America in Reverse - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 07-12-2007, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Unless its a digital clock showing a.m./p.m., or a clock displaying military time. I don't want folks to say how the clock analogy is absurd, I have already been scolded on the use of analogies.

It is up to others to decide which of us represents the broken clock.

Wait a minute my broken clock just flashes 88:88 at me........ there is no 88:88 time... you're wrong dammit.....

(sorry just saw a way to insert my warped sense of humor)

dc_dux · 07-12-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
Yes we are talking about the SG, a political cheerleader for the President. Has been in the past and will be in the future. Ooops, clinging to those idiotic premises again.

ace...there is no evidence to support your position above...perhaps that is why some may find it difficult or frustrating to engage in discussions with you.

The role of the SG is health education NOT policy development cheerleader for the President and has been for as long as I aware (at least in our lifetiime). Many SGs educated the public on particular health issues when those issues were not a priority of their respective Presidents.

SGs under LBJ, Nixon and Ford all engaged in public dialogue on the health dangers of smoking when it was not a priority health issue for their respective president.

Reagan's SG (Koop) focused on AIDs awareness and education before Reagan reluctanly agreed is was a national health issue ..but certainly not an issue for the Reagan conservative crowd.

Bush Sr's SG (Novello) promoted women health issues and childhood immunization....not priority policy issues for GHW Bush

Clinton's SG (Elders)had a focus teen pregnancy prevention and sex education in schoools....upsetting many by suggesting discussing masturbation in the sex education curriculum.

There certainly are occasions when the health education priority of an SG coincides with a priority health policy issue of the President...but more often than not (or at least just as often), they have been mututally exclusive.

That is, until now. Under GW Bush, the SG is expected to promote abstinence only education for birth control, homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, embryonic stem cell research kills babies, and an agenda determined by the christian right rather than the best medical science.

If you dont accept that health education (on the basis of best science, not politics) is and has always been the primary mission of the SG and you determine instead that it has always been a cheerleader for the President......

.....please, for once, DOCUMENT your position and conclusions with facts.

aceventura3 · 07-12-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...there is no evidence to support your position above...perhaps that is why some may find it difficult or frustrating to engage in discussions with you.

The role of the SG is health education NOT policy development cheerleader for the President and has been for as long as I aware (at least in our lifetiime). Many SGs educated the public on particular health issues when those issues were not a priority of their respective Presidents.

SGs under LBJ, Nixon and Ford all engaged in public dialogue on the health dangers of smoking when it was not a priority health issue for their respective president.

Reagan's SG (Koop) focused on AIDs awareness and education before Reagan reluctanly agreed is was a national health issue ..but certainly not an issue for the Reagan conservative crowd.

Bush Sr's SG (Novello) promoted women health issues and childhood immunization....not priority policy issues for GHW Bush

Clinton's SG (Elders)had a focus teen pregnancy prevention and sex education in schoools....upsetting many by suggesting discussing masturbation in the sex education curriculum.

There certainly are occasions when the health education priority of an SG coincides with a priority health policy issue of the President...but more often than not (or at least just as often), they have been mututally exclusive.

That is, until now. Under GW Bush, the SG is expected to promote abstinence only education for birth control, homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, embryonic stem cell research kills babies, and an agenda determined by the christian right rather than the best medical science.

If you dont accept that health education (on the basis of best science, not politics) is and has always been the primary mission of the SG and you determine instead that it has always been a cheerleader for the President......

.....please, for once, DOCUMENT your position and conclusions with facts.

I understand our differences. Examples: I see AID's awareness as a public policy issue and in my view it is a political issue. I think Elders was fired for political reasons, perhaps she wasn't. I think political appointments by their very nature suggest the the position is political, and in order to get appointed the appointee has to be in political agreement with the appointer (of course there may be exceptions).

You take the absolute position that there is no evidence to support my view. If that is what you believe I understand your frustration. Perhaps, one day an anvil or something will fall on my head and I will see the light, until then I will continue on with my absurd, appalling, indefensible, idiotic, (I am sure I missed a few) arguments and thoughts.

dc_dux · 07-12-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I understand our differences. Examples: I see AID's awareness as a public policy issue and in my view it is a political issue. I think Elders was fired for political reasons, perhaps she wasn't. I think political appointments by their very nature suggest the the position is political, and in order to get appointed the appointee has to be in political agreement with the appointer (of course there may be exceptions).

You take the absolute position that there is no evidence to support my view. If that is what you believe I understand your frustration. Perhaps, one day an anvil or something will fall on my head and I will see the light, until then I will continue on with my absurd, appalling, indefensible, idiotic, (I am sure I missed a few) arguments and thoughts.

ace....I wont characterize your arguments and thoughts as absurd, appalling, indefensible, idiotic (thats your description). I dont take the absolute position that there is no evidence to support your view...I simply ask you repeatedly to provide such evidence because I cant find it. Instead you often offer such evidence as "I know what Bush was thinking when he did X" or "the Democrats did X too, but it just wasnt uncovered" or Dem X did Y for purely political reasons?" Facts, ace....I just want facts!

But since you rarely are able or willing to provide facts or any evidence, I have absolutely come to the conclusion that you dont have a clue about how the federal government and the political process works...you just wing it to support a pre-determined position...and I base that on numerous exchanges we've had.

Using your AIDS example, Koop was not proposing any federal policy, legislation or regulations (ie political activity). He was simply attempting to educate the public on, what at the time, was a new and deadly disease and a public health threat, accompanied by reams of false information and fear of the unknown. How in the world is that a political issue and not a public health issue?

I wont be waiting for that anvil to fall anytime soon.

aceventura3 · 07-13-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....I wont characterize your arguments and thoughts as absurd, appalling, indefensible, idiotic (thats your description).

In this thread I have been told there is no evidence to support my views by you. Deltona is appalled and considers something I wrote as insane. Roachboy said I can't articulate my idiotic premises. In many instances when I have posted my views they have been characterized in a similar manner and in some cases my views are ignored and I am attacked personally. I just point this out because I believe when those kinds of comments are made real discussion and exchange takes a turn for the worse. I also find it confusing, since I would not engage someone who actually had insane, idiotic or unsupportable arguments. So I wonder if some really believe what they write.

Quote:

I dont take the absolute position that there is no evidence to support your view...I simply ask you repeatedly to provide such evidence because I cant find it.

My very first post - Carmona, as SG, used the power of his position to advocate criminalizing tobacco products. Later I provided information on the war on drugs and suggested that no SG advocated or promoted fact based science to refute the hysteria and misinformation because of political reasons. I posted information showing Elders was terminated for political reasons.

I present what I think is evidence, everyone has the option of looking at it or ignoring it, it is usually more fun when the evidence is discussed on its own merits, with its strengths and weaknesses.

Quote:

Instead you often offer such evidence as "I know what Bush was thinking when he did X" or "the Democrats did X too, but it just wasnt uncovered" or Dem X did Y for purely political reasons?" Facts, ace....I just want facts!

Sure I do that, and I will continue. I enjoy researching and presenting facts but I also like understanding subjective issues that motivate and drive the issues we face. An example is your acceptance of mission statements and my rejection of mission statements. It seems to you a mission statement is a fact, to me they are words on a piece of paper or computer screen. With the SG's mission statement and lets say AIDS awareness education you conclude one thing. With the past actions of SGs over time and AID awareness education I conclude the focus on AIDS awareness education rather than prostrate cancer awareness education is political.

Quote:

But since you rarely are able or willing to provide facts or any evidence, I have absolutely come to the conclusion that you dont have a clue about how the federal government and the political process works...you just wing it to support a pre-determined position...and I base that on numerous exchanges we've had.

I am the first to admit that I am not a Washington insider, and there are things going on in Washington that I am clueless about. However, I know and I am related to people who are Washington insiders and have career positions within the government. The interesting thing about them and you is how similar you guys sound and how similar your arguments are. I often suggest to them that they get out of Washington for a few years, live life outside of other insiders, start a business, etc. that suggestion really gets them riled up.

I doubt you read every post I make. there have been threads when I have posted lots of factual information, the 1992 Redux thread started by Host comes to mind, he and others presented a premise that I disagreed with, lots of factual information I presented was simply ignored. My general pattern is to post my opinion and then provide some factual information when challenged, when we get to a point when that information is ignored I usually don't present more factual information. Just like in this thread, you don't think I have presented any factual information, but I have.

Quote:

Using your AIDS example, Koop was not proposing any federal policy, legislation or regulations (ie political activity). He was simply attempting to educate the public on, what at the time, was a new and deadly disease and a public health threat, accompanied by reams of false information and fear of the unknown. How in the world is that a political issue and not a public health issue?

Something can be a public heath issue and a political issue. But like I wrote above the decision to allocate X amount of time and resources to one health related issue over another is often a political decision. If there was an objective standard used, which there is not one, then I would agree with your position.

Quote:

I wont be waiting for that anvil to fall anytime soon.

Something we agree on.

dc_dux · 07-13-2007, 10:45 AM

Waxman is introducing a bill that wasnt needed in the past, the Surgeon General Protection Act, in order to protect the Surgeon General from the type of political interference experienced by Bush's last SG,

Three former SG's agree it is necessary in order to keep political ideology out of educating the public on health issues....Reagan's (Koop), Clinton's (Satcher) and Bush's (Carmona).

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=581

tecoyah · 07-13-2007, 11:08 AM

Sweeeet!!!

Quote:

“What we learned at this hearing is that the Office of the Surgeon General is in crisis,” said Rep. Waxman. “Political interference is compromising the independence of the Office. On key public health issues the Surgeon General has been muzzled. This problem will not solve itself.”

It's sad we need it, but such is life.

aceventura3 · 07-13-2007, 11:35 AM

Where was Waxman's legislation when Elders' was fired? Do you guys conclude her firing was not political? Did she lie or pass on information not supported by science? Why the double standard? Was Elders simply too vocal when taking on two of our most politicized social health related issues at the time, AIDS and the WOD? Why have you folks ignored this?

Here another blurb on her to ignore:

Quote:

Half of all new HIV infections occur in youths younger than 25 years of age.

The first question that happened to be asked of Joycelyn Elders at this United Nations World AIDS Day Conference: "...if masturbation might be taught as a way to prevent AIDS?" Joycelyn Elders replied: "masturbation is something that is a part of human sexuality, and is a part of something that perhaps should be taught." *

Joycelyn Elders was fired by President Clinton one week later for "values contrary to the administration."

http://www.actupny.org/reports/elders.html

tecoyah · 07-13-2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Where was Waxman's legislation when Elders' was fired? Do you guys conclude her firing was not political? Did she lie or pass on information not supported by science? Why the double standard? Was Elders simply too vocal when taking on two of our most politicized social health related issues at the time, AIDS and the WOD? Why have you folks ignored this?

Here another blurb on her to ignore:

http://www.actupny.org/reports/elders.html

The legislation may be needed now, vs. then due to the outcry from those in the scientific community that feel they need to call the administration on its practices. If we were dealing with a one time political move I doubt much would have ever come of this but, we are not. The current disregard for scientific opinion from way up high has, in my opinion, left few other choices for those who worry about the direction it may lead.
You refer to someone fired by the president for political reasons, here we are dealing with someone who quit, and decided to explain why rather than get fired for not playing the game. Clinton may very well have played it as well, but not to this extent and certainly not as a general practice.

Speaking of Clinton...I would very much like your opinion on a new thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=120958

dc_dux · 07-13-2007, 03:00 PM

The Union of Concerned Scientists have published an A to Z Guide showcases dozens of examples of the suppression or misuse of science by the Bush administration:

Quote:

In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...political.html

Willravel · 07-13-2007, 03:03 PM

I think I'm going to be sick.

Pandering is one thing, but undermining scientific advancement is evil. The whole of the Bush administration should be in the Astrodome without rinning water as punishment.

aceventura3 · 07-16-2007, 09:01 AM

I went to the website referenced by DC and clicked on "H" the first item to better understand their concern in context.

Here is what I found:

Quote:

A fact sheet on the CDC website that included information on proper condom use, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity was replaced in October 2002 with a document that emphasizes condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.1 When a source inside the CDC questioned the actions, she was told that the changes were directed by Bush administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...education.html

They are not saying "their information" was being disputed, manipulated, or misused. They don't make the claim that the information replacing "their information" is wrong or inaccurate. It seems to me their concern is with what information should be emphasized by being listed on a website. If this is the basis of their arguments, they seem weak to me.

dc_dux · 07-16-2007, 01:35 PM

ace....that may not be the most egregious example of manipulation of medical (or scientific) data among the dozens committed by Bush ideologues, but the CDC is a medical agency NOT a political agency.

CDC mission statement (just for you

):

CDC′s Mission is "to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability."

The safe use of condoms prevents disease. It should be clear that it is not 100% effective ...but it is an indisputable medical fact that condoms help prevent disease. CDC has an ethical responsibility to present all the facts.

Quote:

They are not saying "their information" was being disputed, manipulated, or misused.

No...it was just deleted completely.

You obviously dont see how scrubbing the website to omit facts on the safe use of condoms and only focusing on the failure rate of condoms is not the best, most honest and most complete medical information that the American people should expect from the Centers for Disease Control.

But you think AIDS education is political, so I am not surprised.

If that is your position, I dont see the point of discussing it further. Others may be more masochistic and keep banging their heads against your brick wall.

aceventura3 · 07-17-2007, 07:57 AM

You seem to miss the point.

Given the total amount of accurate sceintific data available on a subject. someone has to decide what gets published on a website and what gets removed. If you don't like what I want to have posted, what makes you more correct than me assuming the data I want to post is scientifically correct?

If there are two effective methods for combating a disease and I want to promote one of those methods over the other, given scientific proof that my method can be as effective or more effective than the other, how does that suggest an inappropriate use of scientific data?

Specifically referring to the example about condom use vs. abstinence - how has the promotion of condom use suffered under the Bush administration? It seems to me that I hear more about condom use today than during any other time of my life.

dc_dux · 07-17-2007, 08:17 AM

ace...I get your point.

But It is inappropriate (and unethical) when the best judgment of medical doctors (like the SG and CDC physicans) and career scientists (at EPA, DOI, NASA, etc) are overruled and their findings and recommendations suppressed by policy wonks with no background or expertise, but acting solely on ideology......to the extent NEVER done before.

GWH Bush said it pretty well 17 years ago when he expressed his vision of how science must be used by government.

"Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry;`and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity.` Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives,government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance."

GW Bush has taken science and medicine as far`from that vision as anyone could have imagined.

aceventura3 · 07-17-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But It is inappropriate (and unethical) when the best judgment of medical doctors (like the SG and CDC physicans) and career scientists (at EPA, DOI, NASA, etc) are overruled and their findings and recommendations suppressed by policy wonks with no background or expertise, but acting solely on ideology......to the extent NEVER done before.

I don't intend to change the subject of this thread, however, the promotion of condom use compared to the promotion of abstinence (or single partner sex) to prevent disease at this point in time is a political issue. I simply think you are wrong when you say that it is inappropriate for policy makers to decide what gets published on a governmental agency website.

Also, I am not sure you do get one of my other points based on this comment:

Quote:

But you think AIDS education is political, so I am not surprised.

First the comment is taken out of context. Second, given limited resources and a governmental agency's limited opportunities to communicate directly to the public, the decisions involving what to communicate and how to communicate that information is purely political. People have to decide these things, the process is political.

dc_dux · 07-17-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

... given limited resources and a governmental agency's limited opportunities to communicate directly to the public, the decisions involving what to communicate and how to communicate that information is purely political. People have to decide these things, the process is political.

We agree that Bush has made the process of sharing medical and scientific information with the public purely political....unlike Carter, Reagan, GWH Bush and Clinton (ok, Elders resigned under pressure because America was not ready to talk publicly about masturbation)....all of whose respective Surgeons General, MDs in the CDC, and career scientist throughout the government had the freedom of expression to offer and apply their best and most honest medical and scientific knowledge.

And now I've hit your brick wall again. You simply wont accept the FACTS that no other reason president has politicized science and medicine anywhere near the extent of Bush.

aceventura3 · 07-17-2007, 01:07 PM

I assumed by this point someone would have gone through the items cited in DC's post and point out the most compelling arguments supporting the premise in this thread. It has not happened, I wonder why?

I looked at the second item "BE" for bioethics. Here is the issue:

Quote:

In another clear case of political interference in the science advisory appointment process, on February 27, 2004, the Bush administration dismissed Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, a leading cell biologist, and Dr. William May, a prominent medical ethicist, from the President's Council on Bioethics.

Quote:

Dr. Blackburn states that she believes she was dismissed because she disapproved of the Bush administration's restrictive position on stem cell research. According to Dr. Blackburn, she and Dr. May frequently disagreed with the administration's positions on the ethics of biomedical research.117 She was removed from the panel soon after she objected to a Council report on stem cell research. In an essay in the April 1, 2004, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Blackburn recounted how the dissenting opinion she submitted, which she believes reflects the scientific consensus in America, was not included in the council's reports even though she had been told the reports would represent the views of all the council's members.

Quote:

The removal of Drs. Blackburn and May—and the subsequent appointment of new panel members who are supportive of the administration's stated positions, significantly limits the range of views now available to the president on bioethical issues. This action violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, which requires balance on such advisory bodies.119 As Dr. Blackburn herself has pointed out, she was one of only three full-time biomedical scientists on the panel, which, even prior to her dismissal, was weighted heavily to nonscientists with strong ideological views. While no one disputes that nonscientists should play an important role on a bioethics panel, it is equally important that scientists, with strong biomedical expertise, provide the necessary scientific context for the panel.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...bioethics.html

For DC's benefit I went to the Bioethic website and obtained its mission statement:

Quote:

a. The Council shall advise the President on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedical science and technology. In connection with its advisory role, the mission of the Council includes the following functions:

1. to undertake fundamental inquiry into the human and moral significance of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology;
2. to explore specific ethical and policy questions related to these developments;
3. to provide a forum for a national discussion of bioethical issues;
4. to facilitate a greater understanding of bioethical issues; and
5. to explore possibilities for useful international collaboration on bioethical issues.

And here is info on membership:

Quote:

Section 3. Membership.

a. The Council shall be composed of not more than 18 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not officers or employees of the Federal Government. The Council shall include members drawn from the fields of science and medicine, law and government, philosophy and theology, and other areas of the humanities and social sciences.

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/executive.html

The Council was established by executive order November 2001. The members are political appointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President and the Council was formed by the President, Bush. Nothing was undone by Bush. And since Bush established the Council for his own reasons, it is not logical to say he is interfering with the Council. The Council can be ended at anytime by the President.

On the issue in question, Stem Cell Research, President Bush has clearly defined views on how he believes stem cells should be used. He communicated his views clearly both times he ran for president. The science is not a political issue, but you can not argue that the ethics involved in using, not using, how to obtain them, etc, is a political issue. To many it is a moral issue. Iranically, those scientists, ASCB, who signed petitions in opposition to the removal of Dr. Blackburn, have a political dog in the fight. They have a standing committee with the purpose as stated below:

Quote:

Public Policy Committee
The Public Policy Committee regularly educates Congress and the Administration about the importance of basic biomedical funding and policy.

http://www.ascb.org/index.cfm?navid=127

They want to make sure government is willing to fund their work and are willing to play the political game to do it.

Again, it seems to me that we are talking about the role government should play in dealing with scientific issues that warrant political input as opposed to direct interference with the science itself. Perhaps the subtlety of the difference is being lost, or the Bush haters are just making noise.

I am looking forward to the next one, should be fun.

dc_dux · 07-17-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I assumed by this point someone would have gone through the items cited in DC's post and point out the most compelling arguments supporting the premise in this thread. It has not happened, I wonder why?

I looked at the second item "BE" for bioethics....

Again, it seems to me that we are talking about the role government should play in dealing with scientific issues that warrant political input as opposed to direct interference with the science itself. Perhaps the subtlety of the difference is being lost, or the Bush haters are just making noise.

I am looking forward to the next one, should be fun`

Go for it, ace!

With each additional post where you highlight examples from the Union of Concerned Scientists report, you further expose how Bush politicizes science far more than previous presidents.

In your latest about the Bioethics Council, you included a portion of the mission statement:

In connection with its advisory role, the mission of the Council includes the following functions:

1. to undertake fundamental inquiry into the human and moral significance of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology;
2. to explore specific ethical and policy questions related to these developments;
3. to provide a forum for a national discussion of bioethical issues;
4. to facilitate a greater understanding of bioethical issues; and
5. to explore possibilities for useful international collaboration on bioethical issues.

but you conveniently neglected to include the section:

c. The Council shall strive to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding of the issues that it considers. In pursuit of this goal, the Council shall be guided by the need to articulate fully the complex and often competing moral positions on any given issue, rather than by an overriding concern to find consensus. The Council may therefore choose to proceed by offering a variety of views on a particular issue, rather than attempt to reach a single consensus position.

So what does Bush do?

His lackies suppress dissenting opinions from Council reports and he replaces members of the Council who express such opinions because they dont fit his ideological and political agenda.

Quote:

Dr. Blackburn recounted how the dissenting opinion she submitted, which she believes reflects the scientific consensus in America, was not included in the council's reports even though she had been told the reports would represent the views of all the council's members.

As Dr. Blackburn herself has pointed out, she was one of only three full-time biomedical scientists on the panel, which, even prior to her dismissal, was weighted heavily to nonscientists with strong ideological views. While no one disputes that nonscientists should play an important role on a bioethics panel, it is equally important that scientists, with strong biomedical expertise, provide the necessary scientific context for the panel.

Is that what you consider "striving to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding of the issue" or "articulating fully the complex and often competing moral positions" or "offering a variety of views"?

An impartial observer might consider the Council's act of suppressing one point of view and Bush's action to remove qualified MDs based on their opposing view on the issue as putting politics and ideology above an open, honest and comprehensive discussion of the science, medicine and bioethics. So much for the Council being able to fulfill its objective mission.

Thanks again for making my case for me.

I am looking forward to your next analysis, should be fun .

aceventura3 · 07-18-2007, 07:41 AM

I provided the link for all to see, true I did not include the entire "Section 2", but you did not either. At this point neither you or I have posted subsection "b", so what's your point? We already know that I cherry pick information, I am a registered Republican. I am sure you never cherry pick information that supports your argument.

You choose to overlook one of the most interesting points. The ASCB is an organization with what most would consider a political action committee designed to lobby Congress. I think it safe to say the organization has a political agenda to encourage and protect funding for their members. Again, I have no problem with organizations having political agendas, I just have a problem when people pretend that they don't. I think the underlying issue here is political and that the Bush administration has not hurt the ability of scientists to communicate their work and to conduct legal research.

Dr. Blackburn was a victim of the other people on the Council. They decided to exclude her contribution, I doubt Bush was directly involved. You call the members of the Counsil Bush "lackies" suggesting the members are not capable or willing to express independent thought. But, Dr. Blackburn was not one of those "lackies".

Here are the people who you consider to be "lackies":

Quote:

Council Members

Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D.
Georgetown University Medical Center

Floyd E. Bloom, M.D.
The Scripps Research Institute

Benjamin S. Carson, M.D.
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

Rebecca S. Dresser, J.D., M.S.
Washington University

Nicholas N. Eberstadt, Ph.D.
American Enterprise Institute

Daniel W. Foster, M.D.
University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School

Michael S. Gazzaniga, Ph.D.
University of California, Santa Barbara

Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil
Princeton University

Alfonso Gómez-Lobo, Dr. Phil.
Georgetown University

William B. Hurlbut, M.D.
Stanford University

Leon R. Kass, M.D., Ph.D.
American Enterprise Institute

Peter A. Lawler, Ph.D.
Berry College

Paul McHugh, M.D.
Johns Hopkins Hospital

Gilbert C. Meilaender, Ph.D.
Valparaiso University

Janet D. Rowley, M.D.
The University of Chicago

Diana J. Schaub, Ph.D.
Loyola College

Carl E. Schneider, J.D.
University of Michigan

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/members.html

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just understand that I am calling you on doing something that you often accuse me of.

tecoyah · 07-18-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Dr. Blackburn was a victim of the other people on the Council. They decided to exclude her contribution, I doubt Bush was directly involved. You call the members of the Council Bush "lackies" suggesting the members are not capable or willing to express independent thought. But, Dr. Blackburn was not one of those "lackies".

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just understand that I am calling you on doing something that you often accuse me of.

The administration has excluded non-compliant opinions as a general rule, even you must admit this Ace considering the evidence that shows it to be so. Bush did not need to be directly involved (and likely couldn't understand it anyway), because he had removed most of those similar to Blackburn already.
When the bulk of the scientific community screams foul to the public, there is likely a reason behind it. And, considering this is the first time in history such a thing has been done we might want to pay attention to what they are bitching about. The next generation, and indeed our own will depend on technology and science to better our lot in life, as well as create the economic growth we need. I would hope we can allow this aspect of our future to help us, rather than hinder the future of our country by ignoring the people that might hold the keys to understanding.
Again, you seem to be trying to defend something that is not good for our country at all.....Why do you want us to be a backward nation? Or do you actually think its a good idea to quiet the scientific community?

dc_dux · 07-18-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

You call the members of the Counsil Bush "lackies" suggesting the members are not capable or willing to express independent thought. But, Dr. Blackburn was not one of those "lackies".

Here are the people who you consider to be "lackies":

ace.....I dont consider them all to be lackies.

Only the ones (the chair?) who reneged on a commitment to include dissenting opinions in the Council's reports and blocked the independent thoughts of Dr. Blackburn.

and Bush for replacing members with dissenting views and for not insisting that the mission of the Council , as he defined it through the EO, not be subverted in such a manner.

aceventura3 · 07-18-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Why do you want us to be a backward nation? Or do you actually think its a good idea to quiet the scientific community?

We are not a backward nation nor are we headed in that direction in my opinion.

The nature of work on a committee means that there is no guaranteed that someone's work will be included in any final report. That does not mean they have no outlet to have their work independently published. To suggest that the people on the Council are "lackies" and have sold out to Bush is a charge that lacks support and is an insult to the members of the Council in my opinion.

I think Dr. Blackburn has a political agenda and the ASCB has a political agenda. I have no problem with them having a political agenda, people fighting for their causes is good for our nation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....I dont consider them all to be lackies.

Only the ones (the chair?) who reneged on a commitment to include dissenting opinions in the Council's reports and blocked the independent thoughts of Dr. Blackburn.

and Bush for replacing members with dissenting views and for not insisting that the mission of the Council , as he defined it through the EO, not be subverted in such a manner.

Since we don't know what was excluded (and your source doesn't provide any details, perhaps they don't know) how do you know the chair is a "lackie" and reneged on a commitment? I have worked on some group projects and as a group we had to make editorial decisions and omit data and research. Are we suggesting a new standard here, one where anytime a member of a committee claims to be a victim, it is accepted without question?

dc_dux · 07-18-2007, 10:00 AM

ace...I have no idea what the mission of your little group projects may have been, but we know the Council did not follow the mandate of its mission to offer a variety of views on the complex issues under review.

Its as simple and irrefutable as that.

Dr. Blackburn expressed her concerns (and the concerns of other dissenting Council members) with two reports.

Quote:

We knew that on this originally 18-member (but for most of the past two years a 17-member) Council, as scientists we would be in the minority in our belief of the good to be gained through these and other areas of biomedical research. We were also aware that some others on the Council had strong opposing views. Thus, it was only with the assurances of the Council chairman, Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, and of the President of the United States himself that we were persuaded that our voices would be heard and integrated into the statements of the Council. Furthermore, we felt, and continue to feel, that bioethical issues are important not only to all biologists, but also to society at large, and thus especially worthy of engaging debate and discussion.

Two recently issued reports of the Council, “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness” (http://bioethics.gov/reports/beyondtherapy/index.html) and “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” (http://bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/index.html), are therefore of deep concern to us....

....These reports had as their premise the aim of neutrality in the scientific analysis of the issues addressed. But our concern is that some of their contents, as in the few examples outlined above (if you have interestng in reading them, ace), may have ended up distorting the potential of biomedical research and the motivation of some of its researchers. Continuing discussions will form the basis for future decisions on these topics; keeping such discussion open and balanced is of paramount importance.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0020116

It is unethical and dishonest that those concerns will not be part of the permanent reports and records of the Council, but rather had to be expressed externally by a Council member thus reinforcing the FACT that the Council did not live up to its mission.

aceventura3 · 07-18-2007, 10:11 AM

I decided to move over to environment, and picked the first item from the chart, “B” for Bull Trout.

Here is what the Union of Concerned Scientists says:

Quote:

Officials at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service censored an analysis of the economics of protecting the bull trout, a threatened trout species in the Pacific Northwest, publishing only the costs associated with protecting the species and deleting the report's section analyzing the economic benefits. Furthermore, while the benefits of protecting the bull trout were deleted from the economic analysis, the costs associated with this species' protection were inflated.80 An exaggerated cost analysis and a deleted benefits analysis essentially give the FWS the economic justification, under the ESA, to disregard scientific information when designating critical habitat for the endangered bull trout. 81
As part of a 2003 court settlement, the FWS was ordered to develop a plan designating critical habitat in the Pacific Northwest for bull trout,82 which has been listed as a threatened species under the ESA since 1998. In conjunction with this effort, the FWS contracted Bioeconomics Inc., a Missoula, Montana-based consulting firm, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of bull trout recovery in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.
The firm's peer-reviewed research determined that protecting bull trout and its habitat in the Columbia and Klamath river basins will cost $230 million to $300 million over the next decade, costs associated with adverse effects upon hydropower, logging, and highway construction. The study also reported $215 million in economic benefits associated with a restored bull trout fishery.83
When officials at the FWS released the report, however, they deleted 55 pages of the analysis outlining the economic benefits of bull trout recovery.84 The censorship spurred an anonymous FWS employee to leak a copy of the deleted chapter to a Montana-based environmental group, which then released it to The Missoulian, a Montana daily newspaper. Upon questioning from the press, Diane Katzenberger, an information officer in the FWS regional office in Denver, told a reporter that the censorship did not occur in either the Denver or Portland regional FWS offices but rather "was a policy decision made at the Washington level."85
Chris Nolin, chief of the division of conservation and classification in the Washington, DC FWS office, told the press that the benefits analysis was cut because its methodology was discouraged by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).86

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...ans.html#Trout

The bottom line is that FWS failed to include where they did not include offsetting benefits to the inflated cost estimates of protecting Bull Trout. The benefit information cut used a methodology discouraged by OMB according to Chris Nolin at FWS. The Union of Concerned Scientists doesn’t comment on the methodology, but they do say the Bush administration use the same methodology in a different instance. What we don’t have is any objective argument explaining the conclusion that the costs were inflated or any objective support for the inclusion of the benefit analysis. However, what we do have is what FWS actually did:

Quote:

Complying with a court order, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced its final rule designating approximately 3,828 miles of streams and 143,218 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana as critical habitat for the bull trout, a threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In Washington, 985 miles of marine shoreline also are being designated.

The final designation is based on the best scientific and economic information and recognizes the conservation efforts of states, tribes, agencies and landowners. It covers only areas that are occupied by bull trout and that contain physical and biological features considered essential to the conservation of the species.

As a result of the extensive public comments we received, and peer review, we found there are many areas that already have conservation efforts in place and do not need to be designated, said Dave Allen, regional director of the Service's Pacific Region.

http://www.fws.gov/feature/269BCB5A-...54C2D914A.html

In order to believe that the Administration has manipulated this issue, we have to believe that the people at FWS manipulated and inflated data on behalf of the Administration, and that the methodology for benefit analysis concerns by OMB were made up for the purpose to mislead people on this issue. And further you have to conclude with this manipulation of data and a conspiracy involving multiple departments and people they were ineffective given what FWS actually did.

Also we have this question answered by FWS:

Quote:

Q. Why is the Service designating critical habitat?
In January 2002, the Service and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan reached a court settlement establishing a schedule for the proposal of critical habitat for bull trout. The two environmental groups sued the Service for not designating critical habitat after listing bull trout in 1999 as threatened throughout its range in the lower 48 U.S. states. At the time, the Service had been unable to complete critical habitat determinations because of budget constraints.

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout...ised100605.pdf

It appears this issue was on the table prior to Bush. There is data showing the Bull Trout issue is over 17 years old.

dc_dux · 07-18-2007, 10:14 AM

LOL....you are a pitbull, ace but I dont have time now to debunk your latest bullshit.

aceventura3 · 07-18-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I have no idea what the mission of your little group projects may have been, but we know the Council did not follow the mandate of its mission to offer a variety of views on the complex issues under review.

Its as simple and irrefutable as that.

Dr. Blackburn expressed her concerns (and the concerns of other dissenting Council members) with two reports.

It is unethical and dishonest that those concerns will not be part of the permanent reports and records of the Council, but rather had to be expressed externally by a Council member thus reinforcing the FACT that the Council did not live up to its mission.

O.k. I look at her first objection:

Quote:

In the discussions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, the specter of designer babies is raised by implying that selecting embryos for intelligence and other traits, such as temperament is a possibility. Scientifically, this simply is highly unlikely and indeed may not even be feasible. While such scientific unlikelihood is mentioned in passing in the report, it is easy to take away from the report the feeling that such genetic manipulation will happen and is even imminent.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0020116

She says her concern was in the report. it just wasn't in the report the way she wanted it to be. What is it? Was her view ignored? She also states the amount of difficulty she had even accepting the position given Bush's views. It seems that she may have had a burr in her saddle from the very beginning and was possibly going to find something anything to complain about. You and others seem to think she is more credible than the others, based on my research I put my trust in the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

LOL....you are a pitbull, ace but I dont have time now to debunk your latest bullshit.

But you know it is bullshit. You complain about not enough facts and when presented with facts you don't have the time. I have your number, it was worth it.

dc_dux · 07-18-2007, 10:39 AM

In the Bull Trout case and numerous others, the Dept of Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife had to resign after an internal investigation rebuked her for breaking federal rules by leaking information about endangered species to affected industry goups. She was also accused of pressuring government scientists to make their research fit her policy goal.

Quote:

An Interior Department official accused of pressuring government scientists to make their research fit her policy goals has resigned.

Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, submitted her resignation letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a department spokesman said Tuesday.

MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

MacDonald recently was rebuked by the department's inspector general, who told Congress in a report in March that she broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups.

"As the inspector general showed, she bullied agency scientists, and she improperly released documents to industry attorneys and lobbyists, and so there's no question it's a good day for endangered species and for Fish and Wildlife Service biologists," said Noah Greenwald, Pacific Northwest representative of the Center for Biological Diversity.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...nterior02.html

**

Information has recently come to light about interference by a Bush political appointee in decisions regarding protections for our nation's fish, plants and wildlife on the brink of extinction. Assistant Deputy Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald often contacted field biologists directly to question them about their science and pressure them to change their decisions.

From the Inspector General’s report. MacDonald removed more than 80 percent of almost 300 miles of streams that were to be protected to help bull trout recover in the Northwest's Klamath River basin. In addition, at the behest of attorney Ronald Yokim, who represents several counties in Oregon, Julie MacDonald asked FWS biologists to respond to questions from the attorney. Responding to questions on proposed critical habitat posed by MacDonald, a FWS biologist stated: “Yokim is an attorney representing various interest groups. It appears Julie has shared our responses to her comments with Yokim, which have generated additional comments by Yokim. It seems to me that it would be innappropriate to essentially continue the public comment period (it is closed) by contacting and responding to his follow up questions/comments that he did not provide during the comment period…”

http://www.stopextinction.org/site/c..._MacDonald.htm

Basically, she as an industry and interest group whore inside the DOI/FWS and was caught with dirty hands.

aceventura3 · 07-18-2007, 11:07 AM

So that I understand - she is being accused of illegally asking biologists to respond to questions from an attorney representing interested parties? She illegally removed more than 80% of almost 300 miles of streams that were to be protected to help bull trout? And, she illegally bullied her staff? Is this correct?

I am going to listen to the hearings, if the are still on. So far this still seems more like a political issue rather than a scientific one to me.

dc_dux · 07-18-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

But you know it is bullshit. You complain about not enough facts and when presented with facts you don't have the time. I have your number, it was worth it.

ace....yep, I know its bullshit.

Here are the facts from the Department of Interior Inspector Generals report on Julie McDonald:

Quote:

Through interviewing various sources, including FWS employees and senior officials, and reviewing pertinent documents and e-mails, we confirmed that MacDonald has been heavily involved with editing, commenting on, and reshaping the Endangered Species Program's scientific reports from the field. MacDonald admitted that her degree is in civil engineering and that she has no formal educational background in natural sciences, such as biology.

While we discovered no illegal activity on her part, we did determine that MacDonald disclosed nonpublic information to private sector sources, including the California Farm Bureau Federation and the Pacific Legal Foundation. In fact, MacDonald admitted that she has released nonpublic information to public sources on several occasions during her tenure as Deputy Assistant Secretary for FWS. (my edit - including information on the bull trout while the field work was still in progress - you cant do that!)

The OIG Office of General Counsel's review of this investigation indicates that MacDonald's conduct violated the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) under 5 C.F.R.92635.703 Use of Nonpublic Information and 5 C.F.R.5 2635.101 Basic Obligation of Public Service, Appearance of Preferential Treatment.

This case is being referred to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for potential administrative action against MacDonald

...

specifically on the bull trout:

Agent's Note: In a number of e-mails and comments on the Bull Trout CHD, MacDonald forced a reduction in critical habitat miles in the Klamath River basin from 296 to 42 miles.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/s...-Report_JM.pdf

ace, those are the facts!

She may not have broken the law; she just violated federal regulations by interfering with scientific field reports and sharing those nonpublic reports (draft reports in progress) with affected industries.

Quote:

So far this still seems more like a political issue rather than a scientific one to me.

Exactly! It is political manipulation of the work and findings by career scientists. That is the whole point of this entire thread!

And you still dont see anything wrong with that?

aceventura3 · 07-18-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....yep, I know its bullshit.

Here are the facts from the Department of Interior Inspector Generals report on Julie McDonald:

ace, those are the facts!

She may not have broken the law; she just violated federal regulations by interfering with scientific field reports and sharing those nonpublic reports (draft reports in progress) with affected industries.

Exactly! It is political manipulation of the work and findings by career scientists. That is the whole point of this entire thread!

And you still dont see anything wrong with that?

Sure, I see what she did is wrong.

What I don't see is a clear connection to the Bush Administration. I doubt high level people in the bush Administration have given this issue, about a fish, much if any thought.

What I don't see is how this particular issue is anything other than a political issue, on both sides. Environmentalist are not above doing the things you accuse the administration of doing.

What I don't see is a pattern of how these issues elevate to making Bush the worst abuser of scientific data by any President in our history as suggested by many in the scientific community, many who have a political agenda.

This fight, over a fish, has been a heated and emotional battle over a number of years going back prior to Bush. If this issue has not been politicized, I don't know what would ever qualify.

I don't dispute the facts.

dc_dux · 07-18-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Sure, I see what she did is wrong.

What I don't see is a clear connection to the Bush Administration. I doubt high level people in the bush Administration have given this issue, about a fish, much if any thought.

I dont see how you can say high level people in the Bush Administration have not given this much thought. She was the Dept of Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife - the highest person in the FWS and one step below the Secretary of Interior. The connection is the pattern of similar practices of and tenuous connections of high level political appointees with regulated industries at numerous federal agencies.

Quote:

What I don't see is how this particular issue is anything other than a political issue, on both sides. Environmentalist are not above doing the things you accuse the administration of doing.

Environmentalists dont write or enforce regulations, nor can they suppress or alter federal science reports.. so they are in no position to do what Bush political appointees at federal agencies have done in a less than forthright and ethical manner.

Quote:

What I don't see is a pattern of how these issues elevate to making Bush the worst abuser of scientific data by any President in our history as suggested by many in the scientific community, many who have a political agenda.

If you can cite examples from previous administrations of suppressing and/or altering the work of career scientists in numerous agencies at, or even near, the same level as the Bush administration, then you might have case...but there is no such evidence.

I'll remind you of GHW Bush's words one more time that the son chose to ignore:

"Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry;`and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity.` Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance."

Quote:

I don't dispute the facts.

In each of the three cases you attempted to expose (CDC, Bioethics Council, FWS), the facts are clear and convincing, at least IMO and in the opinion of many scientists in and out of the government, how this administration politicized science. Obviously, you disagree.

It appears to me that you just write it all off as "politics" so there is not point in any further discussion.

Others can continue this folly with you if they so desire.

aceventura3 · 07-19-2007, 07:11 AM

Truth also includes the ASCB having a political action committee and having an interest in promoting their political agenda on behalf of its members.

Truth also includes the Union of Concerned Scientists exaggerating issues to support their premise. Or. Dr. Blackburn misleading the public.

Truth is that to this point Julie McDonald has not been proved to be guilty of any crime and she has not formally responded to the charges against her. Truth is that there is no connection between her actions and the White House.

The truth is that the members of Bioethics Council established by Bush are highly respected professionals in their fields, with no evidence supporting the premise that they would misuse scientific information at the direction of Bush or his administration.

Truth is that many issues like the Bull Trout issue have been politically charged and pre-date Bush's presidency.

Truth is that when Gore was VP, he did not champion the cause of global warming very little was done, but now he blames Bush for his "inaction". This type of inconsistency is pervasive with Bush haters.

dc_dux · 07-19-2007, 07:48 AM

The intelligent and informed members of TFP know the truth when they see it.

aceventura3 · 07-19-2007, 09:21 AM

You say you want to discuss facts with citations and links and when that starts to happen, you seem to want to avoid it. I find this pattern with many people holding liberal and anti-Bush views. it seems your goal is to make general accusations, supported by those who support your general accusations by making more general accusations. When we start to look at the general accusations in detail, you avoid it. This has happened with you and others in many threads. You folks often turn the table attacking me or my style yet pretend that you are victims of my lack of ...whatever. I am not phased by it and continue.

So, I'll revert back to my old ways with my opinions and here is an analogy illustrating a logical flaw in the premise of this thread:

I eat beef, always have always will.

There is scientific evidence that supports the fact that not eating beef is good for our health and would be good for the environment.

If I were President, I would not support a ban on beef. I would have no problem appointing vegetarians to various posts in my administration. However, as policy in my administration .I would not in anyway shape or form support banning beef. I would make that clear to everyone, prior to becoming President and after becoming President.

Vegetarian groups then make the claim that I am misusing and manipulating scientific data saying the ban of beef is good for the health of Americans and good for the environment.

I basically say screw these vegetarian groups. Then they get pissed off, and start a PR campaign attempting to mislead the public on my track record on this issue. Everyone who hates me for what ever reason buys it without any thought or analysis. After all these are vegetarians and they have the support of scientific data. And I am not a scientist and not a vegetarian, so what the hell would I know.

The truth is - the vegetarians have a political agenda and I don't support that agenda. Then based on that they make wild claims about how I manipulate, don't understand, ignore, etc, etc, scientific data. Yet, I stand firm. And a few here and there see the attacks for what they really are.

And that's the truth.

tecoyah · 07-19-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You say you want to discuss facts with citations and links and when that starts to happen, you seem to want to avoid it. I find this pattern with many people holding liberal and anti-Bush views. it seems your goal is to make general accusations, supported by those who support your general accusations by making more general accusations. When we start to look at the general accusations in detail, you avoid it. This has happened with you and others in many threads. You folks often turn the table attacking me or my style yet pretend that you are victims of my lack of ...whatever. I am not phased by it and continue.

So, I'll revert back to my old ways with my opinions and here is an analogy illustrating a logical flaw in the premise of this thread:

I eat beef, always have always will.

There is scientific evidence that supports the fact that not eating beef is good for our health and would be good for the environment.

If I were President, I would not support a ban on beef. I would have no problem appointing vegetarians to various posts in my administration. However, as policy in my administration .I would not in anyway shape or form support banning beef. I would make that clear to everyone, prior to becoming President and after becoming President.

Yet, if information was presented which showed a real trend that made Beef a serious danger to the population you represented....would you then stifle the Data to keep your beef from going away?

Vegetarian groups then make the claim that I am misusing and manipulating scientific data saying the ban of beef is good for the health of Americans and good for the environment.

They would not do so if the data was still available, as they would have nothing to bitch about.

I basically say screw these vegetarian groups. Then they get pissed off, and start a PR campaign attempting to mislead the public on my track record on this issue. Everyone who hates me for what ever reason buys it without any thought or analysis. After all these are vegetarians and they have the support of scientific data. And I am not a scientist and not a vegetarian, so what the hell would I know.

If you never attempted to hide the information, you would have nothing to worry about as far as your track record. You most certainly would not have the scientific community complaining about censure if you never tried to censure in the first place.

The truth is - the vegetarians have a political agenda and I don't support that agenda. Then based on that they make wild claims about how I manipulate, don't understand, ignore, etc, etc, scientific data. Yet, I stand firm. And a few here and there see the attacks for what they really are.

People deserve far more credit than you seem willing to give, as most now understand there has been a problem with the office of SG when it comes to free flowing information....we have the actual scientists to thank for the eye opener. Attempting to derail the topic with poorly framed analogy does little to make your case.

And that's the truth.

Obviously....the truth is subjective. But, I must say the Data does not support you for the most part.

aceventura3 · 07-19-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Obviously....the truth is subjective. But, I must say the Data does not support you for the most part.

I guess the question I have and what I would like to dig into is - when you say "the data", what data are you referring to? If all you point to is information from people and organizations with a political agenda, I agree that truth is subjective in this case, normally it is not.

In the OP you cite Carmona a former SG. He is a person who used his position to promote his political agenda to ban tobacco products. Don't you question his credibility regarding the issue of politicizing scientific data?

{added}

Interesting report from the Presidents Chief Science Advisor defending his boss, here is the link if anyone wants to read it. Perhaps there are other facts and factors to consider on this issue.

http://www.ostp.gov/html/ucs/Respons...tApril2004.pdf

Quote:

Regarding the document that was released on February 18, 2004 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), I believe the UCS accusations are wrong and misleading. The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement. I believe the document has methodological flaws that undermine its own conclusions, not the least of which is the failure to consider publicly available information or to seek and reflect responses or explanations from responsible government officials. Unfortunately, these flaws are not necessarily obvious to those who are unfamiliar with the issues, and the misleading, incomplete, and even personal accusations made in the document concern me deeply. It is my hope that the detailed response I submit today will allay the concerns of the scientists who signed the UCS statement.

07-13-2007, 10:45 AM	#46 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Waxman is introducing a bill that wasnt needed in the past, the Surgeon General Protection Act, in order to protect the Surgeon General from the type of political interference experienced by Bush's last SG, Three former SG's agree it is necessary in order to keep political ideology out of educating the public on health issues....Reagan's (Koop), Clinton's (Satcher) and Bush's (Carmona). http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=581 __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-17-2007, 07:57 AM	#54 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	You seem to miss the point. Given the total amount of accurate sceintific data available on a subject. someone has to decide what gets published on a website and what gets removed. If you don't like what I want to have posted, what makes you more correct than me assuming the data I want to post is scientifically correct? If there are two effective methods for combating a disease and I want to promote one of those methods over the other, given scientific proof that my method can be as effective or more effective than the other, how does that suggest an inappropriate use of scientific data? Specifically referring to the example about condom use vs. abstinence - how has the promotion of condom use suffered under the Bush administration? It seems to me that I hear more about condom use today than during any other time of my life. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-17-2007, 08:17 AM	#55 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...I get your point. But It is inappropriate (and unethical) when the best judgment of medical doctors (like the SG and CDC physicans) and career scientists (at EPA, DOI, NASA, etc) are overruled and their findings and recommendations suppressed by policy wonks with no background or expertise, but acting solely on ideology......to the extent NEVER done before. GWH Bush said it pretty well 17 years ago when he expressed his vision of how science must be used by government. "Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry;`and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity.` Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives,government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." GW Bush has taken science and medicine as far`from that vision as anyone could have imagined. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-17-2007 at 08:39 AM..

07-18-2007, 10:14 AM	#66 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	LOL....you are a pitbull, ace but I dont have time now to debunk your latest bullshit. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-18-2007, 11:07 AM	#69 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	So that I understand - she is being accused of illegally asking biologists to respond to questions from an attorney representing interested parties? She illegally removed more than 80% of almost 300 miles of streams that were to be protected to help bull trout? And, she illegally bullied her staff? Is this correct? I am going to listen to the hearings, if the are still on. So far this still seems more like a political issue rather than a scientific one to me. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-13-2007, 03:03 PM	#51 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think I'm going to be sick. Pandering is one thing, but undermining scientific advancement is evil. The whole of the Bush administration should be in the Astrodome without rinning water as punishment.

07-19-2007, 07:11 AM	#73 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Truth also includes the ASCB having a political action committee and having an interest in promoting their political agenda on behalf of its members. Truth also includes the Union of Concerned Scientists exaggerating issues to support their premise. Or. Dr. Blackburn misleading the public. Truth is that to this point Julie McDonald has not been proved to be guilty of any crime and she has not formally responded to the charges against her. Truth is that there is no connection between her actions and the White House. The truth is that the members of Bioethics Council established by Bush are highly respected professionals in their fields, with no evidence supporting the premise that they would misuse scientific information at the direction of Bush or his administration. Truth is that many issues like the Bull Trout issue have been politically charged and pre-date Bush's presidency. Truth is that when Gore was VP, he did not champion the cause of global warming very little was done, but now he blames Bush for his "inaction". This type of inconsistency is pervasive with Bush haters. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-19-2007, 07:48 AM	#74 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The intelligent and informed members of TFP know the truth when they see it. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-19-2007, 09:21 AM	#75 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	You say you want to discuss facts with citations and links and when that starts to happen, you seem to want to avoid it. I find this pattern with many people holding liberal and anti-Bush views. it seems your goal is to make general accusations, supported by those who support your general accusations by making more general accusations. When we start to look at the general accusations in detail, you avoid it. This has happened with you and others in many threads. You folks often turn the table attacking me or my style yet pretend that you are victims of my lack of ...whatever. I am not phased by it and continue. So, I'll revert back to my old ways with my opinions and here is an analogy illustrating a logical flaw in the premise of this thread: I eat beef, always have always will. There is scientific evidence that supports the fact that not eating beef is good for our health and would be good for the environment. If I were President, I would not support a ban on beef. I would have no problem appointing vegetarians to various posts in my administration. However, as policy in my administration .I would not in anyway shape or form support banning beef. I would make that clear to everyone, prior to becoming President and after becoming President. Vegetarian groups then make the claim that I am misusing and manipulating scientific data saying the ban of beef is good for the health of Americans and good for the environment. I basically say screw these vegetarian groups. Then they get pissed off, and start a PR campaign attempting to mislead the public on my track record on this issue. Everyone who hates me for what ever reason buys it without any thought or analysis. After all these are vegetarians and they have the support of scientific data. And I am not a scientist and not a vegetarian, so what the hell would I know. The truth is - the vegetarians have a political agenda and I don't support that agenda. Then based on that they make wild claims about how I manipulate, don't understand, ignore, etc, etc, scientific data. Yet, I stand firm. And a few here and there see the attacks for what they really are. And that's the truth. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."