America in Reverse
 

I can see absolutely no reason for this, other than an attempt to control a population through propaganda. I am sure we all know this has taken place before on some level, but it would seem this Administration has gone overboard in its manipulation of science to keep people ignorant.

This pisses me off more than lying for some reason:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/185250.html

The new guy likely wont care anyway....as he seems to be biased against the sciences (the guy founded an Anti-Gay church) from the get go.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/01/...neral-nominee/

(tangent)
Gotta love that article title. "Bush Nominates Homophobic Surgeon General Who Wants To Cure Gays". If the dude's founding a church that wants to deal directly with homosexual people and 'help' them, the dude's probably not friggin' homophobic. May not even be bigoted in any meaningful sense of the word. Why make these dubious near-unprovable charges? Isn't it enough that he's wrong?
(/tangent)

But yeah, that nomination seemed like a really bad joke. What's next, Michael Behe as education czar?

Carmona would support making tobacco products illegal. I guess he is not above having his own political agenda. Informing people of the negative impact of tobacco is one thing, taking away informed choice is another.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...hibition.shtml

Whats your take on the actual topic of discussion though? Are you concerned at all that the sciences were corrupted by government intervention? Do you think it acceptable to limit knowledge in favor of an agenda, at this level? Does the position this man takes on tobacco, nullify what he has to say on the censorship issue?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Believe it or not, the sciences have always been politicized and censored by those in power. Remember that whole the-earth-is-round controversy? No, it's not right that facts and truth are smothered by theological nonsense, but it isn't something new.

Agreed, it happens all the time. Here though, we have the person expected to help our country understand and use the sciences to benefit the population,prevented on a grand level from doing so by the very people we trust to help him. For the first time I have ever seen, we have the nations top scientist (for all intent and purpose), forced to rewrite the science by the leaders of the country.

I find it completely unacceptable. I have stood by watching the corruption of so many aspects of our nation....but do not fuck with my science.

tecoyah:

An investigative report by the House Committee on Govt Reform in 2003 found that the Bush administration interfered or suppressed scientific studies and findings by government agencies in numerous areas for political purposes: abstinence only education, agricultural pollution, arctic national wildlife refuge, breast cancer, condoms, drinking water, global warming, HIV/AIDS, lead poisoning, missile defense, oil and gas, stem cell research, wetlands, ......

The report concluded:

Federal agencies with global reputations for scientific excellence depend upon the objective input of leading scientists and the impartial analysis of scientific evidence to develop effective policies. The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted to wield at federal agencies and compromise the integrity of scientific policymaking.

Report (pdf):
http://oversight.house.gov/features/...cience_rep.pdf

More reports: http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?ID=239

But I guess (per our other discussion and the "ace' standards), it has no validity until something is found to be illegal or persons are found guilty of something in a court of law.

Unfortunately....you surmise correctly. It would seem that incremental corruption of a thing goes generally unnoted by legal standards, and though I am well aware of the destruction of EPA standards,the Pharmacy Fiasco, and any number of other issues this administration has created in its misguided (to me) attempts to shore up corporations,until the former SG came forward there was no substantial way to accuse them. The scientific community has put forward several damning reports on the way they are "stifled" by the administration to no affect. Perhaps this will add the needed voice to change the practice.....perhaps not.

I don't think government should be in the business of science. Government should make laws based on the will of the people, by definition "political", and we should understand that science is best served when there is no government involvement. The US Surgeon General is a political position. The office, in my opinion, is to bridge scientific research and public policy. If our elected President sets a general policy of being against the use of stem cells, the US Surgeon General has an obligation to support that position or resign from his appointed post. I have never assumed information coming from the office of the US Surgeon General was anything other than propaganda supporting the political agenda (even when the data presented is true) of the White House.

Scientist should do their work independent of government. They should fund their own research or understand that they will have various types of pressure from the source of their funding including pressure to support certain preconceived conclusions. This would be true of scientist receiving funding from virtually all sources. The best scientists recognize and are able to manage these potential conflicts while doing their work in an impartial manner.

Almost everyone has an "agenda" when they give money.
My concern is not with the attempts to "corrupt" scientists by government or private sources of funds, but when scientists actually corrupt their work for whatever their reasons.

If the government goes out and gets an Attorney General - a person who is presumed to be a health care professional and a scientist - and only lets them say predetermined things... Well, that's not science at all, it's just propaganda. I wonder how nominees for the position would feel if it were made clear to them that their job description is "propagandist".

Why not just back off?

You made a charge that I twisted and turned evidence. Seems to me you are making an attempt to twist and turn information, to trivialize my opinion. The pattern I have seen is when you get frustrated you revert to this tactic. It is pretty obvious.

So, in essence the Government should forgo funding the advancement of technological growth, and simply allow for private investment to guide economic growth within the technology sector, regardless of the impact stagnation could create within the population. It should also ignore scientific study in favor of a stable status quo, until forced to react to innovation elsewhere in the world.
I suppose that is an option, but fail to see how such a path would lead to prosperity. The future of most economic growth in the coming decades will require a supportive atmosphere from every direction, unless we simply wish to live off of second hand science. Misdirection of Data, by any entity is in my opinion a terrible wrong and one of the most counter-productive things we can do. Having it handed down by the federal government has the effect of making it acceptable and common, as we can now see.
I guess I just want the leaders of my coutry to...well.....lead.

So we dont need the National Science Foundation:

The NSF is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America’s colleges and universities.

Each year, NSF supports an average of about 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students at universities, laboratories and field sites all over the United States and throughout the world. You could say that NSF support goes "to the ends of the earth" to learn more about the planet and its inhabitants, and to produce fundamental discoveries that further the progress of research and lead to products and services that boost the economy and improve general health and well-being.

or National Institutes of Health:

The National Institutes of Health is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research.

NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

or the National Institute of Standards and Technology:

NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration. NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

The critical role of the federal government in medical, scientific and technology R&D does not have to be politicized just because that is the Bush practice.

scientists "should fund their own research"?
how would that work?

http://www.deeprooted.ca/scvolunteer...ake%20sale.jpg

http://www.myfonts.com/images/family...ummagesale.gif

what seems at work in the proposition that scientists should "fund their own research" is a kind of naive understanding of the state--you know, the limbaugh position that the state, being a bureaucracy, is irrational, while corporations, being bureaucracies, are rational, so that whenever the state acts its introduces irrationality--the kind of position that really is not about anything at all, except maybe some quaint faith in the pyramid of capitalism

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ist_System.png

conservativeland has politicised scientific information for many years. here it is again. it is repellent, but it is also part of the modus operandus of the right, so should be no surprise. cowboy george's administration has opposed funding to oraganizations engaged with AIDS in africa that distribute condoms on the grounds that condoms encourage sexual activity. the entire logic behind the filtering of infotainment from the surgeon general lay behind that.

Not quite...the mission of the US Surgeon General is to provide Americans the best scientific information available (not just the information that supports the President's ideology)on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/

That is NOT a political or policy function.

but there is no operative distinction between information and ideology for american conservatives of the bush administration's ilk.
this form of conservatism has nothing to do with that you can read in "the economist" for example--it is not about providing information as the basis for informed policy choices (or anything else) so much as it is about controlling the parameters of debate itself.
american conservative approaches to information are explicitly authoritarian--they are about disabling debate across different viewpoints.
when you translate this politics of information into policy formation, the results can't help but be irrational.
when you compound that by attempting to filter information flows themselves so that their contents square with your ideology, you multiply the irrationality.
you can see the consequences of this all over the record of the bush administration.

<b>Wouldn't it follow that one who posts an advocacy for the idea that it is "defensible". "agreeable" or "normal"</b> for the political regime in control of the executive branch to limit the release of information related to health and medical treatment to what meets the regime's political and religious ideology and agenda, instead of not interfering with what the Surgeon General that it appointed, in the first place, deems relevant for public distribution..... <b>would be "fair game" here.... for other members posting in wonderment about the motivation for posting such an advocacy.....never accompanied by supporting citations.....</b> Always leaving open, the question; where, on earth, do you come up with these opinions?

Then again...where ....on earth....did America come up with a president....in 2007, no less, who would "Come up with" someone...and nominate him to be Surgeon General of the U.S., who once wrote this:

I think "Government" has a responsibility to govern. People given the responsibility to govern in most cases are not going to be scientist. Scientists should have the responsibility to conduct scientific research. I generally think scientific developments and advances in technology are handled most efficiently in a free market without government. Government, however, is a part of the "free market", and as a consumer of scientific developments and advances in technology government will in-part be a driver of development in those areas. Also, government has a role in governing science based on the will of the people. For example government should regulate bio-hazardous material. However, government, in my opinion, should not make marijuana illegal based on cherry picked science, and then say alcohol is legal based similar science that lead to marijuana being illegal.
If we started a list of scientific developments sponsored by governments and those privately funded, which list would be longer? Which list would prove to have had the greatest impact?

Many scientists believe for example that the FDA actually hinders the development of new and better drugs. Perhaps their is a fine line where government and the private sector are in balance providing maximum benefit to society. Today, I think government is over-regulating and hindering sceintific development .

I have not stated anything to the contrary. Just like the tobacco industry having an agenda, anti-smoking groups have one too. When I look at scientific research of any type, I look at it with in a skeptical state of mind. Everyone should.

First, almost every mission statement I have ever read has been a reflection of an exercise in creative writing. When I am interested in knowing and understanding an organization, the mission statement is the last thing I would look at. I understand your point - but it does not move me. And because mission statements don't move me does not mean I am twisting evidence. I am ignoring the mission statement in this case, and I have given my reason. If you don't like the reason, so be it. But don't pretend I am ignoring the point.

Second, you take the position that the SG does not have a political or policy function but it is a politically appointed position in the government. I gave a reference where a SG was promoting a political agenda in his testimony to Congress. Over the years the SG has been involved in and has been used to promote. various "heath" related campaigns, politically driven. This is not new. How do you reconcile the mission statement and your point of view with reality and history?

The information on tobacco products is 100% clear: they are dangerous and responsible for (statistics suggest as high or higher than 40,000) deaths every year.

Is it a political agenda to prevent deaths from poison? Really? I mean if everyone that smoked was clear that their intention was suicide, that'd be different, but many are smoking because of addiction, or to keep their weight down by staying perpetually sick. I don't want to turn this into a smoking thread, but I'd hardly call the want to stop people from smoking illegal a political agenda.

In order for the above to be correct, in that conservatives can control the debate and disable the debate across differing viewpoints you have to assume that scientist with views contrary to those of conservatives (assuming conservatives agreed on the scientific issues in question), are gutless and unwilling to take a stand against irrational conservative views. I don't believe that. I also think scientists with opposing views to those of conservatives have many outlets and forums where they can express those views and move the debate in a rational direction.

Smoking is dangerous. Smoking can lead to cancer and other illnesses. On the other hand, if I am aware of the risk, why take the choice away from me? Who gets to decide what is too risky and what is not? Isn't that question answered in the political realm? DC wrote that the SG should not be involved in politics or public policy, so why was he commenting on the legality of smoking?

You absolutely twisted what I said...I did not say the SG should not be involved in politics or public policy. I said the SG does not have a political or policymaking function. The fact that you dont like mission statements doesnt change the mission of the SG.

The purpose of Congressional hearings is to bring the facts into consideration in the development of legislation.

The Surgeon General has a role to educate the public (including members of Congress) on health and medical issues (sorry, its part of the mission). It is entirely appropriate and not political or policy driven for the SG to testify on medical or health issues.

Ace we cannot make all research private. Doing so makes science driven by profit. If there is no profit then there is no research. We have seen this in the automobile industry over the last 100 years where the technology has changed very little in terms of fuel efficiency. What happens with medical research where a very small % of people are effected, lets say something like Parkinsons. The industry won't research it because they can't make money off it. Again a bad situation. Let's take it a step further and look at military research. Private industries are not allowed to do this research thus the government must do it. Do you really want people whose number one desire is money to drive military research? They will sell the technology to the highest bidder regardless of who it is, if it is someone really bad they will just charge them more. Finally people don't just become good scientists it takes a lot of time and work. We need facilities to train these people. This is why NSF, DARPA, ASC Alliance, ect exist. To put all research into the private industry is ridiculous.

I would say probably the government. In the upcoming FY 08 fiscal year alone, the federal government investment in medical, science and technology R&D is $143 billion....much in the form of grants to universities and the private sector.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/prel08p.htm

This has been the case historically. The US has been the leader in scientific advances since the industrial revolution in part because of the federal commitment to R&D.

If I twisted what you said, it is because I don't understand the difference.

I simply stated my point out my view. There is the written mission and there is what is actually being done. The two can be in conflict, therefore I focus on what is being done.

Facts about smoking are one thing, saying smoking should be made illegal is different.

When I suggest the SG is a political position, that is not negative in my point of view. But it is what it is.

If I were President and wanted to make marijuana legal in this country, what do you think I would do?

I would appoint a SG who would support my view and testify to Congress stating facts supporting my view.

What would you do? Isn't that political? Doesn't that make the SG a political tool? Hasn't the SG been a political tool in the past?

I don't expect you or anyone to answer those questions, I have already anticipated what the future responses to my points are going to be. However, I still think it is an interesting topic, and I wouldn't have otherwise given it much thought.

I just want to say that the idea that science should be handled by private industry isn't necessarily very realistic or reasonable. Most science takes place in public research institutions or publicly funded private corporations for a reason: private industry, especially in this day and age where profit now > potential profit later, is only really concerned with science as far as it can make them money. Venture capitalists aren't necessarily that interested in investing in things with no specific potential financial payoff, which is exactly what a lot of scientific research is.

Private industry would never have given us the space program, private industry would never have given us the internet. Ironically, private industry, and society in general, benefits greatly from the public, or public/private funding of scientific endeavors. Public universities do public research, which is then used by private industry to make money.

Yes, our government has invested in medical and technology research. Like I said in the market, our government is a consumer of scientific and technological advances.

Just a few companies I follow:

Genentech $1.5 billion in R&D last year.
Pfizer $7.6 billion.
Merck $4.7 billion.
Amgen $3.6 billion.
Johnson & Johnson $7.6 billion.

Microsoft $6.5 billion.
Intel $5.8 billion.

If we started adding up the sum totals of all companies, the amounts will easily surpass the government's investment. We can also look at countries with highly centralized governments in countries with high levels of restrictions on private investment in R&D, we would find very little inovations coming from those countries.

It is true the companies above have a profit motive, but they also have a motive to bring beneficial products to market. When that motive is missing, sometimes you get research for the sake of research.

I hope our government's investment in research is to bring forth useful information to benefit society, but I don't think that is always the case. I think one problem is that in order to qualify for government research grants in many cases you have to "sell" government bureaucrats and when you do there can be strings attached to the money or the money is given to serve some political purpose. Given limited resources "politics" often can be a factor on who gets funds.

If I were in Congress, I would want the major universities from my state to get their "fair" share of the funds, wouldn't you? Isn't that political?

I bet some would disagree.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...wn_040621.html

In my lifetime, I think I will be able to go into space as a tourist.

Actually no such assumption is required, nor is it the case:

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars/

I would say calling the SG a prostitute is pretty gutsy...particularly for a scientist. Scientists worldwide have been critical of this administrations manipulation of science for many years, and have been quite public about it. They have taken a stand on multiple occasions, most recently with a very critical report detailing the manipulation of Data that resulted from scientists doing the work they are required to do. Attempting to move the discussion away from the ethical problems created by what amounts to propaganda through the rape of scientific data, by claiming it happens all the time is disingenuous at best and ignores the implications on our ability to compete worldwide.
Imagine how many young scientists will be affected by an understanding that federal policy has the final say on the work they do. Imagine how many kids will forgo condoms in favor of abstinence...only to succumb to the natural tendency to fornicate, but continuously told that sex is wrong, and God frowns on rubbers. Imagine how we would feel if France develops a cure for cancer from embryonic stem cells, and we could have benefited financially and physically had we ignored the politics in favor of the science. Imagine the brow beating when a central American country develops a fusion reactor and we are forced to buy the technology while they reap the benefits of the research.
By exchanging the truth in science for political objectives we are selling ourselves short, and will soon force the "best of the best" to ply their trade on far away shores. When that happens, our future goes with it.

This is a very libertarian view. Would you also like to see heroin and cocaine legalized? Maybe we should disassemble the FDA to allow poisons in all food and drug products, so long as they say that they're poison.

As to policy making, the SG should be able to make recommendations, along with the US Public Health Service, based on scientific evidence, to the house or senate so that they can decide on legislation. He is an educator, and as such must explain how dangers to the public, like smoking, should be treated. Obviously, he cannot simply outlaw smoking.

Don't forget, not all liberals have the same views. DC is brilliant, like many liberal members, but I'm sure very few liberals agree on 100% of the same solutions or perceptions. I happen to think that public health should be an issue of government, and it would work best in congruence with socialized health services.

Do you smoke?

One of Carmona's key points is that the Surgeon General must be selected from the pool of government physicians. I would extend the post to any physician of significant stature. It's been a long time since we have seen the likes of C. Everett Koop. For those that may not remember, Koop went head to head with the tobacco lobby with the hard scientific facts regarding cigarette smoking. He won with his facts, not any agenda, and he initiated the warnings that are seen on cigarette packs.

Holsinger proves that anyone can hold a medical degree and still be ignorant. I wonder what the AMA thinks of his theory of homosexuality?

Homosexuality would be under the jurisdiction of a Psychologist General or Philosopher General, people who have knowledge of the systems that could explain homosexuality and heterosexuality, not a medical doctor.

All I ask is for you, Tecoyah, and others is to consider factors in this area that occurred before Bush. The SG office has been a political tool. Take the "war on drugs" as an example.

http://alternativesmagazine.com/11/cahill1.html


When the SG did not tow the company line the SG gets fired. Political?

Look at the history of making drug illegal in this country and politics are all over it, including supporting views of the SG at various times.

Where is any evidence of any SG setting the record straight during any administration since, other than the one who got fired. Political?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08212004.html

http://alternativesmagazine.com/11/cahill1.html

What SG has championed the cause of presenting objective information on this subject? Why not? Politics?

I say politics, politics, politics.

Yes, for adults

I am not an anarchist, there is a role for government in regulating industry.


No. Never had never will. I have never done illegal drugs either. But I think people should have the choice. Just like I make the choice to ride my motorcycle, which some think is crazy, you should be able to choose your risks.

first off, ace, you misunderstood my post.

we are not talking about scientists in general, we are talking about the bush administration's use of the surgeon general's office as an extension of the conservative ideological apparatus (ideological state apparatus is a technical term. look it up.)

this usage of the surgeon general's office is in keeping with the logic of conservative ideology in general. control the parameters of debate.

now by control, what is meant?

well, ace, look at your own posts in relation to anyone else's here. to enter into an actual conversation with you requires that one accept your premises, not because they are legitimate (they aren't) but because you are either unwilling or unable to move beyond them. you cannot even articulate the premises of your positions, must less defend them: all you can do is cling to them.

the matter of control can work in this way--it does not require domination (your side of the political aisle is increasingly a minority position every day, it seems--no matter that the bush people are still in power--they are increasingly talking to themselves, just as you are)--it can require only pigheadedness, obstinance, etc.: turning your inability to articulate the basis for your own position into a quasi-virtue by confronting everyone who interacts with you here with a choice: you either accept what are--to my mind--idiotic logical and political premises in order to debate you on your own terms, or find oneself in yet another tedious tedious tedious session of talking-past-each-other.

so your own technique of non-debate are in a sense a little duplication of what amounts to an attempt to control the terms of debate. of course, this technique does not work here simply because you have no power. no-one does.

in the context of bushworld, however, cowboy george retains formal power and is therefore in a position to directly or indirectly impose conservative ideological filters on information emanating from any number of administrative positions.

this imposing of conservative ideological filters is an aspect of the conservative surrealism.

the bush people continue to believe, it seems, that they "make reality" while the rest of us trot along behind interpreting their brave new world.

of course at this point (7/7) that view is ridiculous, but the administration--rather like yourself in this petri dish we swim in--doesnt seem to get that quite.

if we were talking about "the scientific community" as a whole--which we aren't--then the entire discussion would be otherwise.

It is true that past administrations have played politics with science, no one seriously doubts the reality of this. The issue is the level of manipulation, and the outcry from the science community, as well as the admissions made by the outgoing SG indicating his own distaste for what he was forced to do. I would wager that the office has not been compromised so heavily in the past, but if it was at least they were smart enough to hide it extremely well.
I have no problem taking into account previous manipulations of the Data....but I would also ask that YOU seriously consider the level of abuse that would force the entire scientific community to cry foul.

So long as the foods are parked as poison, they are being regulated in a very similar manner to cigarettes. I guess the question would be, what difference do you see between the two?
Be glad you avoided heroin.

Do you agree with helmet laws?

Well, their rocket design is based on the v-2, which was developed by the german military during world war 2. Their design also uses a motor designed by an american military defense contractor. It's not like they haven't benefited from technology produced at the behest and funding of government forces. It would be interesting to see how far they would have gotten if some of their most crucial components weren't mostly already designed by someone else. I think that it's still safe to say that private industry would never have given us a space program, at least not without considerable cribbing from government funded projects and/or technology.

I'm not saying that private industry isn't able to create new technology or do research. What i'm saying is that private industry isn't set up to do the types of things that many forms of research and experimentation require. The market is pretty good at finding ways to be successful with technology created elsewhere (like the winners of the x prize have).

I am APALLED that ANY human being would even CONSIDER legalizing these drugs. Heroin and cocaine have HORRIBLE side effects, and are adictive drugs. That is just insane!

An interesting charge against me. If correct what would happen next? Perhaps I would not be responding to your premise. Perhaps I would not be able to state that my original premise in this thread was that "Government should not be in the business of science" and the the SG is a political position in the government. Perhaps all I have done is cling to the premise I can't articulate, without adding any additional value or support. Yes, a very interesting charge.

Or, my premise could be correct. Or perhaps something is gained by the exchange.

Like I wrote earlier I found value in this thread because it covers an issue I may not have otherwise thought about. Responding to points counter to mine required additional thought on my part and some research on my part. I don't know about you, but I will walk away from this more informed. I walk away a winner.

You lost me here. Through my non-debate technique, I try to control the terms of debate??? Can you give an example of how this works?

I thought that all I was doing was posting my thoughts on a subject and then responding to those responded to my posts.
Depends on how you measure power. Some here are much more influential than others. I think that is a form of power. The moderators have power. People who initiate threads have power, they set the general direction on what gets discussed. You have some power, since I am taking the time to read and respond to what you write. I seem to have the power to get people pissed off at my idiotic, unsupportable, etc, etc, comments.

Balanced by the formal powers of others.

As others have power to impose other ideological filters on information emanating from any number of media, legislative, judicial, educational, scientific, industrial, financial, etc, etc, etc. outlets.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Unless your the lead dog on the sled team, the scenery doesn't change.

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, :eek: :eek: clinging to those idiotic premises again.

I have no problem with tobacco products being taxed and regulated. People who use tobacco products should have certain assurances and guarantees in regard to safety regulations same as food.

I am libertarian when it comes to issues like this. I would wear a helmet regardless of the law, because I think the benefits of wearing a helmet are greater than the costs. I also change the brake fluid in my vehicles every two years if they need it or not, I don't need government to tell me that and not everyone would agree that there is value in doing it, they should not be forced to do it. I just think adults should be able to make their own decisions as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

No, I don't agree with helmet laws.

1) these drugs have not always been illegal and people managed o.k.
2) the war on drugs has wasted billions of dollars and ruined the lives of countless people. The money and resource would have been better used on drug prevention education, treatment, regulations and controls.
3) if these drugs were made legal, I doubt usage would go up. It may go down.
4) regulate and tax these drugs. Perhaps we can get users off of the streets and in controlled settings.
5) what was the basis for some of these drugs being made illegal, while others are legal?

If these five things are insane and not worthy of discussion to you, I understand.

/ warning...... threadjack........

Heroin and cocaine do have nasty side effects, however, those side effects pale in comparison to ALCOHOL.

Legalizing is almost a necessity, being in the addictions field I can tell you that the field is shrinking, in that tax money for rehabs is drying up, and 99% of addicts can't afford nor have the insurance coverage to pay for it. The field is moving towards corrections, meaning the only help for the addict will soon be prison. This will be a nasty cost to taxpayers because crime rates will increase and taxes spent to house and treat prison inmates will skyrocket.

Unfortunately, once an addict reaches prison, regardless of treatment, the chances for recovery are very slim, far less than if they have treatment before they get that far.

Legalizing and putting some of that tax money into rehab would help millions of lives.

As long as these drugs and others like marijuana are illegal, the more our tax dollars are thrown away in negative ways. That's fact.

One of the few things Ace and I seem to agree on 100%.

/.... end threadjack.....

good christ--on the "war on drugs"---i agree with ace on something.

bewildering.

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.:paranoid: 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.....:thumbsup:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Something we agree on.

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

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

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

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

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

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

And here is info on membership:


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:

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.:thumbsup:

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.

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 .:thumbsup:

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":

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.

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

O.k. I look at her first objection:

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.

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.:thumbsup:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

http://ucsaction.org/img/gv2/custom_...ion/2007-8.jpg

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.

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.

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

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.:eek:

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