U.S. Pushing Conservative Science

mozumder writes "Does abortion lead to breast cancer? Does condom use lead to increased sexual activity? According to the government, the answer is now inconclusive. The New York Times has a story on how the government is altering low-level scientific conclusions to satisfy conservatives. Will this lead to a mistrust of the government? Or is the government now correct?"

Comments

Since when...

[SoVi3t]

Will this lead to a mistrust of the government? Umm, since when was the government actually trusted?

Not surprised

[smagruder]

You see, there *are* consequences to *not* voting, Virginia.

What else is there really to comment on?

Re:Not surprised

[Hawthorne01]

The more I think about it, the more I like the system that Ecuador uses.
Voting is mandatory. You want the government services available to citizens? Vote, otherwise you get what's available to legal aliens. While I'd love it if everyone understood thieir civic duties as well as they do their civil rights, which would make this idea unneccesary, the fact is, people don't vote often enough, as a rule.
And I know there will be those screaming about secrecy of the vote, etc.Note: I didn't say keep track of who you voted for, I said keep track of WHETHER you voted or not. Should be easy enough to do, given the near-universality of SSN's and the like.

Re:Not surprised

[mferrare]

Then you have lazy, ignorant, and just plain stupid people voting just becuase they have to and circling a random name on the ballot.

Australia has compulsory voting. We have it at the federal and state levels. It hasn't bred the random name thingy you mention - in fact, quite the opposite. People become dyed-in-the-wool Labor (kinda like Democrats but more leftish) or Liberal (kinda like Rebups but more leftish) voters. Most elections are left up to a small percentage of 'swinging' voters to determine who forms government. This may sound bad but it's actually quite good. Why? Because, as people are becoming more educated and aware of the impact of the government on their lives they are starting to think more about their vote. As a result, the amount of swinging voters is growing which is a good thing - it keeps the government on its toes. Doing so has led to a Labor government implementing rightist policies (selling off our nationalised bank and airlines in the 80's) and has led the Liberal government to implement leftist policies (increasing tax on the rich (in for form of the super guarantee and medicare levy for those over $x,000 with no private insurance)).

Having compulsory voting makes you vote. This in turn makes you pay more attention to what the government does. And judging by the increasing number of swinging voters, people care. Making voting compulsory has removed the barrier of voter apathy (to an extent at least).

Re:Not surprised

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I would be concerned, however, about people going in and randomly filling out a ballot just to keep their govt. services.

I wouldn't. In fact, I teach 17- and 18-year-olds, and every year I tell them this: They should vote even if they're uninformed -- provided that they truly vote randomly (if uninformed). Here's my rationale: If lots of people vote truly randomly, then it'll basically cancel out. But voter turnout will have risen -- and the politicians won't know which votes were random. From their point of view, they'll have to conclude that voter interest really is rising, which means that voters count -- which will de-emphasize the current "play to my base" logic.

Let's be honest here: Many of the ills of American democracy follow from the pathetically low participation rate. Corruption, ideology triumphant, slash ads ... they all result from the (justified) assumption by politicians that only a small fraction of people actually care.

Re:Not surprised

[Zoop]

What else is there really to comment on?

Hmmm...how about the fact that gov't research is being swayed by whomever is in office? This should offend you much more than the fact that your Republican didn't get in (you know, the one for defense, low taxes, and album stickering, or George Bush if you didn't like the Republican).

This lends credence to the complaints during the Clinton administration that conclusions were being altered to support his policies. I don't care if you're conservative, liberal, libertarian, or socialist, doing policy first and science later leads to bad policy and worse science.

You should demand more of your politicians and government scientists. I'd hate to think that you'd be just peachy if they faked data to show that the ice caps would melt tomorrow and we need a crash refrigeration program, just because you prefer environmental issues to, say, poverty reduction.

Re:Not surprised

[teetam]

This is ridiculous - freedom to vote includes the freedom not to vote!

What if I don't like any of my candidates (which is quite often the case)? Should I still be forced to vote for one of them? When I choose not to vote, I am basically casting a vote against the current system and stating my disgust with it. In the Australian system, there is no way to do this.

And please don't tell me that if I don't like the candidates, I should be one!

Re:Not surprised

[HiThere]

There should definitely be a spot on the ballot for "None of the above!". I'm not convinced that mandatory voting is a wise practice, but I don't have experience with it. However, even though I have no experience with it, I'm firmly convinced that there's a need for "None of the above".

In any multiple choice selection, one always needs to be "other".

Re:Not surprised

[PurpleBob]

If the preferential votes were counted by the Condorcet system (where the votes are tallied in contests between pairs of people), then putting the Nazi Party candidate last would not be a problem. It would just say "I want this guy to lose in every contest". If there are two such candidates, you have to rank one above the other, of course, but they'll still lose to everyone else.

In the Instant Runoff Voting system which Australia uses, though, there are often situations where you would rather have your vote go to nobody than go further down your preferences. That's just one of the many flaws in IRV. In that case, IRV with optional voting is a bit of an improvement.

The problem is that, under that system, people probably get lazy and only mark their top choice even when they do have preferences regarding the other people, and the result is the plurality system (and of course IRV, despite its flaws, is much much better than plurality). That's probably the reason for requiring people to rank every candidate.

This may shock some

[nizcolas]

but most readers familiar with the way science "works" won't be all that shocked. Scientific results are frequently altered or completely made up for one reason. Money

Most science is funded by a sponsorship of some kind. Very little is done out of the scientist pocket. Because of this, science becomes a sort of business model. As long as the scientist is producing results, his funding continues. See where this is going?

Is this going to lead to a distrust of government.? Doubtful. It may wake up a few but the vast majority either know now, or will never know.

Re:This may shock some

[Idarubicin]

but most readers familiar with the way science "works" won't be all that shocked. Scientific results are frequently altered or completely made up for one reason. Money

Most science is funded by a sponsorship of some kind. Very little is done out of the scientist pocket. Because of this, science becomes a sort of business model. As long as the scientist is producing results, his funding continues. See where this is going?

Erm. You neglect a few key points. First, (most) scientists like to publish interesting--or even controversial--results. It enhances their standing among their peers, and often leads to promotion, job offers, and better funding.

If the results they publish do not suit the whims of their current industrial masters, there is often other funding to be had elsewhere. The flawed 'business model' you describe assumes that there is only one source of funding for only one preferred result. Usually competing interests will fund interesting research. In may nations, government funding is provided by agencies that operate at arms' length from politicians and are most concerned with doing good science.

Finally, if you make something up in science, you eventually get caught. It's the nature of the scientific method. Someone will check your work--often fairly soon after publication, if not before--and you will have some explaining to do. 'Because the United States Government says so' is not an acceptable proof, no matter what results they buy. Conclusions not based in fact will be challenged.

This new science is amazing!

[MillionthMonkey]

Tell me again how a sheep's bladder may be used to prevent earthquakes!

Re:Abortion & Cancer lawsuits in Australia

[MillionthMonkey]

the majority of studies suggesting a link between abortion and cancer

You didn't post any links or references, so I'm curious. Did this "majority of studies" find a link between abortion and breast cancer, or a link between not carrying a pregnancy to term and breast cancer?

What about...

[Anonvmous Coward]

I don't blame them. According to the studies I've heard, I should be blind now. I haven't had any real problems other than needing to shave my hands once in a while.

That whoosing sound you hear,

[Hawthorne01]

is all the liberal/anarchists knees jerking in response to this stimuli.

Disclaimer: For the last 20 years, I have been a legal resident that cannot vote in the U.S., and on every political placement test I've taken, be they from the right or the left, I have landed smack dab in the middle.(end disclaimer)

That no one ever mentions the idea of "Liberal Science" I find somewhat amusing (and quite frankly, a little biased). Do we all think that products like RU-486 sprung from the ground unaided? The findings of science have ALWAYS been slanted to advance someone's politics, be they environmentalists, cultural conservatives, radical feminists or bomb-throwing moderates such as myself.

Re:That whoosing sound you hear,

[gad_zuki!]

Perhaps the laws governing technology, research funding, etc have a place on the simplistic "liberal/conservative" spectrum, but science itself, the pursuit of knowledge is apolitical.

Your suggetion that RU-486's development or even the research that fathered its development is politically driven has a scary luddite feel to it, something like the "arguments" the populace used to buy about the religious amorality of experimenting on cadavers not so long ago. Which itself caused untold suffering by holding back medical science, which is what the Bush administration along with the religious right are planning on doing on other types of research right now. Stem cells anyone?

Is it really so "liberal" to sell RU-486 in a society in which abortions are legal? Sounds like good sense to avoid the physical abortion procedure.

I don't know whats more pathetic, that conservativism now means "in bed with big business and big religion" or that we still haven't learned the lessons of history. Not to mention co-opting the word "liberal" to mean anything that isn't religiously conservative is more than a bit disingenuous.

Re:That whoosing sound you hear,

[Malcontent]

"No, "we" think the two drugs involved, mifepristone and misoprostol, both originated for other uses."

well yes but were they liberal uses. Are the drugs liberal and are they used to cure liberal diseases. More importantly were they developed by liberal doctors and were they funded by liberal governments and liberal administrations.

You see the most important thing about drugs is if they are liberal or not. Simply stating facts only clouds the matter. Please refrain from actually refering to facts in all future slashdot posts or I will be forced to call you "liberal".

Why should we be surprised?

[enkidu]

This is the same administration which when initially asked the question concerning global warming, wanted "more research" to verify that the phenomenon was real. Now that it has been proven to be real, they want "more research" to clarify the extent of the phenomenon. Essentially, after insisting that smoking wasn't harmful to your health, upon being shown that smoking is harmful to one's health, they now want more research to figure out "the degree of damage" caused by smoking.

This administration is one of the most idealogically fixated administrations in recent history. Ideology always trumps reality in the decision making of this administration. Consider their positions on Iraq vs. North Korea. Consider their positions regarding our signed commitments and treaties vs. our Oil interests (Kyoto treaty). Or "Free Trade" vs. the interests of our Steel and Lumber producers. Or contraception vs. AIDS.

From what I can tell, the basic ideology of this administration seems to be: The interests of the United States of America lie with the interests of it's big companies, it's religious right, and it's rich and powerful.

Of course, now I can expect friendly clicks on my telephone and strange delays to the delivery of my email.

EnkiduEOT ( bomb uranium plutonium smallpox anthrax sarin mustard )

Re:Why should we be surprised?

[nathanm]

If you think that North Korea (or Iraq) as aspirations to take over the world, then I think you are mistaking them with the most power / money-hungry country on Earth - the US. Everyone else (except for Israel) is quite happy left to their own devices, and only has weapons to protect themselves from the inevidable invasion from the US military / economy.

North Korea may not want to take over the world, but they definitely have plans to invade South Korea and Japan. Their quasi-Marxist, central-planning philosophy of "self-sufficiency" has led to massive famine and economic stagnation. The only reason they have any food to eat is South Korean and US aid.

As far as these inevidable [sic] US invasions, you didn't say the word, but essentialy you're accusing us of imperialism, which is complete, utter, delusional nonsense. We could've ruled the world long ago. After WW II, we were the only real power left on Earth. It would've been easy to establish the first truly global empire and rule the entire planet. Instead, we rebuilt Europe and Japan, then went home. You can find a much more cogent argument here.

If you want to get upset about who has weapons of mass destruction, then have a look at 'our' side. The US has more nuclear, chemical and biological weapons than every other country on earth combined. And they have proved on numerous occasions that they are willing to use them to assert their economic 'rights' (while pretending that they are fighting the 'good fight' for decomcracy).

Are you kidding, or just ignorant? Russia has more nukes than us, and the only biological and chemical weapons we have left are used for training and research only, not research into new weapons mind you, but how to defend against them.

Yes, we are still the only country to use nuclear weapons in war. However, it probably saved the lives of 5 million American and Japanese soldiers who would've died in an invasion, and it ended the war.

When will we see UN, or Iraqi, or North Korean inspectors checking out the US's weapons of mass destruction and shaking their heads and saying 'This is not good enough. These are clear signs or your intent to invade us. We will therefore make a pre-emptive strike!'. Until the US disarms itself (and all countries should), then it has no right to demand other countries disarm themself. If the US insists on hunting down every last terrorist and every last weapon on the 'other side', then it is going to produce more terrorists and more weapons in the act.

First, we actually do allow the UN and Russia to inspect our weapons of mass destruction. They ensure compliance with several arms control treaties.

If you think all countries should disarm, you're incredibly naive. Someone else would always rearm and try to assert their power. This is partly what we're seeing now with Al Qaeda, a non-governmental organization waging war across international borders. As long as there are humans left, there will be war and violence. Your utopia will never exist, and besides, I wouldn't want to live there.

You also have a severe misunderstanding of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' mindset. The reason they even attempted 9/11 is they thought the US was a "paper tiger." Throughout the 90s they kept escalating their attacks, but Bill Clinton never retaliated quickly or decisively enough. The most he ever did was lob a few cruise missiles at empty training camps and pharmeceutical factories.

Re:Why should we be surprised?

[Scrameustache]

Are you kidding, or just ignorant? Russia has more nukes than us

US: 7,982 deployed nuclear weapons
Russia: About 6000.

the only biological and chemical weapons we have left are used for training and research only, not research into new weapons mind you, but how to defend against them.

Bullshit. "How to defend against them" is a euphemism for "how to unleash them with minimal losses on our part". And you don't really need new wepons, you already have good weapons...people won't get any more dead with new weapons than with what's already available.

Yes, we are still the only country to use nuclear weapons in war. However, it probably saved the lives of 5 million American and Japanese soldiers who would've died in an invasion, and it ended the war.

Against civillians, mind you, and the war was already won. Japan had been trying to negociate a surrender with the help of russian diplomats for about a year when the US decided to nuke 'em (twice!). The point was not to end the war, it was to get an unconditionnal surrender...kick 'em while they're down.
It also came in handy as a way to scare the rest of the world into submission to US foreign policy...the "we have the bomb" argument was a pretty good one for 10 or 15 years, until others could say the same.

Your utopia will never exist, and besides, I wouldn't want to live there.

How's your best friend Satan?

You also have a severe misunderstanding of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' mindset.

I don't know about him, but my understanding is like this: You hit them, they hit you back more, you ht THEM back more, they hit YOU back double more...

Round and round it goes...

So, yeah, keep on picking a fight with Irak, and when the extremists hit you back for them, you can say "see, they hit us, we were right to hit them first", again and agin and again.

Re:Why should we be surprised?

[ender81b]

Against civillians, mind you, and the war was already won. Japan had been trying to negociate a surrender with the help of russian diplomats for about a year when the US decided to nuke 'em (twice!). The point was not to end the war, it was to get an unconditionnal surrender...kick 'em while they're down.

As a history major this bit of misinformation has to be swiftly kicked out the door. The japanese would NEVER unconditionally surrender without the Nukes. Indeed, after the first nuke they STILL wouldn't demanding that a conditional surrnder with the Japanese Emperor still held in place the only condition the only option. After the second nuke only the direct intervention of the Japanese Emperor himself convinced the war cabinet to surrender.

The logical question then arises why did the US demand a unconditional surrender? Simple, it had been agreed upon at numerous conferences between the allies. Italy, Germany, and Japan all must unconditionally surrender or the war would not stop. Not demanding a unconditional surrender would've been tatamount to breaking a treaty between the allies.

The *reasons* for an unconditional surrender are quite valid. The US , and the allies, wanted to prevent the Germans/Japanese/Italians from ever rising up in power again to make war upon the world. You might remember the Versaille treaty and WWI - or you probably don't. At any rate this conditional treaty totally failed in preventing germany from rearming and, indeed, contributed to the rise of power of hitler. The US and the allies demanded the unconditional surrender to ensure something like this would never happen. And, guess what, it hasn't. Germany and Japan are both fairly strong allies and both are pretty peace-loving and economic powerhouses in the world. Seems the US occupation and surrender did some good.

Finally, instead of blaming the us for "kicking them while they where down" why the fuck don't you blame the japanese leaders for not surrendering when they *knew* they where beat? They KNEW that the allies would only accept an unconditional surrender but they continued to fight and, ultimatly, it is they who decided the fate of all those people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - or the millions who would've died in an invasion of the home islands.

It had nothing to do with 'kicking them while they where down'. It had EVERYTHING to do with preventing a World War III. And, guess what, it worked. Anyone who thinks that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where simply vengeful acts has not a clue about the historical basis for the reasons for unconditional surrender - as you yourself proved.

There may be a scientific basis

[The Tyro]

I hate to be a party pooper, but there actually may be something to the abortion theory. To be fair, however, it probably has little to do with the act of abortion itself.

The human breast does not reach full maturity until at least one pregnancy is completed. If a person has multiple abortions and never carries a pregnancy to term, their risk for breast cancer COULD be higher, but it may be because of never having children; the fact that the woman aborted all her pregnancies is just the method. She could just as easily be a spinster or nun, and carry the same risk.

It's shortsighted to automatically assume that science is bad, simply because it contradicts some concept one holds dear. Look at the research objectively, and judge it on its merits.

Knowledge is Good.

Re:There may be a scientific basis

[videodriverguy]

Did you read the study done on 1.5 million women? Is that not enough 'evidence' for you? Or perhaps you would prefer the average American study, on 1000 people with massive uncertanties.

How about women who don't breast feed? Wouldn't that make just as much difference. And what about miscarriages, as someone else pointed out.

As someone who also posted this very same article earlier (but was rejected), I have to say that the point here is they are CHANGING the sites to further political agendas. A very bad thing, IMHO.

Sadly, the only thing surprising about it (to me) was that the media kept this so quiet. Wonder what's next (and I really don't want to think about that)?

'UNBIASED Knowledge is Good' - any other kind is Bad.

What a stupid title

[mc6809e]

How can there be any such thing as liberal or conservative science? If the new conclusions are consistent with scientific principles, then they are scientific. The end.

Oh, you don't like them? BFD. Science doesn't care what you think or what you wish to be true. And guess what -- sometimes science just happens to support the positions of the political right. Anyone who is intellectually honest will just have to accept that.

And I'm not just some right-wing Bible thumper. I happen to be an atheist and a strong advocate of science. But even I can see how the political left in this country has politicized science and it fucking pisses me off. Science isn't about trying to verify your political prejudices and the political left doesn't have a monopoly on science.

Re:What a stupid title

[Borealis]

I think the title reflects the tendencies of the religious right to misrepresent or falsify scientific studies. While I'm by no means implying that there is no such effort by parts of the more liberal elements of society, their efforts at least tend to be a bit less outrageous. Trying to scientifically show that evolution is non-existent and that creationism can be supported using scientific methods would be only one prime example.

While I have seen liberals misrepresent scientific studies (it's easy to lie with statistics yadda yadda yadda), I have never seen outright lies from the liberal front along the lines of, say, "The Silent Scream". I believe this is because of an idealogical difference of approach. The religious right believes science to be a dangerous and biased opponent and has no qualms about outrageously falsifying it, whereas the liberal society is able to convince itself that the numbers it manipulates reflect "the truth".

This is a generalization of course, because there are undoubtedly some liberals who believe science is bunk and some religious conservatives who respect it. In general however, the majority of liberals respect the scientific method enough to at least consider conclusions reached using it.

Re:What a stupid title

[jgalun]

You know, the modding on Slashdot is outrageous sometimes. There is nothing trollish about this post. But too many moderators on Slashdot think that trolling means saying something they don't like.

Someone posts a comment that the only reason other countries in the world have weapons is because they're afraid of an American attack, and it gets moderated as +5 insightful. Someone simply says that there are left-wingers who produce biased science too (which is demonstably true), and he gets modded as a troll.

Recently, in a thread on SGI, I saw a post by a user with an ID around 600, which gave a lot of evidence for why SGI is in trouble in a number of marketplaces, because of pressure from cheap Athlon systems. He got modded as a troll. Then a user with a userID above 600,000 posted nothing more than "SGI will lose because Linux is taking it on the low-end" and got rated as insightful. So apparently, if you say SGI is dying because of low-end PCs, that's trolling because Slashdotters emotionally prefer SGIs to PCs. But if you say SGI is dying because of Linux, that's not trolling, because Slashdotters emotionally prefer Linux to all else.

You can mod me down as off-topic, or as a troll, but I don't care. Moderators need to recognize that just because you don't like an opinion doesn't make it a troll.

Speaking of the govt..

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Two recent political leaders allegedly had
this nefarious habit:

-: Both came to power after dubious elections,
by non-electorial and irregular methods.
-: Both nations immediately experienced attacks
on famous public buildings.
-: Both blamed an ethnic minority before
forensics had any evidence.
-: Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused
minority.
-: Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."
-: Both put the citizenry under surveillance.
-: Both maintained secret and clandestine
governments.
-: Both launched wars against most of the world.

One had a funny mustache.

Can you name the other one?

Masturbation

[Tracy Reed]

Q: Does masturbation cause you to go blind?

A: Not as far as I can see.

Re:Bush sucks.

[Martigan80]

And what they want is to get money for themselves and their big campaign contributors, that is absolutely all they are about

Isn't capitalism great? This is what happens when governmental Ideals mix with economics. It's also interesting that any country that America helps has a EULA about allowing American businesses in to help "stimulate" the economy. Yeah we see how great it's going right now. And don't give me this stuff that it is because of 9/11 that's what these great accountants tell the share holders in hopes that they don't sell. Much of this has been brewing way before that. It also doesn't help that politicians have so many ways to acquire money from different sources. It will always happen and will continue to happen in our country because of people that would read this and call me a troll because I think the economy and government is too corrupted, instead of going out and voting, hell I would even be happy if people actually took the time to learn about the candidates. In fact how many people here even go to a local council meeting, or city meeting? Oh well this isn't a politics story it's about conservatism, or the conservatism of the governments medical ideas. Now we all get Smallpox vaccine, well not all of us the Government doesn't want to be blamed for the few deaths that will happened, they would rather give you the option to take it, then ask you to fill out a waiver of responsibility.

More Infections

[BigTom]

The sad thing is that, as the condom information permeates through the population, the message will end up as "condoms aren't any use" and a load of teens won't bother with them (amazingly they'll still have sex) and infection and pregnancy rates will go up. Tom

Not just low-level decisions

[rde]

Bush's pernicious zealotry is mainifesting itself in far more that revisionism; last July, he cut funding to the UN Population Fund (normally at http://ww.unfpa.org , but I can't seem to get in ATM).
An enthusiastic bunch of our right-wing friends in the Population Research Institute claimed - without evidence and despite UN law to the contrary - that the UNFPA supported coerced abortions in China. Everyone from Colin Powell down who knew anything on the subject derided the PRI's claimes - check out the PDF from the House of Representatives - but despite all the evidence to the contraray, Bush went ahead and cut funding.

Interestingly, I googled to check the facts before posting (going against /. tradition, I know. Forgive me.), and came across a plethora of news stories on the topic, most of which run along the lines of "Bush cuts funds to UN body that supports coerced abortion", usually with a denial from some Chinese official. Here's the Telegraph version.

The PRI are here; couldn't find a link to the story.

if condoms lead to more sex...

[circletimessquare]

then guns must lead to more killing, no?

i'd like to hear the conservative gun crowd scream "it's not the gun, it's the criminal" and then in the same breath tell us it's not the teenager, it's the condom.

so which do we get rid of? condoms? or guns?

that personal accountability thing is pretty sneaky! ;-P

Re:if condoms lead to more sex...

[Rhinobird]

there's over 6 billion of us on the planet right now. that was not done with sound religious planning.
HA! I think it's more because religons generally promote child bearing that there are 6 billion of us now.

by the way, how does a little self control deny anything about human sexuality?

wrap that pecker if you don't want to infect her Oops, sorry baby, the damn thing broke, or came off, or my sicko roommate sabatoged them (did you see that video on Fox?).

i am certain there are people out there who can abstain Abstaining is not some mystical process. It's simply not fucking. If you can't not fuck, then I would imagine there being something wrong with you. You lack self control, probably go impulse shopping all the time and gamble too much. Give me a break. EVERYBODY can not fuck. Eating is harder not to do. You probably eat 3 times a day. How many times a day to fuck? Ok, how many times a week? A month (you poor married bastard :-P) ) There is a sex drive, but it can be over-ridden and it isn't the all consuming force you make it out to be.

Re:if condoms lead to more sex...

[nathanm]

Conservatives think sex is bad, condoms or no.

I hope you're kidding, right? Not all conservatives hold the same view. Even the most far-right wing, Christian Coalition, fundamentalist, conservative zealot doesn't believe sex is bad, just that it should be confined to marriage.

For all your philosophical sophistication, trying to disprove the parent comment through your sheer, logical brilliance, you sure are ignorant.

Re:if condoms lead to more sex...

[Idarubicin]

Condoms are a contraceptive device...Isn't it self-evident that condoms are designed from the very beginning to increase the rate of non-reproductive sex?

On the other hand, more guns is not going to have a huge effect on the number of morally banckrupt thugs (unless by 'killing', you mean clay targets and geese). Guns are not a contraceptive, but rather a tool.

Guns and condoms are both tools.

Question: Since you've chosen to describe guns as purely recreational devices, which pastime seems healthier psychologically--simulated reproduction for fun or simulated killing for fun?

Aside: The conservative right tends (not always, but often) to find sex education objectionable, and gun ownership appropriate. Meanwhile, simulated killing with simulated weapons in modern computer games is hotly debated--it's only okay if you're killing simulated terrorists. Interesting.

21st century

[Tom]

As someone wiser than me already noticed: This century, it ain't about xianity vs. islam or any that media bullshit. It's about fundamentalism vs. people-with-brains. There really isn't much difference between xian right or conservatives of the bush streak, or islamist terrorists. They're all bludgoning their world-view into other peoples heads with whatever tools are available, and moral is something that applies only to other people.

Re:I blaim Bush

[1u3hr]

I can't think of a worse thing than an opponent with nothing to lose by anything up to and including death.

Which is EXACTLY what Bush is creating now. Before Saddam was "just" oppressing his own people. He's been happy being dictator of Iraq. Even since 91 when the US attacked and humiliated him he hasn't taken any direct retaliation on the US -- and Bush has been begging the CIA to dig up any evidence that he had to give a pretext for war, I think they would have found it if he had.

But if the tanks and bombs start again with the avowed aim of putting Saddam out of power and killed or imprisoned, he REALLY has no reason not to dispatch a few kilos of anthrax, smallpox, plutonium or whatever other goodies he's put aside for a rainy day.

There is something wrong here.

[Rhinobird]

OK. For some reason, all the posts sem to say the same thing.

• Bush sucks
• Conservatives don't believe in global warming
• Condoms are good, how dare Bush push abstinence on the people.

• First, Bush doesn't suck. Granted I'm a right leaning mid-liner, but that isn't a crime unless I'm in Berkely or San Francisco. ;-)
• Second, if you believe in global warming, find some real evidence. Yeah there may be an elevated level of CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is a piss poor 'greenhouse gas', methane and water vapor work way better. If there is a global warming trend I'd be inclined to think that it's the sun causing it as there is evidence that Mars is warming, also.
• Thirdly. What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence? Maybe there was a leftist bias on those pages to begin with and they really do refect more acurately scientific evidence?

Re:There is something wrong here.

[caek]

First, Bush doesn't suck. Granted I'm a right leaning mid-liner, but that isn't a crime unless I'm in Berkely or San Francisco. ;-)

Your logic is flawless.

Second, if you believe in global warming, find some real evidence. Yeah there may be an elevated level of CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is a piss poor 'greenhouse gas', methane and water vapor work way better. If there is a global warming trend I'd be inclined to think that it's the sun causing it as there is evidence that Mars is warming, also.

I've got a masters in Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry. I know what I'm talking about. You are appallingly wrong. You may have heard of a book called the Sceptical Environmentalist, which was pounced upon by many groups (with vested interests in a preservation of the status quo) as proof that Global Warming is a liberal lie. It isn't and that isn't what the book says. The case for Kyoto isn't cut-and-dry by any stretch of the imagination, but asserting that global warming is not happening right now is up there with creationism.

Thirdly. What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence?

OK then. By that logic, what's the best way to prevent gun crime? What's the best way to prevent road traffic accidents? Abstain from guns and cars? We use cars (and the USA inexplicably retains it's paranoid and damaging right to bear arms) because we like and need them. Most people like sex and none of us would be here without it. Persuade teenagers to abstain from sex? You've got to be kidding.

Re:There is something wrong here.

[feed_me_cereal]

you forgot about some of the other things that keep being said on this thread:

What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence?

I'm getting sick of this misrepresentation of the issue. No shit abstinence is better, but this is a choice that OTHER people are making, not the government. A real characterization of the issue before the government is this:

Which would be a more effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD's: passing out condoms or advocating abstinence?

This is a much more difficult question, and it is the one we actually face. Just because you say abstinence a better idea dosen't mean ANYONE is listening, and it could be possible that these people who are going to have sex whether you like it or not (which is most people I've knew in highschool and college) could benefit from condoms.

If condoms lead to more sex it's because. . .

[kfg]

they make sex safer from unintended consequences.

All we need to do is apply this to guns, then there'll be more, but safer guns.

The conclusion is obvious. Nerf bullets.

KFG

Re:This country pisses me off

[blincoln]

I've been looking into moving to Switzerland

I was thinking of Britain or Germany. But then I remembered that there are a *lot* of people who feel similarly. It wouldn't be possible for us all to move over there. Besides, my family has been on this continent for almost four centuries.

I figure the best bet is to split the US into at least three countries. The South has always wanted to be their own anyway, so it could be them, the Free West and the In The Image of Dubyah East. Kind of like how Deutschland was, except the wall would be of mutual benefit.

Of course, we all know what happened the last time part of the US tried to secede. Obviously someone would have to convert the better part of DC into green glass for this plan to succeed.

Call the beast by its name

[Stonehead]

To hell with an euphemism like 'pushing conservative science'. What the NYT describes seems plain censorship and degradation of science to me. So much again for your Land of the Free.

Re:Bush sucks.

[Rhinobird]

How the fuck did this get modded up? There is nothing here. If you change 'Bush sucks.' to 'Clinton sucks.' you get the same rant but with a rightist spin. Nothing about anything written in the article, hell, this post isn't even funny.

Higher fuel prices? Bring 'em on!

[fmaxwell]

According to revised estimates, implementing the Kyoto Treaty would increase gas prices in the USA upwards of 60 cents per gallon

That would be a good thing. I'm sick of kissing Saudi ass and funding terrorists so that commuters and soccer moms can drive around in 11mpg Lincoln Navigators. Bush and Cheney have made it clear that they have no intention of doing anything to encourage fuel conservation. So the only way it can be done is through consumer demand -- and that won't happen unless fuel prices go up significantly.

I have a VW Golf TDI. It gets 45MPG on average and I've broken 50mpg. It handles far better than the aforementioned SUVs and has plenty of power, with acceleration that bests most of them. The same engine and fuel economy is available in the two and four door hatchbacks (Golfs), four door sedans (Jettas), and four door station wagons (Jetta wagons). Honda and Toyota also make extremely fuel-efficient vehicles. So it's not like the vehicles aren't there. If fuel prices went up and many consumers converted to those vehicles, our reliance on foreign oil would go away and our air would be far cleaner (since SUVs are permitted to pollute far more than passenger cars).

Re:This is insightful

[fmaxwell]

This isn't insightful, it's out and out bigotry.

"Bigotry" is defined as intolerance. Why the hell should I be tolerant of people who are distorting science, including medical science, in order to push their own political agenda?

All you're saying is that if I don't believe as I do, you're wrong.

I am saying that anyone who believes that scientific studies should be "revised" to fit a political agenda is wrong. And I am saying that anyone who would defend those actions is wrong.

I don't need to be tolerant of deceipt.

Will this lead to a mistrust of the government?

[intnsred]

Will this lead to a mistrust of the government?

That's funny. Let's see, we have a president sitting in the White House who lost the election. The election was rigged in a state run by his brother, oversaw by Florida Sec. of State Kathleen Harris (G. Bush's Florida campaign director). This election included denying tens of thousands the right of voting by a deliberate move of removing felons from the voting rolls (fine) and people whose names and SSNs were similar to those of a felon (not fine!). There are clearly documented examples (referenced by federal US election officials) of denying blacks and minorities the right to vote and of several Republican counties throwing ballots away. When the vote was close military ships and bases overseas were alerted to get more people to vote (on the theory those votes would be overwhemingly Republican). Despite the law clearly saying those votes had to have a valid postmark by the election day, Harris' Florida election people said to count those votes that were not validly postmarked.

Voting was confused enough that a recount was ordered, a recount approved by the Flordia state Supreme Court. When it was clear that Gore was going to win the recount, the media clearly had to fix Bush in the public's mind as the winner. So the head of Fox News (G. Bush's first cousin) called the election in Bush's favor.

The vote then moved to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had to work fast because Gore was catching up and would soon pass Bush in the recount. One Supreme Court "justice" [sic] had a son working for the legal firm which presented the Republican's case. Another "justice" [sic] had a wife working for Bush's campaign transition team. Yet those 2 justices did not recuse themselves, and instead were the key votes in the 5-4 decision to stop the recount. A very nice, clean, bloodless coup!

Many times I've heard the US president tell tales of how the IAEA said in 1998 Iraq was working on nuclear weapons, but he IAEA said no such thing. Many times I've heard the president say how the UN weapons inspectors were "kicked out" of Iraq -- yet they left voluntarily after being frustrated by Iraqi resistance to inspections. It's clear these repeated incidents are not "slips of the tongue." It's clear why the president is lying like this -- he simply wants to build support for an attack on Iraq.

Why this ramble? My point is this: What person is fool enough to trust the government now? What makes you think we're that naive?

Given the above examples, given the lies surrounding the Iran-Contra affair and the US importing of drugs to support the Contras during the 1980s, given the history of the Vietnam era -- deliberate large-scale lies to the American people and attempts by the Nixon administration to rig an election -- is there any person who really thinks we live in a democratic republic and that our government is trustworthy?!

This message -- and your e-mail and movements across the WWW/Internet -- is being monitored by the US gov't and it's "new" version of the First Amendment. Don't worry, you have nothing to fear, just trust us -- we'll only use these new draconian laws on the bad guys and you're "free" talk talk about J.Lo or the Super Bowl all you want...

Slashdot articles are also one-sided

[MickLinux]

I'd like to point out that this article is probably true -- almost completely true -- and it's stuff that matters, and it's for us nerds alright, and it's appropriate for slashdot, but it isn't news.

More than that, the same thing happened in the opposite direction under the Clinton administration. It is one of the reasons that Ayn Rand (and no, I'm not a Randian; I think her books are lousy) claimed that government-sponsored science cannot be science.

That said, this problem is everywhere. Take a look at science news this week, for example. Every week, at least two of their articles are directly politically topics, mostly on the liberal end.

Or try Scientific American. Just in time for a big Democrat Party gun-control push, they came out with a whole issue complete devoted to the source of terrorist and revolutionary-army weaponry.

I have no inherent reason to believe the latest results any less or any more than the results that came out of the Clinton Administration, "proving" that condom use reduced the incidence of STDs, or anything else of a political nature, for that matter. The real benefit (if you want to call it that) of all this pseudo-scientific politics is that it allows anyone to believe whatever they want, and draws all of society away from reality into a fantasy land.

I'll go one step farther and personalize the statement: if this is the first time that you noticed anything, or if this is the first time you complained -- then you need to rethink whether what you call "science" really is science.

Re:In the Soviet Union too

[commodoresloat]

In Soviet Russia, government tells scientists what to say.

oh, wait....

damn.

we really are fucked.

Global warming and ideology

[theolein]

Since a lot of people seem to make some sort of bond between this topic and global warming, I agree that there isn't much proof that the planet is warming, in an abstract theoretical sense. However I consider what I experience as proof for me:

When I got to Europe in 1986 from Africa, Winters were blisteringly cold in Berlin in Germany, and I remember one Winter in particular, 86-87, where the temperature went down to -29 Degrees Centigrade. I remember summers here being a balmy 26 to 28 Degrees Centigrade, on a hot summer. I mived to Switzerland in 1989 in time to see a small lake near to Zurich freezing over for most of the Winter for the last time.

Since then, in the countryside near to Zurich, the last time the small ski-stations had enough snow, anytime in winter for people to ski for more than a week was 1992. I remember sitting outside in the sunshine at 14 degrees Centigrade in a T-shirt, playing my bass guitar, on January 14th 1998. Summers have, since the mid to late 90's, regularly broken all time high records and almost every summer since about 1998 has reached 30 to 32 Degrees Centigrade.

On top of this the weather has become increasingly chaotic. Autumn and Spring storms that regularly reach huricane strength, each couple of years breaking the record of the last set of storms a few years ago, meandering cold fronts going off their usual west-east course in Winter and bringing a week of sudden (in the space of one hour) freezes of down to -14 Degrees Centigrade which last a few days and the temperature then suddenly boucing back up to 10 Degrees Centigrade. Almost every year now has major flooding in central Europe.

That was my experience here in Europe. My sister in Australia tells me that the country is getting dryer all the time and the bush fires bigger every year.

That does make me think, and I don't think that any piece of strange, backward legislation by a somwhat dubious Dubya is going to change that.

Re:Global warming and ideology

[Ektanoor]

You are partially wrong. While there is no doubt that average temperature has been going positive, there are several situations that lead to conclude that maximums and minimums have not been in place also. Right now, in central European Russia we are suffering the worst Winter since 50 years ago. For nearly all December we are getting an average -20 in several places. Right now, in some cities temperatures are beating the -40 limit. Last year we didn't have such a radical frost but it was largely colder than average. Note that for many regions in European Russia the average in December is -15 - -5, with episodical minimum limits of -20.

Summer floods have also presented an interesting pattern. Usually, a large section of East Europe gets hotter than +20 degrees (note all numbers are in centigrades). However, this last Summer has not only be too wet but also too cold. In Russia several regions beated the low records for Spring and early Summer. In our region, temperatures were frequently not higher than +15. And it was raining non-stop for several days. Meanwhile, in Siberia it was largely hotter than usual.There they entered Autumn with temperatures higher than +10 in many places.

Some other examples.

For some years I see snow falling in middle to late May, what is considered quite unusual for older generations.

In other situation, a highly traditional weather pattern seen here, suddenly broke for quite a long time. We are not too far from Moscow, so, it is usual to see Moscow's weather coming down here in two or three days. This year, either we had the same weather pattern as Moscow for several weeks, or we were generally colder than Moscow.

Meanwhile, while colder than usual, Moscow's green belt suffered one of its worst forest fires for many years. Due to the cold weather and these fires, for weeks Moscow was engolfed in a huge smog.

While I would not dispute the fact that the globe is getting hotter, I would advise to be careful on direct experiences. The weather is surely changing, but not in the stereotyped pattern that the partisans of global waring think.

Re:I blaim Bush

[slipgun]

You say "start a war" like it's a bad thing. I, and many other citizens of the United States, believe that we should have finished the job 10 years ago. As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, Iraq is running scared. Which would you rather have, a scared animal (who believing he has nothing to lose, will stop at nothing) or a dead animal? I can't think of a worse thing than an opponent with nothing to lose by anything up to and including death.

Another decent comment modded down because it disagrees with left-wing opinion on Slashdot.

Re:Well it should be OBVIOUS

[TygerFish]

I disagree completely with the moderator's scoring this, 'informative' for the reasons below.

Yes, an abortion is bound to do strange things to hormonal cycles in women, however, the question the post poses, and to which the times article refers, is whether or not the government is altering scientific data on health-related sites to suit a conservative agenda. The answer The Times article gave can be summed up with the words 'it seems so to many people including pro-choice politicians.'

Having got that out of the way, we can examine the poster's statements to extract an implicit argument.

There's almost always a fair amount of internal damage when tools are used, depending on the method of operation.

This is not accurate. According to one site, the discomfort associated with a D and C procedure (dilation and curettage, the most usual procedure in early stage abortions) is similar to the discomfort of menstral cramps. With this in mind, what the poster says makes things sound like major surgery is going on. That is weird, but things only start to get really hallucinatory when the poster writes about 'the vacuum device.'

The vacuum device (sorry.. don't know the name) that collapses the skull has a sharp edged attachment and it's difficult to maneuver. That's a pretty confined space to work in, after all.

Technical and clinical sounding, and gruesome enough to get your adrenaline pumping, but it has no substance: it is wet and sloshy when it comes to the facts.

This description of the procedure presupposes a long wait before the decision to terminate the pregnancy in question is undertaken. A long wait before one makes the decision is a possible pathway to abortion but it is by no means a necessary one despite the writer's implicit assertion. Dilation and curettage is only one of a number of options open to women in the United States and there is no reason to assume that abortion involving skull-collapsing sharp things that no one knows the name of is the only option or in any way the norm.

Current in-home pregnancy tests can allow a woman to know that she is pregnant within 10 days of conception and the poster works hard to describe a procedure that would note be necessary to abort the fetus after tens of weeks have gone by when in truth, during the second month of pregnancy, during the eighth week, the fetus is a legless thing measuring, 0.63 inches long from crown to rump and weighing four hundredths of an ounce.

The right of men and women to plan and control their reproduction--to control if, when and under what circumstances they will become parents, is an important one. If one is to present arguments where one's tacit assumption is that it's alright to rewrite the conclusions of scientific papers or throw out ideologically inconvenient statistics, one should try to get at least *some* of his facts from somewhere other than pro-life websites or the big book of urban legends.

Parent is Troll or Flamebait?

[ONOIML8]

You guys are trying to mix political terms with science in a very odd way just to stir something up here. Anywhere else on here and this would be modded down.

Conservative science means running the experiment twice instead of once.

It is not the same as conservative politics, which I think all this was supposed to be about. Unfortunatly the author, and the /. editiors it seems, had a political axe to grind.

So now we are left with a parent post that is not a good report on politics, not a good report on science, and is just not good reporting at all.

Or am I wrong? Is it more important to grind the political axe than to have honor in journalism?

Re:Parent is Troll or Flamebait?

[finkployd]

It isn't all the editors, it is just Michael. He is an idiot. His stories are generally factually incorrect, and he has absolutly no journalistic integrity. Seriously, look at his previous stories, he always slips in his political views whenever possible.

Finkployd

Mod parent up through the roof

[interactive_civilian]

Posts like this one make me wish that some posts on /. could exceed the +5 limit. This hits the nail on the head.

I left the US about a year and a half ago (and if the current trends continue, I may never return), and now I am teaching English in Japan. My students often ask me what I think about what I think of North Korea developing nuclear weapons (as well as US vs. Iraq, the "War on Free^H^H^H^HTerror" and other things), and I usually tell them that I am not worried about North Korea. I am much more worried about what the number one manufacturer of nuclear weapons in the world is trying to do. They often ask me what Japan can do to improve its economy, and I usually tell them that Japan needs to get all of its eggs out of the US Economic basket and spread them around, so if that basket falls, not all of the eggs will break. They often ask me why I don't like the US and I usually respond by asking them why they aren't afraid of George W. Bush.

I know I am getting way off-topic here, but I'm in a ranty mood and I have karma to burn. I read recently (maybe a few weeks ago) in the Daily Yomiuri (a Japanese newspaper) that President(emperor?) Bush wanted to reserve the right to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons against enemies he feels are a direct threat to the United States. Umm...hello...if that isn't the scariest thing you have heard in a long time then you are not listening. Of course, what do Americans think about nuclear weapons? Well, according to my sister (a school teacher in upstate New York...so take this with as much salt as you like), there was recently a poll in some paper (yeah, I know...how much more vague can I get) which stated that 80% of those polled said they would agree with and support an nuclear retaliatory attack on anyone who attacked (whether the poll specified nuclear or not, I don't know) the US.

Ok, so, now I am off topic, quoting unreliable sources, and not backing up anything I am saying...goodbye karma, I knew you well...but honestly, I am becoming very afraid of the position that the US federal government is trying to take within and outside of its own borders. And living in the only country in the world to ever be attacked with a nuclear weapon has helped me put a different perspective on things.

If President Bush gets re-elected, how long before he "dissolves the imperial senate" so to speak? Will the ACLU and the EFF be enough of a "rebel alliance" to restore peace, or will we find out how Star Wars could have ended? (sorry for the Star Wars references, but Bush reminds me so much of Palpatine)

Ok...sorry for the rant. I usually don't but this has been sitting inside for a long time. Feel free to mod me down through the floor boards, but mod the parent up...I think I'll just start sending my students to that post.

Peace On Earth. Purity Of Essence. and all that.

Re:Mod parent up through the roof

[jgalun]

They often ask me what Japan can do to improve its economy, and I usually tell them that Japan needs to get all of its eggs out of the US Economic basket and spread them around, so if that basket falls, not all of the eggs will break. They often ask me why I don't like the US and I usually respond by asking them why they aren't afraid of George W. Bush.

Maybe you should advise them to fix their banking system and start dealing with their massive national debt (which, as a percentage of GDP, is more than twice as big as America's). Your platitude sounds meaningful - an American warning about America - but it is actually meaningless. Japan's major problem economically is the domestic basis of its economy.

Yes, if America collapses economically then Japan is screwed. So is the rest of the world. But one of the reasons America's economy is so important to the world right now is because Japan and Europe have not fixed their economies. America, South Korea, China, and India are driving world economic growth right now. But because China and India are mainly exporters, and South Korea isn't that big, only America can really help the rest of the world. Traditionally, when America was going into recession, we could expect European and Japanese growth to help counteract the American recession. But now, because Japan and Europe have been stagnant for years, it is left up to America's economy alone.

Re:Bush sucks.

[Zeinfeld]

This administration lies about everything -- every goddamned thing -- as a matter of permanent policy

The problem isn't just the administration, its the Republican echo chamber that chose the candidate, chose the policies and lied to the people to get him elected.

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Washington times have a new version of Gobbel's 'big lie' it is the myth of the 'liberal media'. By repeating this myth often enough they aim to immunize themselves against criticism for their packs of lies.

That is why we have in the Whitehouse a Vietnam draft dogger who deserted his National guard post that daddy pulled strings to get, a man with a criminal conviction and a man who was investigated by the SEC for corruption who got off on a 'technicality' - if you call having daddy being Vice President at the time a technicality.

All of this was known during the campaign but the Republican echo chamber made sure that attention was instead focused on the 'real issues' of Gore's 'lies', like saying he went to Texas fires with the head of FEMA, not the deputy head, according to the Republican echo chamber this was an attempt to embelish his record, a vice president claiming to be on equal terms with an agency director! imagine!

Very little is being said about the fact that the SEC is currently investigating Cheney for corrupt accounting. One would thing that would be a big story, bigger than Lott's racist gaffe even. But no the big story the Republican echo chamber want to talk about is the alleged cost of Kerry's hairdo.

And so having made a mess of the economy and failled to catch Bin Laden the Administration is desperately trying to start a war in the hope that everyone (or at least sufficient numbers) can be fooled by the flag waving.

Question for the republican slashdot monitors - can you honestly claim that W, who deserted from the National guard would have served in the war he wants to start with Iraq?

Over where I come from we have words for people like W, they are Hypocrite, Liar and Coward.

Re:Higher fuel prices? Bring 'em on!

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

All it would do is require U.S. businesses to buy pollution credits from other countries in order to maintain the status quo. These costs will be passed on to you, the consumer, so that foreign countries can prop up their economies on your hard work.

The cost is already being passed onto me, and other American citizens: In the health damage associated with petro pollution. In the incoherence of foreign policy. In the instability in the Middle East and South America. In the sons and daughters sent to die to maintain our petroleum addicition -- and in the conscience and psyche of our sons and daughters sent to kill others to maintain our petroluem addiction.

Not all value is economic value. We are already paying for these failures... we might as well translate it to simple economic cost (and safeguard the environment while we're at it).

"Zardoz" said it best...

[No Such Agency]

"The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life, and poisons the earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the gun shoots death, and purifies the earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth and kill!"

Re:Higher fuel prices? Bring 'em on!

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Not that signing Kyoto would reduce the amount of oil exported, or even potentially used in the aggregate. All it would do is require U.S. businesses to buy pollution credits from other countries in order to maintain the status quo.

It's funny how people believe in capitalism ... right up until it's inconvenient. If a business buys a pollution credit, it reduces its profitability. A company doing the same work but not polluting will be able to offer a lower price while realizing the same profit. Consumers will choose the lower-priced work, thereby rewarding the desired behavior. PolluteCo will have to shell out for pollution credits -- and they'll pay to CleanCo (which therefore derives more profit). Again, the desired behavior is rewarded.

In the long term, one of two things happens:

PolluteCo gets wise, invests in cleaner technology, reduces its emissions, and so escapes the need to buy credits. End result: The industry as a whole is cleaner.

PolluteCo never wises up, remains dirty, fails to invest in clean tech, continues to pay for the credits. CleanCo continues to derive economic benefit from its clean technologies, so it maintains its lower prices and draws more of the market to it. PolluteCo ramps down production (due to falling orders) and/or eventually goes out of business. End result: The industry as a whole is cleaner.

Either way, pollution credits lead to the desired result. And amazingly they do so through clear, clean market efficiency. (For those who complain that the setting of credits is an intervention, I riposte that costs and prices are measures of desires, which lie outside the market paradigm. Why did everyone want a beanie baby? Not due to market forces.)

Pretty safe????

[TheLink]

What's _pretty_safe_ about those figures?

98%-100%? That's a wide range isn't it? There is a big difference between 1 in 50 being infected and 0 in infinity.

1 in 50 FUBAR rate is a lot worse than skydiving when I last checked (1 in 3800 participants).
http://www.afn.org/skydive/sta/sta ts.html
People nowadays seem to give more respect to leaping out of an airplane than to sex.

0.5-3% is pretty much in line of typical condom failure rates in various studies. Note for most contraceptive studies failure = pregnancy, not infection. Humans aren't very fertile, so it is likely that the barrier failure rates are higher. While AIDS isn't that infectious, hepatitis B/C and other dangerous STDs are significantly more infectious.

People who keep saying condoms = safe sex are irresponsible.

Hot-blooded youth need to know the true risks. Given a real idea of the risks some may indeed decide to make safer choices.

Saying they'll all be promiscuous anyway is wrong and patronising. Some sex surveys have indicated that in some countries premarital sex isn't that common. If the prevalent culture is risky and the risk/benefit ratio is bad, work to change the culture.

Re:Why should this surprise anyone?

[jdreed1024]

Who modded this Interesting? -1 Flamebait is more like it.

The poster has no concept of history whatsoever. First, some things to clear up. In the 1948 election, Strom Thurmond was not running as a Republican OR a Democract. He was running as a semi-independent. A group of Southern Democrats, who thought Harry Truman (a democrat) was going too far with his civil rights policies, broke from the Democratic party and formed their own party with their key point being the "right of the States". In practice, the only States' Right they cared about was the right to allow segregation. (These were unofficially known as "Dixiecrats".)

Second, the Democratic Party nominated Eisenhower as a candidate and wanted him to face Truman in the Democratic Primary. Eisenhower (as a national WWII hero) knew that he would win, but declined the nomination. He threw in the towel, and is reported to have discussed this with Truman, saying he (Eisenhower) would decline the nomnation provided Truman did not seek a second term in 1952. We all know the rest of the story - Truman rode around the county, decrying the Republican Congress; the media picked Dewey (Republican) as their favorite; and Truman won by a landslide.

Now, on to your original post. You claim:
the last time that the president and both houses of Congress were republican was then - In the Eisenhower administration.
This was only the case for the first half of the first term of Eisenhower's administration. The 83rd Congress was Republican, but just barely. (In the senate it was a margin of 1 (with 1 independent), and in the house, a margin of 5 (with several independents))
Do you really think the whole Trent Lott fiasco was because he "misspoke himself"?
Yes. Lott has a history of misspeaking himself. Regardless of whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you have to agree that Lott is the kind of person that shouldn't be allowed to speak without a teleprompter. Furthermore, Lott did not say "If we'd had segregation in 1948, things would be better.", nor did he say "Strom, if your platform had been carried in '48, we'd all be happy." He merely said that if Thurmond had been president, we wouldn't have had "these problems" today. He didn't say what problems. It's conceiveable he was talking about Korea, for example. If Thurmond had been elected in '48, it's likely that a) We wouldn't have gone into Korea at all; or b) We would have gone in, but Thurmond wouldn't have fired McArthur like Truman did. He could have been talking about anything at all. Fact is, there's no way in hell Thurmond would have even been elected, given the strong Democratic support for civil rights. Second of all, even if he _had_ been elected, there's no way he would have passed any anti-civil rights stuff with the do-nothing 80th Republican Congress, and by the time the 81st Congress rolled around, it was strongly controlled by Democratic advocaters of Civil Rights, which is what allowed Truman to pass the order of de-segregation for the U.S. Armed Forces so quickly.

Also, Lott was 5 or 6 in 1948. How many of you paid attenton to politics when you were 5 or 6? How many of you in college now remember the detailed platforms of the '84 election? I sure don't.
Fact is, whatever Lott's remark meant, it got blown out of proportion. The reason it took 3 days for ANYONE (on either side) to get upset at his remark, is because they had to go back and look at the '48 election, and figure out what the hell platform Thurmond was running on, because nobody remembers. Regardless, he should have known that anything he says as a politician is going to get misinterpreted, and that's why you keep your mouth shut unless your speechwriter and spin doctor are with you.

No, there isn't.

[Theaetetus]

* First, Bush doesn't suck. Granted I'm a right leaning mid-liner, but that isn't a crime unless I'm in Berkely or San Francisco. ;-)

Well, you haven't really said anything here about Bush, just about yourself... But then, the "Bush sucks" posts don't say anything about why he sucks, so most of those are equally invalid.
No, what's more interesting is the stuff about how Bush went AWOL during a war for over a year - potentially an act of treason, how Cheney's accounting scandals have been swept under the rug, etc. Refute those, and we can start discussing Bush's suck-factor.

* Second, if you believe in global warming, find some real evidence. Yeah there may be an elevated level of CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is a piss poor 'greenhouse gas', methane and water vapor work way better. If there is a global warming trend I'd be inclined to think that it's the sun causing it as there is evidence that Mars is warming, also.

From the EPA's Global Warming site:

A warming trend of about 1F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

Now, OTOH, what's that mean? Average temperatures have increased slightly, but that could be a natural cyclical trend - records don't go back long enough.
Rather than saying "find some real evidence" - plenty exists - you should be saying "what does that evidence really mean?"

Incidentally, on the last Talk of the Nation Science Friday (from NPR), they had a segment on Antarctic science that mentioned global warming studies. Interestingly enough, though parts of the continent are warming, others are cooling, and there's about a 60% cooling trend across the continent.

Global warming is happening - but we have no idea what that means yet.

* Thirdly. What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence? Maybe there was a leftist bias on those pages to begin with and they really do refect more acurately scientific evidence?

Depends on your definition of "best". What is the surest way to prevent pregnancy? Abstinence. What is the one that most people would be willing to follow? Condoms.
Look, if what's going on with the Catholic Church is any indication, not even priests can maintain a vow of chastity. To believe that anyone else can is wishful thinking at best and self-delusion at worst.

People will have sex. Teenagers will have sex. While abstinence would be best, they aren't going to do that. We might be able to get them to compromise and wear condoms, and that is much more preferable to the alternative.

Similar is dieting - obesity is a huge [pun intended] problem in this country. The obvious solution - eat less, eat more nutritionally, exercise more, etc. is very tough for a lot of people to do. Humans, in general, tend to lack the willpower for self-denial. So, though people know that they're slowly killing themselves, they continue eating Super-sized big mac meals.

Likewise smoking - anyone who doesn't know at this point that smoking is harmful is an idiot and has been living in a shack for the past sixty years. Nonetheless people still smoke. It takes a whole lot of willpower to change behaviors, particularly when you have to deny yourself immediate gratification - such as the Big Mac, the Marlboro, or the blow job - in exchange for a few possible extra years on your life... at the end, particularly when you don't know if you'll be hit by a bus or drafted and not get to die of natural causes.

In short, this is why condom use is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs - it's the one people will actually follow.

-T

The lesson to be learned

[MobyDisk]

This is why these organizations should be privatized non-profits. The FDA, EPA, NCI, etc. should be able to say whatever they think best. If some group disagrees, then they can start another group that says something else. No social or political group should be backed by the government as the absolute authority on a subject. This would lead to honesty and lower taxes.

(Vote libertarian!)

Re:I blaim the Supreme Court

[swv3752]

And the fore fathers for te screwy election system. If it was decided by a popular vote, Gore would have won.

Re:Condoms/guns both legitimize

[radish]

Since when did sex need "legitimizing"? How on earth can the most basic reproductive act of our species not be "legitimite"?

Let's get this straight:

Sex is good, it's fun, people like it and people will always do it. If they stop, we're in trouble.

Condoms allow people to have sex, whilst reducing the risk of problems (STDs, unwanted pregnancies etc) occuring. Not removing the risk, reducing the risk.

If people are going to have sex (and they are, and indeed they SHOULD), then it makes sense for them to use condoms. Just like if you're going to get in your car and drive, it makes sense to wear the seatbelt. You're not guaranteed to stay alive, but it improves your chances.

Re:Not votint

[sjames]

The problem is having someone to vote for. While most people think of not voting as a form of laziness, there is also conscientiously looking at the cantidates and deciding that none of them deserve a vote. If 'none of the above' were a meaningful option on the ballot, I'd vote a lot more.

Currently, the best one can do is not vote at all, or game the system by voting for the most contentious rivals and hope they are caught in a hopeless snarl of infighting and don't get to do too much damage.

Currently, we have as close to none of the above as we have ever had, but to little effect. I should think that a vote resulting in a margin smaller than statistical error should send a message, but it seems that the recipiants are oblivious.

As for the issue at hand, this sort of revisionism is truly a cornerstone of the 1984 scenerio, but I have little doubt that Gore would have done it as well.

Outright lies from the left

[Kohath]

• Secondhand smoke kills ###### people a year.
• The rich don't pay taxes.
• Cell phones cause cancer.
• There are # million homeless people in the US.
• Breast implants cause illness.
• Global warming will kill us all in ## years.
• Ozone depletion will kill us all in ## years.
• Overpopulation will kill us all in ## years.
• Women are paid $.7# cents for every dollar a man is paid.
• No one knew cigarettes were dangerous before 19##.
• Cigarette smoking costs the public $## billion for health care.
• Animals have Rights.
• There are ### species going extinct each day/month/year.
• It's ---------'s fault children are fat, not their parents' fault.
• Nuclear power is more dangereous than ------ power.
• -------- is dangerous in small doses.
• Vaccines cause autism.
• Organic food is safer.
• GM "frankenfoods" will kill us all in ## years.
• Air polution is getting worse.

If you want a hundred examples of outright leftist falsehood, you only need to look to junkscience.com. It's updated daily. They're not always right, but they seem to have brought back the concept of healthy skepticism.

This is not a defense of untruth by the right either. I've noticed just the opposite of your contention. Untruths are more a historical phenomenon for the right and more a contemporary phenomenon for the left.

The thing is, political falsehood is usually used to oppress people, not to free them. In general, modern conservatives in the US want more freedom, and modern liberals want more control over people. This represents a shift from the '60s, and it goes hand-in-hand with the shift in political untruth-telling.

Re:Outright lies from the left

[Kohath]

Ok, agreed.

FWIW: Religous people of all faiths, in general, tend to be nice people.

Some religious leaders want to make your choices for you. Some scientific leaders want to make your choices for you. It doesn't matter who's right about why or what the underlying motives are. What matters is that your choices are yours, and my choices are mine, and trying to take them away is wrong.

Re:Outright lies from the left

[Hauptkov]

"If you want a hundred examples of outright leftist falsehood, you only need to look to junkscience.com. It's updated daily. They're not always right, but they seem to have brought back the concept of healthy skepticism."

Ah, Steven Milloy. Webmaster of junkscience.com, and tobacco industry shill.

PR Watch had a huge article on Milloy, which you can read here.

Basic story: "the Junkman" got his start through Phillip Morris's dealings with PR firm Burston-Marsteller when they started creating phony scientific groups to oppose inconvenient research into the harmfulness of tobacco, and phony grassroots citizens' groups to make it appear there was a public groundswell of support for tobacco companies. Guess who was on board some of the groups to give "scientific weight" to what they said.

Here are some excerpts of the article:

Steven Milloy describes himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Milloy appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations," it adds, noting that he has also "written articles that have appeared in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Investors' Business Daily."

These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of "junk science." This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other industry in history.

Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of 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.

...

After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own organization called the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.," where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that "most environmental risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot be proven." Shortly thereafter, he launched the "Junk Science Home Page." Calling himself "the Junkman," he offered daily attacks on environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various political agendas.

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

...

Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a "Consumer Distorts" website devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism, and "scaring consumers away from products."

And here are some more PR Watch articles on Mr. Milloy.

Re:Outright lies from the left

[GlassHeart]

Animals have Rights.

"Outright lie"?

This is a political belief. It can be right or wrong, but not true or false.

What Are You Smoking?! No Pun...

[aerojad]

Where are you diging this up from? I've had family members who have died from smoking, was their death faked for me by the left?
Air pollution is getting worse, try breathing country air compared to the air in Detroit where I live.
No homeless in the country? Have you ever left the pedistol you're on and visited, oh I don't know, ANY inner city?
Want examples of women being paid less than men? Let me take you to the k-mart where I used to work where I would get a $0.35 raise and a woman would only get a $0.25 raise.
Of course cigarette smoking dosen't cost the public money, because people who are suffering from lung cancer don't go to the hospital, right?
Animals don't have rights? Tell me that again when the ecosystem is in shambles and we don't have anything to eat.
No species going extinct per day? Oh what do you care, they're just insignifigant bugs.
Nuclear power isn't dangerous? Go visit Eastern Europe and tell people that.

For the love of God, think before you sound tremendously stupid, but above all, remember that no one political party is out to "get you", and so no one political party is going to make up world history and scientific breakthroughs over the past century! I suppose man never landed on the moon too, right?

Re:Not votint

[sjames]

I could go for that, though if 'none of the above' was an option and could cause something meaningful to happen, I would happily vote without compulsion.

Compulsory voting leads to a danger for abuse. What would be really interesting (but won't happen) would be no vote = no government services = no taxes. Given most American's opinions of how well their tax dollars are spent, it would lead to a record low turnout :-)

Dangerous advice

[LinuxGeek]

They should vote even if they're uninformed -- provided that they truly vote randomly (if uninformed) ... Many of the ills of American democracy follow from the pathetically low participation rate.

What you are encouraging your students to do is pseudo-participation at best. To truly participate, they would have to care and actually inform themselves on the issues. That is part of our civic duty - to be citizens and know what is going on as best we can and make the best informed decisions possible. What you suggest is about as bad as a parent that wants the TV to substitute for loving interaction with their children. As long as something is interacting, its called participation, right? Not.

The problem with your approach is that the randomness will be mostly effected by the amount of exposure they have had to a certain name or a catchy slogan. Advertising has a powerful influence.

And this is news?

[tz]

All through the '70s and '80s there was a push to fund the panicmonger scientists on the left - The new ice age (switched to global warming, but they will probably be back to Ice Age in a decade or so), Acid Rain (lakes that were highly acid in 1800 but were limed returned to becoming acid, but it was our fault).

The Hyperliberal New York Times is now upset that instead of giving THE LIBERAL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LINE they National Cancer Institute is actually looking at data.

Abortion is either a factor or a nonfactor in breast cancer. There have been studies validating both sides, but Bill Clinton will have the NCI say there is no effect, and GWB will have it say there is a clear causal connection.

Condoms are another problem. If they were a drug the FDA would ban them for not being effective or being too hard to use. "Those who used latex condoms correctly and consistently". But how many is that out of everyone who uses condoms? And what of things like HPV that isn't covered by the condom. That, and abstinence. was being censored by the previous administration.

Maybe there will be a page saying "We recommend the use of low-tar cigarettes and filters" and not making any mention of quitting or abstinence of cigarettes if a Tobacco state politician becomes president.

The government should stay out of this too. Where in the constitution does it give them the power to do this?

Re:And this is news?

[jpmorgan]

Abortion is either a factor or a nonfactor in breast cancer. There have been studies validating both sides, but Bill Clinton will have the NCI say there is no effect, and GWB will have it say there is a clear causal connection.

Since when did paralytic fear of coming to conclusions based on the evidence become part of the scientific process? Apparently when GWB got elected...

The biggest, the best and the most generally trusted studies of the issue have shown that there is no causal connection. Science is full of disagreement, but good science is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based solely on the facts, not the political agendas. In this circumstance, despite the existance of some evidence to the contrary, the facts primarily support the no causal connection side of the argument.

To overlook the fact that a significant majority of the evidence is in favour of the no causal connection side, and suggest that because there is some disagreement the evidence is inconclusive isn't science. It's a weak attempt to pass off a highly political agenda as scientific fact, and censor information that the administration doesn't want revealed.

There is something wrong with you, Beav.

[FatHogByTheAss]

If the kids are raised where abstinence is the way to go, then you get teens that use abstinence.

Bullshit. What you get are kids that have sex and try to cover it up. You get kids that have unsafe sex because they are scared to death that someone at the drugstore might tell dad he was buying rubbers. You get girls that hide their pregnancies, give birth in bathrooms, and leave their babies in trash cans.

Where/when I went to high school, no body did anything except get drunk on the weekends.

Just because you couldn't get any, you shouldn't assume everyone else couldn't, too.

Re:Bush sucks.

[Zeinfeld]

Oh and BTW: Cheny was cleared. he is no longer under investigation.

More Republican lies, the SEC just upgraded the Halliburton probe

Why tell lies about things that are so easily checked? Cheney is still under investigation, he was CEO while the accounting irregularities occurred.

Re:Lubbock county, TX

[Arandir]

What other counties were studied? Were those counties similar to Lubbock in economics, education, demographics, etc? If the study didn't have them, then it was NOT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY!

Lubbock Texas has a character and set of attitudes distinct from all other counties in the country. Drawing nation wide conclusions from just Lubbock county is stupid.

In the county I grew up in, about 60% of the population were strict catholics. They were also immigrant and migratory workers. (sound a bit like Lubbock?) Teenage pregnancy is sky high and welfare assistance to single mothers is draining the county coffers dry. Is this the fault of catholic emphasis on abstinence? Or was it the fault of economic hopelessness? I strongly suspect the latter.