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:
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:
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 11. Unauthorized 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:
And this is what their Twitter page looks like now:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
No point in prosecution. Just terminate.
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.
I read where two VA employees were fired a couple of days ago.
Congrats to Anthony!!! I see the site hit 300 million plus views.
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.
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.
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.
So claimith: Gareth Phillips – January 26, 2017 at 1:53 am
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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 ; )
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.
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,
Unless you can show that they are paying royalties, then your point is moot.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
Do you think I’ve been answering them one by one without reading them? What are you saying?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
No clue. That’s why I ask people to QUOTE MY WORDS.
“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.
Great post Willis,
Unfortunately, God also made idiots. !
Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 1:53 am
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.
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
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
Are you really too stupid to QUOTE MY WORDS when you make such accusations, or are you being deliberately obstructive?
w.
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
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
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.
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
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:
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:
You go on to say:
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):
Best regards,
w.
The currant head of the British Labor Party is an ex Communist
As is the current head of Germany.
The “currant head”?
Is he in a jam?
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.
Regulation is ownership without having to pay the property taxes.
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
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.
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
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 …
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.
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.
There’s pure communism, and everything else is a form of capitalism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
I’ve been told that I’m trite.
This is the first time I’ve been told that I’m quite.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Bryan,
Worked really well in Germany in the 30’s too
Gareth Phillips January 26, 2017 at 2:53 am
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.
Why am I not surprised?
Sounds like a snow job to me.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Anthropologists don’t really use the term “arrowhead” anymore, if they ever did. The proper term is Projectile Point.
The Interior Dept. officially calls its symbol an Arrowhead.
I have friends who live near Lake Projectile Point is southern CA.
Sharp stick, flint tip, bodkin point. They’ll all shaft you.