Bush and science...

[Division56]

The Bush administration has declared war. Not on terror, or drugs, or poverty, but on science. In February of this year, 60 scientists issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. Governor Howard Dean wrote a column excoriating the Bush admistration's handling of scientific issues. Representative Henry Waxman has published a webpage detailing the Bush administration's scientific record. Articles have appeared on this website detailing the current administration's altering of scientific reports by the EPA, and it's attempts to limit the participation of American scientists in the World Aids Conference.

Once again the Bush White House has decided that science, and common sense, won't prevent AIDS as effectively as good old-fashioned Christian values.

In a little announced move in mid-June, the Bush administration passed new federal guidelines that will gut programs that promote condom use as a way to prevent AIDS and other STD's.

Published in the Federal Register these new guidelines will have far-reaching catastrophic effects in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

The new guidelines will affect any organization that receives federal funding, and also does HIV prevention work, even if the federal funding isn't directly used for that prevention work. According to an article that appeared in the LA Weekly:

"These new regs require the censoring of any 'content', including pamphlets, brochures, fliers, curricula, audiovisual materials, and pictorials (for example, posters and similar educational materials using photographs, slides, drawings, or paintings), as well as 'advertising' and Web-based info. They require all such 'content' to eliminate anything even vaguely 'sexually suggestive' or 'obscene', like teaching how to use a condom correctly by putting it on a dildo, or even a cucumber. And they demand that all such materials include information on the 'lack of effectiveness of condom use' in preventing the spread of HIV and other STDs - in other words, the Bush administration wants AIDS fighters to tell people: Condoms don't work. This demented exigency flies in the face of every competent medical body's judgment that, in the absence of an HIV-preventing vaccine, the condom is the single most effective tool available to protect someone from getting or spreading the AIDS virus."

Additionally, the decisions on which HIV-prevention educational materials work best to prevent the spread of AIDS will be taken away from the groups actually doing the work, and these decisions will be made by "Policy Review Panels", made up of officials from local and state health departments, who are often political appointees.

If you're wondering why the Bush administration would ignore science and common sense in such a blatant way, the answer is a simple one.

Politics.

It would seem that the Bush White House has found a way to legally funnel money set aside for the fight against AIDS to groups that support the GOP. From the LA Weekly article:

"A third of all federal HIV-education money - some $270 million more in Bush's latest budget - now goes to abstinence-only programs, almost universally to Christian groups as part of Bush's 'faith-based initiatives' (no Jewish or Muslim groups receive any funds). This is a brilliant maneuver - Bush has turned money earmarked for fighting AIDS into political pork for his Christer base. Much of this money goes to anti-abortion groups masquerading as 'women's health' or 'crisis-pregnancy' centers. Others receiving such funds engage in religious propaganda - a federal judge found that Louisiana's federally funded Governor's Program on Abstinence illegally handed out Bibles, staged anti-abortion prayer rallies outside women's clinics, and had students perform Bible-based skits."

Although the new regulations were posted in the Federal Register on June 16, they have yet to go into effect, and there is still a brief opportunity to prevent that from happening. The deadline for public comments on these new guidelines ends on August 16th, and such comments can be e-mailed to HIVComments@cdc.gov, or faxed to 404-639-3125.


I hate this kind of stuff... :rant:

[Vagabond]

Oh yes, I read about this. Times like these I feel so glad I am on the other side of the world. Everything is politics and votes for your "big guy", isn't it... but the saddest thing of all is that there are people that will buy into this crap... ah, who said the human race is the most evolved... just a pack of crap...

[Division56]

Kust because we evolved, it doesn't mean we made any changes for the better.

[Claverhouse]

Er, not only would I not give money to scientists who experiment on animals, but I would put them up against a wall and shoot them. All of them; and then their backers; and then anyone who agreed with torturing animals to ( allegedly ) improve the lives of humans.

But the ones who don't vivisect ought to have money though; & of course the scientists to whom this doesn't apply, geologists etc..



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jittus rye]

Man i would give millions to people that did experiments on animals to improve the understanding of humans or to help humans.

[int]

I try not to purchase products that were animal tested, but some things are worth it, like disease remedies. Other's aren't, like Nalgene bottles and cosmetics.

But I was an avid vegetarian for a while, so I may still be shaking off some of that mentality.

[Division56]

How the hell did we get to talking about animal testing? *blinks*

[int]

How the hell did we get to talking about animal testing? *blinks*

lol. There's been a few words I haven't mentioned and the threads have gone that way regardless.

What'd you expect? Bush is a X-tian fundie at heart. The guy claims he talks to God (Woodward book, I think he said "a higher father"). This kinda stuff is splattered everywhere throughout the administration and we've been reading it for 3.5 years now.

Talking about it at this point would just be redundant. :)

But I'm with ya. It's too bad the gop is so good and finding ways to fund themselves. :blink:

[Claverhouse]

How the hell did we get to talking about animal testing? *blinks*

You posted an article about funding for scientists to fight aids


It would seem that the Bush White House has found a way to legally funnel money set aside for the fight against AIDS to groups that support the GOP. From the LA Weekly article:

Just had to point out that whilst I'm not against research into disease, I'd rather it didn't go to a bunch of Mengeles for that purpose. So I'd rather no money went into research than money spent on torture.

Anyway although I'm not a christian myself, I certainly don't believe Bush is a real one. Just a con-artist like those TV evangelist chaps.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Johnny]

I would propose that only those who actually use condoms while having sexual intercourse receive any monies the federal government plans to spend on safe-sex education, if I thought such a plan had any chance of success.

Condoms are too easy to understand and use to deserve this kind of attention from the federal government - the education and so on. Let's put the medicine where the real hurt is.

edit: felt the need to clarify...

[paladinoflunaria]

I hate this kind of stuff... :rant:

Just give it up, man. You can't win.

[paladinoflunaria]

I went to an enrichment program called Missouri Scholars' Academy my sophomore year. It was supposed to be some of the top students in the state. There were guest speakers on evolution, stem cell research, etc., and even though it was supposed to be the best of the best there, you'd be surprised how idiotic those people were.

Humans are inherently ignorant. It will always be there.

[int]

Condoms are too easy to understand and use to deserve this kind of attention from the federal government - the education and so on. Let's put the medicine where the real hurt is.



I disagree. I learned quite a bit from the public education system here in the US in regards to condoms. As did my peers.

Hmm...maybe I should poll some of them now...

[flan2dave]

The troublesome thing is, this isn't just somebody's stupid opinion you can readily choose to ignore...research, real problem solving, is being stifled as a consequence. I guess I'm just stating the obvious though.

[Hunter]

Anyway although I'm not a christian myself, I certainly don't believe Bush is a real one. Just a con-artist like those TV evangelist chaps.




Bush isn't smart enough to be a con artist. He was a slobbering drunk until he "found God" or whatever, and now he thinks it's his mission to go and make the world a better place for Christans and Christians only.

Gee, didn't Jesus even say something about not mingling the church and the state? Mayeb ol George ought to listen to the big man's son...

[Dengarm]

In February, 2004, a group of more than 60 top U.S. scientists accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes. Its authors included 20 Nobel laureates, several science advisers to past Republican presidents, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

In their report, scientists said the administration was "suppressing, distorting or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies" in several cases. On the subject of global warming, the administration ordered significant changes to the section on global warming in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2003 Report on the Environment. The entire section was later dropped.

In this "comprehensive" report, the administration opposed mention of research demonstrating sharp increases in global temperature over the past decade. They also objected to reference of a National Academy of Sciences report on the human contribution to global warming.

The administration sought to replace the statement that "[c]limate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" with a statement about the "complexity of the Earth's system and the interconnections among its components."

Cases of distortions in other subjects include:

- Replacing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet on proper condom use with a warning emphasizing condom failure rates.

- Removing scientists from advisory boards when their political views didn't match those of the administration.

- Suppressing a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist's finding that potentially harmful bacteria float in the air surrounding large hog farms.

Russell Train, former EPA Administrator to Presidents Nixon and Ford, wrote in a letter to the New York Times:

"I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the E.P.A. during my tenure. The E.P.A. was established as an independent agency in the executive branch, and so it should remain. There appears today to be a steady erosion in its independent status. I can appreciate the president's interest in not having discordant voices within his Administration. But the interest of the American people lies in having full disclosure of the facts, particularly when the issue is one with such potentially enormous damage to the long-term health and economic well-being of all of us."

(Sources: Seth, Borenstein, "Bush Admnistration Accused of Suppressing, Distorting Science," Knight-Ridder, Feb. 19, 2004. Report by E.P.A. Leaves out Data on Climate Change, New York Times (June 19, 2003). When Politics Trumps Science (Letter to the Editor), New York Times (June 21, 2003). Jeremy Symons, "How Bush and Co. Obscure the Science," Washington Post, July 13, 2003.)

[s]

Condoms are too easy to understand and use to deserve this kind of attention from the federal government - the education and so on. Let's put the medicine where the real hurt is.



I disagree. I learned quite a bit from the public education system here in the US in regards to condoms. As did my peers.

Hmm...maybe I should poll some of them now...

What did you learn, INT?

[int]

We got lectures on the importance of condoms, and at least in my circle, the education was quite effective. D.A.R.E may have failed but the sex-ed, I think, made a difference. None of my friends ever complained about them, and everyone "preached" (to the choir, of course) responsibility to each other.

Maybe their parents had an influence (mine sure didn't, but I'm not complaining), I don't know - we all seemed on the same level so I didn't ask.

Anyways, we sarted sex-ed in 6th grade until biology classes took over in 10th grade or so. I think public education on the matter was quite effective.

Also, to be clear, I defend public education as well, so I'm biased there. :P :)

[Arioch]

We got lectures on the importance of condoms, and at least in my circle, the education was quite effective. D.A.R.E may have failed but the sex-ed, I think, made a difference. None of my friends ever complained about them, and everyone "preached" (to the choir, of course) responsibility to each other.

Maybe their parents had an influence (mine sure didn't, but I'm not complaining), I don't know - we all seemed on the same level so I didn't ask.

Anyways, we sarted sex-ed in 6th grade until biology classes took over in 10th grade or so. I think public education on the matter was quite effective.

Also, to be clear, I defend public education as well, so I'm biased there. :P :)

All I actually learned from sex-ed was that you should squeeze the little bubble at the top when you put it on to prevent air pockets (which might cause the sperm to vacate the condom.

We probably did have something about responcibility but I don't remember using dildo's or even cucumbers. We got a *achum* educational video instead. A very nice young looking couple who were quite good at acting. We not only learned about how to put a condom on but also something about flirting, foreplay, kissing and post-sex cuddling.
It's one of the few things I actually remember

[Avengardh]

Once again the Bush White House has decided that science, and common sense, won't prevent AIDS as effectively as good old-fashioned Christian values.


That is really all I read from the article, all I had to read to raise my left eyebrow.

~*Aven*~

[jimkopelli]

I was lucky. The sex-ed instructor showed us useful things, like how to put a condom on your head. He had a small noggin, though. Why should science have to answer to politics? That's just silly.

[s]

We got lectures on the importance of condoms, and at least in my circle, the education was quite effective. D.A.R.E may have failed but the sex-ed, I think, made a difference. None of my friends ever complained about them, and everyone "preached" (to the choir, of course) responsibility to each other.

Maybe their parents had an influence (mine sure didn't, but I'm not complaining), I don't know - we all seemed on the same level so I didn't ask.

Anyways, we sarted sex-ed in 6th grade until biology classes took over in 10th grade or so. I think public education on the matter was quite effective.

Also, to be clear, I defend public education as well, so I'm biased there. :P :)

I agree. I never understood the idea that sex education makes children more apt to have sex. From my experience, if anything it made us a little more cautious.

[jimkopelli]

What people don't know can get them hurt. Sometimes, what people do know causes them to hurt themselves.