Diversity of Everything but Thought

These people see everything as a personal attack. Did their mothers ever give them any time outs?

My grandmother, who raised me, gave me the sharp edge of her tongue and the back of her hand. Which, of course, has not the least bearing on the topic.

It is a shame that the allegedly left members of Congress can not do what the right did to the Clinton nominations to the various federal benches. Those in control of Congress allowed more than 200 Clinton nominations to languish without ever being discussed in committee, let alone brought to the floor.

Hello, this is deep throat speaking. Has anyone bothered to follow the money outlined here by Blatham? Maybe we could make some unique progress if we pursue that route.

I don't think we're met but I am glad to see you.

Are castroites real or imaginary?

I frankly don't know what I think of Horowitz. If you use Blatham's links they make him look really bad. If you follow all the links Ican and I posted some time back, the reviews and commentary is all over the map. I would guess, given his rhetoric so far, that Blatham would not have posted anything other than what makes Horowitz look as bad as possible and does not mind using the most partisan sources to get them.

I still say a good idea is a good idea and a bad idea is a bad idea no matter who offers it, even if the idea comes from a controversial figure like Horowitz.

And I think Glitterbag, Atkins, and Plainoldme (from the NCLB thread) were separated at birth.

My son hasn't been out of university all that long. He never discussed any sort of bias on the part of his professors.

Since the right is always preaching, maybe they project a bit.

Maybe, the right's house of cards is on such a shaky 36 inch square folding table that one jiggle will upset it.

What follows is from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Depending on your point of view, you might consider this on point. Take a look at the section about the abuse of science and think how the right abuses science.



Since its launch a year ago, the Restoring Scientific Integrity in Federal Policy Making campaign has received a substantial amount of attention from policy makers, the media, and the general public. Sustained outrage from citizens and scientists about the unprecedented level of political interference in science is laying the groundwork for reforms that will protect the government's scientific capacity and improve the way science informs policy making.

The attention brought to this issue by activists, combined with the scientific community's willingness to speak out against this crisis, has raised awareness about the abuse of science; encouraged members of Congress to take action; led to sustained and widespread media coverage of scientific integrity; pressured the administration to admit that the use of political litmus tests is inappropriate and claim that the practice has stopped; and given UCS the platform to push for significant reform.





in this section
Scientists' statement
Call-to-action
Scientific integrity roundtables

Raising awareness about the abuse of science
Scientists and activists nationwide are condemning the widespread political interference in federal government science. More than 6,000 scientists, engineers and health professionals have signed a statement denouncing the abuse of science and calling for significant reform. Non-scientist action network members have also taken an important stand by signing the Citizens' Call-To-Action.
With our activists behind us, UCS is building critical awareness about the abuse of science and necessary reforms. Activists are writing letters to the editor in response to articles and editorials about the misuse of science. We are bringing together citizens and scientists at scientific integrity roundtables at universities across the country this spring. And we are working with scientists in a wide variety of fields to raise the profile of this issue in their professional communities.

Activists Urge Members of Congress to Respond
In February, UCS brought scientists to Capitol Hill to educate their members of Congress about the abuse of science. Scientists shared information about the unprecedented nature of the problem, as well as insight into how political interference in science would affect their work and the nation's scientific capacity.

Congress has begun to take action to address this problem and maintain America's status as the world leader in science in support of our health, safety, and prosperity. In February, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, and Bart Gordon (D-TN), ranking member on the House Science Committee, introduced the Restore Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policy Making Act (H.R. 839). The legislation would prohibit tampering with scientific data, increase protection of government scientists, ban political litmus tests for advisory committee nominees, and promotes appropriate peer review of government science.

Members of the U.S. House and Senate had the opportunity recently to address these concerns during confirmation and budget hearings for several agencies affected by scientific abuse. Administrators and nominees were pressured for commitments to prevent future abuse within their agencies.

UCS activists also had an opportunity to weigh in on several targeted issues:

In early March, UCS and activists in several key districts weighed in with members of relevant committees regarding the pervasive interference in science at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Members of Congress in three separate hearings probed then-USFWS Director Steve Williams and Deputy Secretary of the Interior nominee Lynn Scarlett about the problem and indicated that Congress would continue to monitor and investigate the agency for signs of further abuse.
Activists in New York and Washington state wrote notes to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) thanking them for preventing the confirmation of Lester Crawford to head the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) until the agency released a stalled decision on over-the-counter approval of the emergency contraception known as Plan B. By law, the FDA is required to approve drugs that are considered to be safe and effective. Even though two scientific advisory panels have unanimously found Plan B to be safe and effective, the FDA has failed to make a decision on the drug.
Delaware residents thanked Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) for holding up the nomination of Stephen Johnson to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until the agency responds to a series of information requests over various clean air proposals currently before Congress. Since May 2001, the EPA has ignored repeated requests for information on toxic mercury pollution, clean air, and global warming from several members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. This committee is responsible for oversight on these and other critical environmental and public health issues.
In addition, the Senate Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing in late April that focused on the suppressed and distorted science behind the administration's mercury pollution rule released last month. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) called this another example of how "politics trumps science." Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) spoke of "science sabotage" and Senator Clinton called the mercury ruling part of "a concerted effort to turn Washington into an evidence-free zone." Find out more information on how the new mercury pollution standard is based on distorted science.

Responding to Specific Abuses of Science
UCS activists have continued to stand up for independent science on a range of issues. Last month, activists submitted more than 19,000 official public comments urging acting EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to reject attempts to weaken the Clean Water Act's selenium pollution controls. High doses of this metal have caused deformities and death in fish and waterfowl.

The agency has proposed eliminating the existing selenium pollution control standard and replacing it with one developed using exceptionally flawed science. This would set a dangerous precedent for the protection of our waterways from hazardous toxins. Activists appealed to the acting administrator to develop any future standard based on rigorous and independent science. A final rule is pending.

The Abuse of Science in the Press
Thanks to a sustained uproar from UCS activists and scientists, there continues to be extensive national and international media coverage of scientific abuses and our campaign to restore scientific integrity into federal policy making. You can read a sampling of the most recent news reports on our scientific integrity media page.

Political Litmus Tests
On November 19, 2004, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report that strongly criticized the use of political litmus tests when evaluating candidates for scientific advisory committees. The NAS recommended that such appointments be based solely on scientific and technical knowledge, professional credentials, and personal integrity.

UCS has documented numerous cases in which the Bush administration, during its first term, imposed numerous inappropriate litmus tests. UCS, working with several prominent scientists, provided written comments and oral testimony to the NAS committee, charging that ideological and political litmus tests have had a chilling effect on the composition and quality of these committees.

Before the report was released, the committee met with congressional leaders and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Marburger to discuss the report. At April's American Physical Society meeting in Tampa, Florida, Dr. Marburger publicly conceded that the use of political litmus tests was improper and claimed the practice has stopped.

What's Next
While it is encouraging that decision makers are beginning to hear our concerns and speak up for independent science, we have a long way to go in building sufficient support for meaningful reform. UCS recognizes the challenges that lie ahead in the current political landscape.

It is more important than ever that we protect our public health, safety, and environment by speaking out against the abuse of science. We will need leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties to recognize the severity of this problem and to take steps to prevent political interference in science from happening in the future. In the coming months, we will ask for your help in pressuring influential decision makers to defend government science. To keep informed on our efforts in this area, please sign the scientists' statement on scientific integrity or the citizens' call-to-action.

Your activism is essential as we defend America's scientific capacity and safeguard our health, safety, and environment.

Fox


This post doesn't make any sense at all.

It seems you have confused a PS opinion with a statement of fact. This is a mistake on your part.

You have presented the proposition for the thread and attempted to back it up using both Logic and Evidence. This brings you out of the realm of opinion. My statement about Horowitz is based upon my personal opinions after reading his pieces over the last few years (I remember when he was at Salon, lol) but you didn't see me linking to his articles or building a case about it; that would be Blatham.

But, you still can't discuss the topic, can you? I dare you to actually going back to the topic of discussion and presenting new information, or a new summary of your position and the facts which uphold it! I bet you are unable to whatsoever....

Cycloptichorn

Are you stating fact or opinion here Cyclop?

Well, it apparently is a fact that you have been rendered unable to continue the major line of discussion in the thread. All verifiable evidence points to your inability/unwillingness to do so. Don't believe me? Read the last 50 pages.

You really don't want my opinions at this point, now do you, Fox?

Rather than nitpick about small details, why don't you actually present something relating to your argument. I'm not going to stop asking until you do. While you are free to ignore me, it is somewhat Ironic that you are unable/unwilling to do so, on your own thread, yet you steadfastly maintain that you are in the right and everyone else is wrong. We had a phrase for that when I was growing up: put up or shut up. Either defend your position better or admit that you can't/won't.

Come to think of it, you could just link to the part where you admit that there is no damage done to students who go through such a system, in terms of political ideology shifts. I don't recall you saying it, but you claim to have. Therefore; if there is no damage being done, according to you, can you please clarify what your argument is?

It's sad to see ya reduced to such sniping at the edges of other's posts.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclop writes


Okay good. Let's see your evidence and supporting documentation for your fact. Once you do that I will consider taking you up on your dare.

This entire thread is cyclo's evidence, FF.

Only for those who already have their minds made up ehBeth. But if you have data or hard evidence to dispute the data and evidence presented in support of the thesis, by all means go for it. At this time I will concede that we have not made a conclusive case to support the thesis but we (those who support the thesis) at least have provided data and testimony from informed opinion.

The opposition so far has at times scathingly, insultingly, excoriatingly denounced the thesis andor those presenting the data and evidence, but have provided very little otherwise to dispute it.

So, in interest of acheiving diversity of thought in the exercise, why don't those of you condemning the thread (though you return again and again to it) put your evidence up there?

I will even stick my neck out and speak for other supporters of the thesis that you will be given a fair hearing.

But present it as fact; not opinion, so we can properly request any necessary supporting documentation for it.

I'm confused. Are we to present "data and testimony from informed opinion" or are we to present evidence as in scientific fact? I know of no studies addressing this subject. Do you?

To Lola: The studies/polls we posted indicating a strong Democrat and/or leftish tilt on university campuses were presented as scientifically done. The informed opinion came from educators and others in a position to have done the research as to the implications of the studies. The former you could say is scientific. The latter is not.

So if you have any data that disputes the studies that have been done re the political affiliation and/or ideology of academic faculties, that would be really good to post.

If you have informed opinion from academics or people with access to research that disputes the informed opinion we have presented, that would also be really good to post.

Bear in mind that our 'expert witnesses' cited studies and verifiable accounts of incidences of bias or excessive emphasis on leftish curriculum or points of view. I do not consider anybody an 'expert witness' (or credible) who can only insult, make derogatory aspersions, or just say bullshit but has no data or first hand knowledge to bring to the discussion.

Foxfyre:

You don't have to answer posts right away, of course.

The only reason I pointed out that Blatham answered Ican within the hour-this was a week ago-was because that particular post from Blatham contained a challenge to Ican which Ican has yet to answer-even though Ican has posted several times on this thread since.

The challenge was that since Ican maintains that the quotes Blatham gave from the Art Of Political War by Horowitz where he, (Horowitz), writes seemingly approvingly of Lenin's advice to stop debating your opponent and to start annhilating him, and also advocates making one's opponent appear as an enemy to as many people as possible, the burden is on Ican to produce passages where Horowitz makes it clear he is NOT advocating this as advice for the Republicans to follow.

Horowitz' entire book is advice to the Republicans on how to beat the Democrats. It is therefore natural to assume these quotes are meant as part of that advice. I am willing to entertain the notion that they may be descriptions of what people besides Republicans do-but as the book is one long manifesto for Republican takeover, it is up to Horowitz' defenders to produce those passages.

By all means, when you get the book and have time to read it, please produce the relevant passages to refute Blatham. Ican has not done it so far.

And yes, I consider you a friend on this forum as well, Foxfyre. I believe you do your best to put forward your ideas without rancor, in a reasonable way. But in this matter, while I do not have conclusive proof, the evidence appears to point in the direction of that Ican is pulling The Big Con here in the matter of actually reading the book and rebutting specific passages Blatham quoted from it.

Well KW, Ican did say he didn't have access to the book which I took to mean he didn't have the book, and thus he would not have access to any passages other than those on Amazon.com to which he referred us. But I'll let him defend himself at this point. He knows I am his fan. As I am you fan.