No, Fobble, I'm saying their power to do so is at its most sharply limited, and that therefore one shouldn't overdo the concern.

But effectiveness aside, is it right or wrong for the administration (any administration) to stifle science and innovation? Personally, I'm able to make value judgments without overdoing anything.

Some, it appears, are not.

No, stifling innovation is not good.

Smashing fascist regimes and replacing them with democracies is too good to pass up. Now you know why I voted for Bush twice and do not have regrets.

We get it. You hate tw.

But in this thread, he and others have provided many examples of Bush stifling science.

You probably missed it because it was in a tw post, but the former surgeon general said under oath "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried."

Glatt, the same complaint about the previous Administrations was made at this same testimony -- C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, one each Republican and Democratic Administration figures, both complained of pressure from the White House and the effect it had on them. Jocelyn Elders could have made the same complaint, I should think.

I didn't happen to be speaking of tw in post #209, but of the grumbling herd of crazed anti-Republicans.

It's time to point out that the effect of a hostility to spending Federal cash on embryonic stem-cell research is going to be limited. It's limited in time -- until January 2008 most likely; it's limited in scope -- blastocysts are not the only source of stem cells as you well know, and other stem cell sources are not under interdict for Federal funding, and last I heard the other sources were showing even more potential.

Sooo, I don't give much weight to the anti-Republicans' exercises in propaganda and other intellectual dishonesty. You could look this kind of stuff up. How does it feel to have been played so?

Yes, and that was mentioned in this thread three years ago too. What's different about Bush is how widespread it is. It's not just stem cell research, it's everything. EPA air quality, logging policy, sex ed, ANWR wildlife maps, & global warming are just a few examples. I'm not going to repost everything from this thread that has already been cited as an example, but go back and read the thread from the beginning. There are a lot of nails in this coffin.

And now, for something *completely* different:
 

Just kidding! More of the same!

And...

Hehehe... Bush's Attack Dog. Nice. This administration gets full marks for effectiveness, thoroughness, creativity, etc. in accomplishing their mission. Unfortunately, their mission seems to be promoting business interests at every turn. By itself this is not a bad thing. But there is no balance, no long term consciousness beyond the present political term, unless you consider the future lobbying opportunities being earned.

And worst of all is the utter disregard for our laws. To flout our rules, to ignore the rest of the constituency, to sidestep the process to achieve the desired result..ugh. Effective. But wrong.

[Quote BigV]And worst of all is the utter disregard for our laws. To flout our rules, to ignore the rest of the constituency, to sidestep the process to achieve the desired result..ugh. Effective. But wrong.[/quote]

Politics as usual - very distressing. At least it is/was/will be rectified

ym65--it is not politics as usual. It is politics on crack, on steroids, cartoon politics. I find actions like this tantamount to redefining words, rewriting the rules of arithmetic. It is dangerous. How can we know about the truth about the world if inconvenient facts are simply discarded? You can believe what you want, me too. I don't really care how thoroughly private citizen A or lobby organization B does their fact checking.

But our government is charged with serving all of us. When they cavalierly, no, cravenly change the conclusions to suit their pre-established goals, it does great harm in three ways:

First, it is simply a lie. A Big Lie. A lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".*

Second, it reduces the government's (already low) credibility. That wellspring of goodwill is replenished so slowly, that such a profligate waste should be a crime, injuring the public trust today and the citizens of tomorrow.

Second, it corrodes everyone's confidence in Science's ability to discover and express objective truth, and to do so in a verifiable way, that leaves room for the possibility of integrating new knowledge.

This is an attack on the very foundation of knowledge. they would rather be able to define any conclusion they present as truth. A Wolf in Science's clothing if you will. After Science has been eviscerated. They'll trade on the memory of science's reputation for articulating objective truth. But it will be all hollow inside, filled only with lies.







* Unattributed to avoid violating Godwin's Law.

BigV - I did not mean to make light of it, but this is certainly not the first administration to do this, nor will it be the last. I hate that it is happening as much as you apparently do, but it seems to be a too familiar situation that has been repeated for far too long. Those in power serve themselves their reelections, getting more power/money... Serving their constituents or the American people has been nothing more than a byproduct. Simply put, Change is required.

That is F'd up. That woman should go to prison.

Hey, has the Mercenary finally seen the light at the end of the tunnel?

You mean the oncoming train???

It is for this administration.