PDA

View Full Version : UCS & the Bush Administration



Ravenstorm
04-25-2004, 09:45 PM
FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION

1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence.

2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government’s scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration’s political agenda. These actions include: appointing underqualified individuals to important advisory roles including childhood lead poisoning prevention and reproductive health; applying political litmus tests that have no bearing on a nominee’s expertise or advisory role; appointing a non-scientist to a senior position in the president’s scientific advisory staff; and dismissing highly qualified scientific advisors.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics. In this context, "sensitive" applies to issues that might provoke opposition from the administration’s political and ideological supporters.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.

http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1322
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=389


Makes you wonder what else has been twisted and manipulated. *coughWMDcough*

Raven

Latrinsorm
04-25-2004, 09:57 PM
I still don't believe this is a real group.

Artha
04-25-2004, 10:01 PM
They're real, alright. Though...well, read for yourself.

Link (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/145)

Latrinsorm
04-25-2004, 10:06 PM
Gwenyth Paltrow and Cameron Diaz can be pretty hot.

Artha
04-25-2004, 10:29 PM
They're real, alright. Though...well, read for yourself.

What I'm trying to say is

*coughNotAGoodSourceAtAllcough*

Ravenstorm
04-25-2004, 10:30 PM
Activistcash.com is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom. And just what is the Center for Consumer Freedom? Let's see...


The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network" is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture — the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' "

I can see how terribly unbiased they are. The rest is rather interesting too.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

Raven

edited to be less subtle:

Nobel laureates are a more believable source of scientific information than the tobacco lobby is.

[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Ravenstorm]

Artha
04-25-2004, 10:33 PM
Skip the overview and go to the factual stuff then, there's a good deal of good info if you look for it.

Latrinsorm
04-25-2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Artha
What I'm trying to say is

*coughNotAGoodSourceAtAllcough* I think my point stands. :D

Ravenstorm
04-25-2004, 10:40 PM
Oh, I did. And the 'factual stuff'? Aside from the actual dollar amounts, everything is written with a deliberate attempt to ridicule and denigrate them. Talk about spin and bias.

So no. Not a good source. Cough. :)

Raven

04-25-2004, 10:47 PM
Ravenstorm I will give you credit, this source was not from Aljazeria<sp> this time, but it's still shit.

Valthissa
04-25-2004, 10:53 PM
free advice from my father, circa 1976.

when I was a college student (yes they had colleges back then) I was enamored with a certain popular political position (it was ust after the Ford-Carter campaign) that I knew was directly opposed to what my parents thinking.

I went home all ready to really give it to them.

as I began my spiel (Thanksgiving, sophmore year - sheesh what an idiot I was) my father said, nevermind the details, please articulate the strongest argument against your position.

well

I wasn't really prepared, but I made the best of it.

He said - so you're ignorant of the facts?

I was furious.

anyway, I did learn a valuable lesson.

on topic - it's possible for two things to be true -

Bush makes science decisions based on politics and UCS uses a facade of science to formulate political positions.

Cheers

Ilvane
04-26-2004, 01:29 AM
Not really. They are actually not portraide right from Activist Cash at all.

Besides, what does it have to do with what they have found out?

I believe Bush's administration would lie, and distort, easily.

-A

longshot
04-26-2004, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by The Edine
Ravenstorm I will give you credit, this source was not from Aljazeria<sp> this time, but it's still shit.

This is coming from someone whose only source of information is e-mail chain letters.

You are one to talk.

04-26-2004, 02:30 PM
Longshot we both know that is far from true, I have posted two or three letters that I have received.
Tell me can you go one day without comenting on a post I make?
That is all you seem to do anymore, get off my balls already. Thanks.

Latrinsorm
04-26-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by The Edine
Tell me can you go one day without comenting on a post I make? I know a surefire way to make him stop commenting on your posts. :D

04-26-2004, 03:46 PM
Well of course that would work. Still does not get past the part of him obsessing over my posts.