More Accusations of Scientific Abuse by the Bush Administration

Saeed al-Sahaf writes "Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released new evidence that the Bush Administration continues to suppress and distort scientific knowledge and undermine scientific advisory panels. Of course we're not talking about such subjective issues like stem cell research which Bush objects to on religious grounds. Here we are talking about money. The cases discussed in this story detail incidents of suppression and distortion of scientific knowledge on issues ranging from mountaintop removal strip mining to endangered species such as wild Salmon in the Pacific Northwest."

Comments

Re:Ironic

[hal9000]

Can you say ad hominem?

Re:Ironic

[sfjoe]

Does anyone else find it odd that a story on "scientific abuse" was submitted by a Wiccan?

I don't follow your point. Are only christians allowed to comment on scientific abuse? Or are Wiccans assumed to be anti-science?

Re:Ironic

[squiggleslash]

What difference does it make? If he was a practicing Christian, would it have been deemed comment-worthy?

Re:it's a great day for freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK rms, we get the FP jokes already. Enough is enough. And you're not fooling anyone by posting AC. Viva la revelucion!!!

Re:Any peer review on this?

[sfjoe]

Because the Union of Concerned Scientists is right up there with the Clown College in my book.

Admission standards to Clown College are a bit higher than I would have thought:

"62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers..."

Two points

[Otter]

1) While I appreciate Minister al-Sahaf's acknowledgement that the issues around stem cells are matter of subjectivity, not a science-vs-faith issue like evolution, framing the debate in terms of "religious grounds" isn't all that much better. It's a question of ethics, like other bioethics issues.

2) The Union of Concerned Scientists is a wildly partisan organization, that leans heavily on getting large numbers of scientists to sign their statements and then acting as though that represents an informed expert opinion by the signatories. That doesn't invalidate any particular point they make, of course, but I'd like to examine these accusations on a case by case basis, rather than get excited about "x scientists, including y Nobel Laureates" signing another one of their screeds.

Re:Two points

[Otter]

...and 3) Despite the spin here, the news here is almost entirely driven by the deck-stacking on the stem cell issue, with a couple of new anecdotes thrown in.

Re:Two points

[Glog]

To be precise there were 48 Nobel laureates who singed that document mentioned in the article. You seem to imply that such people would put their signature on any document just so that the annoying organization bugging them to sign it would get out of their hair. I do believe this time it's different and they actually mean it. When will you start believing Bush needs to go? If only for the damage he's done to science and ecology.

Re:Two points

[squiggleslash]

To be precise there were 48 Nobel laureates who singed that document mentioned in the article.

Blimey. Did someone record them doing this? Is there a BT of the MP3 of all these scientists singing?

Re:Two points

[meta-monkey]

I find the "suppression" of stem-cell research acusation particularly interesting. The administration did not ban stem-cell research...they simply banned federal funding of it. If stem-cell research is so great and promising, then let private industry fund the research. After all, they're the ones who are going to make money off it.

Too often millions of tax dollars are spent in R&D at government labs to develop a new drug, which is then licensed for pennies to a pharmacutical company, which then charges consumers (that is, the taxpayers who paid to develop it in the first place) $100/dose. Shouldn't liberals be happy we're ending this "corporate welfare?"

Re:Two points

[Hard_Code]

No because probably a good amount of liberals think the government should be spending money to do that itself and then providing those drugs itself for cheap or free. I'd have to say I agree with the argument as far as public health goes. There are lots of things that involve heavy initial investment for which there isn't necessarily a large opportunity for profit (for instance, studying the bad health affects of junk foods isn't something that the junk food industry or cholesterol lowering drug pharmaceuticals are going to invest in). Why spend all that money on something new when you can take an existing drug, change it ever so slightly and squeeze another 5 years of profits out of it? If all else fails simply brand everything as Generic Anxiety Disorder and pump out some drug for that.

Re:Two points

[jilles]

About point 2, this style of politics seems to have replaced reason and common sense in the US. Both parties know most people will never get a chance to examine evidence in detail so instead they depend on making lots of noise in the media.

But still, when a large group of respected, smart and well educated people supports these accusations I think that is more credible than the white house telling us everything is fine. Getting Nobel prize winners to support this means that a few very smart people made a balanced judgement and came to the conclusion that they wanted to support this.

It takes some enormous wisdom or stupidity to dismiss such a thing. I'm afraid there's plenty of stupid americans who will just do that. I'm as pessimistic to believe that the current US government is actually so stupid that they actually believe they know better.

Re:Two points

[hal9000]

Name one argument against stem cell research that's not based on religious views.

Re:Two points

[magefile]

The problem is, the institutions large enough (rich enough) to pay to create new stem cell lines are afraid of having money taken away from other (non-stem-cell) projects, as well as the stem cell projects they already have (research continues; it's just crippled). It's like how some organizations don't want to offer certain types of sex ed counseling (definitely abortion; I believe also HIV and STD/birth control) overseas because that'd lose their status as a "humanitarian aid organization that is eligible for financial aid".

Besides, do you have any fscking idea how many people stem cell research would help? Pretty much anyone with an enzyme or hormonal deficiency or chemical imbalance (and that includes tons of diseases - diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's). Pharmacos will still have to do expensive research to target stem cell treatments to specific diseases. But as of now, it's too risky for them to pay for *all* stem cell research - that's an incredibly broad category.

Re:Two points

[mcelrath]

When the original article came out the conservative media tried to paint the Union of Concerned Scientists as a partisan organization, you seem to have fallen into that trap hook, line, and sinker.

Do you honestly think that statements from a scientific body are more partisan than those from a political body? We scientists strive to present the government and public with the best data we can and allow the politics to occur elsewhere. There is no room for politics in science. In science one can make a big name for oneself by proving that the accepted dogma is wrong. Ideology cannot survive in such an environment, unless facts are suppressed.

Read the article(s). Most points are not about ethics. This is about ignoring scientific evidince that disagrees with the administration's ideology, placing industry representatives in positions that are a clear conflict of interest, and suppressing and editing scientific reports after the fact. (My favorite is increasing the amount of lead allowed in drinking water, placing a lead industry representative on the committee responsible, and suppressing the report indicating that low levels of lead are more harmful to children than previously thought)

This is not about ethics. It is about misleading the american people. We ignore this warning at our own peril.

-- Bob

Re:Two points

[Atzanteol]

Because a belief is religious in nature, does not mean it is wrong.

Re:Two points

[hal9000]

OK, but that's completely beside the point.

Re:Two points

[LordNimon]

That may be true, but you're not addressing hal9000's point.

Re:Two points

[Hungus]

Evolution vs Creation is a Faith vs Faith issue or a Science vs Science depending on outlook. To presume otherwise is to make an initial bias which is virtually unrecoverable.

Re:Two points

[meta-monkey]

No because probably a good amount of liberals think the government should be spending money to do that itself and then providing those drugs itself for cheap or free.

Well then it'll take more than an executive order or a policy shift to make that happen. The United States is not a socialist system, in which the government owns the means of production. The government does not manufacture or sell products (except for postage stamps, I guess), so even if the government DID fund this research, it would only serve to enrich whatever drug company is awarded the license, anyway.

The reason why companies would fund stem-cell research on their own, however, is obvious. If you develop a cure for Parkinson's disease, you stand to make a ton of money selling this cure. Often, conspiracy theorists will retort that drug companies would never do this, because they can make more money selling drugs to control the disease, rather than a one-time cure. This is not a rational argument, since there is more than one drug company. If company A sells a drug to manage Parkinson's, company B should develop a cure and put company A out of business, taking the profits for themselves.

Re:Two points

[meta-monkey]

The administration did not say that non-stem-cell research funding will be cut from any organization that conducts stem-cell research, only that the government will not fund stem-cell research.

Yes, I understand how many people stem-cell research will help, and I'm all for this research. However, I'm not in favor of the government paying for it. What will happen is that taxpayers will fund the research, and then drug companies will take the result of this research and gouge the public that paid for it to begin with. Instead, let the drug companies pay for it themselves. True, it's very expensive. However, a single drug company does not have to fund the entire scope of stem-cell research, only the part of interest to them. As they stand to reap enormous profits for developing new drugs or treatments based on stem-cell research, they should pay the costs, not me.

Re:Two points

[bluenawab]

while i respect your decision to examine these accusations on a case by case basis, i dont see whats so non-partisan about the white house either. many of their actions, policies (i am sticking with the environmental/science issues only) have been either based on religious prejudices as you point out or pure monetary considerations. the scientists have a proven method, and they can back up their statements (or accusations) through peer-reviewed data, and not some work done by government agencies, which can and HAVE been pressurized by the government. so, you can either be very careful and take the accusations case by case, while the government abuses the environment with its policies or actually listen to the scientists. they have nothing to gain from this (leaving aside political agenda)...

Re:Two points

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

1) While I appreciate Minister al-Sahaf's acknowledgement that the issues around stem cells are matter of subjectivity, not a science-vs-faith issue like evolution, framing the debate in terms of "religious grounds" isn't all that much better. It's a question of ethics, like other bioethics issues.

The banned stem cell research is a matter of hypocrisy and partisan pandering at the expense of science. The banned research in question uses blastocyts (sp?) which is simply an egg fertilized in a petri dish and never embedded in a womb. Banning research using this method is inconsistent since the same practice is used at fertility clinics all over the country. If there is an ethical problem using this method for stem cell research, then it should be equally unethical to use it in fertility clinics. It isn't even a faith vs. science issue like evolution, cause this is even more bogus.

2) The Union of Concerned Scientists is a wildly partisan organization, that leans heavily on getting large numbers of scientists to sign their statements and then acting as though that represents an informed expert opinion by the signatories. That doesn't invalidate any particular point they make, of course, but I'd like to examine these accusations on a case by case basis, rather than get excited about "x scientists, including y Nobel Laureates" signing another one of their screeds.

And which issue was it that you have ever disagreed with these people on? I've been following them for a long time, and although the right likes to complain every time they say something, I've yet to see any refutation of their assertions that was worth the paper it was printed on. If you're going to up make smear attacks against an organization like this, you'll need to back it up with some references. Their board of directors has more accomplishments and standing than any of the detractors I've ever heard.

How is the UCS partisan? They'd lambast a Dem president who did what Bush is currently doing. Of course, we all know the must have just used their undercover Democratic operatives with Chinese contribution cash to go twist the arms of all these scientists so they'd sign on that the Bush administration is using real research that effects this country as political fodder. Attacking the UCS for this tactic is extremely stupid. Does consensus count for nothing now? Should we ignore majority consensus among voters for presidential candidates now? Oh, wait.....

Re:Two points

[Hard_Code]

Not to argue necessarily with your point but:

Why wouldn't company A and company B both make the independent rational decision to not invent a cure and to indefinitely sell treatment? Isn't that also likely? Even if they did capture the market for the cure, that market would evaporate (more or less) once everybody was cured.

Re:Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's only because false premises can give true conclusions...

Religions are Just Stupid. All of them.

Belief should be transient, fleeting, dispelled by the next experiment. Faith is the ultimate sin. Be a scientist!

Re:Two points

[Otter]

Getting Nobel prize winners to support this means that a few very smart people made a balanced judgement and came to the conclusion that they wanted to support this.

Sure, that's precisely the impression the UCS intends you to take away. I'm extremely skeptical about it being the case, though.

You can put it down to my being a "stupid American", but my cynicism comes from familiarity with the politics and mentalities in biomedical research, not from ignorance of them. The public face the stem cell researchers show, of deep concern for different perspectives, is nonsense -- in private, I've never heard anything but contempt for anything outside their own consensus.

Re:Two points

[synaptik]

To be precise there were 48 Nobel laureates who singed that document mentioned in the article.

Is a singed document slightly less burnt that a flamed document?

Regardless, they must have really hated the precepts contained to give it such a snubbing. The Union of Concerned Scientists must be miffed at the chastizing they received from all these Nobel laureates.

Re:Two points

[mcelrath]

It is in the public interest to have as much health and drug-related information in the public domain as possible. Compare this to the human genome project: do you want your own genes patented by some other company? If growing replacement organs from stem cells were made viable, it's in the public interest for it to be in the public domain or licensed as widely as possible. More people get treatments faster that way.

If public research were licensed to any comer, no company could charge $100 per dose because they would be quickly undercut. Such patents should be held in a public trust, or by a university which licenses them to industry for manufacture under some compulsory licensing arrangement because they received federal funds. Personally, I think all publicly funded research should end up in the public domain. I know the scenario I describe is not exactly how it always works with taxpayer-funded research.

-- Bob

Re:Two points

[Otter]

Do you honestly think that statements from a scientific body are more partisan than those from a political body?

That's just silly -- the UCS is absolutely not a "scientific body", conspiracy theories about "the conservative media" or no. It is absolutely a partisan, politicized group promoting a certain techno-political viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that, except for presenting it as an agenda-free group of scientists speaking on their own areas of expertise.

I agree with the concerns about manipulation of government-backed research findings, although I suspect that the sudden concern about that issue has a lot more to do with who is in the White House now than with such actions being as unprecedented as they're being made out. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that "industry representatives" aren't the only ones with axes to grind.

Re:Two points

[meta-monkey]

Currently only Company A has a management drug. Company B could decide to research either a management drug, or a cure. If they research a management drug instead, they'd be competing with Company A. If they research a cure, they'd demolish Company A. The market would not actually dry up, as people would continue to develop the disease...it's just that their customers would be one-time customers, instead of repeat customers. They could also possibly charge a much greater amount for a cure, rather than a treatment.

Re:Two points

[jilles]

We're talking about a list of specific issues that go beyond just biomedical research, signed by a number of scientists including some who have won a nobel prize. I'm normally sceptical too but this is simply too much too simply dismiss as propaganda. I'm well aware how the conservative right has dominated the political agenda the past few years and how it has effected society in numerous ways.

Re:Two points

[dondelelcaro]

What will happen is that taxpayers will fund the research, and then drug companies will take the result of this research and gouge the public that paid for it to begin with.

You seem to be assuming that the majority of the research that is being curtailed is that of major drug companies. Not so. Most major drug companies are quite capable of conducting such experiments on their own without government funding. What this curtails is the ability of Universities to conduct such research, which will end up with the situation that you are concerned about actually coming to fruition.

If the use of government funding to create IP which was then turned around and sold back to consumers is a big deal, then the proper approach is to curtail the IP rights stemming from such funding, rather than stopping the research itself. Not surprisingly, neither the Democrats or the Republicans seem to be interested in controlling the licensing of IP stemming from government funding.

Re:Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

This is woefully incorrect, and all you have to do to confirm that evolution vs. creationism is indeed science vs. faith is look at talk.origins. Proponents of evolution will support evolution with evidence. Creationists will attack evolution using arguments whose premise is untrue (e.g. the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution) and arguments that are simply invalid, even if their premises were true (e.g. evolution is responsible for all of modern societies ills, from racism to tolerance of gays; from communism to capitalism; from totalitarian governments to democratic governments).

Common descent is an explanation for the similarities among species that is supported by numerous lines of evidence, from fossil to molecular to biogeography. Creationists aren't forthcoming with any theory of creationism, but they generally rely on various god-of-the-gaps arguments (which are unfalsifiable) and concepts taken from the Bible which have already been falsified (e.g. a young Earth and Noah's Flood). To act as though the two sides were somehow evenly matched or that evolution and creationism are equally valid concepts is like acting like astrology and astronomy are equally valid.

Re:Two points

[BorgCopyeditor]

Two signs of partisanship are an unwillingness to debate issues and a change of focus to the supposed character of whoever is delivering a certain message. You've demonstrated both in your various posts in this thread, presumably because all you have to say is "I'm suspicious." Be as suspicious as you like; the UCS isn't getting rich or getting elected on the basis of their message, so I remain more concerned with the evident motives for bias that the Bush administration doesn't even deign to defend.

Re:Two points

[macdaddy]

I'm curious. If Uncle Sam finally wised up and created a state health plan would your opinion of this research be different?

Re:Two points

[capologist]

If stem-cell research is so great and promising, then let private industry fund the research. After all, they're the ones who are going to make money off it.

Keep in mind the difference between science (knowledge of the laws of nature) and technology (practical application of that knowledge).

Patent law can give a private entity intellectual "ownership" of a technology. This provides a capitalist incentive to develop technology.

Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, can not be owned by anyone. Once discovered, it belongs to the world. There is therefore very little capitalist incentive to fund "big science." If you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on scientific research, and one of your competitors is the first to figure out how to use that knowledge to develop a practical therapy, then you have nothing to show for your scientific discoveries. The "nonownability" of scientific knowledge makes it the epitome of a public good. Funding scientific research is a very appropriate function of government.

Re:Two points

[tobar mersa]

The administration did not say that non-stem-cell research funding will be cut from any organization that conducts stem-cell research, only that the government will not fund stem-cell research.

Alright: the federal government will not fund stem-cell research. But they will fund research for drugs or other therapies that do not involve stem-cells (excepting the stem-cell lines that were present when Bush made his announcement). Thus, why would a drug company use their own money to begin to study stem-cells when they can use government money to research other areas? After all, drug companies are a business, and out to make money. Many of them are also publicly traded, and it looks better on their balance sheets to have research costs, in whole or in part, already covered by an outside source (read: the government), rather than taking on the whole burden.

As they stand to reap enormous profits for developing new drugs or treatments based on stem-cell research, they should pay the costs, not me.

Does the public at large derive no benefits from a healthier population? I think the benefits to society, economic and social, are great enough to warrant some government funding. The patenting of the results of that research, imho, undermines much of that public benefit, however.

Re:Two points

[superpulpsicle]

Well... if you want to talk about abusing science. Read the novel "The 70 Greatest Conspiracies of All time". Things like NASA going to the moon fakely done in a hollywood studio etc etc.

It's bad that Bush abused science to go to war. I just hope Bush didn't use science to trick the American public into thinking he caught Saddam, when in reality he's still running around.

Re:Two points

[mc6809e]

When the original article came out the conservative media tried to paint the Union of Concerned Scientists as a partisan organization, you seem to have fallen into that trap hook, line, and sinker.
Do you honestly think that statements from a scientific body are more partisan than those from a political body?

And like most, you believe one must actually be a scientist to belong to this "scientific body".

From their become a member page:


If you care about clean energy, clean vehicles, global security, food and the environment, and global issues such as climate change, the Union of Concerned Scientists offers a singular opportunity to make a lasting difference.

We combine sound scientific research with effective citizen advocacy. We leverage the commitment of thousands of Americans to foster realistic and credible solutions to problems affecting your community and the world. We care, and we get results.

We are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students. We are showing that thoughtful action based on the best available science can help safeguard our future.

Please join us.

This is obviously a political organization that happens to include scientists.

Re:Two points

[Dachannien]

A similar argument (that embryo == life, life == inviolable, therefore embryo == inviolable) could potentially be held by atheists as a moral argument rather than a religious one.

Re:Two points

[Dachannien]

The banned stem cell research is a matter of hypocrisy and partisan pandering at the expense of science. The banned research in question uses blastocyts (sp?) which is simply an egg fertilized in a petri dish and never embedded in a womb. Banning research using this method is inconsistent since the same practice is used at fertility clinics all over the country. If there is an ethical problem using this method for stem cell research, then it should be equally unethical to use it in fertility clinics. It isn't even a faith vs. science issue like evolution, cause this is even more bogus.

Some of us *do* believe that in-vitro methods that result in dozens of unused embryos are immoral as a method of fertility therapy.

How is the UCS partisan? They'd lambast a Dem president who did what Bush is currently doing.

The Democratic Party would lambast a Dem president doing that, too, and they, by definition, are partisan. Your statement doesn't refute the assertion that the UCS is partisan.

Re:Two points

[Lars T.]

So where is the "We love Bush" list from the Union of Unconcerned Scientists? Are you telling me Bush can't find some wildly partisan PhDs to tell us everything is easy-peasy?

Re:Two points

[Lars T.]

Yet those who signed the list are all scientists, and many of them not members of UCS.

Re:Two points

[some guy I know]

There is no room for politics in science.

A more acurate statement would be "There should be no room for politics in science.".
Unfortunately, politics plays a large part in scientific research, even that not sponsered by governments.
For example, in academia, politics plays a large part in applications for and awarding of tenure, grants, etc.
This is because politics and money seem to go together.
Only independently wealthy individuals (and hobbyists) can ignore politics when deciding what lines of research to persue.

Re:Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

"Instead, let the drug companies pay for it themselves. True, it's very expensive."

So, economically you can see a point where a drug company would be happy with creating a cure for the long term illness rather than collecting money for the alleviation of symptoms?

Ever heard of Heliobactor Pylori?

Re:Two points

[Transcendent]

There's no argument against stem cell research in general, just the specific research that uses stem cells from embryos.

And arguing against destroying embryos doesn't have be be religion-based... it can simply be ethics.

This is, by the way, the only stem cell research that the government won't fund... not all stem cell research in general.

Re:Two points

[cyberchondriac]

It's bad that Bush abused science to go to war. I just hope Bush didn't use science to trick the American public into thinking he caught Saddam, when in reality he's still running around.

While I disagree with the Bush administration over some things, like stem cell research, I don't agree that he deliberately mislead - the senate report is out and it pretty firmly acknowledges that the intelligence community is at fault: Clinton, Kerry, Dacshle, all had the same intell that the president had and all voted for the war. Now that we find the intell was bad, but what evidence is there that Bush knew all along there were no WMDs ? He's not the best Pres we ever had, but I don't think he's blatantly dishonest either.

Re:Two points

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Some of us *do* believe that in-vitro methods that result in dozens of unused embryos are immoral as a method of fertility therapy.

Fine, go protest fertility clinics then. I was pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of stopping a method for research while it's commonplace in another well established industry. If you think something is immoral, that's your choice. This country doesn't allow you to force your vision of morality upon anyone else. Unless you can demonstrate a state interest in preventing someone from taking a specific action, then you violate the seperation clause. In other words, keep YOUR morals off MY healthcare.

The Democratic Party would lambast a Dem president doing that, too, and they, by definition, are partisan. Your statement doesn't refute the assertion that the UCS is partisan.

The definition of partisan follows:

Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause

The term as used when referencing the GOP or Dems means alligence to one or the other. A group who takes up an issue and treats both equally over that issue is non-partisan, and that bit of knowledge is common. Stop trying to twist meanings to fit your argument. The UCS does treat both the Dems and GOP the same in regard to the issues they believe in, this would classify them as non-partisan. They are partisan about their issues, but you're just confusing the point by parsing language.

Re:Two points

[hal9000]

What I was getting at was that I don't know of an non-religious ethical argument which states that embryos should be protected as much as (or more than) a fully developed person. A non-religious argument won't contain such claims that embryos have human souls or spirits or that they're rebirthed or whatever, but these are the only types of arguments you ever see against stem cell research.

Restated: Show me one (non-Buddhist) atheist who is ethically against stem cell research.

Re:Two points

[Chibi Merrow]

What this curtails is the ability of Universities to conduct such research, which will end up with the situation that you are concerned about actually coming to fruition.

Considering there's private charities that fund research for heart disease, asthma, diabetes, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, lupus, and every various form of cancer in addition to numerous others, why should we expect stem cell research to be any different? If people really believe stem cell research should be funded they can always give money themselves instead of having the Federal Government force others to give it.

Re:Two points

[hal9000]

There's no argument against stem cell research in general, just the specific research that uses stem cells from embryos.

Fine, embryonic stem cell research.

And arguing against destroying embryos doesn't have be be religion-based... it can simply be ethics.

You're right. But, as I said in another reply, I've never heard that argument. Have you?

Re:Two points

[mcelrath]

This is obviously a political organization that happens to include scientists.

This is driving me nuts! WHY is there a tacit assumption that before accepting facts one must evaluate the political bias of the messenger? These are scientific issues being presented by scientists. Why should their political bias matter? If there is a question on fact that is disagreed upon, say so! If any of the things in this report did not happen, say so! But don't call people liars because they belong to the "wrong" side of the political fence!

This business of evaluating everyone as "good guy" or "bad guy" before listening to what they have to say is stupid. Both liberals and conservatives have intelligent things to say, and should be listened to by everyone. In the US "liberal" and "conservative" have been elevated to slurs.

For the record, I am a signatory. Based on reading their original report (yes I RTFA, both of them), the errors and mischaracterizations are egregious, and should not be tolerated in a democracy, and the public needs to know about this. Now, am I a liberal or a conservative, or perhaps just a scientist?

I have seen no credible rebuttal to the issues raised in this report. (Marburger's vauge hand-waving do not count) If any exist, please, enlighten us.

-- Bob

Re:Two points

[inqztiv]

life == inviolable, chicken=life,therefore chicken == inviolable.. Why the fsck are you eating it then

Re:Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

Well damn. We tried to video the event for posterity, but Earl forgot the batteries for the camera and well . . . there ya have it. Since you caught us out, we'll have to own up to the fact it never really happened, it was just pretend.

Re:Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

Yassir Arrafat is a Nobel laureate. Nobel is just as partisan.

Re:Two points

[Transcendent]

Yes.

P1: One can consider a fertilized egg (an embryo) a living human being.
P2: Killing human beings is wrong.
C: Embryonic stem cell research is wrong.

or if you think an embryo isn't a human yet... one can say denying the development of a potential human being is wrong.

Those agruments, of course, are totally based on someone's code of ethics or morals. If someone do not agree with them, then that someone won't understand the argument since a postulate is (to that person) in itself false.

You also need to agree on the definition of a human being.

You can argue without any reference to killing a human being though...

P1: There are other methods of obtaining stem cells that have as much potential as embryonic stem cells (bone marrow, and they are found throughout pregnant/post-pregnant women for a time).
P2: It is best to upset the least amount of people in a society.
C: It is best not to conduct/endorse embryonic stem cell research.

But then again, we don't know the full potential of embryonic stem cells compared to others... so that last argument only half holds.

I don't necessarily agree with those arguments, but am merely passing them along.

Re:Two points

[AdrianG]

Because most people have absolutely no clue what science is about or how to think analytically. Worse yet, most people think that agreement is properly thought of as an act of loyalty and dissent is properly thought of as an act of disloyalty. With such a perverted sense of reasoning, surely we should expect nothing else.

Adrian

Re:Two points

[mc6809e]

This is driving me nuts! WHY is there a tacit assumption that before accepting facts one must evaluate the political bias of the messenger? These are scientific issues being presented by scientists. Why should their political bias matter? If there is a question on fact that is disagreed upon, say so!

It isn't a question of facts. The disagreements that exist are mostly over values, tolerance of risk, and personal preference. These are plainly subjective and can't be resolved by appealing to experiment. They express themselves politically.

Scientists may make many predictions, but the desirability or undesirability of those predicted outcomes varies from person to person. When many are weighed together people often come to very different conclusions.

You ask,
"am I a liberal or a conservative, or perhaps just a scientist? "

Calling yourself "scientist" implies some very basic collection of values. You strongly value experiment. You probably appreciate parsimonious descriptions of reality over those that are ad hoc and overly complicated - Occam's razor.

But don't pretend that your feelings concerning the preservation of certain species over mining for coal in West Virginia, for example, are scientific values or that because you are a scientist they are somehow objective scientific facts. These judgements have their origins in values and preferences beyond those called "scientific".

When someone ignores the predictions of some branch of science because they think they aren't important, that's not an example of being anti-science. It is an example of employing subjective values that extend beyond those of science. The science may simply be considered unimportant.

So, are you "just" a scientist? No. Calling yourself scientist only implies that you hold some small set of values we might call scientific values, but these are a small subset of all those things that guide your judgement. Your politics probably says alot about those other subjective values.

The problem I have with the UCS is that they seem to believe these values and preferences are made scientific simply because a group of scientists hold them. That's wrong of course and it's why I claim they are a political organization that includes scientists rather than a scientific body. A scientific body in my judgement should restrict itself to exercising that small subset of all values that are scientific. When they go beyond that they are acting in an extrascientific way. That makes them political.

Re:Two points

[mcelrath]

Very insightful point. Kudos.

Re:Two points

[mcelrath]

When someone ignores the predictions of some branch of science because they think they aren't important, that's not an example of being anti-science. It is an example of employing subjective values that extend beyond those of science. The science may simply be considered unimportant.

When politicians ignore scientific data because it does not fit their political agenda, the populous suffers, and this is not an issue of the bias of UCS. When scientific reports indicate low lead levels harm children, and the government raises acceptable lead levels, this harms the populous. This is not some wishy-washy subjective business. Scientific data is being suppressed. This data relates to our health, or environment, and our future. Selectively ignoring this data translates directly into lower quality of life.

"Subjective values that extend beyond those of science"? What the hell is this? It's okay to pollute, increase asthma rates, increase cancer rates, cause brain damage in children, because your "subjective values" are better than science?

-- Bob

Re:Two points

[mc6809e]

When politicians ignore scientific data because it does not fit their political agenda, the populous suffers, and this is not an issue of the bias of UCS. When scientific reports indicate low lead levels harm children, and the government raises acceptable lead levels, this harms the populous. This is not some wishy-washy subjective business. Scientific data is being suppressed. This data relates to our health, or environment, and our future. Selectively ignoring this data translates directly into lower quality of life.

There are no costs or down sides to the lower standard at all? It comes for free? Of course not. So where do you strike the balance? That requires a judgement that goes beyond scientific judgements.

And "lower quality of life" obviously means many different things for many people. There is no single standard, yet you would make your standard the measure for all.

"Subjective values that extend beyond those of science"? What the hell is this?

Consider the set of all possible values. Now take a self-consistant subset. Next remove those values considered scientific. i.e. experimental results, Occam's razor, logical reasoning. What you have left are things like "the thrill gotten from risking life jumping out of a plane with parachute". Parachuting is dangerous, yet fun for some. I don't want to do it, yet I know others value the thrill of jumping more than the feeling of security they get from staying on the ground. Does a parachutest have a lower quality of life because he regularly risks his life for this thrill? So, what does valuing that thrill more than safety have to do with the values of science? It is a value that "extends beyond those of science".

You use the same sort of values to make judgements all the time. Many don't depend on scientific values at all.


It's okay to pollute, increase asthma rates, increase cancer rates, cause brain damage in children, because your "subjective values" are better than science?

Do you drive? Over 40,000 are killed every year in the US in auto accidents. Okay, so should driving be banned? It's obviously dangerous. I suppose you're going to ignore the facts and drive anyway. How unscientific of you!

And I never said "subjective values" are better than scientific values. Scientific values are a subset of all possible subjective values. We need those extra values to make that same sort of decisions the parachutest makes. They are neither better nor worse than the values of science and they vary from person to person. Just because some scientists my have very conservative values in terms of risk/reward doesn't make those preferences universal or scientific.

That was my point. The UCS includes these extra values in making it's judgements. They are extrascientific. Hence the organization is not acting as a scientific body.

Re:Two points

[richardbowers]

A non-religious argument won't contain such claims that embryos have human souls or spirits or that they're rebirthed or whatever, but these are the only types of arguments you ever see against stem cell research.

Well, there's the other argument -- embryonic stem cell research hasn't made any progress, even in countries that allow it. Remember, right now, only public funds aren't being spent on stem cell research even in the US. If you think it's a great thing, go ahead and invest your money in it.

Re:Two points

[severoon]

I'm going to have to stick up for mcelrath here, because you, sir, are missing the point.

The point: extra-scientific, political balance-striking is fine. That, in fact, is what we hire politicians to do. However, they must do this in a particular way. First, all the facts must be made available to the public, then all the political arguments put forth. Everyone gets a say, everyone is respected, everyone is polite, and everyone is involved. We come to a decision. That's the ideal.

This is what we did with driving. The government, far from hiding the driving-related fatalities, goes out of their way to browbeat Americans over the head with these figures until we're sick of hearing it. We have decided that we are willing to take the small risk of dying for the everyday freedom allowed us by driving.

mcelrath is saying, I think, that it is not valid political process for government to suppress factual information, such as new scientifically based understanding of the effects of lead on children, for the purpose of moving the discussion one way or another.

To crystallize the difference, consider this. The government receives the numbers on driving-related fatalities, but instead of making them available, they suppress this information or try to discredit it even though they know the numbers are accurate. The government decides to push the numbers one way or another not based upon fact, but rather upon how much money they're receiving from safety advocates vs. big car manufacturers. Whoever ponies up more slides the scale in their favor. Only after this do they release the new, adjusted numbers and start doing the political balancing act thing.

See the problem? Let the people hear the facts. Then, if the politicians come to the conclusion that it's too costly to maintain low lead levels and we remove all lead limits, fine. They've done it in public and if the populace disagrees, these politicians will be crucified for it.

sev

Religious whackos are anti-science

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiccans count. So do Xians.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[josepha48]

Politics" makes public school and thus high literacy possible. "Politics" is what puts police on the streets to keep us safe. "Politics" is what the Constitution is all about.

Don't forget that politics is what cuts our police force, closes our schools, and allows stupid kids to get out of school, into gangs and shoot each other.

Bush Politics also make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Bush Politics also want to ammend the constitution when thier are more important issues at hand than gay marriage.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[hal9000]

What the fuck is this garbage?

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[sfjoe]

...my interpretation was colored by my political views ...

What was the "politicial" interpretation?
Your subatomic particle data was in favor of gay marriage?

MOD PARENT DOWN OFFTOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Grousing about the relevence of an article is inherently off-topic (and a troll) - if it wasn't relevent, the poster wouldn't have read it.

Re:Any peer review on this?

[Vaevictis666]

That would be 4000 total, including "48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences."

Re:The article is off-topic for slashdot

[hal9000]

Whatever. Notice it's posted in the science section? Nerds aren't exclusively into technology, you know.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those vile blood-drinking, virgin-sacrificing, child-molesting wiccans, what are they doing with an interest in science. Farmers and Amish people too, I hear they aren't supposed to know anything about present times.

Hey, if you're gonna fall victim to stereotypes you might as well go all the way, right?

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[wanerious]

Call me cynical, but the person who wrote that letter is probably not someone running for office. Any timeline in which George W Bush offers an interpretation on subatomic particle interaction is simply not a solution to the Einstein field equations. It is not allowed in this Universe.

Having said that, the context of this undermining is not clear. Certainly the administration may interpret scientific data any way they choose in forming political action, just as we are free to vote them out if we disagree with their policies or actions. Undermining access to the full set of data, however, should be a crime.

I smell astroturf

[Anonymous Coward]

I was very outraged when my data on subatomic particle interaction was undermined for political purposes...Then I got a reply...That letter writer was George W Bush. The man I will be voting for on November 2.

As someone who generally favors Bush, I'm highly suspicious of the authenticity of this testimonial.

Re:I smell astroturf

[nes11]

i agree. but you have to admit that if an administration is forced to take credit for what those under them do wrong, they should also be allowed to take credit for what those under them do right. chances are that bush didn't write that letter, but he did put people on his staff that hired the person that did write the letter. that at least deserves some praise.

Re:I smell astroturf

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, more accurately, Bush's neo-con puppet masters chose the staff that hired the people who wrote the letter.

Re:I smell astroturf

[Ayaress]

As somebody who dispises the same, so do I. I don't at all doubt he got such a letter, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that. And, granting he got the letter, I won't dispute that it had Bush's name and signature rubber stamped on it. I've gotten the same sort of letters from two presidents. But it most certainly wasn't Bush himself wrote the letter, or even read it. Just like I doubt very much Bill Clinton gave a flying fuck what I thought about the DMCA, and even if he did, I doubt he cared enough to write his own personal letter to me about it. Some lacky in downstairs cubicle wrote it, passed it to some other lacky upstairs who stamped them. Best case scenario, Bush saw the stack of papers including that letter.

Snore...

[Bluesman]

When the Union of Concerned Economists starts bashing Bush, then I'll be worried.

First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.

Second, what [these particular] scientists seem to lack is a sense of perspective. There are no solutions to real-world problems. There are only trade-offs. Sure, it would be great to have perfectly clean water, but at what point is "clean enough?" How much effort do you spend saving one endangered species?

If your answer to any of these is "more!" then you haven't considered that our society, government, companies and individuals can only spend so much money and effort. Spending it all on one area leaves other, possibly more important areas unattended to.

Science is about finding ideal solutions. Politics, and economics, is about managing a finite number of resources to accomplish things. Yes, it hurts when you recommend that a rare swan be saved and nobody listens, but it's likely you don't have any clue what the trade-off would be.

Re:Snore...

[wanerious]

First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.

Well, if you read the article regarding emergency contraception (the Plan B pill), it seems that it is indeed the way the government now works.

Re:Snore...

[Bluesman]

Well, from the article section about Plan B, I received the opposite impression.

Unless you're willing to consider the unstated conspiracy theory as evidence.

Be that as it may, I have a difficult time being concerned about this. So you have to get a prescription for a drug that might be harmful? This drug isn't illegal. Am I to believe that the massive inconvenience of a single doctor's visit is evidence of a campaign to undermine scientific findings by our government?

Please.

If there were no political or ethical considerations when approving drugs at the FDA, the scientists would be making the decisions, not appointees.

Re:Snore...

[4of12]

Yes, it hurts when you recommend that a rare swan be saved and nobody listens, but it's likely you don't have any clue what the trade-off would be.

Your point is valid, that we do not possess precise information about the trade-offs of certain decisions (eg, continue logging in old-growth forests vs. effect on those ecosystems). But whitewashing the language of critical reports is not going to further the cause of improving the precision of what we know. The contrary is true.

The main problem is not just that advocates of one particular choice (usually involving the economic well-being of ME and MY_INDUSTRY trading off against some more diffuse, hard-to-measure and potentially severe long-term costs to the public) have great influence on policy-making through financial channels, but that these advocates are attempting to actually bias the raw reports that would potentially improve the situation about things we're trying to find out about.

Don't get me wrong: this kind of strong-arm advocacy would be just as bad done from the left as from the right (which just happens to be where it is happening now).

For example, although I tend to agree with a policy that is somewhat leftward of the current U.S. federal government, that does not mean I would condone policy makers attempting to whitewash the trade-offs that went counter to my preferred policy.

For example, an economic impact statement concluding that the livelihood and economic well-being of loggers and their families would be severely impacted by an abrupt and total moratorium on old-growth logging should be evaluated as a data point. Advocates of a moratorium should not whitewash the language, watering down the conclusions in an effort to promote their cause.

Likewise, people advocating a rape of the environment and "removal of burdensome red-tape regulatory bureaucracy" should not try to whitewash the language of scientific reports.

It reflects poorly on the methods and character of the policy makers, and it cheapens and sets back the cause of dispassionate scientific study that we so desperately need to help in formulating rational policy.

Re:Snore...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I to believe that the massive inconvenience of a single doctor's visit is evidence of a campaign to undermine scientific findings by our government?

Absolutely, since it even slightly impedes our Most Holy and Sacred Right to Uncommitted Sex Without Visible Consequences.

Re:Snore...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.

Son, sit down and let me explain something to you....

The UCS is attacking the Bush administration, because (and the articles reference this) the Bush administration is directly telling agencies to put policy in place that ignores the scientific facts.

Second, what [these particular] scientists seem to lack is a sense of perspective. There are no solutions to real-world problems. There are only trade-offs. Sure, it would be great to have perfectly clean water, but at what point is "clean enough?" How much effort do you spend saving one endangered species?

You're so ignorant of this case it's not funny. Bush is allowing power plants to dump higher levels of mercury into water supplies for starters. The Bush administration is rolling back environmental protections anywhere and everywhere it allows some business to make a buck, especially RNC contributors. This isn't some nitpicking little lefties handwringing over some endangered swan. This is a wholesale assault on our health and safety. We're not talking about perfectly clean water, we're talking about water that causes massive increases in birth defects. And guess what, contaminated water doesn't wind up in rich neighborhoods where they can afford to take care of expensive birth defects, it happens in poor ones, where people don't know any better. And what happens when half the kids in the trailer park turn out retards cause of the mercury? You pay for it in higher taxes and social costs. Unless you want some eugenics along with your laissez faire environmental policy, it's going to wind up costing you way more to let pollution go than it does to regulate it.

The progressive movement (modern lefties, Clinton Third Way folks and all) believes in regulating business and green environmental policies because the others just hide the cost. You may think you're getting cheap stuff out of this, or the economy will do better, but it will wind up costing you more in the long run.

The only people who are being unreasonable in this situation are the people on the right. But don't believe me, go do some freaking research. Quit trying to be so non-partisan, the Bush administration have demonstrated that they are irresponsible and incompetent time and again. They don't deserve your benefit of the doubt, everytime anyone gives it to them, it turns out to be a bad idea (i.e. War in Iraq).

Re:Snore...

[Lars T.]

So your point is: We can't have truely clean water, so let's just dump everything in there without further thought.

Re:Snore...

[DAldredge]

Asprin can be harmful, should it be prescribed also?

Re:Snore...

[sjames]

There are no solutions to real-world problems. There are only trade-offs. Sure, it would be great to have perfectly clean water, but at what point is "clean enough?" How much effort do you spend saving one endangered species?

Agreed. The objection is not that compromises are being made. The real objection isn't even in the nature of the compromise.

The objection is that the compromise is being HIDDEN. There's a big difference between "yes, that is a problem, but we can't afford to fix it" and "Yes, that is a problem, but if you actually dare to say so, you'll never work here again. It is our policy that that is not a problem.". THAT is the complaint, along with a dash of avoiding qualified advisors in favor of yes men.

So, I agree that compromises sometimes have to be made, but the nature of that compromise is for the public to decide. The public can't very well do that if the compromise is ACTIVELY hidden from their view. If the President believes that the economic good of strip mining (for example) outweighs the ecological damage, let him stand up and say so, not sweep it under the rug and cower under the bed.

Re:Ironic

[NanoGator]

"I don't follow your point. Are only christians allowed to comment on scientific abuse? Or are Wiccans assumed to be anti-science?"

You Wiccans think you got it bad? It's assumed us Jedi never reproduce!

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[b0r0din]

The reply gently and wisely pointed out that "politics" is what makes things happens. ...
That letter writer was George W Bush.

Ahh yes, King Bush the Wise. Please, God, somebody mod this guy up as funny.

Seriously though, how or better yet why, would you undermine data on subatomic particle interaction?

Now I'm inherently politically biased, but I voted for Bush once - which I won't do again - and let's face it, when I think of this administration, the term 'junk science' comes to mind. I was having a discussion with a colleague of mine, a Republican I should add, who told me that there's no proof that we're destroying the environment. He said for every study I had that proved one thing, he could find another study that proved me wrong. Let's see, right off the top of my head, there's deforestation, global warming, a limited oil supply, the ozone layer. And I'm absolutely sure he's right, he could find someone to refute it. So here I am, ready to point at any number of studies done on the environmental impact of the world, and I can't even convince the guy because some idiot somewhere posted his bunko, supposedly scientific refutation which would obviously back up this guy's point. It really makes me sad, too. It's obvious that oil, for instance, is a limited resource. And deforestation is occurring, whether or not you want to hear about it. It's obvious that we're affecting the earth.

No specific evidence

[jgardn]

I have followed all the links in this article, including all the links to the UCS website, and I haven't found one piece of evidence. In some cases, the articles link back to each other.

What I see are a bunch of claims that the administration had censored reports, removed officials from key positions, and otherwise affected the reports being made. However, no proof of these claims are offered.

Questions:

1. What reports have been censored? How have they been censored?
2. Who has been removed from their positions? Why were they removed according the administration? Why were they removed according to the UCS?
3. What reports have been modified by the administration? In what way were they modified?

I can make unsubstantiated claims that the UCS are a bunch of aliens from Jupiter that have come here to suck our brains out. You won't believe me, of course, because I have no evidence. The UCS makes a bunch of claims that it doesn't back with evidence either.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I'm the world's forgotten Boy!

O.K., HAL 9K, You are cool. And I would mod yuo up against the freepers, if I could.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[adamy]

Sorry

Sorry I don't have mod points

Sorry I'm the only one that realized this was a joke.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[jabberjaw]

Apparently you are unfamilar with President Bush's extensive background in particle physics.

Re:Any peer review on this?

[dacarr]

The difference is thath UCS, near as I an tell, is a front for either PETA or ELF, I'm not sure which, and Clown College actually teaches a bona fide form of entertainment.

So where's the common ground? Both are pretty fscking scary.

Re:Any peer review on this?

[dacarr]

OK, disregard that. There's a different front group for PETA - adn these guys aren't them. My bad. Mod parent of this message down, please. *walks off with bag over head*

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[hal9000]

Thanks. :-)

That's not all

[benploni]

Check this out:
White House Tries to Rein In Scientists

Remember when the Arab world led scientific thought? They invented and led math, geometry, an alphabet, astronomy, engineering, etc. Then the fundies took over. Arab versions of Bush and Pat Robertson.

But....

[DesScorp]

While these are most certainly accomplished people, no doubting their genius, that doesn't prevent them from having a political agenda. And contrary to what scientists will tell you, some do have political agendas. They're human, after all. Einstein became an enthusiastic proponent of socialism at the end of his life. So, because he was a brilliant physicist, does that mean he was right about politics?

Most of the things the UCS is complaining about are political hot button issues as well as scientific ones.

Re:But....

[AuMatar]

Einstein was actually not that political. He was offered the prsidency of Israel, if he was political he would have taken it. He did have some ideas that may be considered socialist, but he was not tied to the socialist party, despite Hoover's attempts to find evidence that he was none was ever uncovered.

Re:But....

[fruity1983]

Have you ever considered that these scientists are going after the Bush Administration because... the Bush Administration is guilty of all the things these 4000 scientists are claiming?

Re:But....

[orim]

Hmmm... you think that 4000 scientists have any more in common than ... oh wait, just their love of science?

Maybe their political agenda is to continue their research, and to have it listened to with utmost seriousness because they know WTF they're talking about?

I mean, what are the odds that 4000 people just woke up one day and said "let's fuck with a political party!"

The Price of being here.....

[DesScorp]

Lots of geeks seem to be lefties as well. They'll protest, tell you that they're really libertarians or whatnot, but almost all of them have been drifting left here for awhile now. Slashdot USED to be more of a libertarian bent, but that's changed.

Re:The Price of being here.....

[Anonymous Coward]

There might be a good reason for that, currently...

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/backla sh

Fundamentalism had nothing to do with it.

[Fished]

Fundamentalism had nothing to do with the fall of Arab culture. In fact, Islamic fundamentalism is more or less a twentieth century invention, whereas Islamic culture lost its "edge" around the time of the Renaissance. Rather, the fall of Arab culture had a lot to do with a society and an economy that was utterly dependent on constant expansion to maintain itself. When no more expansion was available (thanks to geographical boundaries for the most part) the culture began to go into decline.

Re:Fundamentalism had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish. There were no geographical boundaries worth worrying about. The arabs could have swept through all of europe instead of just a bit of the south if they had kept their technological advantage up.

Religion is fucking evil.

Re:Fundamentalism had nothing to do with it.

[Ayaress]

Actually, they would have if there was anything worth taking. At the height of Arab and Chinese culture, either region could have steamrolled Europe with no problem. Zheng He's mercahnt fleet was strong enough to crush the combined navies and armies of Europe, and its primary purpose wasn't military, but economic. Europe was too fragmented to put up a fight against an empire. Small local lords were too embroiled in their own feuds and hatreds to unite against a common foe when they did present themselves, and even if they did, they were outmatched numerically and technologically. Europe just didn't have anything worth conquering. Very little precious metals, mediocre farm and grazing land at best (and quite unsuitable for the crops and livestock both the Arabs and Chinese subsisted on), and it was more prone to disease and famine than the areas they did conquer. The only resource it had that was of use at the time was lumber, and that was in vast abundance much closer to where it was needed. It wasn't until Europe started its own conquest that it gained access to those materials that would make it worth conquering, and by then, the Arab and Chinese empires were well into their decline, and couldn't do much about it. Indeed, most of the Arab and Chinese empires ended up fueling European advance.

Re:Fundamentalism had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

an economy that was utterly dependent on constant expansion to maintain itself. When no more expansion was available


That seems to me a legitimate comparison to the Bush administration

Re:Fundamentalism had nothing to do with it.

[crsm]

At the height of Arab and Chinese culture, either region could have steamrolled Europe with no problem

Don't know about the Chinese, but the Arabs actually tried. The succeeded in grabbing Sicily and Spain but was stopped dead at the battle of Tours/Poitiers in 737 and soon after driven from all of their french possessions.

The battle also marked the end of the reign of the feared Arab cavalery as the super-weapon of the time. This defeat was accomplished by the medieval french infantery drawed up in square formations to defend against the onslaugt. Until then the Arab cavalery had been virtual undefeated, but from the battle of Tours and on the odds had changed in favor of the europeans.

Sicily was liberated later by descendants of wikings from the Normandy looking for a kingdom to conqueror :-)

Re:Fundamentalism had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

A half dozen barbarian invasions (ie, crusaders, then turks) certainly didn't help them very much, either.

Re:Ironic

[Rhinobird]

Yes, wiccans are assumed to be anti-science. Replace "wiccan" with ealier equivalent word "witch" and you see why. Practicing magic is generally considered to be anti-scient.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[$ASANY]

It's obvious that oil, for instance, is a limited resource.

And why would this be the case? Because it has been proven that oil comes from dead dinosaurs or something? That might not be the case. Maybe it's time to revisit these periodical cries of "we're going to run out of oil!" that I've been hearing since the Carter Administration. Mr. Carter's 20 years are up, and we have more oil available now than we did then.

There's a lot of conventional wisdom we've collected that really isn't worth it's inclusion in your list of "obvious truths". Global warming, a theory based entirely on computer models, is likely flawed as well. Wasn't it as late as ten years ago when the prevailing theory was that we were going to suffer an ice age due to human activity? It's hard to accept this type of "science" at face value, at least without more evidence of higher quality.

It's worth it to be skeptical when extraordinary theories are presented. That's good scientific method, and while your friend might not be right, his approach is far from foolish.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[ivan256]

Don't forget that politics is what cuts our police force, closes our schools...

You make that statement like these things could never be the right decision... I could think of a few towns mear me that could use a police force reduction... Do you really need 300 cops in a town with essentially zero non-traffic related crimes? Similarly, school consolodation could make sense for a variety of reasons depending on the community.

Why don't you try making decisions based on facts instead of rhetoric and feeling. Don't make assumptions about situations that may or may not even exist. There's a word for making up your mind about what should and shouldn't be done out of context: stupid.

A Concerned Scientist.

[hndrcks]

He sounds like Winston Smith after his stay at the Ministry of Love.

Quite specific evidence

[KnightStalker]

See that great big yellow sidebar on the right side of all the ucsusa pages, with "Reports", "Cases", and "Activism" headings? It takes up nearly half of each page. The "Cases" section, as you might surmise from the name, contains links to specific pieces of evidence.

The page linked to in the /. summary contains a "Related Links" box with a link to a 351k PDF. (The text is "Read the new report".)

Here's the link, in case you still can't find it:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publ icationID=877

Here is the full report, published in February:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publ icationID=730

Re:Quite specific evidence

[jgardn]

Interesting.

I don't see any evidence of censorship, even in the PDF report. The reports were still published, albeit without the administration's blessings. All bark and no bite.

It is hardly surprising that the administration would encourage reports to be more apolitical and objective, to include results from related experiments that have contradictory results, and to qualify statements with "may" and "is likely to". This is what they should've been doing in the first place.

For instance, if I am doing a study on the mass of the election, and I do the experiment and get a result different than other experiments, I am going to have to explain why my results are different. Were those studies wrong? Was my study wrong? Is the entire model wrong?

If I can't reconcile the differences, then I have to start writing things like "The experiment suggested that the mass of the electron may be X." rather than "The mass of the electron is X."

And I find the "science" quoted in the article humorous. One of the lines reads, summarized: "Abstinence may cause an increase in pregnancies among partners of male participants". In other words, if you teach abstinence, and they have sex anyways, they are more likely to get pregnant.

They distort this conclusion to represent that Texas has higher pregnancy rates that most other states. Of course, they really mean that Texas has higher rates among secually active couples. They don't talk about the most important figure - the overall pregnancy and STD rate among all teens.

I'm sorry, but the political overtones and lack of objectivity is blatantly apparent in this one. We already know that there is a lot of tension between the EPA and the administration. We already know a lot of eggheads don't like our cowboy president. It sounds like a lot of whining to me.

Re:Quite specific evidence

[KnightStalker]

I don't see any evidence of censorship, even in the PDF report. The reports were still published, albeit without the administration's blessings.

To summarize this page, the EPA's Report on the Environment in 2003 was released without a section on the climate or any mention of global warming -- because White House officials (this site does not name them) allegedly wanted to change that to an extent that would misrepresent the scientific consensus, by including discredited research and . Also, the White House (yes, directly) allegedly blocked reprinting of a brochure listing ways for farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

They distort this conclusion to represent that Texas has higher pregnancy rates that most other states. Of course, they really mean that Texas has higher rates among secually active couples.

No, actually, that means what it says. They might be lying, but that should be easy to demonstrate. This is a source the UCS used: (Scroll past the quotes to "Texas' Recent Record") http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/fact sheet/fsbush.htm

Quote:
* Texas' teen pregnancy rate is 113 per 1,000 teen females aged 15 to 19. Only Nevada, California, Arizona, and Florida have higher teen pregnancy rates.
* Texas has the second worst teen birth rate among 15- to 19-year-old females, ranking 49th out of 50 states. Only Mississippi has a higher teen birth rate.

(I suppose that means Texas has a low rate of abortions and miscarriages? That's something good.)

A very simple google search for ["teen pregnancy rates" texas] seems to confirm these statistics.

In other words, if you teach abstinence, and they have sex anyways, they are more likely to get pregnant.

Um. Well, that makes sense to me. And they will. Really. It may surprise you to learn this, but teenagers are both rebellious AND horny. (A shocker, I know.)

Really, I'm not trying to push a radical gay whale-saving communist agenda on you, but you ought to at least read the site instead of briefly skimming it before you accuse them of spin-doctoring and shoddy research. And I personally don't imagine that it would be much different under a different administration. This one is probably more extreme, but the same shit goes on in any bureaucracy.

We already know a lot of eggheads don't like our cowboy president.

Why, what a subpontibian thing to say :-)

Re:Quite specific evidence

[cardshark2001]

For instance, if I am doing a study on the mass of the election,

The mass of the election measured in what way? By the mass of the electorate? Just a guess here, there were about 101.5 million voters, multiply by an average weight of, let's say 160 pounds, convert to kilograms....

About 7.366 billion kilograms.

Or maybe you meant the average weight of the candidates' brains? Lessee, the equation might go something like this: (GWB + AG + RN) / 3 = (1 + 2 + ERROR) = ERROR.

I guess it doesn't compute

I call shenanigans...

[jrpascucci]

from The White House where the Director of the OST, I can't think of a better word than 'debunks' the hystrionic claims made by the so-called 'Concerned Scientists'. ...

Regarding the document that was released on February 18, 2004 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), I believe the UCS accusations are wrong and misleading. The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement. I believe the document has methodological flaws that undermine its own conclusions, not the least of which is the failure to consider publicly available information or to seek and reflect responses or explanations from responsible 3 government officials. Unfortunately, these flaws are not necessarily obvious to those who are unfamiliar with the issues, and the misleading, incomplete, and even personal accusations made in the document concern me deeply. It is my hope that the detailed response I submit today will allay the concerns of the scientists who signed the UCS statement. I can say from personal experience that the accusation of a litmus test that must be met before someone can serve on an advisory panel is preposterous. After all, President Bush sought me out to be his Science Advisor - the highest-ranking S&T official in the federal government - and I am a lifelong Democrat.

Greenwatch, not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' lists UCS as part of the 'radical left': here

The Washington Times says here that the UCS is funded entirely by the left:

The New York Times' reporter James Glanz, for example, identified the Union of Concerned Scientists simply as "an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and often has taken stands at odds with administration policy." The Washington Post characterized the critics as "two groups of prestigious scientists." Unfortunately, we're likely to see a gushing torrent of this kind of a "blinders-on" reporting from now until Election Day. Anyone who has taken Journalism 101 -- or Propaganda 101, for that matter -- knows reporters have a duty to delve more deeply into the background of the critics. If the media had taken the trouble to dig a little further, they would have known the Union of Concerned Scientists is partially funded by a secretive philanthropy called the Tides Foundation, a clearinghouse that funnels money into a variety of left-wing groups including MoveOn.org, a Web site devoted to defeating President Bush this fall. The Tides Foundation also has received more than $4 million in recent years from the Howard Heinz Endowment, whose board is chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[4of12]

The Washington Times says

You mean the newspaper owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the man who was recently coronated on Capitol Hill [entertaining account] in the presence of a number of Congressmen?

Re:I call shenanigans...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Wait, I want to get this straight.... You brought up a Washington Times story to refute an attack on a GOP administration?
Are you aware the Times is operated at a loss of $1 million a week by the Moonies as a propaganda tool? It's not a credible newspaper, especially when critiquing a GOP administration. Go do some research on the Times and the Moonies, it'll make you feel like you stepped into some bizarre world.

Uhm, Greenwatch is funded by the "vast right-wing conspiracy". Scaife funded organizations call anyone to the left of Attila the Hun, radical leftists. Please try discrediting the UCS again. Media Transparency

I haven't got time to go pick apart a 20 page doc right now, but I can't say that I trust much that comes from the White House these days. And about the guy being a life-long Dem, so's Zell Miller, but he's speaking at the GOP convention.

Quit listening to right wing media, it will rot your brain.

anti-google

[nusratt]

WHY, oh WHY does this kind of stuff surprise anyone anymore?
Get used to it.
This whole crew is the Anti-Google.

Re:anti-google

[orim]

My friend, I think you're suffering from outrage fatigue. See here:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=402 7& n=3

(I am too. Need to stop reading the news...)

Re:Ironic

[coaxial]

Practicing magic is generally considered to be anti-scient[sic].

I have no idea why. Oh wait! That's right! It doesn't work. Of course, the same can be said about christian spells^H^H^H^H^H^Hprayers.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[at_kernel_99]

Certainly a valid argument. However, according to the local rags around here (Minneapolis/St Paul, MN), we're cutting police levels to those of the 1960's (with about 3x the population). While I certainly would've preferred a cop had not been on the street when I got my last speeding ticket, it sure would've been nice to have one around when a neighbor was held up at gunpoint a month or so ago.

First guess

[helix400]

I took one look at that headline, and said to myself...

"That has to be michael who posted it."

Once again, I was right. Michael really needs to be fired. Oh ya, and michael, I no longer have mod points (despite excellent karma), and you've modded down my comments to -1, but I can still meta mod. You should take that away from me too.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[Zutroy Of Earth]

>>It's obvious that oil, for instance, is a limited resource.

> And why would this be the case? [...]
> It's worth it to be skeptical when extraordinary theories are presented.

Can I be skeptical of what you are implying? To my knowledge, there is a limited amount of material on earth (unless you count all that oil that comes from space dinosaurs), therefore, there must be a limited amount of oil on earth. I'm not saying that the article you pointed out is wrong, I haven't had to time to read through it, search for articles from known peer-reviewed systems and all that. I'm just saying that I believe that "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't".

Unlimited oil supply? I'm skeptical :p

Antiscience Republicans

[coaxial]

No one with even a small understanding of the scientific process, let alone an interest in scientific progress, can vote Republican in good conscience. Why? Because both wings of Republican party are actively opposed to scientific progress. They will slow walk, whitewash, and when all else fails, flat out lie, to prevent or obscure the truth.

On the buisness side you have those that ignore 30 years of studies concluding that the average global temperature is increasing, and that this increase is directly caused by human activity. ("Needs more study.") You have those that lie before congress, and in congress, that nicotine is not addictive. Then you have those that spout such nonsense that trees cause polution and ketchup is a vegetable.

Then from the religious wing you've got those not only opposed to teaching evolution and the Big Bang, but promoting that world was formed on a tuesday afternoon 5000 years ago. They've even enlisted the federal govenerment to promoting the myth that the Grand Canyon didn't take million of years to form, but rather was formed over the course of a few hours after a global flood.

Re:Antiscience Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe, its sheltered conspiracy theory folks like yourself that make Slashdot fun. You really need to get outdoors more and see the world if you are really that dillusional of everyone on the right.

Re:Antiscience Republicans

[jabberjaw]

I should know better than to feed trolls, however I could not resist. Coaxial, you you know that the superconducting supercollider was cancelled by the Clinton administration, don't you?

Re:Antiscience Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that 2 years after Clinton was elected, the GOP gained control of Congress, don't you?

Re:Antiscience Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it WAS cancelled by the administration, not Congress. Of course, that was one project - big, yes, but overbudget and behind schedule, and with some of its own supporters saying it was failed before it even got out of the gates. Now, if we want to compare losses, though, Bush Sr pulled the plug on a massive computer system here in my hometown of Saginaw. Had it gone through, it would have meant millions of dollars in jobs in the region, and would have effecitvely quadrupled (at a conservative estimate) the amount of business in the downtown area. I don't even know what the thing was supposed to do, but it was cancelled under the justification that it would disturb the local wildlife. How it could do that, I don't know. It would have been built over an abandoned parking lot populated by winos and homeless people.

Re:Antiscience Republicans

[slothman32]

I don't know better than to feed trolls but Clinton is more Republican than Eisenhower.

Re:Antiscience Republicans

[Lars T.]

I'm no specialist on the American political system, but doesn't "Bill Clinton's signing of the bill" mean the Congress made the decision?

Re:Antiscience Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have to be a pretty fucking big parking lot to fit it! The superconducting supercollider would have been larger than CERN, and CERN is pretty damn huge.

Re:Antiscience Republicans

[TechnologyX]

Promoting the myth eh? So you were there and saw it formed over those MILLIONS of years?

uhm....Wash Times ....hrmmm

[clsc]

The Washington Times says here that the UCS is funded entirely by the left

Please don't even think the Wash Times are anything like a neutral news media

Re:Any peer review on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are actually pretty close to the truth. You might have been thinking about the PCRM(Physicians Committe for Responsible Medicine) which is basically a front for PETA. Note that it is not a group of physicians(as the name would have you believe), but rather a group which contains physicians.
The UCS is similarly not a group of scientists, but rather a group which has some scientists as members and supporters. The only real difference between UCS and groups like PETA is in the way they choose to pursue their agenda. Their agenda is basically an environmental one. They protest against things like genetically modified foods and antibiotics in livestock. They also publish stuff about energy conservation, support for the Kyoto treaty, etc. They published statements opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They've also been critical of fossil fuel use.
UCS is essentially an agenda backed organization and they actively pursue evidence which supports their aggenda and ignore, or seek to discredit, everything else. This is, interestingly, very similar to what they criticize the Bush administration of doing.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

"Politics" makes public school and thus high literacy possible.

No, public schools do not make high literacy possible.

Did you even read it?

[metalhed77]

This isn't about ethics, this is about the administration ignoring data.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[squiggleslash]

Wasn't it as late as ten years ago when the prevailing theory was that we were going to suffer an ice age due to human activity?

If by "ice age" you're refering to that global cooling guff mentioned in the article, no, it wasn't.

The "Global cooling" nonsense lasted about six months in the mid-seventies and wasn't taken terribly seriously by anyone except the media at the time. From the mid-eighties on, the case has been made, repeatedly and strongly, that there is a greenhouse effect that is causing a rise in temperatures.

Insofar as people are predicting "ice ages" today as a result of global warming, this is describing a potential scenario where some parts of the Earth that are warm today may (not will, may) become cooler, even with an average rise in temperature over the Earth as a whole, because of potential weather system changes. Several spots on the Earth are far warmer than they would otherwise be because weather systems transfer heat to them. One example is Britain which shares a lattitude with frost-covered areas of Canada and Moscow, but suffers relatively little snow or sub-zero temperatures. Britain gets a sizable amount of heat from the Gulf Stream, a supply of heated water from the Gulf of Mexico. Were the Gulf Stream to change direction, and head further South, Britain would cool down.

That's a lot of ifs, potentials, and maybes. It's certainly an alarmist picture to paint London becoming another Moscow if you don't get rid of your SUV. However, what is beyond dispute are the following:

1. There is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. This can be seen on a planetary scale in some of our neighbouring planets, such as Venus
2. Current studies show the Earth is heating up
3. Human beings are pumping an enormous amount of CO2 in the air and destroying natural CO2 sinks
4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas

Whether you want to make the links is up to you. To prove that human beings are responsible for global warming takes a tremendous effort. To prove the Earth is heating up, however, has been done time and time again.

Re:Ironic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I think the point is that only atheists are allowed to have scientific opinions- "magic", "religion" and "spiritualism" being assumed to be anti-scientific.

The skeptics who believe this need to look up some of the recent (well, last 10 year's worth) of studies on faith healing and Eastern Medicine. Religion is not automatically anti-science, and science is not automatically anti-religion.

Of course, some right-wingers will reject me writing this based on the fact that I've got the word "Marxist" in my name- and to them I say go read Acts Chapter 4 and compare to the Communist Manifesto.

No shit it's on the left,

[metalhed77]

Since when has the right been a friend of the environment (hint, you have to go back to the '70s).

The right spends most of its time looking to say that the environment is just fine and we can just forget about it. Bush just opened tons of federal lands to damaging roadwork for christ sakes.

As for your other two sources, The white house is a part of this agenda and the washington times is the rapidly right wing baby of rev. moon. It doesn't even earn a profit (moon funds its yearly losses), it's a vanity publication to elect bush.

What we have here is two conflicting sides. Now, on one side I see lots of documents, papers, and distinguished scientists. On the other I see a handful of sellouts and a whole bunch of rhetoric.

You're damn right they're on the left, the pro-business right wouldn't take them anyway.

Re:No shit it's on the left,

[BorgCopyeditor]

Since when has the right been a friend of the environment (hint, you have to go back to the '70s).

Ooh! I know! I know!

When Nixon created the EPA! (Even a bad 'un can do some good sometimes.)

An analysis of Right-Wing Attacks

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice that the poster does not question the report, the content, the methodology -- he attacks the credibility of the people making the statement.

maybe they have a broader defenition of wildlife

[fredmosby]

it was cancelled under the justification that it would disturb the local wildlife

It would have been built over an abandoned parking lot populated by winos and homeless people.

I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[DynaSoar]

Not any more. I've gotten to know some, and while we disagree, I understand their viewpoint.

For my money, what's been going on is the Republican party has been hijacked, just as surely as the Taliban hijacked Afghanistan. It's been taken over by business "interests" to the point that public policy is not created without it being directed in some way towards making someone money.

A good friend of mine is a policeman at the VA hospital where I work. He's clearly very conservative, and I'm quite the opposite, and we're both vets. We don't agree on much but we enjoy talking. One thing we do agree on: this is not the country we promised to defend. We don't know where it is, what happened to it or when, but we're both damn sure this ain't it.

And I doubt the Democrats are much different, except for the fact that the richer and therefore more powerful "interests" have collected within the Republican party, leaving the Dems weaker.

I've seen exactly this sort of political driving of science done at NIH. If it's not popular with the administration, you risk your career to pursue it, and it's a damn long way to fall if you fall from NIH.

The US is losing its edge in science in part because researchers are not moving to the US to work, and some US researchers are leaving.

Re:I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[Monkelectric]

this is not the country we promised to defend

Yesterday I was at a concert and had a really, disheartaning moment. Before the concert started the MC says, "Please rise for the pledge of allegiance." I haven't been in a situation where I've needed to say the pledge in almost 10 years. This sick feeling washes over me, like that feeling you get if you've ever backed out of cheating on a g/f or wife. This voice in my head says, "I cant do this..." and I realize how completely I've lost faith in our country. I hesitate, stand up, look around at the crowd and a lot of people are saying the pledge, but a lot aren't. They're eating their food, talking to their friends like nothing is going on, some stand defiantly saying nothing, and still others are shifting their eyes in guilt, like you try to avoid looking at a bum in Starbucks while you sip your 5$ frappuccino.

Re:I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[cardshark2001]

For my money, what's been going on is the Republican party has been hijacked, just as surely as the Taliban hijacked Afghanistan. It's been taken over by business "interests" to the point that public policy is not created without it being directed in some way towards making someone money.

What about this is new, exactly?

I actually identify and agree with some of the conservative ideals, but to find a conservative president who did, I'd have to go back all the way to Teddy, and even he was an abberation really. The democrats are the party that defends Jeffersonian ideals, the republicans are the party of the Whigs, who were originally rich land owners that believed only other rich land owners should be allowed to vote.

Sure, there have been some name changes over the years, but if you think the Republicans bedding special interests is a new phenomenon, you're mistaken. It goes back more than 200 years. I encourage you to not take my word for it, do your own homework. What you're talking about is only a matter of degree.

Re:I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[DynaSoar]

Monkelectric (546685) sez: "Yesterday I was at a concert and had a really, disheartaning moment. Before the concert started the MC says, "Please rise for the pledge of allegiance." I haven't been in a situation where I've needed to say the pledge in almost 10 years. This sick feeling washes over me, like that feeling you get if you've ever backed out of cheating on a g/f or wife. This voice in my head says, "I cant do this..." and I realize how completely I've lost faith in our country. I hesitate, stand up, look around at the crowd and a lot of people are saying the pledge, but a lot aren't. They're eating their food, talking to their friends like nothing is going on, some stand defiantly saying nothing, and still others are shifting their eyes in guilt, like you try to avoid looking at a bum in Starbucks while you sip your 5$ frappuccino."

I had the same problem dancing at pow wow. We always open with a dance to honor the flag and the vets (whereas 3% of US citizens are vets 13% of native Americans are). But I had a hard time justifying dancing for a flag that represented the Trail of Tears and all the other atrocities.

My elder, Usti, told me "There is no dishonor in dancing before your enemy's flag. The dishonor is in dancing poorly."

The Pledge still means something good. The words are between you and the flag. I have a hard time saying it these days without adding "DAMMIT".

Re:I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[DynaSoar]

"What you're talking about is only a matter of degree."

I'm sure you're right. It's always been there, in every party to some extent. It just feels like the real Republicans are now a minority of their party, and it's by and large entirely "interests". Some is expected; that's grey politics. We've never been squeaky clean. But at some point it gets to be too much business and too little politics, and that point is well behind us.

Re:I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[sonamchauhan]

> democrats are the party that defends Jeffersonian ideals,
> the republicans are the party of the Whigs, who were
> originally rich land owners

Hmmm .. time for some history friend:

From here:
the rise of the anti-slavery Republican Party in 1856 put an end to the Whig coalition. The Whigs' lukewarm position on slavery, supporting the Compromise for the sake of holding the Union together, appealed to neither side of the increasingly polarized debate: Anti-slavery Northern Whigs deserted the party for the Republicans, while pro-slavery Southern Whigs defected to the Democrats.

Now from here:
The modern Republican Party was born on March 20, 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin as an outgrowth of the dissolved Whig party, choosing the name to recall to mind the founders; no matter that the aims were now different. ...
In the beginning largely a regional party of the Midwest states, the Republican Party's major issue was opposition to the spread of slavery to the western states. ...
The Republicans therefore became strongly identified as the party of Lincoln, the party that freed the slaves, and the party that won the war. As a result, few Southerners joined the Republicans for over a hundred years-the memory of losing the war provided a strong impetus to remain with the Democrats.

More here:
Continuing to take advantage of their majority, Republicans proposed the 14th Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1868, stating: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And here
Historically, the party has supported

The abolition of slavery
The right of free speech
Support of women's suffrage ...


Hey, I don't think the republicans are flawless - they have corrupion in there - but they seem more principled overall than the Democrats. The Democrats _seem_ to sway much more with what they assume is popular opinion.

Re:I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[sjames]

The words are between you and the flag. I have a hard time saying it these days without adding "DAMMIT".

That's the way I see it. The Pledge is nto the flag which represents the ideal. The fact that so many in the current government (not just the Bush administration, the problem is much wider than that and extends into both parties) continually deficate on the flag, the Constitution, and the ideal notwithstanding.

That's why I have so much of a problem with the whole rhetoric about supporting the president as an act of patriotism. MY patriotism calls upon me to defeat large swaths of the current government and both major parties by any and every legal means.

When I see what the current government is doing, I can't help going back to the 4th grade. I bremember my teacher then telling us why the US was a great country to live in and the USSR was not. She explained that in the Soviet Union, you could be arrested and held in prison without a hearing and in the U.S. you always had a right to a public trial (except that now, you don't if you're labled a terrorist), and that in the Soviet Union, the police could search anyone or anything they wanted, but here they had to get a judge to issue a warrant. To do that, they had to convince the judge that you were probably breaking the law (not just insinuate terrorism). In the Soviet Union, the government watched what you read, and what you said, but here in the US, that was none of the government's business (apparently no longer true). In the Soviet Union, one class ruled the country, and everyone else just obeyed. In the US, the government worked for US, and in everyone's best interest, no matter how much money you had (or didn't have). Nobody got away with breaking the law just because they had power or money. Finally, nobody had absolute power. Instead, we had checks and balances. A judge could say no to the police, Congress, or the President (and WOULD). A jury could say no to a judge, or prosecutor, or a bad law. Even the President could go to jail if he broke the law.

I'll grant that even then, that was an ideal rather than an absolute fact, but at least then the corrupt people in government had to bother paying lip service to those ideals, and did otherwise only in secret and at their peril.

Today, some of those abuses have become enshrined in law. We have a President and Congress that openly and unabashedly seeks to eliminate many if not all of those reasons why the US was a better place to live than the USSR. We have secret hearings, undeniable warrent requests, and the ability to imprison people without even telling them exactly why or for how long. Some warrants come complete with absolute gag orders.

\

The fact that we now have such 'lawless radicals' like library associations and local governments actually planning how best to avoid cooperating with these new laws should be a clear message to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, butthey don't seem to nbe listening.

End of rant.

Re:I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[maysonl]

Of course, your post ignores the history of the past 40 years.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress, and {effectively and eventurally} ceded the South to the Republicans. Since then, the segregationist Democrats have been leaving the party, and going to the GOP, bringging their racist supporters with them.

While these folk are by no means a majority, even in most Southern states, they are numerous enough and influential enough to command a lot of attention and wield a lot of power.

Re:I used to blame Republicans/Conservatives

[sonamchauhan]

> Of course, your post ignores the history of the past 40 years.
Of course. As required by the context of my post.

> In 1964, Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through
> Congress, and {effectively and eventurally} ceded the South
> to the Republicans.

The bill's predecessor was from the Eisenhower Republican presidency:
From here:
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced in Eisenhower's presidency and was the act that kick-started the civil rights legislative programme that was to include the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act

Lyndon Johnson helped water it down, but later drive through the 1964 act with Republican help - a necessary step to end the evil that was threatening to tear America apart:
...
The bill didn't pass unhindered. There were doubters in Congress and it also had to overcome the longest obstruction in Senate history. Its final passing owed much to Kennedy, who had won over the Republican minority before his death.

And from here:

Let's interject some logic here: if southern racist Democrats became Republicans, how could (and would) they vote FOR the Civil Rights Act? It's a well documentable and easily proved fact that the majority of Republicans voted for the Act, thus the majority of Democrats voted against it. Since Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Act, Democrats fraudulently received and are now drowning in their self-gratulations.

Maybe the remaining Dixiecrats who remained with the Democrat Party had no desire to hang with nigger-lovin' Republicans, and gladly stayed where they felt comfortable.

> While these folk are by no means a majority, even in most
> Southern states, they are numerous enough and influential enough
> to command a lot of attention and wield a lot of power.

As the page above contends, the Democrats don't really have a lot to be proud of:

I contend racist Democrats remained with the Democrat Party, racists like J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton's "mentor"), Robert (KKK) Byrd, and Senator Albert Gore, Sr. who like those of their ilk voted against the Act.

Perhaps bigots gravitate a bit more to the Republican party and are a bit harder to detect there -- given the Republican's sympathy to "traditional values" and the current republican emphasis on minimizing government affairs. But the party isn't racist: as you know, Colin Powell and Condi Rice can be described as having traditional values, but are black and in power nonetheless.

The Republicans are better for America than the Democrats.

Head in the sand

[orim]

"You may think you're getting cheap stuff out of this, or the economy will do better, but it will wind up costing you more in the long run."

AMEN BROTHER. If there is anything I've seen in the republican party it is a complete blindness for the future. Environmental policy is just one place this is evident.

Consider also their foreign policy which consists of dropping as many bombs as quickly as possible. In the short run, yes, it'll quiet the world. However, the damage done to the reputation of the US in the world will probably not be repaired in the next 2 decades. If I get that eagle on my passport some day, I'll almost be afraid to use it to travel abroad. What good is all the money in the world if you can't enjoy but your own sliver of it?

Then the economy. As Bill Maher put it, isn't "tax and spend" better than "don't tax and spend"? What we're doing with deficits is just borrowing money. And guess who'll have to pay for that later - you and your children, with interest. Sure, it feels good to get your big screen TV now, America (i.e. new weapons systems), but you're condemning your children to a shittier future.

Then we get the social programs. The whole motto of the republican party is "smaller govt, less control." Let the rich get richer, screw the poor. Yet they cry when the inner city youth starts stealing shit from their houses so they can eat or start dealing drugs because there aren't any jobs. Then they send these kids to the state penn for 40 years for selling 10 joints, while Rush Limbaugh owns enough Ox to kill him 50 times over. (but I digress, that's hypocrisy, not blindness)

Finally, let's get to their choice of a presidential candidate. Instead of picking somebody half-way decent, like McCain (and even he disappointed me horribly with his latest support for the idiot-in-chief), they go right back to Bush, knowing what a fuck up he is and how divisive he is to the country, and how many of our kids he killed for his stupid ideals.
That might be good for them in the short run, because of all the money Bush spent of advertising himself just might win them the presidency again, but if the tide turns (and judging by this group of scientists, it's already turning) there will be a major backlash against the republicans for the next 10 years.

Shortsighted. Fucking blind.

Re:Head in the sand

[Saganaga]

Consider also their foreign policy which consists of dropping as many bombs as quickly as possible. In the short run, yes, it'll quiet the world. However, the damage done to the reputation of the US in the world will probably not be repaired in the next 2 decades.

As opposed to the Clinton era foreign policy, which was to pretend that lobbing a few cruise missiles now and then would "make America safer", when all it really did was embolden the Islamic militants by giving them the impression that the US is just a paper tiger? Is that what you would prefer--a US that cowers like the Spaniards or Filipinos? Because that's what you'll get if Kerry is elected.

Re:Head in the sand

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

You forget history so quickly. When Clinton launched those missles in retaliation for the embassy bombings, the GOP and right wing attack dogs accused him of "Wagging the Dog". Had the GOP actually given a rat's ass about the safety of this country instead of it's bullshit witch hunt to depose a twice elected president, we could have effectively dealt with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Bush ignored Clinton's warnings about Al-Qaeda and Louis Freeh was more interested in helping the GOP to attack his boss than tracking terrorists. This is all public record, go look at the facts and you'll see that the GOP has had a hand in destroying the ability of this country to maintain stability and peace in this world. Clinton was and still is loved around the world, he was able to kick the Europeans out of their little coma to deal with genocide in the Balkans, and he could have effectively dealt with Al-Qaeda as well.

In fact, the Military officials in the Pentagon kept demanding that any foreign action be treated like Gulf War I and would require .5 million troops to do anything. Clinton did what he could, numerous plots planned for the millinium were foiled. Had this country rallied behind the President after the embassy bombings like it did after 9/11, 9/11 may not have happened.

If anyone is to blame for the current situation with terrorism it's the GOP, they have worked against this country's interests at every turn for their own political gain. Kerry will bring back Clinton's policies which protected this country for 8 years. Kerry won't allow idiology take precedence over strategy. Face it, when it comes to actually dealing with problems, Bush is all talk and no action. If the goal was defeating terrorism, Iraq was a wasted effort. Rumsfeld screwed up getting Usama cause he let a bunch of N. Alliance irregulars do it instead of risking US lives. We could have gotten the bastard at Tora Bora had they actually used the military as it was intended.

Your belief that those of us that oppose this idiot Bush will cower, is ignorant. We won't cower from terrorist or Bush. We will take them both on and we will win.

Re:Head in the sand

[orim]

I knew it! Despite of what Bush might claim, GOD ALMIGHTY does *NOT* like him!

I was going to bring up the Balkans myself. After WWII, that IMO was the last "war" the US fought for the right reasons.
What will make us liked in the world is helping people like those in Bosnia, and Sudan, where the injustice is clear, and somebody with a strong military decides to act to save countless lives.
Then the rest of the world will say: "Hey, they risked their own lives to save civilians... these guys are alright!"

What will make us hated is the "f*** all of you, we can demolish this country ourselves" attitude that has been so perfected by this administration.
Speaking of that kind of hatred, there was a poll amongst the Hungarian highschoolers as to who was the most hated personality ever. Hitler won that one with 25%, but Bush was second closest with 24%. Osama I think was third with 16%, then Saddam in the low teens. When your president is hated more than a terrorist, or a genocidal maniac, that should tell America something.

Unfortunately, I don't know what Kerry will do. We can only hope that he will come true to his word to enact some reasonable social policies (after all, he is one rich guy, and as such has no personal gain in helping the poor), and that the Republican-controlled Congress will not do to him what they did to Clinton. However, anybody is better than what we have right now. Anybody!

Re:Head in the sand

[Saganaga]

Your belief that those of us that oppose this idiot Bush will cower, is ignorant. We won't cower from terrorist or Bush. We will take them both on and we will win.

I call B.S. Vote Democrat if you want to become a nation of thumb-twiddlers and hand-wringers. Vote for Bush if you want our nation to stick up for itself and not wait for the corrupt French, Russians, or Chinese to give us permission to actually do something about the Islamic militant threat.

Re:Head in the sand

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I call B.S. Vote Democrat if you want to become a nation of thumb-twiddlers and hand-wringers. Vote for Bush if you want our nation to stick up for itself and not wait for the corrupt French, Russians, or Chinese to give us permission to actually do something about the Islamic militant threat.

I keep hearing this inane banter from the right day after day. Put up or shut up. What evidence or analysis do you have that backs up your statement? Senator Kerry has 3 purple hearts, a silver star and a bronze star. Bush can't even account for his days at the Texas Air National Refuge for Rich Boys. We're taking thousands of troops from the Korean DMZ where a real threat has 30,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul, S. Korea. Not to mention their nuclear capabilities and missle tech that has been CONFIRMED, not speculated on. Bush dropped Clinton's policy of containment in both Iraq and N. Korea when he got into office. On N. Korea, he said he wouldn't negotiate like his predecessor. Bush has since reversed himself and is in a much weaker negotiating position than Clinton left him with. If war breaks out on the Korean penn. one of our large trading partners will be reduced to a pile of rubble within an hour. In other words, you won't have anymore cheap electronics if the DMZ goes hot, the economy, ours and Asia's will plummet.

This is about competence, not courage. Bush is an incompetent fool, as are those who have his ear. Your inability to refute facts and analysis with any of your own just proves that you are as foolish as he is. Parroting the Faux News party line doesn't prove anything!

Re:Head in the sand

[DAldredge]

If bush is serious about the WOT, why aren't the borders secure? Do you think the people that wish to harm us are too stupid to walk across?

Re:Head in the sand

[Saganaga]

I keep hearing this inane banter from the right day after day. Put up or shut up.

My my. Hostile, aren't we?

What evidence or analysis do you have that backs up your statement?

What statement in particular are you talking about? If you're referring to my statement about the corrupt French, Russians, or Chinese, please do us all a favor and read up on the fabled U.N. Oil For Food program. This is what we can look forward to if we abdicate our national responsibility to the U.N. as Kerry would have us do.

Senator Kerry has 3 purple hearts, a silver star and a bronze star.

Please remind me, is this war hero of yours, John Kerry, the same guy who can't decide if he's for the war on Iraq or against it? I quote: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Bush can't even account for his days at the Texas Air National Refuge for Rich Boys.

This is a non-issue, pathetic really. How about important issues?

Bush has since reversed himself and is in a much weaker negotiating position than Clinton left him with.

On Korea, I can't believe you would try to claim that Clinton's Korea policies were working. The minute after Clinton's administration made the agreement with the North Koreans, they started cheating on the agreement. We lost all credibility and face by this misguided attempt to appease the Kim regime.

I didn't actually hear what you think we should do about N. Korea...do you have a plan? I haven't heard one from Kerry either. Funny how that works.

Your inability to refute facts and analysis with any of your own just proves that you are as foolish as he is.

Again, why so hostile? And what's with the personal attacks? You don't even know me. Do you make it a habit to personally attack anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view?

Parroting the Faux News party line doesn't prove anything!

I don't watch Fox News. But as for you, parroting the NPR/NY Times party line doesn't prove anything to me, either!

Re:Head in the sand

[will_die]

You forget history so quickly. When Clinton launched those missles in retaliation for the embassy bombings, the GOP and right wing attack dogs accused him of "Wagging the Dog".
However you are skipping a significat amount of time between the launch and the attacks of "wagging the dog". After the initial attack the vast majority of right wings were with him and felt it was about time, it was only after time when it became ovious that the only time he was going to attack were when clinton wanted them to be the headlines not the investigation into him. The most disagreement about the initial attacks were that they were against insignificant locations that were of minor or no value to the enemy.
The rest is filled with so many leftist lies it is not worth discussing.

Re:Head in the sand

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

My my. Hostile, aren't we?
As I said, inane pointless harping day after day, does not make something true. Provide evidence of it or quit making the assertion. As far as hostility goes, I believe you called BS and then claimed that a vote for Kerry was somehow a vote for imasculation, without basis for your assertion. I'd consider that hostile. I also consider people who make such generalizations foolish. It's not personal if I attack your actions, only if I demean your character. Playing the victim does not discredit any of my assertions, it is simply a distraction.

What statement in particular are you talking about? If you're referring to my statement about the corrupt French, Russians, or Chinese, please do us all a favor and read up on the fabled U.N. Oil For Food program. This is what we can look forward to if we abdicate our national responsibility to the U.N. as Kerry would have us do.

I've read up on the UN Oil for Food program, plenty. So far nothing is new. Saddam was a kleptocrat, we knew that. The Oil for Food program was putting money in Saddam's pocket at the expense of the Iraqi people, we knew that too. There is corruption in the world, there is corruption in Russia, if you are shocked about these facts, then I would question who has their 'Head in the Sand'.

Kofi Anan has directed that the investigations are cooperatted with and that all information is provided. Should we expose those companies and countries that undermined our resolve against Saddam during the 90's, absolutely. Is there any evidence that there was a conspiracy leading to the top of the UN to allow cronies to profit from the program? No, not yet.

This was a bad deal to begin with. There wasn't a great deal of support for it, but there weren't a lot of great choices in '96. The entire world got all weepy about how economic sanctions and Saddam's mismanagement were killing the Iraqi people, I never liked the program myself because I expected Saddam to simply steal the money anyway. Without international resolve to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, there was little to be done other than contain the problem. We were far more concerned with insuring that Saddam couldn't attack the Kurds or Shia or reconstitute his WMD programs.

I think we can see the cost of invading Iraq without international resolve today. The reason this controversy has been met with so much skepticism is because the right has a history of finding some small infraction and then claiming it's simply the tip of the iceberg and their enemies must then prove their innocence, although no evidence for their guilt or even to substantiate the charges is ever produced. Just look at Whitewater, the only convictions were the McDougals. That was a $70 million witch hunt. Other than getting a blow job in the Oval Office, no other malfeasance was ever found. The right will simply use this same tactic to smear the UN now. These people don't attack crime, they attack their enemies by searching for the crime to justify their actions. Unfortunately, they don't have a great track record for dredging up anything meaningful, so we just wind up wasting a lot of time and energy.

The GOP is hardly one to talk about cutting deals with dictators, Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, Iran-Contra, hell where do you think Saddam got his WMD in the first place?

If the Dems are in charge, whomever is guilty at the UN will be punished. That will be the end of it. There's no reason to pursue this any further. It's not an indictment of the UN as a whole. It's not a reason to scrap the UN as the isolationist, unilateralist factions on the right would like.

Myself, I'll wait for some evidence before reaching conclusions on this issue. You'll also need to explain that curious statement of how Kerry will " abdicate our national responsibility to the U.N.". The GOP is the one who consistently blocks payment of UN dues. Who's abdicating?

Please remind me, is this war hero of yours, John Kerry, the same guy who can't

Re:Head in the sand

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

However you are skipping a significat amount of time between the launch and the attacks of "wagging the dog". After the initial attack the vast majority of right wings were with him and felt it was about time, it was only after time when it became ovious that the only time he was going to attack were when clinton wanted them to be the headlines not the investigation into him. The most disagreement about the initial attacks were that they were against insignificant locations that were of minor or no value to the enemy.

The attack was on August 20th, 1998. On August 21, David Corn wrote an article on Salon noting the press corps asking of this question. Christopher Hitchens, by that time a rabid Clinton-hater, made the accusation shortly after. It was also brought up by GOP Senators Specter and Coats. The GOP just didn't want anything to take attention away from their ludicrous witch-hunt. See "Sacred Age of Terror" by Benjamin and Simon for a complete account.

The rest is filled with so many leftist lies it is not worth discussing.

Then you should have no problem refuting my assertions. It's odd that while I cite specific references, people and dates, you simply chock it up to "leftist lies". Did Rumsfeld use the full force of the US in Tora Bora or N. Alliance irregulars? Didn't the Joint Cheifs claim that half a million troops would be needed for peacekeeping in Bosnia or for any other ground offensive? How many resources did Louis Freeh direct at Whitewater related investigations vs. domestic searches for terrorism?

Thank you for playing, but try again.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[josepha48]

Yes and there are other places that cut police and then gang violence goes up. Like my neighborhood. They also wanted to cut the fire department in my neighborhood. Yeah, real smart thing to do in a neighborhood, made entirely of WOOD houses near oily eucliptis trees. Light a match their and the whole neighborhood goes!

If you really got involved in politics, you would know that it is a realy f***in shady thing. Deals are made that are not in the best interest of the people, but in the best interest of the politician. PERIOD! I should know I have been fighting neighborhood issues for a while now. Do you know where to find out which departments are meeting in your town? Does your state / city / county / town have open goverment / sunshine laws? Do you know what those laws even are? Have you ever read a public meeting agenda and attended a public meeting? Have you meet your local officials and discussed your issues with how they are working on things?

You must be a Bush NAZI!

Re:Ironic

[BorgCopyeditor]

Practicing magic is generally considered to be anti-scient.

Maybe so, but it didn't stop Newton and others of his time.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[BorgCopyeditor]

who told me that there's no proof that we're destroying the environment [...] Let's see, right off the top of my head, there's deforestation

Are you kidding? That's saving the environment. In the words of "the greatest man who ever lived," "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.

Re:"outrage fatigue"

[nusratt]

"I think you're suffering from outrage fatigue. See 'The Onion: Nation's Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue'".
No doubt about it. In fact in my case, "outrage despondency" might be more accurate.

As it happens, I'm not a liberal. I'm eclectic. (Although the Republican Party has given us the two Presidents most threatening of civil liberties and separation of powers, the two most imperious and cynical and morally corrupt Presidents -- concerning *national* issues -- in my lifetime.) And there's a non-trivial number of card-carrying conservatives who share some of my concerns.

Lately I've begun to think that a Kerry victory will make little difference. Things like the Patriot Act are undone only with the greatest difficulty, especially with such a polarized electorate and closely-divided (and likely to remain so) Congress.

The Great American Experiment succeeded (at least for a while, and excepting slavery, native Americans, and the era of Manifest Destiny) because there was always enough room for the individual to navigate one's boat between the rocks -- and if not, one could always escape to the frontier. One could always find a place and an opportunity to Start Over, to perpetually remake one's self -- largely due to a tradition of jealously guarding the principles of individual liberties and limited-purpose limited-power government.

Can you imagine what the Founders would have thought of a central government which wishes to record and monitor every act of its own citizens, to effectively confine the vote to the landed gentry, to give the Executive Branch the power to conduct secret searches, forbid the disclosure of those searches after the fact, detain persons indefinitely without benefit of counsel, claim immunity (without using the word) to disclosing its actions to Conress, sanction torture -- ALL without judicial review, and thinly clothed with totalitarian-sounding use of words like Patriot and Homeland?

I no longer regard the US as the best (free-est) place to live on earth. In all seriousness, I've started to make plans to emigrate, before DHS starts to require national ID-cards, internal passports, and Exit Permits with retina-scans.

True religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand what it means not "on religious grounds."

Can't he be religious about money?

Re:Any peer review on this?

[Thag]

The reason I have little respect for the UCS is their history of producing politically motivated bad research and calling it science.

Like their attacks on SDI in the 80's for instance, which were badly error-ridden. They calculated the number of satellites needed to target a massive Soviet missile barrage based on the line of sight to a single point on the globe, for instance, when the missiles in question were actually staged in an arc across the breadth of the Soviet Union. As a result, they estimated 2400 satellites were needed, when the number using the correct math was around 100.

Scientists can be as blind as anyone else, particularly outside their own field.

Jon Acheson

no right to government funding of research

[Anonymous Coward]

How hard is it to understand that any given research project, research group, research lab does not have a guaranteed right to government funding?

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[Alsee]

Haven't you seen the recent Slashdot sory on the discovery of pentaquarks? A discovery clearly in support of polygamy, polyandry, and all sorts of group marriage!

-

More scientific evidence

[Phoe6]

More scientific evidence of the real bush is here
Watchout you terminator!

Re: Treatment vs Cure

[some guy I know]

Exactly!

It's like, say, you turn into a zombie. Company A creates a gun that will blow you away, but you come back to life a few hours later. Company B creates a gun that will kill you permanently. Guess which company will sell more guns? Company B, of course! Even though their guns are more expensive because they shoot silver bullets. But since the gun only has to be used once per zombie, it's cheaper for the zombie killer and more profitable for the gun manufacturer. Everybody comes out ahead (well, except for company A and the zombies).

So it just stands to reason, a permanent cure is more profitable than temporary treatment.

Re:"outrage fatigue"

[some guy I know]

Can you imagine what the Founders would have thought of a central government which wishes [...] to effectively confine the vote to the landed gentry

While I agree with most of your post, the fact is that when our country was founded, voting was pretty much restricted to the landed gentry.
As time passed, more and more types of people became enfranchised, until today every adult human non-felon has the right to vote, even the mentally retarded.
(Personally, I believe that felons should have the right to vote, and that people who do not have the mental capacity of an adult should not.)

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

thier are more important issues at hand

"there".

You Lose

[Chibi Merrow]

Godwin's Law, you lose.

Re:"outrage fatigue"

[dave420]

"In all seriousness, I've started to make plans to emigrate"

You're not alone. Lots of Americans are getting out while they still can. America is heading in a scary direction, and no-one seems to care.

Re:Ironic

[dave420]

Technically speaking, any person belonging to a religious faith that has theological or mythological teachings on the world is anti-science. Christians are anti-science by their very definition. They have FAITH. If all scientists had faith in their discoveries (or things around them), they would never prove anything.

Sure, you get lots of christian scientists, but that's a contradiction in terms. Ask one of them about evolution or the creation of the universe, and watch their brains melt.

I'm not having a pop at christianity or wicca, heck - I'm all for some teachings from both schools of thought. I'm just fed up with people mixing up religion and science. With science, you can't have faith. You can have only proof.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[dave420]

"That letter writer was George W Bush. The man I will be voting for on November 2."

physicsgenius - politics genius you ain't.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[ivan256]

Yes and there are other places that cut police and then gang violence goes up. Like my neighborhood. They also wanted to cut the fire department in my neighborhood. Yeah, real smart thing to do in a neighborhood, made entirely of WOOD houses near oily eucliptis trees. Light a match their and the whole neighborhood goes!

In what way does this has something to do whi my comment about judging situations in context instead of jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts?

Have you ever read a public meeting agenda and attended a public meeting? Have you meet your local officials and discussed your issues with how they are working on things?

Yes. This is how I am able to make decisions in context. Read my comment again. You seem to be confused about what I was saying.

You must be a Bush NAZI!

Or... Nevermind.. You're just an idiot.

Re:Any peer review on this?

[Retric]

*rant*
If the US developed a true starwars program and the "Soviet" missiles would get covered with tinfoil. (or other material that reflects the light that would have hit them.) OR makes them spin. OR...
Star war's is a stupid idea.
*/rant*

But, your forgeting that they are ansering the question how many would it take so the fallout from the missiles would end up at the lanch site. Not the same thing as preventing there detinating at our end.

Re:Speaking as a scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

"That letter writer was George W Bush."

That would explain why it was written in orange crayon with half the letters backwards.

Clinton

[ggwood]

UCS also published a report on Clinton. It also discussed policies where that administration abused science in making policy. I signed that report, too. Kind of undermines the whole "UCS is crazy liberal" claims.

I have not read everything the UCS has ever published. I totally agree with the reports I have read and signed. All they are saying is that if you are going to say a decision is based on science, you have to include the science in the report.
_________________________________________ _______

This American Life show

[ggwood]

Website: www.thislife.org look up show number 265: fake science. Act two has the relivant part: "Act Two. Government Science. The Union of Concerned Scientists has issued a report condemning the Bush Administration for what it called "distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict" Administration policies. One of the cases sited in the report involves something called the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning. Alex Blumberg reports on the fights over who'll serve on the committee, fights in which each side believes the other practices fake science. (14 minutes)"

Apparently, one of the people appointed to this Advisory Committee has never done any research on lead poisoning. He is a pediatrician. He sees children, assumedly some may have had lead poisioning. He just feels it is not a big problem. He doesn't feel they get it from paint. He testifies to this in court (in suits against paint manufacturers).

And maybe children don't get lead poisioning from paint - I'm not saying I'm an expert.

However, probably the people on the committee should actually should be.
___________________________________________

Let's see the science...

[mratitude]

... and that is the gotcha that a lot of people don't seem to understand.

Scientists don't agree on the conclusions of various cliques whithin their own community based on the science or the methods used to reach a conclusion.

In addition, we're seeing politics "shaping" the outcome for studies paid for with tax dollars. The $500M the US Congress spent to study the effect of chemicals like Freon on the ozone layer in the 90's and NASA's report on "holes" in the ozone also during the 90's, are just two examples. Both efforts were rife with politician's pressuring the people involved toward a particular outcome. It's a tainted process and the conclusion becomes questionable.

To allow interest groups like this to influence public policy is akin to allowing any particular BAR association to vet judge nominees.

You made up that word

[Anonymous Coward]

subpontibian

Re:You made up that word

[KnightStalker]

Sadly, I can't take credit for that one... :-)

He never mentioned souls

[Valdrax]

Alright, no one mentioned souls or spirits but you. Do you accept that it is possible to advance the belief that life (or at least human life) is important in some manner without having a religious angle?

If so, then explain why passing through a vagina (or a surgical opening) changes a newborn from property to a person. Explain, then, why only partially passing through it (as in some late-term abortion methods) does not.

If you use the "dependent on the mother" argument, please explain why it's not okay to kill the child after birth. Would an advance in technology that allowed for the child to develop to term in an artificial womb be grounds for banning abortion since a child would no longer be dependent on the mother? If not, when does a tank-grown child gain personhood and why?

If you use the developmental stages argument, explain why a 5 month-old prematurely birthed baby has human rights that a 6 month-old fetus still in a womb does not.

In my opinion, the best atheistic argument against abortion is that all dividing lines for determining personhood are either arbitrary and/or hypocritical. Birth is arbitrary. Developmental stages can be hypocritical in the face of the rights of premature babies and can be arbitrary and hard to determine. The only absolute for determining humanity is fertilization, when the number of genes in the egg cell equals that of a full-fleged diploid human organism.

Restated: Show me one (non-Buddhist) atheist who is ethically against stem cell research.

I assume by "atheist" you restrict the category to people who weren't raised in a religious setting, right? I can't do that, but I do know former Christian atheists and agnostics who object. You could argue that their beliefs are influenced by religion, but they've managed to cling to a belief in the "sanctity" of life even after no longer truly believing in God. It is rare, though. Most become very utilitarian about the issue.

More attacks?

[Uplore]

Ok, so the Bush administration is not perfect, we all knew that already. But the continual attacks on Bush for going to war in the first place is becoming annoying. Isn't it enough that the once tyranical ruler has been removed from power? Why do these people have such short memories?

Whether Saddam had, or had the ability to aquire WMD's is beside the point in my opinion. I believe it was in the interests of all, and especially the people of Iraq, that the tyrant was removed.

Good Science

[nuggz]

and that this increase is directly caused by human activity. ("Needs more study.")

The reason it needs more study is because it is still not a proven theory.

The current popular idea is we're bad and making a mess, and it is likely right. What we don't know is if human activity is the only cause, or if there is another factor. What about historical climate patterns, we know they are there.

Re:Any peer review on this?

[Thag]

Firstly, mirrors woudn't do a damn thing. They would oxidize and stop being reflective almost instantly.

Spinning the missile also wouldn't do a damn thing, it's like spinning a volleyball to protect it from a rifle bullet.

To say nothing of the fact that both of these approaches would require building a whole new generation of missiles in order to implement them. Which is a win for the defense in this generation.

Jon Acheson

Re:Any peer review on this?

[Retric]

The idea of a lasor defence system is to burn a whole in a missile causing suficent damage that it would cause the solid rocket fule to explode, alter it's flight path or prevent it's cargo from functioning.

If your going to try to hit it in orbit:

Then your not going to efect a balistic mistile with light unless you can deform it's shape enof to change it's course by more than 100 miles. Now that's going to get a hel of a lot harder mid flight than at the begining.

The fule is spent by this point so your stuck with distroying the cargo. Which consists of several independent systems all being distroyed at the same time or the lauch mechinism being taken out.

Ok so you have a system that is able to do all of this just fine how long is this going to take to eat though say one inch of plate steel? Ok now if it's spining at say 1200 RPM that's 20 full rotations every second say we are dealing with a one inch beam and the rocket is 10foot in diamiter that's 376 inches per second of motion which means the beam that needs 1/1000 of a second to eat though one inch of steal would need to be twice as powerfull to efect this system. Granted if it's 1/2000 of a second it a fairly long period of time many systems can do that orders of magnitude faster but it still prevents many systems from working aka realy tight beams like 1/20th of an inch have to be 1/20,000th of a second or faster.
Now as to mirros there not going to oxidize just set them behind glass / somthing that lets that frequency of light though and use that to protect your reflective substance. Don't forget there is a huge number of systems that can reflect light "mirros are one but what about scatering the beam rather than reflecting it?

And don't forget you can combine these with a larger hull aka 1200RPM 2inch hull that is 95% refective your now talking a about a much harder problem. And don't forget you need to be somthing like 95% efective or you still die.

O and dummy mistles can also be sent up a few tun less cargo and no nuke makes it a lot cheeper to build. I am not saying this can't work but star wars was always about large numbers of missile's if your only dealing with one send it on a boat and detinate it in the harbor.

A limit has to be drawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Why people can vote when they are 18 and not when they are 17 or 19? I know a 16 year old way smarter than most of my 22 pals. A limit has to be drawn somewhere, be it 1/3 of gestation or out of the womb (artificial or natural, doesn't really matters) or whatever limit you want, but I am all for not letting the raped mother or the 16 year old mother going through the suffering of non wanted gestation of a bastard child. I was raised as a Christian but I no longer believe in god nor anything supernatural. I am a cinic, and I think that without religions we all would be much better. Don't fuck to stop VIH rather than using condoms? That's just utterly stupid. Even better, let's all get castrated so we no longer have sexual desire. I love animals, I just was given a 6 week kitten and I will fight whoever or whathever tried to hurt it. I would never hurt an animal if avoidable. But I am not vegetarian and I think killing a non-self aware being is acceptable is the reason is *good enough*. That is, I approve medical research with animals, but not cosmetic research with them. I think human life level 'sacredness' or importance in relation to animals comes with self-awareness. Anyway, I don't think a human being is much more sacred than an animal. I find completely non-sensical people who is against abortion but for death penalty, like most so called pro-lifers are.