PDA

View Full Version : Senate committee approves anti-gun left-wing ideologue to head OSHA


rp55
11-19-2009, 12:39 PM
From The Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m11d18-Senate-committee-approves-antigun-ideologue-to-head-OSHA-Nominee-backs-junk-science-too)

Senate committee approves anti-gun left-wing ideologue to head OSHA; Nominee backs junk science, too

David Michaels, a left-wing ideologue who supports junk science and seeks to restrict gun possession, has been approved by the Senate Health Committee to head the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Only two Senators -- both Republicans -- voted against Michaels, who was nominated by President Obama.

The vote occurred with no discussion, and no hearing was even held on his nomination, although hearings have consistently been held on nominees in the past, even for far less controversial picks.

Gun-law expert David Kopel explains how Michaels wants to ban guns in and near workplaces, and could use his position at OSHA to do so, if the political climate shifts in favor of gun control. (Some businessmen in high-crime areas possess guns to protect themselves against armed robbers, and even strict local gun-control laws have generally contained exceptions to allow such businesses to defend themselves).

As the Washington Times noted, "Mr. Michaels also is an anti-gun zealot who has described 'gun violence' as an issue of 'public health' that 'invariably demands more and stronger regulation, not less.' As Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute explained, by way of warning, on Aug. 15: 'That's by no means irrelevant to the agenda of an agency like OSHA, because once you start viewing private gun ownership as a public health menace, it begins to seem logical to use the powers of government to urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the protection of co-workers. In addition, OSHA has authority to regulate the working conditions of various job categories associated with firearms use (security guards, hunting guides, etc.) and could in that capacity do much to bring grief to Second Amendment values.'"

Michaels wants to reverse the Supreme Courtís Daubert decision limiting the use of junk science.

As I noted in the New York Times, Michaels' appointment could "dramatically alter OSHA's approach to ensuring workplace safety." Michaels has been called "one the nation's foremost proponents of allowing junk science to be used in jackpot-justice lawsuits."

Many business groups raised concerns about his nomination and extreme views.

Iain Murray notes that Michaels seeks to ban useful products from the workplace based on imaginary risks. One newspaper calls Michaels "virulently anti-business."

Super Spy
11-19-2009, 12:49 PM
Is Obama capable of picking a normal middle of the road person for ANY position?

Kid Stanislaus
11-19-2009, 1:24 PM
Is Obama capable of picking a normal middle of the road person for ANY position?

Get real!:D

GrizzlyGuy
11-19-2009, 1:48 PM
He'll get along just fine with Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein (http://stopsunstein.com/):

"Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."

Mikeb
11-19-2009, 1:51 PM
OSHA has made us very safe. Many people would be doing potentially dangerous work if it were not for OSHA. Now instead of working in factories where they could be injured or killed they are safely at home on the couch, unemployed. Somehow this guy seems like a logical choice.
Heaven Help Us
Mike

popeye4
11-19-2009, 4:58 PM
This is why elections matter and one should NEVER believe a politician who says he isn't anti-gun during a campaign when his record clearly says he is.

Obama is advancing an agenda he's never been terribly shy about advocating, this should come as no surprise. Unfortunately, our guys rarely follow through as effectively when we elect them......

7x57
11-19-2009, 5:31 PM
"Senate committee approves OSHA head nominated by anti-gun left-wing ideologue to head OSHA"

Fixed your title. :D

But seriously, elections do matter. Obama is fairly incompetent as an administrator (thank Ghu for that), but he does understand the power of taking over institutions without making a direct frontal assault. I suppose he's being true to his background training on both counts.

7x57

Timberline
11-19-2009, 6:05 PM
Define "junk science."

I'll take the Science-based approach of the Obama administration over Bush's "faith-based" measures, any day.

oldrifle
11-19-2009, 6:48 PM
I think Hillary was the most moderate person he appointed to any position. Scary huh? :eek:

Is Obama capable of picking a normal middle of the road person for ANY position?

tuolumnejim
11-19-2009, 7:10 PM
Define "junk science."

I'll take the Science-based approach of the Obama administration over Bush's "faith-based" measures, any day.

Thats funny, totally running away from reality but funny.

yellowfin
11-19-2009, 7:12 PM
Is Obama capable of picking a normal middle of the road person for ANY position?Do you honestly think he knows any?

Shotgun Man
11-19-2009, 8:41 PM
Question is, why didn't the republicans block his nomination?

Are they asleep at the switch, overwhelmed, indifferent, or on the take?

kcbrown
11-19-2009, 10:24 PM
Define "junk science."


I don't know that there's a universally accepted definition, but I'll give you the one I would use, which I believe to be reasonably useful: generally, a set of statements or beliefs which are claimed to have a solid scientific basis but which in fact do not. The reason for the lack of scientific basis can be anything, from failure to properly use the scientific method, to misinterpretation (or, perhaps more often, intentional exclusion) of evidence, to misuse of analytical methods, to outright fraud.



I'll take the Science-based approach of the Obama administration over Bush's "faith-based" measures, any day.I agree with a science-based approach as long as it truly is science-based. And even then, I would have serious reservations about policies made on the basis of any conclusions that have a relatively high uncertainty level. Which is to say, if you're going to make policy based on a set of scientific conclusions, it's best to ensure that the conclusions in question are relatively safe from revision. This is why scientific consensus is a significant consideration, though it is certainly not an absolute guarantee of correctness (nothing in science is).

nick
11-19-2009, 10:47 PM
Is Obama capable of picking a normal middle of the road person for ANY position?

Why would he? They fit his ideology fine.

nick
11-19-2009, 10:52 PM
Define "junk science."

I'll take the Science-based approach of the Obama administration over Bush's "faith-based" measures, any day.

Umm, junk science IS "faith-based".

For the examples of junk science, check out the various "studies" Brady and VPC release on a regular basis. The "studies" where the conclusion of the study is known beforehand, and then they try to find the facts to support it.

Rather like my girlfriend's English teacher used to teach his class to do research: "Form an opinion, and then do your research to find the facts supporting it." He actually said that, and he actually believes that's what research is.

Then again, judging by your posts, that's not quite what you wanted to hear :)

7x57
11-20-2009, 12:06 AM
\
Then again, judging by your posts, that's not quite what you wanted to hear :)

Judging by his posts, he cast a "faith-based vote" that "we are the change we are waiting for." That takes a *LOT* of faith, you know.

7x57

nick
11-20-2009, 1:33 AM
Judging by his posts, he cast a "faith-based vote" that "we are the change we are waiting for." That takes a *LOT* of faith, you know.

7x57

It's the change we can believe in, after all.

CalNRA
11-20-2009, 1:56 AM
guys, arguing with Timberline is not gonna end well for your blood pressure and he is not worth your health and brain cells.

Just saying.

Timberline
11-20-2009, 7:21 AM
I don't know that there's a universally accepted definition, but I'll give you the one I would use, which I believe to be reasonably useful: generally, a set of statements or beliefs which are claimed to have a solid scientific basis but which in fact do not. The reason for the lack of scientific basis can be anything, from failure to properly use the scientific method, to misinterpretation (or, perhaps more often, intentional exclusion) of evidence, to misuse of analytical methods, to outright fraud.


I agree with a science-based approach as long as it truly is science-based. And even then, I would have serious reservations about policies made on the basis of any conclusions that have a relatively high uncertainty level. Which is to say, if you're going to make policy based on a set of scientific conclusions, it's best to ensure that the conclusions in question are relatively safe from revision. This is why scientific consensus is a significant consideration, though it is certainly not an absolute guarantee of correctness (nothing in science is).

You've got it right, on both counts.

- T

p.s. shouldn't this thread be in OT?

johnny_22
11-20-2009, 9:01 AM
Is Obama capable of picking a normal middle of the road person for ANY position?


That appears to be a good choice. Ken Salazar is promoting youth hunting and fishing funds, according to Field and Stream.

Gray Peterson
11-20-2009, 11:11 AM
If there was an attempt to ban all guns from workplaces under OSHA safety regulations, it would be put into IMMEDIATE challenge due to Heller already applying to the US government.

7x57
11-20-2009, 11:42 AM
If there was an attempt to ban all guns from workplaces under OSHA safety regulations, it would be put into IMMEDIATE challenge due to Heller already applying to the US government.

While the point is well taken, we've seen plenty of blatantly illegal avenues of attack. The strategy often seems to be the shotgun approach: try every possible thing and force the courts to stop each and every one. It's rational in one way--there are the occasional loose-screw court decisions *cough* *cough* *slaughterhouse* *cough* that simply disregard the law. If you can afford to lose a lot of money, it's rational to pull the lever as many times as you can and hope for the unlikely jackpot.

The other thing this does is gets gun-people running circles trying to deal with every threat, and that can give legitimacy to hare-brained attempts everyone would otherwise have laughed at. So I take your basic point to be not to get hot and bothered over harebrained attempts because almost all of them will vanish in a puff of rational law. We can save our energy for the ones that have legs. Yes?

Aside from any possible rational strategy, don't forget that the gun-control groups have to show they're "doing something" to keep the donor money flowing in. A hopeless, blatantly unconstitutional effort is in their interest as long as it keeps the money coming from George Soros and the Joyce Foundation. Remember Pournelle's Iron Law: their actual job is to remain in business. God knows it would be a disaster if Josh Sugarman had to get a real job instead of getting paid to write irrational papers and read the gun mags for new silly terms to use to advantage.

7x57

GrizzlyGuy
11-20-2009, 12:33 PM
If there was an attempt to ban all guns from workplaces under OSHA safety regulations, it would be put into IMMEDIATE challenge due to Heller already applying to the US government.

They are getting smarter, instead of trying for outright bans they now try to nudge people (http://www.nudges.org/thebook.cfm) to do the "right" thing:

Our errors are what make us human, but up till now, they have been largely ignored by those around us, whether they make a complex public policy or sell us a plain old bottle of wine.

In this ground-breaking collaboration, two extraordinary, if ultimately human, thinkers, economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein, invite us into an alternative world, one that takes our humanness as a given. They show that by knowing how people think, we can design choice environments that make it easier for them to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society.

Using colorful examples drawn from the realms of 401(k) investing, organ donations, and marriage, Thaler and Sunstein demonstrate how thoughtful "choice architecture" can be established to nudge us in beneficial directions without restricting freedom of choice.