The articles that are referenced in the links I will include in this post raise some serious questions about the extent to which this administration is willing to politicise scientic research.

Before I am attacked by those on the right who may choose to view this as just one more left wing liberal diatribe against this "wartime" president I would suggest that you give the articles a thourough reading and not selectively cherry pick, out of context, one line or another in an attempt to vindicate your own political viewpoint.

You will note that several of these leading scientists have served in advisory roles in both Repubican and Democratic administrations.
Among those who have contributed to this report are several Nobel Laureates.


The original article can be reached at the following link:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/living/health/7985475.htm

The link title below references the original article with comments.

   It shouldn't be surprising, and an act not exclusively practised by this administration.  It is just the nature of politics.  Leaders do not want to hear anything contrary to their respective agendas, whether they are democrats or republicans, and mind you they both do this.  
   Global energy transformation and migration from limited, politically controlled, embedded in a highly volatile region, toxic fossil fuels to newer, safe, clean, unlimited sources of energy is nothing less than a national security and foreign policy imperative for this nation which we must all aspire to in a bipartisan manner.  
   If the groups and people who truly believe in this issue keep talking about it in terms of global warming and clean environment, it will never move forward and will be easy to discard as diatribes from the left.  We need to start talking about this in national security, foreign policy, and economic terms.  
   Balance of powers achieved by the policy of mutually assured destruction prevented the imperialistic march of communism throughout Europe until it was brilliantly defeated by Reagan when he accelerated the arms race and bankrupted the Soviets.  In the middle east there has been a foreign policy based not on the expansion of human rights, or democracy, rather one based on preserving stability in a region that will allow a steady flow of oil to the world.  To preserve that stability we have supported and financed the likes of Saddam, the Shah, house of Saud, Mubarak and the rest of the ilk.  yes we have other allied interests there as well, however our policy in the region for the past 50 could only be seen in the context of global economic impact of oil disruption, and the best way to avoid such disruption. In 73, Nixon gave the orders to our forces around the world to prepare for a full scale invasion and occupation of the entire middle east in case the oil embargo deteriorated to the point of causing hyperinflation in energy prices in the western world.  We can only wonder what terrorism would have been like once we had US forces occupying the entire middle east.  BTW, Im not making up this Nixon story, it is a fact reveald not too long in declassified papers. No one can claim our national security and foreign policy benefited from supporting corrupt regimes galore.  
   Unless the political influence of the oil industry is broken from congrss we simply will not move forward with technologies that are being stifled in free market capitalism by powerful forces whose only interest is preserving the status quo a la the oil and energy industries.  Scinece has unequivocally proven that energy transformation is economically viable and feasible.  Not a single person on earth today can say we do not have the technology to replace fossil fuels, and the economic benefits from doing so would be absolutely unimaginable.  The internet boom would pale in comparison to the economic revolution that would be felt the world over if we started to migrate to reneuwable sources of energy.

I can't go into detail for various reasons, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, and I hope more scientists voice what is occuring.

Of the hundreds of posts made in the political wars around here over the last few weeks, this is one of a small handful, perhaps the only one, that actually makes sense!

Anyone who believes that the Clinton administration did not put its own "spin" on federal science policy, or that a hypothetical administration headed by Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore would not be bending "research" on the global warming hot potato just as much as the Bush administration but in the opposite direction, is truly an ostrich living with their head deeply buried in the sand.

The moral is that the further removed that both scientific research and the arts are from government funding, and hence from political control, the better off we all are.

your post reads like the realpolitik chatter this administration and Marburger in particular is guilty of ... no doubt a Reaganite like you thinks Edward Teller was the best scientific advisor this country ever had

for a guy who doesn't fuck escorts you sure seem to have a peculiar agenda hanging around this board and since no one here is as impolite and direct as me, let me be the first to say i'm sick of YOUR diatribes

btw, if you don't know what "realpolitik" means, i suggest you look it up ... it fits you and your beliefs like a glove!

Singleton,
   If you think Im about to attack you  or call you names then you are wrong!!  That this issue is about science is precisely my point.  Science has made great advancements in the field alternative energy, however those advancements are not becoming economic realities specifically due to the political culture and not due to the lack of scientific certainty.  Such advancements would also greatly enhance our national security since we would be independent of middle east oil.  And that is a good thing for EVERY American!!  Realpolitik??  Maybe!! Well, it is much easier to make practical rather than moral or ideological arguments all the time.
   A Reaganite I'm not!!  President Carter realized the need to invest billions in alternative fuels and energy after seeing what the oil embargo did to the economy of this country.  When Reagan came to power he killed any such investments.  I'm not a Reaganite, Republican, Democrat, Liberetarian, Martian, or whatever else is out there.  The politician who makes the most sense and lies the least is the one I go with.  
   I don't fuck escorts as you put it not because of a lack of money thats for sure.  Is that requirement to post on this board singleton??

NOSC, unfortunately it has to be a play on words!!

NOSC,
   Every time the words clean environment and global warming are mentioned, an attack ensues equating such talk as rants of the extremist lunatic left, hence the real message is completely lost.  Use words such as national security, regional stability,  economic security, and all the sudden its not that easy for that lunatic envoronmentalist left attack to have any credibility.  National security and regional stability based on energy independence doesn't sound too lunatic left does it??  Can't go around saying those loonie environmentsl leftists only want national security and economic security!!  The people listening just might say well damn, that actually makes sense!!
  In an age of media impressions sometimes the message is exactly the same, however just the choice of words can make the difference in determining whether the issue is taken seriously or not.  

or you can but simply won't fuck escorts for other reasons?  

as to whether it's a requirement to post, i should think not ... but don't you think there's a political forum somewhere on the net where your unique 'contributions' would be more appropriate?

people here attack each other over what brand of lubricant is best for anal ... do you think your political rants and gay-bashing are helping folks get along any better?



-- Modified on 2/20/2004 11:18:08 AM

Singleton,
   Next time please read a little more carefully.  I said money is NOT the problem.  A LACK OF MONEY IS NOT the reason why I choose not to see escorts.  
   If you must know here is the reason.  I did want to live out my fantasy of seeing an escort.  My reasoning doesn't make me better than anyone, and I do not disrespect anyone who does hobby.  As I was making the decision I started to think how I would fell if I found out my mother, sister, cousin, friend was an escort.  That is not a moral judgement, so don't confuse it as such.  It simply got to me so bad that I couldn't go ahead with it.  I kept thinking what if this is someone doing this to support a child, or is in a battered relationship, or is being forced, or had an abusive childhood, or has someone really ill in the family to support, or whatever else may be the case.  
    Once, a friend forced me to watch the movie "The book of stars."  A story of a woman who becomes a provider to pay the medical bills of her baby sister who has cancer.  That movie was so gut wrenching that I couldn't get the thougth out of my head.
What if I was seeing someone who was in that terrible kind of situation??  
   Maybe some women completely love doing this and I respect that as well.  But I couldn't get the thought out of my head that I may be taking advantage of someone who is in a very unfortunate situation??  It just kept bugging me thats all.  I was lucky and very fortunate to be born with a very big silver spoon in my mouth as society would say.  I am very greatful for having a life where money is never a real concern, yet I wondered what if my mother couldn't support me for whatever reason and wound up becoming a provider? How would I feel if I found out.  I wouldn't love her any less, however it would kill me inside.
  If I wanted to I could afford an escort every day for the rest of my life.  However those thoughts started bugging me from the time I decided to live out my fantasy and I couldn't go through with it.  That doesn't make me better than any other person here, its simply the way my thought process works!!
    Hope that answers your question Singleton.  If thats unacceptable to you then I can't say anything else.

...I would remind you that this was a Knight Ridder News Service wire story that was reported in the main stream print media nationwide.
This was not something that came from the Journal of the Sierra Club. By that I'm not suggesting that what is reported by the Sierra Club is without merit, quite the contrary.

Even if one chooses to make the argument that other administrations including Democratic administrations have in some way attempted to influence the scientific community the actions of this administration are so blatant, on such an unprecedented scale, that a coalition of the best scientific minds in this country including 20 Nobel Laureates felt compelled to speak out publicly on this matter.

You seem to imply that by putting forth some statement about the "spin" put on scientific policy by the Clinton administration or some spurious reference to a hypothetical Gore administration that you have presented a credible argument to refute the findings of this report. All without citing a single example to support your position. You seem to suggest that both parties are equally guilty of such egregious efforts to distort and manipulate basic scientific research, that this administration is just acting in a fairly benign, business as usual manner.

Well I choose to take the approach that this group of distinguised scientists is far more credible and in a far more informed position than you are to make a determination about the nature of the threat to basic scientific research.
Remember these are scientic researchers who have served in an advisory capacity to BOTH Republican and Democratic administrations.

As for your statement about government funding for scientific research and the arts, to suggest that elimination of funding is warranted because it would eliminate political control, in a nutshell is ludicrous. There is a wealth of evidence in the scientific literature to support the notion that many scientific endeavors have been undertaken under the auspicies of government funding that have led to significant scientific advancement without being distorted by political interference/influence.

I would go on to remind you that this "wartime" president (his phrase,not mine) has proposed the single most costly government funded scientific endeavor ever undertaken. Namely a manned mission to Mars
that, as a consequence, will result in the early death of the Hubble Space Telescope as funds are diverted to the Mars mission.  Many in the scientific community would suggest such a mission would result in farless worthwhile basic scientific discovery, especially given the cost, but that it has a certain emotional appeal to the general public.

So everyone is welcome to read the articles referenced in my original post and draw your own conclusions. If you have a different take on this then, by all means, present your evidence.



-- Modified on 2/20/2004 6:36:12 PM

-- Modified on 2/20/2004 6:59:07 PM

-- Modified on 2/20/2004 7:10:02 PM

  Feed me with the silver spoon would have been a more appropriate request, however your choice of words has now OFFENDED me. JUST KIDDING  
  Just had to get that one in for you saying to me a while back that I had offended you with something I said!!

The George W. administration is certainly having an invasive effect on AIDS research in the U.S.

As was reported by Erica Goode in the NYTimes (April 18, 2003):

"...Scientists who study AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases say they have been warned by federal health officials that their research may come under unusual scrutiny by the Department of Health and Human Services or by members of Congress, because the topics are politically controversial.

The scientists, who spoke on condition they not be identified, say they have been advised they can avoid unfavorable attention by keeping certain "key words" out of their applications for grants from the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those words include "sex workers," "men who sleep with men," "anal sex" and "needle exchange," the scientists said...."

When applying for federal grants, scientists typically avoid any area that is likely to be viewed as "controversial". Such proposals are typically red-flagged and will not be funded, no matter how meritorious.

Such interference is consistent with the removal of condom information on a government website discussing how to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies.

To scientists, all of this is very reminiscent of state-sponsored censorship, such as that seen in genetics in the old Soviet Union under Lysenko. Then, they called it Lysenkoism. Wonder if this should be defined as "Bushism". Hmm! Think that term has already been commandered by Slate when discussing the "Bush-speak" of the day.

-- Modified on 2/20/2004 2:54:41 PM