U.S. Pushing Conservative Science 1036
mozumder writes "Does abortion lead to breast cancer? Does condom use lead to increased sexual activity? According to the government, the answer is now inconclusive. The New York Times has a story on how the government is altering low-level scientific conclusions to satisfy conservatives. Will this lead to a mistrust of the government? Or is the government now correct?"
This may shock some (Score:5, Interesting)
Most science is funded by a sponsorship of some kind. Very little is done out of the scientist pocket. Because of this, science becomes a sort of business model. As long as the scientist is producing results, his funding continues. See where this is going?
Is this going to lead to a distrust of government.? Doubtful. It may wake up a few but the vast majority either know now, or will never know.
If... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
Voting is mandatory. You want the government services available to citizens? Vote, otherwise you get what's available to legal aliens. While I'd love it if everyone understood thieir civic duties as well as they do their civil rights, which would make this idea unneccesary, the fact is, people don't vote often enough, as a rule.
And I know there will be those screaming about secrecy of the vote, etc.Note: I didn't say keep track of who you voted for, I said keep track of WHETHER you voted or not. Should be easy enough to do, given the near-universality of SSN's and the like.
Re:Since when... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Bush sucks. (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't capitalism great? This is what happens when governmental Ideals mix with economics. It's also interesting that any country that America helps has a EULA about allowing American businesses in to help "stimulate" the economy. Yeah we see how great it's going right now. And don't give me this stuff that it is because of 9/11 that's what these great accountants tell the share holders in hopes that they don't sell. Much of this has been brewing way before that. It also doesn't help that politicians have so many ways to acquire money from different sources. It will always happen and will continue to happen in our country because of people that would read this and call me a troll because I think the economy and government is too corrupted, instead of going out and voting, hell I would even be happy if people actually took the time to learn about the candidates. In fact how many people here even go to a local council meeting, or city meeting? Oh well this isn't a politics story it's about conservatism, or the conservatism of the governments medical ideas. Now we all get Smallpox vaccine, well not all of us the Government doesn't want to be blamed for the few deaths that will happened, they would rather give you the option to take it, then ask you to fill out a waiver of responsibility.
Re:why is it the case? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, and heart transplants kill beating hearts too but we don't call that murder.
Why do you believe that a beating heart should be the standard used for determining when a collection of cells is a person to be defended?
It seems like a strange standard to me when most science points to the brain as the carrier of the mind and conscience.
Re:here is why this is happening (Score:3, Interesting)
"impeeded science"
Victim of the system huh? Here's my grammar nazi post for the day.
Your sentences should read "christian wackos", "combineD with bad journalism", and "impeded science". If you're gonna criticize public schooling, don't do it like a retard, unless you're really proving a point by showcasing your own American School System ignorance.
Re:There is real value in Abstinence (Score:1, Interesting)
You are right in that the sex between two people who actually love each other tends to be much better than a one night stand (which, I think, are is great most of the time too). However, I object to your use of marriage as a criteria for healthy and great sex. To be blunt, I would say that marriage has nothing to do with love.
Then again, I come from a broken home and have seen much so more love between unmarried (gay and hetero) couples than between my mom and dad that I practically consider marriage mostly a trap and a sham at best.
Abstinence is not taught in schools because it is common sense. If you don't want to have sex, you don't have it. Yet, kids - no matter how you would like to sugarcoat this - are human beings with a just awakened, ferocious hunger for sex. This brings us to the use of condoms the safe use of which does not come naturally. Thanks to the religiously influenced misinformation and teens' natural insecurity about their sexuality, even going to the drug store to buy condoms can be so embarrasing to a teen that he rather risks unprotected sex. And even if he gathers up enough courage to buy condoms, peer pressure ("you used rubber? what kind of loser are you?" and/or unfamiliarity with the use of a condom leads into unsafe sex. This is what the sex ed should be taught: If you are going to have sex, it is not only OK but necessary that you get condoms and know how to use them. If you are not going to have sex, that is ok too.
No point in favouring either option because that will be more like coercing kids into your own world view. Let them make their own decisions and mistakes and BE there for them when they need your help (pregnancy, STD, whatever).
Call the beast by its name (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Actually... (Score:1, Interesting)
For Law School Teachers' commentary on the Supreme Court decision look here: http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/vi
and also the root site here: http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:if condoms lead to more sex... (Score:1, Interesting)
Condoms are a contraceptive device. You can bet your ass that people are making a lot more whoopie now then they were three hundred years ago--and having fewer children while they're at it. Isn't it self-evident that condoms are designed from the very beginning to increase the rate of non-reproductive sex?
On the other hand, more guns is not going to have a huge effect on the number of morally banckrupt thugs (unless by 'killing', you mean clay targets and geese). Guns are not a contraceptive, but rather a tool.
The two topics have nearly nothing in common, and yet you compare them like birds of a feather.
Re:Bush sucks. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem isn't just the administration, its the Republican echo chamber that chose the candidate, chose the policies and lied to the people to get him elected.
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Washington times have a new version of Gobbel's 'big lie' it is the myth of the 'liberal media'. By repeating this myth often enough they aim to immunize themselves against criticism for their packs of lies.
That is why we have in the Whitehouse a Vietnam draft dogger who deserted his National guard post that daddy pulled strings to get, a man with a criminal conviction and a man who was investigated by the SEC for corruption who got off on a 'technicality' - if you call having daddy being Vice President at the time a technicality.
All of this was known during the campaign but the Republican echo chamber made sure that attention was instead focused on the 'real issues' of Gore's 'lies', like saying he went to Texas fires with the head of FEMA, not the deputy head, according to the Republican echo chamber this was an attempt to embelish his record, a vice president claiming to be on equal terms with an agency director! imagine!
Very little is being said about the fact that the SEC is currently investigating Cheney for corrupt accounting. One would thing that would be a big story, bigger than Lott's racist gaffe even. But no the big story the Republican echo chamber want to talk about is the alleged cost of Kerry's hairdo.
And so having made a mess of the economy and failled to catch Bin Laden the Administration is desperately trying to start a war in the hope that everyone (or at least sufficient numbers) can be fooled by the flag waving.
Question for the republican slashdot monitors - can you honestly claim that W, who deserted from the National guard would have served in the war he wants to start with Iraq?
Over where I come from we have words for people like W, they are Hypocrite, Liar and Coward.
Re:Global warming and ideology (Score:4, Interesting)
Summer floods have also presented an interesting pattern. Usually, a large section of East Europe gets hotter than +20 degrees (note all numbers are in centigrades). However, this last Summer has not only be too wet but also too cold. In Russia several regions beated the low records for Spring and early Summer. In our region, temperatures were frequently not higher than +15. And it was raining non-stop for several days. Meanwhile, in Siberia it was largely hotter than usual.There they entered Autumn with temperatures higher than +10 in many places.
Some other examples.
For some years I see snow falling in middle to late May, what is considered quite unusual for older generations.
In other situation, a highly traditional weather pattern seen here, suddenly broke for quite a long time. We are not too far from Moscow, so, it is usual to see Moscow's weather coming down here in two or three days. This year, either we had the same weather pattern as Moscow for several weeks, or we were generally colder than Moscow.
Meanwhile, while colder than usual, Moscow's green belt suffered one of its worst forest fires for many years. Due to the cold weather and these fires, for weeks Moscow was engolfed in a huge smog.
While I would not dispute the fact that the globe is getting hotter, I would advise to be careful on direct experiences. The weather is surely changing, but not in the stereotyped pattern that the partisans of global waring think.
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't. In fact, I teach 17- and 18-year-olds, and every year I tell them this: They should vote even if they're uninformed -- provided that they truly vote randomly (if uninformed). Here's my rationale: If lots of people vote truly randomly, then it'll basically cancel out. But voter turnout will have risen -- and the politicians won't know which votes were random. From their point of view, they'll have to conclude that voter interest really is rising, which means that voters count -- which will de-emphasize the current "play to my base" logic.
Let's be honest here: Many of the ills of American democracy follow from the pathetically low participation rate. Corruption, ideology triumphant, slash ads
Re:Lead to mistrust? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is one of the most annoying things about the propaganda spewed by our media and the Bush administration. I want someone to bring this up every time Bush says something about how Saddam poisoned his own people. He always says it in such a way as to point out the vileness of such an act in an effort to differentiate us from them.
In reality there are more similarities than differences. You don't here that on the evening news, do you?
Re:Why should we be surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as these inevidable [sic] US invasions, you didn't say the word, but essentialy you're accusing us of imperialism, which is complete, utter, delusional nonsense. We could've ruled the world long ago. After WW II, we were the only real power left on Earth. It would've been easy to establish the first truly global empire and rule the entire planet. Instead, we rebuilt Europe and Japan, then went home. You can find a much more cogent argument here [ejectejecteject.com].
Are you kidding, or just ignorant? Russia has more nukes than us, and the only biological and chemical weapons we have left are used for training and research only, not research into new weapons mind you, but how to defend against them.
Yes, we are still the only country to use nuclear weapons in war. However, it probably saved the lives of 5 million American and Japanese soldiers who would've died in an invasion, and it ended the war.
First, we actually do allow the UN and Russia to inspect our weapons of mass destruction. They ensure compliance with several arms control treaties.
If you think all countries should disarm, you're incredibly naive. Someone else would always rearm and try to assert their power. This is partly what we're seeing now with Al Qaeda, a non-governmental organization waging war across international borders. As long as there are humans left, there will be war and violence. Your utopia will never exist, and besides, I wouldn't want to live there.
You also have a severe misunderstanding of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' mindset. The reason they even attempted 9/11 is they thought the US was a "paper tiger." Throughout the 90s they kept escalating their attacks, but Bill Clinton never retaliated quickly or decisively enough. The most he ever did was lob a few cruise missiles at empty training camps and pharmeceutical factories.
Re:I blaim Bush (Score:1, Interesting)
Sex, Truth & Race (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article:
I'm not impressed by the holy hand-wringing. There are large agendas on all sides of issues pertaining to human sexual activity. Whatever a government agency puts up on a web site will always represent the triumph of one faction or another.
If Republicans and "conservatives" tend to be less than 100% eager to have their moral positions illuminated by "scientific truth," then Democrats and "liberals" get massively rabid whenever the cold reductions of science threaten to intrude into their favorite racial fantasy, i.e., that there are NO racial differences at all, except for those caused by oppression and discrimination.
Re:Why should we be surprised? (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly. One thing I don't understand is how is it that the US and allies can have any sort of weaponry or resource but any other country who does is labeled a "terrorist state" or part of some "axis of evil".
Isn't it all just propaganda to support this administrations "might makes right" approach to foreign policy. I say we have no business interfering in the affairs of another sovereign country unless we know they intend their power and resources for imperial use. As it stands right now the only country who does this is the US.
Even if we do know that a country intends to invade another country it should be up to the UN to decide their fate. We should not act unilaterally and we should not bully the UN but defer to their judgment. The only reason to maintain any WMD are for purposes of defense, ironically the most prevailing reason why you would need to maintain a stockpile of weapons now would be to defend your country against the threat of a US invasion.
In summary, who are we to tell other countries what weapons they may have and what resources they can develop?
All countries should be treated equally and bound by the same rules and laws. Just because we can bully other countries doesn't mean we should or that we are somehow morally superior.
Re:This may shock some (Score:4, Interesting)
Most science is funded by a sponsorship of some kind. Very little is done out of the scientist pocket. Because of this, science becomes a sort of business model. As long as the scientist is producing results, his funding continues. See where this is going?
Erm. You neglect a few key points. First, (most) scientists like to publish interesting--or even controversial--results. It enhances their standing among their peers, and often leads to promotion, job offers, and better funding.
If the results they publish do not suit the whims of their current industrial masters, there is often other funding to be had elsewhere. The flawed 'business model' you describe assumes that there is only one source of funding for only one preferred result. Usually competing interests will fund interesting research. In may nations, government funding is provided by agencies that operate at arms' length from politicians and are most concerned with doing good science.
Finally, if you make something up in science, you eventually get caught. It's the nature of the scientific method. Someone will check your work--often fairly soon after publication, if not before--and you will have some explaining to do. 'Because the United States Government says so' is not an acceptable proof, no matter what results they buy. Conclusions not based in fact will be challenged.
Re:Why should we be surprised? (Score:1, Interesting)
North Korea may not want to take over the world, but they definitely have plans to invade South Korea and Japan. Their quasi-Marxist, central-planning philosophy of "self-sufficiency" has led to massive famine and economic stagnation. The only reason they have any food to eat is South Korean and US aid.
You don't know the difference between having plans and excuting them do you? Everyone have insane ideas and make totally absurd plans, but their common sense tends to get in the way, and since countries are ruled by people they won't be any different. G.W. Bush might or might not know the difference, but does it matter anyway? He seems just a puppet for the large corporations.
And what gives US of A the right to tell how other countries work? The right of military power perhaps? I personally don't know much about North Koreas political status, all I see is sensationalist news about the place. If I were to believe only "the news" the world would be a very dark place indeed, they only provide news about misery because "doing well" has no news value.
As far as these inevidable [sic] US invasions, you didn't say the word, but essentialy you're accusing us of imperialism, which is complete, utter, delusional nonsense. We could've ruled the world long ago. After WW II, we were the only real power left on Earth. It would've been easy to establish the first truly global empire and rule the entire planet. Instead, we rebuilt Europe and Japan, then went home.
Yes, but rebuilt why? And they most certainly didn't leave Europe (or the rest of the world) to their own devices. Think of NATO, I believe USA has lots of weapons around Europe. And I really doubt USA could've conquered the world by military might, or if it would've been possible the resulting "country" would've been so unstable that it would've probably ruined the economy far beyond what WW II did.
I wonder if even Americans could've won the war had Hitler not gone to Russia (or if he would've won that war).
If you think all countries should disarm, you're incredibly naive. Someone else would always rearm and try to assert their power. This is partly what we're seeing now with Al Qaeda, a non-governmental organization waging war across international borders. As long as there are humans left, there will be war and violence. Your utopia will never exist, and besides, I wouldn't want to live there.
Yes, America is the only "Utopia" allowed to exist clearly, and a Bush America at that. And when Bush proclaimed it "War on Terror", it ceased to be a war on "Al Queda", and now it's just a generic "War to Grab the Gas", and a war to keep the masses on the right side of the opinion pole for the next coming election.
I wonder why Bush wants even to be a president if he just accepts the person with the most money?
Re:if condoms lead to more sex... (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, more guns is not going to have a huge effect on the number of morally banckrupt thugs (unless by 'killing', you mean clay targets and geese). Guns are not a contraceptive, but rather a tool.
Guns and condoms are both tools.
Question: Since you've chosen to describe guns as purely recreational devices, which pastime seems healthier psychologically--simulated reproduction for fun or simulated killing for fun?
Aside: The conservative right tends (not always, but often) to find sex education objectionable, and gun ownership appropriate. Meanwhile, simulated killing with simulated weapons in modern computer games is hotly debated--it's only okay if you're killing simulated terrorists. Interesting.
Re:What a stupid title (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone posts a comment that the only reason other countries in the world have weapons is because they're afraid of an American attack, and it gets moderated as +5 insightful. Someone simply says that there are left-wingers who produce biased science too (which is demonstably true), and he gets modded as a troll.
Recently, in a thread on SGI, I saw a post by a user with an ID around 600, which gave a lot of evidence for why SGI is in trouble in a number of marketplaces, because of pressure from cheap Athlon systems. He got modded as a troll. Then a user with a userID above 600,000 posted nothing more than "SGI will lose because Linux is taking it on the low-end" and got rated as insightful. So apparently, if you say SGI is dying because of low-end PCs, that's trolling because Slashdotters emotionally prefer SGIs to PCs. But if you say SGI is dying because of Linux, that's not trolling, because Slashdotters emotionally prefer Linux to all else.
You can mod me down as off-topic, or as a troll, but I don't care. Moderators need to recognize that just because you don't like an opinion doesn't make it a troll.
The lesson to be learned (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why these organizations should be privatized non-profits. The FDA, EPA, NCI, etc. should be able to say whatever they think best. If some group disagrees, then they can start another group that says something else. No social or political group should be backed by the government as the absolute authority on a subject. This would lead to honesty and lower taxes.
(Vote libertarian!)Re:Why should we be surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
US: 7,982 deployed nuclear weapons [brook.edu]
Russia: About 6000. [fas.org]
the only biological and chemical weapons we have left are used for training and research only, not research into new weapons mind you, but how to defend against them.
Bullshit. "How to defend against them" is a euphemism for "how to unleash them with minimal losses on our part". And you don't really need new wepons, you already have good weapons...people won't get any more dead with new weapons than with what's already available.
Yes, we are still the only country to use nuclear weapons in war. However, it probably saved the lives of 5 million American and Japanese soldiers who would've died in an invasion, and it ended the war.
Against civillians, mind you, and the war was already won. Japan had been trying to negociate a surrender with the help of russian diplomats for about a year when the US decided to nuke 'em (twice!). The point was not to end the war, it was to get an unconditionnal surrender...kick 'em while they're down.
It also came in handy as a way to scare the rest of the world into submission to US foreign policy...the "we have the bomb" argument was a pretty good one for 10 or 15 years, until others could say the same.
Your utopia will never exist, and besides, I wouldn't want to live there.
How's your best friend Satan?
You also have a severe misunderstanding of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' mindset.
I don't know about him, but my understanding is like this: You hit them, they hit you back more, you ht THEM back more, they hit YOU back double more...
Round and round it goes...
So, yeah, keep on picking a fight with Irak, and when the extremists hit you back for them, you can say "see, they hit us, we were right to hit them first", again and agin and again.
Outright lies from the left (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want a hundred examples of outright leftist falsehood, you only need to look to junkscience.com [junkscience.com]. It's updated daily. They're not always right, but they seem to have brought back the concept of healthy skepticism.
This is not a defense of untruth by the right either. I've noticed just the opposite of your contention. Untruths are more a historical phenomenon for the right and more a contemporary phenomenon for the left.
The thing is, political falsehood is usually used to oppress people, not to free them. In general, modern conservatives in the US want more freedom, and modern liberals want more control over people. This represents a shift from the '60s, and it goes hand-in-hand with the shift in political untruth-telling.
Re:Not surprised (Score:2, Interesting)
First, I'd warn you away from this sort of "but for" thinking: "But for Nader, Gore would have won" assumes a large number of unproven assertions. For all we know, but for Nader's candidacy, some kook with a rifle would have killed Al Gore. If the future is an epistemological quandary, alternate futures are doubly so.
Second, if we do play the, "but for" game, Nader may have radically increased Democratic turnout. In states with close Senate races, (Washington?), while it's possible that the Al Gore presidential campaign lost votes, the extra liberal turnout likely pushed the Democratic Senate races over the top. This contributed to the 50-50 split of the senate and allowed the senator from Vermont to leave the Republican Party and give control of the Senate to the Democrats.
Third, Monica Morehead, another presidential candidate (one of the socialist parties) received over 1k votes in Florida. If the argument that "Nader voters should just have taken Gore, he's closer to what they wanted than Bush" is true, it also holds for the parties further left. I don't see a overwhelming tide of blame coming down on her head.
Fourth, even if all the Nader voters had voted for Gore, it's not entirely clear that it would have mattered. The recount shenanigans, the dueling Supreme courts, the enormous conflict's of interest on both sides, that election wasn't settled by voters.
Finally, if Gore were president it is almost a certainty that we would be invading Iraq. Joseph Lieberman (currently representing my state) is a strongly religious Jew and has been calling for war with Iraq ever since we left the first time around. This is the same Joseph Lieberman, you may remember, that would have been Al Gore's VP.
---
Obligatory on topic comment: Of course government scientists are going to try to kiss up to their bosses. They want more money for themselves or their projects. The real question is, "Is the peer review system sufficient to counteract this trend." If our government has (effective?) checks and balances, should science as well? How do we achieve this?
What Are You Smoking?! No Pun... (Score:3, Interesting)
Air pollution is getting worse, try breathing country air compared to the air in Detroit where I live.
No homeless in the country? Have you ever left the pedistol you're on and visited, oh I don't know, ANY inner city?
Want examples of women being paid less than men? Let me take you to the k-mart where I used to work where I would get a $0.35 raise and a woman would only get a $0.25 raise.
Of course cigarette smoking dosen't cost the public money, because people who are suffering from lung cancer don't go to the hospital, right?
Animals don't have rights? Tell me that again when the ecosystem is in shambles and we don't have anything to eat.
No species going extinct per day? Oh what do you care, they're just insignifigant bugs.
Nuclear power isn't dangerous? Go visit Eastern Europe and tell people that.
For the love of God, think before you sound tremendously stupid, but above all, remember that no one political party is out to "get you", and so no one political party is going to make up world history and scientific breakthroughs over the past century! I suppose man never landed on the moon too, right?
Re:There is something wrong here. (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence?
I'm getting sick of this misrepresentation of the issue. No shit abstinence is better, but this is a choice that OTHER people are making, not the government. A real characterization of the issue before the government is this:
Which would be a more effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD's: passing out condoms or advocating abstinence?
This is a much more difficult question, and it is the one we actually face. Just because you say abstinence a better idea dosen't mean ANYONE is listening, and it could be possible that these people who are going to have sex whether you like it or not (which is most people I've knew in highschool and college) could benefit from condoms.
Re:Not votint (Score:3, Interesting)
I could go for that, though if 'none of the above' was an option and could cause something meaningful to happen, I would happily vote without compulsion.
Compulsory voting leads to a danger for abuse. What would be really interesting (but won't happen) would be no vote = no government services = no taxes. Given most American's opinions of how well their tax dollars are spent, it would lead to a record low turnout :-)
There is something wrong with you, Beav. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit. What you get are kids that have sex and try to cover it up. You get kids that have unsafe sex because they are scared to death that someone at the drugstore might tell dad he was buying rubbers. You get girls that hide their pregnancies, give birth in bathrooms, and leave their babies in trash cans.
Where/when I went to high school, no body did anything except get drunk on the weekends.
Just because you couldn't get any, you shouldn't assume everyone else couldn't, too.
Re:The Danger of Revisionist Science (Score:3, Interesting)
Two opposite assumptions: all teenagers will have sex before marriage versus no teenagers will have sex before marriage. Isn't there a middle ground here? I'm guessing a solution that manages to piss off both the left and the right might be the right one. How about: "If you are going to have sex then use a condom, please. But do your best to wait until you're mature, married, committed, or similar."