 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
31 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
47 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
120 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
3 new comments | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | He Blinded Me With Science — Bush Restructuring Science...In His Own Image | | | | | found on The Washington Post
written by zanzibar, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Wed 18 Sep 8:25am | | | | |
 | "According to The Washington Post, it's becoming harder to be an independent scientist on a government committee these days," zanzibar writes. "The story charges the Bush administration with aggressively removing scientists from Health and Human Services committees that produce opinions the Administration disagrees with, and replacing them with 'handpicked' individuals more amenable to the Administration's policies-- in some instances, without even giving proper notice.
A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members will be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the industries that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
According to the article, the most notable restructurings affect those committees considering environmental issues, human-subject research protections, and regulation of genetic testing. Although the administration defends its right to restructure HHS as it sees fit, it seems to me that there is a difference between political restructuring and scientific meddling. Is this just a normal case of an Administration reshaping a department to meet its political needs, or are they going too far?"
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. Mr. Bush's beef with the scientific community | | | | by captainebo |  | | | at Wed 18 Sep 8:38am | score of 3 astute | | | | | | |
The problem here is that the scientific community believes that the laws of physics and other such scientific truths are absolutes, and everything else is human construction. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, feel that the word of GAWD is absolute, and science is a human construction, which therefore can be manipulated to his whims.
Ebo
"In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 20. Re: Mr. Bush's beef with the scientific community | | | | by GreenElvis |  | | | at Wed 18 Sep 11:52am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
I think you have this confused with a different debate, but you are on the right track
The scientific community believes in truths and absolutes but politicians, on the other hand, are only interested in creating the appearance of truths and absolutes that will match their agendas.
This particular instance has more to do with the pro business aspects of the administration than any religious beliefs.
"Salary is no object: I want only enough to keep body and soul apart." - Dorothy Parker
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 27. Re: Mr. Bush's beef with the scientific community | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 12:26pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
The scientific community believes in truths and absolutes but politicians, on the other hand, are only interested in creating the appearance of truths and absolutes that will match their agendas.
Well said.
However, it is important to point out that this behavior is not limited to the current administration. The previous administration did quite a bit of manipulating things when scientific results (or lack of conclusive ones) didn't match up with the preconceptions of the administration.
Of course, there are copious examples of this within and outside of the US.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 57. Re: Mr. Bush's beef with the scientific community | | | | by strumbucket | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 3:44pm | score of 1.5 succinct | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
"The scientific community believes in truths and absolutes"
Not exactly. The scientific community believes in working approximations of truths and absolutes that provide the best fit to all of the available valid data. The stasis of absolutes produces a world view that includes a 4,000 year old earth and irrefutable "market principles," as if markets themselves are not human constructs prone to speculation, cornering, rumors, cartels and other machinations.
got bodybags?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 66. Re: Mr. Bush's beef with the scientific community | | | | by Attic Spider | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 10:16pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 57 | | | | | |
I don't think you understand; you're confusing the metaphysical issue with the epistemic one. Members of the scientific community generally take as at least a working principle that there exist facts about the universe which are true or false completely independent of anyone's beliefs in them. "Science" consists of a set of reasonably reliable methods for discovering these truths; of course, it is recognized by the astute scientist that our knowledge is never perfect, and models are always open to refinement, but the point is that those absolute, belief-independent facts are out there. This is put in contrast to the religious or political outlook, in which the primary thing is the faith of the individual or the beliefs of the masses, and any absolute facts are either illusory or irrelevant.
Aw, he looks like a little insane drunken angel.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 90. Re: Mr. Bush's beef with the scientific community | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Mon 23 Sep 8:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 80 | | | | | |
There are copious examples from just about every administration from before the Cold War to the present. One can EASILY start with "Earth in the Balance" contrasting actual papers in refereed scientific journals with how things were presented there (and the influence it had on policy). A good resource to use in examining the graphs is Tufte's books - he goes into great detail about how to (and how not to) present data.
That's one example. If you don't like that one, do some research (it's good practice) and pick the ones you like best. Repeat for Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. until you can convince yourself it's not a partisan effect.
Power corrupts. The GOP didn't discover (nor has a monopoly on) either power or corruption.
Have a nice day.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 2. not suprising | | | | by Ernest333 |  | | | at Wed 18 Sep 8:43am | score of 2.5 astute | | | | | | |
Objective scientific inquiry is fundamentally linked with the spreading of knowledge and truth. Since the latter can only undermine Bush's power and support, it is only logical that he would obstruct the former.
Whether it's the unprecedented sealing of his father's and Reagan's presidential papers (and W's own Gubernatorial papers), not releasing details of Cheney's meetings with energy lobbyists, limiting the FOIA, stacking various committees with people pre-selected as having one viewpoint, or blocking full investigation of government mistakes leading to 9-11, nothing scares this administration's more than accurate uncensored information reaching the public.
government + religion = taliban
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 9. Re: not suprising | | | | by gjones | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 9:44am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
Objective scientific inquiry is fundamentally linked with the spreading of knowledge and truth.
I remember in college one of my professors once said "Science isn't about discovering truth...it's about discovering facts." When science is done correctly it shouldn't be something that an administration can blow off because it doesn't match the administration's views. Instead it just IS because what science purports to find are facts. That the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s/s here on earth isn't a truth, it's a fact.
Truths are more along the lines of "that pair of cells is a human being", or "It is wrong to run these types of medical tests." These are things that science is not constructed to deal with, and really, should not be constructed to deal with. Asking a scientist about his or her views on something like stem-cell research is asking for that person's biased opinion.
I will agree with you though that Bush doesn't want accurate uncensored information reaching the public.
It's a trick...Get an axe.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 14. Re: not suprising | | | | by Ernest333 |  | | | at Wed 18 Sep 10:54am | score of 0.5 | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
You seem to define "Truth" as a subjective moral truth. To the degree that you use truth to mean something morally "good", I agree with your sentiment.
I'd tend to define truth as dictionary.com does however:
truth n. pl. truths
1.Conformity to fact or actuality.
2.A statement proven to be or accepted as
true.
I use "truth" as a synonym for an objective fact, which I believe is the accurate definition.
(I know, I'm splitting hairs here!)
government + religion = taliban
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 39. Really splitting hairs | | | | by FatRatBastard | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 1:42pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
1. "Parallel Lines Never Intersect"
2. "Parallel Lines Intersect"
The two above statements are both "true" (or "false"). How true or false they are depends on the initial assumptions. Take one set of assumptions, you can use logic to deduce that statement 1 is true and statement 2 is false. Take another (slightly different) set of assumptions, use the same tools of logic, and you come to the opposite conclusion.
So, what does this all mean? It means that truth comes from belief (re: in the above case our initial assumptions). In a logical sense, truth (and facts) are relative to your initial assumptions.
Society is a little more murky (and no where near as cut and dried) than mathematics, but nevertheless somewhat similar. For example:
I use "truth" as a synonym for an objective fact, which I believe is the accurate definition.
This assumes that someone has the same assumptions that you do... i.e. that your senses provide you with a unbiased representation of the universe around you and that universe works in a rational, understandable way. You'll find that quite a few people, especially the ones you'd argue with the most, don't believe in the same assumptions.
Another example: To someone who believes this way a fish fossil found at the top of the Himalayas helps prove the that at one point that land mass was under water and the collision of the sub-continent with Asia turned sea-floor into mountains (over millions of years). To someone who's fundamental assumptions are that the bible is accurate and God made the world in 7 days, its proof of the great flood.
People with different basic assumptions can argue until they're blue in the face about what's "true" and who's "right," as can Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometrists over the nature of parallel lines, because those assumptions can lead to wildly different/conflicting "truths."
That's not to say you can't have a good, old fashioned argument over how utterly crap you think someone's assumptions are (and believe me, there was a good old bru-ha-ha over the aforementioned Statement #2 when it hit the world of mathematics) or totally disprove someone's stance with regard to their own initial assumptions (fun with fundamentalists tip #3: prove what they're saying is "untrue" by assuming everything in the bible is true and apply a little logic. That really pisses them off), but when you start spouting off on what's "true" and "not true" you get about as much credit with me as your average politician.
So what does this have to do with Bush and science? Not a damn thing.
Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 46. Re: Really splitting hairs | | | | by Mad Ogger | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 2:29pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 39 | | | | | |
Yes, this is getting off topic, but I think epistemology is much more interesting than standard political misbehavior. So,
I take issue with your assumptions. :-) Your analysis of "true" and "false" is fine for mathematics, but I hesitate to apply it to the real world. I have great faith that there is a real world. Accordingly, I don't think truth is subjective. Someone who believes God made the world in 7 days is just wrong. (Probably. There's always the chance that I'm mistaken, but for easy things it's not worth worrying about.)
Right now, I'm sitting in a chair. Just because I can't provide some esoteric logical argument from first principles doesn't mean it isn't 100% true. After all, why should I trust a logical argument above my own senses? If you present me with a logical argument, I could say "That works, assuming the axioms of logic. But I don't believe those axioms." I could do that, but then I wouldn't be able to think effectively, so it would be crazy. Same problem with not (provisionally) trusting empirical observations.
Scientific truth is a little harder to deal with because scientists deal with general laws. I would say that scientific theories are approximations to the truth. They are not true in the absolute sense, but they reflect real patterns in the universe. I'm sure my position is totally unoriginal and riddled with problems. Is there a name for it?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 51. Re: Really splitting hairs | | | | by FatRatBastard | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 2:52pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
I have great faith that there is a real world. Accordingly, I don't think truth is subjective.
Er, which I believe is exactly what I was getting at (then again maybe I'm missing something, I've been reading World Bank documents all day and, frankly, that's enough to shatter anyone's faith in reality).
Right now, I'm sitting in a chair. Just because I can't provide some esoteric logical argument from first principles doesn't mean it isn't 100% true.
Actually, that's a bit backwards from what I was getting at. I'm not saying its not true, or that you can say "hey, I'm really not sittin in this chair simply because FRB said I didn't have to believe it". Its that those different basic (and I mean real, fundamentally basic) assumptions can lead down logical paths to conflicting truths. The only person who could truthfully say "I'm not sitting in this chair (that I'm sittin in)" would be a) Neo or (to be serious) b) someone who's basic assumptions on life land him in the nuthouse (as you pointed out). Afterall, if you don't trust your own senses (and even fundies do up to a point) then your life on this planet is pretty much pointless.
Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 67. Re: Really splitting hairs | | | | by Attic Spider | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 10:59pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 39 | | | | | |
First off, your understanding of geometry is poor. Parallel lines never intersect; that's in the definition of "parallel". At issue in euclidean/non-euclidean geometries is how many lines pass through a point in a plane parallel to a non-coincident coplanar line.* Go read a book if you don't believe me.
More importantly, mathematicians don't argue about which geometry is "correct" or "real", because neither one is "real". They're completely notional; they don't exist independently of people (or some mental entity) thinking about them. This is why we don't generally refer to mathematicians as scientists, even though the two often think in very similar ways. Scientists (in their capacity as such) are interested in truths which exist independently of what anyone thinks about them (that is, "facts"), and models to explain these facts.
Your argument (and I may well be misunderstanding it) seems to be: there are some people who reject the existence of objective truths, and since it's impossible to argue them away from that belief using rationality and observed facts, they have just as valid a viewpoint as you, and furthermore, since we've accepted two directly contradictory viewpoints as equally valid, the whole edifice of "truth" is silly.
In case you can't tell, I think you're being right daft. But if you're really serious about rejecting the notions of objective truth and rationality, I'm not going to try to argue you into them.
* I lifted most of this sentence from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, because I couldn't think of a good way to express the non-euclidian thing without going on about it for pages. I include this footnote because I've been in academia too damn long, and plagiarism, even when it's of no consequence, makes me uneasy.
Aw, he looks like a little insane drunken angel.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 74. Re: Really splitting hairs | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 8:57am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 67 | | | | | |
Now, there are actually plenty of mathematicians who believe that mathematics exists independently of people thinking about them. That's one reason Godel's theories continue to cause such an uproar.
The question at hand, however, is more closely related to knowable truth. Even my introductory psych texts have switched to a more Kuhnian explanation of science, suggesting that the consensus of the scientific community is subject to sociological biases, but that science is "self-correcting." On the other hand, the Doctrine of Papal Infallacy is still of no help on Jeopardy.
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 82. Re: Really splitting hairs | | | | by Mad Ogger | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 5:45pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 51 | | | | | |
I think reading World Bank documents all day would just make me kill myself. If it has to be done, I'm glad you're doing it and not me. Keep up the good work. :-)
I think I read you correctly. I understood that you meant "different basic (and I mean real, fundamentally basic) assumptions can lead down logical paths to conflicting truths". I was speaking about the assumptions. I still don't know what your position is, but mine is that some assumptions are just wrong, for example the belief in the literal accuracy of the Bible.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 84. Re: Really splitting hairs | | | | by Attic Spider | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 9:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 74 | | | | | |
Godel's theorem continues to cause an uproar? Has someone discovered a flaw in his proof that I haven't heard about? The only uproars I hear about are when some clown tries to apply it to an area where it isn't appropriate, like philosophy of mind.
And the question at hand, at least the question I think I'm addressing, has nothing to do with knowable truth. It's a metaphysical question, not an epistemic one. The question is whether there are such things as "facts" at all. Of course scientific inquiry is subject to all manner of biases, and the complicated scientific method is there so that these biases can hopefully wash out over a long enough term. There's a certain (rather ridiculous) view that facts don't really exist in an objective way, and so any belief is ultimately as valid as any other.
I'm kind of getting the feeling that I'm engaging in a completely different discussion from everyone else in the room, though. Wouldn't be the first time it's happened.
Aw, he looks like a little insane drunken angel.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 89. Re: Really splitting hairs | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Fri 20 Sep 8:27am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 84 | | | | | |
You should see the amount of time spent on the Axiom of Choice in upper level math courses. In Field Theory, I even got a lecture on the history of mathematicians who refuse to use it. (Turns out that their biggest failure was in being bad mathematicians, not in being bad mathematical philosophers.)
The question of stacking commisions has little to do with epistemology and more to do with knowable truths. Maybe I was awkwardly trying to stay on subject while everyone else wasn't.
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 3. Talk about stacking the deck. | | | | by 1fastdog | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 9:18am | score of 2 brilliant | | | | | | |
Hey, look! Science jobs available in govt. Qualifications: Scientific knowledge and experience not needed. Would prefer corporate and industry lackeys willing to reduce the implementation of rules that may hurt donation$ to the pre$ident from lobbyi$t$. Must, absolutely must, be willing to sacrifice scientific principles and methods, and be willing to "bend over and take one for the team" in the name of promoting the "New Science By Bush!!™" campaign currently underway at the behest of F.A.S.C.I.S.T.S. [ Fundamentalists Against Scientifically Clear Information Systems & Technology Steps® ].
All that said, the litmus spin continues:
"It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind."
At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
No, no, they're not litmus tests at all. They're just questions that need answering in the correct way. No sir! Not a litmus test in sight, sir!
Tipping The Bottle & Biting The Lime
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 6. Re: Talk about stacking the deck. | | | | by asthmaticeog | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 9:36am | score of 2.5 witty | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
I learned how to do litmus tests in a science class, so perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise that a Bush administration lackey doesn't quite seem to know what one is.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 47. Re: Talk about stacking the deck. | | | | by shadarr | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 2:33pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
I think the lackey knows exactly what a litmus test is. At no point during the interview was the applicant's pH measured, nor should it have been. As for screening out the lefties, that's just good old fashioned proactive ass covering.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 5. He's been doing it from time he got in office | | | | by cy guy | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 9:35am | score of 2.5 incoherent | | | | | | |
This is just a sampling, most of which have been discussed here on Plastic: - Mercury in Water Supplies (delayed implementation of new standard only to eventually concede Science backed original threshhold)
- Caribou in ANWR (fired scientist for posting map of calving grounds on web, even though that was his job)
- 'Fawnix' Only Reading Instruction (this was just last week)
- New Forest Policy
- Abstinence Only Sex Education (Surgeon General reported it's not effective
- Medical Marijuana & Anti-Drug TV ads (ads increased youth interest in drugs)
- Global Warming
- I could go on and on
As anyone familiar with Creationists can tell, you can find a 'Scientist' to support any side of an policy issue. By seeking out these crackpots and stacking committess with them W might be able to convince just enough of the sheeple that his policies are widely accepted by 'the experts'.
Another unfortunate side effect is that our foreign allies see the US government using these so called experts as scientific justification for their policies and then make the assumption that the American people as a whole believe these things.
"Everybody's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic."-Andy Warhol
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 61. It's Bigger Than Bush | | | | by uncarved block | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 6:59pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
Stacking oversight committees is a very bipartisan activity-- I doubt there were any free market radicals on Clinton's panel investigating Medicare reform. And the conservatives could have an argument that discussions and investigations of sexual orientation have received disproportionate funding from liberals; the highest percentage of gay representation in the overall population has been 10%, and even that number is of questionable scientific veracity.
Unfortunately, Shrub has demonstrated the politic knack of letting the most dubious counterarguments drive policy. If you know the DC think tanks, b43 seems to favor AIM and AIA over even Heritage Foundation, and the good folks over at Cato are beginning to question whether any sentence is big enough to contain both 'Bush' and 'conservative' at the same time. Ever seen some of the "science" that comes out of Reed Irvine's little projects? Bad, bad, bad science. I have only a low college level association with science, but I can dissect their premises with ease.
OTOH, no politician has ever failed by underestimating the intelligence of his voters. Working in a used bookstore as I do, I've seen what kind of crap sells, so I can't say that bad science equals bad polls. Oh, some examples? The Bell Curve remains a consistent low key seller, as does To Ride a Pale Horse and some book claiming the world is secretly run by the Babylonian Brotherhood of Blood (WTF?), as well as Don Miguel Ruiz' books exploring 'Aztec wisdom'-- as if human sacrifice could be dropped out of the culture without harm . . .
(Sorry about the meandering-- just had direct evidence to apply to the proposition of human idiocy, and thought I'd share).
Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 7. Dr. Zaius! Dr. Zaius! | | | | by geekybob | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 9:37am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
(sung to the tune of "Amadeus! Amadeus!" by the late great Troy McClure)
I fear that humanity (or, eventually, simianity) will never be free from our habit of using opinionated scientists to reinforce policy and/or dogma... this latest report reveals nothing too surprising, as evidenced by the steady flow of disinformation procured at your expense and disseminated by recent administrations to support the War on Drugs.
Does Bush stop at merely firing the academically honest, or is he secretly also asking the Church(es) to censure or excommunicate the heretics as well?
I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 8. Requiring Adherence with Bush View is illegal | | | | by Philosawyer | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 9:41am | score of 3.5 compelling | | | | | | |
Ever since Bush was embarrassed by the Global Warming Report by the United States that contradcited his political rhetoric, many have vowed to never let that happen again. For example, Human Events Online claimed that the President should fire disloyal employees who promoted it. This site also pointed out that Bush's attempts to distance himself onlyunderscores the point: The President now accepts that global warming is real and dangerous, but refuses to do anything about it. As suggested by Human Events online one way would be to fire everyone who supported the report and force a rewrite be done only by loyalists. However, making sure only political loyalists committed to theories that support Bush policy be allowed to participate not only replaces science with politics, it is is illegal.
Committees like those at issue here are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The most relevant requirements of the law are those that govern appointment of experts to committees: (1) requires the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee; and (2) must contain appropriate provisions to assure that the advice and recommendations of the advisory committee will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest, but will instead be the result of the advisory committee's independent judgment.
The last four paragraphs of the Washington Post article demonstrates the willingness of the Bush Administration to continue to play semantic games with the truth:
HHS's Pierce said the committee remains balanced overall, and no prospective member of any advisory committee is subjected to political screenings.
"It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind."
At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
Even if not "litmus tests" in the Bush lexicon, the type of questions of the interview go to the heart of the prohibition on rigging the committee in order to please special interest groups. If the quote of the interviewer is accurate and is being applied to all potential members, it appears that the Bush administration is flat out violating Federal law.
For more info on FACA see the Governments own regulations: a www.gsa.gov link
Fairly balanced membership. A description of the agency's plan to attain fairly balanced membership. The plan will ensure that, in the selection of members for the advisory committee, the agency will consider a cross-section of those directly affected, interested, and qualified, as appropriate to the nature and functions of the advisory committee. Advisory committees requiring technical expertise should include persons with demonstrated professional or personal qualifications and experience relevant to the functions and tasks to be performed.
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 19. Re: Requiring Adherence with Bush View is illegal | | | | by Genady | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 11:44am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind."
At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
No, no, no, what Pierce is really saying is:
"I don't care if your deodorant is strong enough for a man, but Ph balanced for a woman, you're still a faerie tree-hugging baby killer and you don't get a seat at the table."
-- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 28. Re: Requiring Adherence with Bush View is illegal | | | | by stet | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 12:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
I really, really don't think anybody that uses the word "tree-hugger" in a non-ironic context would be caught dead spelling the word fairy as "faerie." ;)
"All of the juice had been sucked out/ Before Mel Bay taught us children to play"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 33. Presidential committee - not illegal | | | | by JoJoPotato | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 1:05pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
Actually it is not illegal. The section of law you quote refers only to congressional advisory committees. All of the committees referenced in the article seem to report to the Secretary of Health and thus to the President and not Congress. In this case, the law is only that the President tell congress about the committees existence and expenses (except in the case of National Security). Having said all that it doesn't change the fact that it should be illegal
JoJo
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 43. Re: Presidential committee - not illegal or is it? | | | | by Philosawyer | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 1:56pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 33 | | | | | |
Doh...or is it Arrg!
You are correct that the first quotes are from the section on Congressional committees (oops, however, these statutes are not user friendly and very similar restrictions apply).
The same type of restrictions apply under Federal Regulations that were quoted later in the same post that do apply to executive committees including these. (see bottom of comment).
In addition see also this regulation applicable committees in the executive branch:
c) Balanced membership. An advisory committee must be fairly balanced in its membership in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed.
a www.firstgov.gov link
In otherwords, such actions are in violation of current Federal law and Regulations. Frankly, I dont know if the President could unilaterally change this rule or not. Currently the GSA is responsible for drafting implimenting rules. However, if he wanted to such a new rule would be subject to public notice and would take significant time to change. Maybe you or someone else could provide more light.
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 49. Tell me more... | | | | by Kurtz | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 2:41pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 43 | | | | | |
Assuming it is illegal, who would do something about it? Presumably not the DOJ, so can the ACLU or Judicial Watch take any sort of action on this kind of thing?
(I tried to read about the Act, really, but my eyes glazed over after a couple of pages. Thought I may have caught something about a General Services Administration that's supposed to ensure compliance, but frankly it doesn't sound like much of a deterrent.)
--What Would Azathoth Do?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 56. It's illegal - or is it? | | | | by JoJoPotato | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 3:33pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 43 | | | | | |
O.K. Bushes actions are in violation of the FACA, at least as far as the GSA is concerned. Unfortunately, it seems that the only grounds for termination of an advisory committee are:
(1) The stated objectives of the committee have been accomplished;
(2) The subject matter or work of the committee has become obsolete by the passing of time or the assumption of the committee's functions by another entity;
(3) The agency determines that the cost of operation is excessive in relation to the benefits accruing to the Federal Government;
(4) - (6) Various types of running out of time.
and from the actual act (sec 2.b):
(3) advisory committees should be terminated when they are no longer carrying out the purposes for which they were established;
(Note the unfortunate use of the word "should")
So, it seems that the only apparent recourse would be to sue the GSA to stop funding for these committees. By their own guidelines there is no reason for the GSA to stop funding. It seems clear that the creation of any new committees by Bush would not meet the GSA guidelines.
JoJo
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 62. Re: Tell me more...*Caution Eye Glaze ahead* | | | | by Philosawyer | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 7:23pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 49 | | | | | |
Assuming it is illegal, who would do something about it? Presumably not the DOJ, so can the ACLU or Judicial Watch take any sort of action on this kind of thing?
There are ways to try to enforce FACA but needless to say it is a pretty murky area. I cant vouch for it being 100% accurate but this link provides some relatively readable discussion of how courts have fashioned remedies in limited cases. (e.g enjoin the gov't from using the information). a www.colorado.edu link In addition even if it is difficult to stop the government from illegally using committees, when they try to make rules on the basis of the information you can sue under the Administrative Procedures Act (this is also difficult but works sometimes to make the government go back and rework its rules).
In any case, the best remedy is to continue to publicize the fact that the administration is violating its own rules and that it is beholded to the religious right and industry. For example, Cheney's Energy Committee sought to avoid FACA by how it was formed, it appears it may have violated FACA, but he continues to fight tooth and nail efforts to even find out who he met with.
Unfortunately, all of this gets into "eye glaze" territory pretty quickly (you are certainly not the only one by a long shot). Only very determined interest groups with decent financing have much chance of getting very far with legal remedies.
If you do have more interest you are probably better off reading the rules than the statute, or probably better still would be an Administrative Law for Dummies type book (Administrative Law in a Nutshell is a real book that probably has a section on this issue). Wading through the web a lot of the information is misleading (including my quote of a portion of the statute that applies to congress even though it also applies to executive committees is not as straightforward as suggested). These types of regulations provide standards that the executive is supposed to make a good faith effort to comply with. The system does not want to be a straight jacket if possible (many claim that it is anyway), but the system tends to fail if there is a lack of good faith on the part of the Executive Branch.
Beyond "Google" which I used, if you have one you could ask a friend in law school who has free access to Westlaw of Lexus to get cases where these issues ahve been disputed (these services cost fair amounts of cash but law students get them free).
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 11. I'll take PG&E over Erin Brockovich any day! | | | | by Wolfetone | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 9:49am | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
Erin made her claim to fame over suing PG&E for chromium six poisoning. She claimed the townspeople exposure to chromium six caused uterine, breast and other types of cancer, insomnia, nose bleeds, birth defects, miscairages, chron's disease, rashes, and on and on. Well guess what? Nothing causes all of those things and the EPA can't even show that chromium six, via oral exposure (Inhalation has been shown to cause lung cancer), is carcinogenic. Under the current guidelines (EPA, 1986), Cr(VI) is classified as Group A - known human carcinogen by the inhalation route of exposure. Carcinogenicity by the oral route of exposure cannot be determined and is classified as Group D. a www.epa.gov link
Now Miss Brockovich is in the process of suing over her "TOXIC" mold problem. ""I think it's such an irony -- the very reason I did Hinckley (Calif.) is (because) people were sick, people I believed in, people who had been lied to, people who had lost their health and their home . . . and the same thing is happening to me," Brockovich said, in an uncharacteristically soft voice. " http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Brockovich-Mold-Crusade.htm But as the Washington Post shows it is all a bunch of hooey!
But the impression that toxin-producing molds are rampant and more virulent than ordinary molds -- an impression created by some news reports and on the Internet, often on sites operated by companies that sell mold tests, cleanup systems or legal services -- is not supported by evidence. In fact, according to those who have studied the issue, there is little conclusive evidence that mold toxins in the home or office (as opposed to an overabundance of ordinary mold) can cause serious harm to humans.
"Mold is everywhere,"said Gailen Marshall, director of the Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston. "For most, mold is a mostly ignored part of their lives. For some with mold allergies, the smell can cause nasal allergy or even asthma symptoms. Yet what is increasingly clear is that their mold-related illness has nothing to do with toxic substances produced by molds." a www.washingtonpost.com link
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 13. Re: I'll take PG&E over Erin Brockovich any day! | | | | by Philosawyer | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 10:47am | score of 1 succinct | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
Well that's nice, but Erin Brockovich's views on mold (or anything else for that matter) are not the least bit relevant here. If you were misinformed, Erin Brockovich is not currently serving on any HHS science committees at the moment, nor has she ever been nominated to my knowledge.
I guess it is a good example of the putting the theory the best defense is a good offense in practice. Responding to claims that Bush is trying to stack scientific committess with industry loyalists with attacks on Erin Brockvich's view on mold may provide a momentary distraction but say nothing about the issue at hand.
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 23. The article compared Erin to a PG&E defender. | | | | by Wolfetone | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 11:57am | score of 1 astute | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
It insinuated that Erin was on the side of sound science and the PG&E scientist was not. However, it is the PG&E scientist who had the science right, and Erin who had it wrong. So, if you are using Brockovich to defame a scientist because he worked for, or testified for, a corporation than Erin's appeal to emotion lawsuits are fare game.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 26. Issue not whether Qualified - its a stacked deck | | | | by Philosawyer | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 12:23pm | score of 1.5 disingenuous | | in reply to comment 23 | | | | | |
It insinuated that Erin was on the side of sound science and the PG&E scientist was not. However, it is the PG&E scientist who had the science right, and Erin who had it wrong.
You are reading a lot into a short one sentence short cultural reference. Probably the main reason it was included was not to say anything about his science, but rather serve as a cultural reference point that incidentally suggests where his allegiances lay. In any case, Erin Brockovich is not a scientist nor does anyone think of her as one. Her role was to uncover evidence suggesting wrong doing and attempts of a cover up. The fact that she has a particular view on "toxic mold" is still just a distraction in any case.
The issue in this case is not the scientific merits of the individuals or how qualified they are. The problem here is not his picks are unqualified, but rather he is stacking the deck by appointing only those individuals who have views on issues that match Bush's and special interest groups. These are issues that qualified scientists differ on, and Bush is not permitted to pick only those who go his way and the special interests that support him. That defeats the whole purpose of trying to achieve consensus and provide perspectives across the spectrum of legitimatly interested parties. If he only appoints those who already agree with him, whether qualified or not, there is little point to do so other as a rubber stamp on issues that are actually controversial and subject to public debate.
As noted in the article of particular concern is the move to replace almost entire committees at one time, when that has not been generally done in the past, nor is it necessary unless your aim is in fact to stack the deck in your favor.
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 31. Re: The article compared Erin to a PG&E defender. | | | | by wetzel | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 12:37pm | score of 1.5 informative | | in reply to comment 23 | | | | | |
Chromium VI has been shown to be strongly mutagenic in both prokaryotic (Ames test) and eukaryotic systems. It is a known teratogen (causes birth defects). While the EPA has not confirmed its carcinogenicity by ingestion, the California OEHHA considers it carcinogenic by ingestion by the following evidence:
· Chromium is a known human carcinogen by the inhalation route.
· Non-respiratory cancers have been found in workers exposed to chromium VI by
inhalation.
· Inhaled chromium VI causes respiratory tumors in rats.
· Chromium VI causes contact site tumors in laboratory animals.
· Ingested chromium VI has been associated with stomach tumors in mice.
· Chromium VI has been positive in a number of assays for genotoxicity.
While chromium VI might ultimately prove not to be carcinogenic by ingestion, there are a host of other proven acute and chronic toxicities of the substance by this route including severe kidney and liver damage at low, long-term concentrations.
PG&E were grossly irresponsible in the events made famous by the movie. No doubt about that.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 79. Re: The article compared Erin to a PG&E defender. | | | | by Wolfetone | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 1:05pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 31 | | | | | |
Chromium VI has been shown to be strongly mutagenic in both prokaryotic (Ames test) and eukaryotic systems.
It is a known teratogen (causes birth defects).
Non-respiratory cancers have been found in workers exposed to chromium VI by
inhalation. Inhaled chromium VI causes respiratory tumors in rats.
Rats are not humans and humans are not rats. Certain substances will cause cancer in rats, but it will not in humans. Certain substances will kill rats but will have no affect on humans.
Chromium VI causes contact site tumors in laboratory animals.
What is a contact site tumor? A google search produces zero results. Are you suggesting that if I put Chromium six on my elbow, I will get a tumor on my elbow.
Ingested chromium VI has been associated with stomach tumors in mice.
Again mice are not humans and the mice they use are bred to have tumors. You don't even have to give them any chemicles and they will grow tumors.
Chromium VI has been positive in a number of assays for genotoxicity.
And it has been negative in a number also. Not to mention the fact that chromium III has been postitive in assays for genotoxicity and it is an essential nutrient. Also chromium six breaks down into chromium III.
While chromium VI might ultimately prove not to be carcinogenic by ingestion, there are a host of other proven acute and chronic toxicities of the substance by this route including severe kidney and liver damage at low, long-term concentrations.
If it has been proven, than how come the EPA doesn't say so?
PG&E were grossly irresponsible in the events made famous by the movie. No doubt about that
There was no scientific link between chromium six and the ailments of the local population. A grab bag of diseases was thrown out, that no one substance on earth can cause. A study done of 52,000 PG&E employees exposed to chromium six over a 25 year period, including workers at the Hinckley plant showed cancer rates that were no higher than the general population of California and a death rate that was lower. a www.joem.org link
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 22. Not really about science | | | | by Dvandom | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 11:53am | score of 1.5 succinct | | | | | | |
While comments about Bush's views on science as science, religion, etc are certainly worth making in general, I don't think they really drive this decision.
It's all about helping the corporations make money. In the final analysis, Bush's views about science are secondary, or even tertiary, to his views about letting companies make as much money as possible. If science is getting in the way of that goal, then science is to be ignored where convenient. Science as a producer of material goods is praised, science as a producer of warnings is not.
Dave
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 54. what to expect from a 'C' average president | | | | by burntfriedman | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 3:23pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 22 | | | | | |
a great story to pop on plastic today, as i received the record "she blinded me with science" by thomas dolby and a book by ziauddin sardar and borin van loon called "introducing science"
the book clarifies the changes that have undergone in the field and practice of science since its inception. it points out that two of the key problems within science are exactly what you have stated above:
1. science has become driven by military interests, the corporate need for profit and the public concerns that politicians can no longer ignore or stall on.
2. science is increasingly becoming more dependant on the funding from corporations and foundations with invested interests in certain research agenda.(in other words, if you don't find the results we are looking for, we will cut your funding/bury report(i.e. phillips morris/ r. j. reynolds research on the effects of smoking))
3. science has romanticized the notion of scientific method, leading its followers to believe that they make neutral, objective, value-free statements about the "truth".
4. science ignores questions of policy, ethics, risks and safety.
bush's decision continues the current path that science has been on, and it will play well within his hands but unfortunately leads us(or the u.s.) further away from knowledge and understanding.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 75. Re: what to expect from a 'C' average president | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 10:01am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 54 | | | | | |
A better example of #2 is pharmaceuticals. The overwhelming amount of money spent by the industry on research can and does bias the literature simply by producing large numbers of papers.
That's without malfeasance, which may also occur. One study looked at published reports on aspartame (Nutrasweet) and found that about half were unethical rewrites of the same study.
Not that this has ANYTHING to do with BUSH, but...
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 25. Politicizing Science | | | | by TurboDog | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 12:15pm | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
It was bound to happen sooner or later. The government has politicized everything else, now this. GW will replace anybody producing reports he disagrees with. Then in 2 to 6 years we will likely have a Democrat prez who will install his folks in there and we can listen to how the sky is falling and if we don't turn over all heavy industry to government control the environment will collapse. wait 4 to 8 more years for the Republicans to be reelected and rinse and repeat.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 30. Re: Politicizing Science | | | | by Genady | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 12:33pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
Stop making sense, can't you see we're wallowing in our communal Bush bashing?!?! ;)
Thanks, I needed that.
Deep Breath, "The world is not ending. The world is not ending."
-- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 29. Same Old Song & Dance | | | | by SacredGroundChuck | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 12:30pm | score of 2.5 informative | | | | | | |
When Dubya became governor of Texas, one of the first things he did was to dismiss everyone on the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (known as TNRCC, pronounced "Trainwreck"), all appointees of Ann Richards. They were replaced by a bunch of folks who supported big business' right to pollute the land, air, and water, and not have to pay any fines. Power generating stations were grandfathered in such a way that no while cuts on pollution were called for, no one had to comply in case they wanted to - and only a few did cut their pollution rates slightly (sound familiar?)
Under Richards, Texas passed a law that made corporate farms post notices when any insecticide sprays were scheduled so that any farmhands could get out of harm's way. It took Richards' people years to set up the law. When Dubya became governor, the law was dismantled in literally one day, apparently at the urging of the large farms and the pesticide companies.
This smacks more of the Soviet Union's leadership on things beyond their control - you were supposed to fight a war, build a bridge, cure a disease "in a true Socialist way" that supported the state's view. Those who didn't were shot, deported, exiled. If it doesn't fit in with Dubya's thin, limited worldview, then it must not work.
Hell of a way to run a country.
"Did you know that the human brain is the only computer in the universe made of meat?"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 32. and now you know... | | | | by maxconfus | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 12:56pm | score of 2 witty | | | | | | |
...why both parties fought so hard to dispute the results of the 2000 elections. because the winning team gets to re-write history/religion/science....
a hand up and a foot on every chest...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 37. Naderite Idiocy Revealed | | | | by Adipic Acid | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 1:21pm | score of 2.5 astute | | | | | | |
Remember that voting for Nader was OK, since there was no difference between Gore and Bush. I'm sure Al would have nominated people with the exact same positions to these advisory committees. I also bet that he wouldn't have nominated an FDA Commissioner yet, and would have proposed drilling in the ANWR. If you believe that, I've got some New Jersey swampland for you, cheap.
Remember that you can't always get 100% of what you want. Sometimes it's better to take half a loaf than remain "pure" and throw away your vote.
PS: I belong to neither party and didn't particularly care for Gore. I held my nose and voted for him anyway, since stuff like this and the behaviour of John Ashcroft is exactly what I expected from Bush II.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 53. Re: Naderite Idiocy Revealed | | | | by kallisti | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 3:17pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
Al Gore is a spineless, gutless whore. There is a difference.
As for voting Nader - I live in Texas. A vote for anyone was a vote for Bush. Unless someone lived in Florida, no amount of waffling between Gore and Nader mattered.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 71. Idiocy Revealed | | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 6:24am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
"Never argue with a fool. Some people won't be able to tell the difference." Despite that old adage, I'd like to take a tilt at this windmill.
Voting for Nader WAS OK, despite whatever differences between Gore and Bush; and here's why. We live under a frickin' representative government. If you're not voting for whomever you believe holds views consonant with your own, then you are the reason the country is in the fucked up mess it is in.
Why do you think that, despite the fact that the majority of citizens trust neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, both parties continue to dominate politics to the exclusion of third parties? Precisely because most people buy the spurious notion that voting for someone you dislike slightly less than the other guy is the same as voting against the other guy. But it's a bullshit proposition. If the choice continually comes down to picking one of two guys that you don't really believe in or want in office, what's the point of voting? And, indeed, that seems to be the feeling of the 50% of registered voters who never show up at the polls.
Gore (as a second to Clinton) was in office for eight years. Despite your admonitions on the vast gulf separating Gore from Bush, what did this vaunted team of Democrats produce? Very little. For every step taken forward on issues I cared about, they dropped back three steps on other issues I cared about. I have no hope for the Democrats, who've rolled over on every major issue that Bush has confronted them with. Vast gulf? Hell, Democrats and Republicans span the political spectrum from A to C.
The bottom line is that if every person who ever bought your argument simultaneously decided to vote their preference, rather than "against" a candidate they didn't like, there'd be an overwhelming number of Independents in Congress and a guy in the Whitehouse who hasn't checked his brain at the lobbyist entrance.
Yeah, Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft... they all suck. But they'll never be able to ruin this country as long as the populace recognize their own job in running the country, and get down to doing it. And that includes voting for the guy whose views you agree with.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 73. Re: Idiocy Revealed | | | | by Adipic Acid | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 7:24am | score of 1.5 nuanced | | in reply to comment 71 | | | | | |
Politics is the art of the possible, not a moral crusade. In our system it is almost 100% probable that no candidate's views will be 100% coincident with mine.
In the last election, I had a choice to make. There were two candidates who had any chance whatsoever of winning. A group of people were telling me that there was no difference between the major party candidates, so it didn't matter if I voted for a candidate that had no chance of winning, since the results would be the same.
Anyone who studied the Bush and Gore very carefully would come to the realization that while Gore might very well make a poor president, Bush's ties to the Christian Right and Big Business, along with his spinelessness in acceding to their demands, would make an exceedingly scary one. This has been born out. The Green Party lied. There was a difference between Bush and Gore, and that difference mattered.
Faced with the decision to vote for a candidate who agreed 100% with my views (which would have meant writing myself in, I'm afraid) or voting for the least reprehensible of the two leading candidates in a neck and neck race, I chose the latter.
Do I wish the Democrats had run a better candidate? Hell yes. I also wish the Republicans had run a better one.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 76. Re: Idiocy Revealed | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 10:10am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 73 | | | | | |
People seem to forget that democracy does not stop with voting. It is above all a process for creating consensus. The difference between a two party system (like ours) and a multiparty system (like, say, Italy) is that two party systems tend to do a great deal of consensus building before the election as being centrist is helpful for getting elected. If everyone suddenly insisted on voting only for candidates they agreed with almost entirely we'd probably have porn stars in Congress offering to sleep with Hussein if he'd only disarm.
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 78. Idiocy Revealed | | | | by maml | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 12:27pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 73 | | | | | |
Do you live in Florida, or are you a member of the Supreme Court? Cause otherwise your vote didn't matter. If you and every other gutless leftist had voted Nader, there'd be a viable Liberal Party in this country, instead of the sickening Moderates v. Conservatives hog trough we call politics today.
I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 81. Re: Idiocy Revealed | | | | by Adipic Acid | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 1:54pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 78 | | | | | |
I hope you didn't hurt yourself jumping the conclusion that I'm a "gutless liberal," since I consider myself one of those evil moderates you railed against. Gore was the least extreme of the two candidates, which is one of the reasons I selected him.
My personal beliefs are an interesting mix, probably closest to an old-fashioned Rooseveltian Republican, which is the reason I'm not registered as either a Democrat or a Republican.
For the record, I live in Maryland, so my vote was important to offset Virginia's electoral votes (MD and DC together have the same electoral votes as VA).
You still haven't challenged my core premise: this country would be better off if Gore had been elected. I'll now add this: If he wasn't trying to fight candidates to both his left and right during the general election, he might have carried Florida or Tennessee, and then the Supremes would have had nothing to say.
Finally, I could care less if there was a viable Liberal Party in this country, since I would probably find their candidates to be as scary as Bush.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 85. You make a compelling argument | | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 9:55pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 73 | | | | | |
for "instant runoff" elections. That said, the rest of your rebuttal is mostly rationalization.
Politics is the art of the possible, not a moral crusade. The Republican Party has ridden the "moral crusade" horse directly into the Whitehouse. But of course, I didn't characterize politics as a moral crusade. What I said was that when you (or anyone) bypasses voting for the person you think is best for the job, you shortchange yourself and your neighbors, and coincidentally perpetuate a system in which winners are decided by corporate interests.
In our system it is almost 100% probable that no candidate's views will be 100% coincident with mine. Were there candidates whose views aligned more closely to your own? If so, and you chose to vote for Gore instead, then you are precisely the part of the problem of which I was speaking about. Perhaps adhering to a maximalist definition of "compatible" will work for scoring points on Plastic, but we both know that you're willing to vote for someone whose views substantially don't align with yours-- why the sudden insistence that they must in order for you to vote for a "non-viable" (i.e. not Republican/Democrat) candidate? In short, a cop-out.
There were two candidates who had any chance whatsoever of winning. My point exactly. By deciding beforehand that only two candidates had a chance of winning, you attempt to cast your vote against one of those candidates. But what precludes any other candidate from winning beside the two? The public's willingness to swallow the story that "if that other guy wins, the world will end." The stranglehold on government held by the two major parties will only ever be broken when alternate parties begin to show power. And that will only happen when people like yourself decide to buck the system. Until then, all you're doing is using your vote to ratify a decision that has already been made by others prior to the election.
A group of people were telling me that there was no difference between the major party candidates, so it didn't matter if I voted for a candidate that had no chance of winning, since the results would be the same. . The Green Party lied. There was a difference between Bush and Gore, and that difference mattered. Really? Aside from intelligibility, I see very little difference in the substantive decisions the two would have made. As I stated before, Gore (as partner to Clinton) had eight years to push forward any progressive agenda he felt compelling. What was the result? Were, in fact, any of the progressive proposals touted by Clinton/Gore actually fought for and put into effect during their administration? Hardly. Yes, Bush appointed a narrow-minded, religiously intolerant fascist to the position of Attorney General. And yes, Bush has the opportunity to stack the Supreme Court in a conservative direction. Aside from that, there's very little difference.
Bush is curtailing free speech? Gore (of PMRC fame) has shown himself consistently to be an opponent of free speech.
Bush is stepping up the surveillance state? He's simply following in the footsteps of Clinton/Gore, who paved the way with calls for CALEA, the Clipper chip, etc.
Bush is increasing the ridiculous War on (Some) Drugs? Again, merely continuing the trend under Clinton/Gore.
Bush is unduly catering to corporate (especially energy company) interests? Gore had the opportunity to fight for the repeal of the 1872 Mining Act, but bowed to corporate pressure...
and so on.
In short, Bush is doing nothing that Gore (and Clinton) didn't already show the Democrats were willing to accept. In point of fact, there has been very little Democrat resistance to most of the changes implemented by Bush. So, yes, there was a difference between Gore and Bush; but, no, that difference really hasn't mattered. (yet.)
Do I wish the Democrats had run a better candidate? Hell yes. I also wish the Republicans had run a better one. Neither ever will. Unless you wake up to that fact and begin voting for the person you think best qualified to do the job, rather than the lesser of two evils, you will simply be fueling the system which ensures that neither party gives a shit.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 87. Re: You make a compelling argument | | | | by Adipic Acid | | | | at Fri 20 Sep 6:08am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 85 | | | | | |
Really? Aside from intelligibility, I see very little difference in the substantive decisions the two would have made.
I do not think we'd be looking at secret trials and detentions or any of Ashcroft's other shenaningans in a Gore administration. The FDA Commissioner would not have been asked to resign based on the fact that FDA approved RU-486 on her watch. And finally, he wouldn't be asking Congress for Gulf of Tonkin II: The Wrath of Dubbya.
But I guess none of that is "substantive." It still strikes me that Gore's dumbshit maneuvers would have been less damaging than Bush's.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 42. The real reason that Bush is more interested... | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 1:55pm | score of 1.5 funny | | | | | | |
...in political correctness than scientific qualifications in his science advisory personnel:
He and Dick Cheney are awaiting the results of those teams of alchemists working feverishly to produce gold from lead to cover the budget deficits incurred by the tax cuts.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 44. Musing out loud.... | | | | by gaspacho | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 2:12pm | score of 2 intriguing | | | | | | |
Islam vs. early Renaissance Europe; 19th cent. continental Europe (vs. the nascent USA and energetic UK); The 20th cent. Communist states vs. the First World.
Once the entrenched religious, political and/or economic powers within a dominant culture begin to dictate what kind of science and technology are permissible, that culture seems to decline.
We may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the American era.
socialism is bad!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 64. Re: Musing out loud.... | | | | by nuckferr | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 8:12pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 44 | | | | | |
Islam vs. early Renaissance Europe; 19th cent. continental Europe (vs. the nascent USA and energetic UK); The 20th cent. Communist states vs. the First World.
Once the entrenched religious, political and/or economic powers within a dominant culture begin to dictate what kind of science and technology are permissible, that culture seems to decline.
We may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the American era.
Entrenched? No. Not for more than four years (or at the most 8 due to presidential term limits). None of the dominant cultures you reference were democratic.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 65. Re: Musing out loud.... | | | | by gaspacho | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 9:29pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
Entrenched? No. Not for more than four years (or at the most 8 due to presidential term limits).
I'd point out that the "entrenchment" has to do with the structure of political parties, but then you'd just call me a "Naderite" or some other nasty name.
None of the dominant cultures you reference were democratic.
Neither is ours, really. At least not literally.
socialism is bad!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 77. Re: Musing out loud.... | | | | by nuckferr | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 11:11am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 65 | | | | | |
I'd point out that the "entrenchment" has to do with the structure of political parties, but then you'd just call me a "Naderite" or some other nasty name.
You no-good, vote wastin' Naderi...just kidding ; )
I agree that the political parties are entrenched, but I was thinking that the Republicans were much more guilty of this kind of bad science (and repression of the arts too) based on thier self-view as the morality police. I would think that if a Democratic administration were to come back in power that this sort of thing would stop.
Neither is ours, really. At least not literally.
Not literally, but it is roughly a democracy, except for Florida.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 83. Re: Musing out loud.... | | | | by Mad Ogger | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 5:57pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 77 | | | | | |
Actually, we get anti-science from both sides. Some on the right want to stop research with human cells, while some on the left want to stop research with nonhuman organisms. However, Europe seems to be even more against GM crops, so maybe in 100 years Europe and Africa will be starving, the US will be sick, and 150-year-old Asians will rule the world.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 50. elections | | | | by keanon | | | | at Wed 18 Sep 2:52pm | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
i can't wait until we reach a point where ecology and morality are integral factors in campaigns, from all parties.
sure, the world will be gray and ruined by then, but you know.
KEROUAC SAYS: He came out glassy eyed and calm, and sat down under his burning lamp.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 68. Waitin' for a Superman | | | | by chlim01 | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 1:25am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
"It's defeatist to harp on what might have been, and yet, it's hard to resist considering what might have been." While Christopher Reeve has reason to celebrate - he recently regained sensation and some degree of movement in his limbs despite the pessimism of his doctors - he remains extremely pissed with Dubya for sacrificing medical research on the altar of religion. As he points out: "If we'd had full government support, full government funding for aggressive research using embryonic stem cells from the moment they were first isolated ... I don't think it unreasonable to speculate that we might be in human trials by now."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 72. Scientific Debate by Negative? | | | | by Philosawyer | | | | at Thu 19 Sep 6:39am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Despite breaking taboo and taking the hits to my own Karma (I know I could use AI), in the context of this issue the modding patterns are relevant to this discussion. As they say, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (ie. rules occassionally should be broken). It is interesting to note the huge amount of negative modding in this thread of comments critical of the Bush Administration. Just a quick review that may not be complete reveals:
Beyond (yes two of my own):
Ernest333 2 comments modded down (including the ever interesting -overrated down to .5 for a comment that had never been rated)
captainebo's 2 comments modded down
1fastdog only comment modded down
cyguy only comment modded down
Several were modded down twice. The ever non-specific "overrated" seemed to be most popular.
A reminder: "Simply disagreeing with someone's opinion is not a legitimate reason to moderate it down."
And yes you dont need to remind me about "mod appeal" whether "corrected" or not, in this case it rises to the level of being relevant to the issue being discussed of the danger of scientific bias.
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
| Man, It's Hard To Even Bash Em
|
|
|
| (3 hrs, 18 mins ago) | -----=-o--- |
Sarah Palin stumps for Tx gub'ner, Rick Perry. The intellectually elite come out to show their support. - n29_w95 |
| Hot Air Aloft
|
|
|
| (Sun 7 Feb 11:34am) | -----=o---- |
Submitted for your consideration, the most intriguing idea for political communication in many a moon: The Peace Blimp. - Petronius |
|
