Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (30339)	2/18/2004 4:14:51 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793808

This is the Dem's best issue. The Public has been sold "Environmentalism" from their crib onward. The "Concerned Scientists" involved are a left wing group of activists who are not "Scientists," but experts at getting those who are to sign petitions, and get the Media to cover the result. Expect a drumbeat of this type of activity from now until November. February 18, 2004 - NYT Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts By JAMES GLANZ The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today. The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations. Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases. "Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies." A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today he had not seen the text of the scientists' accusations. "But I can assure you that this is an administration that makes decisions based on the best available science," he said. Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science" could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess. The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape, a day after Senator John Kerry won the Wisconsin Democratic primary and solidified his position as President Bush's likely opponent in the fall. The organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare — much longer than originally planned — and had been released as soon as it was ready. "I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, and who spoke in the conference call in support of the statement. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue," Mr. Train said. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: Ilaine who wrote (30339)	2/18/2004 4:34:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793808

But if a state legislature decides to protect gays from discrimination, it seems obvious to me that gay marriage is legal in that state. Traditionally, marriage has been defined as a contract between a man and a woman. There were certain requirements to enter into the contract - you had to be a certain age, not have certain diseases, not be related too closely, not be married already. Homosexuals were not prohibited from marrying, they just had to find a person of the opposite sex like everybody else. Besides, nobody had a civil right to marry; the states were allowed to set their own conditions, subject to constitutional provisions. Now the proponents of same-sex marriage are redefining the act to be between any two consenting people (I keep asking, as long as we are redefining marriage, what is going to stop polygamy?), and therefore demanding equal rights for same-sex marriages. Slipping in the redefinition of marriage under cover of Chapter II protection certainly seems to be pulling a fast one to me, and will likely earn a backlash in the form of some legal definition of marriage as one man + one woman. Stupid. Civil unions would have given people a chance to get used to the idea, and think about issues that need to be worked out, such as how to define common-law same-sex unions, and do civil unions require a sexual relationship to be valid (marriages do), or can they be done for platonic relationships as well?

To: Ilaine who wrote (30339)	2/19/2004 3:56:40 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793808

Intolerance at Yale Law School: From the Yale Daily News (via How Appealing): "I would say I'm a centrist, but when I got to law school I found myself to be conservative [by comparison]," Muzin said. "I find that the student body here is ultra-liberal and extremely intolerant; I realized it shortly after I started here." But Cooke said he has not felt isolated as a self-proclaimed conservative and does not think the Law School is a "bad environment" for those who share his views. "I've really enjoyed my time here. I've never felt terribly intimidated," Cooke said. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I also enjoyed my time at Yale Law, never felt "intimidated," and didn't think it was a bad environment for a libertarian like myself, largely because the faculty was quite tolerant, and often well-versed in free market and libertarian arguments even when they disagreed with them. The students, however, were, as a group, extremely left-wing, and extremely intolerant. A classmate of mine, now a law professor, told me recently that half of my first-year class wouldn't speak to me first semester of law school, for political reasons. I thought half sounded like a lot, though I knew I was "boycotted" by some at the time. I had always been mildly curious as to why (it didn't bother me much at the time because my mother was gravely ill in NYC that semester, so my social life consisted of trips to Mt. Sinai Hospital in any event), so I asked this classmate, who was himself quite left-wing, but always friendly. He responded, "Well, it's what you said in Contracts." "That's strange," I replied, "I don't remember Contracts class being that controversial; we didn't discuss any of the truly hot button issues for the left--such as race, abortion, gay rights--in Contracts--and, in any event, my (libertarian) views on such issues wouldn't have been so objectionable to them, anyway. So what did I say in Contracts class that led to my ostracism?" He said, and I swear he seemed at least 80% serious, "well, you kept saying that contracts should be enforced!"