Oct 24 2007
Prev/Next Posts: « Launched! || Breaking news: sudden naked eye comet »
Bush league science again
George Bush is a criminal against humanity. It’s just that simple.
His Administration is trying to censor information about how global warming will affect the spread of disease:
Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House, according to two sources familiar with the documents.
Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
Instead, Gerberding’s prepared testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease. Only during questioning did the director of the government’s premier disease-monitoring agency describe any specific diseases likely to be affected, again without elaboration.
At what point do you draw the line for outrage? Not when stem cell research is crippled? Not when a diagnosis is given from the Senate floor and then lied about? Not when lies are spread about the efficacy of a safe, clean contraceptive, and opposite lies are spread about abstinence? How about the support of creationism, and the extreme weakening — I would call it the near-total destruction — of the wall between Church and State?
When do you finally get outraged?
I’ve been outraged for years, and I’m tired of it. That’s why I’m doing something about it. I write about it, and I write my political representatives about it.
Outrage is catalyst. It takes the fuel of logic and the necessity of action and makes them easier to combine. So be outraged, and take action. Make Congress get off their butts and do something about this.
Hat tip to C&L and Carpetbagger.
Some people say it’s “too late” in his term to start impeachment. I don’t think that even January 19, 2009 is too late.
If lying about getting a little something from an intern is impeachable, certainly at least one of the things Bush has done falls under that category as well.
Er, what lies exactly are told about abstinence? I don’t get it.
As to the wall between church and state, Article I of the bill of rights states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
Bush is not congress, so what exactly has he done that’s got you so riled up in this regard, and why does it rile you up?
I used to recommend my astronomy students to this website, years ago. This is the first time I’ve visited in a while, and I’m sad to say I will no longer be recommended this site. Since when did such one-sided politics about non-astronomical issues constitute “bad astronomy”? There seem to be fewer and fewer havens on the Internet where people can get information without being politically proselytized.
Out of curiosity, what lies are being spread about abstinence? That you can’t catch STDs or get pregnant by telepathy? Or that you won’t be harrassed by taunts like “virgin!” if you abstain?
Why in the hell did her remarks go through the White House in the first place? No one there is adequately qualified from a scientific perspective to alter the information her comments contained.
That’s like me writing a cookbook and sending it on to Phil to determine its veracity.
Almost, but not completely off topic: there’s a bad astronomy cartoon out today:
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/rubes
The lie about abstinence is that abstinence programs work. They do not work. In fact, they fail abysmally.
This is terribly dangerous because the same people lying that abstinence programs have an effect also tell the lie that birth control devices are not effective.
Sarah:
WTF?
In what way were you “politically proselytized?”
Phil’s post is about White House interference in a scientific report to Congress. Phil feels that is an outrage. You claim to be a science educator. Why are you not outraged by this?
Also, this is Phil’s blog. He can post about anything he damn well pleases. If you want a blog that is exclusively about astronomy, make one yourself.
Abstinence needs to have the religion teeth taken from it. If people would accept that some people simply want to abstain for completely secular reasons then it will become more accepted by people.
Oh, and more importantly - people who hoose to be abstinent (Like I was until I was 23 - I’ve only been with my wife!), should stop trying to bend everyone’s ear to be abstinent, too. (But I only did it (didn’t do it
) for me!!!)
Those news clips on Abstinence groups always get me annoyed - they always show pretty young girls who have signed a pledge. Where are the guys? Where are the people who have sex because they don’t feel pretty and just want to be wanted? Those are the people who should be taking a pledge - only a pledge to build up their own self-esteem, not to avoid sex.
Sorry, let me get off my soapbox. I feel strongly about this one and could write and write.
The dismaying thing is that there are so many who choose to ignore all of this. I am not talking about the fundamentalist Christians: I expect nothing else from them; they’ll distort anything (see posts above). I am talking about Republican loyalists who know better but still ignore it all simply because Bush is a Republican. My own brother is one of them.
It is disgusting.
Rob told me something a few months ago that stuck with me. He’d either seen it on something he was watching at the time or heard it on NPR on his way home that day. (I’ll have to ask him more details.) Basically, republicans have admitted that they impeached Clinton knowing that it was over something trivial, *simply* to make future impeachments carry less weight and also seem silly.
History will look back and show exactly when we went from being a republic to being an empire.
Sarah,
Every scientific study done shows that abstinence programs are ineffective. If you really cared about the problem, you would be looking for solutions, not furthering religious wishful thinking.
Out of curiosity, what lies are being spread about abstinence?
Only one that I’ve noticed…
That abstinence is a reasonable expectation of hormone-addled creatures.
Yes, some people may choose abstinence, but the simple reality is that abstinence is never, ever going to catch on as a widespread behaviour. Consequently, while it’s probably worth noting that you can’t get pregnant via telepathy, it’s more worthwhile spending time on teaching people how to prevent pregnancies and disease when they have the sex that they WILL have.
Sarah,
Here’s a BA post that responds the first part of your post
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/15/politics-science-me-and-thee/
I don’t think there are any lies about ‘abstinence’ per se, but there are certainly lies about the efficacy of abstinence programs in preventing STDs and teenage pregnancies, which Phil was doubtless referring to in shorthand.
My only quibble would be that the stem-cell research decisions are not examples (as far as I know) of bad science, but of making decisions on ethical/moral grounds that led to the halting of research. Where science raises ethical/moral issues, it must be the place of politicians to decide (as the representatives of the people) whether such research should be permitted. Sorting out moral gray areas is not something science can do. I may be wrong as I’ve not listened closely to everything Bush et al. have said on the matter, but unless they have actually made scientifically false claims about stem-cell research, then I don’t think it deserves a place in the list.
Send an email to Sen. Barbara Boxer as well as your representatives since she chaired the committee that heard Julie L. Gerberding’s testimony. Though Sen. Boxer has issued a statement critical of the White House’s censorship of the study, and demanding the full, unedited copy, her office needs to know of public outrage.
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/index.cfm
Abstinence-only programs not only don’t work, they actively spread the dangerous notion that condoms are *worse* than useless. While it is perfectly fine to explain the facts about condoms, and that they are not 100% safe, what young kids are being told is so distorted (e.g. that condoms provide no protection against HIV) that they end up being afraid of using them at all.
I have no problem with teaching abstinence. It is obviously the only sure way to avoid teen pregnancies, HIV, and other STDs, but it should be taught as part of a comprehensive sex education program so that kids know how to protect themselves when they do decide to take the plunge (which almost all of them do in the end anyway).
You would think that Christians who advocate abstinence-only would have gotten a clue by now, given the wonderful examples given by those fine, upstanding Christians, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, and David Vitter (to name but three of hundreds). If even these supposedly virtuous people can’t keep their zippers zipped, how do they expect a bunch of hormone-ridden teenagers to do so, especially in today’s highly sexualized culture?
This is just another example of how wrong-headed religious dogma disguised as education can be. Back when I was growing up in Glasgow, Scotland, Catholic boys would often tell their Protestant girlfriends that they had to go on the pill before they could have sex because it was against their religion to use condoms. (Much more seriously, the spread of HIV in South America is reaching epidemic proportions because of the same idiotic evil Catholic doctrine.)
[…] Clark Bush league science again » This Summary is from an article posted at Bad Astronomy Blog on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 […]
Wasn’t there a sitcom a while back with the line:
Some choose abstinance, others merely have it thrust upon them!
“Outrage is catalyst. It takes the fuel of logic and the necessity of action and makes them easier to combine.”
Really? Doesn’t the Law of Attraction say that that’ll just give you more of the same? That fighting or pushing against something only gives you more of it? That’s what they said in that movie, The Secret…
Oh, wait, that’s Bogosity, as the upcoming Episode 6 will show. ;^)
By the way, the founder of one of the government backed abstinence-only programs, “The Silver Ring Thing”, is on record as saying that he would not advise his own daughter to use protection even if she told him she was just about to have sex with her boyfriend. He would rather she suffer the full consequences of her actions, be it disease, pregnancy, or even death.
Abstinence-only programs are not about sex education, they are about indoctrinating kids into believing that sexual activity is sinful. If they break the commandments of God, they deserve to suffer. These people care more about kids going to Hell when they die, than any thought to finding the best way to protect their health and wellbeing.
Thank goodness Sagan can’t see this, or he’d probably throw up.
If “abstinence only” is sex education, then telling a toddler “just hold it” counts as potty training.
You’re talking about people who oppose a vaccine against potentially fatal Human Papillomavirus because they don’t want to eliminate a consequence of premarital sex. Got that? They would rather people die than make sex safer.
What else do you need to know? They’re evil; resist them. If they speak, don’t trust anything they say.
This would’ve been a great time for Dr. Gerberding to stand up to the Whitehaus. Too Bad.
AFAIK, there is only one “truth” in teaching abstinence — that it is the closest thing to a 100% guarantee of not getting pregnant or getting an STD. (Note “closest thing to 100%”, not “100%”.) Beyond that, what’s to “teach”?
A major problem with abstinence-only classes (and if you dare to teach anything else, you lose your federal funding) is that they are forbidden from teaching anything other than abstinence. Condoms? Sorry, they’re dangerous. The pill? Sorry, can’t talk about that. Abortion? You’ll be condemned to eternal damnation. Adoption? Sorry, but you’ve already sinned by having sex in the first place.
Not only that but, as I understand it, study after study have shown that kids taught “abstinence only”, or who sign abstinence pledges, are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies than those who are taught that there are choices. (Yes, abstinence is one of those choices. But it’s not the only one.)
And, as pointed out elsethread, the “abstinence-only” requirement is only one of many religious-based laws/directives/whatever being imposed by this president.
[…] Nile Virus Bush league science again » This Summary is from an article posted at Bad Astronomy Blog on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 […]
It’s only Wednesday, and I’ve already seen two examples of this sort of thing. On Monday, CNN ran an article about the administration blocking publication of a NASA air safety report.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/22/nasa.air.safety.ap/index.html
Yes, once again the government is forcing NASA to suppress research.
Kevin F., those news clips showing “pretty young girls who have signed a pledge” also never seem to have followup interviews, say, two years later showing just how many of them have kept that pledge.
Ken B, your 100% comment made me think of something:
The same people who teach “abstinence only” as the best preventative of pregnancy are the same people who believe it didn’t work for Mary.
It made me giggle. Has anyone else ever noticed that?
[…] Mine Bush league science again » This Summary is from an article posted at Bad Astronomy Blog on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 […]
Phil,
nother victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Anthropogenic global warming is utter rubbish. The planet was warmer in hundreds of years ago. James Hansen is a shill for George Soros and his methods are highly questionable.
Sarah: Please don’t leave prints on the door as it hits you on your way out. If you’re a real science teacher and are not currently outraged, YOU’RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
ALL STUDIES have shown that abstinence programs do not work. People are going to have sex. These young girls giving their little pledges don’t impress me one bit; as was said, how many follow ups have been done? The truth is these are young, naive individuals who may have never even been offered sex. The moment they hit college and the opportunities arise, my guess is going to be that the pledge is quickly broken. It would be nice if these girls knew about safe sex practices so as to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
I had my fair share of fun in college, and I never once contracted an STD or got anyone pregnant. The reason being that I was responsible and had been taught in sex ed in school the proper way to put on a condom and where to get them. Now I admit that I had a sizing issue the first go round, which gives for funny stories, but point being is that I was prepared thanks to my education.
This religious-based administration needs to be dropped in favor of logic and reasoning. I don’t care if you opt to remain abstinent or not, but don’t force your ideas on to me, esp. when they are directly contradicted by the evidence.
Since I can’t stay silent about this:
Regardless of constitutionality or unconstitutionality, it’s immoral and unethical to mix government and religion. It leads to all sorts of civil rights abuses. This isn’t about what’s legal. This is about what’s right
Wish I had a time machine so that I could warn the founding fathers to rephrase it to include all three branches. Presidential power expanded a lot since then.
This is very much an outrage, Phil.
Bush, or at least his croonies, deserve punishment for this dispicable behavior. They are pushing their power TOO far. You’d think they’d have learned from when they were caught earlier!
I wouldn’t call it Bush league science. More like “Bush ANTI-science”.
I can only guess he REALLY wants to be loathed.
Bill,
As long as Bush is below Nixon numbers, there is only one group of deranged people in the US, people who aren’t letting that number hit bottom.
Even if AGCC is utter rubbish, which has been demonstrated time and time again to be valid, the administration has no right to make that determination. What you aren’t getting is that the President oversteps his bounds at every opportunity. Or to quote a few select individuals a long time ago,
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.”
Dan said:
> Why in the hell did her remarks go through the White House in the first place?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are a department within the Executive Branch of government. As such, they report to the President, and thus the White House Office of Management and Budget was providing oversight. This is similar to the same chain of command that has the General in charge of the situation in Iraq report to Congress via the Commander In Chief, i.e. His Presidency.
Kevin F. said:
> Abstinence needs to have the religion teeth taken from it. If people would accept that some people simply want to abstain for completely secular reasons then it will become more accepted by people.
Perhaps true, but irrelevant. The issue is not a stigma associated with abstinence, the issue is “education programs” that focus on abstinence only and tell falsehoods about other methods of birth control and safe sex practices.
Rob said:
> I may be wrong as I’ve not listened closely to everything Bush et al. have said on the matter, but unless they have actually made scientifically false claims about stem-cell research, then I don’t think it deserves a place in the list.
Well actually, Bush claimed to have examined the matter and determined that scientists feel the existing stem cell lines are adequate to support all research, and thus enacted the limitation against culturing new stem cell lines. However, this is a falsehood. It was well known by the doctors doing the research that many of the existing lines are not viable, and that only a handful are useful. Therefore, the “scientific” justification to support his religious/moral decision was false.
Thanks Irishman, you saved me from having to explain some of the basics of government to these folks.
Be sure to check the approval rating of Congress as well. Our government is in a bit of a mess, and it’s not due to one party or person.
@Irishman
Don’t forget all the lies that adult stem cells are as good or better than embryonic ones. There have been some possible recent advancements in adult stem cells, but at the time it was very much a lie.
@ Sarah
Appears you need some educating on the subject of abstinence. I highly recommend the following site:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove
Enjoy.
/ITMFA
There is something seriously wrong when the President of the United States is labeled ‘a criminal against humanity’ because ‘Heavy Editing is Alleged in Climate Testimony’.
People like Hitler and Pol Pot were guilty of crimes against humanity. How does disagreement on the causes of global warming match up to the death camps or murdering a quarter of your country’s population? (Although I certainly know from previous discussions here that no one can be a global warming skeptic, just a ‘denier’; is there a connection?)
Does all this hateful rhetoric really help anything? Can’t we Americans, blue and red staters, disagree anymore without hating and demeaning the other side? It seems to me that intelligent, well-meaning people do sometimes have different opinions and beliefs. Is it really necessary or healthy to indulge in the fantasy that everyone we disagree with is evil, demented or stupid?
I haven’t seen anyone here mention any comparison between Bush and Hitler or Pol Pot besides you Michael. Someone can be a criminal against humanity without being in their league.
This isn’t about disagreeing. This is about one side lying and the other side getting upset about it. This wouldn’t been an issue if this was an honest disagreement. But one side obviously feels it is acceptable to lie, blatantly, to promote their own side of the disagreement. They feel it is necessary to hide the facts, to suppress views that disagree with theirs, and to force their position upon everyone else without any basis for it. And people are dieing because of it, and far more will die in the future.
@Michael
“(Although I certainly know from previous discussions here that no one can be a global warming skeptic, just a ‘denier’; is there a connection?)”
Yup, it’s the same connection between AIDS skeptics and denialists, they’re one and the same. The most you can be is skeptical of the precise level of human impact. When Bush takes it upon himself to stop people from publishing questions of essential human impact, then he is as much an enemy of humanity as Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa, and AIDS denialist.
Also, when the president violates FISA, he is at least impeachable for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. When he authorizes torture which frequently (not occasionally) finds innocents: He is in violation of the “Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” as determined by congress (their right under Article I Section 8), and thus an enemy of humanity. When he calls for war (an indisputably terrible thing) without necessity and goes so far as to fabricate evidence for necessity. He becomes an enemy of humanity if not by malice or intent, but by sheer thoughtlessness.
This is not a mere matter of disagreement. The president has been wrong, frequently and consistently, and there simply aren’t two sides to this anymore.
“They feel it is necessary to hide the facts, to suppress views that disagree with theirs, and to force their position upon everyone else without any basis for it. And people are dieing because of it, and far more will die in the future.”
It’s funny. Reading this out of context I honestly believe this to be Al Gore’s behavior.
There is no consensus in science. If his argument is really that air-tight, wouldn’t he be debunking these people (using facts) left and right? Instead he puts up broadcasts on CurrentTV saying that “there is no debate”. Sound familiar? There is no war against Eurasia.
Impeachment would be an exercise in uselessness. There aren’t the majorities/super majorities in both house of congress to Impeach and convict Bush. A thought experiment as to whether or not impeachment is a relevant path of action? Would the president in fact be tried for the crime after he leaves office? For example if Bush is breaking laws, he can be prosecuted after his term is up impeachment or not. The short answer is most of us don’t like him, and morally he is in fact a criminal but ultimately his trial will be done in history and he will in fact be considered one of the worst if not the worst president in history, he will not in fact be prosecuted criminally.
In addition the impeachment of Clinton was a waste of time. Lying about ones sex life doesn’t measure up either (and in addition it was pretty clear that there wasn’t a super majority in the senate which wouldn’t lead to a successful removal from office.)
@Troy,
Sometimes acts of futility are worthwhile in their crucial symbolism. If you think about it, it’s the same with voting. Statistically, your vote makes no difference. On another level, that doesn’t matter to you (or at least me).
I also think we could get an impeachment if the Democrats grew some frakkin’ cajones and someone held the media’s feet to the fire.
I think that Bush should be given the benfit of the doubt. He should not be impeached at all. Rather, after his term of office is over, he should be clandestinely apprehended, denied legal counsel, never be aware of the charges against him, and then illegally shipped off to some third-world hell-hole where a confession will be beaten out of him (the nature of the confession is, in these cases, irrelevant. Any confession of wrongdoing is retroactively able to justify the torture).
Everyone involved is, by the president’s own policies, shown to be heroically intervening to stop further terrorism.
I’m angry for you guys too. The U.S is usually a peek into the future of what is going to happen in other western countries. I’m am arming my mind with the best arguments to debate the followers of these Neo Cons in my area.
Sarah,
Well said. I strongly suggest you teach your students a simple drill to help them fend off political indoctrination by the likes of Phil. Simply instruct them to place one finger in each ear and repeat “Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah, I can’t hear you” for five minutes every day. This should keep them safe from leftie polemicists like Phil P.
Sticking your fingers in their ears and saying “nah, nah, nah,… I can’t hear you”… is the same infantile tactics that this criminal, deceitful and reprehensible administration and it’s sychophantic enablers have been doing for over six years. Live in obstinate denial of reality… that is what religious wackos and their political ilk do every day.
Much of our American culture today is centered around convenient supernatural myths and fables of certitude to keep us naively confident of our supposed moral superiority and divine exceptional status as Christians and in complete denial so we don’t have to face taking responsibility for our actions.
Well, I’d have to say the subsequent comments have answered my question.
“This isn’t about disagreeing. This is about one side lying and the other side getting upset about it. ”
I could say the same thing about Al Gore (I’m thinking particularly of the 23′ sea rise and the supposed link to Katrina). Does that justify me demonizing him? Or is it okay to lie as long as it serves your ‘greater truth’?
“The most you can be is skeptical of the precise level of human impact.”
That is precisely what I am skeptical about, and I have always been clear about that. Still I get called a ‘denier’. However, if you believe the human impact to be relatively trivial, then the thought of spending trillions of dollars to accomplish virtually nothing is somewhat upsetting. But what I find truly disturbing is that you can’t debate the level of human impact without be labelled as a tool of the oil industry or a ‘denier’. I find I can’t even ask a question without hearing ‘the debate is over!’. I don’t think that’s very good science.
@schowster
“There is no consensus in science. If his argument is really that air-tight, wouldn’t he be debunking these people (using facts) left and right?”
Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and therefore he uses a politician’s tools (e.g. rhetoric) instead of a scientist’s tools.
More importantly, he doesn’t need to do the debunking because many scientists already are. See the following two sites for example:
http://www.realclimate.org
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Note that the second site has quite a bit to say on your statement that “there is no consensus”.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49
Of course you might not be able to handle the ugly truth - that we as a species have apparently really screwed up our planet - in which case you can go on believing the fairy stories that it’s all a hoax, or we didn’t do it, or it won’t be that bad. Just don’t keep telling others that your fairy stories are real unless you’ve got compelling evidence to prove it.
@schowster
That is exactly what is happening. All their arguments have been soundly debunked over and over and over. The problem is that they do not care. The facts don’t matter. They have their position and they will continue to hold it no matter what. That is the definition of a denialist. Evolution denialist, AIDS denialist, vaccine denialist, global warming denialist. It is not about the facts so debunking does not work no matter how often anyone does it. In all these cases the debunking is constant and thorough. But the denialist throw out oversimplified or downright wrong talking points because they know they know the talking points will convince people who don’t understand the issues.
But there is a scientific consensus, even if you don’t trust the IPCC there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature and the National Academy of Sciences, and American Association for the the Advancement of science (by far the two most prestigious scientific organizations in the U.S.), as well the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union (the most prestigious organizations in the country dealing with weather and Earth sciences, respectively) all have released position statements explicitly agreeing with the IPCC report, not to mention another couple of dozen major national and international general scientific, meteorologic, atmospheric, Earth, and ocean sciences organizations from the U.S. and around the world have done the same. If that isn’t a scientific consensus then what is?
Many though on the “other side” persist in being deniers or obstructionists not out of wanting to get to the scientific facts but to find another excuse for no action at all so that we don’t have to acknowledge any responsibility for what we do to this planet and each other. The fact is we are ALL responsible to some degree for the state of the environment good or bad. People like Gore are trying get us all to acknowledge this “inconvenient truth”. If we can get that out of the way then we can get to the specifics of what actions need to be done, hopefully in the most efficent and effective way.
It is to live in denial to believe that we are the only organism on this planet that can exist without having an effect on the health of the system we depend on for our existence.
This denial is another example of our mythical seperation from nature which thanks to religion gives us the delusion that it doesn’t matter what we do because some supernatural big daddy will take care of it all we just pray enough. This is the same people who have pray vigils to relieve the severe droughts we are experiencing in the southeast. I think if there is a God of this complex universe he would be insulted by the stupidity of a species that hold such ridiculous ideas about him and his supposely selective and capricious behavior.
I’ll play devil’s advocate on just a couple things here because I agree with most of what has been said.
>>> History will look back and show exactly when we
>>> went from being a republic to being an empire.
It was (will be) in 2061 when the giant bees emerge.
For you kids out there who might still be alive, I hope you like honey and communicating by waggling your butt around.
Well, I guess some of you Brittney-Bratz already do the latter.
But seriously, as much as I side with the sentiments of Phil and others on this issue, I’m not yet ready to call the USA a police state or empire or whatever the politically charged word du jour is.
>>> Sometimes acts of futility are worthwhile
>>> in their crucial symbolism.
So paint an angry picture or write a protest song or immolate yourself in front of the White House. Putting the country through another national show trial is not in the best interests at this time (or *any* time for that matter).
>>> a global warming skeptic
That’s what I consider myself, sort of. I think GW is happening, and humanity has some added effect, but I don’t buy into the apocalyptic hysteria.
Oh, and I don’t suckle up to the Al Gore Personality Cult. He’s just another useless politician seeking attention to me. I concern myself strictly with what scientists in relevant fields have to say.
>>> There is no war against Eurasia.
Well, dammit, get those troops mobilized!
We can’t let those Eurasi-ites get complacent!
>>> Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and therefore he
>>> uses a politician’s tools (e.g. rhetoric)
Rhetoric is a tool like a bullet to the head is brain surgery.
>>> Does that justify me demonizing him? Or is it
>>> okay to lie as long as it serves your ‘greater truth’?
Oh, I have heard and read political pundits claim exactly that. I wish I had a handy link to cite, but it was always in a book or television commentary on CSPAN or some similar talking head channel.
There are entire ideological thoughtscapes out there that find “strategic lies” and demonization of opponents to be perfectly acceptable behavior for grown, educated adults. They will even demonize people on their own side who deviate even a millimeter from the Party line.
Sometimes this can be a good thing. Currently, I am advocating a Giuliani victory in the GOP primaries. Not because I have any particular love for the guy, but because the religious woowoos are threatening to quit the GOP and go start their own Party if Giuliani.
Amen to THAT plan, brother!
Maybe they’d leave behind a Republican Party I could support again.
QD,
Republicans controlled everything for years and bankrupted the country. Why do you still support them? (And, no, I am not advocating supporting Democrats, who are too spineless).
>>> Why do you still support them?
Umm… I didn’t say I did. I said *maybe* I *could* if they got rid of the religious woos. There would also have some clear sign of fiscal sanity.
Governments always try and put their spin on things. If you feel they’re doing wrong, by all means write your congressman, vote differently, write an editorial, make a note on your blog etc. I’m also not aware of anyone in the states who wanted to publish something being kept from doing so. The melodrama doesn’t really help anyone.
Sometimes the comments on this blog sound like a bunch of school kids. They can be amusing though.
“Umm… I didn’t say I did. I said *maybe* I *could* if they got rid of the religious woos. There would also have some clear sign of fiscal sanity.”
I agree. Although there won’t be…the country has been bought and paid for, I’m afraid.
I work for CDC, and the testimony, including a number of visual aids not in the redacted version, is available on the CDC internet:
http://www.cdc.gov/washington/testimony/media_files/2007_10_23_climate_hearing.pdf
On the CDC Intranet, there are a number of links about the controversy, which explain things a bit more. Unfortunately, persons outside the CDC firewall cannot access the intranet.
CDC spokemen, however, have stated that most of the important points which were removed from the prepared testimony, were addressed in the Q&A. What really needed to be stated, was stated.
Tough bananas, buddy. It is about what is legal. What is right? How do you know it’s right? Care to make a case? All you did was claim that something was true without supporting it in the least.
The point of the religion part of the First Amendment was to prevent the government from banning any religions, and to prevent government from establishing a particular government religion. Bush cannot do anything by himself in this regard. It’s entirely in the hands of Congress. If you don’t like it, then get them to change the constitution.
Same thing for gun control. If you don’t like it, repeal the Second Amendment. If you can’t, then tough bananas, that’s the law.
Take a banana and stick it up your…(you know the rest)
QD,
“That’s what I consider myself, sort of. I think GW is happening, and humanity has some added effect, but I don’t buy into the apocalyptic hysteria.”
The image that popped into my head when I read that was a cartoon of a man standing on a beach with his back to the ocean. Behind him is a huge tsunami ready to crash over him, and he’s saying “I don’t buy into the apocalyptic hysteria,” to several terrified people that are running away.
“Oh, and I don’t suckle up to the Al Gore Personality Cult. He’s just another useless politician seeking attention to me. I concern myself strictly with what scientists in relevant fields have to say.”
This is what puzzles me about your comments on the whole GW issue. The scientists in the relevant fields are the ones saying it’s probably going to get really bad. The ones saying it’s all hysteria and everything will be fine are the useless politicians.
I understand where you’re coming from - I used to be a Republican too, but I stopped voting for them when I realized how far they’d strayed from their roots. Strip them of the irrational religious nutjobs and all that remains are self-serving plutocrats who will run the government to the benefit of whoever has the most money.
The Democrats are much the same. In terms of campaign financing, foreign policy, fiscal policy, and size of government, I figure there’s pretty much no difference between the two parties.
That leaves things like social issues, environment, separation of church and state, and health care - all of which the Republicans appear to approach with a “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind’s made up” viewpoint.
>>> I agree. Although there won’t be…
Oh, you never know. Pendulums swing. If you could resurrect Goldwater and show him the GOP today, he’d instantly die again from a stroke. Could say the same thing about any pre-1970 Democrat probably.
A lot of people like me voted Democrat last election to punish the Reps, and now the Dems reward us with talk of the largest income tax increase since lords of the manor could go out and collect taxes from the serfs under penalty of death by sword.
>>> the country has been bought and paid for, I’m afraid.
Well, as a real estate investor, I can’t complain too much there.
“Take a banana and stick it up your…(you know the rest)”
Well thought and reasoned response.
@ben,
“The point of the religion part of the First Amendment was to prevent the government from banning any religions, and to prevent government from establishing a particular government religion. Bush cannot do anything by himself in this regard. It’s entirely in the hands of Congress. If you don’t like it, then get them to change the constitution.”
Have you heard about the Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives? Bush put it into place as a way to channel government money to religious organizations - a way of favoring one religion over another and thereby establishing a de facto government religion. No need to change the constitution for this. We just need congress to cut funding for programs that violate the separation of church and state. If they won’t then we need to vote in people who will.
“Same thing for gun control. If you don’t like it, repeal the Second Amendment. If you can’t, then tough bananas, that’s the law.”
Individual states and municipalities can legally put restrictions on firearms - who can own them, who can carry them, etc. No need to change the constitution here either.
The constitution was carefully designed to limit the power of the federal government. Why in the world would anyone (other than a megalomaniac) want to weaken it?
Carneby Fudge aka Ben above.(via link to his blog)
Mix religious wacko and self-pro-claimed gun nut…wow…
Christianity’s finest on parade. I am sure Yahweh will be proud of such exemplary representatives.
QD,
“A lot of people like me voted Democrat last election to punish the Reps, and now the Dems reward us with talk of the largest income tax increase since lords of the manor could go out and collect taxes from the serfs under penalty of death by sword.”
Huh? I haven’t seen anything about increasing taxes - unless you count letting Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy expire. I make a good living and I think those cuts saved me at most a hundred dollars. When he was running in 2004, Kerry talked about increasing taxes for those making more than $100k a year (or was it $200k). Considering how well the over $100k group has done in the past 8 years, I think they could sacrifice a little for their country in time of national crisis.
Besides, just how is our country to pay for the $200,000,000,000 that is being spent on the war? The money’s got to come from somewhere.
I haven’t the time to read and respond to every comment here in detail. It’s interesting that so often when a person ventures to criticize the content of a post/article, someone invariably comes along with the obvious tidbit that this site belongs to so-and-so and s/he may post whatever s/he wants, as though this never occurred to anyone who ever posted a commented at a website. This puts aside the fact that websites such as these are obviously here for public consumption, claim to be providing a service of some kind, and therefore are implicitly inviting comments as to the usefulness/appropriatness of the material. If the authors of this website do not want to be criticized, then perhaps there should be a disclaimer indicating that the comments sections are to be regarded as echo chambers for assenting opinions or non-contradictory questions only.
As to the specific points, first, I teach university astronomy, not public policy or political science. I used to refer students here so that they could learn about common misconceptions about astronomy. As much as some of my colleagues believe they have a bully pulpit in their classrooms, I have a strict policy of keeping politics (and religion) out of my classroom as much as possible. My students pay to learn astronomy from me, not to hear my particular slant on unresolved political topics, and that goes for any secondary material I promote in my courses.
Second, the way the “abstinence lies” comment was phrased, it’s vague at best about what exactly it’s referring to. Perhaps the *efficacy* of abstinence is not very good, but that wasn’t made clear. That abstinence programs may be less than effective in the USA only indicates that they are unsuccessful in *promoting* abstinence. Abstinence itself is guaranteed 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STDs. The question is, whether you can actually get people to be abstinent, the success of which (or lack thereof) is much more a reflection of the current state of our culture and of parenting than anything else.
Post-sexual revolution dogma holds that one should have as few restrictions placed on one’s behavior as possible. Afterall, we’re all filled with surging, nigh-implacable hormones. However, the cognitive dissonance arises from the fact that we have unacceptable rates of AIDS and other STD infections, unwanted pregnancies, etc., all of which demonstrate that unrestricted behavior is not without its consquences. It’s wishful thinking to believe these can be cured with condoms and pills — if they could, we would have seen it by now. Instead, dogmatists believe that if it didn’t work the first dozen times, you should keep doing it more, only HARDER, and the problem gets progressively worse. Here’s an example of the opposite. As you are no doubt aware, the proliferation of AIDS is an enormous problem in sub-Saharan Africa. The only nation that has been successful in reducing the AIDS infection rate is Uganda, which embarked on an aggressive abstinence and monogamy programme two decades ago. Since condoms and other “safe sex” panaceas have proven ineffective in Africa, Ugandans realized that to curb AIDS a major cultural change had to take place, and they have had success as a result. But this result contradicts the dogma, so we ignore it and keep doing what we’ve been doing only harder.
It’s true that this is not my website, and I certainly cannot dictate what is posted here. Nor would I want to. There are a dozen other worthy astronomy websites that do not exhibit what is now commonly referred to as Bush Derangement Syndrome, which sadly seems to have overtaken many otherwise fine minds and produced this unfortunate tendency to fixate on anything even remotely connected with Bush (of whom I am no admirer, by the way). But, please, do carry on. I will redirect my students to a more politically neutral site. I am sad for the change that has taken place here, as it seems pathetically pointless for BA — which had a nice thing going at one time — to give such superficial treatment to topics that are covered much better and much more thoroughly elsewhere. I wish you luck.
This is not in reply to Sarah but why is that when liberals and others have legitmate but acknowledged harsh criticisms of Bush that they are considered “deranged” but rabid, foaming at the mouth criticisms of someone like Gore is considered to be in-depth anaylysis coming from the bobbing screaming heads on places like Fox News?
Just another ways neo-cons use dis-information and smear tactics to cover up denial…. a favorite disingenuous tactic of the right wing talk shows of that network and other sources.
It should be it embarrasement that anyone of intergrity would continue to support the blatant deceptions and total incompetence of this administration .
I agree with Phil’s sentiments that many of us are completely fed up with the deceit and dis-information of the administration and their “buddies” of the corporate and right wing religious world. Our acquiscence to allow their machinations over these years is bringing this country down in shame.
No one has any problem with criticism of the content of the posts here, Phil least of all. That is part of what this site is all about. Criticism is not only accepted but encouraged. What people have a problem with is when someone comes along and says Phil is not allowed to post a certain sort of article (always articles taking positions they do not like). Phil is allowed to post any sort of article he wants, and other people are free to criticize those articles in any way they want (as long as they use reasonably clean language). But it should be criticism of the content of the article, not its very existence. Criticism is good, censorship is bad.
@ QD,
Keeping in mind that you are Devil’s Advocate, and I use “you” objectively and not personally :
The reason we need another “show trial” is that it isn’t. There is a vast difference between a man perjuring himself about an oral interlude (I can’t think of a better way to put that on a SFK blog) and a man who has in fact done things that go beyond harming his political career, but which genuinely violate the very fabric with which this country was made. Note the word “crucial” in the phrase. There are dozens of protests and angry war songs. It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans unless there is a real chance of deterring this president, or since we are in the eleventh hour, future presidents. Impeachment proceedings are not to be taken lightly, but you are a fool to think that the actions of this man are to be taken lightly. What if it results in nothing? If it does, it is through the inaction of people who merely agree and nod their heads and say throw their hands up in the air. There has never been an easier time to marginalize this president and his policies. We cannot permit a vocal and pernicious minority sabotage any justice meted out by a true majority.
I’ve lived in countries where the people have little to no say in their government. I guarantee you we take what we have for granted.
@ Michael: When I wrote the phrase “precise level”, I was afraid you would misconstrue it the way you did. I’m not familiar with or simply don’t remember your previous comments, and since you don’t have a blog of your own, there is no way for me magically read your mind and determine your position on the matter. I’m not going to go on a search to find all of your comments on the blog and figure out your position. I have to make assumptions and since you haven’t bothered to be any clearer I’ll make another one: You say it’s trivial in terms of human impact, fine, in what sense?
In the sense that humans are not responsible for x percent of GCC?
Or in the sense that GCC will not have a large impact on humans in the end?
Either way note that skepticism is based on evidence. If you bang your head against the evidence, you’re a denier. If you are in favor of impeding the collection or dissemination of a growing body of evidence, then you’re engaging in one of the worst aspects of a denier: The refusal to admit new evidence into the aggregate body of knowledge. I call this the “fingers in ears” attribute. Don’t tell me I do the same: I’m all in favor of the publication of a piece of scientific information, you are against it apparently.
“Mix religious wacko”
Religious Wacko? Me? What’s that all about? What is it that makes me a “religious wacko”?
“Individual states and municipalities can legally put restrictions on firearms - who can own them, who can carry them, etc. No need to change the constitution here either.”
Maybe, but I’m hoping for incorporation, just like freedom of speech and the rest. Might happen with Parker/Heller.
@Sarah,
“I teach university astronomy, not public policy or political science. I used to refer students here so that they could learn about common misconceptions about astronomy. As much as some of my colleagues believe they have a bully pulpit in their classrooms, I have a strict policy of keeping politics (and religion) out of my classroom as much as possible.”
As a university student who does study political science let me say that I’m glad I don’t have professors like you. Most of my professors understand that I am quite capable of thinking for myself and will frequently refer me to resources that may have political asides. This includes non-political science professors. They include a disclaimer that they do not endorse content unrelated to the course. When Paul Krugman who authored one of my economics textbooks, came to my university to speak on health care, my Econ professor told us of the event and informed us fairly that Krugman is a strong liberal politically (as opposed to economically). My professors frequently let me make up my own mind about the politics associated with certain resources. As for “Bush Derangment Sydrome”, I think maybe you should continue your education and get a couple of refresher classes on rhetoric under your belt. I’m sure staff can get tuition waivers.
Also, I have personal experience when it comes to the matter of abstinence-only education. I used to live in an entire society where abstinence-only was emphasized. It doesn’t work, period. The other people commenting here have the statistics. I have the anecdotes. I’m not sure if you are in favor of abstinence only education, or simply in favor of abstinence. However, the sex-ed courses that are not abstinence-only always emphasize abstinence as the single most effective method of disease and pregnancy prevention. I haven’t seen a single sex-ed program that doesn’t stress abstinence and partner permanence and limitation as the best methods. They simply have the audacity- the gall, to give young folk knowledge about what else is out there. Then again, we all know where you stand on letting people reach their own conclusions. When would you like me to drink the hemlock?
Do idiot liberals actually teach their 5 yr old kids about
unnatural behavior such as homosexuality? It seems they do..
Absitnence is the only way kids wont get in trouble — keep feeding them trash and they’ll end up in the gutter.
>> give young folk knowledge about what else is out there.>>
What else is out there?
Nothing.
Don’t spread disease, dont catch diseases .. - don’t have sex ..use a condom if you really have to…
It wont work - these kids having kids are too stupid (or their parents are too stupid) to listen.
@ben
Ok well let’s just say, in my opinion, that some of your blogsite links and associated rhetoric would not exactly place you as part of the Christian “moderate” way
@ observer
That is simply incorrect. Comprehensive sex education programs have been shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence-only programs have been shown to have no effect on either, even the opposite effect in some cases.
@observer:
No one is talking about homosexuality - your bigotry is showing. And while abstinence is the only 100% guarantee of not catching babies or other STDs, that does not mean that teaching abstinence only is even close to 100% effective at influencing the behavior of young people or achieving the desired objectives. If you actually give a crap about the important goals you mention (disease/pregnancy), then the only reasonable conclusion is that sex ed needs to include things other than simply “DON’T HAVE SEX”.
@ H.L. Which blogsite links??? I link to Tim Lambert, A gay Gun Nut, who are anything but religious or wacko’s, and a bunch of other gun nuts. It’s true that I’m a gun nut, but a religious wacko? There’s a link to Francis Porretto, but he’s just a run of the mill Catholic.
I’m just a run of the mill Christian. I try to align my morals with the New Testament, and I don’t try to force it on others, and neither do I judge anyone else’s sins worse than my own. “Christians” who act like A-holes, especially like the idiots who protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers, are not following the Bible.
I just don’t see any legal basis for anyone here being upset for Bush and the separation of church and state issue. If the law made it more clear, then that would be fine. But it doesn’t.
How old are these ‘young people’ who need to be taught about sex?
If they are having sex - they should ALREADY know about condoms/contracept etc ..
Bush does not have to teach the kids about this .. their parents do.. okk …
Take responsibility for your own damn kids … You don’t need to spend a dime on sex education..
My comment on homos - 2 consenting adults can do what they please but I don’t like my tax dollars going on child abuse i.e. teaching young children about 2 mommies or 2 daddies or about any other deviant misfits who should never be adopting children in the first place.
Teaching naive young children about sex is also child abuse…
School is for learning stuff not for sex and political brainwashing ..
@observer
How are they going to “ALREADY” know all this stuff? If we follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion, why are we spending money on education at all? Why don’t parents just teach their kids everything? Why send them to school?
Oh, that’s right - because parents don’t know everything. Has it occurred to you that some parents might not know everything about sex either? Crazy, but true!
You need to check your reactionary crap and save your homohating for a relevant thread. This discussion has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. It has to do with protecting kids (and adults) from ignorance.
@compassrose
>It has to do with protecting kids (and adults) from ignorance.>
Mr Bad Ast is outraged because of many things about Bush and one point is he thinks abstinence should not be taught - instead we should spend millions of dollars on teaching kids that it is ok if they want to have sex and just use a condom …
btw most of these kids inclined to have kids come from broken homes and don’t give a crap about what you tell them.. i.e they know about condoms - they just dont feel like using it — (there’s get more pleasure without it — are the exact words) Their moral values need to be changed and a proper abstinence programs may do just that .
Spend money on education = math, english science NOT sex, filth, and immorality or welfare.
You are therefore advocating ignorance to the obvious that every adult knows - DON”T have sex - you wont get anything..
@observer
Actually, Phil isn’t saying anything of the sort. The issue is not that abstinence should not be taught - it should taught be and it is. The issue is that the conservative agenda (and Bush’s agenda, however unconservative he may be) has been to teach ONLY abstinence. This policy is an unmitigated failure as has been documented on multiple occasions. “Don’t have sex” is not a message that gets through to everyone.
Encouraging the use of condoms and contraception for those who are unwilling to make the best choice (abstinence) catches more people who may have simply started having sex with no understanding that there are simpler ways for them to protect themselves. And if you think that level of ignorance only exists in “broken homes”, you’re deluding yourself.
“I’m all in favor of the publication of a piece of scientific information, you are against it apparently.”
Pardon me, but where the hell did you get that assumption from? It smells of a straw man argument to me. Might I remind you that as a ‘denier’, I’m not the one whose answer to every question is ‘the debate is over’.
I’ll tell you one thing… the best sexual experiences I had during my teenage years was with Catholic school girls. They literally think anal sex and bj’s are okay because it’s not considered sex, according to the bible. Bunch of dumbasses.
Good points, Phil.
Disemboweling a science report for political reasons is an outrage. I don’t care what the conservative apologists have posted here, it’s an outrage and more.
I’m not sure what the word is for the next level above outrage, but whatever it is, it would apply, since this is far from the first time the Bush administration has done this. His muzzling of US reps to global warming conferences is another example. And there are many more.
Why is Bush doing this? The reason is simple. He’s a conservative Republican. The conservative Republicans were hijacked by the Religious Right during the 1980s and 1990s.
Almost all conservative Republicans are now Christian fundamentalists. In fact it’s one of the basic requirements for membership. Christian fundamentalists hate science and have been doing everything in their power to tear science to shreds and replace it with their “faith-based” education systems.
Heading up this effort is Bush II, who was quoted in Washington, DC on 12/19/2000 as saying “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” The type of dictatorship Bush and his cronies want is a theocracy. Don’t believe me? Google on “Council for National Policy” and then get back to me.
Not only is this administration a threat to science, our civil liberties, and the rest of what the Constitution has protected for more than two centuries, it’s also the most corrupt I’ve ever seen.
I was in Washington, DC on August 9, 1974, when Nixon resigned. I told my wife “Hey, that’s a nice birthday present! The head of the most corrupt administration this country has ever seen is gone!” Little did I imagine that starting in 2001 I’d see an administration so corrupt it made the Nixon boys look like tyros.
Then there’s the Bush anti-science agenda. Wait, we already touched on that!
>>> Behind him is a huge tsunami ready to crash over him,
>>> and he’s saying “I don’t buy into the apocalyptic
>>> hysteria,†to several terrified people that are running away.
A fine illustration of the hysteria. Thank you.
>>> This is what puzzles me about your comments on the
>>> whole GW issue. The scientists in the relevant fields are
>>> the ones saying it’s probably going to get really bad.
>>> The ones saying it’s all hysteria and everything will be
>>> fine are the useless politicians.
If that’s what you think you see, so be it. I learned a while ago not to even argue on the topic anymore. People on BOTH sides of the issue have utterly self blinded themselves and discussion is fruitless.
And I’m just too tired at this point in my life. So, OK: there’s a big tsunami approaching. Great. Run with it, dude, and more power to ya. Have fun with that.
>>> I understand where you’re coming from - I used to be a
>>> Republican too, but I stopped voting for them when I
>>> realized how far they’d strayed from their roots.
I was never a Republican. I was never a member of any Party and never will be. I saw thorugh that BS before I could vote. Why is it if I fail to say anything short of “OH NOES! THE GOP AM NAZIIIIS!” people think I am or was Republican?
>>>I figure there’s pretty much no difference between the
>>> two parties.
Exactly. That’s why I and an astonishing number of other people I personally know are planning retirements outside the USA. There is absolutely no one left here in the political arena on the side of decent, hardworking citizens. At least in some of the world’s retirement hot spots they bend over backwards to attract me for my potential working capital. It’s much more symbiotic and flat out HONEST than anything in this dippy La La Land.
In retirement I can pay taxes to support Ted Kennedy’s gin blossoms and Bush’s war and another corrupt Big Dig somewhere where billions of dollars buys you multiton concrete slabs falling off of tunnel ceilins and crushing cars.
Or I can party with Costa Rican whores on the beach every evening. Guess who wins?
Ibrahimon, your point is well taken, but I still think an impeachment would ultimately be counter productive.
>>> Huh? I haven’t seen anything about increasing taxes -
Don’t know how to help you there. Open a newspaper?
“An Associated Press report Tuesday, quoting an unnamed CDC source, said the White House heavily edited Dr. Gerberding’s testimony on the potential impact on human health of global climate change. According to the AP, Dr. Gerberding’s verbal testimony had far fewer details about specific health risks posted by climate change than an early version of her prepared remarks submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
Dr. Gerberding, speaking Wednesday at a luncheon hosted by the Atlanta Press Club, dismissed as “ridiculous” such allegations.
“This is not an issue of cover up related to climate change and health,” she said.”
>> History will look back and show exactly when we went from being a republic to being an empire.
Spanish-American War.
Failing that, the War of 1812 (a war of New Yorker imperialism, although it failed miserably).
I’m pretty sure the Indians would say the founding of Jamestown would be a good indicator of an initial point of time in the whole start-of-empire thing.
Well the posts now seem to be so far off-topic, I don’t know if anyone is still interested in the original topic, but:
Here is a web link to the unedited draft version of the Gerberding testimony (it just came through on a listserv I subsribe to:
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/ajc/pdf/gerberding.pdf
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article nnial 2007 - salvatore iaconesi - del.icio.us poetry, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
Well for all of you who desire an enlightened analytical view of all things science related that corrects the often misguided “science” we get from the media I highly recommend the Junk Science website hosted by Steven Milloy. (No, I’m not Milloy
Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.
The website is: http://junkscience.com/
Enjoy!