Should "Czars" (28!) Be Subjected To Senate Approval?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

This doesn't change the mind numbing stupidity of his assertion, but it does reflect poorly on his quote falsifying mining skills.

Libs love the wiki. Maybe you should register your complaint with them. Amazing how you squirm at the thought that VP Biden used the term "czar" in an official capacity. Does this crush your Weltanschauung?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_...Control_Policy

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Libs love the wiki. Maybe you should register your complaint with them. Amazing how you squirm at the thought that VP Biden used the term "czar" in an official capacity. Does this crush your Weltanschauung?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_...Control_Policy

What a truly bizarre statement. Is there anything at all in your world view which is not filtered through your peculiar obsession with ideology?

I am glad for you you that you finally managed to provide a citation which actually reflects the point you are struggling to make.

This doesn't change the fact that the point you are trying to make is completely irrelevant, remarkably silly, and wrong.

I'm not certain what causes this morbid fascination you seem to have with the term "czar", all the more so since you yourself have acknowledged its irrelevance to the discussion, but it is still something of a mystery why you seem to think that Biden's use of a press euphemism that was forty years old when he used it somehow implies ownership just because he applied it to a new Executive Office position instead of one of the many others it had already been married to.

It certainly doesn't support or explain the incredible claim that somehow this makes it "official".

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

What a truly bizarre statement. Is there anything at all in your world view which is not filtered through your peculiar obsession with ideology?

You didn't know that you were in the JREF political forum?

Quote:

I am glad for you you that you finally managed to provide a citation which actually reflects the point you are struggling to make.

You certainly have faith in the wiki. How did you manage to miss it in the first place during your hunt for Biden's quote? Struggling? That is what you are doing in your jejune attempts to deny that Democrats frequently use the term "czar."

Quote:

This doesn't change the fact that the point you are trying to make is completely irrelevant, remarkably silly, and wrong.

Showing that both POTUS Obama and VP Biden have used the term is irrelevant? That they do use it is "silly?' That the lame stream media is not the only source for this term is 'wrong?"

Quote:

I'm not certain what causes this morbid fascination you seem to have with the term "czar", all the more so since you yourself have acknowledged its irrelevance to the discussion, but it is still something of a mystery why you seem to think that Biden's use of a press euphemism that was forty years old when he used it somehow implies ownership just because he applied it to a new Executive Office position instead of one of the many others it had already been married to.

My fascination? The lsm is fascinated with it. Who said that Biden "owned" the term "czar?" He does own the title "drug czar."

Quote:

It certainly doesn't support or explain the incredible claim that somehow this makes it "official".

Senator Biden introduced the term "drug czar" to the Senate in 1982. You can make of that what you will, but that sure seems to be an "official" use of the term by an "official" speaking in an "official" capacity.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cicero, could you possibly admit you were off base here or get back to your actual issue?

Does it matter if czar is a job title or a nickname for the job title? The issue is why should every management position in the executive branch be confirmed by Congress? For that matter, why should the President's cabinet be confirmed?

[quadraginta]

Yawn.

Originally Posted by Cicero

<snip>


You certainly have faith in the wiki. How did you manage to miss it in the first place during your hunt for Biden's quote? Struggling? That is what you are doing in your jejune attempts to deny that Democrats frequently use the term "czar."

Think back, Cicero. It hasn't been that long. I didn't hunt anything. You did. It was your link I looked at.

Nor have I denied anything. Just pointed out the irrelevancy, which apparently still challenges you.

Please try to read the thread.

Quote:

<snip>

Senator Biden introduced the term "drug czar" to the Senate in 1982. You can make of that what you will, but that sure seems to be an "official" use of the term by an "official" speaking in an "official" capacity.

I can't figure out if you are struggling with the language, or merely being sophomoric.

Wait. Never mind. Yes I can.

[Cuddles]

Note that this is the Politics forum, not 9/11 Conspiracies. Please try to keep at least vaguely on topic.

Posted By:Cuddles

[gnome]

There is a lot of difference between noting that an official occasionally uses a term, and concluding that it has extra official significance once it becomes a media meme.

Some people are hanging onto a word with all their might, when they should be discussing the issues the words are attempting to communicate. That communication is occasionally imperfect is not some kind of sledgehammer that proves something.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This crap is really getting tiresome. Now Faux News, and I assume the Republic Party strategists, are off trying to make some big Czar CT out of this non-news story.

OM FSM, these Czars are accountable to no one!

"Czars" paranoia rampant on Cavuto; he suggests calling them "evil despots accountable to no one" (video)

THE CZARS – And More

Quote:

I thought that was what people were elected to congress for. CBS News (not one of my favorite places to get fair and balance news) says that these czars "report directly to Mr. Obama and have the power to shape national policy on their subject area." This means they bypass the congress and the American people. The very future of this country is being shaped by people who were not elected or confirmed by congress. This should be scary to the reader!

Czars To Become More Accountable?

Quote:

It’s old news, but bears repeating as it has become apparent that the Obama administration does not have a clue when appointing people to positions of responsibility. The so-called 44 ”czars” that the president have appointed thus far do not have to account to anyone – not Congress nor any of us – but only the POTUS.

Bush appointed party shills and cronies to every position he could possibly get away with. There are many federal agencies and departments under the authority of the Presidential branch. Should the President and the Judicial branches oversee everyone Congress hires or appoints to a department head position?

This is utter bull crap. Are the Republic CTers now trying to claim the President shouldn't have any administrative staff other than his Cabinet? I'm assuming there are multiple staff members and at least a few departments under the authority of the President.

[Shadowdweller]

Anyone else going to point out that Cicero is basing this off a giant ad hominem argument?

ETA: Or if not, strictly speaking, an ad hominem then an attack on an individual's expertise/suitability in field X based on opinions in field Y.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Bush appointed party shills and cronies to every position he could possibly get away with.

And you complained long and hard about it.

So what is your point? Is it that you don't like it when people whine about your side of politics?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

And you complained long and hard about it.

So what is your point? Is it that you don't like it when people whine about your side of politics?

Is Obama appointing cronies to positions they are not qualified to be in? Is Obama replacing the career attorneys in the Justice Department with graduates from Reverend Wright's unaccredited school of law?

If Bush had simply been appointing well qualified people to positions in the executive administration, I wouldn't have had nearly as much to complain about, now would I?

Remember these names?
Heck of a job Brownie
Monica Goodling
Harriet Myers
Remember the scandals that accompany those names? Those scandals were not about their signing a petition to investigate 911. They were about incompetence and abuse of power.


You are trying to equate Obama developing his administrative staff with abusing one's power to appoint unqualified cronies and unethical use of one's powers subverting the Justice Department to carry out political prosecutions.

There is no comparison here.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Is Obama appointing cronies to positions they are not qualified to be in?

You think Jones was qualified for the position he took?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

You think Jones was qualified for the position he took?

From what I read, absolutely. And the attack on his character was a witch hunt.

Heck of a job Brownie did a heck of a job after Katrina. His horse show job helped. Goodling came from an unaccredited religious law school. She proved her incompetence in Congressional hearings where she revealed there were 150 more just like her appointed to replace career lawyers at the Department of Justice. Meyers was an extremely unqualified appointment for the Supreme Court.


What do you have against Jones? He signed a petition 5 years ago supporting a more thorough investigation into 911. And according to Wiki, 20 years ago he was 'associated' with a Marxist group. That's the same crap as claiming Obama pals around with terrorists.



No comparison!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Van Jones qualifications (from Wiki):

Quote:

Anthony "Van" Jones (born September 20, 1968) is an environmental advocate, civil rights activist and attorney who served from March 16[1] to September 5,[2] 2009 as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the United States.

Jones founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in 1996, a California non-governmental organization (NGO) working for alternatives to violence. In 2005, Jones co-founded Color of Change, an advocacy group for African Americans.[3] Formerly based in Oakland, California, Jones founded Green For All in 2007, a national NGO dedicated to "building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty."[4] His first book, The Green Collar Economy, was released on October 7, 2008, and reached number 12 on the New York Times Best Seller list.[5] In 2008, Time magazine named Jones one of its "Environmental Heroes".[6] Fast Company called him one of the "12 Most Creative Minds of 2008".[7]

Jones's awards and honors include:[65]

* 1997-1999 - Rockefeller Foundation "Next Generation Leadership" Fellowship
* 1998 - Reebok International Human Rights Award
* 2000 - International Ashoka Fellowship
* 2008 - Best Dressed Environmental List (#1 of 30); Sustainable Style Foundation[66]
* 2008 - Time Magazine Environmental Hero[6]
* 2008 - Elle Magazine Green Award
* 2008 - One of the George Lucas Foundation's "Daring Dozen"
* 2008 - Hunt Prime Mover Award
* 2008 - Campaign for America's Future "Paul Wellstone Award"
* 2008 - Global Green USA "Community Environmental Leadership" Award
* 2008 - San Francisco Foundation Community Leadership Award
* 2008 - Puffin/Nation prize for "Creative Citizenship"
* 2008 - World Economic Forum "Young Global Leader"
* 2009 - Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award[67]
* 2009 - Eco-Entrepreneur Award, Institute for Entrepreneurship, Leadership & Innovation; Howard University
* 2009 - Individual Thought Leadership, Energy & Environment Awards; Aspen Institute[68]

What position was he appointed to?

Quote:

to the newly-created position on the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he worked with various "agencies and departments to advance the administration's climate and energy initiatives, with a special focus on improving vulnerable communities."[8

So here's a Yale law graduate with a long resume working on environmental issues appointed to a related job.

What was the witch hunt about? Political views completely unrelated to said resume and the appointed position.

[gtc]

Have you investigated his links to the Institute of Noetics?

I have raised them before but you haven't addressed this.

You are also deliberately minimising his extreme political views and statements and also deliberately minimising the wording of the petition he signed. However, that is beside the point of this thread which is about whether these political positions should be subject to Senate approval. I have said I don't think they require Senate approval but it is clear from Jones appointment that the process by which they are appointed is seriously flawed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

Have you investigated his links to the Institute of Noetics?

I have raised them before but you haven't addressed this.

You are also deliberately minimising his extreme political views and statements and also deliberately minimising the wording of the petition he signed. However, that is beside the point of this thread which is about whether these political positions should be subject to Senate approval. I have said I don't think they require Senate approval but it is clear from Jones appointment that the process by which they are appointed is seriously flawed.

I'm not minimizing, I'm just not exaggerating like the witch hunters have.

He signed the petition. That's it on the 911 subject. Has he been some vocal truther? No. Has he written his own papers coming out as a truther? No.

He's on the left of the political isle. Wow! What a surprise. A Wiki entry that Jones was associated with a Marxist group 20 years ago. That's your evidence he is an extremist?

He's a passionate humanist and a passionate environmentalist. That makes him a perfect enemy of right wing corporate interests.

Here's a link to a search of the Noetics site for Van Jones. The random links I checked all involve passionate interest in human rights and the environment.

Noetic science, while unsupportable mostly, isn't as far fetched as a lot of pseudoscience groups. Ones mental health, for example, clearly affects one's physical health. I wouldn't leap to the conclusion everyone interested in this particular pseudoscience was any more crazy than I would jump to the conclusion everyone who believes in the magic sky man is crazy.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

He signed the petition. That's it on the 911 subject. Has he been some vocal truther? No. Has he written his own papers coming out as a truther? No.

Uh no. He also organised the rally.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

He's on the left of the political isle. Wow! What a surprise. A Wiki entry that Jones was associated with a Marxist group 20 years ago. That's your evidence he is an extremist?

Uh no. That is not my evidence he is an extremist. Also your statement that it was 20 years ago seems to be deliberately dishonest as the Rodney King riots were in 1992.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

He's a passionate humanist and a passionate environmentalist. That makes him a perfect enemy of right wing corporate interests.

Here's a link to a search of the Noetics site for Van Jones. The random links I checked all involve passionate interest in human rights and the environment.

Noetic science, while unsupportable mostly, isn't as far fetched as a lot of pseudoscience groups. Ones mental health, for example, clearly affects one's physical health. I wouldn't leap to the conclusion everyone interested in this particular pseudoscience was any more crazy than I would jump to the conclusion everyone who believes in the magic sky man is crazy.

Funny how you become a defender of pseudoscience when it supports your political biases.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

Uh no. He also organised the rally.

Is he an active Truther? No. It was a witch hunt.

Originally Posted by gtc

Uh no. That is not my evidence he is an extremist. Also your statement that it was 20 years ago seems to be deliberately dishonest as the Rodney King riots were in 1992.

How dishonest. It was only 17 years ago. Like the difference between 17 and 20 years ago changes anything.

Originally Posted by gtc

Funny how you become a defender of pseudoscience when it supports your political biases.

Funny how many people who believe in the magic sky man see other people's woo beliefs as a sign of defective thinking while they don't recognize the same is true in themselves. Should we ask every Christian to resign from the government?

I clearly did not defend any pseudoscience. I defended a well qualified lawyer who has been the target of a witch hunt.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Is he an active Truther? No. It was a witch hunt.

Are there rollerskates on those goalposts?

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

How dishonest. It was only 17 years ago. Like the difference between 17 and 20 years ago changes anything.

It changes a lot. And if you actually read those articles you would see that his extremism didn't end 17 years ago.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Funny how many people who believe in the magic sky man see other people's woo beliefs as a sign of defective thinking while they don't recognize the same is true in themselves. Should we ask every Christian to resign from the government?

Irrelevant to the topic. All you have shown is that a Christian who allows their magical thinking to influence their work may be as unqualified for the position as Van Jones.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I clearly did not defend any pseudoscience. I defended a well qualified lawyer who has been the target of a witch hunt.

You don't defend any pseudoscience, just Van Jones' pseudoscience.

You believe that all criticism of Jones is a witch hunt because you share his political ideology.

This is getting off topic for the thread. The point I am trying to make is that the process for appointing Jones obviously failed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

....

This is getting off topic for the thread. The point I am trying to make is that the process for appointing Jones obviously failed.

No goal posts have moved here, gtc. The claim Obama is appointing Czars accountable to no one is a fabricated threat made into a typical Republic talking point echoed by the Republic Party leadership and amplified on Faux News. In order to make these administrative positions appear threatening, the Republics went after a well qualified lawyer trumping up bogeymen claims of Marxism and 911 Truther beliefs, both of which are baloney. You only add to it claiming Jones' articles on the Noetic web site are full of woo. But it is only an association you are claiming is evidence. Post the man's own writings that make him dangerous or unqualified for the position Obama appointed him to. All the stuff of Jone's I read has been about humanism and environmental causes. Nothing woo to see there. You are just drinking the Koolaid with the rest of the right wingers who are reacting to the bait.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

No goal posts have moved here, gtc. The claim Obama is appointing Czars accountable to no one is a fabricated threat made into a typical Republic talking point echoed by the Republic Party leadership and amplified on Faux News. In order to make these administrative positions appear threatening, the Republics went after a well qualified lawyer trumping up bogeymen claims of Marxism and 911 Truther beliefs, both of which are baloney. You only add to it claiming Jones' articles on the Noetic web site are full of woo. But it is only an association you are claiming is evidence. Post the man's own writings that make him dangerous or unqualified for the position Obama appointed him to. All the stuff of Jone's I read has been about humanism and environmental causes. Nothing woo to see there. You are just drinking the Koolaid with the rest of the right wingers who are reacting to the bait.

You are moving the goal posts again.

You started off saying he only signed a petition. Then I pointed out he also organised the rally. So you changed your claim to say that he is no longer an active truther (which is correct, there is no evidence that he is active in the truth movement). Now you are saying that his links to the truth movement are irrelevant.

You also started off by saying that his links to marxism were 20 years old. I showed you that they started less than 20 years ago. So you claimed that they ended 17 years ago. I showed that was wrong and now you are saying that his links to thee political extremist group he started are irrelevant.

This isn't about Republican talking points, this isn't about your petty feud with people who don't refer to the Democrats as the Democratics. This is about the fact that no one in the Obama administration noticed or cared about his well documented political activities, his speeches were he rants about the Republicans, his t-shirt which says 'Kanye was right' about Bush hating Blacks and so on. This is about no one noticing or caring that Jones was a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences and that the evidence he has that his vision for green jobs would actually work seems to be based on this pseudoscience:

Quote:

Van shares intimately about his formative years and his journey into becoming a social activist, as well as the story of Ella Baker, the "secret godmother" of the civil rights movement and mentor to Dr. King. Van advocates a "third way" between Islamic and corporate fundamentalisms and towards a vibrant, global pro-democracy movement that supports "green-collar jobs." Ultimately, he believes that the 21st century will be judged on its ability to rise to the challenges of radical social inequality and radical environmental destruction. Doing so will require great heart, a blend of inner growth and outer action, and an ability to heal the wounds of the past with loving presence. We cannot simply "om our way out" but spiritual practice and prayer prove to be essential ingredients in real social change. Finally, Van believes that today’s leaders need to become great listeners to help in the healing rather than simply great speakers, as the 20th century often favored.

Also see here.

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by gtc

This isn't about Republican talking points, this isn't about your petty feud with people who don't refer to the Democrats as the Democratics. This is about the fact that no one in the Obama administration noticed or cared about his well documented political activities, his speeches were he rants about the Republicans, his t-shirt which says 'Kanye was right' about Bush hating Blacks and so on. This is about no one noticing or caring that Jones was a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences and that the evidence he has that his vision for green jobs would actually work seems to be based on this

How exactly is all this supposed to be pseudoscience?

[gtc]

Have you visited the Institute of Noetic Sciences website?

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by gtc

Have you visited the Institute of Noetic Sciences website?

Yes. That interview from said site that you quote as somehow being evidence of pseudoscience is specifically the sort of thing I'm asking about.

[gtc]

You really can't see the pseodoscience in the two links I provided or on the IONS site in general?

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by gtc

You really can't see the pseodoscience in the two links I provided or on the IONS site in general?

On the site? Yes. Regarding Van Jones? No. Is there, in fact, any? Or is this another pathetic guild-by-association attempt?

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller

On the site? Yes. Regarding Van Jones? No. Is there, in fact, any? Or is this another pathetic guild-by-association attempt?

I quoted an obvious example up the page.

What is really pathetic is that, where this a Bush appointment, you and skeptigirl would be all over this.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

I quoted an obvious example up the page.

What is really pathetic is that, where this a Bush appointment, you and skeptigirl would be all over this.

While you'd like that to be true, because it ignores the specific concerns I had about Bush and tries instead to claim it's all about party loyalty, it isn't true. You are wrong.


You've ignored the discussion of why it isn't true.

[gtc]

No. I understand perfectly. You have decided to give Obama a free pass on who he appoints because he is not Bush.

[Beerina]

"Czar" is supposed to mean "the buck stops here, he'll get the job done, and he has the personal phone number of the president".

It seems that may be becoming watered down a bit.

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by gtc

No. I understand perfectly. You have decided to give Obama a free pass on who he appoints because he is not Bush.

You understand shamefully little if you imagine that passage you quoted (in #141, if that's the one) has anything to do with pseudoscience. But since I'm such a generous and exhaustively patient person - let's go through that post line by line to see what we find, eh?

Since you seem to have extreme difficulty with the term, we'll start with this:

Originally Posted by www.webster.com

* Main Entry: pseu·do·sci·ence
* Pronunciation: \ˌsü-dō-ˈsī-ən(t)s\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1844

: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific

Alternately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

This is what you cite as evidence that Van Jones relies on horrible pseudoscience:

Quote:

This isn't about Republican talking points, this isn't about your petty feud with people who don't refer to the Democrats as the Democratics. This is about the fact that no one in the Obama administration noticed or cared about his well documented political activities, his speeches were he rants about the Republicans, his t-shirt which says 'Kanye was right' about Bush hating Blacks and so on.

Hmm...rants about Republicans? Thinks Bush hated blacks? If pseudoscience requires some methodology that either masquerades or is treated incorrectly as science...where is this methodology? It sounds an awful lot like you're just objecting to his political views here.

Quote:

This is about no one noticing or caring that Jones was a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences...

Yeah, the horror. IONS does in fact propose some pseudoscientific beliefs. So do most churches (as Skeptigirl pointed out). Shall we throw out everyone who goes to church? Do you imagine that every person who belongs to a particular organization has identical opinions and beliefs? This is, in fact, the guilt-by-association fallacy.

Quote:

...and that the evidence he has that his vision for green jobs would actually work seems to be based on this pseudoscience:

Your claim, however, that "the evidence he has that his vision for green jobs would actually work seems to be based on this pseudoscience" is just plain wrong, as far as I can tell. But hey - I'm prone to skimming, myself, on occasion. So I'm waiting to be proven wrong.

Now regarding the summary you quote: First off - It's not actually his words. It's merely a description the IONS site uses to summarize the interview. An interview in which *gasp* Van Jones discusses the events and influences in his life which lead him to his present circumstances.

Quote:

Van shares intimately about his formative years and his journey into becoming a social activist, as well as the story of Ella Baker, the "secret godmother" of the civil rights movement and mentor to Dr. King. Van advocates a "third way" between Islamic and corporate fundamentalisms and towards a vibrant, global pro-democracy movement that supports "green-collar jobs."

Islamic and Corporate fundamentalisms? One's a religion, the other's an economic theory (or a pejorative term for such). Sets of beliefs so broad and varied that neither can be properly called pseudoscientific. Even if Van Jones actually subscribed to either.

Quote:

Ultimately, he believes that the 21st century will be judged on its ability to rise to the challenges of radical social inequality and radical environmental destruction. Doing so will require great heart, a blend of inner growth and outer action, and an ability to heal the wounds of the past with loving presence.

Predictions and traits he believes necessary in leadership. Still not pseudoscience, unless you think generic positive traits people like to see such as "integrity" or "accountability" are ALSO pseudoscience.

Quote:

We cannot simply "om our way out" but spiritual practice and prayer prove to be essential ingredients in real social change. Finally, Van believes that today’s leaders need to become great listeners to help in the healing rather than simply great speakers, as the 20th century often favored.

Again, religion / spiritualism. Shocking though it may seem, a very high percentage of the overwhelmingly religious (as in not atheistic) leadership in this country have also valued and engaged in prayer on occasion. If one actually bothers to look at the interview itself, it becomes readily apparent that Van Jones is talking about how to motivate people to do what he feels is necessary. Still no pseudoscience.

So where is it, kid? I've asked -four- times now, and the best you can come up with is "It's obvious". Put up or shut up.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

No. I understand perfectly. You have decided to give Obama a free pass on who he appoints because he is not Bush.

[Failing once again to convince Skeptigirl, gtc builds a straw man to hide behind.]

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looking up the definition of 'czar', it would appear that "having special or great power" is a common theme in the definition. I think looking at any of these Obama appointments' job descriptions could settle the matter of whether they are simply department heads a President needs to carry out his/her duties, or, whether indeed, these people hold some kind of unaccountable power in the US government.

I'll leave it to the objectors to find us any job description concerning them so that we can look at the actual issues rather than looking at the threatening 'label' being used to frame these guys in an ominous facade.

[Allen773]

These "czars" are advisers, not managers. People would do well to know the difference.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller

You understand shamefully little if you imagine that passage you quoted (in #141, if that's the one) has anything to do with pseudoscience. But since I'm such a generous and exhaustively patient person - let's go through that post line by line to see what we find, eh?

The person who should be ashamed are the ones who call themselves skeptics and then spin like tops to try to justify Van Jones' links to truthers, political extremists and pseudoscientists.

The man is a fellow of IONS. What you try to excuse as 'spiritualism' is central to their pseudoscientific practices.

Here is Van Jones in his own words:

Quote:

The crises that I'm seeing in this country are three: there's a social and economic crisis, with these young people not having jobs and opportunity; there's this big ecological crisis, with the global warming and all the threats to our planetary survival; and there's a spiritual crisis, and a loss of hope. What if we said, 'we don't have any throw away species, or throw away energy sources, and we don't have any throw away children either, and we've forgotten that it's all precious and it's all sacred.
We can come together and we can fix these problems. In an age of ecological peril, there can be no ideology that says 'let people sink or swim.' We need a world view that says 'we're all in this together, we're not going to leave anybody behind.' And I'm telling you, it's not too late. I don't care what the facts look like, what the circumstances look like, it's not too late.

Quote:

SIA: When you think about the kinds of essential shifts and consciousness in action required, it sounds like you are saying that this wholesale flowering of kind of democratic process that is on the ground is an important part of that?—bringing about that shift, bringing about the next stage or the next level.
VJ: Yeah, I agree with that 100%. You know, there is the inner and there is the outer—there are the internal shifts and there are the external shifts—and I think we get into trouble when we miss that balance. And so on the one hand I think that is really critical that individual people, especially people who are leaders and servant-leaders, continue to deepen our practice, continue to take time to reflect, to try to transform the hurt and the pain in our past, and to have strengthen and promise and optimism going forward. However, I don't think that we can just pray our way of this thing. I think prayer is a part of it, I think meditation is a part of it, but I don't think that we will be able to om our way out of the kinds of crises that are coming now—Katrina, these kinds of issues.
SIA: What did you say? [laughs] "Om our way out of this"?
VJ: [laughs] Yes, om the walls down, or something. Well, maybe—I don't think that we should leave the om-ing out—but I think we have to put some feet out of our prayers. We really need to be engaged as people of faith and consciousness, and I also think that it is not just all about political calculation and logical reasoning and rationality—these are also traps.

And more

Quote:

And I want to honor and acknowledge IONS and Lynne and the whole family for holding and creating a container for this kind of conversation, before The Secret made it popular, right? Before it was cool, before the presidential candidates were sneaking peeks on their planes of The Secret to try to get their thoughts right. This has been a community that’s held that conversation, and many of you have been the people who – when it wasn’t cool – were willing to be the pioneers, to be the people out on the frontier, and I know it has not been easy for you. Some of you, when you go home to see your family for Thanksgiving – it’s awkward, just a little, like anybody. And some of you have actually – in your minds, in your hearts, in your writings, in your workshops, in the things you’ve committed yourselves to – you actually have a piece of the answer that the whole world has been waiting for, and yet at this moment in time, it may never have been acknowledged properly. It may not have been embraced. You may not have been invited up onto a stage at IONS yet, and yet what you are doing – the impact of what you are doing – the piece that you understand is so critical, and I just want to share with you my journey and hope that there’s somebody out there that maybe needs some hope and some help in holding on, in keeping on believing that someday you will be able to make this contribution. Some of you are already quite accomplished – I’m not going to talk to y’all… I’m sorry – y’all. I’m talking to the folks who, a couple years ago, would have been like me, sitting out there, and knowing that yes, this is resonating, because there’s something even deeper resonating in you. And I want to say that my journey to where I am, didn’t start with the great accolades that I now get to hear associated with me.

Quote:

And I began to learn about the whole green thing, and I had a revelation and I said, “You know what? The crises that I see in this country are three. There’s a social and economic crisis, with these young people not having jobs and opportunity. There’s this big ecological crisis, with the global warming and all the threats to our planetary survival. And there’s a spiritual crisis and a loss of hope.” So what if we did this: what if we solved all three? What if we created a green economy that was strong enough to lift people out of poverty and restore hope? What if we said: “We don’t have any throwaway species or throwaway energy sources, and we don’t have any throwaway children, either.” And it’s not an accident that the country that’s the biggest polluter in the world has the most prisons. It’s not an accident that the country with the most pollution has the most prisons – this throwaway mindset, and we’ve forgotten that it’s all precious and it’s all sacred.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Looking up the definition of 'czar', it would appear that "having special or great power" is a common theme in the definition. I think looking at any of these Obama appointments' job descriptions could settle the matter of whether they are simply department heads a President needs to carry out his/her duties, or, whether indeed, these people hold some kind of unaccountable power in the US government.

I'll leave it to the objectors to find us any job description concerning them so that we can look at the actual issues rather than looking at the threatening 'label' being used to frame these guys in an ominous facade.

There is no Republican conspiracy to 'frame' people in an 'ominous' manner. The term czar is only a label that seems to have been used for decades by both the media and politicians themselves. Bush had czars and that was no more ominous than Obama having czars. That is a distraction from the real issues which are whether the people appointed to this position are qualified and whether there is effective oversight.

In this case the oversight was apparently non-existent before he was appointed but the retrospective oversight was effective because Jones' position became untenable when his views, statements and actions became public knowledge.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Allen773

These "czars" are advisers, not managers. People would do well to know the difference.

A link to a job description please?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

The person who should be ashamed are the ones who call themselves skeptics and then spin like tops to try to justify Van Jones' links to truthers, political extremists and pseudoscientists.

The man is a fellow of IONS. What you try to excuse as 'spiritualism' is central to their pseudoscientific practices.

Here is Van Jones in his own words:

Goodness, gtc. You find woo in a message of, "we need to all pull together and take care of the planet and each other"????

Wow, just wow. What kind of dog eat dog world is on your Xmas list?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

There is no Republican conspiracy to 'frame' people in an 'ominous' manner.

To hell there isn't.

Originally Posted by gtc

The term czar is only a label that seems to have been used for decades by both the media and politicians themselves. Bush had czars and that was no more ominous than Obama having czars.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by gtc

That is a distraction from the real issues which are whether the people appointed to this position are qualified and whether there is effective oversight.

Oh, like you were complaining when heck of a job Brownie was appointed.

Originally Posted by gtc

In this case the oversight was apparently non-existent before he was appointed but the retrospective oversight was effective because Jones' position became untenable when his views, statements and actions became public knowledge.

Nonsense, pure nonsense. You are freaking out over a guy who clearly cares dearly about humanity and your rationale is his spiritual ramblings don't meet Christian guidelines.

How is Jone's woo any different from any moderate Christian? I asked you that before. You dismissed the analogy. But the more stuff of Jones' I see, the more it simply sounds like he's found the humanism religion. Personally, I don't go to that church, but it's hardly something that makes Jones a looneytoon.


I'll accept your standard this is something to worry about when I hear you say we should get rid of every theist in the government as well.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by gtc

There is no Republican conspiracy to 'frame' people in an 'ominous' manner.

I would agree in two points. One, it's really more of a conservative media conspiracy to, etc., etc. Two, "conspiracy" suggests that there is a centralized plan with specific goals in mind. I suspect this is more of herd mentality sort of thing. (e.g. "I just heard Glenn Beck say that the Whatever Czar parts his hair on the left. I'm going to repeat that on my blog/radio show/news program, too.")