Vint Cerf and Others Form Advocacy Group

Omega writes "Vint Cerf, father of TCP/IP, and several Nobel Prize winners have formed a 527 committee called 'Scientists and Engineers for Change.' Among their major complaints are that the Bush administration has ignored and misused scientific findings to achieve political goals and that it has stifled scientific research. While the group isn't officially endorsing Kerry, Dr. Cerf points out it's pretty obvious what their goal is."

Comments

Obvious

[Golias]

"While the group isn't officially endorsing Kerry, Dr. Cerf points out it's pretty obvious what their goal is."

Yes, it is obvious. They are circumventing campaign finance laws by campaigning for Senator Kerry, and against President Bush, in the guise of an issue advocacy group.

I thought we all decided 527s were evil and borderline-illegal ever since the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth started airing out Senator Kerry's dirty laundry. I guess they are a good thing this week.

Re:Obvious

[BoomerSooner]

They are a good thing when used against the Evil Empire. When they are used against the Catsup Empire they are okay.

527's are tools, nothing more nothing less. Just like Jesus needing a Tax exemption.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just call Jesus a tool?

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

They are good when they use well-supported arguments, and bad when they are just smearing a candidate with lies. That's how you distinguish the scientists from the SBVT.

Re:Obvious

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I realize that lots of well-meaning people on both sides like to decry 527's, but it's shortsighted. The beauty of 527's is that they are not tied to political parties or candidates. They can make or break campaigns, but they have no monetary alligiance to the candidate or their party.

Let's say one of the Soros funded 527s, like America Coming Together, goes and registers 45,000 new Democrats in Florida (which they have) based on Bush's horrible policies on three issues: Iraq, the Healthcare system and the Economy. Now let's say that Kerry wins Florida by less than 45,000 votes. ACT, a 527 with no alligance to Kerry or the Democratic Party was a dealmaker for Kerry. Now, fast forward a couple of years into a Kerry Presidency and Kerry is now persuing policies opposite to the goals of ACT. ACT is free to take it's organization, it's membership lists, it's money and go support another candidate or another party, including a third party. This could prove damaging to a Kerry and the Presidency if ACT were to swing another, say, Senate election or a couple of House seats.

527's are able to band together and also are able to work with PACs. ACT regularly teams up with MoveOn.org-PAC and others like the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood under the umbrella 527 America Votes to coordinate voter registration drives. I've personally spent all of my political energy this election helping to build groups like this rather than work directly with the Democratic Party. This way, I can help make sure the Dems when they win, stay honest. If they don't, we'll go support a Green Party candidate or maybe form a new party and support them. Similarly, if one of the groups in our little coalition starts to piss everyone off, we can dump them just as quickly.

Just to illustrate the power of these groups, MoveOn.org-PAC has a goal of getting out 500K votes in swing states this Nov. Acorn.org-PAC has registered 140,000 new Kerry supporters in Florida since January and ACT has registered 45,000 new Kerry supporters. It is very likely that these groups will hand Florida to Kerry. For anyone who complains that their vote doesn't count, you're crazy. Get out and walk, go door to door, set up mailing lists, form a 527 and build an organization, then bring it to bear on your elected officials.

I have a problem with 527's like the Not-so-Swift Veterans because they are lying. I have a problem with people and organizations who lie. I would have a problem with Soros funding campaigns of lies, but changing campaign laws will not do a damn thing to stop political operatives from lying. So, 527's like Dr. Cerf's are a good thing; lying ones, like that tool of Nixon, John O'Neil, suck.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

So far, many of the points the Swifties made (by the way, fantastic lack of class in calling war heroes "the Not-so-Swift Veterans") have proven to be true. Kerry's people have been forced to admit that he did not spend Christmas in Cambodia, that his first purple heart probably was from his own grenade shrapnel, that he was still an officer (not discharged) when he meet with the enemy and organized protests and accused his brothers-in-arms of war crimes, etc.

However, not a single one of their "lies" has been demonstrated to be false.

And John Kerry still has yet to sigh SF-180, releasing the rest of his military records, even though "stonewalling" George Bush has long since done so.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Which lies would those be then? That he was not in Cambodia in Christmas of 68, and Nixon was not President at the time? That he was wounded by his own grenade shrapnel while not under fire? That he broadly accused American troops of war crimes? That he once claimed to have thrown away his medals, but later changed his story? That his photo is currently displayed in Saigon as a hero of the Communist Revoultion? That he once published an anti-American book which he is currently working very hard to supress as much as possible? That he re-enacted "heroic" moments in the field in front of his super-8 camera after battles were over? That he tried to get out of serving entirely, and when that did not work, he signed up for Swift Boat command at a time when it was expected to be a relatively safe job?

So far, none of these facts have been shown to be false, and in fact the more evidence comes to light, the stronger the case for them becomes.

Re:Obvious

[Golias]

Frankly, I'm all for keeping the 527s around. If it were up to me, all campaign spending and speech would be completely unregulated, with the exception that the source of funding be openly revealed at all times.

I just find it odd that some people hate 527s when they are for the other guy, but love them to pieces when they bash a candidate they don't like.

Maybe "odd" is the wrong word. Hmmm... "Typical" is probably better.

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Yes, those lies. They haven't been shown to be true either, and those who served with Kerry back him up all the way. He's a war hero, and unlike the cowardly GW Bush who went AWOL from a cushy national guard assignment, Kerry actually shot and killed a man in a war.

If you're going to send our boys to Iraq to fight and possibly die, then their leader should be someone who has actually killed someone with their hands, who knows what it is.

Bet you weren't expecting that kind of response from a liberal.

Re:Obvious

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

In summary, 527 run by and doing things you like are good. Others are just damn dirty liars. Would like some sugar cubes for that high horse of yours? You see the problem is that instead of political power coming from the barrel of a gun, it is coming from the ledger of a checkbook.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most of those "lies" have been confirmed to be true by Kerry's own people. John Kerry now acknowledges that he was not in Cambodia in Christmas of 68, in spite of it being "seared, seared" in his memory. His people have also acknowledged that his first purple heart wound game from the shrapnel of his own grenade, and his own journal indicates nine days later that they had still yet to see enemy fire.

Also, the only evidence that Bush ever "went AWOL" came from a single nut-case with an axe to grind, supported only by documents which turned out to be forgeries.

But yes, Kerry can be proud of the fact that he actually shot a chil^H^H^H^H^H man in the bac^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a war, even if the boy's only weapon was a fully-discharged rocket launcher. The after-action report he wrot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H that was written about the encounter clearly shows him to be a hero.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Bet you weren't expecting that kind of response from a liberal.

raging hypocracy? no, that's pretty much exactly what anybody would expect.

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Oh, you mean like talking a lot of shit like "bring it on", but you didn't risk your neck in the Vietnam war, and you're not risking your neck right now?

You mean like that?

Vote for Kerry. He killed a man, face to face. He's a bad motherfucker, and the conservatives just hate that. BTW, he's got a chestful of medals too. The Pentagon even did a review of the medals, and all were cleared as being above board.

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

What a pile of shit. Why is it that the Republicans can find a bunch of people to trash talk Kerry, but when it comes to finding a single person who saw GW Bush show up for duty there's nobody - NOBODY - who can remember him?

If you believe all the lies about Kerry, then there's something wrong with your BS detector.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. The President of the United States is the safest job you could possibly have. They only get shot about once every 20 years or so, and it's not like there aren't thousands of terrorists dreaming of the opportunity to die while assassinating him or anything.

But you are right. Kerry killed a man. And shot at civilians in free-fire zones with .50 Cal machine guns, and burned villages, and poisoned food supplies. He's just the man we need!

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are a real piece of work. Even the stuff that Kerry has openly admitted is still a "pile of shit" as far as you are concerned, because they were first reported by eeeeevil critics of your guy (who must have been working for Richard Nixon or Karl Rove or something, because no soldier would ever have a reason to hate John Kerry on his own. They actually enjoyed being called baby-killers in the 70s and getting spit on.)

Re:Obvious

[Tye_Informer]

The funniest part:
Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam (See http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art Num=67867 )

Kerry didn't want to go to Vietnam, and He has said himself that he joined the Swift Boats because they weren't going. (He said this during his War is Bad phase, talking to anti-war people. He may have flip-flopped)

Kerry is everyone's candidate. Think service in Vietnam war was wrong. Kerry's your man! (He protested didn't he? He even said all the soldiers committed war crimes while they were there!) Think service in Vietnam is good. Kerry is your man! Look at all his medals. He served honorably and did his duty.
I would go into more reasons that Kerry is your man no matter what your position, but I don't want to go off-topic.

Re:Obvious

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

They all died of toxic livers, cocaine overdoses, or "mysterious midnight visits."

This crew got away with much bigger prizes:
JFK
RFK
MLK
Reagan(Nearly)
William Casey
William Colby
Mel Carnehan
John-john
Paul Wellstone

Thos are the ones we know of...

Re:Obvious

[shpoffo]

My friend's wife came up with an interesting proposition for the way this works. She called it "Lie Capital" and it is the notionwhen one group lies, it gives antithetical groups permission to do so as well. When the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth came out, the Kerry Campaign genrated a fair bit of Lie Capital to 'play the market' with. The Scientists and Engineers for Change is drawing from those coffers in order to act. In this model the SEC is drawing from Lie Capital coffers a bit less than the SBVFT because their sources are a bit more well documented (to the best of my knowledge).

It would seem to involve quite a "Law of Conservation of Political Energy" as the trick is to take actions that float one's own campaign with out creating an accumulation of Lie Capital for your opponent - or perhaps to create a vector of Lie Capital that your opponent has blinded themselves to!

.
-shpoffo

Re:Obvious

[DAldredge]

Your lengthly post breaks down into this.

527's that support Kerry = Good
527's that support Bush = Bad

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Too bad there's a piece of paper with GW's checkmark on it that requests no overseas duty.

What a flip-flopper! What a waffler!

Only a fascist would vote for a war. By the way, are you in Iraq right now? How many of the enemy have YOU killed?

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'm a piece of work? You don't have a brain. Besides the obvious scientific curiosity of such a creature, it does explain why you think the SBVT are credible.

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Says the Anonymous Coward.

PICK UP A RIFLE, soldier! Cut your hair. Get your ass out of bed. While you're arguing on the Internet, the enemy is making preparations. Your brothers are dying. Are you a patriot, or a pussy?

Right. You're a pussy. You vote for the Prez who looks tough and acts tough, because that's all he can do, just like you. And you call a man who is REALLY tough unpatriotic. You should be ashamed of yourself, you little maggot. You turned the rear of your swift boat to the enemy long ago. You are dismissed.

Re:Obvious

[eskayp]

National Guard? Been there, done that.
Vietnam? Been there, done that.
Lost friends and schoolmates in combat? Ditto.
It's 25 year old history; nations and people have changed since then.
As a Vet, I was not, and am not, insulted by Kerry's testimony against unethical behavior during a conflict spanning Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon.
As wartime soldiers, some of us did good, some did bad, and most of us did both during our tours.
I don't recall any of our ranks attaining sainthood while in country.
Kerry testified about the bad.
If the bad doesn't get reported, it becomes the worst.
Abu-Ghraib and Watergate come to mind.
It would be a darker world, had they gone unexposed.

The Bush administration has enough shortcomings today, without having to waste time on George W's AWOL status from stateside weekend drills several decades ago.

Our troops were destroying the Taliban and Al-Queda like a pack of terriers ripping up a nest of rats.
Our chickenhawk Commander and his chums diverted our attention from the snake infested rock pile to go after an ugly toad in the swamp.
When your are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your original purpose was to drain the swamp.
George says 'Bring it on!' and the caskets come home.
So there our troops stay, spread thin, for the duration.
Now, they've been there and done that, too.
They have my full support and sympathy.
Something I cannot, in good conscience, give the current administration.

Re:Obvious

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

If that is your analysis then perhaps you should re-read it, or perhaps you should present a more thorough reasoning for your conclusions. It seems to me that you've simply missed the point and are mischaracterizing my post.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, you must have just got here. We were having a discussion about 527 groups like this new one that Vint Cerf has formed. You seem to think we were talking about war records. Feel free to read all the comments and catch up.

Re:Obvious

[innerweb]

I normally find little worth modding up. This is definately worth modding up!

Anyone who believes that either of the candidates are good for the presidency needs to do some home work on the candidates. This is not a choice of who is good for the job, but who is least damaging for the job. So far, Bush has proven to be exceptionally damaging. Kerry has not, yet. He may well prove to be as bad as Bush, but that would be a challenge. Kerry has a history of glorifying himself, liking the camera, spinning things in his favor(small lies, big lies) and changing his mind. Hmm... Sounds Like Bush to me. Big difference is Bush has been in, he has failed terribly and placed a huge burden on future generations. He has done some good things. He seems to be an OSS advocate.

Truth is, IMO, they are both bad picks. Kerry is less bad than Bush. None of the third party candidates make any sense to me either. Jimmy Carter was one of the most honest presidents we ever had. His honesty got him killed politically. That is how we the people allow the game to go. If we want honest people in office(s), we need to make sure they are honest. We do not, so those who can take advantage of us (while we let them) do take advantage of us. Bush has done very well at that. I think Kerry will do less well at that, and that is a good thing. Most politicians by today's rules will take advantage to some extent. They have to to garner dollar support to get elected.

Bravo for the scientists. Real scientists are normally to quiet out of fear (rightfully so) that the noise would interfere with true scientific endeavors. Sometimes, things become so wrong (think Church and Flat Earth, Church and Center of Universe, Church and Paganism, Church and Orphans to Australia, The final solution, Aparthied, ...) that people need to step forward and cry fowl. Bush has a particularly nasty streak of fabricating science and reinterpreting scientific results to favor his political agenda. Not saying that others do not, but this Bush is far worse than other presidents in my memories.

InnerWeb

Re:Obvious

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Point of View by JIM FETZER

One man's opinion: Evidence indicates that Wellstone crash was no accident

Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone was a serious man who cared profoundly about his fellow citizens. He took courageous stands against an administration that he viewed with profound suspicion, arguing eloquently against tax cuts for the rich, the subversion of the Constitution, and violating international accords. He would have led the opposition to the war in Iraq if only he had had the chance. Everyone knew it and he may have died because of it.

For nearly a year now, evidence has been accumulating about the event that ended the life of this magnificent human being. Whatever caused the crash was not the plane, the pilots or the weather. In spite of what you may have heard, the plane was exceptional, the pilots well-qualified and the weather posed no significant problems. Even the National Transportation Safety Board's own simulations of the plane, the pilots and the weather were unable to bring the plane down.

This means we have to consider other, less palatable, alternatives, such as small bombs, gas canisters or electromagnetic pulse, radio frequency or High Energy Radio Frequency weapons designed to overwhelm electrical circuitry with an intense electromagnetic field. An abrupt cessation of communication between the plane and the tower took place at about 10:18 a.m., the same time an odd cell phone phenomenon occurred with a driver in the immediate vicinity. This suggests to me the most likely explanation is that one of our new electromagnetic weapons was employed.

The politics of the situation were astonishing. The senator was pulling away from the hand-picked candidate of the Bush machine. Its opportunity to seize control of the U.S. Senate was slipping from its grasp. Its vaunted "invincibility" was being challenged by an outspoken critic of its most basic values. Targeted for elimination, he was going to survive. Here's one man's opinion: Under such conditions, the temptation to take him out may have been irresistible.

Among the striking indications that something was wrong with the NTSB in its inquiry into the causes of the crash is that Carol Carmody, a former employee with the CIA, the head of the team, announced the day after that the FBI had found no indications of terrorist involvement. Yet it is the responsibility of the NTSB to ascertain the cause of the crash, which has yet to be determined to this very day.

So how could the FBI possibly know?

The FBI's prompt arrival was peculiar. As Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press reported (www.rumor
millnews.net, Oct. 29, 2002), "According to Rick Wahlberg, then St. Louis County sheriff, a team of FBI agents was quickly on the crash site about noon, less than an hour after (assistant manager Gary) Ulman and the (fire) chief had first located the site and found a way to access the wreck. This FBI team had come from the distant Twin Cities in record time!"

When Bollyn "asked Ulman if he had notified the FBI about the accident, Ulman said he had not spoken with the bureau at any time. Asked how the FBI got to the site so quickly, Ulman said that he assumed they had come from Duluth. AFP contacted the Duluth office of the FBI and was told that the team of 'recovery' agents had not come from Duluth but had traveled from the FBI office in Minneapolis."

I calculate that this team would have had to have left the Twin Cities at about the same time the Wellstone plane was taking off.

Gary Ulman confirmed to me that the FBI had been on the scene no later than 1 p.m.

I have reviewed the log books maintained by the Sheriff's Department at Eveleth and have discovered that they are grossly incomplete and cannot confirm when the FBI showed up.

The FAA has told me that its records of private aircraft arriving in Duluth that morning have been destroyed, even though they might verify the FBI's early arrival.

And the NTSB has canceled sessions where it

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the checkbox on that fake document which has been floating around the web? Yeah, that's real damning. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why you haven't been seeing that checkbox on CNN, or any of Kerry's attack ads? Is it just possible that they know better than to try to pass off that kind of bullshit (unlike Dan Rather)?

Re:Obvious

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Idiot, the document is real. It's one of the few that have been found or haven't been destroyed.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Vint Cerf, the father of TCP/IP, formed a 527 something-or-other, but he couldn't be bothered to make a fucking website! How does he expect to rally support from the rest of us?

Re: zerg

[Black Parrot]

> Vint Cerf, the father of TCP/IP, formed a 527 something-or-other, but he couldn't be bothered to make a fucking website!

527 Page Not Found

Re:zerg

[DjReagan]

You mean, like This One ?

Re:zerg

[Lord Omlette]

fuck, apparently I lose :(

Re:zerg

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this shows a clear left-leaning political bias by Slashdot. The Football Fans for Truth website was on the front page, costing them for every hit they received. Scientists for Kerry link is buried so they don't get slashdotted!

BTW: I post anon because some moderators don't get the joke. However, with this at the end it is clearly Flamebait.

I'm in full agreement but expecting little impact

[museumpeace]

Cerf and confederates are quite right but the problem with science as a political issue is that a scientific development leads its political consequences by years, sometimes decades. Politicians and most businesses don't operate in that sort of timeframe. [And most politicians are getting most of their money from businesses? gawd, I can't tell flamebait from reasonable conjecture anymore!] So even though most of the jobs we do today and the way we fight wars today involve technology that was hot science 10 or 20 years ago, few of us are voting like science mattered, let alone being led by leaders who think that way. A poll at scienceblog.com shows that its readers strongly consider Bush harmful to scientific progress.

And your platform is?

[(trb001)]

The NY Times article glosses over what they're actually working towards, other than saying they don't want the US "losing the edge" in technology. That's then followed immediately by this paragraph:

Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, disputed that opinion. "I don't know where their accounting is coming from," Mr. Hopkins said. "The president has been a strong and generous supporter of science, increasing federal R&D budgets 44 percent to a record $132 billion."

A quick Googling doesn't show anything for their group's name, either.

What the hell? Are they just a few people that doesn't like Bush and decided to form a soft-money group to campaign against him? This article made it to Slashdot how, again?

--trb

Re:And your platform is?

[museumpeace]

[unable to resist bait, it must be a trap but...] You may be right that putting out a news release before you have any other visible material is a bad move but unless you are one of those dolts who suspect anyone with a GPA>3.5 is a pinko bedwetter and you press your hands over your ears unless your hearing the reassuring words of Cheney or Rice, you would certainly be aware that this administration has been eating the seed corn, so to speak, as far as funding basic research. Just go to the details on your president's science spending as reported by the largest and most respected non government body of scientists in the US. You don't even have to read the whole of each article, just read the link/headlines in the right hand column...the only "science" for which Bush hasn't cut back funding is DOD programs. There are DOZENS of "just a few people that doesn't like Bush" science organizations and stories. Are you not looking or do you just wish not to see? If you hear to many of his speechings you can begin to sound as him.

Re:And your platform is?

[Retric]

They are a grass roots organization of scientists who have watched the Whitehouse tamper with scientific findings to fulfill their agenda and are sick of it. If they where a political organization then they would be building websites and such but these people have better things to do so they make a statement get some press coverage and move on. I mean there 527 people spending less than 2000$ per person on travel expences I think there self funded and don't feel it's worth it to put up a website.

Re:And your platform is?

[(trb001)]

I don't think they need a website, professionally designed with widgets and toys, but I would expect a press release or maybe an article in a scientific periodical. Without any of the above, this smells a little illegitimate.

--trb

Re:And your platform is?

[Retric]

I really doubt that the New York Times did any real research to discover them. So I am going to assume they did some form of press release listing the group's makeup. Which is why a large chunk of the article was a listing of their names as apposed to what type of research they do. I really doubt that the New York Times did any real research to discover them. So I am going to assume they did some form of press release listing the group's makeup. Which is why a large chunk of the article was a listing of their names as apposed to what type of research they do. It sounds like the reporter looked at a press release made 4 or 5 phone calls got a few quotes and wrote the whole thing up. Anyway,

The administration's policies on energy and global warming prompted Dr. Osheroff to take part. "I am not a Democrat and I have never played a significant role in politics," he said. "We must begin to address climate change now. To do so, we must have an administration that listens to the scientific community, not one that manipulates and minimizes scientific input."

are the words of a scientist talking about science and science policy now I don't know what other credentials you would want before calling someone legitimate but I feel he has a better background to access such things than any politician or policy maker. I mean it's not like there the first group saying these things so I think there more after convincing a small group of people who might listen to them than the world at large.

How do they know?

[christopherfinke]

What proof do they have that Kerry will be any different? Sure, there are "campaign promises," but really, how do they know? What specific promises has John Kerry made about scientific research?

Re: How do they know?

[Black Parrot]

> What proof do they have that Kerry will be any different?

Sometimes the devil you know is so bad that you're willing to give the devil you don't know a try.

Re:How do they know?

[phyruxus]

>>What proof do they have that Kerry will be any different?

If he's exactly the same, no loss. If he's better, gain. I can't imagine how he could be worse... but my tinfoil is getting thin anyways. ;)

As for scientific research, at least for one thing, Kerry isn't as likely to bend over backwards to stop stem-cell research.

Re:How do they know?

[christopherfinke]

Kerry isn't as likely to bend over backwards to stop stem-cell research.

I thought Kerry was supposedly a devout Catholic. Doesn't the Catholic church condemn destroying embryos for stem cells?

Re:How do they know?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, the Church condemns destroying embryos for stem cells. No, Kerry is anything other than a devout Catholic- he's about as devout as Kennedy was.

Not that Bush is any better- I'm not sure if he's a Baptist, a Presbyterian, or a Methodist (I've heard all three), but none of them actually condemn stem cell research as a blanket statement, which leads me to suspect he's only doing it to once again get votes from people who have no business voting Republican. Kind of like his abortion stance.

Re:How do they know?

[Bombcar]

Key word: supposedly.

Kerry is a lying bastard - either he's Catholic, and believes what the Church teaches, or he's not.

But trying to pretend he is Catholic while voting for so-called "abortion rights" is a travestry.

It's even worse than Kerry pretending to be pro-gun.

I mean, c'mon, at least be open about what you stand for! Sheesh.

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

What proof do they have that Kerry will be any different?

Of course there's no proof, but it'd be a safe bet that Kerry will be different, considering he doesn't make decisions based on religious dogma.

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't suppose that it's possible that Kerry is capable of making his own decisions without falling in lock-step with Catholic teachings? I'll vote for the guy who thinks on his own rather than dumbly follows others' teachings.

Re:How do they know?

[Bombcar]

Fair enough. But then he shouldn't call himself Catholic. Doncha see what the problem is? A Catholic is someone who believes in what the Catholic Church teaches.

Let him make his own decisions, reject what the Church teaches, and join one of the thousands of Protestant churches. There are many ways to believe in Jesus and be pro-abortion. But to claim to be Catholic (which is a very specific, and large portion of Christianity) and support abortion is not honest. Why bother? The only reason I can think of is that he wants to get support from Catholics who don't know more about him.

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps he recognizes that the moral rulings of the Catholic Church do not always make the best basis for laws in a secular democracy. After all do you support making talking back to your parents a crime? How about adultery? How about not tithing 10% of your income to the church?

Of course since George Bush supports the death penalty and against legal abortion, he is going against the teachings of his church.

Re:How do they know?

[rwiedower]

That doesn't make sense at all. If that were true, every catholic would be against the Iraq war, anti-choice, against condoms, etc.

Catholics, like everyone else, can have different opinions on different subjects.

And as an Episcopalian (like that other, older Bush), I think calling protestant churches "pro-abortion" isn't correct at all. Again, most church leaders (bishops/clergy/etc.) from all the protestant churches in America met with the president on the eve of the war to urge him against it. Yet I am sure that many of those in their congregations were pro-war.

Catholic or protestant, people are free to make up their own minds about chruch orthodoxy. Or science.

Re:How do they know?

[TykeClone]

So you're saying that the "official stance" of [insert church here] != the beliefs of the members of that church?

THAT is insightful.

Re:How do they know?

[esme]

A Catholic is someone who believes in what the Catholic Church teaches.

I'm not expert on Catholic theology, but I'm pretty sure there is wiggle room in Catholic orthodoxy for this.

Kerry is anti-abortion (almost all pro-choice people are). That is, he thinks the best world would be abortion-free, and that the government should encourage sex ed, birth control, adoption, counseling, etc. to reduce abortion and its causes. That is a fine Catholic position.

But Kerry also opposes criminalizing abortion, which the Catholic church is silent on (AFAIK).

-Esme

Re:How do they know?

[Eneff]

1. The official position of the Catholic Church is that all artificial birth control should be illegal. The only acceptable method is that akin to the rhythm method or abstinence.

Frankly, the fact that Kerry only had two daughters means he was breaking this one.

That said, most American Catholics ignore this piece.

Re:How do they know?

[Bombcar]

Catholics, like everyone else, can have different opinions on different subjects.


Correct, if those subjects are not a matter of Church teaching!

Catholics can believe whatever they want about what is on Pluto, but they can't, for example, deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, because that's one of the tenets of the Catholic Faith.

Similarly, the Church has decreed that its teachings on the issues of abortion are doctrine and cannot be denied by a Catholic in good standing. In fact, the worst punishment the Catholic Church can level on one of its memebers is excommunication , and there is serious discussion that such punishment should be laid upon Catholics that openly support abortion. It is well known that, according to Church Law, anyone who commits, procures, or assists in an abortion occurs an automatic excommunication (latae sententiae). This means the person is booted out of the Church. For an atheist, this is no problem, it is the same as being kicked out of some club. But for a believing Catholic, it is a major issue. Yes, they can, and must make up their own mind, but if they choose something different than the Church on matters of faith and morals, then they very well may no longer be in the Church.

Note that while the Church may be "anti-this-or-that war", it does not say that anyone participating in any war is excommunicated. The Just War theory says that there can be wars that are necessary, even though the act of killing another human is wrong. But the Church teaches that at no time is the act of killing an unborn child permissible.

I did not mean to imply that many, some, or even any Protestant Churches are pro-abortion. Some no doubt are more pro-life than many Catholics. But the very idea of Protestantism (as a whole) is that you aren't under the rule of the Church in Rome, and can disagree with tenets that the Church holds are true.

An example: Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of Christ's Church on Earth and that when the Pope teaches ex cathedra he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

However, a member of the Anglican Church obviously doesn't hold these to be true - the Anglican Church began when Henry declared himself leader of the Church of England, and denied the Pope's ability to deny him an annulment.

What I was trying to say was that if you take the "Protestant" notion of individual interpertation of the Bible, you can, I guess, believe that abortion is not wrong.

But just as an NRA member who supports repealing the 2nd amendment, or an ACLU member who supports repealing the 1st, a Catholic who supports abortion is no Catholic at all.

Note that, for example, the Catholic Church has no official position on evolution. However, it does hold that Catholics must believe that God created the world, but has no position on how he created it. So Catholics can rightfully discuss and disagree (or agree) both with people who believe the world was made 5,000 years ago and with people who believe that the world evolved from the Big Bang, neither of which necessarily denies that God made everything. But to deny that God made everthing is to deny a very part of being a Catholic.

Re:How do they know?

[John Newman]

Fair enough. But then he shouldn't call himself Catholic. Doncha see what the problem is? A Catholic is someone who believes in what the Catholic Church teaches.

There is a WORLD of difference between personal beliefs and what should be codified into law. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A THEOCRACY. Last I checked, our sons and daughters were dying to prevent the spread of theocracy in the Middle East.

The Catholic Church hierarchy has been lately taking the stance that any politician who doesn't think the laws of the United States should mirror the teachings of the Catholic Church isn't a good Catholic. In a fit of cognitive dissonance, I'm starting to think the Catholic Church isn't a very good Church, at least not for any patriotic American. I mean, seriously, substitue some Muslim-American candidate for "John Kerry" and "Islam" for "Catholicism"; how fast would you be calling the Muslim a hypocrite if he didn't think sharia was a great idea for the US? And how quickly would he be thrown in jail as a fundie terrorist if he did?

Re:How do they know?

[esme]

1. The official position of the Catholic Church is that all artificial birth control should be illegal.

Is it? The Code of Canon Law makes 4 references to abortion, and all of them talk about actually performing abortions. Have you got a source for official Catholic doctrine on legislating abortion?

Unlesss you've got a cite, I don't buy it.

-Esme

Re:How do they know?

[John Newman]

Several, actually. You can find them on johnkerry.com/issues/technology/plan. I just cherry-picked a few examples:

- Provide substantial research increases for clean energy, medicine, advanced manufacturing, information technology, nanotechnology, and other priorities.
- Extend the Research & Experimentation tax credit
- Provide a tax credit to ensure that broadband access is universal and affordable
- Expand spectrum that is available for wireless broadband
- Remove restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research

These and other ideas are laid out in fairly impressive detail on the site. The first point is most important to me. Bush completed the planned 5-year doubling of the NIH budget only by a technicality in 2003, and both it and the NSF are taking a big hit this year. His budgets plan further cuts in following years. Science is not a priority for him. It is for Kerry.

Re:How do they know?

[John Newman]

The thing about all of that, besides the fact that if the Church excommunicated every member who disagreed with any teaching there would be no Catholics left in America...well, that's a thing. But there's another thing, and that thing is that there's a firewall, if you will, between one's personal beliefs and what one thinks should be codified into law.

We do not live in a theocracy, and no sane person would advocate that our nation should adopt any one religion's teachings as law, lock-stock-and-barrel. But that is exactly the position the Church has been moving towards recently. It began with asserting that politicians have a non-binding duty to advocate Church policies. It evolved into the idea that politicians who don't risk censure or excommunication. It has further evolved, here in America, into the idea that people who vote for such politicians should be censured or excommunicated.

The whole premise is nonsense, besides being unconstitutional. Just because I'm Catholic doesn't mean I advocate passing a law declaring that Jesus is the Son of God and Pope John Paul II is his infallible representative on Earth. This is America. I would feel the same way if a Muslim politican tried to introduce Sharia here. Hell, even Jesus himself didn't seem keen on theocracies (that whole "give unto Ceasar" thing, along with his relentless bashing of the Jewish elders). What I do and what I believe is my own business. What I think should be legal and illegal for other people to do should not, and in the USA can not, be based on what I believe.

Re:How do they know?

[Bombcar]

Ah, but as a Catholic you must be opposed to a law declaring Mohammed infallible.

And so as a Catholic you must be opposed to laws that promote abortion, or provide govenment funding for it.

But you could argue that you'll be against laws that prohibit it, but then how do you argue for prohibiting anything?

After all, the Catholic Church teaches that murder is wrong, do you suggest that we repeal laws against murder? Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere.

What I think should be legal and illegal for other people to do should not, and in the USA can not, be based on what I believe.

What should it be based on? What you think other people believe? Obviously the government has to prohibit some things, and it does. I can't sacrifice virgins, no matter how willing they are. I also can't own automatic weapons, run red lights, or take drugs, even if none of those affect others. Somewhere the line will be drawn, and I think that Catholics have to draw the line on the other side of abortion. Euthanasia is another example.

Re:How do they know?

[Bombcar]

Maybe the answer is that a good Catholic cannot run for office in the U.S.

Re:How do they know?

[LarryRiedel]

The Code of Canon Law makes 4 references to abortion, and all of them talk about actually performing abortions. Have you got a source for official Catholic doctrine on legislating abortion?

I think the Church more or less considers "legislation" to be an artifact of decisions made by individuals (those who create the laws), and things like that are related to the concept of scandal. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, ...
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.

Also, I think the position of the church is that human life begins at conception (a zygote is a person), so any laws/sins which apply to a person (viz murder) apply to an unborn person.

Larry

Re:How do they know?

[John Newman]

Ah, but as a Catholic you must be opposed to a law declaring Mohammed infallible.

An odd example. Any American should be opposed to any law that tries to impose any particular religious beliefs on the entire society. Allah, Yahweh, the Wicca Witch of the West, whatever. There's no Catholic teaching involved there.

how do you argue for prohibiting anything?...What should it be based on? What you think other people believe?...I think that Catholics have to draw the line on the other side of abortion

I hope you're not under the impression that morality exists only as an extension of religion. Personally, I'm a bit of a Social Libertarian when it comes to what sorts of things the government should and should not legislate. Respect the individual, good of society and all that. If there is a moral basis for law, it is only that of universal morality, not any particular religion's interpretation of it. Abortion is not an issue of universal morality. "Drawing the line" is a misnomer. It's not a matter of picking which religious beliefs are most inoffensive to everyone else. Laws cannot enforce religious beliefs, period. If you can't justify it except by "God told me so", it shouldn't be in law.

Re:How do they know?

[Eneff]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclic als/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_e n.html

Good enough?

Re:How do they know?

[John Newman]

>blockquote> Maybe the answer is that a good Catholic cannot run for office in the U.S.That's what the WASPs have trying to convince everyone for a hundred and fifty years now. :)

Re:How do they know?

[DAldredge]

Kind of like how Bush is a very large supporter of China, even thought they force women to have abortions if they have an unauthorized child?

Both could care less, they just want your vote and your money.

Re:How do they know?

[bigsteve@dstc]

And so as a Catholic you must be opposed to laws that promote abortion, or provide govenment funding for it.

Since you are not an official representative of the Catholic Church, you have no business making such statements. Only the Catholic Church has any right to say what a Catholic must or must not believe or do. Furthermore, the fact that the Church does not try to force lay Catholics to take a stance against anti-abortion should tell you that you are plain wrong ... as well as talking out of turn!

Re:How do they know?

[esme]

Yes. Paragraph 23 seems pretty clear to me. I wonder if there is a similar call to legislators on the subject of the death penalty?

-Esme

Re: How do they know?

[Jtheletter]

]] What proof do they have that Kerry will be any different?

Sometimes the devil you know is so bad that you're willing to give the devil you don't know a try.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe this got modded up as insightful. This is the exact same bullshit that's helped to ruin the democratic system by setting up a a near-perpetual power monopoly by the two parties that are currently serving up the schlock of the country as our proposed "leaders."

You want to vote for the devil you don't know? How about not voting for the devil as long as we're electing strangers. I don't care what third party you choose, I don't care if you abstain from voting or write-in Optimus Prime for Pres to protest the system, but please, stop voting for the lesser of two evils just to evict the first.

People pass this phrase around and nod their heads like it's some great wisdom bestowed from a more rational time. Fuck that. If people would just take the time to find out more about who else is running, rather than looking at who Fox news feeds them as their "choices" in 2004, they might find a candidate they actually [gasp] agree with, instead of perpetuating the two party puppets that have hijacked democracy.

Honestly, instead of telling everyone you see "Vote for Kerry, he's not Bush!" Tell them to vote for a candidate they believe in and, as a bonus, it might not be Bush! This "conventional wisdom" of voting one asshat in for another makes people believe it's the only way to do it, so the sheeple follow the old wives tale right to the voting booth. If Americans don't snap out of this stupid daze that the only choice year after year is the other major party candidate who will get out the incumbent president, we will never see serious change, only the contiuned slide of lost freedoms, curbed rights, voter redistricting, and gerrymandering with the process until we have literally been legislated into a single defacto party who is unoustable.

Get Bush out of office. Vote for the candidate you want to win, not the one you think will win.

Re:How do they know?

[Minna Kirai]

Doesn't the Catholic church condemn destroying embryos for stem cells?

They condemn destroying embryos, period. Including for purposes of abortion, or assisted in-vitro fertilization.

However, stem-cell research does not destroy embryos. It collects embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway, and uses bits of them.

If you want to oppose embryo-destruction on religious grounds, then go after reproductive biotechnology, and leave stem cells out of it.

Re:How do they know?

[Minna Kirai]

In fact, the worst punishment the Catholic Church can level on one of its memebers is excommunication , and there is serious discussion that such punishment should be laid upon Catholics that openly support abortion.

Exactly right. The Catholic Church has this mechanism of "excommunication" to expel members who go against their teachings.

So, please give me a URL to the Pope's press release announcing Kerry's excommunication. Or just show me a news article about some priest refusing him communion, even. Either of those would make fine proof that he's not a member of the Catholic church.

Until you do, his weekly attendance at mass somewhat undermines your little theories. Those ordained priests have somewhat more authority than you...

a Catholic who supports abortion is no Catholic at all.

Not everything that's wrong and sinful needs a law passed against it.

Re:How do they know?

[TimTheFoolMan]

Or, perhaps Kerry has a personal conviction (opposed to abortion) that he does not believe is enforceable (via the current law). For instance, my belief is that "life begins at conception." However, legislating my belief entails investigating every in-utero death as a potential murder or act of negligence, in the same way that we would investigate the death of a 6 month-old.

One example would be my sisters, both of whom miscarried several times. Those events were emotionally tramatic enough without having a cop interrogating them about the circumstances (assuming that anyone would have known to do so).

I personally feel that mothers who smoke or abuse drugs during pregnancy are guilty of child abuse. However, I'm well aware that pushing for legislation along these lines is both financially infeasible, and likely to create some situations that I'm not comfortable with.

My moral views frequently represent positions that cannot be practically legislated. Maybe this is what Kerry thinks too. It doesn't mean it's a case of him being a liar, or even a bad Catholic, any more than my pragmatism is a sign of me waffling, or being a "bad Baptist." (However, I'm sure some would disagree with the last assessment.)

Asssuming that you're opposed to abortion, are you prepared to put my sisters, and thousands like her, into the situation I've described? Are you willing to throw the funds into the legislation that it entails? I'm not, and if that makes me a "bad Baptist," then so be it.

Tim

I used to work with Vint.

[ClioCJS]

Well not with... He was my boss's boss's boss.

This guy has a presense IDENTICAL to Timothy Leary (RIP). I thinkt hey were separated at birth. He's cool though..

Good Lord!!

[SimianOverlord]

What? Politicians misuse scientific findings for their own political goals? What an amazing insight!! Perhaps Vint Cerf et al. should get a reality check - this isn't a George Bush problem, though his problems with science have admittedly been flagrant ie global warming, Kyoto. I don't see how Kerry or anyone would be any different, it is the system, not the political party that misuses science. Most of it is from a misunderstanding of the process involved. There is nothing hard and fast to grasp in science. Most theories form, are disproved or modified, continuing indefinitely. Even the most basic axioms of biology have to have their addendums and footnotes because there are always exceptions to every rule, and on contentious issues (global warming is a good example), well, wait 50 years and then you can look back over the equally convincing, committed camps and make a decision of who is more likely to be right on the preponderance of the evidence.

Many groups misuse scientific research for their own motives. The media for instance is one of the worse, publishing dubious claims as scare stories to ultimately sell newspapers i.e. HRT links with cancer, danger of the pill, MMR scandal, GMO /GM food to name a few recent UK ones. This appears to me to be a thinly veiled political attack. I'm no fan of Bush, but I feel this is wrong. Scientists should not use their status to give political affiliation a veneer of legitimacy, as our opinions are no more valid than truck drivers, shop assistants or lumberjacks.

Re:Good Lord!!

[wwcohen]

Scientists should not use their status to give political affiliation a veneer of legitimacy, as our opinions are no more valid than truck drivers, shop assistants or lumberjacks.

Well, I hope truck drivers speak out on trucking, and so on. As scientists, we should speak out when the government handles science wrong, e.g., when an administration ignores scientific consensus for obviously political reasons, which has happened on numerous occasions with this administration.

Re:Good Lord!!

[zenyu]

Scientists should not use their status to give political affiliation a veneer of legitimacy, as our opinions are no more valid than truck drivers, shop assistants or lumberjacks.

Except they are giving lectures on how this administration has been insanely worse than any previous administration when it comes to science. Former administrations simply ignored scientific reports from within the government they didn't like, knowing that few would read a 500 page report on some toad's habitat. But this administration has been so paranoid that they actually rewrite them. Plus there is increasing evidence that they use very shallow political judgements decide how grant money is allocated. This is an issue that effects scientist directly and they have just as much right as lumberjacks to talk about how the administration's contempt for them hurts truck drivers and shop assistants too.

This probably isn't the most important issue on most people's radar this year, but it's still an important issue if you, or someone you care for, plans to live on this planet 10, 20, 30 years from now. The world won't come to an end, but our economy will suffer, and hence people will die, if we don't remove our collective heads from the sand.)

Re:Good Lord!!

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Regardless of what happens, Bush or Kerry, hence people will die. Thats just a fact of life, it ends.

Heartening

[phyruxus]

It's good to hear about a 527 that's not bent on demolishing Kerry.

In light of the whisper campaigns and the dirty tricks of copresident Rove, and the rhetoric of the RNC ("Iraq was our response to 9/11" etc), I don't know whether to hope liberal 527's play fair or not. I haven't seen enough politics to have an opinion other than blatant cynicism (all politics is dirty, right?). My gut says that a group headed by an engineer would be more interested in facts than slander... but does anyone win anything without slinging filth? Maybe it's my liberal bias talking but it seems to me that Rove & co think it's key, and it seems quite effective. Are people really swayed by "whisper campaigns" and personal slander, or is it just fodder?

Re:Heartening

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

all politics is dirty, right?

And unfortunately, it's the single human endeavor we can ill afford to play dirty. Love, business, sports... whatever. But politics? We literally need saints, and we get the most evil of demons.

Kerry deserves to be demolished.
Bush deserves to be demolished.
Anyone belonging to either party deserves to be demolished.
Anyone belonging to a third party that would like to take over after we've demolished the previous, deserves to be demolished.

Re:Heartening

[Bombcar]

You mean you haven't heard? Wow, because lots and lots of money goes to Democrat 527s.

See OpenSecrets.org for more details. Notice how much more money MoveOn.org has compared to the Swift Boat boys. Wonder at the difference in outcomes.

Huzaah! Look here!

Democratic/Liberal $126,849,747 $120,331,891
Repub/Conservative $17,381,731 $18,948,145

Hmmm.

Re:Heartening

[(trb001)]

It's good to hear about a 527 that's not bent on demolishing Kerry.

My jaw is simply dragging on the floor. Check your facts, the pro-Democrat 527s have spent about 10 times what the pro-Republican 527s have. MoveOn alone has sponsored not only television ads and protests but a friggin movie this year.

--trb

Re:Heartening

[azav]

But at least love is fun when it's dirty.

Re:Heartening

[Lars T.]

Are you trying to prove that x $ spend on spreading lies is a better investment than spending 10x $ on telling the truth?

Re:Heartening

[John Newman]

Are you trying to prove that x $ spend on spreading lies is a better investment than spending 10x $ on telling the truth?

Clearly. I think the explanation is that the truth is never a news story worth covering, but lies frequently are. The more outlandish, the more newsworthy.

For proof, check out how many people actually saw the SBV4T ad on TV (vanishingly few) against how many watched it on the news or otherwise heard about it through the media (everyone in America).

Re:Heartening

[bullitB]

It's good to hear about a 527 that's not bent on demolishing Kerry.

When Kerry wins and we have to put up with 4 years of complaining when everyone realizes his election was purchased by $150M+ in 527 campaigning, 10x that of Bush...

Well, anyway, I'm going to keep a link to this comment on hand. Thanks for that.

ol' Cerf has been more productive than I thought

[sribe]

I had no idea he had fathered several Novel prize winners...

Kyoto Treaty, anyone?

[reporter]

Clearly, the Bush administration has failed on the environment. It refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty to prevent global warming.

Guess what? President Putin, of all people, has solidly supported the treaty and intends to sign it.

Want another example? The Bush administration refused to enact tough standards for automotive emissions and claims that they are unfeasible. Yet, the California government has just enacted such legislation. Furthermore, the technology is quite feasible. Both Honda and Mazda make ULEVs (ultra low emission vehicles).

The issue is not one of whether government should be funding or subsidizing research and development. We all have our opinions on such government intervention.

The issue is one of the Bush administration (and also previous Democratic administrations) simply making false statements about science and technology and then using those false statements to pursue policies that damage the environment.

The best example is nuclear power. It is clean and efficient and could substantially reduce our dependence on oil from Islamic thugs. Yet, science frauds in the government have effectively stopped the construction of any more nuclear power plants since the 1970s.

Really, we can blame only ourselves. We elect these idiots.

If you hate what is happening to our nation, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.

president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce

Re:Kyoto Treaty, anyone?

[DAldredge]

You do know that China, one of the most polluting countries on the planet, and India are almost exempt from that Treaty, don't you?

You should also look at what Putin is trying to do to Democracy in Russia, it ain't good.

Re:Kyoto Treaty, anyone?

[aggiefalcon01]

Do you realize Congress had voted to get us out of Kyoto while Clinton was president, and that Bush merely signed the resolution when it was his turn behind the desk?

Re:Kyoto Treaty, anyone?

[sailracer6]

Gross misrepresentation of the facts.

First, the US Senate voted *unanimously* not to sign the Kyoto Protocol, as it was recognized that it would be devastating to the economy. The only thing that Bush did differently than Clinton was actually admit that it was a lost cause.

Second, most if not all signatory countries have not implemented the reforms required by Kyoto. This is because a certain number of nations (a "trigger" number) must ratify the treaty before it becomes binding. So Europe and other countries can go on complaining about the US not signing, while at the same time not having any plans themselves to implement the treaty.

Third, it seems unlikely that Russia will sign. This would be the "trigger" that brings the protocols into effect, and would create an economic environment for Europe making it much harder to compete with the (clearly non-ratifying) US.

To put it shortly, the problem is not Bush but rather the US Congress. You know, those people who actually *make* the laws? To change the system, change them.

The difference is...

[SimianOverlord]

I agree wiht your post to some extent. The difference is that when a tree is cut down, there aren't two camps of lumberjacks hotly debating whether it was a Elm or a Beech. Science is confusing enough for those whose business it is to know the ins and outs. Simply because Bush tends to believe one camp over another is not grounds to condemn the man. Our time is limited and at some point we must trust the word of an advisor, who himself must trust another to provide his information. The chain continues where it might terminate in someone with an agenda. Politicians by their nature are generalists not specialists, they cannot afford to be.

But really the point is - misusing science is not limited to the Bush government. I'd like you, if you will, to give me a couple of examples of Bush ignoring established scientific consensus. I'm willing to change my opinion. On the global warming question, there is no doubt recent trends show global warming is occurring and is inevitable. Though it is not my field, it seems to me that it is the magnitude, and downstream effects of this that are hotly debated, a debate muddied by bad science and vested interests, but a debate nonetheless.

Re:The difference is...

[Lars T.]

Ahh, but Bush believes the much smaller camp of lumberjacks who say it's a Beech, just because he can sell it for more.

Re:The difference is...

[Alsee]

This is at least the third Slashdot story on scientists - including some 48 Nobel laureates and 62 National Medal of Science recipients - outraged at events of the last few years. Not merely ignoring science or believing one camp over another, we are talking about manipulation, supression, distortion, and general subverion of science. The vast majority of cases are motivated by purely business interests, though a few are motivated by religious/moral positions.

This is NOT a case of looking at the science and then deciding other economic/moral factors outweighted it. This is a case of actively sabotaging science itself. Of figuratively smashing a calculator with a hammer and twiddling the wires until 2+2 yeilds 3.

The Bush administration pressured the Environmental Protection Agency until it completely eliminated the section on climate change from the report. Stacked an enviornmental lead-level commitee with lead industry employees in order to raise permissable levels of lead pollution. Directed mining impact scientists to exclude certain information and reccommendations from their submissions and stated that if they did submit that information and reccommendations it would not be included in the report. Suppressed another EPA study that showed that the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act would do less than current law to reduce air pollution and mercury contamination of fish. The Department of Health and Human Services (including the Center for Disease Control if I am not mistaken) deleted information on disease prevention from its Web sites because it runs contrary to the president's preference for "abstinence only" sex education programs. The Office of Foreign Assets Control made it much more difficult for anyone from "hostile nations" to be published in the U.S., so some scientific journals will no longer consider submissions from them. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed overhauling peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental and health regulations--in effect, industry scientists would get to approve what research is conducted by the EPA. The National Cancer Institute misrepresented the scientific consensus that abortions do not cause breast cancer. A U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist who found antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the air near hog confinements was prevented from presenting his findings due to pressure from pork producers. The EPA told rescue personnel and residents that the air around Ground Zero in New York was safe soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, despite evidence to the contrary (all the sooner to reopen Wallstreet?).

Not only have scientific committees and panels been stacked with people with severe conflict-of-interest industry ties, but in some cases they are stacked with people who have absolutely no scientific background, because those people will supply the reports the administration wants to receive.

The list just goes on and on. All you have to do is hit Google News: Bush nobel science for countless links.

-

Re:The difference is...

[helix400]

This is at least the third Slashdot story on scientists

All approve by michael, who is vehemently anti-Bush and does not apologize for spreading his bias to Slashdot.

including some 48 Nobel laureates and 62 National Medal of Science recipients

Even they can be partisan. I'm sure there are just as many who support Bush.

Re:The difference is...

[Alsee]

Just because something weighs against choosing Bush does not make it Bush bashing, does not make it partisan, and most of all does not make it false.

Restoring Scientific Integrity is not Bush bashing. (The link says 60 signers on Feb 18, it soon included 48 Nobel laureates and thousands of other scientists.) It is from over 7 months ago. It is not about the election and it does not call for Bush to be replaced! I have yet to hear anyone claim there is a single thing false or unjustified. It's objection is:

"Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."

It then cites many specific examples of problems.

It calls for the current government to:

return to the ethic and code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy formation; and

Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective scientific analysis and advice.

Over half a year ago it effectively called on Bush to fix a specific problem within his administration. It is unfortunate that Bush failed to do so.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Bush bashing! Bush bashing!" makes YOU partisan and biased.

Even they can be partisan. I'm sure there are just as many who support Bush.

It is doubtless that some of the signatories do or did support Bush. It is also doubtless that some of the people from this non-partisan group have joined the partisan 527 committee to defeat Bush exactly because Bush failed to stop his administration from misrepresenting and suppressing scientific results and meddling in the production of independant and objective scientific analysis and advice.

You may certainly find Nobel laureates who support Bush, but I defy you to find Nobel laureates who reject this Restoring Scientific Integrity paper. It happens to weigh against Bush (if you value independant and objective science anyway). If you like Bush, well tough luck. Everyone has flaws and this is one of Bush's flaws. He runs an administration with little or no respect for independant objective science. Deciding other factors outweigh scientific advice is a fact of life, but currupting the scientific process itself is unacceptable.

You can decide to support Bush for other reasons, but dismissing this Bush bashing is a copout. Maybe you find Bush good on abortion or good on terrorism, but Bush runs an administration that is bad on science.

-

Re:The difference is...

[helix400]

Late reply.

Show me where I said it was "Bush bashing", partisan, or a call to have Bush replaced. Please, show me. Again, like I mentioned, the reason the story appeared on Slashdot 3 times is because michael is heavily anti-Bush, and he flat out admits his bias.

I defy you to find Nobel laureates who reject this Restoring Scientific Integrity paper

I actually did find well written, long, and plausible response written by several political professionals (don't know if it included Nobel laureates or not, but generally, far and away, more papers are written to attack than defend). I I also don't care to look it up again for you. You wrongly judged me from a short, simple comment, so I do not consider you to be a rational enough to understand a complex issue. So why bother?

And saying Bush is against Science is absurd. That's like saying Bush is against the economy or against children. You only show how ignorantly blinded by anger you are with such a statement.

Re:The difference is...

[Alsee]

the reason the story appeared on Slashdot 3 times

I would be troubled if that joint statement on scientific integrity *hadn't* run on Slashdot, even if it were somehow pro-Bush and anti-Kerry. If a scientist-based 527 group formed pro-Bush/anti-Kerry I would certainly want to see that on Slashot as well. I'd be quite interested in seeing what science issues motivated it. I don't recall the third story off hand.

Michael may have been dancing in glee at posting them, but I do not think the appearance of these stories on Slashdot is in any way improper. If Slashdot suppresses a signifigant pro-Bush or anti-Kerry story that is science / tech / computer related then let me know, I'll be pissed at Slashdot.

Show me where I said it was "Bush bashing", partisan

The joint statement on scientific integrity signed by 48 Nobel laureates and thousands of other scientists - you dissmissed it with "Even they can be partisan". You did not use the phrase "Bush-bashing", but dismissing it as "partisan" isn't too far off.

Your comment about Michael "spreading his bias to Slashdot" seems to me to sweep the "bias" brush across the stories and the scientists in them as well. I admit it can also be more narrowly construed.

or a call to have Bush replaced.

The reason I indicated it was not an attack on the president was that you dismissed it as a partisan attack - presumably against the president. The joint statement was citing a signifigant science problem. The fact that it reflected badly on Bush is incidental. They were not promoting one party or president over another. I'm sure many of them would have been perfectly happy for Bush to remedy the issue and remain in office.

I was a bit irked at such a casual and empty dismissal of such an authoritative group and on the subject of their own feild. I cannot imagine a more credibible source on the subject of science than Nobel science laureates. There are less than 200 living Nobel science laureates world wide. I seriously doubt your claim "there are just as many who support Bush" in terms of disputing the integrity of that joint statement, that it was nothing but "partisan".

They included numerous examples to back their claim. Since that joint statement I have only been seeing more such examples coming to light, not a refutation of those examples.

I actually did find well written, long, and plausible response
don't care to look it up again for you.

If you change your mind I'd be most interested in reading it.

written by several political professionals

If you do come up with a link I'll try not to hold that against them. Even polititians can tell the truth occationally :)

A scientist who abuses the reputation and integrity of science for political ends is far worse than a polititian currupting science for political ends. If that joint statement was honestly citing an issue of scientific integrity, if the current scientist lobbying group is genuinely addressing a science problem, then dragging science into politics is merely degrading. If a second comparable group of scientists came out and said the first group were lying then I'd dispair at the appalling violatation of scientific integrity by one or both groups.

Bush is against Science is absurd
You only show how ignorantly blinded by anger you are with such a statement.

That is not the statement I made.

I said bad on science, not "against" science. I said he - or at least his administration - has little or no respect for science. A large number of the most highly respected and credible people within the scientific community made a joint statement that this administration has engaged in *unprecidented* levels of suppression and manipulation and curruption of science. Assuming they weren't lying, that is being very bad on science.

Hmmm.... I guess you COULD say Bush is "against" science, but in

Re:I'm in full agreement but expecting little impa

[Retric]

My mother's boss got repeated phone calls aimed at suppressing her research because her research directly contradicted several tenets of leave no child left behind. The problem with objective scientific research is it frequently conflicts with current policy decisions. However, due to it's objective nature that can't spin it so they keep trying to suppress it.

Give Us More Pay and You're Okay

[nullportal]

One of the major themes of

http://scientistsandengineersforchange.org/index .p hp

which is apparently Mr. Cerf's (and other's) website on this issue, is "Science isn't being given enough money." I wonder if these boys and girls realize that Joe Undecided typically takes that kind of approach as admission that this is a special or vested interest speaking, angry that it is being put on a diet after previously being given more generous portions of public funds. Scientists saying "Candidate A is bad because he doesn't give scientists enough money" might carry more weight than drug companies saying "Candidate A is bad because he won't support paying for drugs at the prices we want", but the essential self-interest involved in the opinion speaks loudly.

An illustration that scientists remain human and thus subject to their own delusions about themselves is the site's describing their movement as a "growing consensus". A consensus refers to agreement prevailing among all the parties concerned, and there are vastly more scientists in the US than the 60-some signatories on this site. A small slice with an opinion and an overwhelmingly larger portion with no expressed opinion does not constitute any variety "consensus" in the first place. If 90 fans of kiwi tarts all agree that kiwi tarts are great while 200+ million other Americans have no expressed opinion on the matter, there is no sensible reference to the American "consensus" on kiwi tarts, whether "growing" or otherwise. There is only a consensus among those 90 kiwi tart fans. The bizarre use of "growing consensus" ought to have alerted these people to the idea that they risk being accounted among the spin doctors, but they seem blind to their own illusions under the more generous assessment.

Stem cell research

[hung_himself]

The example that struck me was the decision to axe Elizabeth Blackburn from the Bioethics council so that they could get a "consensus" from a "scientific" advisory body that was consistent with the anti-abortionists position on stem cell research. Of course, she was the only real scientist on the entire panel...

Re:Stem cell research

[SimianOverlord]

That's a nasty piece of political manoeuvering, but is stem cell research really a good example? I'm not aware that there is a scientific consensus on what is basically a moral issue. A slight distinction, perhaps.

Re:Stem cell research

[hung_himself]

I would have no problem with a straight out declaration that stem research is evil because it encourages abortions and then let people decide what to do with it. Then it is a moral issue.

However when these lobbyists couch their arguments with assertions that the research is not useful or that the restrictions will not hamper the experiments then it is a matter that should concern scientists. It is one thing to ignore scientists (and perfectly understandable) but it is another matter to mis-speak their work and co-opt their voices to support a hidden agenda.

Re:Stem cell research

[Anonymous Coward]

The broad scientific consensus is that stem cells are fucking everywhere, and unless you're going to arrest every woman who has a miscarriage or loses a fetus without even fucking noticing, getting all het up about using what is by definition a blob of undifferentiated tissue for research is Fucking Stupid.

The potential for something is not the thing - should we also arrest people eating chestnuts for all the future groves of chestnut trees they are dooming? Should the spotty male youth be arrested for wiping whole potential civilsations off his belly with a sock after masturbating?

Re:Stem cell research

[Minna Kirai]

I'm not aware that there is a scientific consensus on what is basically a moral issue.

There is no moral issue about stem cell research. Morally, you may believe tiny embryos have a right to life, or not.

But scientifically, stem cell research does not destroy embryos. It merely recycles embryos that were being destroyed in other lab processes (mainly assisted fertility).

There are two reasonable positions on embryos:
1) They don't deserve protection, go crazy.
2) They deserve protection, so ban in-vitro fertilization techniques that create & destroy 10 embryos for every 1 fetus produced.

But Bush's position- embryos deserve protection, so ban stem cell research- just doesn't make any sense. Holding back money from stem-cell work won't save embryos.

Why, that would be almost as stupid as invading Iraq to protect us from Osama bin Laden!

527's are always good, SBVT are a pack of liars

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with the exemption for 527's. They can and should buy ad time just like any other corporation in America.

The problem with the Swift Boat Veterans for Treachery is that everything they said was slander. None of them served on John Kerry's boat. When Richard Nixon originally rounded up most of these people for his John Kerry attack squad, none of them could remember anything that could be used to really discredit Kerry. All of a sudden, 30+ years later, their "memories" are clear as a cash-register bell. Some of them are contradicting their earlier support of Kerry. All the records of Kerry's service disprove everything the SBVT say -- they are obviously lying. Not that a little thing like the truth should get in the way of a good sound bite.

Re:527's are always good, SBVT are a pack of liars

[Golias]

Right, because ACT, moveon.org, and CBS News would never ever consider lying about the other guy.

Well, maybe they do spew out obvious lies but that's different, because they... um... are the Good Guys.

It's all becoming clear.

Faith by force?

[mcmonkey]

Kerry is a lying bastard - either he's Catholic, and believes what the Church teaches, or he's not.

But trying to pretend he is Catholic while voting for so-called "abortion rights" is a travestry.

On the one hand Kerry says he is personally against abortion. On the other hand Kerry has support Roe v. Wade and keeping abortion legal.

Some people insist there is some contradiction in these two positions. These people see the world as black and white and like simple slogans such as, "you're either with us or against us."

Kerry has a personal, possibly religious, opinion on an issue. Why is it a sign of weakness or deception if he doesn't insist everyone in the US of A (or the world) adhere to that same viewpoint? The church says it's a sin to eat meat on Friday. Is it a travesty Kerry doesn't insist on that law as well? Opps, apparently that's not a sin anymore. Guess the pope likes to flip-flop on the issues.

Anyway, those who like to insist someone's political stands must conform to their religious beliefs should remember, the government operates by force. Laws are enforced at gun point, whether by police or armies. I know the US of A is not under martial law, I don't see tanks rolling down the street, so it's easy to forget.

Almost all the people work well in the construct of society almost all the time without the physical manifestation on the government's powers. But every law, every regulation, is backed with that final threat of enforcement. So when you take matters of faith and institute that into law, you are trying to ensure faith by force.

I'm not saying politicians should equivocate and play both sides of an issue without reproach. I'm saying we should expect a politician's personal actions to support what they are saying are their political and personal beliefs. Kerry's record supports what he says is his political stand. As to his personal actions and his religious beliefs--how he would council a family who was considering an abortion--I do not know. How does that make him a lying bastard?

Holding a religious belief makes you a person of faith. Using force, or the threat of force, to make everyone else conform to your religious belief makes you a wakko nut job. These are the people who shoot doctors, kill children, fly planes into buildings, and in general ruin the game for the rest of us.

learn something every day

[phyruxus]

Well, that's even more heartening. And thanks, I appreciate your implication that as a liberal, I should not be in a position of ignorance. Although I didn't see your comment on the place of slander in politics. Just because democratic 527s spent 10x as much doesn't mean they hit below the belt, as conservative groups do continuously. BTW, any conservative who complains about CBS deserves to have Rupert Murdoch and Faux News thrown at them.

And since I'm on a roll.. I understand that the first blogged comments about the CBS documents appeared nearly instantaneously. For a moment, I thought "Hm, if I were Karl Rove and I wanted to tie off the damage to Bush over the Guard AWOL issue, would I consider slipping CBS some fake documents via a patsy, then slamming them for their coverage?" Yeah, that would work. Just conjecture, but hey, who needs reality when one has faith?

Re:learn something every day

[(trb001)]

Yeah, that would work

The problem with your logic is that no respectable news source, which CBS was considered before this, would have aired these documents. Calling it a gambit would have been wishful thinking...assuming that CBS wouldn't thoroughly fact check them and wouldn't listen to the experts they DID call on is preposterous.

Liberal 527s DO hit below the belt...look at Outfoxed as an example. That piece of trash they passed off as a documentary is laughable...it's as much a slam on Bush as an attempted slam on FoxNews. Horrible, horrible reporting funded by MoveOn...and I'll be happy to get into it point by point with you if you'd like.

--trb

How do you know?

[mcmonkey]

Frankly, the fact that Kerry only had two daughters means he was breaking this one.

Perhaps his 20+ years in the Senate?

[Shivetya]

Then again he never tells us what he did does he?

Too many in this election are operating under the ideal of "Anyone but Bush" and are failing to seeing the possibility that it could actually get worse.

I am not a Bush voter but at least I know where he stands, contrasted to the fact I can't tell where Kerry stands on anything. Is there ANY candidate for the rest of us?

As for 527s, I have no objection other than the fact that they came about with that garbage Campaign Finance reform bill which was an assault on the Constitution by Congress.

Why should these groups be permitted to campaign while others cannot?

MCI/WorldCom.

[DAldredge]

What was Cerfs position at MCI/WorldCom during the MCI/WorldCom 'Issue'?

Godwin to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both acting like a couple of nazis.

Re:Obviously in DENIAL

[Stuart Poss]

If you can equate Dr. Cerf and some 20 Nobel prize-winners and some of the nation's top scientists and engineers with the not-so-swift boat veterans for "truth" (funded and coordinated by Karl Rove as early as January of 2003), then you have got to be in complete denial of reality. In a related story John Chambers (a big backer of Pres. Bush in 2000 and CEO of CISCO Systems) announced that CISCO was developing a 325 million dollar technology center in China because as he put it "in ten years China will be the leading market in technology". Such an alarming development is only a small piece of a larger calamity in US Science and Technology policy that has Dr. Cerf and his fellow scientists so concerned with the Bush administration's record on science and technology. Of course, we can continue to receive our talking points from Karl Rove and blissfully disregard the warning signs, but don't expect to fare well as the rubber begins to meet the road. Bush has allowed China to eagerly become one of the largest holders of our debt (perhaps you haven't noticed the future of our economy and government budget is in hock because are living on money borrowed in large part from Chinese communists). Once they have technological superiority, now predicted by our own captains of industry to occur within 10 years, they won't need us or our debt. It will then occur to the world financial markets that our currency (the stuff used to pay for all the expensive imports for high end hardware for many of our weapons) will be next to worthless. Of course, discussion of any of this is off the table until after the November elections so no point bringing up during the debates. My guess is that Bush will continue to buy off the Chinese in a fashion he has similarly crafted for the Saudis, another large buyer of our debt. For the Saudis he has ruled out any conservation measures that would reduce the cost of oil, thereby allowing the Saudi and the bin-Laden family to reap huge profits in return for their political support. For the Chinese he will more than likely continue to pursue failed trade policies that will send even more high-tech jobs to China. (Don't get me wrong I'm a big holder of CISCO stock and I fully expect Bush to succeed). But then as P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute." Seems to me that you appear to have been born yesterday.

There is no "wiggle room" in the Catholic Church

[Animats]

The Church's official doctrine statements are here. These come from what is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. One of his official titles is "Grand Inquisitor", although he doesn't use it. His job is to find and stamp out deviations from approved doctrine.

Here's the official hard line:

• 5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

  6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

  [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Any questions?

Re:Obviously in DENIAL

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can equate Dr. Cerf and some 20 Nobel prize-winners and some of the nation's top scientists and engineers with the not-so-swift boat veterans for "truth" (funded and coordinated by Karl Rove as early as January of 2003), then you have got to be in complete denial of reality.

Wow! You guys sure like to give Karl Rove a lot of credit! You even credit him with the most successful political attack to date on John Kerry, even though he had nothing to do with it!

If Karl Rove is even half the evil genius you Democrat apologists say he is, I want to vote for the administration who was smart enough to hire him.