Overview The American people depend upon federal agencies to develop science-based policies that protect the nation’s health and welfare. Recently, however, leading scientific journals have begun to question whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee assessed the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. The report Politics and Science in the Bush Administration (.pdf) finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. Beneficiaries include important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups. This website is an ongoing record of interference with science by the Bush Administration. Example Lead Poisoning In the summer of 2002, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was preparing to confront the controversial issue of whether to expand the diagnosis of lead poisoning to include children with lower levels of blood lead. For more than a decade, the committee had advised intervention if levels measured 10 micrograms per deciliter or greater. While the lead industry has opposed lowering the standard, recent research has suggested that the cognitive development of children may be impaired at levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or lower. As the committee prepared to consider changing the standard, HHS Secretary Thompson removed or rejected several qualified scientists and replaced them with lead industry consultants. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/15 responses total.
Happens all the time. Politicians help friends in the industry who in turn help them get rich and re-elected. Whats new?? Its called I scratch your back and you scratch mine!!!
Wow. This is really news. ;-)
Sorry, forgot to add "<remember> </remember>" :)
*snore*
Everything Is Political By PAUL KRUGMAN The agency's analysts find that they are no longer helping to formulate policy; instead, their job is to rationalize decisions that have already been made. And more and more, they find that they are expected to play up evidence, however weak, that seems to support the administration's case, while suppressing evidence that doesn't. Am I describing the C.I.A.? The E.P.A.? The National Institutes of Health? Actually, I'm talking about the Treasury Department, but the ambiguity is no coincidence. Across the board, the Bush administration has politicized policy analysis. Whether the subject is stem cells or global warming, budget deficits or weapons of mass destruction, government agencies are under intense pressure to say what the White House wants to hear. And the long-term consequences are likely to be dire. Traditionally the Treasury, like the C.I.A., stands somewhat above the political fray. Externally, it is supposed to provide objective data that Congress and the public can use to evaluate administration proposals. Internally, long-serving Treasury analysts traditionally ride herd on political appointees, warning them when their proposals are ill conceived or irresponsible. But under the Bush administration the Treasury takes its marching orders from White House political operatives. As The New Republic points out, when John Snow meets with Karl Rove, the meetings take place in Mr. Rove's office. To the general public, the most obvious consequence of this subservience has been Treasury's meek acquiescence in an economic policy that hasn't produced any jobs, but has produced a $450 billion deficit. Insiders, however, are if anything even more dismayed by the erosion of Treasury's intellectual integrity — an erosion exemplified by its denial and deception on the subject of tax cuts. Here's the story: Treasury has an elaborate computer model designed to evaluate who benefits and who loses from any proposed change in tax laws. For example, the model can be used to estimate how much families in the middle of the income distribution will gain from a tax cut, or the share of that tax cut that goes to the top 1 percent of families. In the 1990's the results of such analyses were routinely made public. But since George W. Bush came into power, the department has suppressed most of that information, releasing only partial, misleading tables. The purpose of this suppression, of course, is to conceal the extent to which Mr. Bush's tax cuts concentrate their bounty on families with very high incomes. In a stinging recent article in Tax Notes, the veteran tax analyst Martin Sullivan writes of the debate over the 2001 cut that "Treasury's analysis was so embarrassingly poor and so biased, we thought we had seen the last of its kind." But worse was to come. For his June 22 interview with Howard Dean, Tim Russert asked the Treasury Department to prepare examples showing how repealing the Bush tax cuts would affect ordinary families. Presumably Mr. Russert thought Treasury would provide a representative selection — that is, like many in the media, he doesn't yet understand the extent to which Treasury has become an arm of the White House political machine. In any case, the examples Treasury provided to Mr. Russert and others in the media were wildly unrepresentative. To give you a sense: the Treasury's example of a "lower income" elderly household was one receiving $2,000 a year in dividend income. In fact, only about one elderly household in four receives any dividend income, and only one in eight receives as much as $2,000. Not surprisingly, the "Russert families" gained far more from the Bush tax cuts than a representative sample. As Mr. Sullivan put it, "If this continues, the Treasury's Office of Tax Policy may have to change its name to the Office of Tax Propaganda." As I've said, this is only one example of a broad pattern. Still, why does politicized analysis matter? One answer is that it undermines democracy: how can Congress or the public make informed votes if both are fed distorted information? And even if you aren't bothered by an administration that systematically misleads the public, you ought to be worried about the decisions of an administration that systematically misleads itself. A leader who is told only what he wants to hear is all too likely to make bad decisions about the economy, the environment and beyond.
Heh. I'd been looking for a place to post that, but gave up before this item existed.
Yup -- Karl Rove is really pushing the envelope. Time will tell whether it works or not. Will people pay more attention to cooked economic statistics, or to economic reality? Tune in next November for the thrilling conclusion.
The Manufacture of Consent. G.H. Bush is an expert in social and political engineering. G.W. has a rich family history of distorted truth and covert domestic and international support. A good rule of thumb in sifting through the lies being told right now, is to accept nothing as truth if advertised. It would be nothing short of a miracle if the US public became fully aware that paranoia has become personal ally. It is sad for me to realize that this has become true to the level that it has. All of the actions of the White House thus far appear completely transparent after using this filter. Power and greed via oil is the M.O. as far as I can tell. There really seems to be nothing alse to it all. I am interested in how deeply we have all been drilled so far.
This response has been erased.
Don't have the energy to pull out the URL but the UN recently passed a resolution which grants immunity to US and only US companies involved in the oil business in Iraq from any criminal/civil law suits. Now if that isn't fishy, what is?? The people in power in the US have *friends* in the oil industry. Oil Industry profits, politicians profit!! Simple equation. And check the number of people in the US administration who have been oil indsutry executives.
Uh, huh. And what standing do UN resolutions have in US courts of law (or in Iraq's, for that matter)?
Fun White House release: Go ahead and yell it out. If I don't like the question, I'll just change it. (Laughter.) Q Mr. President, I'm a Navy chaplain, serving with the Marines in 29 Palms, California. I am also honored to have you as my Commander-in-Chief. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Q My question is very simple: How can we, as pastors, pray specifically for you and your family? (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Well, first -- thank you. I have -- first of all, I believe in the power of prayer. (Applause.) And I have felt the prayers of the American people for me and my family. I have. And I want to thank all of you who have prayed. People say, well, how do you know? I say, well, I can just feel it. I can't describe it very well, but I feel comforted by the prayer. I think the thing that -- the prayer that I would like America is to ask for is to pray for God's protection for our land and our people, to pray against -- that there's a shield of protection, so that if the evil ones try to hit us again, that we've done everything we can, physically, and that there is a spiritual shield that protects the country. (Applause.) Do you have a question. Come on underneath. The man's got a question. Q First of all, I'm very impressed in how you handled the situation on September 11th. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: That's plenty. (Applause.) No. Thank you. Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative. Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack." And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought. But I made up my mind that if America was under attack, we'd get them. (Applause.) I wasn't interested in lawyers, I wasn't interested in a bunch of debate. I was interested in finding out who did it and bringing them to justice. I also knew that they would try to hide, and anybody who provided haven, help, food, would be held accountable by the United States of America. (Applause.) Anyway, it was an interesting day. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html He paused for an incidental photo-op before moving on to head up the "War ON Terrorism". It's amazing how well people hide in the desert vs the jungle. Noriega couldn't hide as well. All of these bad guys are playing hide and seek really well. So are the supposed and sworn threats of nuclear weapons and other weapons hiding in the deserts of the world. The bad guys keep eluding our satelites and intelligence networks comprised of people we pay dearly to risk their lives gathering such intel. Anyway, it's been an interesting few years.
The resolution may or may not be enforceable in a particular country. Anyways, we know from experience that UN resolutions are used more as political weapons than anything else. The point I was trying to make is that why would the UN pass such a resolution granting blanket immunity to US and only US companies?? Here's more: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0724oily.htm For the Bush/Cheney administration and their allies in the oil industry, this was not enough. Hours after the UN endorsed U.S. control of the 'Development Fund' for Iraq, Bush signed an executive order that was spun as implementing Resolution 1483, but in reality, went much further towards attracting investment and minimizing risk for U.S. corporations in Iraq. Executive Order 13303 decrees that 'any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void', with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein." In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the U.S.. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The President, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.
Aug. 29, 2003, 11:41PM PURPLE HAZE Administration deceptively thwarting Clean Air Act President Bush interrupted his month-long vacation on several occasions to pose before dramatic Western vistas. White House operatives intended these photo ops, conveniently located near high-priced political fund-raising dinners, to suggest the president's concern for the environment. While the president pretended to champion environmental protection, however, his administration decided to adopt a policy that undermines the Clean Air Act. The first President Bush proudly worked to strengthen that act. Under the second President Bush, the government will allow thousands of antiquated power stations, refineries and other industrial plants to be overhauled or replaced without installing effective pollution controls. Industry representatives argue they should be allowed to replace plant equipment without having to spend millions to reduce the pollution they emit. But the plants in question were built before 1977, and some of them have been spewing tons of toxic fumes since World War II. They should have been closed or cleaned up long ago. The Clean Air Act exempted older industrial plants from modern pollution control standards on the assumption that the plants would be shut down or replaced in a few years. After almost three decades, the dirty plants are still polluting, and the rule change will allow them to operate forever without getting any cleaner. Many of the dirtiest plants are in Texas and are still causing birth defects and endangering health and lives. Last weekend, the air in some parts of Harris County was so poisoned with ozone that air monitors registered purple: too dangerous for residents to work or play outside. The administration's intended gutting of the Clean Air Act might have little long-term effect on Houston-area plants, which are under state and federal order to reduce NOX emissions (an essential component of smog) by 80 percent before 2007. However, the change would allow industrial air pollution across other parts of Texas to continue unabated. Drifting pollution from uncontrolled plants makes Houston's challenge to clean its air all the more difficult. In Port Arthur, where respiratory disease has reached epidemic proportions, refineries emit millions of tons of unpermitted pollutants each year, daring federal and state regulators to catch them. Under the Bush administration, enforcement is being relaxed rather than strengthened. Almost as noxious as the air pollution President Bush is willing to tolerate are the administration's false pretenses and public deception regarding environmental hazards. Congress' General Accounting Office notes that the administration hasn't a shred of evidence to back its claim that relaxing the rules will lower pollution. Furthermore, the Clean Air Act's rule requiring installation of new equipment applies only to plant modifications that increase pollution. If the plant changes won't increase emissions, there is no reason to alter the rule. The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general reports that the agency, pressured by the White House, deliberately misled New Yorkers by discounting the dangerous particles in the air and buildings after 9/11. More than once the White House has ordered the omission or falsification of government scientific findings that run counter to its political aims. The administration complains that its critics relyon junk science, but the administration seems to have rejected science and fact altogether. Just as true patriotism means more than waving a flag, environmental protection requires more than posing against the scenic beauty threatened by the Bush administration's policies. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/2074241
The administration argues that under the revised rule there *will* be a reduction in pollution. However that is under their definition of pollution as (say) tons per kilowatt hour - the pollution "rate". So by that definition if the plant capacity is increased but with also a 2% increase in efficiency, there will be a 2% reduction in "pollution". You have to watch for this when the administration and the environmentalists talk about "pollution". The former is talking "rate" and the environmentalists are talking "amount". Of course, it is amount that matters for cleaner air.
You have several choices: