←back to thread

U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

(www.ishn.com)
386 points z991 | 5 comments | 23 Jun 25 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
vpribish ◴[24 Jun 25 00:56 UTC] No.44361823[source]▶
You have to check out their incredible safety investigation videos on youtube. I don't know how well-organized or efficient they are but clearly their role needs to be played by someone - and as a taxpayer I appreciate that they are doing it in a way that educates and informs.
replies(3): >>44362039 #>>44362128 #>>44362384 #
Hawxy ◴[24 Jun 25 01:33 UTC] No.44362039[source]▶
> I don't know how well-organized or efficient they are

They're 50 employees with an annual budget of $14.4 million. The cost/benefit ratio here is very good.

replies(3): >>44362092 #>>44362131 #>>44364272 #
hilbert42 ◴[24 Jun 25 09:21 UTC] No.44364272[source]▶
For that trivial amount this has to be anti-tech anti-science thinking at work.

What's this administration trying do, return the US to the Third World or the Dark Ages? Madness.

replies(2): >>44364405 #>>44365023 #
immibis ◴[24 Jun 25 09:46 UTC] No.44364405[source]▶
Well, yes, pretty much. It's an observed pattern among authoritarian states that actual facts are frequently in opposition to the authority, therefore, actual facts must be eliminated.

It's a silver lining in disguise, really. Such countries tend to collapse relatively quickly because it turns out facts are important for running a country - look at the USSR's fake food supply. Relatively quickly could still be a decade, though.

replies(2): >>44364414 #>>44365049 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[24 Jun 25 09:48 UTC] No.44364414[source]▶
China has been the exception that authoritarian states collapse quickly. It's what the western powers were banking on would happen after they had success with USSR. It didn't pan out the way they thought. Not even close.
replies(3): >>44364457 #>>44364647 #>>44365503 #
hilbert42 ◴[24 Jun 25 10:29 UTC] No.44364647[source]▶
"China has been the exception that authoritarian states collapse quickly."

Why? Because if you check the CVs of most of Politburo members they have degrees in science and engineering. QED!

replies(2): >>44364737 #>>44367628 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[24 Jun 25 10:47 UTC] No.44364737[source]▶
And what's stopping the American people from voting smart people with engineering degrees to power instead of lying loud mouth conmen?

Maybe because modern American mainstream culture has people worshiping the "clever" conman who got rich quick by gaming the system and scamming others, as opposed to hard working nerd who put in the long time and effort for an honest enrichment.

Democratic societies get the leaders they deserve as they are a mirror of the people themselves.

replies(3): >>44364968 #>>44365367 #>>44365596 #
1. techdmn ◴[24 Jun 25 12:20 UTC] No.44365367[source]▶
As a U.S. citizen, I tend to think of our system of government as only loosely democratic. There are many, many dials and knobs that prevent voters from having too much impact on policy. The Electoral college means losers of the popular vote have been president several times. The Senate is quite unrepresentative, Wyoming (pop. 587k) and California (pop. 39,431k) have the same number of votes. The House is gerrymandered quite heavily, the two-party system has an immense amount of control over which candidates (and policies) are viable, and our campaign finance system ensures both parties pander to donors.
replies(1): >>44365881 #
2. throw0101c ◴[24 Jun 25 13:13 UTC] No.44365881[source]▶
> As a U.S. citizen, I tend to think of our system of government as only loosely democratic.

One metric:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

replies(1): >>44366137 #
3. FirmwareBurner ◴[24 Jun 25 13:37 UTC] No.44366137[source]▶
Honest question: Why should I trust an index on democracy made by "The Economist Group", a London based private entity owned by the Agnelli Family, Rothschild, Cadbury and Schroder, groups with a history of union busting and other anti labor, anti democratic actions?
replies(2): >>44368372 #>>44368541 #
4. hilbert42 ◴[24 Jun 25 17:06 UTC] No.44368372{3}[source]▶
You don't have to and shouldn't—not without further evidence. Nevertheless, that group has taken the effort and it seems considerable work went into preparing it—that the analysis is done yearly showing trends over time, etc.

The fact that the figures are on the table so to speak they can now be tested by other researchers.

I'd not seen this analysis before and found it fascinating (I spent an inordinate amount of time studying the figures).

5. throw0101c ◴[24 Jun 25 17:23 UTC] No.44368541{3}[source]▶
> Why should I trust […]

Why should you trust anything? "Do your own research."

From §See also:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_indices

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy-Dictatorship_Index

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Ranking

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_index

* Maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index