Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration 805
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."
Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Bush at work again, I see....
Story of my life (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Story of my life (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Story of my life (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
what an arrogant person you are (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, so you're one of those. Link to an article where mainstream science, or Al Gore for that matter, said global warming would "jeapardize the existence of man." You're creating a classic strawman argument. By pretending that the scientists investigating global warming are all alarmist hand-wavers, you have identified what your "research" consisted of. You read a bunch of conservative talking points saying that "alarmist" scientists think that global warming will wipe out all life, and since it won't, we can't trust them. But that isn't the mainstream scientific position, and anyone who has "researched" this would know that.
Do you also feel qualified to "research" the germ theory and weigh in with your insights? How damned arrogant can you really be? Can I do a bit of reading in my study, ponder a bit, and just expect to wash away plate tectonics, the heliocentric model of the solar system, the germ theory, the atomic theory, or other mainstream scientific theories? No, and only an arrogant ass would think that their opinion, based on a bit of half-assed "research" on conservative blogs, was more informed that the entire damned scientific community. Could you possibly have a higher opinion of yourself?
Re:Story of my life (Score:5, Informative)
#1 Local weather stations aren't the only input.
#2 Very few are actually at airports - and airports (aerodromes) were tarmac based since after WW1.
#3 Being within 30 feet of an AC exhaust (especially small window based ones) means squat for the local temperature.
#4 Local encroachment does not yield a small but systematic increase in temperature - it yields spikes.
#5 Average temperature readings from a population of sensors cancel out local variations.
#6 A systematic temperature increase is a systematic temperature increase, regardless of source.
Yes, the individual sensors record the heat-island effect that is found in urban environments. Congratulations. You found out something that is 15 years old. Yes, urban environments are warmer than non-urban environments.
However, you are an idiot if you believe that you are the first to think of this. Not only that, but carefully check the trend of both graphs shown on the homepage: after 1950, they both trend upward. And that's the key part: regardless of where you are, where you look at, temperature trends are on the up tick. Steadily. Some parts see heavier up ticks than others. But the end result is the same: things are getting warmer.
Local construction does play a part, but it merely exacerbates a trend that shows up everywhere you look.
Re:Story of my life (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, all that construction around the ocean based measuring equipment has to skew the results. Also, all that urban sprawl in the 10's of thousands of ft range is really messing up the measurements of the weather balloons. Did you think that only one set of data is used in these models? Do you understand how modeling works?
Can someone explain to all the fish of the sea that we need them to stop building next to our ocean based equipment? And those damn avian cranes are starting to pop our balloons!
Here in Chicago, our 'official' temperature monitoring station WAS in the downtown area, and then was moved to the airport at a much later point, considerably outside of the urban heat island effect. This now results in the first frost of the year coming considerably earlier than it does in downtown. So, in this case, if its warmer NOW, then there are some serious problems with that theory you put forward that need to be explained.
There is also the slightly awkward fact that this 'argument' is actually PROVING what it claims to be dis-proving. That man-made effects are changing the environment and climate. Where exactly do you think that additional heat from the construction is going?
Scientific vs. unscientific (Score:3, Insightful)
This project has the potential to be meaningful, but it has a long way to go yet. They need a hypothesis, a rigorous way to test it, and repeatable results.
What the surfacestations project has right now is the beginnings of a hypothesis--that local changes have biased the long-term trends that weather stations have recorded. It's not really a strong one yet because they don't have good coverage yet...last time I checked there we
You forgot to mention Bush three times... (Score:5, Funny)
(If only that wasn't **actually true**!!!)
Big Brother (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You forgot to mention Bush three times... (Score:4, Funny)
To post on Slashdot as "operagost", evidently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares? I've tried explaining lots of different things without ever being an expert in the relevant fields. The point is, the people he was trying to explain something to DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for global warming, I think you raise a very valid point questioning the surgeon'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You forgot to mention Bush three times... (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm.
(And I don't even know what's meant by "unnatural" here--that's not the sort of word that would make sense in a scientific hypothesis. If you mean "occurs in nature"--since when are people not part of nature? Or is it just homosexuals that aren't part of nature? (That'd be circular reasoning if I've ever heard any.) And if by "natural" you mean "occurs in animals other than humans"--lots of other animals have homosexual sex.)
So, yes, the statement that "homosexual intercourse" is "unhealthy and unnatural" suggests someone that puts their personal prejudices ahead of any sort of clear-headed thinking about health.
anal sex is demonstratably natural (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We should... (Score:5, Informative)
Jim Hansen [wikipedia.org] does know a thing or two about climate, yet he also recieved similar treatment.
For the record: Gore originally attacked Hansen's assertions on climate change in the senate, Hansen and NOAA are both contributors to the IPCC reports.
"...we should question why anybody listens to Al Gore on the subject"
No we shouldn't, I listened to you and you have ZERO credibility. Science has no political or personal boundries, that is what TFA is all about.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problems I enumerated would be largely addressed by moving to a better voting methodology. Plurality voting does a terrible job of expressing the will of the electorate, and, just like layering lossy compression, stacking multiple plurality votes only gets worse. By the time we've made it through gerrymandering, primaries, general elections, and the electoral college, the outcome bears very little relationship to the general desires of voters.
Two substantially better systems are approval voting (in which you vote yes or no on every candidate, and whomever gets the most yesses wins) or a Borda count (in which you rank candidates in your order of preference, and the candidate with the highest total ranking wins). Both of these allow voters to express their desires much more concretely, including allowing a vote for a third-party candidate to be meaningful and not threaten the success of a still-acceptable and more viable candidate. So everyone really could vote meaningfully for Nader or Perot without taking votes away from Bush or Gore, for example.
I wish I could dig it up, but around 2001 I saw a study in which someone had attempted to reconstruct from polling data what the outcome of the 2000 presidential election would have been if either of these methods had been in place. And the answer was that we would fairly likely have elected John McCain.
Now, I'm not a huge McCain fan. I disagree with him about some significant issues. But I am confident that he would be a much better choice for the job than George W. Bush.
The reason this is interesting is that if you asked a Bush voter for their opinion on this outcome, a lot of them would say something like, "I'm not a huge McCain fan. I disagree with him about some significant issues. But I am confident that he would be a much better choice for the job than Al Gore."
A candidate who is everybody's second choice is a much better electee than a candidate who is 50% of voters' first choice and 50% of voters' over-my-dead-body choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, the next "threat" will be domestic "terrorists" fighting back against what's happening (a la V for Vendetta).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The simple explanation is that history isn't taught in the US. It's barely taught in the rest of the world as it is...
And few western countries have ingrained jingoism into the mentality of their society as the US has. Nowhere else will you see peo
Re:We were the bully when we pushed the British ou (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to think that if most illegal drugs were treated like alcohol (specifically relating to public intoxication, DUI, coming to work drunk earns a pink slip) then the black market economy would collapse (a good thing), and we could focus on treatment for those who want it (a good thing), and better enforce the few remaining drugs that are genuinely bad. While I personally would tan my kids' hides if I caught them doing X or speed (and related) I see that as my right (and responsibility) as a parent.
Back on topic though,
I am really saddened by my government's actions, and it's not really the president's fault (sure he's complicit), it is our system's fault. If either we had both parties agree that social support programs were necessary and the only difference of opinion was how to implement the programs, or if both parties were focused on private charity and support being the way to go, this country would be vastly improved. Fact is, that career politicians look after their career first and the public second. That is the root of the problem. One of my co-workers said he felt that every term in office should be followed by a term in jail, I'm almost inclined to agree.
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We were the bully when we pushed the British ou (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe not the bully in the revolution, although some of the things you yanks lumped on the British were exaggerated.
The problem is that you essentially became bullies, victims of your own success in your revolution and as a result you are unable to untie your nation from war and violence. We hear volumes of about the great America at war, but next to nothing about the grea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, last time I checked, the US was a democracy. That basically means you brought this on yourself. Of course those that voted for others do not deserve this.
But besides W, I have serious doubts the US qualifies as "great and worthy". In some regards it barely makes it into the 1st world. Overall I would rate it a "very big and a somewhat backwards 1st world country".
My impression is that many US citizens are so obsessed wit
Well It's About Time! (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re:Well It's About Time! (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Well It's About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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.
There's a difference ... (Score:3)
a. You being correct
b. Someone else being wrong
Claiming that someone else said something is no excuse nor justification.
Re:Well It's About Time! (Score:5, Informative)
Say it with me: "Clinton did it too."
Look, it's for damn sure that I'd rather have Bubba back in the White House than Dubya, any day of the week, twice on Sunday. That doesn't mean that we agree with everything he did, especially where something like this is concerned.
Nevertheless, I think it's pretty obvious that you haven't read the article, because:
You know what? That's it. Messing with the Special Olympics? Screw you guys. I already thought that this administration was severely morally challenged, but I had no idea they could be so, abso-fucking-lutely small.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because in partisan politics, you can't possibly be seen to agree with something your opponent is in favour of.
Once you concede they might be right on one or two points, and doing good work, then you can no longer paint them as wrong on all topics.
Admittedly, I've got to agree. If anything shoul
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I found it odd that Dr. Carmona said such a thing. It doesn't really pass the smell test and seems to rank pretty high on my Bullshit meter. Here's why: [whitehouse.gov]
THE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming. Mrs. Shriver, and Special Olympics athletes; friends and family. Mr. President -- the President of Iceland has joined us -- proud you're here, President Grimsson. And First Lady of Panama, First Lady Torrijos is with us, as well. We've got members of the Congress and members of the Senate. Laura and I are glad you all are here. Welcome to this special occasion.
We're here to celebrate the Special Olympics, and to honor a woman who made them possible -- Eunice Kennedy Shriver. (Applause.) And we're here to celebrate her birthday. (Laughter.)
In a moment we'll hear from this woman who has made it her life's work to create opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities. She founded the Special Olympics in 1968, to get people with intellectual disabilities the chance to develop physical fitness, to create friendships, and experience the joy of sports competition and achievement. Today the Special Olympics includes more than 2.25 million athletes in 150 countries. The games have become a source -- (applause.) The games have become a source of unity and excitement for its participants. They've helped raise awareness of the challenges facing those with intellectual disabilities.
America upholds the values of every person and the possibilities of every life. And the Special Olympics are an example of America at its best. We share with the entire world the spirit of joy and kindness that the Special Olympics brings.
If you ever had any doubt about how much good one person can do, look no further than this kind and gracious lady. On this special occasion, I ask you to join me in a toast to the Special Olympics, and to Eunice Kennedy Shriver, and to her contributions to our nation -- past, present, and future. God bless.
Re:Well It's About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the spirit of the Godwin's Law meme, I suggest a new meme for use on slashdot.
The law states: As a discussion addressing the topic of the Bush administration grows in size, the probability of comparing the Clinton administration activities to excuse Bush administration activities grows to one.
Following the traditional use of Godwin's law, I suggest that any mention of the Clinton administration when discussion the Bush administration results in automatic loss of the debate for the person bringing up the Clinton administration.
I also suggest that person have their head examined and study the process of logic. Repeat after me friends: Past mistakes do NOT excuse current mistakes.
As an aside, it's sad that we have to define these types of laws, and that our public education system does not encourage the type of thinking where everyone shares this mentality. Us vs Them groupthink is very damaging to any society.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One should not care who is wrong, just that they were, or are in fact wrong, try to change it, and attempt to not have it repeated in the future. Would it be OK for Bush to eat Jew baby brains if Clinton did too? My fucking goodness are people stupid...in this country...
In France (*ducks!), and in many other countries, they protest if their breakfast was cold and you can bet tomorrow their eggs will be piping hot. In other countries, the p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, let's not forget it was the Republicans that threw that Tantrum against Elders that caused her to resign. Just like it's the Republicans now f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, take that "large minority" and all those that do not care and you entriely deserve the abysmally bad gouvernment you have at the moment. The unfait part is that the rest of the world also suffers from these obviously evil people...
Re:Well It's About Time! (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this seriously not really fucking obvious to you?
It was 1980 when the Republicans rejected Barry Goldwater (Republican) in favor of Ronald Reagan (fascist). They'd already fallen pretty far (Nixon's treason and Ford's folly), but that was their chance to save their party. They chose instead to brutally rape it in the ass until it was dead.
There's really nothing particularly complicated or even non-obvious about it.
I like cutting of taxes, but, it has to go with smaller govt. spending too!! I want a candidate that is for that, that fiscally conservative, slightly liberal socially....and most of all, respects and honors the Constitution.
Vote Libertarian then. They're the only party that believes in anything of the sort.
Seriously, if you're asking these sorts of questions now then you've obviously never put any thought into it at all.
This shit ain't new and it ain't difficult to figure out with an hour of research tops.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian who runs as a Republican, but I personally wouldn't vote for him if he did win the Republican nomination (ha! the douchebag republicans booed him at the debate for stating simple facts and cheered Giuliani for spouting idiotic lies. That's the state of that party in a nutshell right there) as that would lend support to the Republicans. As I'm not a fan of big government I'm certainly not voting for the party of biggest government. However, if you can stand to vote Republican, Ron Paul is the only one who believes in *any* of the things you say you do.
So Why Don't You? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, it's much more honorable and brave to speak out while you are still in office, rather than waiting until you have little left to lose anyway. That said, perhaps more people will do that now... for example here [denverpost.com] is an op-ed piece by a (non-retired) Department of Justice attorney speaking out about the unacceptable degradation of that department under the Bus
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If enough people like this speak out at once, Bush can't possibly smear/fire/silence all of them.
The problem is, they're never going to all speak out at once. The one guy with the balls to say something is discredited (even though the President speaks second, his voice is much louder and hits the news first), and coerced to resign quietly.
This is how oppressive regimes throughout history have managed to prevent revolution; stamping out sparks quickly, before they can light fires.
That happened to me.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That happened to me.... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds unpleasant.
Re:That happened to me.... (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds unpleasant.
Re:That happened to me.... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds unpleasant.
Even slashdot is in on the act (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Even slashdot is in on the act (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs money to keep beaches free of sewage, breakfast free of weevils, jobs free of twenty hour days, students in school, Iraq free of terrorists, criminals in jail and hospitals free of credit card readers at the emergency room doors.
The fact that it might cost money, and that some of that money might need to come from taxes, doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea. It doesn't make it a good idea either - consideration is required in all things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Even slashdot is in on the act (Score:4, Insightful)
How is my pointing out that some countries just can't (or maybe won't) invest the LOTS OF MONEY needed to push large-scale energy conservation an argument that those that *can* "have the right to pollute more than anyone else"?
"Rights" have nothing to do with such an issue in the first place. This is a practical problem, not a moral one.
The reason I mentioned what I did, was I wanted to point out that what is clearly a long-term global problem (global warming -- if it indeed a problem, of course) needs to have long-term global solutions, and cleaner energy in the US alone isn't such a solution nor will it be anywhere near sufficient. It's also not a solution that many developing countries can even *afford* to participate in. If global warming will create problems such as rising coast lines, increases in the spread of certain illnesses, etc., then those problems would be more efficiently tackled *directly* and in a way that the global economy suffers as little as possible so we don't end up in a major depression. I fully support investment in cost-effective clean energy (nuclear mostly). But rather than putting all money that is to be spent towards 'fighting global warming' into clean energy, I would use much of it to create international programs to help populations all over the world deal with the *effects* of global warming. Assuming, of course, that we will have to deal with them (according to
I guess by what I wrote you can tell that I am on the fence with global warming being anthropogenic (and will be for about 10 years, or however long it will take to make sure the Sun isn't the culprit), but it's happening and the effects are being felt in some parts of the world. Every model predicts they will worsen, although some show that the degree of this "worsening" is dependent on continued output of CO2 into the atmosphere. But if it *will* worsen, why do I hear so much about reducing carbon footprints and so little about programs to combat the spread of malaria, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Grrrrrr. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
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
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)
Note well Virginia congressman Tom Davis at the hearing:
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)
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)
I PITY THE FOOL who wants to elect somebody based on their performances as fictional characters!
Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like Guatanamo and the whole imprisonment without due process thing.
Or like illegally spying on US citizens.
Or...
You mention only the things that noone who's seriously talking impeachment would mention. I applaud you for attacking those that talk impeachment out of a knee-jerk political stance, however, you don't seem to realize that there's a relatively strong case for it.
Re:Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a strange ethical logic you conservatives have. O.J. Simpson got away with murder (apparently), does that mean I am allowed to murder now also, and nobody can object because O.J. did it first?
For the party that is always yelling about "traditional values", and "strict constructionalism", you are starting to sound an awful lot like the moral relativists you like to condemn.
Re:Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Going to war with a country that was not a threat....CHECK!
Lying to the country....CHECK!
Claiming Iraq had WMDs....CHECK!
Censoring the SG....CHECK!
Firing attorneys....CHECK!
It's astonishing that people who claim to be so preoccupied with morality would be so quick to abandon any semblance of morality for political ends.
You're like whiney little kids. You saw one kid shoplift a candy bar and instead of going to jail, he was sent home to his parents. So you decided you could rob a bank at gunpoint, and cry "foul" that, once caught, you're not simply being sent home as well.
Pathetic, really.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, I hate Bush too, but you're pretty horribly wrong here.
We did not go to war with any nation under President Clinton. We did attack a few nations, and we did participate in NATO actions. But, even if you equate that with war, you can't possibly fail see the difference between the "wars" we fought under Clinton and the Iraq war.
We did go to war. In 1998. With Iraq.
Even if I am wrong on that specific point, the general point is not effected.
First, you must prove Bush is lying, and not incompetent.
Why? Why must you not prove he's incompetent and not lying? Occam's Razor needn't even be sharpened to lay waste to the notion that he's merely incompetent. If he's lying, it's, while atrocious, at least the sort of thing one could imagine a president to do (Democrat, Republican, Whig, or other). If he's incompetent (and *not* lying--I hold he's both, it's not exactly and either-or, now is it?), he would have to be so monumentall
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, they do have enough votes to impeach him. Impeachment is done by the House of Representatives, and only requires a simple majority. Think of it like a Grand Jury trial. They only decide if there's enough evidence to send you to a trial.
It's the conviction that requires the Senate and a 2/3 majority vote where there are not enough votes.
As for the real reason, it has a lot more to do with avoidi
Global warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Do we even need to point out how global weather is closely related to the public health of individuals?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of warming-related health issues (Score:5, Insightful)
- Malaria and other diseases [bbc.co.uk]
- heatwave deaths [npr.org]
- water quality [unisci.com]
It sure would have been helpful to have talked about them over the last seven years.(+5, Funny) (Score:5, Funny)
(+5, Informative) (Score:5, Informative)
"The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer [prwatch.org]."
They have recently been mostly funded by the oil lobby for the express purpose of... well, you can deduce that last bit.
If you want to help (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Ok this guy gets away with everything (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to be angry... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Bush v Reality (Score:4, Funny)
BushCo hates the disabled? (Score:3)
"I was specifically told by a senior person, 'Why would you want to help those people?' " Dr. Carmona said.
"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)
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
Remember the Nuremberg Trials? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So, to summarize... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Science is politicized (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Do these people really know what they are doing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Surgin' General (Score:3, Funny)
emergency contraception? (Score:3, Funny)
We are slowly losing our freedoms in this nation. (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re:We are slowly losing our freedoms in this natio (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Horse Manure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberals would like to see increased government regulation in response to the danger of global climate change. It's part of their agenda. And it's Bush's job as a Republican and (sometimes) a conservative to oppose these plans.
That hits the nail right on the head. It has long appeared to me that a good part of the "conservative agenda" is simply to offend "liberals", a category of people that includes just about everyone who believes in responsible governance and rational approaches to problems. Science, Reason, and the rule of law are bad, because they constrain arbitrary power and place limits on its use to reward friends and patrons and to punish enemies.
And please, conservatives, drop the "small government" mantra. Everyone