Title Goes Here(tm)

Going To Hell In A Handbasket, and Doing It In Style!

home page
previous entry
next entry


recommend this site

links:
Tom Paine
The Nation
Bush or Chimp?
Landover Baptist Church
The White House
The Onion
Ernie's House of Whoop Ass

we've had this many folks visit so far:

"Duct tape is the single greatest invention of the 20th century. By contrast, all the 21st century has been able to bring us so far is cloned sheep. As if bovine molestation were not already a problem of epidemic proportions..."

moshpit
(if you just gotta rant back, use the pit, that's what it's for.)

DISCLAIMER: Title Goes Here(tm) hereby expressly disclaims any implied warranties imputed by the laws of any jurisdiction whatsoever. We consider ourselves and intend to be subject to the jurisdiction only of the courts of the state of Chilikonkarne, Lower Moldavia. If you are dissatisfied with this site or with any terms, conditions, rules, policies, guidelines or practices herein, kindly piss off. Title Goes Here(tm) exists to serve Title Goes Here(tm). Title Goes Here(tm) is expressly NOT concerned with your satisfaction in any way, shape, or form. Title Goes Here(tm) is not responsible for any errors, omissions or representations on any of our pages or on any links on any of our pages. Nor does Title Goes Here(tm) warrant that the use of this information is free of any claims of copyright infringement. In short, Title Goes Here(tm) is responsible for exactly jack shit. We totally stole this disclaimer from EasyMidget, and we're sure they'd be the first to applaud us for it.

archives:

14 03 04 - 20 03 04
07 03 04 - 13 03 04
29 02 04 - 06 03 04
22 02 04 - 28 02 04
15 02 04 - 21 02 04
08 02 04 - 14 02 04
25 01 04 - 31 01 04
18 01 04 - 24 01 04
26 10 03 - 01 11 03
19 10 03 - 25 10 03
12 10 03 - 18 10 03
28 09 03 - 04 10 03
21 09 03 - 27 09 03

Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking

————

On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–voiced their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort.

————

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.

President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990

Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.

For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.

The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. “Clear Skies” would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.

Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.

The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, “How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations.”

Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:

* Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.

* Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s policies or with the views of its political supporters.

* The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.

* Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.

* In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education. To elevate the ethic that governs the relationship between science and government, Congress and the Executive should establish legislation and regulations that would:

* Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern;

* Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards; and

* Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels.

To maintain public trust in the credibility of the scientific, engineering and medical professions, and to restore scientific integrity in the formation and implementation of public policy, we call on our colleagues to:

* Sign the statement today. Bring the current situation to public attention;

* Request that the government return to the ethic and code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy formation; and

* Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective scientific analysis and advice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is a list of prominent signatories of the UCS RSI statement. There are currently 19 National Medal of Science signatories, 20 Nobel Laureates, and 3 Crafoord Prize winners.

(National Medal of Science * - Nobel Laureate † - Crafoord Prize #)

Philip W. Anderson * †

Condensed Matter Physics, Superconductivity, Princeton University

David Baltimore * †

Molecular Biology & Medicine, President, California Institute of Technology

Paul Berg * †

Molecular Biology & Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine

Rosina Bierbaum

Dean, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan

Nicolaas Bloembergen * †

Nonlinear Optics, University of Arizona

Lewis M. Branscomb

Former Director, National Bureau of Standards, Chief Scientist IBM; Harvard University

Eric Chivian †

Environmental Health, Harvard Medical School

Joel E. Cohen

Human Population Studies, Rockefeller University

James Cronin * †

Experimental Particle Physics, University of Chicago

Margaret Davis

Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota

Paul M. Doty

Biochemistry, National Security Policy, Harvard University

Paul Ehrlich #

Population Biology, Stanford University

Thomas Eisner *

Chemical Ecology, Entomology, Cornell University

Christopher Field

Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington

Gerald D. Fischbach

Neurobiology, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Columbia University Former Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

Val L. Fitch * †

Experimental Particle Physics, Princeton University

Jerry Franklin

Ecosystem Analysis, University of Washington

Jerome Friedman †

Experimental Particle Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Richard L. Garwin *

Pure & Applied Physics, Military Technologies, National Security Policy; IBM

John H. Gibbons

Former Science Advisor to the President

Marvin L. Goldberger

Theoretical Physics, Former President of California Institute of Technology

Lynn R. Goldman

Environmental Health, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Kurt Gottfried

Theoretical Nuclear & Particle Physics, Cornell University

David Grimes

Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine

Roger Guillemin * †

Neurology & Endocrinology, Salk Institute

John P. Holdren

Environmental Science, National Security Policy, Harvard University

Anne Kapuscinski

Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota

Eric R. Kandel * †

Neurobiology & Behavior, Columbia University

Walter Kohn * †

Atomic & Solid State Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara

Lawrence Krauss

Astrophysics, Case Western Reserve University

Neal F. Lane

Former Science Advisor to the President, Former Director, National Science Foundation; Physics & Astronomy, Rice University

Leon M. Lederman * †

Experimental Particle Physics, Director Emeritus, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Former President, American Association for the Advancement of Science

William Lipscomb †

Chemistry, Harvard University

Jane Lubchenco

Marine Biology, Zoology, Oregon State University; Former President, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Michael C. MacCracken

Former Executive Director of the Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

James J. McCarthy

Biological Oceanography, Harvard University

Jerry M. Melillo

Former Associate Director for Environment, Office of Science and Technology Policy; Co-director, The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory

Matthew S. Meselson

Molecular and Cell Biology, Harvard University

David Michaels

Former Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, DOE

Occupational and Environmental Health and Epidemiology, George Washington

Mario Molina †

Atmospheric Chemistry & Climate Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Michael Oppenheimer

Geosciences, Princeton University

Gordon Orians

Zoology, University of Washington

W.K.H. Panofsky *

Experimental Particle Physics, National Security Policy, Stanford University

Stuart Pimm

Conservation Ecology, Duke University

Ron Pulliam

Ecology, University of Georgia

Norman F. Ramsey * †

Atomic, Molecular & Nuclear Physics

Anthony Robbins

Tufts University School of Medicine;

Former Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Allan Rosenfield

Dean, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

F. Sherwood Rowland †

Atmospheric Chemistry & Climate Science, University of California, Irvine; Former President, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Edwin E. Salpeter #

Astrophysics, Cornell University

William Schlesinger

Dean, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University

J. Robert Schrieffer * †

Superconductivity, Chief Scientist, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University

Richard Smalley †

Director, Nanotechnology Laboratory, Rice University

Felicia Stewart

Reproductive Health Research and Policy, University of California, San Francisco

Kevin Trenberth

Head, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Harold E. Varmus * †

Behavior of Retroviruses; Former Director, National Institutes of Health; CEO Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Steven Weinberg * †

Theoretical Particle Physics & Cosmology, University of Texas, Austin

E.O. Wilson * #

Entomology, Harvard University

Edward Witten *

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Institute for Advanced Study

George M. Woodwell

President and Director, Woods Hole Research Center

Donald Wuebbles

Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois

Herbert F. York

First Director, Livermore National Laboratory

http://www.ucsusa.org/

Grabbed an afternoon matinee of Monster. If you have not seen it yet, do yourself a favor.

I tell you what. That Charlize Theron totally deserved the Oscar. I haven't seen a performance like that since DeNiro let me crawl inside Travis Bickle's skin in Taxi Driver.

Evereybody is yakka yakka yak about Theron's ugly-down for the role. The real deal is - you forget all about Charlize inside of two minutes into the movie. You just plain forget that who you are looking at is one of the world's most attractive people, and instead, you get sucked right in to the craziness, the personal hell that is Aileen Wournos' everyday life.

The whole flick is basically carried by Aileen and her borderline retarded girlfriend Selby, and centers around their love story (and it is, in its own warped way, a very sweet love story). Minor characters are only incidental to the central theme of their relationship and Aileen's unorthodox career choice of murderer. Christina Ricci was excellent as Selby - her performance was completely overlooked in all the 'ugly-down' hype. I sort of wish the writer would have given us a little more beef around Selby, so it was easier to figure out why she stuck it out with this psycho Aileen for so long, but that's just a quibble, since the real story is Aileen herself.

Here Theron made magic. She let you get inside this chick's head, to understand how she got to be where she was, how the world looked to her, what drove her to make the choices that she did, how she lived with the consequences of her choices, and what the things that she did to others did to her. In other words, Theron allowed us to see the human behind the 'monster', and to accept the reality that many of us, had we been forced to live the kind of life Aileen was forced to, might have made many of those same choices. We, too, might, under the same circumstances, choose to be 'monsters'.

Goodbye to All That

by Rep. Cynthia McKinney

[This is a transcript of Rep. McKinney's remarks on September 14 at the reception for the Congressional Black Caucus, September 18, 2002]

This is an important week for all of us, although it is a particularly important week for me. This week we had three very successful Braintrusts: Afro-Latinos and their rising tide of political empowerment all over Latin America; Hip Hop Power and the importance of Hip Hop as a communications medium in the absence of a real communications industry other than Radio One now, inside our community, owned by our community spreading the good news about our community;

And finally, COINTELPRO II: The Murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. where we learned that there really are linkages between the murders of JFK, MLK, and RFK. And that the COINTELPRO process was "to neutralize" the black leader--in the words of the CIA--assassinate, and then replace that leader with someone whose skin color was black, but whose loyalty was to their plan and not us. Yesterday, Judge Joe Brown told us unequivocally that the so-called murder rifle was NOT the weapon that killed Dr. King.

So, I think we did some very important work in these three braintrusts, connecting, communicating, and educating. And at least for the next two years, I will not be at the CBC Weekend as a Member of the House of Representatives. As everybody probably knows by now, I didn't cross the finish line first this time. Despite the fact that I easily won the Democratic vote, 40,000 Republicans maliciously crossed over and overtook the Democratic Primary. And because AIPAC had telegraphed in newspaper articles that they were going to target both Earl Hilliard and me, the Democratic Party was paralyzed.

Therefore, if Alabama represents the heart of the civil rights movement and Georgia represents its brain, the black body politic has sustained a mortal blow.

What does this portend for the future of independent black leadership in this country, particularly given what we learned really happened during the COINTELPRO period, and what will happen soon now that the USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and the Funding for the War on Terrorism Act have significantly changed the legal landscape.

The Operation TIPS program of John Ashcroft, by the way, is nothing new in the annals of the FBI, but executive authority always seemed to be there to override such ambitions. That's not the case now. And so, I'm proud of the votes I cast against those bills and I'm proud of the legislation I've authored that really does seek to move our country forward.

For instance, the legislation to override the President's executive Order denying our troops their rightfully earned overtime pay. George Bush has asked our young men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice, but he doesn't want to pay them for it.

And the legislation I authored to stop the use of weapons with depleted uranium which seems to be causing health effects and abnormal births and even deaths among the troops of our allies and maybe even our own.

I'm proud of the bill to stop the importation of coltan into the United States, the source of so much pain and suffering in eastern Congo because it's a key ingredient in our computers, palm pilots, Sony Playstations, and Oneboxes that people are willing to kill to get their hands on it.

I'm proud that we extended the benefits for our veterans who are suffering from Agent Orange because those benefits were about to expire and I authored the legislation that was passed into law to help them. But I'm most proud of my work to hold this Administration accountable to the American people.

And after I've asked the tough questions, here's what we now know:

* That President Bush was warned that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and crash them into buildings in the US;

* That in the weeks prior to September 11, 24-hour fighter cover was placed over the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas;

* That in the weeks prior to September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft and instead flew Government aircraft;

* That the US received numerous high level warnings from a wide range of foreign intelligence services warning of impending hijackings and terrorist attacks;

* That a number of FBI agents were pleading with their superiors to conduct intensive investigations into the suspicious activities of various men in US flight schools;

* That in the days prior to September 11, highly suspicious stock market activity in aviation and insurance stocks took place indicating that certain well-placed people had advance knowledge of the attacks.

And now this week we learn that the FBI had an informant living with two of the actual 9-1-1 hijackers. All of this has become public knowledge since I asked the simple question: What did the Bush Administration know and when did it know it.

Now against this backdrop of so many unanswered questions, President Bush wants us to pledge our blind support to him. First, for his war on terrorism and now for his war in Iraq. How can we, in good conscience, prepare to send our young men and women back to Iraq to fight yet another war, when we have tens of thousands of our service men and women poisoned and still suffering from the first war?

And what of those veterans who are sleeping on our streets? Within five minutes of where we are today, you can walk there, and see them, and talk to them: Vietnam Veterans, Gulf War veterans, veterans of our wars. George Bush can count me out of his war-making plans.

Throughout my career, we have proudly brought blacks and whites, Asians, and Latinos together. I'm proud that everywhere around me the human rainbow has been represented. And I know that as we continue to speak out on behalf of the poor and the marginalized in this country, my supporters across the spectrum, and across America will be right there with me.

And that as we continue to speak out on behalf of those who are sick and tired of greed being more important than human needs, my supporters will be right there.

And finally, as I ponder the future of America where voices of dissent are snuffed out by selfishness and intolerance, I'm reminded of the words of Bobby Kennedy, who we learned yesterday, was considering Martin Luther King, Jr. as his Vice Presidential running mate. Bobby Kennedy, truly a great man who selflessly lived and died for his country, shaped an entire generation with his thoughts, his words, and his deeds.

And it was Bobby Kennedy who reminded us that: "The task of leadership, the first task of concerned people, is not to condemn or castigate, or deplore: it is to search out the reason for disillusionment and alienation, the rationale of protest and dissenta*"perhaps, indeed, to learn from it. And we may find, that we learn most of all from those political and social dissenters whose differences with us are most grave: for among the young, as among adults, the sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country."

NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS ILLEGAL FLORIDA VOTE PURGE ... THREE YEARS AFTER KILLING STORY

MediaChannel.org

Monday, February 16, 2004

The New York Times has uncovered Katherine Harris' wipe out of thousands of voters ... only three years after killing the story exposed by the BBC TV and the Guardian. Here, 'News Dissector' Schechter, formerly of ABC's 20/20, asks how the Times could editorialize on a story they never ran in the first place. And note the Times still can't bring itself to say that the color of illegally purged voters is ... Black.

by Danny Schechter

The New York Times lead editorial Sunday was about "How America Doesn’t Vote." It featured proposals for many reforms to guarantee Americans the right to vote and to have that vote counted. Its lead paragraph has as its second sentence:

”In 2000, the American public saw in Katherine Harris’s massive purge eligible voters in Florida, how easy it is for registered voters to lose their rights by bureaucratic fiat.” The editorial goes on to quote the US Civil Rights commission’s findings documenting how people falsely designated as felons were struck from the polls.”

When I read this, I called investigative journalist Greg Palast to read it to him. Greg appeared in Counting on Democracy, a film I directed on the voting debacle in Florida. He was the first top journalist to report on the voter fraud, but not in the United States, oh no, but on the BBC in England.

“What? “ he shouted at me on the phone.” You must be kidding.” He couldn't believe it because the New York Times refused to carry the story at the time when it might have done some good. It didn't even report on the Civil Rights Commission’s findings it references in the editorial, only on Republican OBJECTIONS to those findings.

You would think that the “MASSIVE PURGE” they cite in 2004 might have been news fit to print back in 2000. The Washington Post carried Greg’s article on the subject but not until June 2001. The NATION ran it and followups earlier. CBS News wouldn't run it, Greg was told by a staffer, because Harris office denied it. Huh?

The whole sordid story of big media response to his findings appears in Palast’s book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” and was carried first on Mediachannel.

This is so strange. Remember the heavily hyped media “review” of the balloting? The New York Times was one of the key newspapers in the consortium. The findings were delayed and delayed, and then reported in such a confusing manner that you would need an MIT degree in linguistics to puzzle out what it was saying. An airplane crash that day knocked it out of the news.

Later, the New York Times’ own investigative reporter who supervised the media review told me on camera—and it is in the film—that Al Gore won.

Does any of this make sense? A top reporter challenging the main frame of the story as published, and an editorial three plus years later citing, as alarming and as fact, a “Massive” purge that it never reported or explained. One more thing, Greg noted they are still not making clear that most of those who were purged were black.

And, natch, likely Gore voters. Surprise. Surprise.