Slashdot Mirror
Science Programs Hit Hard By Proposed Budget
BJ_Covert_Action writes "The House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations has released a list of proposed spending cuts for the US Federal Government. The proposed cuts include reductions in spending on many science organizations and funds such as NASA, NOAA, nuclear energy research, fossil fuel energy research, clean coal research, the CDC, the NIH, and numerous EPA programs. There are also quite a few cuts proposed on domestic services, such as Americorps and high speed rail research. The House Appropriations Chairman, Hal Rogers, acknowledges that the cuts go deep, and would hurt every district across the country. But they are still deemed necessary to rein in Congressional spending. Notoriously absent from the proposed budget cuts are two of the largest spending sinks in the federal budget: the Department of Defense and Social Security."
The DoD is the sacred cow to end all sacred cows, the only way it's ever going to get budget cut is if there is nothing else left to cut.
Keep your defense and social security spending as is, and kill all yoiur basic research and science. That's the way to the future.
don't worry, Title I will make sure the poor kids use their borrowed Chinese money to become the next crop of uber-scientists.... ...or just be consumers.
Defense spending will not be cut because it's *one of the few legitimate and constitutionally required functions of government*. And political suicide.
Social security will not be cut because it would be political suicide. Instead, they will keep collecting for it, using the money for something else, and go bankrupt sometime in the not-to-distant future.
To paraphrase, "If you think knowledge is expensive, try ignorance!"
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is expected to total $172 billion in 2010.
Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers (and their eligible dependents) in December 2009. Social Security also provided survivors’ benefits to 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers and disability benefits to 9.7 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2009.
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — will together account for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $753 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $468 billion, will go to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 46 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month in 2010 will provide health care or long-term care to about 64 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
money may simply be an indicator that new things are welcome -
but it is not the media good science grows on.
-
the best fertilizing media for science is the readiness to accept surprising results when they are beinf presented and proofed!
you fools!
Weren't we supposed to be pulling out of this "war" by now? I thought that would help a lot with our overzealous spending.
Is this the same budget that is proposing cutting to zero the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? These programs provide far more social good and support democracy (a viewpoint I am still not quite jaded about, yet). There are so many other places to cut and other sources of tax revenue that should be explored long before this is considered. There are projects that the Pentagon doesn't even want but are still funded. Maybe the cast of Sesame Street should show up in DC and TEACH THEM SOME MATH.
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
Some of that is obviously ideological (EPA, Clean *, etc.), but the rest is just stupid.
In addition to the long-term hazards of cutting back science (and education), austerity programs are exactly what government's *shouldnt* do when the economy sags. Every dollar they cut from a program is a dollar someone isn't going to be spending next year, so tax revenues will drop even further.
A government with any sense would establish a sustainable cost of operations, borrow money when times are bad, and pay off the loans when times are good.
Unfortunately, a republic (representative democracy) tends to become a 'politicianocracy', and politicians buy votes by spending money on stuff their supporters want. So nobody wants to pay down debt when times are good; they just want to take the opportunity to spend more.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Seems like we could save some money there right. And I really doubt that number accounts for the full cost. Travel, Military Liaison, health care, etc. These probably all end up under other budgets.
Does anyone really think the Legislative Branch is providing 7 billion dollars a year of benefit to the US?
a lot of other things are going to be on the "chopping block" so to speak as this depression unwinds.
Now that the bankers have stolen everything and are using the money to jack up prices and accumulate limitless power and wealth by toppling governments, expect lots of things to be on the chopping block.
It will sweep the globe, and many of the elite and puppet governments will fall.
Then you can start to worry about WW III because when people have empty bellies, things get nasty.
All for a bunch of bankers.
What a waste.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Speaking as a civil servant, I've seen this before. Politicians don't like cutting. They REALLY don't like cutting things that actually matter.
They're not serious about balancing the budget. They never are. Being serious about it means that you have to go after the big ticket items. Unfortunately the big ticket items are also popular, and that makes it hard to do politically. It doesn't help that your average voter is a moron who doesn't understand anything that takes longer then ten seconds to explain.
So, what we get is politicians who want to look like they care about balancing the budget and "shrinking government" nibbling around the edges while overseeing massive expansions in the government in the form of bullshit like TSA.
Just business as usual in politics.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
This is a good start. Now it's time to get some balls and cut entitlements and defense. As a true fiscal Conservative, I want the federal government gutted.
Let's cut the budget in anything that sets up a definite investment, and make sure we keep blowing money on weapons and a deparmtent of defense to make sure no one can invade the burned out wasteland left after the GOP wins in 2012.
For my part, I'll be investing overseas - maybe if I make enough money I can corrupt their government into forgetting to educate their citizenry too!
Remember, whoever gives heavy metal poisoning to their children last, wins!!!
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Social Security is self-funding.
It does not come out the general budget.
It does come out of your paycheck.
Congress has even been known to raid the Social Security trust fund to support its own budget.
--------------
This radically different from the "Defense" budget, both in purpose and in funding source.
Really? Social Security?
Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's cut off all social security. No one gets social security.
Now, lets also get rid of the OASDI(social security tax). We wont have to worry about this huge problem anymore
Now, watch as the Tax Revenue of the Federal government drops by more than the spending reductions. Oh, and we had better pay back all the "excess funds" for social security that have built up over the years, but were borrowed to cover other gaps in the budget. Its only fair since most retired people have put 6% of their lifetime income into that tax revenue.
Look, I am not against cutting social security...but it is a bit misleading to claim that social security is a strain on the budget.
What China has not done to us, then the neo-cons who own major shares of minor parts of Chinese corporations will do the rest.
Well played by the fucking neo-cons.
Part of the problem is that anybody who proposes DoD cuts is immediately labeled a dangerous agitator who wants to embolden our enemies and put American lives at risk. There's a large and well-funded industry that's dedicated to perpetuating this myth, and they're frighteningly effective at their job. If we're to ever get the deficit situation under control, it will require a certain degree of maturity from the electorate -- along with the realization that there's enough pork in the defense budget to make a bacon replica of the Hoover Dam.
We also need a certain degree of maturity and a solidly-grounded perspective on taxes, as well -- but that's neither here nor there.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Not exactly. Any receipts in excess of disbursements go to Federal securities, which isn't all that bad an idea in itself.
The fun came in in (IIRC) 1983, when SS was lumped into overall budget numbers for purposes of reporting to the public. Until then, SS had its own completely separate books. In 1983, coincidentally at the same time as the SS tax was raised a good bit resulting in huge surpluses, SS was lumped in with the general fund. The result was that the reported overall budget deficit appeared smaller than it really was thanks to the SS tax increase at the low end of the income scale hiding the revenue drops from the Reagan tax cuts at the high end.
Take the Internet and cell phones away from these numb skulls and remind them how it used to be.
Makes perfect sense to cut investments in the future so the US can keep supporting us old crocks (the past) and making the world safe for dictatorships everywhere (DOD). What a wonderful strategy for rebuilding the US -- bet some people are just hugging themselves at how this will accelerate the decline of the country. Oh, but I am sure it will be dressed up with patriotic humbug so it will look like destroying the future of our children is a good idea. I lived through the huge wave of prosperity that was created after Sputnik -- it seems these huys have lost their courage and their vision. A pity.
Since the Great Society you've been told by Conservatives that entitlements would grow, interest on the debt would grow and crowd out everything else. Defense is mandated in paragraph 1, word 25 of the Constitution; everything else will be sacrificed before it, and then defense will go as well, because really cutting Entitlements is politically infeasible.
Enjoy.
Politictions and people need to get out of the mindset that Social Security is part of the Federal Budget. It isn't. The law that introduced it said it would be separate from the federal budget. Look at your paystub sometime. Notice why the tax is not included in the withholding? Because it's not a tax. The author of this blurb is showing pure ignorance of how SS works.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Great.. So in ten years we will all be sitting in our dark un-air conditioned /un-heated homes while billion dollar bombers try to force the last of the worlds oil from the middle east. I don't think we have the luxury of canceling ANY energy research projects.
NASA..well It's difficult to justify the space program at this point, some wonderful advancements in technology have come from this sector, but I would rather have sustainable energy and transportation on Earth first.
Social Security is OUTSIDE the general fund and people need to realize it was designed to be completely separated from the rest of the system - they are only lumping it in because it is under attack and they keep trying to STEAL money from it as if it were general revenue - which is is not.
Social Security is paid for and only needs occasional rises or declines to adjust to population changes. Its almost a FLAT tax except that it exempts the rich. It is about as much of a "lock box" as we've ever had legally; politically, its been under heavy assault from day one. If you thought private health insurance was bad, just wait for them to get their hands on social security... Of course, we've had additions made to Social Security to increase its costs and we've refused to make it adapt with the times - trying to subtly sabotage the program.
Social Security is extremely popular and the PEOPLE can mandate THEIR government to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare." The constitution only really limits government, if not prohibited by law, its legal. Its not the other way around - it need not say what it CAN do only what it can not do. Elementary school basic government covered this. Basic logic also covers this, as you have an infinite set of possible actions and a finite set of prohibited actions -- you list the negative set.
Now we talk like social security are general fund welfare programs but these are things WE ALL (except rich) pay into our whole lives and for generations now and we deserve to get what we paid for / invested in! I PAID for them and I'm fucking going to get my money back when I need it!
If the government can't pay back then the situation is so bad that the currency and economy are so bad that the alternatives are not going to work either (except for an elite minority.)
Medicare and the others are general fund programs and they do not operate the same way; they have problems because of their closer connection with the political machine.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
That may be the only thing on the list that I don't disagree with cutting. We won't end up implementing high speed rail in this country any time soon, and in another hundred years after our country falls apart, rebuilds, and then realizes the value of high speed rail, we can just as well borrow the plans of a better organized and managed country. And maybe if we're really on the ball then, we'll borrow their health care system, too.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You look at the bills, you look at laws, you look at the decisions.
It is obvious that most of congress has very little to no understanding of science
If they think that scientific theory and hypotheses are just guesses, why should they fund it?
Especially the ones that believe that evolution doesn't exist and that intelligent design is either science or the equivalent of science.
Keep the poor from rising up and keep the means available to squash them should they still do it.
C'mon, it's not like that some kind of major financial insight. Every tinpot dictator works by the same budgeting rules.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We need to drastically cut government spending !!!! .... unless it's one of the programs I care about !!!!
Note that the press release is poorly formatted for web, mixes equally things with 50 million dollar and 1,600 million dollar cuts, and gives no relative scale (% of total budget, % of program) and in many cases the acronyms are unitelligble what a disgrace for our public servants to communicate in this manner. and the only contact is a phone number what a joke
A lot of people don't realize that when you cut research money, people get fired. In fact, the single largest cost to a research program is salaries. Most of the staff in a university research lab (grad students, undergrads, post-docs, and technicians) are on soft-money. This means when a grant goes away, they are all terminated. I'd guess these cuts result in the loss of a few hundred-thousand jobs.
What a load of BS in the summary. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
The defense complex cost not being the BIGGEST expense for the USA -- this argument is a Red Herring. Its a trick to get us to dismiss a HUGE factor simply because it is not the biggest contributor. Yet, we are led to believe that cutting tons of small programs to the bone or eliminating them will do anything meaningful when those will not. You can't have it both ways.
ALSO its not that we just over spend - the government revenue is DIRECTLY tied to the economy; which the government helped destroy. The deficit would go away if we boosted the economy; the debt we never will get rid of because surpluses never mean "pay off debt" it means "lower taxes" (usually mostly for the rich.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
>But perhaps the rest of us could have separate classes in science appreciation, the wonder of science, scientific ways of thinking, and the history of scientific ideas, rather than laboratory experience. Richard Dawkins
The web site is fine, I'm not sure what you think is 'wrong' with the format.
It's just a generic list before putting the bill together. Mostly to inform their own party.
That's all. Read the bill when it comes out.
It's a call to cut all the programs they never wanted under the guise of 'tax cuts'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The real issue is innovation. Reagan proved deficits don't matter. It's time to go Egyptian on the financiers who are creating an artificial scarcity of money! Tea Farty economics will lead us into a double-dip same as it's doing in England.
Repeat after me: social security is deficit-neutral. social security is deficit-neutral. social security is deficit-neutral.
Why is this so important to remember?
Because the people who want to gut social security are liars and thieves, plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with social security. The only wrong is the thieves who want to poach it to divert more money to the rich.
As the saying goes, "They only call it class warfare when we fight back."
ok, we are talking about billions of dollars in cuts
It is a list that is not justified or anything like that; I don't like the font, but that is personal
more importantly, the list mixes really big cuts (1.6 billion) with much smaller cuts ( 50 million) so you don't have a sense of scale
Even more importantly, you don't have a sense of what % of the budget for each program these cuts represent, and you don't have any idea what most of them actually are - most of us have some idea of what the epa does, but I would wager that 99% of the people in this country would be hard pressed to identify what more then half of the line items represent
Yet this is how congress communicates
it would have taken two or three good aides -and with what, 20 members on the committe with personal staff, plus committee staff, i think they could find 2 or 3 people to spend a couple of hours telling the american public what these billions in cuts mean.
If you are satisfied with this level of communication, thats fine - I think it sucks
Disclaimer: I'm super liberal, but I have posted on other places on what an incredibly crappy job the dems did on communicating with the health reform law, and in general; this is arrogant lazy pols in general, not a partisan thing at all (although I think the GOP are slime for not hitting DOD first, but that isn't relevant here)
our Great Nation has become the land of bread and bullets! This development should be encouraged by supporting our Great Wheat Belt and The Magnificent Gunpowder Lakes by introducing a constitutional amendment for great weather and eternally rich mines so that in no point in the future, a Citizen of our Great Nation wouldn't have to go for the Quarter Pounder when he wants to have Double Quarter Pounder, both with cheese, and that he wouldn't have to shoot his intruders from his lawn with the Model 317 but can shoot them with the 460XVR Revolver if he so chooses. Freedom in the matters of Ponders and Revolvers is the most precious kind of Freedom for our Great Nation!
That does, in part, also depend on how one defines "implement" and for that matter "high speed rail". If you consider a 200 mph train from San Francisco to Sacramento to be a good implementation, then great.
I don't, neither does anyone else, no such a thing has not been proposed as a "high-speed rail" project.
We could possibly do that before most people reading this today are dead.
Or we could do either of the proposed actual, much longer and more useful, initial operating segments of the California High Speed Rail system by the end of the decade, along with building regional high-speed rail in several other places.
On the other hand if you want to see 250+ mph trains going cross country linking the most important cities from the interior of the US to the coastal cities, nobody should count on that happening any time remotely soon.
Nor has anyone proposed that as a high-speed rail project. Essentially, you seem to think that the two things that people could mean by "high-speed rail" are two things that aren't what the actual proposals are about. The near term goal has been building high-speed rail in a number of regional corridors that offer the most bang-for-the-buck from intercity arrangements. In the long term, those might interconnect, but that's not really key to the goal of providing a more efficient and, in long-term costs, economical alternative to cars and aircraft for high-traffic regional intercity routes.
However, even if the project was funded, it would inevitably end up quickly de-funded as well.
Inevitably? How?
Considering President Lawnchair will sign just about anything that crosses his desk,
You mean, President Obama, who vetoed two bills passed by the Congress in which his party had a majority in both houses even before the Republicans took a majority in the House? Clearly, this is not a President who will "sign just about anything that crosses his desk."
Basically anything environmental was targeted: NOAA, USGS, NASA Earth Observing Satellites, BLM, Forest Service, etc. During the Bush era these would pass, then be partially restored with earmarks. But the current government is only 1/3 Republican controlled. So I am not as worried.
From the anti-science, pro-theocracy party?
"Remember when I said I would never lie? Well, that was the first time."
Are they sure about that? I know a couple people in aerospace, and they are having 10% layoffs this month due to one program being pushed way out and another being reduced in scope. R&D dollars (called "technology programs") have been cut back, too.
I agree with you about Go, but ultimately we need to move past the irony of using tools of abundance to fight over artificial scarcity in the real world, like the irony of using nuclear weapons to fight over oil fields, or using military robots to force people to work like industrial robots, etc...
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
So, ironically, cutting science and feeding the war machine out of fears about scarcity would just make the problem of this irony worse...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Social Security spending is big because it's the retirement programme for everyone in our entire big country. It pays for itself. It doesn't contribute to any deficit or debt - to the contrary, Social Security is the largest lender to our debt, which is driven by war spending (that never dips, even in "peacetime").
Social Security doesn't need any changes to accommodate retiring Baby Boomers - it was already tweaked to collect enough for them, starting back in the 1980s. There is no projected problems with Social Security until at earliest 2039, which is a lot longer than any other programme. And if we want to fix that, all we have to do is collect Social Security payments on income above $105K, which limit currently makes Social Security a regressive tax.
None of the lies they're telling you to cheat you of your guaranteed retirement plan are true. They're preying on the post-Boomer generations' innuendo that "we'll never get Social Security", because they've been trying to steal it from you your whole life. Don't let them. Make them cut the $TRILLIONS in "defense" and "intelligence" budgets that are mostly waste, corruption and investments in war instead of peace and growth.
--
make install -not war
This is proof Obama doesn't give a shit about America and his "Sputnik moment" speech was 100% bullshit.
Let's STOP THE WAR, slash defense funding, and get back to working on domestic problems.
Education is underfunded as is. Teachers have to buy books and supplies for their students now, out of their own pocket, with no chance of reimbursement. At this point the teachers are bearing 99% of the burden while administrators pocket and withhold what little funding the schools get.
Naturally, we continue to blame teachers, make their job more difficult, and cut funding. Go figure.
This...exactly this... Republicans have made no effort to hide their disdain for intellectuals? Why? Because people who can actually think critically never vote Republican. They might not necessarily vote democrat either, but they certainly aren't going to vote republican. Republicanism thrives on ignorance.
Monstar L
I thought it was Republicans who thought Democrats are stupid while Democrats thought Republicans are evil. Republicans tend to be business oriented, meaning that they care much more about the results/applications than about pure science. This does not make the un-critical, but rather makes their priorities more those of an engineer rather than a scientist. It also causes them to analyze things from an economic cost/benefit viewpoint rather than just looking at the benefits. A Republican is also more interested in equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. Republicans are much bigger fans of merit scholarships vs need based scholarships - I've always been perplexed to read liberal commentators' horror at the idea that financial aid was increasing faster for merit aid faster than need based aid myself.
....we can't afford to borrow money from China for this type of stuff.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
We could, you know, raise taxes...
/., are staying away from that as a possible solution.
I'm surprised so many people, even around
Oh no! Whatever will we do!? Who will do real science research now to further our great nation!? Afterall, nobody else does scientific research and innovation except for government funded labs! /sarcasm
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
IT's good that someone realizes that too much money is being spent in all the wrong places... like Nasa.
There are serious problems in the world and places where funds would really make a difference.
Maybe in the 70s that view was correct, but modern republicans HATE science because it contradicts what the "moral majority" is trying to promote.
Also listen to any republican talk about academics. They are pretty open about their disdain for them. Probably comes from the fact that Republicans have about 0 empirical evidence for any of their programs, they just use some vague ideological arguments for tax cuts and crusades against public health care despite the overwhelming evidence that shows a moderate tax rate and public health insurance tends to result in much healthier economy and populace.
Monstar L
We know the Earth was created 6000 years ago, and we have the technology to kill everyone else on the planet, so what do we need science for? Get rid of it all.
Social Security does not cost the federal government a single penny! Yes that is right Too date not a single penny of tax money has been spent on social security All payments and cost have been paid from contributions and interest. stop with all the agendas please john
Eliminate ONE of those and you can eliminate the cuts to NASA, NOAA, as well as some of the smaller cuts.
Hell, the USAF doesn't even want them for crying out loud.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Instead of cutting our science funding, stop funding countries that hate us with billions and billions of dollars! I'd be willing to bet we spend much much more on that.
Why don't they cut all funding for all religion subsidies and charge them tax and get rid of the exempt status. I thought separation of church and state was constitutional, why cut them slack. Also The military needs to poop or get off the pot. Why do conflicts take so long. Get in and kick but and get out. That way the can have their new world order faster instead of dragging it out like no one knows what there up to. We need science programs, the Chinese are kicking our butts in educating there children. They probably have the highest amount of genius level kids in the world.
Is it to bold to suggest having slightly higher taxes to fund the things we want in this country? Not a complete solution but I don't understand how someone can expect the US to remain competitive with the world when we defund or eliminate education, science, and basic health/safety services.
And what has Government Science created? Nothing.
* Finally after NASA wasted $billions, we get private space tourism.
* Department of Energy never produced a single drop of oil.
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
Why would "cynicist" bother to post a cynical statement about the future when its not going to convince anybody or change somebody's mind.
You may not realize this, but the social security trust fund is running on SURPLUS because of the boomers paying in all their lives and are just now retiring and drawing from their fund-- they were supposed to DIE before the trust fund ran out at the rates they were paying in. Its their money. Previous generations GOT PAID back my parents are now, if that is a scam....
Now maybe we don't want to pay the gap from the underestimates in cost of living, lifespan, and unregulated medical costs... but they deserve their money back they put in.
Maybe they shouldn't have added onto the program and we should have let all the retards and autistics starve and die. Maybe its the kids fault his parents generation polluted etc and made them early social security net-losses who have been draining the system prematurely at higher than predicted rates... (or they didn't want to pay what they agreed to support while possibly feeling guilty for contributing to higher rates of needy.)
Since I'm paying into the trust fund most my life I want my money back later and it SHOULD be enough money because I do not live in a baby boom and the population is NOT shrinking. I'd rather they took it and kept it safe than me manually save X amount every paycheck with greater risk and no ability to "sponge" on anybody should I end up a cripple or something.... my bank collapses...etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
needs to lead that fight. That is the only way cuts would actually happen.
The disdain Republicans hold is for the silly notion that you're promoting here.
Nobody HATES science. Republicans (purport to) hate socialist ideas that attempt to increase and centralize government. Republicans do hate the snotty attitude coming from academics who have never run a business or had to meet a payroll, but what do you expect the reaction to be to a bunch of sneering elitist that can't hold a real job. Your own statement )"overwhelming evidence that shows a moderate tax rate and public health insurance tends to result in much healthier economy and populace"), belies your hubris and refusal to consider anything outside of your educational sounding box. Britain is moving away from their socialized medicine model due to cost. Reports of inconsistencies in costing models between the US and other countries are buried. The evidence may be overwhelming to you, but the people that don't want to live in a nanny state have a lot of questions that never seem to get answered with anything more than a sneering "We KNOW better than you, because WE'RE smarter."
There is a lot of disdain in conservative circles. It is not for science.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba