Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
"The Money": @ ktwdawg
[Read the article: Why James Inhofe tried to sabotage open access]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think anybody questions whether industries lobby, or whether a large publisher has $13,000 to give away to a campaign. That's not a lot of money, and it's hardly proof of anything. Nor does it justify tarring an entire industry with one brush, just because little is widely known about the industry. Publishers don't have the money for "green" campaigns like Chevron's, so few people may be aware of the diversity within it. (Yes, I'm prepared to defend that statement too.)
For one thing, we don't know whether Inhofe changed his position after receiving it. For another, that $3 million could be less than 1% of Reed Elsevier's profits, for all we know. And how many other senators got money? Maybe none. Compare with other industries' well-known and lavish lobbying campaigns.
I think there's an obsession with "lobbying" here, and I hear the sound of an ax being ground. 2 more notes:
(1) What's the edition model of publishing got to do with open access to new research? Sounds like you don't like the edition model. Fine---but then you seem happy to attack the industry for publishing NEW material. Is this rational?
(2) Open access doesn't necessarily have anything to do with free journals. It includes the funding of repositories for "unrefined" or even raw manuscripts as well as "free journals." Because it hasn't been specified exactly what Inhofe "gutted," I personally have no idea what it was that RE "paid" him to do. See this link for a good overview of open access: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
-
@ktwdawg
[Read the article: Why James Inhofe tried to sabotage open access]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't disagree that $13,000 seems to be a significant amount to a senator's campaign, and more so than I would have thought---the OpenSecrets list shows many major corporations donating a similar amount. In fact the range of amounts is surprisingly small, maybe because of legal limits to contributions. 11th place doesn't seem to mean much, however, when 20th place is only a few hundred $ less.
But I think it does matter how hard a company is struggling to get legislation killed that directly affects it---because that's a reasonable gauge of how much they think they stand to lose.
I'm all for open access, but when it comes to mandates to force industries to change their business models, I wish Congress would focus more on, say, the oil and tobacco industries. No tight budgets there.
-
@more cowbell
[Read the article: Why James Inhofe tried to sabotage open access]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do you think you were "screwed" just because $6k in publishing costs were transferred to you---er, to NIH? Did you think publishing was less expensive than that?
If that's what happened, that is---it's not quite clear from your comment.
-
Fred's not so far off
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's concern over "costly litigation" for AT&T and Verizon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When Charles I lost his head, there was a similar situation:
what is essentially a complaint about administration activities.
-
And besides
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's concern over "costly litigation" for AT&T and Verizon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dick Cheney called the AT&T managers and convinced them to strip-search their employees and carry them around the room. It must be embarrassing!
-
@kitt
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's concern over "costly litigation" for AT&T and Verizon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fred meant to say, "consigned to a new Holocaust."
He apologizes for misspeaking.
-
@tiberius
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's concern over "costly litigation" for AT&T and Verizon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why would the telecoms be especially concerned for their employees in this case, if they are not "big and bad"?
Did thousands of them maybe do bad things?
Or just the highest of them?
Elucidate please.
-
@scooterinshortpants
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's concern over "costly litigation" for AT&T and Verizon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It still remains, that no one knows for sure what was done, or whether it was illegal, or even if the Constitutional duties of the President override the FISA law. Or even for that matter whether FISA applies here.
NOBODY knows what was done? Not even the NSA?
No one knows what the Constitution means? Or what FISA says?
It's worse than I thought. Time to move to a log cabin in the deep woods.
-
Treason!
[Read the article: A bizarre, unsolicited e-mail from Gen. Petraeus' spokesman ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How dare you question a military IP address in a time of war on dissent!
-
Apology
[Read the article: A bizarre, unsolicited e-mail from Gen. Petraeus' spokesman ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That was the Major impersonating me, just now.
-
Actual history
[Read the article: Hitlers, Hitlers and more Hitlers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone who dabbles in Munich metaphors should be aware that the British were in no position to fight Hitler at the time the Agreement was signed. A year later, they had built up their forces to a level at which they were able to contemplate war when it was forced on them by treaty with France and Belgium. Even then, the "phony war" ran for another year before anything happened on the Allied side, except for Dunkirk---a defeat reasonably considered noble, in the absence of any victories whatsoever.
The Pod would have us pretend we are ready to open another front when we are not. Had the British done this in 1938, they would have faced a serious mauling and defeat, possibly leading to capitulation or a cessation of combat until they could recover their military strength, or a Battle of Britain lasting even longer than the real one did.
Note that the French actually considered themselves ready for war, and see where that led them.
So the whole metaphor is a failure---just another "stabbed-in-the-back" fantasy. Only the Czechs were betrayed (by everyone), but curiously, in the West, they have only a walk-on role in the appeasement myth itself, according to which the Munich agreement is responsible for the entire war.
-
Anonymous @10:25 AM
[Read the article: Hitlers, Hitlers and more Hitlers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn lives in Brazil, you silly person. I doubt he gets out to Idaho much. Or that the white-power people have a chapter in Brazil.
I was amused by the image, however. thanks!