Slashdot Mirror
Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration
UniversalVM writes "The NY Times is reporting that the former Surgeon General in damaging testimony given to the senate describes how he was repeatedly censored by the Bush administration while speaking out about topics such as global warming, Stem cell research and so on. The effort was to 'water down' or weaken reports on important issues to suit Republican Agenda. He describes how he attended one meeting where Global Warming was being described as a 'Liberal Agenda' and being dismissed. He tried to intervene thinking that the people there did not understand the science so he set about explaining it to them, the result? He was never invited back."
Science should never bow to political pressures. Bush is guilty of this, obviously...This is hardly the first evidence.
But, especially in the area of health care, he's far from the only one who has gotten involved in a negative manner. Reagan tried to squash talk about AIDS, Clinton poo poo'd needle exchange programs, Bush Jr. jumped on everything just as part of the administrations obsession about managing information.
This stuff really needs to be separate and non-partisan...I am so freaking tired of this or that issue being batted around because of peoples inborn prejudices. A reputable expert with actual facts puts together a well thought-out, scientific report, and they get defunded, their speeches are edited and pre-reviewed. People from within the administration work to discredit their testimony. It's just ridiculous, and there is no way good science or good policy is coming out of it.
Hell, while they're at it, they should add a scientist general, and do the same damn thing. This stuff isn't about opinion. There is a right answer.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
What happened to the Republicans of old? When exactly did they turn into what is in power now?
Is this seriously not really fucking obvious to you?
It was 1980 when the Republicans rejected Barry Goldwater (Republican) in favor of Ronald Reagan (fascist). They'd already fallen pretty far (Nixon's treason and Ford's folly), but that was their chance to save their party. They chose instead to brutally rape it in the ass until it was dead.
There's really nothing particularly complicated or even non-obvious about it.
I like cutting of taxes, but, it has to go with smaller govt. spending too!! I want a candidate that is for that, that fiscally conservative, slightly liberal socially....and most of all, respects and honors the Constitution.
Vote Libertarian then. They're the only party that believes in anything of the sort.
Seriously, if you're asking these sorts of questions now then you've obviously never put any thought into it at all.
This shit ain't new and it ain't difficult to figure out with an hour of research tops.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian who runs as a Republican, but I personally wouldn't vote for him if he did win the Republican nomination (ha! the douchebag republicans booed him at the debate for stating simple facts and cheered Giuliani for spouting idiotic lies. That's the state of that party in a nutshell right there) as that would lend support to the Republicans. As I'm not a fan of big government I'm certainly not voting for the party of biggest government. However, if you can stand to vote Republican, Ron Paul is the only one who believes in *any* of the things you say you do.