Dems Push Another Fake ‘Fair’ Bill That Will Kill Online Science Research Publishing
-By Warner Todd Huston
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.
Why are Democrats liars? And why do they hate science?
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on March 12, 2009 6:40 am
» Filed Under Democrats, Liberal World, News, Science/pseudo-science, liberalism
Trackback URL:
Comments
8 Responses to “Dems Push Another Fake ‘Fair’ Bill That Will Kill Online Science Research Publishing”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Thanks for the heads up!
Imagine how little the public would know about, say, adult stem cell research, without people making their findings available online.
“We have the “Employee Free Choice Act” that takes away employee choice”
“The essential change of the EFCA would be to allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election.” http://www.slate.com/id/2213352/
The act, in its current version, would give employees the choice of whether or not to hold a secret-ballot election. Currently the employer has that choice. No options are taken away from employees.
“the “Freedom of Choice Act” that takes away the freedom NOT to chose abortion”
How do you figure? There has never been any hint of forced abortion in FOCA (which has yet to be introduced in the current congress.) To claim otherwise is completely disingenuous and scurrilous.
Perhaps you meant that the FOCA takes away the ability of society to force women to continue pregnancies against their will.
If you are willing to spew such bald-faced lies on the above topics, why should anyone believe anything you have to say on any topic.
Nice smoke screen. But even union bosses say that the card check provision effectively eliminates ever again having a proper secret ballot election for employees. Why do you think unions are so keen to have this provision, anyway?
Back to the Slate article:
“Workers still have the option of holding a secret ballot election, of course. But, again, as a practical matter, it’s hard to imagine why a group of workers, having just won a union, would then also decide to hold an election. Sure, a smaller group of workers—it’d have to be at least 30 percent—could still petition for a secret ballot. But the legislation clearly states that “[i]f the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations … the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative.”"
Your contention that “effectively eliminates” means the choice has been taken from the employees doesn’t hold water. “Effectively eliminates” means that the choices are now between a secret ballot and collecting cards from 50% of workers. Once 50% of workers have signed cards, the only purpose of a secret ballot would be to determine whether the employer’s intimidation tactics had been effective.
The intimidation comes long before the cards are signed. THAT is why they WANT the card check system! They can intimidate ALL they want as the cards are signed. The ONLY way to assure a fair election is the ages old, democratic practice of the secret ballot. Why do you hate democracy?
You really should read that Slate article. It contains a lot of useful information.
“Why do you hate democracy?”
That’s just the sort of retort I would expect from a child or a right-wing ideologue. But I repeat myself.
How exactly is a card-check system undemocratic? “Majority rules” seems democratic to me.
“The intimidation comes long before the cards are signed. THAT is why they WANT the card check system!”
I was discussing intimidation of employees by employers. You were not specific, but I assume you are making some fantastic claim of significant union intimidation of employees. The Slate article addresses this issue, as does this blog entry: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/2009_democratic_agenda_/2008/12/card_check_and_union_coercion.php
For everyone in the reality-based community, the reason for the invention of this non-issue is obvious: The right wants to make union organization as difficult as possible. End of story.
“For everyone in the reality-based community, the reason for the invention of this non-issue is obvious: The right wants to make union organization as difficult as possible. End of story.”
Naw, it’s not the end of story. The left wants to make union organization the only option … in other words no freedom of choice. As Paul Harvey would have said “that’s the rest of the story.”
Sorry, but other than union shills, you are in the minority imagining the dreamy, dream that union thugs will suddenly stop acting like union thugs. There are hundreds of former and current union members (lead by George McGovern of all people) that affirm that unions will use this act to indulge their thug behavior to the hilt.
You support this act and you ARE anti-democratic.
Ask yourself, why DO unions want this rules change, anyway? The answer can ONLY be that they expect to be able to strong-arm more union members into voting the union’s desires. Otherwise this rule is not needed. If they were just fine with old fashioned democracy and the secret ballot WHY do they want this change?
Why do you hate democracy?