[Stimulus Disaster]

The disaster is that we have the problem to begin with. If we had made reasonable investments over the past 30-40 years to develop new energy sources, we wouldn't be bleeding trillions of dollars in oil money at the pump and in the battlefields.

New energy sources don't get developed by magic. There is absolutely no guarantee that investments then would have led to a breakthrough more efficient than using fossil fuels, and there remains no such guarantee today. When the breakthrough doesn't happen, the investment is called a loss. Obama wants the United States to roll those dice on our future.

If we had made reasonable investments in infrastructure, we would have a stronger footing on which to build.

Like what? Which highway systems and/or bridges are failing our economy? I don't think you have any idea. Most likely you're just parroting the president's line. The rhetoric you point out exposes the dishonest of this "stimulus" package. Supposedly it is supposed to provide a jolt to the economy, but the "stronger footing" takes years. So the jolt occurs in slow motion, kind of like the jolt of a slug accelerating across a sidewalk. Most of us on the right think that Obama used the pretense of emergency stimulus simply to justify instituting the same old expensive programs that liberals always want to fund. Apparently many liberals actually think that highway projects do provide rapid economic stimulus.

If we had paid attention to our manufacturing base instead of trying to speculate our way to lasting prosperity, we would be in a stronger position to deal with this crisis.

By "paid attention to our manufacturing base" are you suggesting that investors should have speculated on U.S. manufacturing? Or what?

If we had reformed health care decades ago, we could be spending the fraction of GDP that other countries are spending on it, instead of spending double.

How do you lower the percentage of GDP spent on health care without correspondingly shrinking the GDP? You do realize that health care products and service account for a large portion of the GDP in the first place, right?

Don't fall for the Democrats' shell game, people.

Tragically, we listened to right wingers like you, ignored our needs and now we have a heavy price to pay. But if you think we're dumb enough to listen to the lies and distortions of people like you again, then you're even dumber than we were.

This is too much. Which of your supposed needs were ignored? You wanted other people to start paying for your health care decades ago, or what?

Your post, Guest, offers the impression that you know exceedingly little about economics. It's too easy to suppose that the lack of emphasis on economics in our schools is a plot by the Democrats designed to decrease resistance to their outlandish fiscal policies.

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

Bryan,

Doesyour long-winded non-responsive response mean you're abandoning your earlier statement?: Apparently you're expecting Obama to either break his pledge not to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year, or you're expecting more and more tax hikes on families making more than that. If the latter is true, then the 7 percent unemployment prediction is particularly fanciful. Can you concede the simple fact that there can be economic growth and higher taxes and that the 1990's were not "fanciful"?

I thought I already did that by agreeing that Clinton deserves some credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s. But you have wholly failed to acknowledge any of the differences between Clinton policy and Obama policy, not to mention the many differences that I did not bother to add to the list.

Bill Clinton raised the highest income tax bracket to 39.6%, which was in effect from 1993 to the end of his second term, and we had record economic growth and employment and a budget SURPLUS when he left office.

You don't think that's the only policy from Clinton that had anything to do with the economy, do you? I pointed out that Clinton dropped the capital gains tax rate by 8 percent. You have no comment on that, nor do you note that the income tax rate hike you're lauding essentially created a new bracket after its first year of implementation (initially applied at the $80,000-90,000 range, then was upped to $250,000). The greatest economic growth under Clinton occurred after the drop in the capital gains rate. Obama wants to raise that rate considerably. That is the opposite of Clinton's policy.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commer...ns-blunder.html

If you ignore the very substantial policy differences between Clinton and Obama then you end up sending a hint that you're not interested in honest discussion.

The biggest swing in the ENTIRE history of America from budget surplus to budget deficit occurred under George W. Bush. Analyze the reasons for that historic swing before challenging Obama after 3 months.

That's very easy to do. The federal budget is a bigger animal now than it has ever been, and the budget surplus was both moderate as a percentage of GDP and reliant on an economy that had been riding the tech bubble. Add to that GWB's willingness to spend on things like federal education bills and a Medicare drug benefit. Plus we could talk about the Bush tax cuts, but that move, ironically, is simply a smaller version of the Keynesian stimulus notion that gave us our trillion dollar stimulus bill from the Democrats. Obama, I think, will show Bush a thing or two about "jobless recovery." Like how to claim economic progress while the unemployment rate rises measurably (Pay no mind to the rising unemployment rate! I just created or saved x jobs!).

Can we get back to discussing the folly of Obama's policies now?

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

The problem is panel's claim that what the city did was okay because it was "simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII." That reasoning was not used in the SCOTUS dissent (but it was used in the lower court's decision).

Wrong. The dissent is a re-affirmation of Griggs and the Title VII requirement that a hiring selection process not have a disparate impact based on race. The district court, the Second Circuit and the dissent all were in agreement on that point. The only difference between the Second Circuit panel and the dissent was that the Second Circuit in one paragraph reached its conclusion without elaboration.

You do know what "implicit" means, right?

There's an example of right wing arrogance when they can't acknowledge being wrong.

But you're not right wing, are you? So why would your refusal to admit you don't know what "implicit" means be "right wing arrogance"?

Your reasoning made no sense with respect to mine unless one supposes you do not/did not know what "implicit" means. So far you've avoided answering as to whether you know what it means.

When the SCOTUS dissent uses different reasoning than was used by the panel then it has implicitly rejected the reasoning that it did not use.

The Second Circuit's opinion was a one-paragraph conclusion (as lower courts are allowed to do). In fact, by hewing to the controlling Supreme Court precedent on the issue, Griggs, the Second Circuit issued a very conservative and limited decision.

And thus you believe you can skip around my point? The opinion, however brief, hailed the lower court's opinion and underscored the importance of the city's intentions. The SCOTUS dissent, as you noted, placed particular importance on evaluating the numbers and differed from Sotomayor's panel in that respect--and that is not a particularly subtle difference.

And where have I mixed those two things up, other than in your imagination?

You still don't understand the conflict between intentional discrimination and disparate impact discrimination.

Why do you think I don't understand that conflict, to rephrase the question above that you failed to answer the first time?

That's what Ricci is about, the conflict between those two forms of discrimination.

And I failed to note that where noting it would have been important/appropriate where, exactly?

I have already quoted Ginsburg's language to you twice. She and the Second Circuit and the district court all agreed that the City's refusal to certify the promotion list did NOT constitute intentional discrimination by the City. The majority disagreed. On the other hand, the City's concern about liability due to disparate impact discrimination if it certified the promotion list with not one African American was considered valid by the district court, the Second Circuit and the dissent in accordance with the Griggs Supreme Court precedent. In deciding Ricci, the 5 justice conservative bloc on the Supreme Court significantly narrowed (I guess Kennedy wasn't willing to overrule) the the Griggs decison.

AFAICT, you've decided to double down and avoid dealing with my point. You're dodging by subtly changing the issue. Either meet my challenge to you or admit that you have no intention of trying, please.

So does that mean you were against George Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit that expanded the Medicare program dramatically?

Most definitely. It was a terrible move, just like partnering with Kennedy on the massively expensive "No Child Left Behind" bill was a mistake. It's funny how some liberals are all over Bush's big-spending ways when the Democrats had more expensive ideas for virtually everything other than national defense (some Democrats claimed to have more expensive ideas respecting national defense, but got little opportunity to prove it).

Not the your reply has much of anything to do with the sentence you quoted.

I especially liked your own usage of the words, "Obama's first term". That's a big de-merit for you in the right wing blogosphere.

We must read different right wing blogs.

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

No. It means that 2smart, the defender of the right wing, distorted and lied about Sotomayor's record. I thought you were smart enough to know that, Bryan.

I think I know your true identity. You're Humpty Dumpty. Admit it.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

Quotas are unconstitutional. That's the problem with the right wing, they distort and lie in order to score political points.

Wow. Does that mean that all politicians are right wing?

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

Hmmm. Let's see. Which President increased the income tax, reduced record budget deficits, reduced unemployment rates to below 7 percent and led the longest post-WWII economic recovery in America? oooh, I know, it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat! Bryan, in your world, were those 7 years "fanciful" economic times?

There are problems with Clinton's economic record (tampering with the subprime market via bank intimidation, tech bubble), but I'm happy to give Clinton some credit for a pretty good economy during the 1990s. Clinton's economic policies were fairly conservative. Clinton, for example, lowered the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%.

The big problem here is that once we get past the "Democrat" label, Clinton and Obama have little in common. Clinton made mistakes when he first came into office and the Democrats lost control of Congress early in his administration. The conservative Congress pushed Clinton to fulfill his more moderate tendencies, and much of what Clinton accomplished in office was part of the GOP's "Contract With America." So Clinton ended up governing as a moderate once HillaryCare and his own initial economic plan hit the fan.

Obama, apart from one aspect of foreign policy (Afghanistan) has not governed as a moderate. He has taken a hard left course and pursued a bevy of traditional liberal causes and justified the expense as economic stimulus. You're simply not going to see the deficit shrink under Obama simply because he and President Clinton wore the same political label. Obama doesn't claim that the deficit will shrink while he's in office. And that's one area where he can be believed.

Have a look at the graph, particularly the White House estimates of future deficits.

http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2...a-bigger-graph/

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

You've oversimplified and misunderstood the basic principles involved in the case. First, re-read your own post. You said, "The liberals who dissented all implicitly rejected her reasoning." I responded by quoting you the concluding paragraphs of Ginsburg's dissent in which she backed the City's actions to not certify the list.

You can't use partial agreement to contradict my statement.

The problem is panel's claim that what the city did was okay because it was "simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII." That reasoning was not used in the SCOTUS dissent (but it was used in the lower court's decision).

The Second Circuit panel's reasoning on this point was not rejected by the dissent. You will not find that anywhere in the dissent.

You do know what "implicit" means, right?

When the SCOTUS dissent uses different reasoning than was used by the panel then it has implicitly rejected the reasoning that it did not use.

Here's what you've mixed up. There are two statutory issues (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) raised in Ricci (the constitutional issues were never reached by either the majority or the dissent).

The first is whether throwing out the results of a civil service exam for lack of candidate racial diversity constitutes intentional racial discrimination against those on the thrown out list (caucasions) in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The second is whether a governmental entity that accepts and uses an employment selection process that results in a disparate impact based on race (for example, to the exclusion of African Americans) is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

And where have I mixed those two things up, other than in your imagination?

As you can see, the two conflict can conflict and, in fact, conflicted in Ricci. Until the Ricci decision, the Supreme Court's guidance under Griggs emphasized the second concern as a priority (addressing and remedying disparate impact which excludes a race). That's what the Second Circuit and district court did. (Re-read the entire one-paragraph Second Circuit decision posted above, in which the panel stresses the second point of disparate impact.)

Now, re-read the concluding paragraphs from Ginsburg's dissent. She rejects the notion that the City's action was a violation of the first point -- in other words, that the noncertification of the list was NOT intentional discrimination against those on the thrown out list. ("But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII.") Ginsburg's opinion limits the statutory/Title VII analysis to the second point above, just like the district court and the Second Circuit did. The only divergence was that she wanted more of a factual record on the statistical disparity.

Whereas the panel was satisfied with the city's intent to meet its obligation under Title VII (and avoid an associated lawsuit). It's in the panel's decision, which you would have read. Now look for it in Ginsburg's dissent.

Since this is solely a question of statutory interpretation, it's really a question of what Congress meant. I would expect the Ginsburg/Sotomayor will eventually carry the day, either through a new act of Congress, or with a change in make up of the Court (it was a 5 to 4 decision).

People tend to agree with the SCOTUS majority on Ricci. But their representatives will thumb their collective noses at them and undermine the decision?

Not want to have fun with Supreme Court nominations? Looks to me that you accused me of being a chicken, when you're the one not willing to engage and deal with the reality of our President, Barack H. Obama.

He'll have one or two, I think, since he'll last only one term as a result of his overreaching agenda. That might change if he gets health care reform passes, since making people dependent on the government is a great way to control voting blocs. Just look at the way the Dems wrangled seniors to protect the Medicare status quo by calling measures that slowed the growth of Medicare spending "cuts."

Some people won't take a joke as a joke even with the smiley attached. Oh, well. I suppose I should not have made light of my own displeasure at Obama having the opportunity to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Mea culpa.

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

It would count for something if they were honest about it, but they’re not. They’re dishonest about it.

We have an extensive collection of photographs representing museum exhibits at our disposal. Can you be specific about the dishonesty you're talking about?

If the canyon-jumper accurately calculated that he had enough energy to power himself halfway across the canyon, then set to work to find the remaining energy to complete the trip, that would be fine. But if he jumps, he’s likely to kill himself.

Well, he could be smart enough to equip himself with safety features. Unless he's one of those idiot YECs? It doesn't ultimately come down to bigotry, does it?

If the math student solved the problem as far as she could and then admitted that she couldn’t finish the solution, that would also be fine because it would be honest. Maybe someone could show her how to finish it. But if she walks around thinking that she solved the problem, then she’s training herself in bad habits.

At this point you're stepping on the toes of scientists and science teachers. They often end up teaching things as true that are not true, as though they poorly understand the limitations of science (one reason why I favor giving greater emphasis to the philosophy of science in the science curriculum). Is it significantly easier to excuse the dishonesty of naturalistic scientists than it is the dishonesty of YECs?

By analogy, if the Ignorance Emporium offered the science it accepts and then admitted that it can’t explain the parts where it discards science, that would also be fine – but that’s not what they’re doing.

What type of thing are you talking about with the reference to "can't explain the parts where it discards science"?

They accept science when it supports them and discard it when it doesn’t.

They would say (fairly, in my view) that they are still doing science but with different presuppositions.

That’s not just partially wrong. It’s completely wrong. It’s a wholesale denial of scientific method.

You should explain what you mean by that in a way that helps resolve the demarcation problem.

It’s intellectually dishonest. Honest people don’t use science when it supports them and discard it when it doesn’t.

You need to put more meat on that accusation in order to make it seem fair. Deal with the demarcation problem. Even Paul LaClair has popped by from time to time to downplay the supposed rigors of the scientific method by referring to science as an "art." His argument (accidentally?) dovetails nicely with my observation that your side seems to know science when they see it, even if they can't explain what it is (art/obscenity parallel).

That’s what the Ignorance Emporium is doing. That’s why it’s an attack on all of science. If you don’t understand that scientific method has to be applied consistently, then you’ve completely missed the point. In science, you can't have one set of rules for things you like and another set for things you don't like.

You’re really not getting this, are you?

Nope. As long as you continue to dance around the demarcation problem your argument seems to pass as "I know science when I see it, and that isn't science."

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

Here's the single most dishonest thing in the Creationist Ignorance Emporium.

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2344.html

The people who wrote this have themselves decided what to believe. They just won't admit it, and to make matters worse, they call whatever they have chosen to believe God's word. That's not just arrogant, but if you believe in a God, it's blasphemous.

Thanks for the pop theology.

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

Mr. Walpin says he cleared the arrangement with the board's chairman, vice chairman and a third board member. Our witness was not present at that meeting but says he was present at more than one subsequent meeting of the full board during which Mr. Walpin mentioned his telecommuting arrangement without a single objection being raised from the board

Not true. This was done with a "wink and a nod". It was unauthorized. From e-mail documents recently turned over to Congress on the matter, it's clear Mr. Walpin was aware of the concerns:

-----Original Message-----

From: Tanenblatt, Eric [mailto:etanenblatt@mckennalong.com]

Sent: FridaYI January 23, 2009 8:57 AM

To: Gerald Walpin

Cc: Steve Goldsmith; Alan D. Solomont

Subject: Telecommuting arrangement

Jerry:

In advance of our upcoming MAG committee meeting, I did want to provide you with feedback from the board regarding your proposed telecommuting arrangement.

First, we recognize and appreciate the sacrifices you and your family have made the past two years. Your willingness to commute each week from New York City to Washington, D.C. speaks to your deep and personal

commitment to your responsibilities as Inspector General.

Second, we have concerns about the viability of a long-term telecommuting arrangement for a position as important as the Inspector General. It is our view that, given the need for effective leadership, and the high-profile and critical nature of the Inspector General position, a full-time telecommute arrangement is not acceptable. You have been a hands-on Inspector General, one who is willing to take the time to work through issues principally through face to face

meetings, where candid give and take has yielded in many instances better decisions for the agency. While we would expect that you would make every effort to be in Washington for critical meetings, you would lose the in-person communications that currently take place on a' daily basis. Moreover/ given the unexpected nature of IG-related matters,

telecommuting would make it difficult for you to participate optimally and in person in issues and meetings that come up without notice. In a year of transition, this is a critical time for the Corporation -- the; in-person presence of the Inspector General will be important to ensuring the best possible oversight of our agency.

Finally, in all candor, an Inspector GeneralIs recommendations are often made in contentious matters of great sensitivity and importance. It is our expectation that your telecommuting arrangement would, fairly or unfairly, detract from the force and persuasiveness of your recommendations. Thus, we are concerned that a long-term telecommuting arrangement would likely have the effect of weakening your effectivenessas Inspector General.

What portion or portions of this make something in what I wrote "Not true" IYO? And do you still regard telecommuting arrangements as "illegal" for some unknown reason?

Duh. "Klan." You may be interested to learn that it is also the third K after Ku and Klux.

That's offensive. To use a Klan reference as a joke in a political context is beyond the pale. It's indefensible. How can a person that partisan then be objective and nonpartisan in his deliberations, as he is required to be?

This bears repeating:

You're funny. You've got nothing, so you just make noise.

So you say, but you haven't really addressed the reporting from the Times except with your own petty response to which I had replied.

All I did was point out who our President and members of Congress are. When did stating facts become petty? As to the NY Times, I did address it. It doesn't merit any coverage beyond a blurb on page A23 with the national summaries.

Pay more attention to the grammar. I was referring to a previous response, before you descended to the equivalent of "Nyah-nyah! We won! We won! We won!"

Right ... Sotomayor. Isn't she the nominee whose recent decision in the Ricci case was flogged when it reached the Supreme Court? The liberals who dissented all implicitly rejected her reasoning. Whereas she accepted in full the reasoning of the lower court, the dissent would have remanded the case so that critical issues might have been addressed. You must be so proud!

Indeed I am proud of her nomination. She's a temperate and careful judge who applied existing Supreme Court (Griggs) and Circuit law to uphold the district court's decision. A split Supreme Court narrowed Griggs on statistical disparity impact analyses. As a Circuit Court judge, her obligation is to apply the law, not make it, as the Supreme Court did.

That doesn't exactly explain the criticism she endured from her mentor on that selfsame court as a result of that decision, does it?

Just for fun, try to predict the budget deficit and the unemployment rate for the end of Obama's first term.

First Obama Term: $300 billion annual deficit and 7% unemployment

Second Obama Term: Surplus (like Clinton) and 5% unemployment

Both of your predictions are remarkably optimistic. The first radically undercuts Obama's own projections, which would put the deficit at about $600 billion for 2012 (the CBO thinks that's a low figure). Apparently you're expecting Obama to either break his pledge not to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year, or you're expecting more and more tax hikes on families making more than that. If the latter is true, then the 7 percent unemployment prediction is particularly fanciful.

Did you hear that a second "stimulus" bill is under consideration? It's because the first one was such a rousing success.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/dem...f=ib_topstories

My turn. Just for fun, try to predict how many Supreme Court vacancies Obama will fill during his terms of office and who they will be. I think the vacancies will be Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Scalia and Kennedy in that order. It will be the most Justices appointed by a President since Franklin Roosevelt and will shift the Court back to the center for the next 25 years.

There's no fun in that.

Except that Obama's ambitious first term has a good chance of precluding a second one. He can't command the media as Roosevelt did. Not that the mainstream media do much to resist (Want to promote your health care reform on our network? Please?). Even Helen Thomas is offended.

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

That's right-wing spin. Here are the final two paragraph's of the dissent in Ricci criticizing the Court's 5 judge majority:

It is indeed regrettable that the City’s noncertification decision would have required all candidates to go through another selection process. But it would have been more regrettable to rely on flawed exams to shut out candidateswho may well have the command presence and other qualities needed to excel as fire officers. Yet that is the choice the Court makes today. It is a choice that breaks the promise of Griggs that groups long denied equal oppor-tunity would not be held back by tests “fair in form, butdiscriminatory in operation.” 401 U. S., at 431.

This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court’s judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed “asignificant statistical disparity,” but “nothing more.” See ante, at 27–28.

So where's the supposed spin? Do you claim that this dissent matches the decision reached by the panel that included Sotomayor? You argument seems about as mixed up as it could be. The above is the dissent from the SCOTUS majority opinion, something that Sotomayor has had no opportunity to do. Sotomayor's panel said the lower court got it right. The SCOTUS dissent would have remanded the decision back down to the lower court. There's no reason to do that if the lower court got it right. Obviously. The sticking point was the panel's reliance on the city's intent (following the lower court). The dissent from the SCOTUS does not follow that line of reasoning.

Next time explain why it's supposedly spin instead of just claiming it.

Unless you're chicken.

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

Bryan, you're like a little kid who keeps asking the same question and keeps ignoring the answer because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

You've asked whether an exhibition can be anti-scientific when it presents some scientific data but ignores the scientific method. The answer is yes.

Oh. And I should just accept that without explanation?

Science is all about the method, Bryan. That's not a hard point to understand if you want to.

So why aren't you dealing with the demarcation problem that throws a huge spanner in the works of your argument?

Is it just easier to say I'm like a little kid and leave it like that? Kind of like what people do when they're in middle school?

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

A weekend at the Ignorance Emporium (it’s hardly a museum!) will reinforce an ignorant world view. Kids don’t need that. They need a solid education.

Hmmm. Apparently you're willing to dictate to them what they can and cannot do. Shall we go ahead and amend the First Amendment while we're at it?

Science’s methods are completely ignored. The exhibition is rotten to the core.

Do you think that uniformitarian assumption is unfairly cited as part of the method used in the evolutionary account of origins? If not, how can you claim that science's methods are completely ignored? Without lying, of course.

The Ignorance Emporium uses science to the extent that the Bible isn't contradicted. That's not consistent with scientific method but a direct attack on it.

If it were the case that the scientific method is directly attacked, then what of the use of science to the extent that the Bible isn't contradicted? Does that magically no longer count?

It's like working on a math problem and then completely fudging the answer when you can't get to it mathematically. It's like jumping halfway across a canyon.

And thus any correct answers given were not through reliance on math and the first half of the canyon jump no longer count for anything?

Your reading of the student’s letter is ridiculous.

Why do you think it is a letter?

My reading of the letter, quite frankly, is brilliant. Take the portion that I said would fit the standards at the NYT and tell me where I'm wrong. Unless you're chicken.

She is clearly advocating Paszkiewicz’s point of view and she clearly doesn't appreciate what she must have been taught in science class.

It's fun just saying something is "clearly" there instead of pointing to specifics, isn't it?

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

The answer is yes because the Ignorance Emporium casts aside the scientific method and relies on the Bible as its authority on matters of science.

I've given counterexamples and you are ignoring them.

Not very scientific of you.

I've used a number of examples. Once, I cited the representations of dinosaurs using their tails aloft for balance. There is no apparent disagreement on this point at all, and nothing distorted so far as I can tell.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Where did you disagree that dinosaurs hold their tails aloft for balance? Or have you taken my comment out of context?

You have been told many times why the mere presentation of some facts in a collection of misleading exhibits can be anti-scientific. In this instance, it is.

Great. Then since this thread is still a relatively short seven pages in length, it should be relatively easy for you to link to one of those many times and thus prove me wrong.

Hopefully you won't have to rely on one of the miserably failed attempts. Good luck to you.

It’s not a rhetorical trick, it’s the truth.

An analogy is by definition different in at least some respects from the situation to which the comparison is intended. It is a rhetorical trick to establish the supposed opposition by analogy instead of via the actual situation, and attempts at the latter have been notably weak.

The founder of the Ignorance Emporium makes no secret of his disdain for science in the linked video.

Look up "genetic fallacy." And if you're already familiar with it, it would be appropriate for you to redden with embarrassment.

Pardon me for editing out the portion where you delve more directly into ad hominem.

Of course not. They're not going to make an intellectually honest argument. Instead, they launch a stealth attack on science by calling its conclusions into question in order to advocate the Bible as their authority.

Aha! The dreaded stealth attack! That's what makes it so hard to pin down the anti-science bits! Those devious Xtians r stealthy. But you are smart enough to see past the stealth, enough, perhaps (assuming it wasn't another "Guest" who said it) to pronounce the obviousness of the stealth attack. Anyone can see it except for me.

Give you folks enough time and it's a pretty sure bet you'll talk yourselves in circles.

Meanwhile, they want nothing to do with the scientific method, which is why never mention it, mentioning instead only their twisted take on science’s conclusions.

Have you been to the museum, that you can unequivocally state that they never mention the scientific method? AIG certainly does, and they do a reasonably good job of presenting it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

One way to attack science is to distort it and leave out its most important parts. That's why the Ignorance Emporium is ignorant in its essence.

What is "distorted and left out," specifically, that we should conclude that the museum attacks science?

You just made the argument and you don’t realize it.

Tell what argument you're talking about and I'll tell you if you're right.

False. The Ignorance Emporium explicitly promotes the Bible as a source of authority over science. They are proposing direct contradictions between the two, and there is no doubt which side they want their visitors to take.

You're saying that they explicitly promotes the Bible as a source of authority over science. Where is that explicitly done? Your argument depends greatly on the former in order to support your conclusion.

There’s no hyperbole. When you take the method out of science, you take away science. You don't see it that way. OK, but scientists do.

Scientists with a reasonable amount of knowledge regarding the philosophy of science do see it my way, because they're aware that exceptions to Popperian criteria are nearly common enough to establish a rule. I don't blame you for continuing to ignore that point. It's a huge problem for you, so pretending that it doesn't exist is probably your best strategy.

See the portion on Kuhn and paradigm shifts in particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

Let's try this again: Says who?

The DOJ"S directive on telecommuting.

What DOJ directive on telecommuting?

Advances in information and computer technology, the development of the Internet, and the growth of wireless and digital products have given some Federal employees the ability to telework, or work anytime from almost any place. Management considerations, such as productive and satisfied workers; environmental considerations, such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality; and quality of life considerations, such as accommodating the short- or long-term health needs of employees, require the establishment of telework programs.

Telecommuting provides Federal agencies with a viable option to ensure continuity of operations in the event of an emergency. Following Hurricane Katrina, lapses in the Federal government's performance could have been mitigated by telecommuting. The Committee is aware of businesses that were able to continue operations following Hurricane Katrina due to telecommuting programs already in place. By reducing automobile trips, telecommuting helps to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to reduce car emissions.

In light of the benefits of telecommuting, the Committee remains concerned about the lack of progress being made by Federal agencies in this area. The Committee believes that agencies should be taking extensive measures to certify more Federal employees as eligible to telecommute.

The Committee directs the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation to provide a report to the Committee in no less than six months from enactment of this legislation detailing plans to increase the eligible number of telecommuters as well as what major obstacles exist.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&am...=TOC_22223&

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&...=TOC_22223&

The AmeriCorp's Board never approved the "arrangement".

Mr. Walpin says he cleared the arrangement with the board's chairman, vice chairman and a third board member. Our witness was not present at that meeting but says he was present at more than one subsequent meeting of the full board during which Mr. Walpin mentioned his telecommuting arrangement without a single objection being raised from the board.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...to-walpin-gate/

There's more at the link about the telecommuting arrangement (approved by general council according to Walpin before it came up before the board). Feel free to check it out.

If Kennedy and Kerry did not have last names beginning with "K" then you might have a case. It was obviously a joke, not any type of serious reference to racism or anything else negative. The use of the incident to tar Walpin should repulse any fair minded person.

He's a conservative idealogue. A reference to the KKK is horrendous. If he can't keep his politics on the backburner while doing the NONPARTISAN job of being Inspector General, then he shouldn't have the office. (By the way, your defense is preposterous -- where is the third 'K'?)

Duh. "Klan." You may be interested to learn that it is also the third K after Ku and Klux.

Schumer was a sitting Congressman who was more of a concern to the right-wing than a former Congresswoman. It's classic the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's not about principle, it's about self-interest.

You're funny. You've got nothing, so you just make noise.

This is a scandal only in the right wing blogosphere. It's amusing how those right wing idealogues (I don't consider Senator Grassley an idealogue) never expressed concerns when George Bush politicized the nonpartisan offices of Inspectors General:

Created in 1978 as a post-Watergate check on Nixonian abuses of power, the inspectors bypass the chain of command within their own agencies and report their findings directly to Congress. By law, the president must appoint these watchdogs "without regard to political affiliation" and "solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability."

But as the investigation of Helgerson makes clear, the administration is more interested in turning the watchdogs into lap dogs. Just as he politicized every other facet of government from FEMA to the Farm Bureau, President Bush has ignored the law and stocked the inspector general posts with inexperienced cronies. According to a study by the House Oversight Committee, more than a third of Bush's inspectors previously held a political post in the White House, compared to none of Bill Clinton's appointees. Judging from their résumés — deputy counsel to the Bush-Cheney transition team, special assistant to Trent Lott, senior counsel to Fred Thompson, daughter to Chief Justice William Rehnquist — Bush's appointees seem more qualified to be partisans at a neoconservative think tank than America's last line of defense against fraud and abuse. What's more, fewer than one-fifth of the inspectors appointed by Bush had previous experience as auditors, compared to two-thirds of Clinton's appointees. "The IGs have been politicized and dumbed down," said Rep. Brad Miller, oversight chair of the House science committee.

Rather than root out wrongdoing, Bush's appointees — men with nicknames like Moose and Cookie — have actually helped the White House cover up corrupt defense contracts, conceal the theft of sensitive rocket technology and whitewash a host of scandals from Abu Ghraib to Medicare prescription drugs. "Not only has this administration been aided in avoiding scrutiny by a compliant Republican Congress, they installed inspectors general who were not going to use their positions aggressively — if at all," says Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

"Rolling Stone," eh?

Well, at least you'll be comforted that Grassley is at the forefront of those questioning the behavior of the executive branch in this case. He probably also objects to the proposal crafted by Congress to abandon its oversight of the inspectors general and turn it all over to the executive branch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9070502519.html

You misspelled "spin." It has four letters, not nine.

That's a real petty response.

So you say, but you haven't really addressed the reporting from the Times except with your own petty response to which I had replied.

Does it seem the least bit odd to you that Congress now wants to release its share of IG oversight?

I'll just be proud that in America today we have President Barack H. Obama, Democratic Majorities in the House and Senate, and soon-to-be Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Right ... Sotomayor. Isn't she the nominee whose recent decision in the Ricci case was flogged when it reached the Supreme Court? The liberals who dissented all implicitly rejected her reasoning. Whereas she accepted in full the reasoning of the lower court, the dissent would have remanded the case so that critical issues might have been addressed. You must be so proud!

Just for fun, try to predict the budget deficit and the unemployment rate for the end of Obama's first term.

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

So let's make sure we understand you, Bryan.

One can almost take that statement as an indication that the challenges from me (the ones you quoted for some reason) will go unmet.

1. You're not defending the "museum," but only calling people for saying it's anti-scientific.

The latter is my point, and it represents a partial defense of the museum. That point does not obligate me to defend positions with which I do not agree. The associated point is that the museum is not offensive to me even though I disagree with YEC, and that I think Paul is essentially silly for making a big deal about it. A weekend at a museum is very probably not going to have a significant effect on a student's understanding of science, in spite of the Chicken Little response one sees from some of the folks here.

2. Your definition of anti-scientific is met by any reference to science anywhere in the "museum," never mind that its core premise is contrary to all scientific methods.

Had a rough time composing that one, eh?

The use of science with implicit approval, as seen, for example, with the physical representations of the dinosaurs, indicates a pro-science attitude, at least in part. I don't agree that its core premise is contrary to "all" scientific methods, and that point should have been obvious since I have pointed out more than once that Popperian criteria are often excepted here and there in accepted science. In case you don't see the importance of that point, I'll spell it out for you: An exception to scientific criterion is not a dependable indication that something is anti-science, let alone unscientific.

Meanwhile:

3. You want proof that adult scientists with real jobs didn't go there on public school bus, even though there's no reason at all why they would.

Meh. The report says the scientists traveled on school buses. Most universities charter buses, and if the school in this case had chartered buses then there was no good reason to call them "school buses." So there is an indication that the scientists rode on public school buses. I can certainly understand how you would want to ignore that, of course. Pretending otherwise might just get you off the hook for backing up the unambiguous claim of your twin ("Guest"):

"The scientists didn't go there on a public school bus."

4. You ignore the fact that there is no reason to think that the scientists relied on public funding or facilities in any way, which is the only point your ridiculous argument seems to be aimed at.

Most colleges and universities receive public funding, and regardless of that I have explained to you why it is reasonable to think that the scientists may have used public school buses.

5. You want proof that a group of high school students in Paszkiewicz's Christian club traveled 1,500 miles, round trip, to the Creationist Ignorance Emporium for some reason other than to explore its central theme, which is also one of Paszkiewicz's favorite talking points - namely, that evolution does not merit belief - even though the student who wrote the letter said that's exactly why they went.

What letter?

You mean this?

http://www.theobserver.com/articles/2009/0...5d700078863.txt

Read the URL: "articles" "news"--it looks like a student-submitted story to me based on the URL and the content (no "Dear editor" among other things). The author says nothing about the students traveling to the museum to examine the theme that evolution does not merit belief.

Here is the mention of evolution:

The Creation Museum features exhibits, planetariums and outdoor life that actively challenge evolution and intelligently support the Biblical account of creation.

That line meets the requirements of objective news reporting except for "intelligently support," which amounts to an editorial judgment. Take out the word "intelligently" and the New York Times might print the same line in a story about the museum.

Your conclusion, in short, is illogical.

You're an idiot.

You have a tendency to resort to ad hominem.

Now keep avoiding my challenge, you hear?

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

To address the only halfway serious question Bryan is asking, the answer is no. This theme park is not scientific just because it presents some of the conclusions of some current scientific theories.

The question was whether it was reasonably called "anti-science" if it presents some of the conclusions of current scientific theories.

By analogy, politicians often present some of their opponents' positions. Often, they distort them. The mere fact that a politician presents his opponent's argument doesn't mean that he isn't "anti" his opponent.

I've used a number of examples. Once, I cited the representations of dinosaurs using their tails aloft for balance. There is no apparent disagreement on this point at all, and nothing distorted so far as I can tell.

Paul's analogy conveniently uses politicians, where the antagonism may be assumed even if all policy positions are identical (as may happen in a primary). It's a slick rhetorical trick, even if it is a tad transparent.

Science is a method. This theme park is telling people that the Bible is a more reliable way of knowing about the natural world than science, which it calls "human reason."

The museum isn't using "human reason" to mean "science" in terms of the scientific method generally speaking. As I have earlier explained, "human reason" is Christianese for flawed thinking. Human reason is viewed as limited by the fall of mankind, and will thus tend to err.

That is both a distortion of what science is, and thoroughly anti-scientific.

Well, if we make a straw man out it, yeah. But the museum's statement is not that the Bible is more reliable than science in learning about the natural world, it is simply that the Bible is accurate as to its statements about the natural world. If the Bible says nothing about dinosaur tails, then by all means use science to learn about dinosaur tails.

And that's "thoroughly anti-scientific"? Or is it just humanist zealot Paul LaClair frothing at the mouth at least to the point of utilizing hyperbole to make his point?

This theme park is fostering a disrespect for science. Anyone who cares about education should be horrified by it.

Mad dog! Rrrrrruff!

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

The scientists didn't go there on a public school bus. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I didn't say anything about a public school bus. But while we're at it, please provide the evidence you have that the scientists did not ride on a public school bus since that is what you claimed. If you don't really know then you can admit it. I won't make fun of you.

By the way, the linked article says everything about the students' attitudes toward evolution.

Of course it does. And anyone who disagrees is ignoring the obvious evidence that you coincidentally refuse to specifically share. Isn't that always the way. It helps protect your illogical inferences, you suppose, behind a handy-dandy smokescreen.

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

You dare to question your GOD ALMIGHTY? Just for that I'm telling Santa not to bring you that T-Rex and saddle you wanted for Christmas.

Meh. I asked for an Allosaurus. One would think the "ALMIGHTY" would remember the difference.

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

He "telecommutes." You can't telecommute to a federal job.

Let's try this again: Says who?

http://jobs.lovetoknow.com/Telecommute_Job...eral_Government

He's an extremely political as IG. A sitting IG that describes sitting Senators (and liberal Democrats) with a KKK reference shouldn't be there.

If Kennedy and Kerry did not have last names beginning with "K" then you might have a case. It was obviously a joke, not any type of serious reference to racism or anything else negative. The use of the incident to tar Walpin should repulse any fair minded person.

The contribution to Ferraro falls under the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.' In this case, Walpin's enemy was Schumer so he contributed to his opponent.

Nice try, but that was Schumer's first run for the Senate. If you want to try to make the case that Walpin held a special dislike for Schumer than go ahead--but Ferraro is no conservative. You offer no reason to think that Walpin wasn't simply supporting his preferred candidate among those with a chance to win.

Ms. Ferraro was first elected to Congress from New York's Ninth Congressional District in Queens in 1978 and served three terms in the House of Representatives. During her six years in Congress, she compiled a liberal voting record in Congress, but stayed in touch with conservative voters in her district.

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4940

Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's a presidential appointment and he's getting his 30 days. That right-wing commentators think this is a Whitewater scandal is mindboggling.

Agreed, which is why I focused on the reporting from the New York Times. The Walpin firing may be a legitimate scandal (a bit early to tell), but it looks bad for Obama on the surface. The president did succeed in timing the firing fairly closely with the conclusion of Walpin's investigation of an Obama political pal, and the administration is having a tough time answering the hard questions about the case.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...--49767217.html

The NY Times gave this way more attention then it deserves.

You misspelled "spin." It has four letters, not nine.

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

These students didn't go to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution. They went because they believe that evolution is nonsense. http://www.theobserver.com/articles/2009/0...5d700078863.txt

How do you know they think evolution is nonsense? Did you take a poll? The article you linked says nothing about the students' attitudes toward evolution.

Just another case where your side likes to make things up without any backing evidence.

As usual, Bryan completely ignores the facts in pursuit of a hypothetical debating point.

With all due respect, you're the one doing that. Paul LaClair objected to the use of school buses for the creation museum trip by students. It seems reasonable to suppose that he would similarly object to the use of public funds used to send scientists there, and if he would not then there should be some principled reason behind it. The principled reason seems to be bigotry or something like that, judging from the "Guest" commentary.

They couldn't pass the test Bryan imagines them taking. If they could, they would know enough about evolution that they wouldn't have gone on the trip.

But it was just pointed out to you that evolutionary scientists took the trip to the museum. So you're the one avoiding the facts. Unless, of course, you have determined that the scientists simply did not know enough about evolution to avoid going to the creation museum.

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

"Thou art an enormous prick!"

You'd have much better reason for that remark if I had quoted a long post and simply replied with a one-line answer that cannot be distinguished from simple insult. Especially if I did it under a pseudonym. Not that I doubt you're god.

If you don't intend to address what you quote then why waste the space by quoting it?

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

The poster would still deal with the age of the earth if only the "God's Word" side of the poster existed. Would you therefore conclude that the "God's Word" portion was science because it addresses a scientific question?

Your response is stupid. “Science is dumb.” There, I addressed science but not in an intelligent way. So, too, the Ignorance Emporium.

Maybe the reductio ad absurdum will just go away if you ignore it.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that the museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins. Do you think that presentation is fair or not?

Sez you. “Human wisdom” is no substitute for empirical science. Plenty of people claim they are wise. Take you, for example . . .

1) You disagree that that museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins? Is the photographic evidence not enough for you?

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2332.html

2) Where have I ever claimed that I am wise? Do you feel comfortable lying about that?

The whole point of science over the past 500 years or so is that we have learned things people couldn't know just by claiming to be wise. If all scientific problems were soluble through "human wisdom," Aristotle and the Buddha would have done it.

So now "human wisdom" is no longer equal to "science"? Let me know when you make up your mind.

I ask you to put evidence before my eyes and instead of providing it you attack me for refusing to acknowledge what you have not provided.

The evidence is before your eyes.

It's pretty easy to type that, isn't it? Be specific. Is the evidence the "Speed Racer" lamp next to my keyboard? Do you find it in one of the photos of the museum?

Here's the thing: Every time we've looked for the supposed evidence in one of the photos, your side ends up fibbing, just like when "human reason" was science for awhile until you changed your mind and converted "human reason" into the type of thinking that kept Aristotle from coming up with a good account of origins. And you try to bury the failure by simply repeating that the evidence is there but that I refuse to see it.

The Ignorance Emporium is an attack on science.

Perhaps if you copy and paste that a few hundred times it will make up for your failure to present evidence.

Its methods are totally contrary to science. Anything that doesn’t conform to the Bible is summarily rejected. That is not science, and no number of scientific references can salvage it.

As previously noted, many things commonly accepted as science abandon Popperian criteria here and there. Why is this exception not as forgivable as other exceptions?

The scientists who just visited there were horrified.

Do we determine scientific truth via popular vote of scientists, now? Which step of the scientific method is that?

As usual, you chose to ignore the point you didn’t want to hear.

As usual, you're repeating yourself without presenting the evidence that I am supposedly ignoring.

There are profound differences between Einstein and young-earth creationists.

Right. We've been over that. You can't reveal the differences because I wouldn't understand. And no doubt your dad can beat up my dad.

You don't acknowledge the point and you don't respond to it.

How is asking you what the differences are not acknowledging the point? Or by "acknowledging" do you simply mean that I have to take it on faith that the (relevant) differences you claim exist do, in fact, exist even though you won't present them?

Rather than me not acknowledging the point, we seem to have a case where you will not support the point.

As always, you falsely call the other person on your own flawed illogic.

What specific example do you have in mind? Because it sounds like you're just making stuff up. And it may not be the first time, if you've posted as "Guest" prior to now.

Furthermore, you have claimed you aren’t a YEC. So why do you keep defending them?

I already explained that. Even if someone is wrong about certain things it does not grant license to others to lie about them.

Just because you fancy yourself a philosopher doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. You may have read some things about the philosophy of science, but you don’t understand science. It’s not a rigid set of philosophical constructs, but a proven method for learning about the (natural) world.

Good imitation of Paul LaClair, there.

You say that I don't understand science. What is the evidence of that? You say that science is not a rigid set of philosophical constructs. Let's suppose that's true for a moment. Have I ever said otherwise? If not, then what is your basis for claiming that I don't understand science?

Shouldn't you need some basis for claiming that I don't understand science? If you're going to keep saying that and we're supposed to take you seriously, that is?

What you call fatally flawed is what scientists accept as inevitable – and yet somehow they have revolutionized our lives.

It sure looks like you took my "fatally flawed" statement out of context. I'd prefer if you would not do that. I was not talking about science but about the attempts to argue that the Creation Museum is "anti-science."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97526

If we were to take your statement as treating mine in its original context, then we have science taking its own particular finding as inevitable, which runs directly contrary to one "Guest"'s earlier claim that science keeps all questions open. Could that have been you?

It's as though you live in a hypothetical universe that isn't real. That's not how things are. We have a mountain of real data to work with. You completely ignore it.

I don't see how I can do anything other than ignore data that others refuse to provide on the grounds that I would not understand it.

It is more than slightly disingenuous to refuse to provide evidence and also claim I'm ignoring the evidence.

[David Paszkiewicz's idea of science]

The scientists are in no danger of being duped by the exhibits. The purpose of their trip to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution.

Good use of our tax dollars, then? Could high school students use school buses to go to the museum to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution? How about if they passed a test proving that they were in no danger of being "duped"? Would that make it okay?

[Gerald Walpin and the New York Times]

Not political? He's an extreme right Republican activist appointed by George W. Bush (see below).

Hmmm. That must mean that Geraldine Ferraro is a Republican. Walpin contributed to her run for NY senator back in the 1990s, IIRC.

There are two kinds of political appointments. There are those done by a particular political figure, such as a president. There are also appointment to jobs that are innately political, such as federal attorneys and Cabinet members. Judges and IGs are historically of the former type but not the latter type.

It's also undisputed he doesn't show up to the job in DC. You don't "telecommute" (Walpin's description) as an Inspector General.

It's undisputed that Walpin has done his (job) via telecommute. It is considerably less clear that it is honest to equate the two. You've skipped your opportunities to make that point thus far. But you're doing a great job of getting the thread away from the topic of the New York Times. That has to count for something.

A hard-line conservative with a résumé that dates back to the early '60s, Walpin was a curious choice for a position that requires dispassionate judgment and nonpartisan fairness. Although he developed a reputation as a highly capable litigator at a major New York City law firm, he has devoted much of his life to the causes of the extreme right, in particular as a trustee of the Federalist Society and as a director of the Center for Individual Rights, a right-wing law foundation devoted to overturning affirmative-action programs.

He appears to have continued acting in those capacities even after his appointment as inspector general. In November 2007, for instance, he delivered a speech at a Federalist Society function titled "Inherent Presidential Wartime Powers -- The Wiretap Program is Constitutional." Then in March 2008, he wrote an Op-Ed essay for the New York Daily News berating human rights lawyers at Yale Law School for pursuing a legal action against John Yoo, the former Justice Department official famous for his memoranda justifying torture of terror suspects.

Media profiles of Walpin now often mention his nasty quip at a November 2005 luncheon when he introduced Mitt Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, as the leader of a state dominated by "the modern-day KKK ... the Kennedy-Kerry Klan," a reference to the Bay State's U.S. senators, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Joking about Catholic politicians belonging to the Klan is always obnoxious, but Walpin was guilty of worse than poor taste.

Aside from its ferocious pursuit of lawsuits against affirmative action, the Center for Individual Rights, where Walpin served as director for many years, has displayed an enduring attraction to academic racism, or at least to its practitioners. That attraction led CIR to represent both Michael Levin, the notorious racist professor at the City University of New York, and Linda Gottfredson, an obscure University of Delaware professor whose negative research on African-Americans has made her a heroine to racial extremists. To finance this kind of litigation, CIR accepted thousands of dollars from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation dedicated to proving that blacks are racially inferior to whites and Asians -- in short, the intellectual equivalent of the KKK.

Slate's getting quite the reputation for running hatchet-job stories against Republican targets. Though of course even Bill Clinton thought that Slate had savaged him in the story they did on him. The treatment of the joke about the KKK should be sufficient for one to detect the patent unfairness coming from the author.

Walpin's politics are properly irrelevant to the issue of his termination except as it may impact the performance of his job. You haven't suggested any particular relevance, unless you perhaps consider it a peculiarly Republican trait to telecommute.