This is a bit of a departure from the science-themed nature of this blog, but it's still a highly important issue for anyone using the Internet, much less writing on it:
Congress is currently considering CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act) – a bill that purports to protect the United States from “cyber threats” but would in fact create a gaping loophole in all existing privacy laws. If CISPA passes, companies could vacuum up huge swaths of data on all Internet users and share it with the government without requiring a court order. CISPA is an exceedingly bad piece of legislation that should be opposed on constitutional grounds, and Congress would be wise to reject it and any other legislation that:
* Uses dangerously vague language to define the breadth of data that can be shared with the government.
* Hands the reins of America’s cybersecurity defenses to the NSA, an agency with no transparency and little accountability.
* Allows data shared with the government to be used for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity.
Please join me in opposing this bill by posting this statement on your own page and using the online form available at the link below to send a letter to Congress against CISPA:
(Form available here)
Monday, April 16, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Tennessee: things get worse - far worse
Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam did the gutless (but entirely predictable) thing concerning the "monkey bill" (translation: Tennessee Senate Bill 893 and House Bill 368) and decided to let the bills become law without actually bothering to sign it in the face of a potential legislative override. Feel free to read Haslam's statement and decide for yourself whether he's waffling about supporting the bill without actually "supporting" it:
“I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”
Ah, political doublespeak.
What that statement reads like to me is something along the lines of this: "I'm going to say that I agree with these bills even though they do change scientific standards in state education, and on a very obvious ideological basis; however, I deny that they do. I also deem that 'acceptable' even though I just said that these bills change nothing. However, I need to not take a stand while seeming to do so, which I why I now bring up 'strong bipartisan support' despite the fact that such bipartisan support doesn't seem to have cleared up the 'confusion' the bills cause. So, in other words, I won't veto them - that might actually call for a level of courage on this issue that I'm unwilling to show even though my veto could be easily overidden in both houses of the legislature - but I won't sign them either."
Anyone who feels like whining about how courts have usurped the power of legislatures to make law should feel free to keep their traps shut. With legislation like this, passed in a state that should know better since it was the site of the Scopes trial in 1925, this entire issue was practically tailor-made to end up in Federal court - which might be the dirty little secret of promoters of this sort of legislation in the first place. It's not really about "states' rights" in choosing educational curricula or any other similar claptrap - it's about overturning rulings like Kitzmiller v. Dover and ultimately Edwards v. Aguillard by finding a sympathetic ear in Federal court - and it always has been.
(Also on WTTFTG)
“I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”
Ah, political doublespeak.
What that statement reads like to me is something along the lines of this: "I'm going to say that I agree with these bills even though they do change scientific standards in state education, and on a very obvious ideological basis; however, I deny that they do. I also deem that 'acceptable' even though I just said that these bills change nothing. However, I need to not take a stand while seeming to do so, which I why I now bring up 'strong bipartisan support' despite the fact that such bipartisan support doesn't seem to have cleared up the 'confusion' the bills cause. So, in other words, I won't veto them - that might actually call for a level of courage on this issue that I'm unwilling to show even though my veto could be easily overidden in both houses of the legislature - but I won't sign them either."
Anyone who feels like whining about how courts have usurped the power of legislatures to make law should feel free to keep their traps shut. With legislation like this, passed in a state that should know better since it was the site of the Scopes trial in 1925, this entire issue was practically tailor-made to end up in Federal court - which might be the dirty little secret of promoters of this sort of legislation in the first place. It's not really about "states' rights" in choosing educational curricula or any other similar claptrap - it's about overturning rulings like Kitzmiller v. Dover and ultimately Edwards v. Aguillard by finding a sympathetic ear in Federal court - and it always has been.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Recycling drivel doesn't make it wisdom
Here's no real surprise: in Oklahoma, yet another attempt at introducing previously recycled evolution and global warming denial language in an education bill is being undertaken by a state legislator (Steve Russell [R-45th] is the crackpot panderer you should blame), and this time the method was genuinely underhanded:
As introduced, House Bill 2341 would, if enacted, have extended by two years a deadline by which local school districts are required to meet certain standards for media, equipment, and textbooks. The bill passed the House on a 81-8 vote on March 7, 2012, and proceeded to the Senate Education Committee, where it passed on March 26, 2012.
But on March 28, 2012, Steve Russell (R-District 45) proposed to amend HB 2341 with the addition of a new section containing the language of HB 1551, encouraging teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming." The proposal will be considered when the bill comes to a floor vote in the Senate; it is currently on the Senate calendar, but not on the Senate agenda, for April 3, 2012.
No one should really surprised that this continues to go on in Oklahoma ad nauseum. State rep Sally Kern has pretty much made a career out of flogging this dead horse; she did it in 2006 and 2011 (and doesn't that bill look familiar?), although she's also making a career for herself as an all-around champion wingnut on a whole truckload of other "issues" as well (evidence for which can be found here and here). Still, the language of this attempted amendment of HB 2341 belongs to her even if she didn't introduce it, meaning that she still can claim her dunce cap right after Russell picks up his.
(Also on WTTFTG)
As introduced, House Bill 2341 would, if enacted, have extended by two years a deadline by which local school districts are required to meet certain standards for media, equipment, and textbooks. The bill passed the House on a 81-8 vote on March 7, 2012, and proceeded to the Senate Education Committee, where it passed on March 26, 2012.
But on March 28, 2012, Steve Russell (R-District 45) proposed to amend HB 2341 with the addition of a new section containing the language of HB 1551, encouraging teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming." The proposal will be considered when the bill comes to a floor vote in the Senate; it is currently on the Senate calendar, but not on the Senate agenda, for April 3, 2012.
No one should really surprised that this continues to go on in Oklahoma ad nauseum. State rep Sally Kern has pretty much made a career out of flogging this dead horse; she did it in 2006 and 2011 (and doesn't that bill look familiar?), although she's also making a career for herself as an all-around champion wingnut on a whole truckload of other "issues" as well (evidence for which can be found here and here). Still, the language of this attempted amendment of HB 2341 belongs to her even if she didn't introduce it, meaning that she still can claim her dunce cap right after Russell picks up his.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)