Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Politics

Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration 805

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the flame-magnet dept.
UniversalVM writes "The NY Times is reporting that the former Surgeon General in damaging testimony given to the senate describes how he was repeatedly censored by the Bush administration while speaking out about topics such as global warming, Stem cell research and so on. The effort was to 'water down' or weaken reports on important issues to suit Republican Agenda. He describes how he attended one meeting where Global Warming was being described as a 'Liberal Agenda' and being dismissed. He tried to intervene thinking that the people there did not understand the science so he set about explaining it to them, the result? He was never invited back."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cervantes (612861) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:02PM (#19829415) Journal
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    Bush at work again, I see....
    • by soloport (312487) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:06PM (#19829477) Homepage
      Try explaining anything scientific to your friends -- you soon won't have any.
      • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .yppupcinataS.> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:18PM (#19829669) Journal
        How does that follow? If you frequently go off on some weird ass jargon-filled tangent about some obscure scientific esoterica that no normal person would ever care about, then sure, that's going to put a crimp in your social life, because it demonstrates a lack of social skills.

        But if you give a layman a reasonable overview of some issue that's actually relevant to the discussion, while restraining your tendency to sneer at stupid questions, and patronize people just because they don't already know what you're talking about, then you might find that some people are actually capable of being interested.

        Feynman did a lecture series on quantum electrodynamics [princeton.edu] that was specifically geared toward people who didn't know what the hell quantum electrodynamics was. If you want to see an example of someone explaining a hard to understand topic to a bunch of people who have no background in a manner that is both accurate and entertaining, I highly recommend picking it up.
        • Indeed. (Score:5, Funny)

          by hey! (33014) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @06:00PM (#19831251) Homepage Journal
          I often hold forth in a pithy and informative way on a variety of scientific topics, and usually find my audience struck dumb with admiration.

          I was concerned at first by the fact that they never seem to have any questions. But I learned to ask, "I'm not boring you, am I?" They never are. Clearly I have enlightened them in such a lucid manner that questions are superfluous.
        • by Hijacked Public (999535) * on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @07:25PM (#19832265)
          But Feynman was gifted when it came to that sort of thing, the ice water / o-ring demonstration to Congress being another beautiful example.

          I think the problem our former Surgeon General ran into was both that he didn't have Feynman's skills and that his audience not only didn't care about the science in question but they were actively seeking ways to discredit it.
    • by VidEdit (703021) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:12PM (#19829565)
      Sorry, the parent is not a valid, Bush Administration Surgeon General position. You only mentioned Bush only once and you full well know the standard for any proper scientific position is that President Bush must be mentioned in glowing terms 3 times per page. Please edit and resubmit your paper accordingly.

      (If only that wasn't **actually true**!!!)
      • Big Brother (Score:5, Funny)

        by ev1lcanuck (718766) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @05:12PM (#19830555)
        medreport 3.12.06 reporting gw globalwarming doubleplusungood refs unthings rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DoraLives (622001) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:14PM (#19829589)
      > Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches.

      Absolutely breathtaking!

      These are the methods of a tin pot dictator, not the leader of a great and worthy nation.

      That Bush & Crew would put their own puffed up egos ahead of the health and well-being of their own countrymen says it all. Sigh.
      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TrippTDF (513419) <hiland@NOsPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @05:15PM (#19830611)
        This sounds like something a Marketing Executive would say- "Make sure you mention the brand as many times as possible."

        And that, friends, is how W got elected, and how every other president we ever have will get elected... through superior marketing.
      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by purpledinoz (573045) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @05:15PM (#19830615)
        This is what really irks me about Americans. Why aren't you Americans revolting over things like this? In Canada, the Liberal party lost an election because a few bad Liberals stole a mere $1 million. Dick Cheney lets Haliburton steal BILLIONS from the American tax payers, and Bush got re-elected. Suppressing the words of the Surgeon General for political purposes is detrimental for every single American. This is quite scandalous. I suppose it doesn't help that the mainstream news (CNN, Fox, etc) is reluctant to exposing things like this.
        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by iluvcapra (782887) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @05:26PM (#19830765)

          Because some of us, deep down, believe that with hard work, determination, and a little luck, we just might be the lucky guy stealing BILLIONS of dollars someday. I think many Americans, your correspondent not included, see such a transaction as nothing more than a prerogative of one in power. To the victor go the spoils; of course, George and Dick are certainly testing the extremes of the principle.

        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Onan (25162) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @06:02PM (#19831293)
          The problem is not with Americans--you'll note that somewhere in the neighborhood of 78% of them are displeased with George II. The problem, I'm afraid, is a number of traits of the American electoral system.

          1) Plurality voting (and stacked plurality voting, even worse) essentially guarantees having only two parties, and that those two parties will actually be very structurally similar to one another. Of necessity, the two parties differ only minorly on a few of their positions, and any third party cannot be adequately served by the electoral system. Third-party candidates in fact act only as spoilers for the major-party candidate who is closer to their positions, and thus there is a strong disincentive for them to even try.

          2) Gerrymandering has successfully been used to turn the overwhelming majority of legislative positions into "safe seats". ie, that that party which will win that seat is absolutely certain. This means that the only real election of significance is the primary that will choose the particular member of that party who gets the seat. Given that primaries are voted in only by members of that party, this means that the most extreme and partisan candidates are the ones who have the greatest chance of success.

          3) Legislation that passes with 50%+1 of congressional support is exactly as much a law as legislation that passes with 100% support. This, unfortunately, incentivises those two parties being an intentionally divisive as possible. Reaching across the aisle and finding compromises does not strengthen your bill, it only weakens your ability to campaign as an extremist next time around. Legislation is therefore frequently given radioactive riders that make it intentionally diffcult for members of the opposing party to support it. For example, the bill that created the Department of Homeland Security was intentionally saddled with some aggressive union-busting provisions, to discourage Democrat legislators from voting for it; this allowed Republicans to brand Democrats as anti-security, and served their purposes far better than actual bipartisan cooperation would have.

          Unfortuately, changing these fairly fundamental structural things about the American electoral and legislative systems would require action by exactly the set of people who have figured out how to profit from the current broken systems. So we're deadlocked.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Fex303 (557896)
            I would certainly agree with all of your points. They're all major issues that face the US electoral system.

            As an Aussie who's recently come to the US to work, I would add one more that is seems few Americans bring up in political discussions: Optional voting. In many of the major western democracies, you MUST vote. If you don't you are fined, but more importantly it is ingrained in you as part of your civic duty to spend a few minutes on polling day numbering piece of paper.

            This is extremely importa

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by antic (29198)
          Americans talk of their right to bear arms - wouldn't right about now be the time to use them?

          IMO, the next "threat" will be domestic "terrorists" fighting back against what's happening (a la V for Vendetta).
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:04PM (#19829449) Journal

    Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration
    Why is he speaking out? Because the Surgeon General's job is to warn me of things that are dangerous to my health.

    I can't wait until Bush has to get a tattoo on his back that reads: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING! Election of this individual may result in death and will increase the risk of the rest of the world hating you."
    • by GizmoToy (450886) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:08PM (#19829509) Homepage
      If this is true, and it seems pretty likely it is, it's a pretty serious matter in my opinion.

      From the article:
      The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues.

      That's quite a list of important issues he wasn't allowed to speak about. Things like this shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's the guy's job to discuss these things.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sribe (304414)
        Yeah, I read the article, and the whole time I kept thinking, why did he go along? Why didn't he stand up and say what he thought needed to be said, regardless of what political hacks were pressuring him??? In other words, what does "...would not allow him to speak..." really mean? He could have spoken about those things at any time, had he chosen. The worst they could have done was fire him, and just try to imagine the publicity that would bring to whatever issue he addressed. So, what I read from this is
        • by LunaticTippy (872397) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @05:41PM (#19830995)
          I disagree. I've had plenty of jobs where I didn't agree with management's policies. Some of them I even did things that were distasteful to me, such as pressuring customers for profitable add-ons or giving the partially bogus company response to a valid complaint. Depending on how much I needed the job and how good the job was, I've done things that were unquestionably wrong. It was easier to live with since it wasn't my decision, since my supervisor was forcing my hand, since the alternative was unemployment.

          I don't do these things anymore, but there's no certainty that I won't have to again. If the tech sector collapses again and I find myself doing tech support again (Please, no! not a 3rd time!) I may well find myself in that unpleasant situation again. And who knows, if I luck into a situation where I'm making millions I might hesitate to let my scruples ruin an otherwise good thing.

          What I'm saying is this: Here is a man in the most high-profile position possible in his line of work. He can make a difference within the boundaries set for him. If he stands up for his beliefs, the administration will simply replace him with a less competent and more pliable subject. How does that help the public? And it sure hurts the individual. I don't think anyone can judge his actions unless they've been in a similar situation and done the "right thing," besides the fact that I don't think the ethical choice is clear.

          Sometimes you can do more good as a reluctant part of the problem than you can as a noble but sidelined martyr.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Gkeeper80 (71079)
        Hmm, sounds fishy to me.

        He was the Surgeon General, not those political appointees. He was the one giving the speeches. If he had wanted to speak about a topic that some appointee had rejected all he had to do was speak about it anyway. Sure, he might have been fired, but what could he have been afraid of? There are plenty of people who share Dr. Carmona's opinions on matters of stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, prison, and mental and global health issues. If he had spoken about them,
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drix (4602)
        Haha. You mean like it's the job of the head of the EPA [counterpunch.org] to advocate for the environment? Or the job of the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect endangered species [washingtonpost.com]? Or the job of the US Attorneys to prosecute cases in a fair and nonpartisan manner [harpers.org]? Or the job of the director of FEMA to respond to emergencies? (I'm not even going to bother linking to that one.)

        I agree with you 100%--in fact, 120--but c'mon! Where was the outrage six years ago? This wolf-in-sheep's-clothes act has been going on
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by beheaderaswp (549877) *
        "If this is true, and it seems pretty likely it is, it's a pretty serious matter in my opinion."

        For the love of Pete!

        How many times does this story have to repeat itself. The first was the supression of information out of NASA where scientific press releases/papers were altered by political appointees to better reflect the anti-evolution/anti-climate change stance of the present administration.

        IF this is true?

        Even a former CIA director tells a bleak tale of intelligence being skewed based on presupposition.
  • by Himring (646324) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:04PM (#19829451) Homepage Journal
    Recently, I went to this party, and when the band left, I grabbed the mic and started singing (I was imbibed). I've not been invited back....

  • by also-rr (980579) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:04PM (#19829459) Homepage
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    On a more serious note, even if you think that global warming is a pile of horse manure, why would anyone object to the measures that are being suggested? Unless they owned a coal mine of course...

    There's a lot of sense in heavy investment in nuclear, solar and wind power plus hybrid, diesel and electric vehicles even in a situation where the world isn't going wrong. Same with switching to CFLs and generally improving efficiency of resource usage etc... it's not like there are people who find clean air offensive... or at least I hope not.
  • Grrrrrr. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .yppupcinataS.> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:06PM (#19829471) Journal
    Science should never bow to political pressures. Bush is guilty of this, obviously...This is hardly the first evidence.

    But, especially in the area of health care, he's far from the only one who has gotten involved in a negative manner. Reagan tried to squash talk about AIDS, Clinton poo poo'd needle exchange programs, Bush Jr. jumped on everything just as part of the administrations obsession about managing information.

    This stuff really needs to be separate and non-partisan...I am so freaking tired of this or that issue being batted around because of peoples inborn prejudices. A reputable expert with actual facts puts together a well thought-out, scientific report, and they get defunded, their speeches are edited and pre-reviewed. People from within the administration work to discredit their testimony. It's just ridiculous, and there is no way good science or good policy is coming out of it.

    Hell, while they're at it, they should add a scientist general, and do the same damn thing. This stuff isn't about opinion. There is a right answer.
    • Re:Grrrrrr. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:23PM (#19829731) Homepage

      Science should never bow to political pressures.

      Unfortunately, when your funding is managed by a bunch of people who simply don't believe the science, and who have no interest in different points of view, you can't really succeed at this. No matter how noble a sentiment it is.

      It's just ridiculous, and there is no way good science or good policy is coming out of it.

      Well, 'good' policy is subjective -- if your goal is to have a policy which starts with the supposition that homosexuality is bad, or Intelligent Design is valid, or abstinence only sex education isn't an oxymoron ... then it's good to be able to control the agenda and information coming out of your agencies. Then you can act like you have 'truth and goodness' on your side.

      This stuff isn't about opinion. There is a right answer.

      Not when you can convince people of such silly things as "our lives would be easier if Pi was 3". And, in the case of global warming, while there seems to be a majority of people who agree, as long as someone dissents you can claim that it's not fact, but opinion and theory and muddy the waters. An uncritical/uneducated public (who has been fed what you wanted them) won't be able to tell the difference.

      Sadly, nowadays, politically inconvenient basically means you get shut down. Especially in the current administration which has the attitude that "what we say is right, no matter what the truth is". They're not interested in truth -- they're interested in their position, and pandering to their base. Reality be damned.

      Cheers
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iluvcapra (782887)

      Hell, while they're at it, they should add a scientist general, and do the same damn thing.

      Note well Virginia congressman Tom Davis at the hearing:

      "It's tough trying to define where you be a team player and where you speak out, and you try to balance that every day. But we have politicians who run the government, and not scientists."

      I think the main point of the hearings are, "What's the point in having these people if they're political appointees and can't generally say what they want to, anyways?" Wha

  • Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MeanderingMind (884641) * on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:06PM (#19829475) Homepage Journal
    I'm not sure 2008 can come quickly enough.

    I don't for a moment think that any of the potential presidential candidates and their future administrations will not be rife with corruption and political mumbo jumbo. However, the constant news of abuses of power and position to make hideously bad decisions has me regretting the past 7 years thoroughly.

    We need Mr. T for president, or at least Secretary of Defense.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mrchaotica (681592) *

      We need Mr. T for president, or at least Secretary of Defense.

      I PITY THE FOOL who wants to elect somebody based on their performances as fictional characters!

  • by 3seas (184403) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:07PM (#19829489) Journal
    ...Bush Administration And at what point does the meter raise to impeachment of the clan?
  • Global warming? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by i_like_spam (874080) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:07PM (#19829503) Journal
    I don't condone censorship of scientists in any way, shape or form. But why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming? He should leave that discussion to the climate experts (e.g. Jim Hansen). There are too many armchair climatologists out there, which contributes to the misunderstandings about global warming.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AuMatar (183847)
      You have a meeting of Bush, the Surgeon General, and variou sother cronies and cabinet ministers. Who do you think is best qualified to discuss the scientific merit of whats being discussed- Rumsfeld? Cheney? Or the man with a Phd, who has at least studied scientific fields like organic chemistry and medical research, and has an understanding of the scientific method and how to critique research? And knowing scientists, he probably at least had *some* understanding of it, even being outside his main fi
    • Re:Global warming? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by musicon (724240) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:39PM (#19830003) Homepage

      Perhaps he was discussing the migration of diseases (and their carriers) that occur in warmer climates such as malaria / mosquitoes? Or the changes in heath that could occur in Inuit populations as that region warms? Or more cases of heat-exhaustion?

      There are any number of legitimate health-related topics that could spawn a discussion of global warming.
    • Re:Global warming? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Glog (303500) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:42PM (#19830057)

      Why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming?
      What a patently silly question! Have we forgotten the hundreds if not thousands of people who died of the heat waves in the last few years in Europe. How about the coal plants spewing toxic gases - this not only contributes to the heating of the atmosphere but is a public health menace of significant proportions.

      Do we even need to point out how global weather is closely related to the public health of individuals?
  • (+5, Funny) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:10PM (#19829533) Homepage Journal

    Bill Hall, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said that the administration disagreed with Dr. Carmona's statements. "It has always been this administration's position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science," Mr. Hall said.
    BWAHAHAHAHA.... wait, he's serious?
  • If you want to help (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lord Ender (156273) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:10PM (#19829535) Homepage
    Join Scientists and Engineers for America. They are "a non-profit organization dedicated to renewing respect for evidence-based debate and decision-making in politics and at all levels of government."

    If groups like that had the same sort of clout that religious groups have, America could remain the economic and philosophical leader of the world.

    Of course, if we continue to elect politicians who make decisions based on theology instead of science, it may be time to start looking for jobs in western europe.
  • by VEGETA_GT (255721) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:14PM (#19829587)
    Look Clinton had a BJ and they tried to get him out of office. Bush has been screwing up a war form day one, went in when the evidence said no WMD's. Hell he even tried to pion sept 11 on Iraq, tho the evidence just was not there. Toss in things like the wire tapping issue where illegal wire tapping's occurred even tho getting a warrant to do it was basically a rubber stamp, and nothing happened. This is not the first time someone has said bushes gang tried to change the facts, and force bad info down on the public. In the end Bush is a oil guy, he don't care about the environment or anything, just making his own cash. Yet some how he is still in office, and Clinton who ya was not perfect almost got tossed out because of a BJ, give me a break.
    • by FatSean (18753)
      I used to be furious that our soldiers were dying for a lie in the desert...then I learned that the military voted Bush in 2004...88%...and they kept spouting the usual lies on TV. I quit caring about them.

      Then, amazingly, I just quit caring about Iraq. Nobody I care about is over there fighting that honor-less conflict.

      *shrug*

      Patriotism is for suckers. Citizenship is a business relationship, and that is IT! It's give and take. What can the country do for me, in return for my support.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:21PM (#19829709) Homepage Journal
    "Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert [google.com]
  • by Cervantes (612861) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:25PM (#19829747) Journal

    And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization's longtime ties to a "prominent family" that he refused to name.

    "I was specifically told by a senior person, 'Why would you want to help those people?' " Dr. Carmona said.
    Wow... just... wow. Let's torpedo the Special Olympics because they're associated with someone from the other party. That's pretty damn low.

    "Coming up on our 11 o'clock news... President Bush unexpectedly attacked by an unruly mob and severely beaten with crutches and canes. VP Cheney terrorized by motorized wheelchairs. Gov't suspects Al Quada."
    • Yes. Duh. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Valdrax (32670)
      Of course they do. Didn't you know conservatives opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act as unfair government meddling with business? Much like any other minority, conservatives would be happier if they were simply swept under the rug and were forced to deal with a world built for the majority.

      It's a combination of Social Darwinism from the libertarian side of the party and a desire to see crippled people more dependent on private organizations (i.e. churches) from the religious right side. (Another
  • by Sara Chan (138144) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:27PM (#19829777)
    After World WarII, several Nazi leaders were tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not everyone wanted to do that. Winston Churchill, for example, just wanted to execute those Nazis. But the USA insisted on fair trials, saying that it was important to establish the principle of the rule of law.

    Back then, the USA had leadership that demonstrated to the world how even the most heinous crimes (particularly the Holocaust)—in which many millions of people died—can and should be handled according to law and principle.

    Compare that with what George W. does today.
  • by Cervantes (612861) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:38PM (#19829977) Journal
    So, let's see here...
    From TFA:

    - The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. (because, yanno, those have nothing to do with the guy in charge of health for the country...)
    - Top officials delayed for years and tried to "water down" a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said (Ve must toe ze party line, mein Heir)
    - Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. (Umm... Godwins Law warning!)
    - He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings. (You work for us, not for those namby-pamby girly men)
    - And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics (because we in the Republican party hate those damn cripples. They're just sponging off social welfare anyways.)
    - The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said. (It's true, actually. If we could instantly kill every liberal, global warming would be solved. Mostly because of the >50% loss in population, but still, technically, true...)
    - Dr. Carmona described being invited to testify at the government's nine-month racketeering trial of the tobacco industry that ended in 2005. He said top administration officials discouraged him from testifying while simultaneously telling the lead government lawyer in the case that he was not competent to testify. (pfft! What would a DOCTOR know about TOBACCO?)
    - When stem cells became a focus of debate, Dr. Carmona said he proposed that his office offer guidance "so that we can have, if you will, informed consent." "I was told to stand down and not speak about it," he said. "It was removed from my speeches." (pfft! What would a DOCTOR know about STEM CELLS?)
    - The global health report was never approved, Dr. Carmona said, because he refused to sprinkle the report with glowing references to the efforts of the Bush administration. (truthfully, he did mention the Bush administration, but only in the context of "World health is suffering because Bush makes everyone sick to their stomachs...)
    - Because the administration does not want to spend more money on prisoners' health care, the report has been delayed, Dr. Carmona said. (this must be why Libby never went to jail)

    And the administrations response?
    "It's disappointing to us," Ms. Lawrimore said, "if he failed to use this position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation."

    The only good side of all of this is that we only have ~1.3 years left.
    I just fear it's ~1 year too much.
  • by athloi (1075845) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @04:41PM (#19830035) Homepage Journal

    Somehow, somewhere along the line, science allowed itself to be bought through sponsorship of research, and then politicized through endorsement of certain political agendas which were suggested to be incarnations of scientific truth. Now, science itself is sullied, and is forever going to be caught in this battle between special interest groups vying for control of an oblivious electorate.

    I think Lou Dobbs said it well:

    With the electorate asserting a strong impulse to be independent, and with populism exerting a significant influence in the 2006 midterm elections, there is a possibility that all of those incumbents in the House and Senate may have to consider the possibility of actually having to represent their constituents and the popular will, rather than corporate America, socio-ethnic special interest groups and the tens of thousands of lobbyists who represent every interest but that of the common good and the nation.

    Lou Dobbs - July 11, 2007 [cnn.com]

    He's talking about government in general, but the same could be applied to science and even large parts of the computer industry. If science wants to have respect again, it needs to get rid of the perception that loyalties and bribes have made it a partisan football.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @05:54PM (#19831189) Homepage
    Back in what we all tend to think of as the dark ages and other periods of ancient history, we had people suppressing science for religious reasons... but back then religion and politics were mostly the same thing anyway. Technically, today they are not the same thing though there are some clear connections being allowed anyway.

    It seems that so many important advances in the sciences have been in spite of government and religion instead of because of them. And yet while we HAVE these useful technologies, government and religion are all about using them and abusing them and often thanking "god" for them.

    Will we ever have more than tiny revolutions where real "thinking" becomes popular?
  • by dentar (6540) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @06:06PM (#19831349) Homepage Journal
    That's probably because Bush thought he was spozedta be the "Surgin' General" to take all them troops into Iraq. When he instead heard a bunch of science mumbo jumbo he HAD to do SOMETHING!!

  • by bl8n8r (649187) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @06:47PM (#19831865)
    Now just what in the hell is that? A rubber that comes with duct tape?
  • If the liberals have their way, this will become a Nanny State or a Prison Nation in that we are told what to eat, how to behave, and how to act.

    The Surgeon General has released statements that use fear to control people's eating habits, buying habits, behavior and actions. He uses fear to control people in the same way that a terrorist uses fear. He takes money from companies that want him to make statements that use fear to control people to buy their products. In this case the Surgeon General took money from the pro-global warming lobbyists so that he can release statements that force people to buy carbon credits and use products that the pro-global warming companies and organizations sell. In this way global warming is a scam. Global warming is a new religion spawned from liberals in order to control people with it and eventually control the world. Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is a sin, but can be forgiven by buying carbon credits.

    Soon, people won't be able to have the freedom to decide for themselves anymore, and will have organizations run by liberals telling them what to do. Everyone should have the freedom to choose how to live their lives and what they should do. Let us end this tyranny that the Surgeon General, PETA, etc have on the lives of many people that force them how to decide using scare tactics. Let us give back the freedom to decide for themselves to the people again once more!
    • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:07PM (#19834021)
      f the liberals have their way, this will become a Nanny State or a Prison Nation in that we are told what to eat, how to behave, and how to act.

      180 degree double take. A Prison Nation where we are highly controled through fear? How on earth can you blame liberals for the things the Bush administration is working like mad to implement right now? Have you not been paying attention to the play by play? Need proof? Try taking a walk through downtown New York wearing a head scarf and take a bunch of tourist photos sometime. Try lighting up in a public place and see what happens. Try preventing your kids from being immunized in some states. Try owning a gun in others. Try getting an abortion for your girlfriend. Try wearing a teeshirt which says "Impeach Bush" to the Whitehouse. Heck, try buying Organic food, (the Bush government just made it legal for non-organic food producers to use the Organic label.) Try taking a book out of the library about how to blow stuff up. Try making a phone call through AT&T and expecting privacy. And on and on.

      In this case the Surgeon General took money from the pro-global warming lobbyists [. . .]

      Give me a break. You can't back that up. The Surgeon General doesn't even have the power to do anything about fossil fuel emissions. Heck, the major sticking point had more to do with Stem Cell research than anything else.

      I don't think Wester Medicine is all too great, and I'm not even a liberal. (I don't play the tweedle dee and tweedle dum political division game.) --But I have noticed that people who cleave to the conservative side often exist in a state of perpetual delusion and anger.

      Take a deep breath and rethink your statements because they don't make sense.


      -FL

RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY >_

Working...