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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (52417)	10/11/2004 1:02:37 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 81568

I'd certainly like to think our CnC is in command of all his faculties, but unlike that clip, I watched his whole debate with Ann Richards 10 years ago on cable recently. He spoke of many things having to do with state policies in Texas with fluency, grasp of the facts and figures, and had a flexibility of response he seems incapable of now. He even had less of a Texas accent and better grammer then! As far as I'm concerned, the jury is out on brain damage.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (52417)	10/11/2004 2:32:44 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush's Science ______________________ Editorial The Detroit Free Press October 3, 2004 freep.com President George W. Bush says "sound science" drives his policy positions on a range of issues, from stem-cell research to global warming -- or "climate change" to nuclear power. But politics and the president's own philosophy and ideology often appear to trump science in the administration. The situation has gotten so dire that the Union of Concerned Scientists -- admittedly, a left-leaning group -- has gotten 4,000 scientists including 40 Nobel laureates to sign a statement decrying the manipulation of scientific facts and figures by the White House. UCS members are among scientists who have established a 527 organization -- advocacy groups that operate independent of a political party -- to attack Bush on science-related issues. Bush also has the dubious distinction of being the first president to receive an "F" on a report card from the League of Conservation Voters, which said the president has "worked systematically to dismantle and subvert fundamental environmental protections" while spouting "green" rhetoric. The environment gets lip service There is ample evidence to support the claim. Bush denounced the Kyoto treaty on global warming and initially refused to even acknowledge the phenomenon until a panel of the National Academy of Science said "climate change" was real. He has introduced a Clear Skies initiative that is anything but that. It could lead to less progress than strict enforcement of the earlier Clean Air Act. On other environmental issues, Bush has rejected recommendations that were based on solid studies. Most notoriously, shortly after inauguration, he yanked back a new rule to lower allowable arsenic levels in drinking water -- only to reinstate it when the next round of research began to indicate the level should be even lower. Permissive rules on snowmobiles at Yellowstone National Park fly in the face of every study conducted. Regulation of airborne mercury from coal-fired plants keeps going back for more evaluation. About the only things the president has gotten environmentally right are carrying over tough diesel emission rules started by the Clinton administration and staying on track to deal with nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The labels for administration initiatives -- Clear Skies, Healthy Forests -- sound progressive and cheery. But the policies are steps backward. The role of faith Bush's religious beliefs, rather than scientific or public health concerns, provide the framework for his policies on reproductive issues. He appointed an opponent of RU486 -- the so-called "morning after pill" -- to the FDA Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health and Drugs. In everything from maternal wellness programs to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the administration has repeatedly tried to define a fetus as a child. Bush policies have cut off foreign aid to family planning groups that so much as advocate for safer abortion in countries where the procedure is legal. His team overemphasizes abstinence -- a noble, but not always realistic, goal -- in its fight against AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. The president also has prematurely limited the ability of American scientists to do embryonic stem-cell research, a promising field. These cells are blank slates that can turn into any type of cell and, as a result, may one day be a source to replace damaged or lost cells. Last spring, two of Bush's own scientists -- a member of the president's Council on Bioethics and a biologist who was fired from that panel -- accused the board of skewing facts for political and ideological purposes. They said the board chairman refused to allow evidence that adult stem cells are not likely to be the promising alternative heralded by Bush. Off to Mars After the February 2003 Columbia disaster, the president outlined an ambitious plan to re-energize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Bush wants the United States back on the moon by 2020 and off to Mars a decade later. Those are laudable goals that tap the American spirit. Scientists, however, are more concerned with NASA undertaking repairs of the Hubble telescope and extending the life of this invaluable research tool. So in the Bush White House, it seems that "sound science" has become a buzzword for "science that supports what we want to do." Researchers who work for or get involved with the government fear that a report with the "wrong" results will be buried. This does not encourage fearless scientific inquiry, which has always been a hallmark of human progress. Copyright © 2004 Detroit Free Press Inc.