The Bush Administration's blind eye to science - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SoCalCoug · 12-09-2005, 05:52 AM

I was reading through my new Discover magazine, and I ran across a short article talking about criticisms of the science community of the Bush administration. It gave three examples.

1. At the EPA, political appointees were putting pressure on career scientists to either ignore or omit research which contradicted Bush's plan for slowing the reduction of mercury pollution at coal-burning plants. The scientists' claims were confirmed by the Government Accountability Office.

2. The Union of Concerned Scientists conducted a survey in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, finding taht 128 of 291 scientists had been told to refrain from making findings which would require further protections of wildlife and vegetation.

3. The New York Times reported in June that an administration official (previously an oil lobbyist) edited federal climate-change reports to minimize connections between gas emissions and global warming.

These are not isolated complaints - similar complaints have been made by the scientific community throughout the Bush administration's tenure.

Couple that with the complaints of Bush cherry-picking evidence to support the Iraq invasion, and the picture gets a little bit clearer. Look at the FEMA mess - political cronies with little disaster-relief experience or qualifications who made a mess of the Hurricane Katrina. What about that little attempt to get his friend, the eminently unqualified Harriet Miers appointed to the Supreme Court (I think someone kicked him in the butt after that one). What about his pledge to keep America safe from terrorism, while keeping huge troop and financial obligations in Iraq to "protect" us from a non-threatening dictator half a world away, yet allowing porous borders to the south, because the business interests that give him a lot of support like the cheap illegal labor. (There have been reports of illegals with strong middle-eastern ties going back and forth repeatedly over the Mexican border.)

These things are not isolated errors or idiosyncracies. This is a person who has a political agenda and doesn't give a damn about the facts or the science or qualifications. It's really frustrating to see evidence, over and over again of a president whose interests don't really lie with nation, but with his political agenda.

I suspect that long after he's out of office, things will come out of the woodwork that will show he hasn't been as up front about his motivations as the rank-and-file Republicans believe. I wasn't sold on him in 2000, and unfortunately, he has done little to persuade me otherwise.

ChinoCoug · 12-17-2005, 10:05 PM

BYU has the world's leading environmental economist, Arden Pope. The EPA tried to mess with some of his studies.

Jeff Lebowski · 12-17-2005, 10:40 PM

This surpises you?

SoCalCoug · 12-18-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

This surpises you?

Frustrates me? Yes. Surprises me? No.

MikeWaters · 12-18-2005, 02:20 AM

Remember, it was wealthy and powerful men who brought Bush to power.

It is naive to think he wouldn't turn on them. Still sad though.

This "war" is a very interesting one. It's one of our own creation. It's a war that never ends, with no clear enemy. Hence a continual justification for increased exec. power, loss of liberties, increased military spending (anyone ever hear of "no bid contracts"?).

We are safe because of the Patriot Act. We are never safe because the enemy is ineffectual.

I'm not sure I understand the nature of Al Qaeda. I don't grasp the level of the threat to be honest. Sometimes I wonder if it is really the tail wagging the dog. That we will give up our entire constitution over some guy living in a cave in Pakistan.

All-American · 12-18-2005, 07:35 PM

I don't believe that Saddam was a non-threatening dictator. Up to the day he was deposed he was making threats left and right. Thrill posted a speech of Clinton's regarding Saddam's regime:

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us."

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=1648622

You can argue about the timing, the way the war is currently being handled, or whatever you wish. The only way Saddam can be considered non-threatening, however, is if you consider him in his current position: behind bars and awaiting execution. And you have Dubya to thank for that.

Jeff Lebowski · 12-18-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

You can argue about the timing, the way the war is currently being handled, or whatever you wish. The only way Saddam can be considered non-threatening, however, is if you consider him in his current position: behind bars and awaiting execution. And you have Dubya to thank for that.

I don't think anyone with any sense would ever argue that Saddam was not a bad man or that it isn't good to have him behind bars. The real question is: are we more or less safe now that we have invaded Iraq? I think convincing arguments can be made both ways. I worry that we are less safe. I hope I am wrong.

MikeWaters · 12-18-2005, 08:49 PM

so who else is a threat? who is not a threat?

I would like to hear what we are going to do about an Iran with nuclear weapons.

SoCalCoug · 12-19-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

The only way Saddam can be considered non-threatening, however, is if you consider him in his current position: behind bars and awaiting execution. And you have Dubya to thank for that.

My biggest concern with Iraq is this: I was skeptical going into the war of Bush's true motivations for doing so. It appeared to me at the time that he was really forcing the issue, and that became clearer and clearer as time passed, and as the reasons behind going in there in the first place have crumbled.

So now, whenever people question Bush's motivation, we hear about spreading democracy and how the people there like us, and how we should support the troops. Just as I'm sure Bush and his people hoped, the weakness of the stated motivation for going in to Iraq has been forgotten in the name of patriotism (jingoism?).

But this doesn't answer what I think is a huge question: What was his real motivation for going into Iraq? We're now embroiled in a conflict with no end in sight. We seem to have forgotten about the chase for bin Laden, and the Bush administration can't be too concerned about terrorism on U.S. soil while they're allowing 500,000 illegal immigrants per year to cross the sparsely-monitored borders.

The real motivation is an important question, I think, which the Bush administration has very successfully avoided.

All-American · 12-19-2005, 08:35 AM

Me personally, I don't see the conflict between the motivations of fighting terrorism or establishing democracy. I believe the one inevitably brings about the other. A stable democratic government is poison to oppression and terrorism.

Regarding the search for bin Laden and controlling the borders, I think that this was an issue of picking the most important battle. A bin Laden heading an organization in shambles from a hole in Pakistan or illegal immigration didn't merit as much attention as dealing with a dictator who was openly threatening the world with mass destruction

I do agree wholeheartedly, however, that we've got a big problem on our hands when it comes to Iran.

12-09-2005, 05:52 AM	#1
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	The Bush Administration's blind eye to science I was reading through my new Discover magazine, and I ran across a short article talking about criticisms of the science community of the Bush administration. It gave three examples. 1. At the EPA, political appointees were putting pressure on career scientists to either ignore or omit research which contradicted Bush's plan for slowing the reduction of mercury pollution at coal-burning plants. The scientists' claims were confirmed by the Government Accountability Office. 2. The Union of Concerned Scientists conducted a survey in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, finding taht 128 of 291 scientists had been told to refrain from making findings which would require further protections of wildlife and vegetation. 3. The New York Times reported in June that an administration official (previously an oil lobbyist) edited federal climate-change reports to minimize connections between gas emissions and global warming. These are not isolated complaints - similar complaints have been made by the scientific community throughout the Bush administration's tenure. Couple that with the complaints of Bush cherry-picking evidence to support the Iraq invasion, and the picture gets a little bit clearer. Look at the FEMA mess - political cronies with little disaster-relief experience or qualifications who made a mess of the Hurricane Katrina. What about that little attempt to get his friend, the eminently unqualified Harriet Miers appointed to the Supreme Court (I think someone kicked him in the butt after that one). What about his pledge to keep America safe from terrorism, while keeping huge troop and financial obligations in Iraq to "protect" us from a non-threatening dictator half a world away, yet allowing porous borders to the south, because the business interests that give him a lot of support like the cheap illegal labor. (There have been reports of illegals with strong middle-eastern ties going back and forth repeatedly over the Mexican border.) These things are not isolated errors or idiosyncracies. This is a person who has a political agenda and doesn't give a damn about the facts or the science or qualifications. It's really frustrating to see evidence, over and over again of a president whose interests don't really lie with nation, but with his political agenda. I suspect that long after he's out of office, things will come out of the woodwork that will show he hasn't been as up front about his motivations as the rank-and-file Republicans believe. I wasn't sold on him in 2000, and unfortunately, he has done little to persuade me otherwise. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

12-17-2005, 10:05 PM	#2
ChinoCoug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: NOVA Posts: 3,005	BYU and the EPA BYU has the world's leading environmental economist, Arden Pope. The EPA tried to mess with some of his studies. __________________ 太初有道

12-17-2005, 10:40 PM	#3
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	This surpises you?

12-18-2005, 02:20 AM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Remember, it was wealthy and powerful men who brought Bush to power. It is naive to think he wouldn't turn on them. Still sad though. This "war" is a very interesting one. It's one of our own creation. It's a war that never ends, with no clear enemy. Hence a continual justification for increased exec. power, loss of liberties, increased military spending (anyone ever hear of "no bid contracts"?). We are safe because of the Patriot Act. We are never safe because the enemy is ineffectual. I'm not sure I understand the nature of Al Qaeda. I don't grasp the level of the threat to be honest. Sometimes I wonder if it is really the tail wagging the dog. That we will give up our entire constitution over some guy living in a cave in Pakistan.

12-18-2005, 07:35 PM	#6
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	I don't believe that Saddam was a non-threatening dictator. Up to the day he was deposed he was making threats left and right. Thrill posted a speech of Clinton's regarding Saddam's regime: "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us." http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=1648622 You can argue about the timing, the way the war is currently being handled, or whatever you wish. The only way Saddam can be considered non-threatening, however, is if you consider him in his current position: behind bars and awaiting execution. And you have Dubya to thank for that.

12-18-2005, 08:49 PM	#8
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	so who else is a threat? who is not a threat? I would like to hear what we are going to do about an Iran with nuclear weapons.

12-19-2005, 08:35 AM	#10
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	Me personally, I don't see the conflict between the motivations of fighting terrorism or establishing democracy. I believe the one inevitably brings about the other. A stable democratic government is poison to oppression and terrorism. Regarding the search for bin Laden and controlling the borders, I think that this was an issue of picking the most important battle. A bin Laden heading an organization in shambles from a hole in Pakistan or illegal immigration didn't merit as much attention as dealing with a dictator who was openly threatening the world with mass destruction I do agree wholeheartedly, however, that we've got a big problem on our hands when it comes to Iran.