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."
Dr. C. Everett Koop, who was Surgeon General during the Reagan Administration, was told not to speak on the subject of AIDS, which was regarded as a "gay disease." He courageously resisted this pressure.
Dr. David Satcher served as Surgeon General under President Clinton. He too faced political interference. His efforts to release a report on the benefits of needle exchange programs were blocked, an action that President Clinton has since called a mistake. And when he wanted to release a report promoting the use of condoms and other responsible sexual behaviors, he was told to submit his report for publication in a medical journal rather than release it as another Surgeon General's report. Also, may I remind everyone of DR. Joycelyn Elders who suggested teaching school children to masturbate. That went over real well in the Clinton administration. I remember her being pushed out for that.
Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of Bush Bashing.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Lol. Where did this notion of the US being 'great and worthy' ever come from? 'Coward and bully' might be more accurate, and I'm not just talking of Bush.
Can't we wait until this is reported in a reliable news source to get worked up about it? I mean the National Enquirer does more fact checking than the New York Times.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Audio here from Ted Koppel on the same subject today.
But seriously, does this surprise anyone? At all? Evil, yes, but it's just more of the same and there's not a damned thing anyone is going to do about it. Welcome to democracy in the US. Defeat all that doesn't equal more power and money for those that have an abundance already. Gotta love right wing politics dontchya!
*grumble grumble*
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Here's an interesting site on global warming. http://www.surfacestations.org/
This site is interesting to me, as it backs up something I've thought for some time. That is we are seeing man made changes in the local environment around many of the weather stations.
Weather stations, especially older stations are located often at airports. 75 years ago, airports were called aerodromes. An aerodrome is just a cow field with the cows driven off anytime someone wants to go flying for a bit. So the weather stations were located in big empty grassy fields. These airports have evolved into massive tarmac heat islands. However the data collected today is compared to data collected in the past. The changes we are seeing are more due to local construction activity, and not global trends.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
Invoking Godwin's law is nothing more than a slightly more sophisticated way of telling a person to shut up. (Slightly more sophisticated because it assumes knowledge of Internet history that makes it slightly elitist). In short's childish and stupid. You're now proposing another "law" modeled on that childish stupidity, and being moderated as "Insightful".
/. is just painful.
Sometimes reading
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
When climate scientists find data that does not support global warming, they keep analyzing and compensating for it until it shows global warming. Basically they operate off of the premise that there is global warming and then adjust data that doesn't support it until it does.
There's so much B.S. being spewed in the whole climate change nonsense. Those that haven't bought into the mind-numbing propaganda and group-think can see it for what it is: A classic case of "the sky is falling." Literally. And, no, I'm not in denial. I can just see it for what it is.
Now, go ahead and mod me down and start calling me a Bush lackee, a neocon, that I'm in denial, that I'm stupid. Whatever makes you feel better. If that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable with your own position, have at it.
Elitist indeed. Have you read the way your posts come off lately?
Considering that your post was so easily misconstrued as a support for Godwin's law I wouldn't talk if I were you.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
>1. Two men can have sex without having anal sex.
If they are in separate rooms and each with a girl!
If push came to shove we (the USA) would be drilling like crazy in the gulf of Mexico, and Alaska to get the needed oil, for national security, and the economy. The political will and NIMBYism are preventing this now. At some point in the future that may change. We would also be investing more in other fuels (bio, wind, etc) but at the moment it is pure economics that is driving it. As the cost of current energy sources goes up, others will come on line, when you reach the right price point.
If you wonder why gas is so $$, it not because of a lack of supply of crude oil, it is the lack of processing facilities to make gas. Major Oil will not invest in new multi-billion $$ processing facilities when the greens are screaming about switching fuel types, and the NIMBYism is running rampant. So do not expect the cost of gas to go back down in the near future, regardless of how much crude is available.
On to the war, when you sign up for military service it is understood that you could quite possibly end up in, I know this is shocking, combat, where you could get hurt or even killed. Compared to previous wars, the number killed is very low. I could argue that we have has more soldiers killed then needed because the lack of political will to send over enough troops and resources to begin with. Had there been enough up front fewer troops would have been injured or killed because they would not have been spread so thin.
Typical liberal view point, telling everyone else what they should be doing with their money. Let the private sector deal with the best way to make energy though the open markets. Effective methods will get funded, ineffective methods will die off.
Or shut up.
I didn't "miss" anything, you posted a statement that never appeared in your "facts" anywhere previously. I stated that. You'll notice I never said it wasn't RELEVANT, only that you never stated it before. Guess that makes YOU the stupid one huh? Reading comprehension is your friend.
"YOU NEVER SAID THAT IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS."
How did you misunderstand something so simple?
Source your "facts" or shut your mouth. We both know you can't do either, so I'll be interested to see what you do to avoid admitting you're a liar now.