Home › Blogs › Warner Todd Huston's blog ›

Dems Push Another Fake 'Fair' Bill That Will Kill Online Science Research Publishing

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 05:50
in

Why are Democrats such liars? I know that sounds harsh, but this penchant for labeling a law, act, or bill with a lie as a title is gallingly Orwellian and it's getting tiresome. We have the "Employee Free Choice Act" that takes away employee choice, the "Freedom of Choice Act" that takes away the freedom NOT to chose abortion, and now we have the "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act" that takes away the public's fair access to scientific research papers without having to first spend a ton of money to access it.

In all the three laws above noted, we have either "free," "Freedom," or "fair" in the bill title and yet not one of these pieces of legislation is free, fair or assures any freedoms -- in fact, quite the opposite. It's like calling a crap sandwich corned beef on rye! It's getting so that all we have to do is read a bill's title and imagine the direct opposite effect to learn what the bill is about.

Naturally it all seems to come down to campaign cash. Michigan's John Conyers (D) is sponsoring this "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act" and not surprisingly when Discover Magazine did a bit of research into where Conyers was getting his campaign contributions, it turned out that he is getting 4 times more contributions from scientific journal publishers than anyone else in Congress. Why is that significant? Read on, McDuff...

Conyers' "The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act" will make it illegal for government agencies like the NIH and other scientists (such as those at universities that take federal money) to put scientific research online for the public to access for free. And guess where Conyers wants to force all research papers to be put? That's right, in journals published by scientific journal publishers. You know, the same ones that gave 4 times more campaign cash to Conyers than they do to everyone else?

Why is this a big deal? Simply put wide access to scientific research spurs more research and helps serve as a sort of quality control agent. Without free access to others' research, scientists might waste time and money on dead ends that others have already mined or replicate needlessly findings already found. Plus, like any other human endeavor, when information grows so does knowledge.

On top of that simple logic, forcing all scientific research into printed journals will also end up limiting the ability of everyone to access scientific research papers because of the exorbitant cost of the journals.

As Discover Magazine writes:

his may not sound like a big deal, but journals are very expensive. They can cost a fortune: The Astrophysical Journal costs over $2000/year, and they charge scientists to publish in them! So this bill would force scientists to spend money to publish, and force you to spend money to read them.

John Conyers wants to hinder scientific research, quash the public's easy access to research results, and make science even more prohibitively expensive than it already is.

All for a few campaign dollars.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Why are Democrats liars? And why do they hate science?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Do you know english?

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 08:22.

The Freedom of Choice act takes away the freedom NOT to choose abortion? Really? The Freedom of Choice Act is going to make abortions mandatory?

Agreed that the bill is stupid, but you reduce the effect of your post by saying drivel like the above statement.

Difficult to go on

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 09:35.

Two ginormous porkies in your opening paragraph

We have the "Employee Free Choice Act" that takes away employee choice, the "Freedom of Choice Act" that takes away the freedom NOT to chose abortion,

Second one first: who has been/will be forced to have an abortion?

First one: you've already conceeded elsewhere that:

the Act itself does not expressly eliminate the secret ballot.

But yet here you are again, repeating the lie.

Not a lie

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 15:39.

I've told you before, you are a dupe if you believe there will ever be a secret ballot again if this act passes. Even George McGoven knows this. This act gets rid of them in EVERYTHING but name. You can continue to act the fool and dreamily imagine that unions love democracy, but the rest of us know better. Why do you hate democracy?

What is undemocratic about providing a choice?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 16:27.

I realize that you don't like choice. However, giving people a choice is a very democratic thing to do. And that is what EFCA does - provides a choice of private ballot or card check.

If card check is so evil, then why is it currently OK to use it for de-certifying unions? If the private ballot is so holy and sacred, then why is it only used for the certification process? More importantly, why does the EMPLOYER get to run it? Why are you so sure that people will jettison it? If the workers want a private ballot for certification, that's what they'll get.

 

 

Illusion of choice is NOT choice

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Fri, 03/13/2009 - 01:17.

Apparently, it only takes a well crafted lie to fool you. Card check WILL eliminate the secret ballot. But you don't think Democrats are really stupid enough to say it straight out in their language, do you?

Let's put it this way, poll taxes in the South effectively stopped blacks from voting. But, if you looked at the actual words of the poll tax acts, they didn't come right out and say that "this is to stop them darkies from a votin." Of course it didn't. But the poll taxes were specifically created to make it so hard for a black an to vote that they couldn't do it.

Are you so naive as to imagine that the Democrats will come right out and say they are against the secret ballot?

Just ask yourself this, if the unions are so keen to make sure everyone has the right to a secret ballot, why do they need this act? What else than because they KNOW it will eliminate that right.

It's really just that simple. Card Check is the poll tax of 2009. And those that pretend otherwise are foolish, or cynically manipulating the system for personal gain. There just isn't any other alternative to those two possibilities.

Pointing out the rather obvious flaw in your argument

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 03/13/2009 - 08:07.

I don't recall that any blacks lobbyied for the passage of the poll tax....

 

Not too bright

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Sat, 03/14/2009 - 04:55.

Really. You call THAT a "point"? Of COURSE blacks didn't lobby for the poll tax because it didn't BENEFIT them. It WAS however pressed by those it DID benefit. The white power base at the time. I have to say, NotRightNimload, your facile replies get worse with each attempt.

Since you've turned to childish personal insult

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 03/14/2009 - 08:06.

Since you've turned to childish personal insult, I take it that I've made my point.

You post 2 or 3 anti-union blogs every week. And now you want us to believe that your opposition to EFCA is based on your principled desire to protect the worker - not your pronounced anti-union bias.

Any adult will have no problems seeing through you.

Tell me: if the private ballot is so sacred and card-check so outrageous, why weren't you fulminating when the NLRB ruled that card-check could be used to DEcertify a union?

If the private ballot is the only way the will of a person can be properly expressed, why are Newt and Saul organizing a petition drive? By your reasoning, it is outrageous that we are being asked to sign up rather than indicate our opinions privately.

Whether you called a black

Submitted by martin on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 06:11.

Whether you called a black lobby or white lobby. The reality is who ever is in the power has all the authority. Whether you are in online high school program or trying to learn from high school distance learning . You have to pay taxes

Saul hasn't come back, I wonder if Warner Paul will?

Submitted by Crow on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 18:57.

n/t

Good call

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sat, 03/14/2009 - 05:11.

It's much easier to search back issues for reasearch by doing it electronically.

Most of the publications that I'm familiar with, eg the American Chemical Society, charges for access to archives.  Hard copies are prohibitively expensive. 

why does the EMPLOYER get to

Submitted by martin on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 08:38.

why does the EMPLOYER get to run it? Why are you so sure that people will jettison it?  Its strange to hear about the fake bill.  Health science degree online or online degrees in psychology  should be one of the subject in that bill

Regards

online political science degree