Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Challenge U.S. on Scientific Distortions
rocketjam writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. They also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement. Numerous complaints from the scientific community about the administration's scientific policy-making prompted the The Union of Concerned Scientists to begin investigating the issue last summer. As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry." Other articles: Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, The Guardian.
...uh.. ah forget it.. go to the elections
What do you think will happen if some small hostile arabic country actually starts testing nuclear weapons? Oh wait.. Pakisitan.. Right..
Mod +5 Drunk
Mr. Rogers has been following me for the past three weeks. I have yet to see him, but whenever I turn my head in the right direction, I can feel his presence. His footsteps are there. He also spoke once. His voice was soft and sounded like the creaking of branches in a light breeze. The man said he means no harm and Jesus loves me. I know that's not the truth. That phrase was his secret keyword meaning he was about to strike, so I ran as fast as I could to the corner convenience store and called the police and an officer picked me up and kept me safe for a day. You can tell when they are one of them when they try to brain wash you with false saviors. Only I hold the key to eternity, because I, unlike them, have already found internal harmony. I can feel a majestic light scintillating through my veins twining away from the cold darkness of the one who follows me. Rogers has with him a wooden rod to bludgeon me to death. I know that he will only get me when I am alone, so I ensure there's always someone around me who's awake all of the time, like my friend Peter Jennings who is standing behind me right now holding an open butterfly knife guarding me. Rogers passionately hates Gorbachev and spoke about the leader's car bomb plans on every show. Rogers knows I once smoked weed with Gorbachev and chatted with him about the President's dog Spot who was formerly a spy for the KGB. At the time, I didn't know he was a spy, but there was something about the way the dog looked at me when I saw his photo in the newspaper. His expression unraveled me at the time. Now I know why. The CIA had recruited Mr. Rogers and shared intelligence with him. That's why he knows where I live. That's why I need your help in stopping him. Please kill him before he kills me. Because of his presence within the CIA, he has bionic skin making it impossible to kill him with a knife or gun. You can only stun him with those items but never kill him. His only weakness is from glue. It sticks to the outside of his soul and sufficates the body he possesses, essentially cutting his inner being from the outside world. It does not matter the type of glue. Coat his body with it while chanting "Within this sphere I will set the hounds free". Once the glue sinks into his inner being he will never walk on earth ever again. Watch out for the ghost of Zeus that may eminate from his body just before death to avoid electricution. If you fail he will kill you and absorb your life force making him a threat to the entire planet. I beg of you. Please help rid the world of him!
Yeah, you know Smith and Wesson, Glauk, Remmington...they got a lot of pull with the Texas cowboy types in Washington these days...
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Everytime michael gets his turn, he posts propaganda and flamebait stories. Nice use of slashdot... moron. You see, the problem is that LEGITIMATE stories are then pushed off the homepage that much sooner. Go ahead, mod me down for my opinion. Hail ze uberleft.
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
Man, this is the mantra these days...isn't it? I've always wanted to them to define the 'rich' and wealthiest...$200K/yr? $500K/yr? The fact that none of the opposing candidates can tell me a figure....makes me worried they think someone who makes $35K-$85K a year is wealthy. That's freakin' middle class...
Other thing that bothers me with this train of thought. In the tax cut....EVERY tax payer got a tax cut. 10% off of $35K is much less that 10% of $100K...but, everyone got a 10% cut. What's wrong with that? I personally don't think that a person making a lot of money should have to pay 50% - 70% in taxes? There is nothing wrong with working hard, and with some luck, making a success out of yourself. You shouldn't be penalized for doing well.
The part I can't understand...is why on the tax cut...people in congress/senate started going on about 'how the very poor, bottom of the scale people' didn't benefit from the tax cuts. Hmmm...think it had to do with the fact that they don't pay taxes?? Kinda hard to give a tax cut where you try to take 10% off $0.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sorry to play a sad depressing tune here, but the flat tax idea is all well and good, unless you're living off of 20k a year. The reason we have an 'unfair' scale is because whichever combination of laws etc that govern wages allows even hard-working people to make a poverty level 'living'. Explain to me, without the 'contributing to the gov will give them pride' crap, why someone making 20k/yr doing fulltime hard work should have to pay 15%. If you and your spouse make that much, and you have a couple kids, how the h*ll bad would you feel that some 6 figure 'worker' has to pay a higher percentage?
Scientists are some of the biggest liars in the world. They are like lemmings, and once the pack starts to move one way, they never QUESTION THE ASSUMPTIONS, and they all follow.
Bush may be very well guilty as charged, but 20 nobel laureates? Big deal. They can choose WHICH scientific "facts" they use to justify themselves.
I had a great teacher who once said, "Intellectuals can rationalize anything."
Bingo.
Gore did that during his attempt to steal the presidency in Florida (too bad those democrats got caught running around the counties with a Votamatic). Remember? He claimed that folks who make $250K/yr were 'millionaires' because in four years....
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
My experience has been that people that make a LOT of money... don't deserve it.
They haven't done a darn thing that someone making $200 Grand couldn't have done.
Certainly nothing to earn $10 Million...
Limit the amount of money that a person can earn in a year and there would have been no reason for Enron... or Iraq for that matter, to happen.
I'll define "excess" as more than a million a year... let the debate begin!
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Borg Gates and I both receive the same benefits from government, he just has to pay a helluva lot more. We're protected by the same tanks, ships, and planes. Our food is inspected by the same people. Our drugs are approved by the same tests. Our SS "funds" are administered by the same bureaucrats. Why does Gates (and pretty much 50% of taxpayers) have to pay more than I do for the same services? He has to pay more just because he makes more.
Even with a flat tax it isn't fair, because 10% of "billions and billions" is way more than 10% of my pittance.
You should feel bad if someone pays more taxes than you because they're getting ripped off more than you. But instead of worrying about how much your neighbor is or isn't paying, you should start wondering why the government needs to steal all this money in the first place.
Save me Jeabus!
As for kids...hey, you chose to have them. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them. If you do...then deal with the fact you have to make sacrifices. Why should you pay less because you chose to have one or more kids? Its not fair that a single person or childless couple should have to pay 'more' in taxes, and you pay less. Look at it this way. Say we both pay $10 each paycheck that goes to public education. You want a tax break for a child. So, now, I still pay the $10...and you pay nothing. Why is this the case that I'm paying for a resource that you are not paying for...but, ARE using, and I am not.
A fair taxation scheme is needed...but, not a income redistribution scheme...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
for what it's worth, my earlier comment was supposed to have and tags, but my dumb ass didn't preview the comment and it turned out i didn't have proper formatting selected.
i hope i didn't offend you, and yes i do sometimes read the articles.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Sheesh. Give the minority/majority thing a rest, willya? Presidents are frequently elected with a minority of votes. Clinton won with 43.3% in '92. Electoral politics are pretty much rigged anyway, so the fact that SCOTUS decided to call 2000 for the side that would end electoral uncertainity fastest shouldn't be surprising.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Wow ... I got trolled. First one ever after several years as a Slashdot reader.
I guess this is what happens when you post facts that oppose the views of the moderator. Troll it down so no one reads it.
He must be an environmentalist too.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
that Bush is toast.
In November, Remove the Reckless Resident!!
Let me get this right, they're saying that by making policy based on advice by scientists other than them, the Bush administration is censuring them? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the findings of these agencies are still published are they not? If they were really being censured, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because none of this information would be public domain. No, this is really just a bunch of people whining because the policy that gets made isn't the policy they want to see get made. Well, I hate to say it, but the Bush Administration is not required to follow their recommendations no matter what they received the Nobel prize for, and that's a fact.