2001 - Bush places crippling restrictions on stem cell research because the cells come from leftover embryos from fertility clinics that are going to be discarded anyway. Despite the fact that stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of medical research since genome mapping, Bush doesn't want to "condone abortion".
2002 - Bush's flagship environmental policy is the "Healthy Forest Initiative", which aims to reduce forest fires by easing logging restrictions in National Forests (look it up yourself!) Actually that one's good logic- less forests, less forest fires!
2003 Bush appoints Mike Levitt, the pro-industry Republican governor from Utah to head the EPA.
The administration has axed education programs that mention birth control, (he's got an "abstinence only" policy despite zero evidence showing that that works -theres even evidence it might be counter-effective), issued the "Global Gag Rule", gutted the Clean Air Act, forced the EPA to cut any mention of global warming from their state of the environment report, etc. etc..
How can there be any debate over who has more credibility? On the one side is a bunch of conservative cronies who, if they could have their way, would keep evolution out of schools, completely remove any education mentioning birth control, strip ALL environmental regulations, etc. etc.
On the other hand we have a large group of presitigous scientists, researchers, Nobel Laureates, medical experts, university chairs and presidents, etc., some of whom were advisors to republican presidents and many of whom aren't even affiliated in any way with the Union of Concerned Scientists. One of the guys is a former Nixon/Ford guy and he basically says Nixon was like Galileo compared to Bush.
Even if I were Republican, I'd take the 20 Nobel Laureates over Bush, DeLay, Cheney, etc.
P.S. This has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore or Saddam Hussein. Gore isn't president and Saddam being bad doesn't necessarily make Bush good. This is about science, and how Bush's brand of conservatism is playing games with it to suit their agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
2001 - Bush places crippling restrictions on stem cell research because the cells come from leftover embryos from fertility clinics that are going to be discarded anyway. Despite the fact that stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of medical research since genome mapping, Bush doesn't want to "condone abortion".
2002 - Bush's flagship environmental policy is the "Healthy Forest Initiative", which aims to reduce forest fires by easing logging restrictions in National Forests (look it up yourself!) Actually that one's good logic- less forests, less forest fires!
2003 Bush appoints Mike Levitt, the pro-industry Republican governor from Utah to head the EPA.
The administration has axed education programs that mention birth control, (he's got an "abstinence only" policy despite zero evidence showing that that works -theres even evidence it might be counter-effective), issued the "Global Gag Rule", gutted the Clean Air Act, forced the EPA to cut any mention of global warming from their state of the environment report, etc. etc..
Seriously, the list goes on and on..
How can there be any debate over who has more credibility? On the one side is a bunch of conservative cronies who, if they could have their way, would keep evolution out of schools, completely remove any education mentioning birth control, strip ALL environmental regulations, etc. etc.
On the other hand we have a large group of presitigous scientists, researchers, Nobel Laureates, medical experts, university chairs and presidents, etc., some of whom were advisors to republican presidents and many of whom aren't even affiliated in any way with the Union of Concerned Scientists. One of the guys is a former Nixon/Ford guy and he basically says Nixon was like Galileo compared to Bush.
Even if I were Republican, I'd take the 20 Nobel Laureates over Bush, DeLay, Cheney, etc.
P.S. This has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore or Saddam Hussein. Gore isn't president and Saddam being bad doesn't necessarily make Bush good. This is about science, and how Bush's brand of conservatism is playing games with it to suit their agenda.