Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the flame-magnet dept.

Censorship 805

UniversalVM writes "The NY Times is reporting that the former Surgeon General in damaging testimony given to the senate describes how he was repeatedly censored by the Bush administration while speaking out about topics such as global warming, Stem cell research and so on. The effort was to 'water down' or weaken reports on important issues to suit Republican Agenda. He describes how he attended one meeting where Global Warming was being described as a 'Liberal Agenda' and being dismissed. He tried to intervene thinking that the people there did not understand the science so he set about explaining it to them, the result? He was never invited back."

cancel ×

805 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmm... (4, Funny)

Cervantes (612861) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829415)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Bush at work again, I see....

Story of my life (5, Funny)

soloport (312487) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829477)

Try explaining anything scientific to your friends -- you soon won't have any.

Where the FUCK is iLife '07??? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829555)

Come ON you homosexual deviants in Cupertino. QUIT FUCKING AROUND and update your fucking software every so often. You mincing faggots are worse than Debian...

Re:Story of my life (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829669)

How does that follow? If you frequently go off on some weird ass jargon-filled tangent about some obscure scientific esoterica that no normal person would ever care about, then sure, that's going to put a crimp in your social life, because it demonstrates a lack of social skills.

But if you give a layman a reasonable overview of some issue that's actually relevant to the discussion, while restraining your tendency to sneer at stupid questions, and patronize people just because they don't already know what you're talking about, then you might find that some people are actually capable of being interested.

Feynman did a lecture series on quantum electrodynamics [princeton.edu] that was specifically geared toward people who didn't know what the hell quantum electrodynamics was. If you want to see an example of someone explaining a hard to understand topic to a bunch of people who have no background in a manner that is both accurate and entertaining, I highly recommend picking it up.

You forgot to mention Bush three times... (4, Funny)

VidEdit (703021) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829565)

Sorry, the parent is not a valid, Bush Administration Surgeon General position. You only mentioned Bush only once and you full well know the standard for any proper scientific position is that President Bush must be mentioned in glowing terms 3 times per page. Please edit and resubmit your paper accordingly.

(If only that wasn't **actually true**!!!)

Re:Hmmm... (5, Insightful)

DoraLives (622001) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829589)

> Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches.

Absolutely breathtaking!

These are the methods of a tin pot dictator, not the leader of a great and worthy nation.

That Bush & Crew would put their own puffed up egos ahead of the health and well-being of their own countrymen says it all. Sigh.

Re:Hmmm... (1, Troll)

lazy_playboy (236084) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829735)

Lol. Where did this notion of the US being 'great and worthy' ever come from? 'Coward and bully' might be more accurate, and I'm not just talking of Bush.

Minister of Information: Michael Chertoff (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829755)

Let's start this letter with a little quiz:

      1. What exactly is Michael Cherftoff trying to hide?
      2. Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that Cherftoff carries nothing but hatred and destruction in his heart?
      3. Essay: Compare and contrast Cherftoff's positions to those of what I call laughable turncoats, focusing especially on who is more likely to tell everyone else what to do.

Don't worry; I'll give you all the answers throughout the course of this letter as well as a wealth of other information about Cherftoff. If you disagree with my claim that I condemn Cherftoff's carnival-barker gimmicks, then read no further.

What I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Cherftoff's line that the sun rises just for him. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Cherftoff doing some pharisaical thing every few weeks. He has figuratively enclosed himself in a secure elitist ghetto. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: He has planted his acolytes everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Cherftoff's ability to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore but it also provides irrefutable evidence that he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally juvenile prank phone calls. I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that in the good old days, when courage, honor, devotion, duty, and loyalty meant something, it was comparatively easy to end Cherftoff's control over the minds and souls of countless people. What I mean is that he not only lies, but he brags about his lying to his minions. Cherftoff wants us to believe that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. How stupid does he think we are? This is an important question because I indubitably have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Cherftoff put the most sniffish punks I've ever seen on the federal payroll.

The first response to this from Cherftoff's vassals is perhaps that everyone with a different set of beliefs from Cherftoff's is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: Far too many people tolerate Cherftoff's imprecations as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that for all Cherftoff's bombast about freedom, liberty, and tolerance, he still wants to make bribery legal and part of business as usual. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: I, not being one of the many salacious rotters of this world, have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of disagreeable slanderers, but the hope that makes you eager to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that his worshippers believe that those rights and protections which give us voice in a democratic society are the cause of Jacobinism and social chaos and must be thwarted or dismantled. I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that I have no idea why Cherftoff makes such a big fuss over Stalinism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that if we let Cherftoff propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright materialism, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that I plan to challenge the present and enrich the future. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, there are many roads leading to the defeat of Cherftoff's plans to pervert the course of justice. I indeed assert that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Yes, I realize that Cherftoff talks out of both sides of his mouth, but for the sake of brevity I've had to express myself in simplified terms. When I say that his vaporings are deplorable, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something deplorable or that they have one or two deplorable characteristics. I mean that they are deplorable. In fact, the most deplorable thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that if Cherftoff can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who cause the destruction of human ambition and joy.

Cherftoff and his goombahs, who are legion, are, by nature, impulsive hackers. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but Cherftoff's more than vulgar. He's mega-vulgar. In fact, to understand just how vulgar Cherftoff is, you first need to realize that he may lower this country's moral tone and depreciate its commercial integrity right after he reads this letter. Let him. Before long, I will transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. Cherftoff has remarked that two wrongs make a right. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand, I'll spell it out for you. For starters, Cherftoff's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his promises. In fact, if we look beyond Cherftoff's delusions of grandeur, we see that he and his hirelings are rummy bludgers. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. Although the Gospel According to Cherftoff says that Pyrrhonism is the only alternative to egotism, I aver that his incessant jactancy is really getting on my nerves. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: How pertinacious can he be? I mean, his propositions are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.

Cherftoff focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, he attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings but that just goes to show that Cherftoff is trying to force us to experience the full spectrum of the Michael Cherftoff Rainbow of Faddism. His mission? To prevent me from sleeping soundly at night. Strictly speaking, this is not the first time I've wanted to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by him and his chums. But it is the first time I realized that there is something grievously wrong with those grotesque backstabbers who make us dependent on flighty traitors for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval. Shame on the lot of them!

If Cherftoff has spurred us to establish clear, justifiable definitions of barbarism and sensationalism so that you can defend a decision to take action when his agents provocateurs undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole, then Cherftoff may have accomplished a useful thing. If he wants to weaken family ties, let him wear the opprobrium of that decision. Cherftoff should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. We should not concern ourselves with his putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that Cherftoff's monographs have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply haughty. Now, not only are they both morally questionable and shambolic, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that a central point of Cherftoff's belief systems is the notion that granting Cherftoff complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that some people claim that Cherftoff surely needs to come to terms with his sexist past. Others feel that Cherftoff's maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely orations are actually quite stubborn when you look at them a bit closer. In the interest of clearing up the confusion, I'll make the following observation: If Cherftoff were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that he has commented that it is his moral imperative to exert more and more control over other individuals. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. It would be charitable of me not to mention that Cherftoff has an uncanny knack for making evil appear good and good appear evil. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about his humorless behavior, but about the way that I would never take a job working for him. Given his froward litanies, who would want to? We must also assert with all the sincerity of informed experience and the desperate desire to see our beloved country survive that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Cherftoff and about hypothetical solutions to our Cherftoff problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. His essays contain a farrago of extraordinary claims with little or no evidence. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. That's just not true.

When I first heard about Cherftoff's excuses, I dismissed them as merely prudish. But when I later learned that he wants me to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, I realized that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Cherftoff is to blame. I disagree both with his point and with the way he makes it. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit.

Only despicable gadflies are capable of imagining that embracing a system of heathenism will make everything right with the world. Am I saying that Cherftoff's grandiose promises of plenty for each have yielded grinding poverty for all? Yes. That remaining silent and inactive in the face of Cherftoff's beliefs negates our duty as civilized members of the community? Maybe. That I was personally offended -- and I don't easily offend -- by the value Cherftoff places on making me wander around in a quagmire of self-pity and depression? Definitely.

Cherftoff thinks it's good that his artifices endorse a complete system of leadership by mobocracy. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: He can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But Cherftoff can't fool all of the people all of the time. To believe that defeatism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions is to deceive ourselves. Cherftoff's den of thieves appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that Cherftoff loves getting up in front of people and telling them that he is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. He then boasts about how he'll smear people of impeccable character and reputation in a matter of days. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Michael Cherftoff. Of course, he soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, Cherftoff holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who pit the haves against the have-nots. If nothing else, a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Cherftoff has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. He wants to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. Who does he think he is? I mean, he seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, socially inept blinkered-types. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) this is a proscribed thought vs. free inquiry issue, an anti-democracy vs. democracy issue, and yes, a police state vs. free society issue, 2) Michael Cherftoff should put his own house in order before he tells others what to do, and 3) our problem -- and make no mistake about it, it is a severe predicament -- is that we currently lack the resources needed to knock some sense into Cherftoff.

Well It's About Time! (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829449)

Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration
Why is he speaking out? Because the Surgeon General's job is to warn me of things that are dangerous to my health.

I can't wait until Bush has to get a tattoo on his back that reads: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING! Election of this individual may result in death and will increase the risk of the rest of the world hating you."

Re:Well It's About Time! (4, Interesting)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829509)

If this is true, and it seems pretty likely it is, it's a pretty serious matter in my opinion.

From the article:
The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues.

That's quite a list of important issues he wasn't allowed to speak about. Things like this shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's the guy's job to discuss these things.

Re:Well It's About Time! (-1, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829627)

Wow! And the Clinton administration would let Dr. Carmona speak out of needle sharing programs for drug users. Remember Joycelyn Elders?

This is nothing new. It just serves as another reason to hate Bush (as if the media needed any).

There's a difference ... (2)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829799)

There's a difference between
a. You being correct
b. Someone else being wrong

Claiming that someone else said something is no excuse nor justification.

Re:Well It's About Time! (4, Informative)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829875)

Wow! And the Clinton administration would let Dr. Carmona speak out of needle sharing programs for drug users. Remember Joycelyn Elders?


Say it with me: "Clinton did it too."

Look, it's for damn sure that I'd rather have Bubba back in the White House than Dubya, any day of the week, twice on Sunday. That doesn't mean that we agree with everything he did, especially where something like this is concerned.

Nevertheless, I think it's pretty obvious that you haven't read the article, because:

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization's longtime ties to a "prominent family" that he refused to name.

"I was specifically told by a senior person, 'Why would you want to help those people?' " Dr. Carmona said.

The Special Olympics is one of the nation's premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.

When asked after the hearing if that "prominent family" was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, "You said it. I didn't."


You know what? That's it. Messing with the Special Olympics? Screw you guys. I already thought that this administration was severely morally challenged, but I had no idea they could be so, abso-fucking-lutely small.

Re:Well It's About Time! (1)

Taevin (850923) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829907)

As I recall, it was her comments about sex and masturbation that lost her the job. The same people censoring the current Surgeon General were so shocked and offended that someone would suggest masturbation is a healthy activity for youth that they made such a big deal out of it. So Clinton made a political decision to minimize the damage and have her resign.

Re:Well It's About Time! (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829635)

You have to understand the Bush/Republican view of things. If you plug your ears and shout loud enough the bad things won't happen.

We've known that Bush and his administration have been actively censoring and editing the "facts" since he was elected. This isn't really anything new, but it people should be outraged about it. The problem is a large minority of Americans believe as Bush does that talking about these things makes them worse. Of course, they also believe that as long as the Republican party (and it's spokespeople) don't acknowledge the problems, they don't actually exist.

It's a scart world full of people who refuse to believe evidence because it doesn't support the conclusions they want to draw.

Re:Well It's About Time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829667)

If this is true, and it seems pretty likely it is, it's a pretty serious matter in my opinion.

Yeah right, everyone knows the surgeon general doesn't believe in Jesus, so who's going to listen to him. This story is just Liberal bias!

Re:Well It's About Time! (1)

SengirV (203400) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829543)

Yes, because we all know the winner is the one liked by most of the world.

Re:Well It's About Time! (3, Interesting)

uglydog (944971) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829583)

But why didn't he say anything BEFORE?! Same thing with Colin Powell and the Army generals. You should say something while you hold the office. Why don't I see that much dissension? It sucks losing your job, and the have people talk crap about you, and take away your karma, but you have to say and do what you think is right. Why wait to the point where you are so beaten down, you would offer your life to say what you feel (ie, revolt)?

Hey, I guess better late, tho.

That happened to me.... (3, Funny)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829451)

Recently, I went to this party, and when the band left, I grabbed the mic and started singing (I was imbibed). I've not been invited back....

Re:That happened to me.... (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829573)

(I was imbibed)
Somebody drank you? [reference.com]
Sounds unpleasant.

Re:That happened to me.... (3, Funny)

sokoban (142301) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829651)

(I was imbibed)
Somebody drank you? [reference.com]
Sounds unpleasant.
Or really, really pleasant.

Re:That happened to me.... (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829737)

(I was imbibed)
Somebody drank you? [reference.com]
Sounds unpleasant.
Or really, really pleasant.
Ask him how he feels a few hours later. Beer will be the urination of us all.

Re:That happened to me.... (1)

SgtPepperKSU (905229) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829655)

Recently, I went to this party, and when the band left, I grabbed the mic and started singing (I was imbibed). I've not been invited back....
Man, that must have been one hell of a party. I don't think I've ever seen anybody drink enough for the alcohol to completely dissolve them and, subsequently, be comsumed by somebody else!

Even slashdot is in on the act (5, Insightful)

also-rr (980579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829459)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

On a more serious note, even if you think that global warming is a pile of horse manure, why would anyone object to the measures that are being suggested? Unless they owned a coal mine of course...

There's a lot of sense in heavy investment in nuclear, solar and wind power plus hybrid, diesel and electric vehicles even in a situation where the world isn't going wrong. Same with switching to CFLs and generally improving efficiency of resource usage etc... it's not like there are people who find clean air offensive... or at least I hope not.

Re:Even slashdot is in on the act (1)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829599)

People would object to measures that are being implemented when they have heavy costs - it costs money for companies to reduce emissions and for the government to enforce standards.

Re:Even slashdot is in on the act (4, Insightful)

also-rr (980579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829917)

it costs money for companies to reduce emissions and for the government to enforce standards.

It costs money to keep beaches free of sewage, breakfast free of weevils, jobs free of twenty hour days, students in school, Iraq free of terrorists, criminals in jail and hospitals free of credit card readers at the emergency room doors.

The fact that it might cost money, and that some of that money might need to come from taxes, doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea. It doesn't make it a good idea either - consideration is required in all things.

Re:Even slashdot is in on the act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829657)

There's a lot of sense in heavy investment in nuclear, solar and wind power plus hybrid, diesel and electric vehicles even in a situation where the world isn't going wrong. Same with switching to CFLs and generally improving efficiency of resource usage etc... it's not like there are people who find clean air offensive... or at least I hope not.

I dunno, I was under the impression that environmental policies were a big reason we couldn't build more nuclear reactors. And with rich people like Ted Kennedy [cbsnews.com] opposing wind farms in some locations where they'd potentially do the most good...

Fuck CFLs (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829715)

I can't stand CFL lights. Can someone please provide a link to a CFL with the same color temperature and visible spectrum as an incandescent lamp? They make peoples skin look like its dead and need a full minute to achieve the rated brightness. Hell, vacuum tubes need way less time to heat up. If they do ban incandescent lamps I'm going to invest heavily and stockpile them. Imagine prices a few years after a ban.

Re:Fuck CFLs (1)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829793)

You could try buying a bulb that was <a href="http://fcgov.com/utilities/powertosave/cfl-p erformance-faq.php">made after 1990</a>. Mine turn on instantly, come in a range of colour temps (I use daylight which is far better than incandescent for deign work, but you can pick ones that are identical to your old bulb if you like), and even work in dimmers.
<br><br>
Seriously your complaint is as outdated as the one about Linux being fine apart from RPM hell. Hasn't been true since the last millennium. Next you will be complaining about the mercury content!

Re:Fuck CFLs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829919)

Nothing screams "kook" like a guy complaining about the spectrum of a CFL light bulb and quoting Murray Rothbard in his sig. I can just picture the flayed hair and spittle flecked monitor in front of you.

Re:Even slashdot is in on the act (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829767)

Nuclear, yes. Solar... I'd like more research into R&D on how to make panels more efficient. Wind... not cost-effective at all. And it kills stupid eagles, who despite being stupid are still cool.

Vehicles... also not yet cost-effective enough. Once the technology matures enough, these will hopefully make more sense. For now they are expensive vehicles, the manufacturing process is more energy-costly than for normal vehicles of the same kind (hybrid Civic vs regular Civic, not hybrid Civic vs Hummer H2 naturally), etc.

Research into making normal internal combustion engines more efficient is also quite fruitful, by the way.

Energy-conservation initiatives are GOOD things, but there's also the reality that only countries with the LUXURY of being able to afford to invest in such initiatives will do so (at best). India, China -- these are becoming some of the world's largest sources of pollution, and unless Superman starts getting up early for work sometime soon here, I don't see their energy production becoming predominately nuclear or water/wind/solar anyt ime soon.

Also, initiatives to combat global warming aim to reduce CO2 output. CO2 is not a pollutant and so indeed, would be a FAR lower priority than actual pollutants for those who are not concerned with global warming to the extent that some are currently.

So... reducing CO2 won't make anyone's air any cleaner. Reducing other particles might, depending on what they are.

Re:Even slashdot is in on the act (1)

also-rr (980579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829835)

Energy-conservation initiatives are GOOD things, but there's also the reality that only countries with the LUXURY of being able to afford to invest in such initiatives will do so (at best). India, China -- these are becoming some of the world's largest sources of pollution, and unless Superman starts getting up early for work sometime soon here, I don't see their energy production becoming predominately nuclear or water/wind/solar anyt ime soon.

Per capita the US is far, far ahead. And if you aren't measuring per capita then I'm curious as to how you expect to be taken seriously - what gives Americans (or indeed Europeans) the right to pollute more than anyone else?

Re:Even slashdot is in on the act (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829853)

I agree.

I used to heartily believe that Global Warming was a problem. I no longer believe so.

Is the global climate getting warmer? Absolutely. That's been proven.

Is it unnatural? I don't think so, anymore. We've been on a heating trend for longer than we've been pumping out poisons into our atmosphere. Could it be making it worse? It's possible, but it's not enough that anyone can prove it yet.

But back to the point: I still think we should reduce air polution. Even with no sign of a global warming problem, it -cannot- be good to breathe the smog in the majority of our major cities, let alone all the other problems caused directly and indirectly.

Grrrrrr. (5, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829471)

Science should never bow to political pressures. Bush is guilty of this, obviously...This is hardly the first evidence.

But, especially in the area of health care, he's far from the only one who has gotten involved in a negative manner. Reagan tried to squash talk about AIDS, Clinton poo poo'd needle exchange programs, Bush Jr. jumped on everything just as part of the administrations obsession about managing information.

This stuff really needs to be separate and non-partisan...I am so freaking tired of this or that issue being batted around because of peoples inborn prejudices. A reputable expert with actual facts puts together a well thought-out, scientific report, and they get defunded, their speeches are edited and pre-reviewed. People from within the administration work to discredit their testimony. It's just ridiculous, and there is no way good science or good policy is coming out of it.

Hell, while they're at it, they should add a scientist general, and do the same damn thing. This stuff isn't about opinion. There is a right answer.

Re:Grrrrrr. (1)

FlyingOrca (747207) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829613)

Hell, while they're at it, they should add a scientist general, and do the same damn thing. This stuff isn't about opinion. There is a right answer. Agreed, but see, that's precisely what they don't want to admit. If you admit that there's a right answer, it's only a matter of time before someone notices that the right answer contradicts your deeply cherished position, and THEN how do you cling to power?

Re:Grrrrrr. (1)

Erioll (229536) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829785)

Agreed, but see, that's precisely what they don't want to admit. If you admit that there's a right answer, it's only a matter of time before someone notices that the right answer contradicts your deeply cherished position, and THEN how do you cling to power?
You start claiming "scientific consensus" and that "the debate is over" to distract from your totally debunked position. Throwing in a healthy amount of innuendo about Big Oil payoffs (even when completely false) also doesn't seem to hurt.

Re:Grrrrrr. (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829805)

...it's only a matter of time before someone notices that the right answer contradicts your deeply cherished position, and THEN how do you cling to power?

By changing your deeply cherished position. History provides many examples of people in power changing their minds in order to match their world-view with inconvenient and stubborn facts. The ones that don't inevitably got the boot (or the Guillotine). What makes this current crowd so perverse is that they relish the notion of distorting the truth in the public eye so much that honest people cannot tell reality from spin anymore; facts have become reduced to opinions in the popular view, hence the scientific world-view with its positivism and empiricism is distrusted because its conclusions are so damned objective and hence not fair.

Re:Grrrrrr. (1)

Nilych (959204) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829877)

I think we may be comparing apples to oranges here. Science (and medicine) are tools. Politics, in this case, is deciding how to use those tools. In the end, Science doesn't care about the Conservatives making a buck, or the Liberals saving the starving African kids with AIDS. If Science had its way, unimpeded by politics, it'd take all the money and spend it on research, and experiment on all children (not just the ones that need saving).

I have to wonder though, does this partisan impediment to the surgeon general's job violate part of the hippocratic oath? Salus aegroti suprema lex or some such? One should give help to anyone of need, not just people of one's political party. Or is that all just ethical bullshit that noone in the "real world" heeds?

Re:Grrrrrr. (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829731)

Science should never bow to political pressures.

Unfortunately, when your funding is managed by a bunch of people who simply don't believe the science, and who have no interest in different points of view, you can't really succeed at this. No matter how noble a sentiment it is.

It's just ridiculous, and there is no way good science or good policy is coming out of it.

Well, 'good' policy is subjective -- if your goal is to have a policy which starts with the supposition that homosexuality is bad, or Intelligent Design is valid, or abstinence only sex education isn't an oxymoron ... then it's good to be able to control the agenda and information coming out of your agencies. Then you can act like you have 'truth and goodness' on your side.

This stuff isn't about opinion. There is a right answer.

Not when you can convince people of such silly things as "our lives would be easier if Pi was 3". And, in the case of global warming, while there seems to be a majority of people who agree, as long as someone dissents you can claim that it's not fact, but opinion and theory and muddy the waters. An uncritical/uneducated public (who has been fed what you wanted them) won't be able to tell the difference.

Sadly, nowadays, politically inconvenient basically means you get shut down. Especially in the current administration which has the attitude that "what we say is right, no matter what the truth is". They're not interested in truth -- they're interested in their position, and pandering to their base. Reality be damned.

Cheers

Re:Grrrrrr. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829857)

If you think information should be non-partisan, why are you depending on the Gov't for your information?

Gov't is by definition partisan.

Ugh... (4, Insightful)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829475)

I'm not sure 2008 can come quickly enough.

I don't for a moment think that any of the potential presidential candidates and their future administrations will not be rife with corruption and political mumbo jumbo. However, the constant news of abuses of power and position to make hideously bad decisions has me regretting the past 7 years thoroughly.

We need Mr. T for president, or at least Secretary of Defense.

Re:Ugh... (2, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829791)

We need Mr. T for president, or at least Secretary of Defense.

I PITY THE FOOL who wants to elect somebody based on their performances as fictional characters!

Re:Ugh... (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829803)

I don't know, some of the Republican candidates are likely to be irrational and destructive like Bush.

Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo indicated they don't believe in Evolution. That indicates to me that if any of them were to become president they would ignore any scientific evidence that doesn't agree with their preconceived view of reality. That's a fatal flaw in a leader.

Re:Ugh... (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829889)

Or at least the Secretary of not having time for this jibba jabba.

Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (4, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829489)

...Bush Administration And at what point does the meter raise to impeachment of the clan?

Re:Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (1)

FlatLine84 (1084689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829605)

I dunno, I thought being caught doing something illegal (Nixon), or you know, failing to tell the truth under oath (Clinton) would do it.... Apparently we like having a puppet to laugh at?

Re:Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (-1, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829707)

Did they impeach Clinton for pushing out Joycelyn Elders over her masturbation flap? How about when Clinton censored Dr. Carmona over his needle sharing plan? Maybe when Reagan told his SG not to speak out on AIDS?

Funny how everyone wants to impeach Bush for doing things that Clinton got away with:
Going to war with a country that was not a threat....CHECK!
Lying to the country....CHECK!
Claiming Iraq had WMDs....CHECK!
Censoring the SG....CHECK!
Firing attorneys....CHECK! ...

Re:Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829807)

Don't leave out pardoning people for political reasons, that seems to be what a lot of the noise is about these days.

Re:Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (1)

FlatLine84 (1084689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829899)

I think Bush's problem is lack of Charisma and stupidity. Clinton either made you feel good about it, or used a date rape drug.

Re:Anybody doing and Accounting of the ... (1)

irinotecan (1118569) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829921)

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, unless a special prosecutor indicts Bush on something blatantly criminal, like murdering someone, the Democrats simply did not win enough seats back in either the House or the Senate to impeach him. This is the real reason why Pelosi won't consider starting articles of impeachment, and not because she is "weak willed" or "caved in to the administration", as Sheenan would have you think. Sad, but true.

Global warming? (3, Insightful)

i_like_spam (874080) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829503)

I don't condone censorship of scientists in any way, shape or form. But why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming? He should leave that discussion to the climate experts (e.g. Jim Hansen). There are too many armchair climatologists out there, which contributes to the misunderstandings about global warming.

Re:Global warming? (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829585)

But why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming?
Maybe since he wanted to tell us what effects it has on our health? Of course, we do not know about these effects because he was censored.

Cheers!

Lots of warming-related health issues (5, Insightful)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829763)

There's quite a few health-related issues: It sure would have been helpful to have talked about them over the last seven years.

Re:Global warming? (3, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829603)

You have a meeting of Bush, the Surgeon General, and variou sother cronies and cabinet ministers. Who do you think is best qualified to discuss the scientific merit of whats being discussed- Rumsfeld? Cheney? Or the man with a Phd, who has at least studied scientific fields like organic chemistry and medical research, and has an understanding of the scientific method and how to critique research? And knowing scientists, he probably at least had *some* understanding of it, even being outside his main field of research. There's more qualified people in the world, but in that room he was the expert.

Re:Global warming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829693)

Or the man with a Phd, who has at least studied scientific fields like organic chemistry and medical research, and has an understanding of the scientific method and how to critique research? And knowing scientists, he probably at least had *some* understanding of it, even being outside his main field of research.

I have a PhD, took organic chemistry and am a medical researcher, and it doesn't make my understanding of climatology better than anyone else's.

Actually, his overall list of criticisms is pretty damning. But the global warming thing is just silly.

Re:Global warming? (2, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829773)

Compared to another scientist? Nope it doesn't. Compared to a bunch of people with no background in science? Yes it does. You can at least critique methodology to some extent, and likely have some familiarity with the techniques and basis of climatology. A layman with no scientific background can do neither.

Re:Global warming? (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829611)

But why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming?

Because he seems to understand science better than the other parties involved? ie. the other non-expert in the topic?

Re:Global warming? (2, Insightful)

i_like_spam (874080) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829677)

Let's say I have a PhD in climate science. Do you want me to talk to you about cancer treatments if you have cancer?

Re:Global warming? (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829829)

Let's say you're in the government, and only one member of your government was chosen because of his scientific knowledge, and you're having a meeting on science. Would you invite him to attend?

Re:Global warming? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829861)

That is just silly. Understanding that excess CO2 emissions can cause the planet to warm and thus cause problems for the inhabitants of the plant is a little different than understanding cell reproduction in the human body and what is involved. FAR easier to understand global warming at the layman level than cancer. Thus someone with a scientific background is in a better position to explain global warming to people without a scientific background. The fact that you guys are even making an argument against it is stupid.

Re:Global warming? (1)

lazy_playboy (236084) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829929)

If the alternative is talking to a politician, then YES!

Re:Global warming? (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829841)

Malaria [bbc.co.uk] , West Nile Virus,, Dengue Fever [sky.com] , just to name a few.

Re:Global warming? (1)

Plebis (125823) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829725)

"But why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming?"

The Surgeon General is talking about it because the heads of NASA, the EPA, or pretty much any organization that should be talking about it won't.

Re:Global warming? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829795)

because the head(s) of NASA...that should be talking about it won't

Actually, Mike Griffen (NASA Administrator) took a stab at it on NPR; I'm not sure he's the spokesman you're looking for.

Re:Global warming? (1)

i_like_spam (874080) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829811)

Jim Hansen, the head of NASA's GISS, talks about global warming all the time. Here's an interview from a couple of months ago [grist.org] . However, whenever he speaks publicly he states that the ideas presented are his own, and not NASA's.

Because the Surgeon General is a liberal (-1, Troll)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829745)

and global warming is part of the liberal agenda.

He wasn't censored, the scientific reports were questioned and asked to be verified, and he couldn't verify them or explain other scientific reports that contradicted what he was trying to say.

Global warming is false anyway, what is really happening is climate change, only fools and idiots (mostly liberals) don't know the difference anyway.

Re:Because the Surgeon General is a liberal (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829879)

Global warming is false anyway, what is really happening is climate change, only fools and idiots (mostly liberals) don't know the difference anyway.

Okay, I'll bite.... what is the difference?

-Jeremi the foolish idiot liberal

(+5, Funny) (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829533)

Bill Hall, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said that the administration disagreed with Dr. Carmona's statements. "It has always been this administration's position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science," Mr. Hall said.
BWAHAHAHAHA.... wait, he's serious?

If you want to help (4, Informative)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829535)

Join Scientists and Engineers for America. They are "a non-profit organization dedicated to renewing respect for evidence-based debate and decision-making in politics and at all levels of government."

If groups like that had the same sort of clout that religious groups have, America could remain the economic and philosophical leader of the world.

Of course, if we continue to elect politicians who make decisions based on theology instead of science, it may be time to start looking for jobs in western europe.

What Kind of Power Structure Is there? (1)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829547)

What's the political organization in that office? The article made it sound as if political appointees outside the office were trying to tell him what to do? Who was it that had authority over this guy?

Nothing new here (0, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829569)

From DEMOCRAT Rep Henry A. Waxman's website: [house.gov]

Politics and science will always intersect in government, and Dr. Carmona is not the only Surgeon General to face political interference.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, who was Surgeon General during the Reagan Administration, was told not to speak on the subject of AIDS, which was regarded as a "gay disease." He courageously resisted this pressure.

Dr. David Satcher served as Surgeon General under President Clinton. He too faced political interference. His efforts to release a report on the benefits of needle exchange programs were blocked, an action that President Clinton has since called a mistake. And when he wanted to release a report promoting the use of condoms and other responsible sexual behaviors, he was told to submit his report for publication in a medical journal rather than release it as another Surgeon General's report.
Also, may I remind everyone of DR. Joycelyn Elders who suggested teaching school children to masturbate. That went over real well in the Clinton administration. I remember her being pushed out for that.

Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of Bush Bashing.

Just a few more conservatives eating IEDs... (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829617)

Don't even bring Clinton into this.

Re:Just a few more conservatives eating IEDs... (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829733)

Don't even bring Clinton into this.

The point is to show a double standard by everyone here and the media as a whole. Sorry, but you have to apply the same rules to everyone. I brought Reagan into it as well, so it's not just a party thing.

So fricking STUPID. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829749)

WHO CARES?

Is it not a problem because everyone abuses the system? Shouldn't that suggest to a rational person that we need to fix the fucking system? But no, you've got to immediately make it a partisan issue, because you can't ever be wrong, and nothing can ever be your fault.

Fucking crybaby conservatives. "Waaaaa, Clinton did it too, so why are you yelling at meeeeeee?" After 7 years, you pansies should be able to stand up for your own damn misdeeds.

Re:So fricking STUPID. (1)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829827)

From ArcherB

The point is to show a double standard by everyone here and the media as a whole. Sorry, but you have to apply the same rules to everyone. I brought Reagan into it as well, so it's not just a party thing.
What ArcherB said. Heaven on high forbid someone point out the double standard - it's okay to whip Bush but not Clinton. Point is, both had issues, both sucked in their own way. No, it's not a non-issue because it's been done before, but it gets more than slightly ridiculous when morons like you (SatanicPuppy) act as if it's NEVER been done before.

Re:So fricking STUPID. (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829897)

Well you see, its because the liberal media is just Bush bashing all the time when all of today's problems really were all caused by Clinton or other liberals. Our glorious leader in his infinite wisdom has even explained it to you Godless liberal heathens. "You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda".

What...do you want the headlines to read 2012 "All Major Issues Fixed, No Platform For Reelection Available" How the hell are people going to get elected without pointless emotional kneejerk reactionary issues to drive the apathetic public to the poles to vote for their hero? You wan't them to actually DO something?! PFt...fool.

Re:So fricking STUPID. (0)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829901)

Is it not a problem because everyone abuses the system?

.

Oh no. It's a problem. However, all who abuse the system should be treated the same. You can't let on Prez do it and then hammer the next, however, it seems to be a recurring theme with attorney firings, wars, bad intel and so on. Did you not see Reagan mentioned in my original post? I guess you only read what you want to believe.

Sorry, but this Prez has not gotten a fair shake since his inauguration. He can't take a shit without the press bitching that he soiled a toilet bowl. I know it's modern group-think to bash Bush, but I'm not a sheeple kinda guy. I tend to think for myself.

BTW, I thought Clinton's impeachment was bullshit and I'll think the same for Bush's.

Re:Nothing new here (1)

mapmaker (140036) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829759)

In his testimony, Dr. Carmona said that...He eventually consulted six previous surgeons general, Republican and Democratic, and all agreed, he said, that he faced more political interference than they had.

Now please get that right-wing "Clinton did it too!" bullshit out of here.

bush bashing? monkey spanking? (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829895)

Also, may I remind everyone of DR. Joycelyn Elders who suggested teaching school children to masturbate. That went over real well in the Clinton administration. I remember her being pushed out for that.

Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of Bush Bashing.


Sorry I'm not sure if you are advocating bush bashing for girls but denying monkey spanking for boys?

Personally, I think that teaching both bush bashing *and* monkey spanking is just fine at school.

He just didn't understand "humor" (1, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829571)

I was at that meeting he describes, and he wasn't invited back because, frankly, he was just too pompous.

Random staffer: Global warming? You mean "liberal agenda".

Rest of room: Ha ha ha. (random laughter)

Surgeon General: No, no. You don't understand. Global warming is real. It's scientific!

Me: Calm down. We're just fooling around.

Surgeon General: No! It's because of carbon dioxide emissions. Don't forgot how smart I am. Listen to me. I'm a surgeon and a general. Anybody else a surgeon here? No? Anyone else a general here? No? Then all of you just better listen.

Me: (whispering to guy next to me) Let's not invite him back.

Guy sitting hext to me: What an ass.

Ok this guy gets away with everything (4, Insightful)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829587)

Look Clinton had a BJ and they tried to get him out of office. Bush has been screwing up a war form day one, went in when the evidence said no WMD's. Hell he even tried to pion sept 11 on Iraq, tho the evidence just was not there. Toss in things like the wire tapping issue where illegal wire tapping's occurred even tho getting a warrant to do it was basically a rubber stamp, and nothing happened. This is not the first time someone has said bushes gang tried to change the facts, and force bad info down on the public. In the end Bush is a oil guy, he don't care about the environment or anything, just making his own cash. Yet some how he is still in office, and Clinton who ya was not perfect almost got tossed out because of a BJ, give me a break.

I used to be angry... (3, Interesting)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829739)

I used to be furious that our soldiers were dying for a lie in the desert...then I learned that the military voted Bush in 2004...88%...and they kept spouting the usual lies on TV. I quit caring about them.

Then, amazingly, I just quit caring about Iraq. Nobody I care about is over there fighting that honor-less conflict.

*shrug*

Patriotism is for suckers. Citizenship is a business relationship, and that is IT! It's give and take. What can the country do for me, in return for my support.

A big part of the problem ... (1, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829591)

... with regards to the Global Warming debate, is that people with no real knowledge on the subject (on both sides) persist in making declarations as if they were experts. This is further exacerbated, whether it's Hollywood loonies or right-wing religious fanatics, by their tendency to latch onto and espouse the most draconian of opinions. FWIW, in my opinion the Surgeon General has no more credibility on Global Warming than does Rush Limbaugh, and so his being asked to "stifle" does not bother me. Now, as regards stem cell research, that's a whole different ballgame.

Science about public health is his responsibility. (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829821)

FWIW, in my opinion the Surgeon General has no more credibility on Global Warming than does Rush Limbaugh, and so his being asked to "stifle" does not bother me.


Ok, I'll bite.

The Surgeon General has the capacity (and duty) to evaluate scientific (i.e. evidence-based) input relating to public health. If there is scientific reporting that shows that global climate change is expected to have negative health repercussions (and there is), it falls in his area of responsibility.

Ummm... (2, Insightful)

thebonafortuna (1050016) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829631)

What does this have to do with technology? This story is not Slashdot worthy, in my humble opinion.

I guess the argument could be made that this is yet another example of censorship from the Bush administration, but frankly, it's not a very good one. Since when does the surgeon general speak authoritatively about global warming? I see nothing in his (Dr. Carmona) background which would lead me to believe he had the same depth of knowledge on the subject as the scientists who actually study the theory. The surgeon generals also complained about political pressure, but if we're having an argument based in reality, I'd be curious what political appointment doesn't feel some degree of political pressure. Nothing new here.

Re:Ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829883)

Well, I believe is he presentor of the scientific results that his office funds, he himself is not the finder or the source of the results and there was no assumption that he was. I see nothing wrong with that. Do you think the president or a militray general goes to the various battle fronts before giving a speech about how things are going? Does a CEO have have a sales background to give report quarterly sales forecasts? Do you think weathermen are driving around to all the areas they report on?

Horse Manure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829643)

I agree, global warming is horse manure. But I would certainly like to stop burining coal and oil. Its about as primitive as those damn rockets NASA keeps launching. Smoke everywhere billowing out for miles, what the hell? The aliens are just looking at us shaking their heads. Some believe it is the (or some) aliens who wish to ruin this planet. There is definatly something feeding off of our fearhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/ 090707closertosun.htm

Sucks... (2, Insightful)

Non-CleverNickName (1027234) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829659)

What really sucks about this to me is that hearing news of claims like this should really surprise us, but really...

How many of us read the title and were shocked and/or appauled?

Kinda sad that we're numbed to seeing stuff like this.

Actually the bias belongs to the paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829681)

The coverage of this has amazed me. If you read (or watched) the testimony, what actually happened was that Surgeon Generals under the past FOUR presidents described how they were censored. It isn't unique to the Bush White House, it's a flaw in the whole system. Of course, you'll never hear the media criticize Clinton.

Eric (not an anonymous coward, the computer I'm at won't let me log in)

Not censorship. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829687)

Couple of points:
1) As Surgeon General, he's part of the administration. Therefore, this is not censorship.
2) The Surgeon General is an MD, not a climatologist. Having an opinion he feels strongly about doesn't make him a) an expert or b) entitled to a public forum on said opinion.

Bush v Reality (3, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829709)

"Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert [google.com]

It could be worse (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829711)

Its rumored that the Reagan admin relied on astrology, tarot cards, etc in determining policy.

Global warming is part of the liberal agenda... (1, Insightful)

apsociallife (638272) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829713)

...just like tax cuts, military funding, and immigration control are part of the conservative agenda. I think it needs to be accepted that there are two sides to this argument, just like so many others. Bush does not believe that science has demonstrated a significant human contribution or significant human risk related to global climate change, and his policies are consistent with this view. This puts him in alignment with significant percentages of both the American public and the scientific community. The issue is unsettled, and the debate will continue for a long time I am sure. The idea that Bush is somehow exhibiting a special type of corrupt behavior by taking a stand on an issue and expecting his staff to back him up is just silly. We employ our leaders to represent our views with regard to public policy, and to oppose those who have opposite views. Liberals would like to see increased government regulation in response to the danger of global climate change. It's part of their agenda. And it's Bush's job as a Republican and (sometimes) a conservative to oppose these plans.

We shouldn't have a "Surgeon General" (1)

rogerz (78608) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829723)

This office will always, by its very nature, be politicized. If you don't like that, you should be arguing to get rid of the position entirely.

In a free society, the government would not have any power to make or enforce laws that bear upon anything an SG might have to say.

Global Warming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829729)

So an MD degree makes you a climate expert now?

BushCo hates the disabled? (2)

Cervantes (612861) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829747)

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization's longtime ties to a "prominent family" that he refused to name.

"I was specifically told by a senior person, 'Why would you want to help those people?' " Dr. Carmona said.
Wow... just... wow. Let's torpedo the Special Olympics because they're associated with someone from the other party. That's pretty damn low.

"Coming up on our 11 o'clock news... President Bush unexpectedly attacked by an unruly mob and severely beaten with crutches and canes. VP Cheney terrorized by motorized wheelchairs. Gov't suspects Al Quada."

Remember the Nuremberg Trials? (5, Insightful)

Sara Chan (138144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829777)

After World WarII, several Nazi leaders were tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not everyone wanted to do that. Winston Churchill, for example, just wanted to execute those Nazis. But the USA insisted on fair trials, saying that it was important to establish the principle of the rule of law.

Back then, the USA had leadership that demonstrated to the world how even the most heinous crimes (particularly the Holocaust)—in which many millions of people died—can and should be handled according to law and principle.

Compare that with what George W. does today.

I'm not a climatologist but I play one at meetings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829813)

He tried to intervene thinking that the people there did not understand the science so he set about explaining it to them, the result?

And after correcting the attendees' views on global warming based on my vast medical knowledge, I began to educate them on the virtues of socialism... ... wasn't invited back?!?

job security (1)

c_jonescc (528041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19829851)

Glad I'm not looking to be Surgeon General.

Discuss HIV/AIDS, and mention that proper use of condoms is important = IGNORED.

Discuss masturbation, and mention it's a natural urge = FIRED.

Discuss global warming, and mention there is a threat to our way of life = BANISHED.

But, AIDS was under Reagan, the wanking thing was Clinton, and I thought it was common knowledge that the Bush admin was making their own 'science', so where's the surprise? The SG has seemed an impotent title to me for years, and we don't expect any better from the Rove camp. Even Koop seems to have been reduced to late night infomercials for the elderly who are afraid of falling.

Funny however that the SG is an appointed position and the appointer rarely has the desire to listen.

facts vs. policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19829867)

It's one thing if the administration knows and acknowledges the facts but refuse to make policy based on them.

The thing that bothers me is that the administration has no interests in facts at all, they would rather manipulate the facts to ensure whatever policy they make is supported. I am not referring to the Bush administration, I think our pool of politicians is of such poor quality that any administration formed form such a pool will follow the same footsteps.

I think this is a sign that the administration believes making people believe that the government is working for the good of the people is just as good as actually working for the good of the people. 1984 here we come!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?