crude containment structure at Chernobyl. Decontamination will take much longer.

commieBob

… civil service laws may get in the way.

This seems obviously to be a case of trademark infringement. Civil (and criminal) law should help here.

These are the sorts of delta bravos who were coning off turnouts on county roads near Mt Rushmore during the government shutdown to maximize the inconvenience for taxpayers on holiday.
Under Obama they had support and encouragement to play partisan politics. Hopefully Trump will fire them.

Timothy Soren

Prosecute

Geoff Sherrington

So that readers should not conclude that those who visit here have all been through an green stage and/or an epiphany, my own path has led to strong rejection of the need for national parks and world heritage area. They are another method of centralist control of land and its use. In practice, some work out well but others become neglected sources of weeds, fire, pests. The park mechanism globally is used to restrict valid land uses like mining.
Credentials. Representing my then corporate employer, I caused action to delay an imminent inscription of Kakadu Australia onto the world heritage list. Be keen to know if anyone else can claim to have tamed the monster to that extent.
Geoff

“Valid land uses” also include tourism, camping, and preserving natural wonders for future generations. Perhaps it’s different in Australia, but the US National Park system is one of the few pieces of the government I’m happy to support through my tax dollars.

Geoff Sherrington

Darn … should not conclude …
Geoff

Fixed … w.
w.

Geoff Sherrington

Ta Willis.

Hocus Locus

Ladies and Gentlemen, someone has been practicing politics in this establishment.
It reeks of sulfur.

peyelut

Tweeted @POTUS with a Heads up, incorporating phrase “Criminal Activity”. The beauty of a Private Sector President is the tendency to hire motivated, energetic staff rather than beaureaucratic ‘ornaments’. Perhaps the information will be followed up on.

It will be interesting with the hiring freeze that has been announced to see how many of these activists keep it up.

Jeef

I’m a socialist. You’d call me a commie in the States because your government choices are either ‘right wing’ or ‘more right wing’. Seeing the bile spewed by the (alt?) right in the climate change debate, just because it suits their agenda, alienates me. Am I a snowflake? No. I just don’t deny anyone their right to an opinion or a voice, however wrong I think it might be. The climate change fight must be won by changing minds, not digging trenches. It’s not a Dem/Rep thing, and I’m saddened that some people think it is.
The science might influence policy, but it doesn’t support either camp, just their ulterior motives. With Obama it was a desire to ‘do something’, leave a legacy, if you will. Make something (unspecified) better. With Trump it’s the stocks and shares he owns or controls, or those of his friends. A naked cash grab.
I’ve followed WUWT since the early days. Back then, opposition to the generally accepted warming meme was fragmented, and this was a welcome addition to science over politics. Looks like it’s going the other way now. When I see how political WUWT has become, especially over this election period, I do wonder why I still follow it. Then I remember it’s because I believe in the huge uncertainties involved in climate science, and my belief in absolute science and facts over conjecture and opinion. I’ll still follow the site, but I’ll fight my corner if it gets too political. This issue, and in particular, this site, should be above that, not be a cheerleading camp for an orange narcissist.
Yours,
A long-term reader and contributor to comments

Jeef January 25, 2017 at 10:09 pm

I’m a socialist. You’d call me a commie in the States because your government choices are either ‘right wing’ or ‘more right wing’.

Jeef, insulting your hosts by spewing some bile claiming that people here are too dumb to know the difference between a socialist and a communist is a very poor way to enter a discussion.
This is doubly true given that every socialist national economy ever tried has crashed and burned with huge human suffering, with Venezuela as the latest poster child for ignorance, greed, and dictatorship … so regardless of your opinion of us, the fact you announced proudly that you are a socialist lets us know just how easily fooled you are. You shouldn’t reveal that right off the bat, bad tactics, again a poor way to enter a discussion …

Seeing the bile spewed by the (alt?) right in the climate change debate, just because it suits their agenda, alienates me.

If it actually alienated you, you would not come in here spewing bile. You are just posing for effect.
In any case, there is no “alt-right”, only “ctrl-left” …

Am I a snowflake? No. I just don’t deny anyone their right to an opinion or a voice, however wrong I think it might be.

Neither do we. Actually on this side of the pond it’s guaranteed by the Constitution, it’s called “Freedom of Speech”. So don’t you dare try to take the moral high ground on that one, it’s in our Constitution, not yours …

The climate change fight must be won by changing minds, not digging trenches. It’s not a Dem/Rep thing, and I’m saddened that some people think it is.

Sadly, the science has been politicized to the point where in large measure it is a Dem/Rep thing. Hey, don’t blame us, we’ve fought against the politicization of climate science for years ourselves.
Because the fight moved out of the scientific arena and into the political arena, we fight it there too … sorry you don’t like that, but your claim that we should ignore the political half of the fight and simply cede that ground to the opposition is not the smartest tactical advice I’ve heard in a while.
Finally, because it is in large measure a Dem/Rep thing, after decades of the government being on the side of the alarmists and wasting billions on nothing, things are changing. And yes, I’m overjoyed about the chance that we can stop wasting taxpayer dollars … so sue me.

The science might influence policy, but it doesn’t support either camp, just their ulterior motives. With Obama it was a desire to ‘do something’, leave a legacy, if you will. Make something (unspecified) better. With Trump it’s the stocks and shares he owns or controls, or those of his friends. A naked cash grab.

And you claim that you want to follow the science and not the politics? You come in here making a host of unsubstantiated accusations about how dumb Americans are, about how Obama just wanted to make things better, about how Trump just wants to get rich in a naked cash grab … you come in, take a strong one-sided position on the politics, tell us we’re dumb, abuse us for discussing politics, you talk about nothing but the politics … and you want us to believe it’s all because you are so interested in the science?
Really?

I’ve followed WUWT since the early days. Back then, opposition to the generally accepted warming meme was fragmented, and this was a welcome addition to science over politics. Looks like it’s going the other way now. When I see how political WUWT has become, especially over this election period, I do wonder why I still follow it.

Me, I wonder why you think your existential angst about what blog you choose to follow is of the slightest interest to anyone but you and your therapist … this site is about a host of things including the political side of the climate fight. If you don’t like one of the posts, don’t read it. I just wrote a post about the estimation of future CO2 levels and temperature projections, it is sciency as all get-out, full of links to data and such … so read that one and ignore this one.
I do not like being so straightforward with you, but truly, you know not whereof you speak … and when you start out in your first paragraph by calling us all dumb, you have to expect direct honesty in return.
w.

Jeef

smh I called nobody dumb, I just suggested there’s a surfeit of crowing republicans here recently. The comments back my preposition up, especially those directed at me instantly. Used to be a time people would consider their response over maybe a day or two, but now if you don’t conform to the norm there’s an instant slapdown. I’m old school, yeah, but once upon a time this site was about kindred spirits, and look at what my original post has provoked. Nothing but preconceived opinions based on political factions.
Call me a poser, fine, but my opinion on climate science is based on facts, not opinion, and your (less than) subtle put-down of (your idea of) socialism, your suggestion that the fight has been politicised, not factual, implies a political position over a science one.
Existential angst? I have none, by the way. Therapist, likewise. These comments demean you. You could and should do better to support your position instead of attempting to mock someone else. You invite everyone to quote exactly what they disagree with in your posts, yet you put words in my mouth in your own response. I never called you, or any other WUWT poster, dumb.
Geologist, by the way. I think long term, and that’s why I back the pragmatic view of climate change.
Keep posting, by the way. Most if your stuff is enjoyable and on point.

Jeef January 25, 2017 at 11:26 pm Edit

smh I called nobody dumb, I just suggested there’s a surfeit of crowing republicans here recently.

Nonsense. You claimed that people here didn’t know the difference between socialists and communists. Now you are trying to weasel out of it.

The comments back my preposition up, especially those directed at me instantly. Used to be a time people would consider their response over maybe a day or two, but now if you don’t conform to the norm there’s an instant slapdown.

This from the man who waited an entire seventy-five minutes to answer me … medico, cura te ipsum.

I’m old school, yeah, but once upon a time this site was about kindred spirits, and look at what my original post has provoked. Nothing but preconceived opinions based on political factions.

Jeef, when you start out by calling people too stupid to tell the difference between socialism and communism, and claim that people are spewing bile … are you really so dumb that you don’t expect to get the same right back in your face?
I don’t think you’re that dumb … which means that once again you are just posing.

Call me a poser, fine, but my opinion on climate science is based on facts, not opinion, and your (less than) subtle put-down of (your idea of) socialism, your suggestion that the fight has been politicised, not factual, implies a political position over a science one.

Is there some part of my statement that I fight both the political and the scientific fights that was too complex for you? I have peer reviewed pieces in the scientific journals, I have scientific postings here and elsewhere, I have political postings here and elsewhere, and I have posting about the intersection of climate science and politics. SO WHAT?

Existential angst? I have none, by the way. Therapist, likewise. These comments demean you. You could and should do better to support your position instead of attempting to mock someone else. You invite everyone to quote exactly what they disagree with in your posts, yet you put words in my mouth in your own response. I never called you, or any other WUWT poster, dumb.

No, you just said we were too stupid to know the difference between socialism and communism. And no, I am not “mocking” you about socialism, that is my true opinion. I really do think that anyone who hasn’t noticed the universal failure of every single national socialist state in history is not all that smart. If Venezuela didn’t wake you up, you are sleeping very soundly. SOCIALISM ON A NATIONAL LEVEL HAS NEVER, EVER WORKED! Smell the coffee, amigo, people are laughing at you.

Geologist, by the way. I think long term, and that’s why I back the pragmatic view of climate change.

Why do you think we care about your job? Why do you think we care about your opinion? You came in here and started out by lashing out at people, telling us we’re spewing bile, and you think we give a rat’s differential about your opinion? You’ve poisoned the well for yourself, Jeef. At this point you’ve successfully cancelled your own vote.

Keep posting, by the way. Most if your stuff is enjoyable and on point.

I will keep posting, thanks.
w.

I think Obama was continually labelled as being a Communist by many individuals who on the face of it were reasonably intelligent. Anyone who reads this blog will have seen numerous examples, so it’s a fair comment to say many US citizens on the right of the political spectrum do not really understand the nature of left wing politics. The idea that US politics is shifted to the right in comparison with the rest of the world is accepted as fact by political analysts. Obama in the UK would have been a centrist with some right wing views. Certainly not a Socialist.

Bryan

Willis says
“This is doubly true given that every socialist national economy ever tried has crashed and burned with huge human suffering”
The average standard of living of people in Sweden and Denmark is much higher than that of the USA.
Most American right wing wingnuts would consider these Nordic countries are socialist.
Give over your diatribes against Palestinians.
The Palestinians are the modern equivalents of the Sioux and Cherokee natives.
There is an ongoing colonisation of their lands.
These ventures of yours into general right wing rambles does nothing for the climate skeptic case.

Sometimes Willis you write really good stuff, at other times you just completely lose the plot and fire from the hip insulting anyone who has a view which disagrees with your own. Read your responses carefully as written to Jeef. They are packed with inventive and gross insults, yet you draw the flag of victimhood around your self as if you and your Nation are the ones who have been insulted. Come on Willis, you can do better than this, I know you can because I have seen it.
All jeef did was to post his observations and you give him a hard time and try and make him out to be some sort of vindictive idiot.
What was that again about free speech and it’s facilitation?
I know you will will scream blue murder at myself also for writing this, but sometimes free speech has to resist being browbeaten into submission by powerful voices.

Jeef

Willis, you’re incredibly defensive . I had a much longer post that I deleted, to save you wasting your time parsing it to try and justify your pomposity..

Bob Boder

Jeef
The biggest problem with socialists is that they want to make everyone else live as socialists. Our schools are indoctrinating our children into crazed activist for socialism and the CAGW religion. Just try and discuss it with kids these days, they don’t want to hear a different point of view they jump right to you being a racist, sexist Nazi. No one hear is trying to indoctrinate anyone, we are defending our freedoms, I don’t care what you believe, its your choice, but just because you believe it doesn’t make it so. Socialism and CAGW are just another religion.
I don’t care that you are a socialist, not a problem go start a community of like minded people and live in your socialist paradise, nothing is stopping you. Just leave me to live my life the way I want, free to choose my system and live my life not under your rules. That’s the beauty of as society founded on individual freedom, personal liberty and a free market. Inside this system you can live however you want, you want socialism live it. In your system of government control everyone has to live your way. They have a word for this, its called dictatorship and its evil.

Bob Boder

Bryan
“The average standard of living of people in Sweden and Denmark is much higher than that of the USA.
Most American right wing wingnuts would consider these Nordic countries are socialist.”
Neither of these countries are true socialist (Sweden tried and pulled away when it didn’t work) countries and both of them derive the fast majority of their wealth by selling goods to non-socialist countries.
Can you find an example of one socialist country that ever created any wealth (I mean economic wealth, not individual)? You know the wealth that you need to redistribute to make everyone else happy? They all do the same thing they slowly devolve into a stagnate economy, that makes everyone equal. equally poor, equally oppressed, equally sick, equally brainwashed, oh ya except for the very few people at the top (some are just more equal then others).
North Korea is the perfect example, totally brainwashed and totally poor, maybe even most of them are happy, but they are not free, they can’t do what they want when they want, they can’t think how they want, they can’t live a life that is different then what the state demands and they produce nothing for the world, goods, arts, science anything. they just exist.
Read what I wrote to Jeef, you don’t need to convert me to live a socialist life, just find like minded people and go live it.
My guess is like all the communes created in the 70’s it will fail because it will turn out that only a few dedicated people do all the work for the rest of the people who convince them selves that they do enough. Then they’ll be arguing and fighting and finally no more commune. People need to work for their own lives its what gives meaning to the effort.

MarkW

Let’s see, Obama wanted government to take complete control of the medical industry.
The only reason why ObamaCare didn’t go that route was because the political will was not there yet.
I love it when left wingers declare that they aren’t communists, they just want to impose communist like policies.

MarkW

Bryan, you really shouldn’t embarrass yourself like that.
If the US was a uni-cultural society with vast oil riches, we would have a higher standard of living as well.
Scandanavians in the US have a standard of living as high or higher than Scandanavians living in Europe, so it isn’t socialism that causes their high standard of living, it’s their work ethic. Which I might add, is starting to break down, just as it does everywhere else when socialism is imposed.
As to the Palestinians, their lands aren’t being stolen because those were never their lands in the first place.

MarkW

Jeef, I love it when you left wingers admit defeat, but try to pretend that you have actually won.

MarkW

pretend, not defend, should do a better job of editing on the fly.
[Fixed. -w.]

Mr. Eschenbach,
I’m curious, what kind of government do you term the European economies? Particularly Scandinavian?
What about China?

Mark - Helsinki

US debt before Obama from all former administrations $9 trillion US debt after socialist Obama, $20 trillion
Socialists and economics go together like fire and ice

JohnKnight

Bryan,
“The average standard of living of people in Sweden and Denmark is much higher than that of the USA.
Most American right wing wingnuts would consider these Nordic countries are socialist.”
Rather confusing set of sentences, to my way of thinking . . Do you consider them socialist countries? If not, why are you telling us they (in particular) have a high standard of living? Are you implying that merely having people believe a country is socialist, boosts the standard of living there? . . Or what?

Brian and Gareth-
From his actions Obama tried to govern as a totalitarian socialist much like the USSR. He did not negotiate much within his own party and he could not negotiate at all when he did not have the majority in congress. His solution was that he had “my pen and ‘phone” and governed by Presidential executive orders, completely by passing the congress if possible. His goals were socialist- control of the country by government, not by the established democratic process. His political goals were personal- what he wanted to do was the right way to go, regardless of what anyone else thought and he was nearly totally resistant to changing his views. While he didn’t hide what he actually thought he was very judicious in his public comments and the press was extremely hesitant to report candidly, much less highlight his statements.
Brian- Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a strong parliamentary democracy. The monarch has little actual power. Denmark is a constitutional monarch with a democratic parliament. The Monarch is head of state, but with little explicit power.
Anything socialist about either country is merely the results of parliament. It is not a national policy.
The defintion of socialism is some sort group ownership of the means of production, which can range from small local groups owning a business up to and including ownership of all business by the people in common. Nationalization of ownership is not necessarily included.
In the US socialism has come to mean the government redistributing tax proceeds through various social programs, tax credits, and tax refunds. Depending on how you view it it includes everything from oil depletion allowances to direct payments to individuals for specific reasons.

Do socialists all resort to name calling, or are you just special?

MarkW

It’s not like they have actual data to support their position.

Mark - Helsinki

It’s more of a faux moral left stance, they deem themselves ideologically moral so anything that disagrees with them is therefor immoral

Bob Boder

Gareth
“I think Obama was continually labelled as being a Communist by many individuals who on the face of it were reasonably intelligent. Anyone who reads this blog will have seen numerous examples, so it’s a fair comment to say many US citizens on the right of the political spectrum do not really understand the nature of left wing politics. The idea that US politics is shifted to the right in comparison with the rest of the world is accepted as fact by political analysts. Obama in the UK would have been a centrist with some right wing views. Certainly not a Socialist.”
That’s what they would have thought in communist Russia too, the fact that the EU has gone totally left in the past 30 years doesn’t mean that left is now center. The US would have been considered totally left in the 1800’s compared to Europeans of the time, yet the US is dramatically left of where it was then. None the this means anything (though what you post rarely does) this country brought the idea of individual liberty to the masses and brought with it wealth and prosperity to them as well, this is not left or right it is something out side the battle for control, its the battle for no control. The European elite have been fight this for ever, first with dictatorships and now with leftist government brainwashing but its the same battle.
Unfortunately for us (meaning free people everywhere) the US is losing this battle.

Bob Boder

JEEF
“The climate change fight must be won by changing minds, not digging trenches. It’s not a Dem/Rep thing, and I’m saddened that some people think it is”
There is no climate fight, because anyone that knows anything about the climate knows that there is no C in AGW. The fight is over liberty and governments attempt to use scare tactics and brainwashing to commit actions (none of which would help the environment even if there was a C in AGW) that take away freedom and invest control and power to the government and more importantly to the elites that control it.

AGW is not Science

Couldn’t agree more. Not only isn’t there any CAGW, and for that matter probably any AGW, but merely a little AW of a localized nature due to land use changes, etc., but the supposed “solutions” of the Climate Fascists wouldn’t do a damn thing about the supposed “CAGW” EVEN IF THEY WERE RIGHT about the pseudo climate science. It’s all about CONTROL (of energy use, which by extension allows control of EVERYTHING), and always has been.

Joe Civis

Exactly!!!
Cheers!!
Joe

Darrell Demick

Bob Boder and AGW is Not Science, very well put. My sincerest compliments.
Onward!!!!!!

Samuel C Cogar

Jeef – January 25, 2017 at 10:09 pm

It’s not a Dem/Rep thing, and I’m saddened that some people think it is.
The science might influence policy, but it doesn’t support either camp, just their ulterior motives.

Jeef, it appears you quickly forgot what the ell you were complaining about, to wit:
First you claim ….. “It’s not a Dem/Rep thing” …… and then your very next statement you claim ……. “The(ir) science …. supports ….. just their ulterior motives

MarkW

I’ve always found it fascinating the way commies define everyone who isn’t a commie as some version of right wing to far right wing.
It all goes back to their delusion that theirs is the only legitimate form of politics and economics.
It’s also one of the reasons why they are so willing to criminalize any dissent to their rule.

Yep.
Here is my political spectrum. Where do you stand on it?
0——————————————————————————-maximum individual liberty

Leonard Lane

Jeef, you said: “The climate change fight must be won by changing minds, not digging trenches.”
Have you considered that changing minds is a two way street? And can you tell me of any socialist country that hasn’t become a tyranny or that is not well on its way to become one?

Jeef

Leonard, this is a site that leans toward open community on climate change. That’s what I read it for. I owe you no explanation on geopolitics, which is a different topic altogether.

Felflames

So the answer is :”No, but I can’t admit that or my worldview collapses?”
Would that be a fair assumption?

Jeef

No, my world view is still people-first. That’s socialism, buddy.

markl

Which “people first”?

blcjr

“No, my world view is still people-first. That’s socialism, buddy.”
Tell that to the undertrodden of Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and so on. Every “socialist” country seems to end up with a leadership that enriches itself at the expense of its populace. Of course, that happens in other systems, like ours (in the US, where life-long politicians who have never held a major private sector job still end up millionaires). That just shows that “.gov” — and most organized institutions — are easily co-opted by people who put themselves first, not the people the supposedly serve.
I’m a Christian. As a young man (I’m now in my eighth decade), I was attracted to socialism for what seems to be the same reason you are, that it ostensibly was “people-first.” That was how I understood the gospel of Christ. It is still how I understand the gospel of Christ. But I now understand that no human organization is capable of being truly “people-first.” Putting people first cannot be done by government fiat. It can only be done by individuals, one person at a time. Some types of government allow the freedom for that to happen. The socialism I have seen in my lifetime is not one of them.

Gloateus Maximus

Jeef
January 26, 2017 at 12:03 am
Nope. Socialism means putting the state first and its subject people last.

JonasM

“But I now understand that no human organization is capable of being truly “people-first.” Putting people first cannot be done by government fiat. It can only be done by individuals, one person at a time. Some types of government allow the freedom for that to happen. The socialism I have seen in my lifetime is not one of them.”
Truer words have never been spoken.

Gloateus Maximus

The people whom socialists put first are themselves.

MarkW

Sorry Jeef, but capitalism is the only economic system that puts people first.
Socialsm puts government and the control of people first.
Under capitalism, the only people who get rich are those who do a good job of making products and services that people want to buy. And the only way to make these products and services is to cooperate with others to create companies.
Under socialism, wealth comes from political power, and the ability to force others to live as you want them to.

Cube

Jeef- You misrepresent. Socialism is not “people first” in any way, shape or form. Socialism is “government first, but con the rubes by telling them we love them.” As far as Sweden being socialist is concerned, Sweden is owned lock, stock, and barrel by a handful of powerful families. They have controlled their homogenous population through the illusion of socialism. This will rapidly unravel as they allow significant immigration from regions which don’t understand the rules.

Catweazle666

“No, my world view is still people-first. That’s socialism, buddy”
No, that is exactly NOT what Socialism is.
Socialism puts ‘The State’ first, last and middle, and the people are just a disposable commodity that can be sacrificed wholesale on the journey to the Glorious Socialist Workers’ Republic.
How many deaths of your own people were you lot responsible for in the 20th century?
In excess of 200,000,000 wasn’t it, betewn Lenin, Stalion, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and their vile ilk?

Yes, The UK, Sweden, Holland, Germany , France, Norway and many others have Socialist governments or have had them in the past without becoming tyrannies . It’s a very common theme in Western countries outside the US.
I agree that changing minds is a two ways street, thats why when posts are written by people who are not sceptics, they should not be treated as insults and be subject to insults and ad hominem attacks. There are rarely posts by the non-sceptics on this blog which are treated with any respect or consideration by all posters. Even here, on this thread, there are lots of opportunities to note such behaviour. Willis has shown an extreme example, but a review of Griff’s posts will show a rich vein of such behaviours which are all too common.

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 1:44 am Edit

Yes, The UK, Sweden, Holland, Germany , France, Norway and many others have Socialist governments or have had them in the past without becoming tyrannies .

READ THE DICTIONARY! READ AN ECONOMICS TEXT! They all agree. Socialism is where the government owns the farms, the fishing boats, and the factories. As far as I know, not one of the countries you list fits that definition.
w.

Ziiex Zeburz

Gareth Phillips,
I am not a European, But, have lived ( or Worked ) in all the countries you list above.
European Socialism is 100% them and us, ( us being the political classes ) Latest example ? a contender for President of France, his Wife was employed by him in his office,(hours not important, work load is, his quote) 500,000 euros+ a year ? yep socialism is full of idiots, your chose .

Newminster

Gareth, you and Willis are arguing at cross-purposes because you don’t have a common definition of “socialism”.
Willis — the definition you apply (Socialism is where the government owns the farms, the fishing boats, and the factories.) does not truly reflect how the average European thinks of the word. It might perhaps help if we used the phrase “social democracy”. France currently has what it calls a socialist government; Sweden has for most of the last half-century been one of the most “socialistic” countries in Europe. Britain had “socialist” governments in the 40s, 60s, and 70s.
The important thing with all these countries is that, like the US, they have always (at least during the lifetimes of any of us on this site) had multi-party political systems and held regular open and fair general elections. In other words the “socialist” countries of Europe are socialist to the extent that their electorate wishes them to be.
Your view of Socialism is a bit different since you appear to equate it with left-wing dictatorship, a view I wouldn’t disagree with personally but which can be inhibiting when discussing politics with someone from our side of the pond!

Gloateus Maximus

Governments do own factories in European countries.

MarkW

Without being tyrannies? Tell that to the EU and those governments that joined it without giving their citizens a voice in the issue.

MarkW

In most European governments, the only difference between the parties is which politicians get to use government to get rich.

I’ll still follow the site, but I’ll fight my corner if it gets too political. This issue, and in particular, this site, should be above that, not be a cheerleading camp for an orange narcissist.

You might start by not using ad hominems, it might even get a dialog going because I agree with SOME of your points. ( I wonder btw what your reaction would be if I said ” a black thin skinned narcissist” FI)

Jeef

I might, but I’ve responded in kind to the comments levelled the other way, right or wrong. Your use of a substitute in your argument is negated by your own comment, sorry.

Ben D

Seems the Rogue NPS has been joined by Rogue NASA and EPS, but I don’t see how they could have gotten so many followers in such a short time? “As of Wednesday evening (Jan. 25), Rogue NASA has 209,000 followers; AltEPA 41,600 and 883,000 at AltUSNatParkService”
“Rogue NASA, EPA, NPS Twitter Accounts Launched to Protest Trump Directives”.
http://www.universetoday.com/133042/rogue-nasa-epa-nps-twitter-accounts-launched-protest-trump-directives/
.

I find it odd how many people seem to want to stick their heads up above the parapets …
w.

It depends on whether you wish to fight for what you believe or go with the flow.

Willis Eschenbach January 25, 2017 at 11:16 pm Edit

I find it odd how many people seem to want to stick their heads up above the parapets …

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 1:45 am Edit

It depends on whether you wish to fight for what you believe or go with the flow.

I fear you missed my meaning, likely my lack of clarity.
You can fight for what you believe either wisely or foolishly. It depends on whether you are smart enough to fight from a fortified position, or you are dumb enough to stick your head up over the parapet where you can be seen, identified, and picked off.
w.

Steve Fraser

There is a joined date in 2015.

Ben D

AltNASA, Rogue NASA, and AltEPA all have a January 2017 join date, how the “Unofficial “Resistance” team of U.S. National Park Service”, AltNPS, got to have a join date of May 2015 I do not know?

I see that both the Rogue Nasa and the AltEPA site both use the official logo … like I said, that’s a Federal offense …
w.

Mike the Morlock

Hi Willis, there may be something more to this. Reading their invitation reminded me of something. Are there not concession contracts with private companies in running the parks? Things like lodging gift shops and “advertising”?
If they are Employees of the park service are they violating contracts by “advertising” on a rogue park service site. Is it also a form of identity theft.
I think if this is illegal they should be tried and convicted and have it on their personal record there after. So anytime they fill out a application they will have to list it.
michael

Samuel C Cogar

@ Mike the Morlock

Are there not concession contracts with private companies in running the parks?

Mike, there sure are,
And iffen those Rogue Nasa, AltEPA, etc., sites are the efforts of contract employees of those private companies ……. me thinks they could be in big trouble. The AG could sue them individually or inclusively along with their employer …….. or the newly appointed Agency heads could cancel said “service contracts” and they would be out of a job.

michael hart

I’m genuinely curious about the thinking behind these actions.
Do they perhaps think they might get away with politically thumbing their noses at the legal authority of the new administration if they do it on-mass in sufficient numbers? Or has perhaps youth combined with the previous admin and the strident anti-Trump MSM led them to actually believe that Trump and Congress doesn’t have any legal authority to lay the smack down, should they wish to do so?

Michael, my guess is a combination of impetuous youth, plus a few vestigial sixties radicals, neither of whom are all that firmly grounded in reality.
w.

Newminster

How about the Left’s overweening sense of entitlement, Willis?
In your country, as in mine, electing a Conservative/Republican government is immediately met with howls of rage and cries of “how could they be so (include expletive of choice here) STUPID?” After the East Berlin rising in 1953, Bertolt Brecht is reported to have proposed that perhaps the Communist regime should consider dismissing the people and appointing a new one!
The main culprits over decades have been the media who have taken it upon themselves to decide what is right and proper thinking and what is not. The argument about BBC bias on these shores (and doubtless similar accusations on your side of the ocean) misses the point. They aren’t biased; it’s just that they determine the limits of neutrality and objectivity and therefore where the “centre ground” is.
The people you are talking about have spent years telling everyone how the world works according to the tenets of the “progressives” which as every “right-thinking” person knows represent reality and suddenly find that the organisation they work for is now obliged to disown reality and start preaching myths and untruths. And it’s too much for them to understand so they find some way of by-passing the new system until normality is restored.
Bravery and “heads above parapets” doesn’t come into it. Think more of WW2 Japanese devotion to the emperor or perhaps Pavlov’s dogs. Or Manson’s cult.

It’s illegal to use any of the official U.S. government seals. Photos, etc., government works are in the public domain (although you will see some on Flickr that claim copyright, if it’s a government work, they cannot have a copyright), but the seals are not – they’re official stamps of the offices they represent; using them implies official stamp of approval.

Ore-gonE Left

Those that think you can remove all politics from science will forever be with Alice in Wonderland. Critical thinking be your guide.
Thanks to you Willis for employing critical thinking. A pleasure to read your posts.

Steve R

No point in prosecution. Just terminate.

MarkW

If they are covered under civil service rules, the only way to terminate is to prosecute.

MarkW is unaware of reality: http://work.chron.com/can-fired-civil-service-jobs-19492.html Please review the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 before making a fool of yourself again.

TA

I read where two VA employees were fired a couple of days ago.

Ore-gonE Left

Congrats to Anthony!!! I see the site hit 300 million plus views.

RBom

Off topic but cannot help to pass along.
The National Southern Wall Corporation (title not settled on yet).
Annual funding: $20 billion (to start).
Startup date: likely FYI 2018. FYI18 will include headquarters, financial, legal, personnel-management and recruitment departments in DC with engineering, research and testing facilities (across US states) in FYI 19. Initial construction to begin in FYI 2020. Completion target FYI 2024.
Folks we (the USA Government) are not returning to the Moon, not going to Mars or the Asteroids.
NASA will be divested of its regulatory authorities and units, to be re-instated and divisions of the Commerce Department, and facilities sold off to the highest bidder or bidders (SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic for instance). Other NASA units will be divested to other Commerce Department divisions or sold to private interests.
If SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic want to go to the Moon, Mars or Asteroids, they as welcome to and on their own dime! God’s speed.

Perry

Freedom of speech & freedom of action require courage of the highest order, because they were created with spilled blood & are defended with spilled blood. Socialism decries personal sacrifice, because it seeks to reduce people to the lowest common denominator. There is no freedom without responsibility, the corollary that freedom is the willingness to accept the result of one’s speech or actions & it is not the same as liberty. Socialists are free to try & debase humanity, but they should not come crying when others decide the the basement is not a sensible place to live & deliver socialism a reality kick in the pants. Have more self respect.

“Socialism decries personal sacrifice, because it seeks to reduce people to the lowest common denominator.”
Good Lord where on earth did you find that information? Millions of people have died over the years fighting for Socialist principles, rightly or wrongly. From the volunteers in the Spanish civil war to the Cuban revolution. If Socialist governments are really that bad, how is it that they are elected and dismissed on a regular basis in Western countries outside the US? I suspect your posting is an elegant example for Willis of not understanding the difference between Democratic socialism, socialist governments and totalitarian communist regimes.
Remember, the US have lauded Socialist leaders in the past when it has been in it’s own interests.

Perry

You are an idiot Gareth. First, you should no call yourself Gareth, but use the unpretentious Gary like the common proletariat that you profess to be & second, do you remember the un-lamented GDR? A voter there had the choice of a number of candidates, but they all had to be card carrying members of the Communist party. Being socialist in the US is enter a social contract in order to suppress the blue collar worker. IMO, you’d vote for any Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist state that would have you, (but only if you were Gary).
You should also have written: “US politicians have lauded Socialist leaders etc”. President Donald Trump is NOT a politician & he’ll outclass B E B Obama.

Samuel C Cogar

So claimith: Gareth Phillips – January 26, 2017 at 1:53 am

Millions of people have died over the years fighting for Socialist principles, rightly or wrongly. From the volunteers in the Spanish civil war to the Cuban revolution.

Good Lord yourself, …… just where or who in hell did you learn that information from?
“DUH”, Castro didn’t launch the Cuban Revolution for the purpose of converting Cuba to a Socialist country. The Cuban Revolution was instigate to depose a Dictatorship ruled by Batista et el.

@ Samuel.
“DUH”, Castro didn’t launch the Cuban Revolution for the purpose of converting Cuba to a Socialist country. The Cuban Revolution was instigate to depose a Dictatorship ruled by Batista et el.
Maybe that is so Samuel. But they fought for the revolution at the Bay of pigs and tried to spread revolution across the world. Do you think the North Vietnamese did not fight for Socialism or Communism? How about Mao’s people? Cambodia? the Red army? Shining Path ? I hope you get the point now that saying no-one has ever fought for socialism is just an ‘ alternate fact’ There is no truth in it.

Bob Boder

Gareth
“Maybe that is so Samuel. But they fought for the revolution at the Bay of pigs and tried to spread revolution across the world. Do you think the North Vietnamese did not fight for Socialism or Communism? How about Mao’s people? Cambodia? the Red army? Shining Path ? I hope you get the point now that saying no-one has ever fought for socialism is just an ‘ alternate fact’ There is no truth in it.”
Fought to impose Socialism. When they had socialism they did not fight for it the killed for it. There is at least 200 million dead people in your indignant little bit of proof here. Way to prove your point.

“You are an idiot Gareth. First, you should no call yourself Gareth, but use the unpretentious Gary like the common proletariat that you profess to be”
Perry, you are a sad piece of work. I wonder what people will think of you, someone who has no valid contribution to a debate, but falls back on attacking the ethnicity of a mans name. You are beneath contempt.

JohnKnight

Gareth,
“I wonder what people will think of you, someone who has no valid contribution to a debate, but falls back on attacking the ethnicity of a mans name.”
Well, I’m a people ; ) and I have no idea what “attacking the ethnicity of a man’s name” means . . but I do think you’re full of crap, and are faking any real interest in the site, other than starting trouble . . if that helps ; )

Jbird

As a tax paying US citizen I for one do not want to see any unauthorized use of official government emblems regardless of who is doing it – left, right, conservative, progressive, Democrat or Republican. That is why emblems like the US Forest Service are protected to begin with. Although laws were probably broken, just ask for resignations in lieu of prosecution. Don’t waste taxpayer dollars on legal action, but make sure that all of those involved resign.

Danny Thomas

Jbird,
One can purchase a USMC emblem or a National Park Insignia and attach same to a laptop or a Kia.
Seems this is just one to relax and move on.
Regards,

MarkW

Unless you can show that they are paying royalties, then your point is moot.

Rhoda R

More to the point, they – as Civil Servants – were deliberately trying to under cut their boss. There is absolutely NOTHING new about an Administration wanting to control what its various components are saying publicly. This is because any communication from a governmental component is assumed to be the official stance of the Administration. These people are in open mutiny and counterfeiting an official site to to it.

Frederik Michiels January 26, 2017 at 12:48 am

imvho: science is a debate. i agree that there is also a political side.
but radically censoring is touching at the right of freedom of speech.
if rightfull AGW skeptics wish to be associated with that, i pass.
just ponder that little detail

I’d love to “ponder that little detail”, but you haven’t quoted what the heck you’re talking about, so I have no clue who you think is “radically censoring” who.
w.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark

Maybe worth looking at the BBC page on this..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38745829
To someone ‘speed-reading’ or just quickly scanning the news, it completely gives the impression its from the official Parks Service.
See the word ‘also’ used when the BBC introduce the Alt park service. It was only ‘also’ in that ‘also’ I broke wind while picking my nose this morning. Now why didn’t they mention that?
Weasel words all down the line.
This is exactly the tactics (similar name, stolen graphics etc) that scammers, spammers and phishers use in email to empty folk’s bank accounts – and how much (fake?) uproar would there be then?
As we saw with Obama’s petulant last few weeks, Michelle’s [trimmed] face at Don’s inauguration – the sorest of losers and most childish of behaviour.
And you what I’m gonna say – sugar.
See what sugar does – take at look at the average modern kid kick and scream when it doesn’t get the candy it thinks it wants.

Maybe out US friends could confirm if this report is true ?
“Great stuff!! Public outcry in the US has meant that the Department of Agriculture has lifted an order banning scientists & employees of its research arm from publicly releasing their work. See? Fighting back makes a difference. Good work US scientists & environmentalists… and your rogue viral Twitter accounts!”

Bryan January 26, 2017 at 1:28 am

Willis says

“This is doubly true given that every socialist national economy ever tried has crashed and burned with huge human suffering”

The average standard of living of people in Sweden and Denmark is much higher than that of the USA.
Most American right wing wingnuts would consider these Nordic countries are socialist.

Since they are not socialist countries, I’m not sure why you think people would call them socialist. I certainly don’t. A socialist country is where the government owns the farms and fishing boats and factories, the means of production.
Given that they are NOT socialist countries, why are you bringing them up? My statement still stands. There has never been a nationwide socialist economy that has succeeded. What does Sweden have to do with that, other than a vain attempt to change the subject?

Give over your diatribes against Palestinians.
The Palestinians are the modern equivalents of the Sioux and Cherokee natives.
There is an ongoing colonisation of their lands.

QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS. I have no clue what you are babbling about. In any case, the Sioux stole their lands from the Arikara recently, only about 300 years ago. Your attempt at giving us a history lesson has backfired because you didn’t bother to research the history of the Sioux.

These ventures of yours into general right wing rambles does nothing for the climate skeptic case.

I do many things, but “general right wing rambles” are not among them. This is nothing more than a vile attempt at guilt by association.
As to what my writings do or don’t do, if you think something I’ve said is wrong, how about you gather up every scrap of your courage and QUOTE MY WORDS, and explain to us why you think they’re wrong.
I ask this because your gormless whining about how I’m a baaaad man goes nowhere. I’m happy to discuss things with you, but not this undifferentiated slop.
w.

Bryan

Willis
Read the replies to your current post.
Do you think insulting all those who are to the left of you helps climate skepticism.
You are coming across like a right wing Jihadi ,a sort of political Islamic State bigot.

Bryan January 26, 2017 at 1:58 am

Willis
Read the replies to your current post.

Do you think I’ve been answering them one by one without reading them? What are you saying?

Do you think insulting all those who are to the left of you helps climate skepticism.

First, it’s not people to the left of me, it is people that ATTACK ME rather than attacking my ideas. When they do that I reply in kind. Will it help “climate skepticism”? No idea, but it may discourage them from thinking they can attack me without a cost. I’m not their punching bag, or yours either. I write and do the best I can, and when a man accuses me of spouting bile first thing out of the box, yes, I will slap him across the face.

You are coming across like a right wing Jihadi ,a sort of political Islamic State bigot.

Exaggerate much? Get a grip. Jihadis cut people’s heads off. I write words on a page.
Finally, I made a number of very specific objections to what you wrote in your post, for example to your nonsense about the Sioux.
Rather than answer a single one of these cogent and specific objections, you make general accusations against me. Coincidence? You be the judge, but I’m still waiting for an answer about the Sioux and all the rest …
w.

MarkW

Wow, disagree with a leftist and you become a right wing jihadi.
As always, those on the left do not believe that there is any legitimate opposition to themselves. That’s why instead of arguing the facts, they immediately start trying to de-legitimize their opponents.

Pat Frank

In any case, the Sioux stole their lands from the Arikara recently…” good point, Willis, and central to that argument.
Archeology and forensic anthropology has shown that Native American societies were four to ten times more violent than modern US society, and that the pre-Columbian violent death rate was far higher than during the 20th century, even counting American war dead.
That, and the cannibalism that was endemic throughout the American southwest (not just the Aztecs), put paid to any morals argument that singles out Europeans.

“Since they are not socialist countries, I’m not sure why you think people would call them socialist. I certainly don’t. A socialist country is where the government owns the farms and fishing boats and factories, the means of production.”
You also appear to be very hazy regarding Western views of Socialism Willis. Let me give you an example. Tony Blair was the leader of a socialist party. The UK’s labour party. They did not even consider collectivisation of farms, shipping and fishing industries. Socialist parties in the past have Nationalised the UK’s coal, rail and steel industries, but this is not collectivisation as practised in Communist countries.
In Europe we are proud of the post war benefits socialism has brought to our communities, we are also happy with the fact that they can be elected and unelected at the whim of the people. Sweden and the UK are classic examples of Western socialism in practise. There are lots of essentially Social Democratic parties in the West Willis, I just suspect that due to the size of the US and limited every day interaction with other countries, most US citizens don’t understand that. They equate Socialism( as you do) with collectivisation, Gulags and Stalinism. probably a belief cultivated in the 50s and 60s by people like McCarthy and subsequent politicians.

MarkW

Yes, Europeans do have the option of dismissing a socialist government, unfortunately for them, all the alternative parties are also socialist.

Gareth, you might read a little more history. According to that wise, unbiased common source, Wikipedia, defines socialism as “common(social) ownership of the means of production.” That includes everything from a local co-op up big employee owned companies. According to footnote (2) “Nationalization in itself has nothing particularly to do with socialism and has existed under non-socialist and anti-socialist regimes. Kautsky in 1891 pointed out that a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ could not be the result of the ‘general nationalization of all industries’ unless there was a change in ‘the character of the state’.”
Many countries of different political persuasions have nationalized various or all industries. Even Pres. Harry Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry in the US. Obama and the Democratic congress were more successful creating a national health care system by doing it legally through a Democrat super-majority congress.

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 1:36 am

Sometimes Willis you write really good stuff, at other times you just completely lose the plot and fire from the hip insulting anyone who has a view which disagrees with your own. Read your responses carefully as written to Jeef. They are packed with inventive and gross insults, yet you draw the flag of victimhood around your self as if you and your Nation are the ones who have been insulted. Come on Willis, you can do better than this, I know you can because I have seen it.

Gareth, Jeef walked in and started right off by insulting you, me, and everyone. He said we were “spewing bile” and that we are “denying people their opinion”. Perhaps you put up with that kind of an attack. I don’t. I punch back. So yes, my responser to Jeef was to slap him across the face as hard as I could. Hopefully, the benefit will be that the next time he joins a discussion he doesn’t start out by making a fool of himself right out of the box. But then he’s a socialist, so he might not learn anything at all. Up to him.

All jeef did was to post his observations and you give him a hard time and try and make him out to be some sort of vindictive idiot.

Nonsense. All Jeef did was come in with an elitist attitude and start telling us we’re stupid and wrong and that none of us are liberals, we’re all either right or far right, and we’re spewing bile. It’s a charming way to start out a discussion. Fortunately, I didn’t have to “make him out” to be some sort of vindictive idiot.
He did a perfectly workmanlike job of doing that himself.

What was that again about free speech and it’s facilitation?

No clue. That’s why I ask people to QUOTE MY WORDS.

I know you will will scream blue murder at myself also for writing this, but sometimes free speech has to resist being browbeaten into submission by powerful voices.

“Browbeaten into submission” by words on a screen? Dear heavens, you are a snowflake, aren’t you? I’ve seen people beaten into submission, it’s not pretty. If you have any life in you at all, it takes much, much more than words on a screen to do it.
I love the idea that people can be “browbeaten” or “bullied” on the web. Where on the web is the threat that must be present to “browbeat” or “bully” someone? How is that possible?
Go ahead, Gareth … show us how you can browbeat me into submission, and I’ll believe it can be done. Step right up, show us how you can browbeat me until I run away screaming “Mommy, mommy, help me, Gareth said mean words to me, I can’t take any more, I submit to him!” …
Until you can do that, you’re just hyperventilating about browbeating.
w.

Ziiex Zeburz

Great post Willis,
Unfortunately, God also made idiots. !

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 1:53 am

If Socialist governments are really that bad, how is it that they are elected and dismissed on a regular basis in Western countries outside the US?

Say what? Which Western countries do you think are socialist? Socialism is where the government owns the farms, fishing boats, and factories, and I know of no Western society that does that.

I suspect your posting is an elegant example for Willis of not understanding the difference between Democratic socialism, socialist governments and totalitarian communist regimes.

Gareth, YOUR posting is a perfect example of people not understanding the difference.
Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production, meaning the farms, the fishing boats, and the factories. Despite your claims, I know of no Western country that does that. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, with a huge cost in suffering and death.
Democratic socialism is a socialist economy combined with a democratic political system. It also has failed wherever it’s been tried. The only current example is Venezuela. It has crashed and cratered, they are eating their pets, it is filled with suffering and death. A typical socialist success story of a workers paradise.
Finally, totalitarian communist regimes are what many failed socialist experiments turn into, although many turn into totalitarian socialist regimes like Venezuela. They have also failed wherever they’ve been tried.
Hope this helps,
w.

Jeef January 26, 2017 at 1:54 am

Willis, you’re incredibly defensive . I had a much longer post that I deleted, to save you wasting your time parsing it to try and justify your pomposity..

Oh, that’s good. You come in accusing me of being too stupid to know the difference between socialism and communism, accuse me of spouting bile, and now you say I’m defensive?
Dang right I’m defensive, Jeef. It’s what you get when you attack people. They defend themselves. Why is this surprising to you?
w.

“Oh, that’s good. You come in accusing me of being too stupid to know the difference between socialism and communism, accuse me of spouting bile, and now you say I’m defensive?”
Willis, you have already confirmed that you do not understand the difference between Socialist government and Communist ones. That is not due to stupidity, it is due to you living in the US where systems of governments different to your own are a long way off and rarely encountered. In the rest of the world that is not the case, as a result we are much more familiar with changing patterns of politics. In the US you have two main parties, in Europe we have dozens. Lack of experience does not equate to idiocy. Don’t be so self deprecating.

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 3:00 am

Willis, you have already confirmed that you do not understand the difference between Socialist government and Communist ones.

Are you really too stupid to QUOTE MY WORDS when you make such accusations, or are you being deliberately obstructive?
w.

George Tetley

Jeef, Holidays are cheap in Venezuela, go to this socialist utopia and report back, ( ops verboten ) maybe Willis is wrong and then we will all join you in luxury at no monetary cost

Michael C. Roberts

A bit of musical interlude, to keep everyone from getting too upset over the controversy of whether socialism/communism has or ever will succeed:
“Heresy” by RUSH

And no, I can’t think of successful communist endeavor…..
Best Regards to all,
MCR

Willis, When you are in a hole, stop digging.
Jeef did not insult me or you, in your heart you know that.
“Perhaps you put up with that kind of an attack. I don’t. I punch back. So yes, my responser to Jeef was to slap him across the face as hard as I could.”
The undercurrent of physical violence aimed at anyone who you think may have disagreed or insulted you is truly concerning Willis. If you behave that behind the screen of the blog, I wonder how you behave in real life? Hopefully you don’t carry a semi automatic.
Free speech is something you have flagged up on numerous occasions Willis. We have discussed it at length as you will recall here and on your blog. We discussed the potential limits of free speech and whether free speech carries responsibilities. The first time was a fair few years ago.
So if someone uses their right of free speech, and is then grossly insulted and decides not to involve themselves in further discussion, has the principle of free speech been compromised, or should everyone be like you and react in a verbally violent manner to any issue they disagree with?
“Go ahead, Gareth … show us how you can browbeat me into submission”
Yeah right, ‘Go ahead and make my day” etc. I won’t rise to your intimidating challenges Willis, I’ll dismiss them for what they are, bully boy tactics.
By the way, I’m proud of being called a snowflake. There are many of us, far more than you realise. And together we can form an unstoppable avalanche, we can overwhelm the negative politics seeking to oppress and tear the West apart. You get my drift? Remember, when a government promotes lies instead of truth and seeks to gag free speech, they hate more than anything the individuals who insist on continuing with the truth.

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 2:53 am Edit

Willis, When you are in a hole, stop digging.
Jeef did not insult me or you, in your heart you know that.

In my heart I know that when a man starts off first thing by saying I’m too stupid to know the difference between socialism and communism, and says that I’m spouting bile, that is an insulting attack. If you do not see that, I truly don’t know what to say …
Well, wait, let me try saying this.
Gareth, you are too stupid to know the difference between communists and socialists, and you are spouting bile.
Still think it’s not an insult?
w.

davideisenstadt

Gareth…we are still waiting for that unstoppable avalanche from the accumulated snowflakes in Europe… why dont you start in the EU, and clean your own house first? That would be a start.
Your ignorance and condescension are on display for all to see.

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 2:02 am Edit

“Since they are not socialist countries, I’m not sure why you think people would call them socialist. I certainly don’t. A socialist country is where the government owns the farms and fishing boats and factories, the means of production.”

You also appear to be very hazy regarding Western views of Socialism Willis. Let me give you an example. Tony Blair was the leader of a socialist party. The UK’s labour party. They did not even consider collectivisation of farms, shipping and fishing industries.

Grab a dictionary. I don’t care what Tony Blair calls himself. Socialism is very clearly defined in economics. It is an economic system where the means of production are owned by the government. Merriam-Webster says:

socialism: a social system or theory in which the government owns and controls the means of production (as factories) and distribution of goods

You may not like that, but that is the definition of socialism. It’s not “socialized medicine”. It’s not when the Government owns the Post Office. It’s not the advocacy of the minimum wage. It’s not progressive income taxes. Those may be policies advocated by some socialists, but they do not characterize socialism itself. The definition is bog-simple:

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production of wealth, meaning the farms and the fishing boats and the factories.

You go on to say:

Socialist parties in the past have Nationalised the UK’s coal, rail and steel industries, but this is not collectivisation as practised in Communist countries.

I think there’s a typo there. I believe you meant to say that the socialist parties have destroyed the UK’s coal, rail, and steel industries … in any case I find the following (emphasis mine):

The Labour party has also in the past implemented broadly socialist policies: the welfare state, National Health Service, nationalising key industries, progressive income tax policy, minimum wage, equality legislation.
All those things suggest it has in the past been a party with socialist values. But it has never advocated or implemented an economy-wide move towards common ownership of the means of production.
Also, its electoral manifestos had not contained the word “socialism” since 1992, before Corbyn and his supporters started using the term a bit more (though he and his allies in Parliament call themselves “democratic socialists”).

Best regards,
w.

George Tetley

The currant head of the British Labor Party is an ex Communist

MarkW

As is the current head of Germany.

MarkW

The “currant head”?
Is he in a jam?

Perry

Ex PM B’liar was what we in the UK term a champagne socialist. One day the gods will catch up with him. Preferably with an empty champagne bottle & make of that what you will.

Willis, I have just checked with the Oxford English dictionary, which I’m sure you will recognise as being the definitive source of explanations in the English Language.
Socialism
noun. 1[mass noun] A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Now think about that definition. Does it mention Government? Nope. Does it mention collective farms? Nope.
If you regard anything owned by the government as a symbol of Socialism, I imagine you regard NASA as a Socialist enterprise given that it is owned by the US Government. What it does mention is community. That leads us to further discussion on what is a community.
I think the point you miss is that very few countries are completely Socialist, very few are not. It is classic rigid thinking of this sort which tends to get you painted into a corner. Things can tend to one side or the other, but there are very few examples of complete 100% adherence to one belief system, as I have pointed out numerous times in relation to climate change.
At present the US has a hard right government with a highly unpredictable leader who’s understanding of facts are somewhat different to what we have all been used to. Does that make it a Totalitarian regime ?
it patently does not and is unlikely ever to be so due to strong governance systems. Same principle for Socialism in Western Democracies. Black and white thinking is the curse of good discussion.

MarkW

Regulation is ownership without having to pay the property taxes.

Jim Gorman

You are apparently not old enough to have experienced the “space race”. NASA did not start as a “means of production”. It was started in order to make sure the US was maintaining a lead in access to space so that we could insure our security. Your position is what we in the US often see in Europeans, that is, you aren’t responsible for your security, the US has been and still is!

“Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production, meaning the farms, the fishing boats, and the factories. Despite your claims, I know of no Western country that does that. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, with a huge cost in suffering and death”
So I take it that in you view the UK has never had a socialist government?.

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 3:01 am Edit

So I take it that in you view the UK has never had a socialist government?.

Thanks for the question, Gareth, but that’s not my view. That’s Merriam-Webster’s view.
Like the man said, “But it has never advocated or implemented an economy-wide move towards common ownership of the means of production. …”
w.

mwh

In the UK weve had plenty of ‘socialist’ governments, loads of ‘socialist’ politicians, a plethora of socialist programmes (introduced by labour and conservative alike)…….but at the end of the day we have never been a socialist state. Having a socialist government means that their policies will move in that direction. When the Conservative John Major government handed over to the champagne (how apt) socialist Tony Blair, Labour Government we did not automatically become a socialist state – that would take decades to happen or a civil war.
Willis (for fear of being misinterpreted I am ENTIRELY agreeing with you [we have a bit of history!]). I fear for your blood pressure – you should let your peers fight more of your battles for you – I am sure there are many willing lurkers here who would step in and help – myself included.
However my enjoyment of all that you write continues…….from here on in I am an ardent conservamentalist – with that word and your explanation in the link you so accurately define me

Bryan

For what is worth the best examples of a successful economy come where publicly owned and private businesses work together.
For example, the Apple iPod, apart from the software and concept it relies on technology developed by state enterprises and defence/semi state contracts
GPS,touch screen,small effective battery,compact hard drive and so on.
On the national park issue, sure some of the employees pushed their luck.
They will I’m sure not be surprised if their actions lead to some form of disciplinary proceedings.
I will have more respect for them if they accept the outcome without claiming victimhood.

I think possibly the problem you have encountered Willis is that you see Socialism as a single entity, it is either is a hard socialist system or it is not. Classic black and white thinking. The US as a country runs on a system of Democracy and Capitalism. But the capitalism varies between the hard right Capitalism of Trump, and the softer Capitalism of Obama. The democracy varies, the US is a democracy, but not a perfect one because the value of your vote varies dependent of where you live.
It is the same with Socialism, it come in many forms. We have the Classic Social Democratic parties which are the most common, to harder left wing parties as seen in Italy and Eastern Europe. The UK’s Clement Attlee was an avowed socialist who set in motion many of the things the UK are proud of . Franscois Mitterand was also a confirmed Socialist and proud of it. None of them indulged in collective farming or totalitarian regimes.
Do you see the error you are making? Politics is a much more vibrant issue in Europe with lots of variation. You cannot say a republican party always behaves like Trump and you cannot say socialism is always of the same essence. What you quote sounds like Russian Socialism which they claimed was communism. But is China socialist or Communist? The answer is of course it is neither.

Gareth, socialism has a clear and simple definition in every dictionary and encyclopedia. Not one country in Western Europe fits the definition.
There is also a clear definition of democratic socialism in the dictionaries and encyclopedias. It is a democratic political system allied with a socialist economic system. Venezuela is an excellent example. However, not one country in Western Europe fits that definition either.
Now you may claim that you have your own much more sophisticated and subtle European definition of socialism, which may be true. So how about this compromise:
I promise you I will accept your definition of socialism just as soon as Merriam-Webster accepts it.
Until then, I’ll follow Merriam and not you. Sorry, but only one of you two is the authority on meaning of words …

You cannot say a republican party always behaves like Trump and you cannot say socialism is always of the same essence.

Whoa, whoa. One of them is a political party with no formal dictionary definition of its beliefs. The other is a economic system with a very clear and long-established historical definition. You are comparing apples and watermelons. Socialism IS ‘of the same essence”, which is why it has a crystal clear dictionary definition. Republicans have no fixed set of beliefs … as Trump has demonstrated.
The truth is that a lot of politicians like Bernie Sanders claim to be “socialists’ because it makes them sound good and it impresses the rubes, but they are nothing of the sort. Well, except for Bernie, he used to advocate for government owning the means of production, although he’s chickened out on that one lately. No surprise he’s backpedaling—it is not a good time to be a “Democratic Socialist” with the Venezoolian crash and burn in our faces as the poster child for socialism …
w.

Bob Boder

Gareth
“I think possibly the problem you have encountered Willis is that you see Socialism as a single entity, it is either is a hard socialist system or it is not”
Actually the only problem Willis has is that he is still trying to explain anything to you, it is almost impossible to have a logical argument with someone that has no basic understanding of anything.

Bob, I realise your understanding of political theory is very basic. But here is a little bit of education.
Contrary to what Willis believes, both Republicanism and Socialism are both political systems. There are numerous subdivisions, Thatcherism, Reaganism, Moaism, Stalinism, Blairism etc etc. These are all political systems. However they are mostly variations on broad areas of politics.
For instance, Stalinism. Leninist, Marxist, Moaist are all subdivisions of far left politics. They are different enough to have fought wars over who is right.
Thatcherism, Reaganism, Blairism, Repubilcanism are all sub divisions of Capitalist right wing movements. They have much in common, but are also different enough to have fought wars over.
There is another branch, Fascism which has subdivisions of Nazisim, but hopefully there is not too much of that around.
So when Willis describes Socialism, what is he talking about? It would be the same if I said a country was Capitalist, it’s too broad a brush to give an accurate description. The UK is currently Capitalist, as is Sweden and the US, but they are very different political systems.
I’m aware political theory is not a popular subject in US schools, but I sincerely believe that if the US was not so isolated and understood the wide range of political beliefs across the world, they would not end up with daft ideas such as building a 1000 mile 30 foot tall wall instead of a high speed rail link.
You and Willis may care to read this link on a right wing view of Republicanism
http://www.conservapedia.com/Republicanism
and then contrast and compare with this.
http://home.uchicago.edu/rmyerson/research/chinaforum.pdf
Political theory is a fascinating subject and has been part of my work for quite a few years, I can highly recommend it.

MarkW

There’s pure communism, and everything else is a form of capitalism.

Bob Boder

Gareth;
“Bob, I realise your understanding of political theory is very basic. But here is a little bit of education.
Contrary to what Willis believes, both Republicanism and Socialism are both political systems. There are numerous subdivisions, Thatcherism, Reaganism, Moaism, Stalinism, Blairism etc etc. These are all political systems. However they are mostly variations on broad areas of politics.
For instance, Stalinism. Leninist, Marxist, Moaist are all subdivisions of far left politics. They are different enough to have fought wars over who is right.
Thatcherism, Reaganism, Blairism, Repubilcanism are all sub divisions of Capitalist right wing movements. They have much in common, but are also different enough to have fought wars over.
There is another branch, Fascism which has subdivisions of Nazisim, but hopefully there is not too much of that around.”
You have zero clue what your are talking about. Socialism is an economic system, Communism is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic system.
The rest of your garbage is just that.
Nazis, Maoist and Stalinist are political ideologies based on state control of the system, i.e. they are political systems based in socialism.
Republicanism is and political system of representative government. Does not have to have a defined economic system
Democracy is a political system of everyone one has a vote.
The US was founded on the principal of individual liberty and freedom of self determination for all and that since government is a coercive force and hence it is evil. However it was recognized that there are some things only a government could do so its a necessary evil. So the choice was made to have as limited a form of government as could be achieved. A representative republic seem like the best choice to allow for liberty and a means to limit the size and power of government. Since individual liberty was the goal it was also understood that only a free market economic system would allow for that any other system requires the government to be the controlling factor.
Every thing you spew is crape all the different ism you throw out there are all degrees of the same thing, the other side of the coin is what the US was founded on the individual over the state.
Gareth you got upset when some one else called you an idiot, I think made its time you look in the mirror and consider the possibility, nothing you says is even coherent, let alone logical or intelligent.

Bryan

In the UK there was quite a large state sector that worked well.
Railway,steel works,mines,energy supply and distribution,telephone and communications,the national health service.
The basic infrastructure up till Thatcher was largely provided by state enterprises.
Thatcher may be popular with right wing americans but she is very unpopular here in the UK.
The UK state was able to build several nuclear power stations but now since Thatcher building a new Nuclear power station is apparently beyond our ability.
We have to rely on Chinese and French state owned enterprises for our new power plants.
Several uk contracts in water management, power supply,railway franchises and so on are now in the hands of (ironically) foreign state owned entities.

Perry

Corbyn is unpopular within his own party. Look what another Gareth has to say about him.
https://order-order.com/2017/01/26/labour-stoke-candidate-corbyn-ira-supporting-friend-hamas/

Corbyn is a disaster for the British left, and that is the opinion of a dyed in the wool life long lefty.

Bob Boder

Bryan;
if you want to live the socialist life by all means go do it! you don’t have convert anyone to your cause go find like minded people set up a commune and live it. just leave everyone else alone.

MarkW

Socialists can’t go off on their own to form their perfect societies.
They need workers so that they can steal what the workers produce.

Bob Boder

MarkW
“Socialists can’t go off on their own to form their perfect societies.
They need workers so that they can steal what the workers produce”
Please be quite, I am hoping they will at least try, I like laughing at people who think they know everything when they totally fail,

MarkW

I’ve been told that I’m trite.
This is the first time I’ve been told that I’m quite.

Bob Boder

MarkW
Sorry I suffer from sever dyslexia and my spelling and grammar has and always will be horrible. But shut up and let them be idiots, was what I meant.

Gloateus Maximus

You are sadly mistaken about Thatcher. You need to widen your circle of acquaintance.
At the time of her death, 50% of Britons rated her “Good” but only 34% “Bad”, and that in a poll by the Loony Leftwing rag Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/opinion-sharply-divide-margaret-thatcher

Bryan

Gloateus Maximus
Thatcher had to be unceremoniously dumped by the Tory Party when they realised she was so unpopular that they could not win a General Election with her as a leader.

Gloateus Maximus

That is not why she was dumped.
The male grandees in her party got tired of being bossed around by her. They could control little Johnny Major. They were willing to lose the election to be free of her control.

mwh

That is not exactly true is it Bryan, because she is also enormously popular in the UK for what she achieved. Perhaps divisive would be a better word she was certainly that. Trump will probably be the same – but change from elitism and narcissism to pragmatism is what is being voted for in the UK and the US, patronising people by denigrating what they voted for in overwhelming numbers, will only result in their views becoming ever more greatly entrenched.
I have noticed on both sides of the pond that liberals and socialists (in fact just about anybody but particularly our urban elites) only believe in democracy when they are on the winning side. I think its why socialism has a tendancy to fail as it is based on so much hatred of the previous winning side.

Bob boder

Bryan,
Worked really well in Germany in the 30’s too

Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 2:53 am

“Go ahead, Gareth … show us how you can browbeat me into submission”

Yeah right, ‘Go ahead and make my day” etc. I won’t rise to your intimidating challenges Willis, I’ll dismiss them for what they are, bully boy tactics.

Dear heavens, I invited you to show how you can browbeat me in order to demonstrate that the idea itself is nonsense because neither you nor I can browbeat anyone on the web. Can’t be done. The person can just keep typing away, and neither of us can change one letter of what they write. You are conjuring up an imaginary boogeyman. You accuse me of “bully boy tactics”, but there is NOTHING I can to to “bully” you or stop you or impede your ideas in the slightest.
In other words, you are just making me out to be some kind of bully monster, when in fact I cannot bully anyone on the web. Which is why I invited you to try to bully me or browbeat me, because IT CAN’T BE DONE ON THE WEB. Try it and see. People pay no attention, they just keep on with what they’re doing. They pay no attention to you getting all puffed up and making demands, they just laugh. You can’t hurt them, so why should they care if you fancy you are a bully and issue meaningless threats?
So please, give up that tired accusation. If you are getting “bullied” by words on a page you deserve compassion for your lack of spine, but that doesn’t make me the bad guy.

By the way, I’m proud of being called a snowflake.

Why am I not surprised?

There are many of us, far more than you realise. And together we can form an unstoppable avalanche, we can overwhelm the negative politics seeking to oppress and tear the West apart. You get my drift?

Sounds like a snow job to me.

Remember, when a government promotes lies instead of truth and seeks to gag free speech, they hate more than anything the individuals who insist on continuing with the truth.

Gosh, that’s heavy. I mean, that is so profound. So deep. It is almost philosophy. But … which government are you talking about? Which lies are you talking about? Whose free speech is being “gagged”? It’s not Park Service employees, this is standard government policy. You’ve descended into incoherency through vague claims with no details.
Finally, do you flatter yourself that you are one of the “individuals who insist on continuing with the truth”? Because if so, there’s bad news … the government doesn’t care about you in the slightest. They don’t “hate you more than anything”, quite the opposite. They never heard of you, and wouldn’t care about you if they did. You’re a snowflake who gets “bullied” by words on a page, why should they pay the slightest attention to you and your “truth”?
Sadly,
w.

“Gosh, that’s heavy. I mean, that is so profound. So deep. It is almost philosophy. But … which government are you talking about? Which lies are you talking about?”
It can be anybody Willis, right, left anyone you like. In this case it happens to be Trump, but he by no-means unique.
“Finally, do you flatter yourself that you are one of the “individuals who insist on continuing with the truth”? Because if so, there’s bad news … the government doesn’t care about you in the slightest.”
You are correct Willis, I am only one. But like a snowflake, millions of us collectively have a force. We have a voice and when we speak the sound is deafening. How long will Trump be able to hide his tax returns? How long before he admits his wall idea is just daft. The many voices of the blizzard gathering around the world will one day force him to seek shelter. That’s why we have trade unions and political parties . Here is a new word for you. Solidarity.
Remember it when you scoff at single voices.

Here’s a thought: How about I take the name, “Gareth Phillips”, and create an “Alt Gareth Phillips” to write my future replies here at WUWT. Is everybody okay with that ? Better still, why don’t I find a photo of Gareth Phillips to use as my avatar which has “Alt Gareth Phillips” underneath, separated completely from the photo, of course, which makes it even more okay to use, right ?
What ? Bad idea, you say ? Publicity rights violation ? Whoever heard of such a thing ?!

Mr. Philips- The USA is a democratic Republic- democratically elected state governments elect the President, Vice President, and Congress. It was not founded on a particular type of economy- free market, state-controlled, socialism, etc. Reganism is not a political system, neither is “Trumpism” or Rooseveltism. All the US Presidents have operated under the same democratic republic system. Except possibly Barack Obama. He has attempted to subvert the division of powers and move some governmental power to the president that is not constitutional.
Socialism is not a political system, but an economic system with the means of production controlled “socially”. All of the “communist” countries either quickly devolved into totalitarian oligarchies or were so from the start. As such they have no real political system. Most of them have republic, democratic, socialist, peoples, islamist, or similar terms in their names.
Capitalism, is an alternate to socialism(capitalism does not preclude socially organized companies or economies) as pointed out elsewhere can work under any political system if the system allows it. Complete socialism can only work under limited conditions. Many religious order are organized totalitarian socialism. It only works when all the members are completely dedicated to the cause. In countries complete socialism, as in Venezuela,eventually collapses due to corruption, inflation, and lack of money.
Wars between Thatcherism, Reaganism, Blairism, Republicanism? The USA was never at warm with Britain no matter who was in charge. Neither did Thatcher, Blair, or Republic. Your meaning is completely lost on this one.
Nationalization of the means of production, or as Willis say- farms, fishing boat, and factories(and probably the railroads). Just look at the USSR for how effective that was.

I see a lot of people here claiming that what the parks services are doing is illegal, newsflash – it’s not.
The agency members are federal employees and therefor have various “whistleblower” protections. What they are doing IS covered by these protections weather the incoming administration likes it or not.
“The OSC note lists some examples of things that are protected: “For example, one prohibited personnel practice explicitly shields employees for blowing the whistle on any effort to ‘distort, misrepresent, suppress’ or otherwise censor any government ‘research, analysis, or technical information’ that the employee reasonably believes could, among other things, pose a substantial and significant threat to public health or safety or constitute a violation of law, rule, or regulation.””.
The attempted gagging by the administration is in fact what is illegal. The law is firmly on the side of the dissenting employees.

MarkW

I love it when idiots try to pretend that they know what they are talking about.
1) One of the requirements of the whistle blower statutes is that you have to report your concerns to the proper authorities.
2) You can’t pretend to be speaking for your boss when “whistleblowing”.
3) Mis-appropriation of official government symbols is a crime.
4) There is nothing illegal about your boss telling you to stop pretending to speak for the company when you have no authority to do so.

The “that the employee reasonably believes could” will be tested in court.
If someone spouts verifiable rubbish, ie can not back it up, then they will get their just desert.

You are just wrong on all counts. There are long standing SOPs for interacting with media as a federal employee in quasi offical ways. You confuse that with private citizen free speech ‘unaffiliated’ with fed gov job. Here there is deliberate affiliation, and it is and never was allowed. Using EPA/NASA/ NPS official logos is a statutory crime, or didn’t you read the main body of the post? New sherrif in town. Get used to it.

Rhoda R

Thank you ristvan. I worked thirty years for DOD and we were required to interact with the media, etc. using specific protocols. Government employees do not have 1st A rights while on duty and they are precluded from making political statements while identified with their organization in any way. There is nothing new in that. What is new is that this Administration felt that it had to issue the ban because the various components have gone rogue.

JMA

The Alt site is OK by me. Free discussion is what we all should be aiming for, using data and logic, not petty regulations.

But it’s blatant trademark infringement !

Oh, I forgot to sign it — Alt JMA

8 U.S. Code § 701 – Official badges, identification cards, other insignia
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 731; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(E), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)

Rhoda R

Nothing petty about that particular regulation. Believe it or not, these Civil Servants DO NOT speak for the Administration, which is what they are implying with their ‘alt’ site.

jpatrick

Anthropologists don’t really use the term “arrowhead” anymore, if they ever did. The proper term is Projectile Point.

Gloateus Maximus

The Interior Dept. officially calls its symbol an Arrowhead.

MarkW

I have friends who live near Lake Projectile Point is southern CA.

Perry

Sharp stick, flint tip, bodkin point. They’ll all shaft you.