Slashdot Mirror
Politicizing Science
An anonymous reader writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the government's efforts to remove independent scientific review boards and replace them with officials that match the views of administration. This includes careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy to help specific business interests and hiring based on political views such as stem cell research and cloning. Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
3 cases
1 Kennewick man. A twenty thousand year old skeleton found in Washington state. He's white, which means the "native american casino indian" is just another dammed invader like Columbus. Quickly buried by the Clinton administration under tons of concrete on a military base. He may yet see the light of day.
2 Some 50 studies showing women who aborted their first pregnancy have a breast cancer rate in excess of 10%, all other women are still around 3%. Planned Parenthood has shelled out big bucks to the Democratic Party to smother these studies.
3 Domestic violence studies. It turns out women are just as murderous as men, but instead of fists they use guns and knives. I guess some domestic violence is OK to the women's studies and NOW crowds.
When the next Democrat president is elected, there will be a Stalinist purge of these Bush folks.
And that Erin Brockovitch connection -- do we want science by industry, or science by Hollywood? Science by people who do science for a living, or science by Julia Roberts?
It's convenient to reduce all of the Clinton scandals to a blow job, isn't it?
Too bad that won't work. Bombing an asprin factory to distract the media from his 'other problems' was pretty outrageous.
The whole Whitewater mess was turned into a 'get them off by technicalities' legal swindle, to put icing on the real estate swindle it investigated.
The really sad fact is, so many of Clintons lies were with regard to petty white trash shit. What the fuck where we thinking electing a bastard like him (literally) to the highest office of the land?
Don't read the Post anymore. It's a waiste of time. If you're slightly conservative and live in the DC area, it'll give you heartburn knowing that you are around about 4 Million people (Balti-Wash) that read the post and think it's actually a fair and balanced reporting daily. Nothing could be further from the truth. The guys read it because of the sports section, but every now and then will venture into other areas. Even their business section mixes in socialistic propoganda type articles. It's disgusting. Thank god of the internet.
The ladies read it because it has the best advertisement circulars on Sundays. Don't want to miss out on all the shoe sales!
There's nothing wrong at all with a newspaper being liberal. It's just when it won't admit it that I have a problem with it.
Interesting - whatever you believe about stem cells, the subject seems to often bring up the subject of the "separation of church and state." It is interesting, given that the founders of our country picked no bones about having no such separation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence talks about the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and of the need for its direct influence on manmade government. Truth is, it is impossible to separate Church and State because the rock that our moral code is built upon comes from God. And a people's belief in and worship of God directly effects how they want to be governed. I don't think that the argument that "they're just not separating church and state" stands on anything. The government does not dictate the church but the church certainly has everything to do with the creation of our government. Like it or not that's the way it is. Our currency carries our motto, "In God we Trust!" Our pledge states that we are a nation indivisible "under God" It is inseparable from the fabric of our nation and those that would support a separation would do better to leave the country than to try and change it. Sure, the pendulum has swung back and forth over the decades on this matter, but its not going to swing too much further left OR right than it already has. This argument is especially stupid, when given the fact that stem cells can be derived and obtained from adult donors. It doesn't make sense to not obtain stem cells in this manner just because the medical industry can make a trillion more with better margins when they cannibalize our unborn children. If we're going to debate this, lets at least cut through the smokescreen that's been out there and get to the real matter. The debate isn't whether or not we have the right to outlaw stem cells on a moral basis. After all, we outlawed murder on a moral basis and kidnapping, and sex offenses. The real question is: Is it moral and upright to take a growing child and pervert them in a way that doesn't allow them to live a normal life or not? And God's law says it isn't.
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
Oh yeah, a guy that would put Powell, Rumsfeld, and Mineta into his cabinet is a guy that has no interest in diverse opinions.
Do you even look at reality?
I think that Clinton stacked the deck one way because the left ideology is inherently more comfortable with govt. than the right (in the US at least) and it was a cheap way to pay off some political favors. Bush is shifting things but is he shifting things back to balance or tilting them out of whack a different way. What we hear are the stuck pig squeels from the liberals who are getting bounced. That tells us something is happening, not whether the resulting advice will be better or worse.