Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2008 17:42:26 GMT -4
The Consumer Products Safety Commission, the one responsible for saying the lunchboxes were okay, is an independent Fedral Agency, not a part of the Bush Administration.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2008 17:55:04 GMT -4
I think the promotion of condom use is not a strictly scientific question - there are moral and policy issues present too. The free distributions of condoms in high school sex education programs is not something I am in favor of.
The statement on the USAID website that say that "condom use can reduce the risk of HIV infection" is perfectly accurate. The statement "Public and government support for latex condoms is essential for disease prevention,” which was apparently removed is not a scientific conclusion, it's an attempt to make policy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2008 18:36:59 GMT -4
The current NASA mission statement I found with a few second's googling says: -To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe. -To advance human exploration, use, and development of space. -To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.
So no, it doesn't say "protect" the Earth, but obviously advancing and communicating knowledge about the Earth would include studying global warming.
How did it read before 2002?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2008 18:48:15 GMT -4
How does the claim that the Bush Administration is "anti-science" square with this statement from the Washington Post: "Indeed, several researchers have received bigger budgets in recent years because President Bush has focused on studying global warming rather than curbing greenhouse gases. NOAA's budget for climate research and services is now $250 million, up from $241 million in 2004." A $9 million budget increase means I'm anti-science?
The few specific examples of censorship presented in the article do not appear overly alarming to me, and are not well-substantiated in any case. A general feeling that the Bush Administration is trying to censor them could be a result of the personal politics of the scientists involved rather than real incidents.
The BLM grazing-rights case seems similar. I note that both of the major sources for the story are ex-employees. Sour grapes?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2008 19:16:21 GMT -4
The Election Assistance Commission mentioned in the New York Times story is bipartisan and was created by Congress, not the President. Again, this can't be an instance of the Bush Administration intimidating science.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 11, 2008 15:52:23 GMT -4
I don't have time to respond to all of your responses, today. I will respond to the first, which is that the Consumer Products Safety Commission is independent and not part of the Bush Administration. The commissioner of the SPSC is a Bush appointee. And the Bush appointees have done the usual Bushie thing, which is to cave to industry pressure and accept travel and gifts from the very industries they are supposed to oversee. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110102732.html?hpid=topnews
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 11, 2008 17:02:50 GMT -4
I don't have time to respond to all of your responses, today. I will respond to the first, which is that the Consumer Products Safety Commission is independent and not part of the Bush Administration. The commissioner of the SPSC is a Bush appointee. So are two Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice. Does that mean the Supreme Court takes its marching orders from President Bush? And again, I feel the perceived tendency of the Bush administration to cater to big business or industry is more of a popular public opinion fed by a liberal media than it is fact.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jan 12, 2008 9:11:14 GMT -4
Oh no, the nation is in peril because we might find a creationist book for sale in a National Park! A nation's strength depends on its economy and its military. BOTH depend on the application of science. Anti-science undermines that. So yes.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2008 13:21:30 GMT -4
When is the last time you bought a book in a National Park?
And I don't see anything that says they had only "creationist" books at National Parks. If you have both "evolutionist" and "creationist" books for sale then you're giving preferential treatment to neither.
The "Panda'sthumb" article wdmundt cited seems a bit off the edge to me. He's picking nits and coming up with government conspiracies to make everyone creationists. I read in that piece a distinct fear of religion and the unenlightened general public who use it as their opiate. I see a distinct unwillingness to tolerate any opinion but his own in public parks that are owned by everyone. If my taxes are supporting the public parks, and I have no problem with "inspirational" books being on sale there, then why shouldn't the parks accomodate me as well as they accomodate him?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 12, 2008 14:31:54 GMT -4
It's "preferential" to put creationism on an even approximately equal footing to science that has some proper research behind it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2008 16:51:22 GMT -4
If they were presented in a store selling college textbooks I might agree with you, but we're talking about bookstores in National Parks. I'm sure there's many, many books sold in National Park bookstores that have little if any scientific content.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2008 17:00:30 GMT -4
In fact, the chief of public affairs of the National Park service, David Barna, says that the book in question - Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophism is sold in their "inspirational" section, along with books on poetry, photographic texts, and books of Native American legends that also give an "alternate" view of how the canyon was created. I suppose you would call those anti-science books and want them banned as well?
|
|
|
Post by mc77 on Jan 13, 2008 13:37:01 GMT -4
Some observations FWIW: * I agree with those that denounce tactics such as what was outlined in the OP but as wdmundt points out, we'll see a lot more of this kind of stuff. I think most here will agree that separation of church and state is the way it should be for any candidate and their religious beliefs or lack of same should not be an issue unless such beliefs would impact national policy. * Hillary Clinton's crying was contrived IMO. Hey, ya gotta do what you gotta do and it might have been responsible for her success in New Hampshire. I say "might have" because I think polls are overrated. I have no problem with what Hillary did although I would hope that if this was genuine it wouldn't become a habit if she wins the White House. * Regarding global warming, it's happening. While scientific consensus seems to support the culpability of greenhouse gasses, I'm against any treaty (like the prior Kyoto Protocol) that is economically oriented. It's hypocritical to decry the current US administration for it's stance on this subject if polluters like India, China, and some others are given byes due to their economic situation. Everyone has to play ball or it won't work. * I don't think a book espousing "creationism" undermines science any more than books that taut astrology do but do think there is a segment in this country that considers science a threat to religious beliefs. It's not just confined to this country either, it has happened/ happens everywhere and shouldn't be all that surprising if you know your history. The answer is not banning books or polarizing rhetoric but education. Those of you.that follow this sort of thing know our children do not score high in academics. This has been a problem for quite some time and is not something that is just due to our current administration's reluctance to embrace science...after all, who put the man in the White House in the first place? If I was the PTB, I would make "creationism," Intelligent Design, and any other faith-based belief system a voluntary course in the same vein as mythology. * Lastly, cool board. I came across it while looking for some references to help my brother educate a friend who believes the moon-landings were faked. Kudos go to Jay Windley and his excellent Moon Base Clavius site as well as the members here who have eloquently pointed out the flaws in this and other conspiratorial fantasies currently making the rounds. Keep up the good work!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 13, 2008 15:35:25 GMT -4
Not only is there a faction that believes science is a threat to religious beliefs, the article on the Panda'sthumb website is an obvious indication that the reverse is also true - there are people who feel religion is a threat to their scientific beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 13, 2008 17:35:29 GMT -4
* Hillary Clinton's crying was contrived IMO. In my opinion, she was exhausted. Further, unless there's something more than the clips I saw, that was hardly a crying fit or sobbing or whatever. I heard a shake in her voice; I saw no tears. If she were bothering to fake breaking down to win votes, she would have broken down enough so that everyone would have seen it. And, yes, books about creationism undermine science. So are books that tout astrology. They foster ignorance. National parks shouldn't do that. Teddy Roosevelt established the National Park System for education and preservation, and putting books about creationism in National Park Service bookstores implies that creationism is science. It isn't. It has no evidence; the evidence is all in favour of evolution. I'm not saying ban the books, mind. These idiots have the right to publish whatever they want. That doesn't mean the National Park Service should endorse their beliefs by putting the books on display. It might lead people to believe there's some scientific doubt about what created the Grand Canyon, and there simply isn't. Heck, it's physically impossible for the Canyon to have been created in the way these people claim. I learned about creationism in science classes in the same way I learned about phlogiston and the aether--past ideas that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. But the National Park Service doesn't have the time to teach that to everyone who comes into their bookstore, so they should reserve their shelfspace for valid science.
|
|