Politicization Of Science in the Bush Administration: Science-As-Public Relations

Vance

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,265
Reaction score
1
This article is very, very excellent... but bit long for short-span attention people to read though. Warning, it is VERY thought-provoking article and it require the high level of critical thinking skill. Here it is:


There’s a war going on—and not just the one in Iraq. This conflict may not get as much media play, but it could have just as great an impact on our safety, national prestige, and long-term economic health. It is a war over the integrity of science itself, and the casualties are everywhere: career scientists and enforcement officials are resigning en masse from government agencies, citing an inability to do their jobs due to what they see as the ruthless politicization of science by the Bush administration. Bruce Boler, Marianne Horinko, Rich Biondi, J. P. Suarez and Eric Schaeffer are among those who have resigned from the EPA alone. In a letter to The New York Times, former EPA administrator Russell Train, who worked for both Nixon and Ford, wrote, “I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure.” 1 Government meddling has reached such a level that European scientists are voicing concerns that Bush may not merely be undermining U.S. dominance in sciences, but global research as well. 2

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently published the results of an investigation into the administration’s misuse of science called “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” with a letter signed by over 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates. 3 President Bush’s science adviser Dr. John Marburger III’s response was hardly reassuring. 4 Part of Marburger’s defense was to use the common tactic to delay action by calling for “more research,” while in other cases he used verbal sleight of hand to avoid addressing the actual charge. For instance, when the National Cancer Institute’s web site was altered to suggest there was a link between abortion and breast cancer Marburger described the change as only a routine update. What actually troubled the UCS was that the findings of established science had been removed in favor of language that promoted the lonely crusade of Dr. Joel Brind.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Brind, he discovered the supposed Abortion Breast Cancer link (or ABC as he calls it) after “making contact” with a local right-to-life group shortly after becoming a born-again Christian. “With a new belief in a meaningful universe,” he explains, “I felt compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose.” 5 Despite the fact that Brind is completely at odds with his peers, the web site was updated with the following text:
[T]he possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted pregnancy. 6
After an outcry by members of Congress, the National Cancer Institute convened a three-day conference where experts reviewed the evidence, again concluding “nduced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,” ranking the science as “well-established.” 7

To prove that he took the issue of global warming seriously, Marburger shamelessly cited a study that President Bush had commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences. The administration had asked the NAS to find “weaknesses” in climate science studies to justify their efforts to derail an international global warming treaty. 8 When the commissioned report instead confirmed human-induced climate change and mentioned fossil fuels as a major culprit the EPA decided to replace the findings in its Report on the Environment with a discredited study funded by the American Petroleum Institute. 9

Marburger also pesented an argument that was made by Spinsanity, a self-described government watchdog website, which pointed out that just because a “frustrated scientist” had leaked an EPA report on children’s health to The Wall Street Journal, that did not prove there was a sinister intent to surpress it because bureaucratic delays in releasing information are common. 10

But the fact that so many scientists and government workers have risked their jobs by leaking information to the media makes this explaination weaker than it might be. As an editorial in The New York Times concluded, Marburger’s response is “little more than an attempt to put a positive spin on some flagrant examples of tailoring science to fit politics.” 11

Then there are those examples the UCS does not mention: the Corn Refiners Association and Sugar Association successfully lobbied Bush to pressure the World Health Organization to de-emphasize the importance of cutting sweets and eating fruits and vegetables in their anti-obesity guidelines. 12 Two scientists were ejected from a bioethics council due to what they believed to be their views favoring embryo research. 13 Data on hydraulic fracturing were altered so benzene levels met government standards after “feedback” from an industry source. 14 Another study (sponsored by Florida developers) claiming wetlands cause pollution, was used by the EPA to justify replacing protected marshes with golf courses to improve “water quality.” 15

Nothing is so trivial that it escapes top administration advisor Karl Rove’s insistence on staying “on message”—from forbidding NASA scientists to speak to the press about the global warming disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow, 16 to letting National Park Service gift shops sell books with the “alternative view” that the Grand Canyon was formed in seven days. 17

One need look no further than the USDA to see how compromised the research and enforcement environment has become. Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman was a former food industry lawyer and lobbyist and her staff includes representatives of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other industry groups. So it should be no surprise that shortly after a dairy cow from Canada tested positive for mad cow disease a senior scientist came forward alleging agency pressure to let Canadian beef into the U.S. before a study concluded it was safe. 18 Nor should it shock us that whistleblowers accused an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service supervisor of insisting a cow exhibiting symptoms of the disease be sent to a rendering plant before a technician could perform the tests mandated by agency guidelines. 19 But even the most cynical among us might be baffled by the almost cultish devotion to industry pandering exhibited when the USDA refused to give Creekstone Farms Premium Beef the kits it requested to voluntarily test its cattle so it could export to Japan because it might “create the impression that untested beef was not safe.” Creekstone may very well go bankrupt as a result. 20

Such reluctance only makes sense if the USDA fears that positive results are possible. Still, one hesitates to suggest the USDA is trying to sell as much tainted beef as possible before people start exhibiting symptoms. One hesitates slightly less so after learning that EPA staffers were also prevented from performing routine analysis of the economic and health consequences of proposed regulations governing mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. After all, it’s a lot easier to suppress unfavorable scientific findings if there’s nothing to suppress. But surely even they realize preventing an analysis of the consequences of our actions will not prevent those consequences from occurring. That’s the rub. Science doesn’t appear to factor into their reasoning at all. The tests might come up negative. They might come up positive. The meat is considered safe either way.

Debates over Bush’s character usually devolve into familiar partisan arguments citing either his resoluteness in the face of widespread negative reaction as proof of his conviction, or the chasm between rhetoric and reality as evidence of Bush’s disingenuous denial. Both could be true enough to have created an atmosphere that encourages government officials to practice outright deception to attain administration goals. To get an exemption from the Endangered Species Act the Pentagon simply changed a quote from an Army study saying government regulations “enhanced” training realism at Fort Stewart to “impaired.” 21 A Park Service brochure used a photo—supposedly taken in 1909—to prove that forests in the Sierra Nevadas were thinner before the implementation of “preventative thinning.” The picture was actually a photo taken of a recently logged forest in Montana.

Such distortions seem always to be in the service of a crusade of true belief. Unquestionably Bush is a man of conviction. The problem is that Bush does not seem to arrive at these convictions through faulty human pursuits like science. He seems to suppose his knowledge comes from a higher source.

More... in next post due to over 10,000 characters.
 
Last edited:
In the book The Price of Loyalty, Pulitzer prize-winning author Ron Suskind records former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s view that Bush based his decisions on “instinct,” and left others to “ponder the intangibles that [drive] the president—from some sweeping, unspoken notion of how the world works; to a one-size-fits-all principle, such as ‘I won’t negotiate with myself;’ to a squabble with a family member over breakfast.” 22 Former Bush terrorism czar Richard Clarke paints a similar picture of a White House staff inclined to ignore facts in favor of having truth “revealed” to them. Bush’s own wife says, “George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn’t need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn’t try to overthink. He likes action.” 23 Bush seems to value gut instinct over evidence, faith over fact, conviction over reality. He doesn’t need science to know that our food is safe, that the Earth was created in seven days, or that Saddam Hussein was only seconds away from handing over nukes to al Qaeda. If studies say otherwise then agencies have to be reorganized, committees reshuffled, and data reinterpreted until they get it right.

When agencies that used to be tasked with providing objective analysis no longer inform policy, their only remaining value is in bolstering preconceived conclusions. The ultimate danger of this view of science-as-public relations can be seen in a recent proposal by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would grant the administration greater control over peer review of “all major government rules, plans, proposed regulations and pronouncements.” 24 David Michaels of the Department of Energy complained, “It goes beyond just having the White House involved in picking industry favorites to evaluate government science. Under this proposal, the carefully crafted process used by the government to notify the public of an imminent danger is going to first have to be signed off by someone weighing the political hazards.” 25 After an outcry from scientists, the OMB seems to have scaled back the proposal from disastrous to merely horrifying, but if past behavior is any guide the administration will keep returning to the cookie jar until science is an empty vessel firmly under the direction of the White House press office.

The White House’s inclination to mold facts to fit preconceived notions is crippling the government’s decision making abilities in the areas of health, safety, environment, and more importantly, in the War on Terror. A opinion editorial written by conservative columnist Richard Hoagland shortly before the Iraq invasion illustrates how the White House allowed prejudices to influence pre-war intelligence: “Imagine that Saddam Hussein has been offering terrorist training and other lethal support to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda for years. You can’t imagine that? Sign up over there. You can be a Middle East analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency,” Hoagland chides before praising Bush for pressuring intelligence officers to reach the conclusions they were previously unwilling to make. “The ‘politicization’ accusation suggests that those who find Iraqi links to al Qaeda are primarily interested in currying favor with the Bush White House.” 26 As former Bush administration official J. Dilulio put it, “When policy analysis is just backfill, to back up a political maneuver, you’ll get a lot of ooops.” 27

Astonishingly, even after intelligence lapses became known, conservative columnist David Brooks was calling for more political intrusion in the process: “For decades, the U.S. intelligence community has propagated the myth that it possesses analytical methods that must be insulated pristinely from the hurly-burly world of politics,” he said. “What kind of scientific framework can explain the rage for suicide bombings, now sweeping the Middle East? …When it comes to understanding the world’s thugs and menaces, I’d trust the first 40 names in James Carville’s P.D.A. faster than I’d trust a conference-load of game theorists or risk-assessment officers.” 28 Never mind that those officers came ten times closer to assessing the actual situation in Iraq than the politicians who now interfere in the process like never before. But recognizing that would mean bringing evidence into the equation.

The troubles in Iraq are not so much proof of the failure of the neocon vision for democratizing the Middle East, as they are a reminder of the disastrous consequences of removing empiricism from deliberation. All the problems that have popped up in Iraq were predicted long ago—from troop strength to the resilience of the insurgents—and available to anyone who cared to look. The administration not only chose to look away but actively swept them under the rug. When CIA war games were discovered to be training personnel to deal with the eventuality of civil disorder after the fall of Baghdad, The Atlantic Monthly reported the Pentagon forbad representatives from the Defense Department from participating because “detailed thought about the postwar situation meant facing costs and potential problems.” 29 Our refusal to face reality hasn’t been giving democracy much of a chance.

“Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue,” George Will wrote recently. “Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.” 30 Bush has finally met his match. The Universe is the one foe more steadfast than he is. It cannot be bullied or intimidated. The laws of physics know no compromise. This is a game of chicken Bush will lose. If he doesn’t take his foot off the accelerator, then the only question is: how will we recover from the crash?

References:

1. Letter to Editor from Russell E. Train, “ When Politics Trumps Science,”New York Times, June 21, 2003.
2. “Euros Concerned for US Science,” The Scientist, Mar. 9, 2004.
3. “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” Union of Concerned Scientists, Mar. 2004.
4. Dr. John H. Marburger III, “Response to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ February 2004 Document,” Apr. 2, 2004.
5. Dr. Joel Brind, “Reading the Data”, Physician Magazine, July/August 2000.
6. National Cancer Institute, Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer, Nov. 25, 2002.
7. National Cancer Institute, “Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer,” Mar. 4, 2003.
8. “Moving Target on Policy Battlefield,” Washington Post, May 2, 2002.
9. “Report by EPA Leaves out Data on Climate Change,” New York Times, June 19, 2003.
10. “Letter from Concerned Scientists Not Exactly Scrupulous on Facts,” Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 11, 2004.
11. “The Science Adviser’s Rejoinder,” New York Times Editorial Page, Apr. 10, 2004.
12. “Eating Away at Science,” Mother Jones, May/June 2004.
13. “Bush Ejects Two From Bioethics Council,” The Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2004.
14. “Research on Oil and Gas Practices,” Politics & Science.
15. Resignation Statement of Bruce Boler, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility web site.
16. “NASA Curbs Comments on Ice Age Disaster Movie,” New York Times, Apr. 25, 2004.
17. “Critics Say the Park Service is Letting Religion and Politics Affect its Policies,” New York Times, Jan. 18, 2004.
18. “U.S. Scientist Tells of Pressure to Lift Ban on Food Imports,” New York Times, Feb. 25, 2004.
19. “Calls for Federal Inquiry Over Untested Cow,” New York Times, May 6, 2004.
20. “U.S. Won’t Let Company Test All Its Cattle for Mad Cow,” New York Times, Apr. 10, 2004.
21. David Brancaccio, Now, Apr. 23, 2004.
22. P. 165, Price of Loyalty.
23. “The Misunderestimated Man,” Slate, May 7, 2004
24. “White House Seeks Control of Health, Safety,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 11, 2004.
25. Ibid.
26. Richard Hoagland, “CIA’s New Old Iraq File”, Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2002.
27. “Why Are These Men Laughing?” Esquire, Jan. 2003.
28. David Brooks, “The C.I.A: Method and Madness,” New York Times, Feb. 3, 2004.
29. “Blind Into Baghdad,” Atlantic Monthly, Jan./Feb. 2004.
30. George F. Will, “Time for Bush to See the Realities”, Washington Post, May 4, 2004.

But wait, there is more... in next post due to 10,000 characters limit
 
“Political” Science
From the editors of Skeptic magazine

What, specifically, has the Bush administration done that has so invoked the ire of a sizable portion of the scientific community? The statement prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and signed by over 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and 127 members of the National Academy of Science, can be found at http://www.ucsusa.org/ along with the rebuttal by John H. Marburger III, the Director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, and a response to that rebuttal from UCS.

We are aware that the Union of Concerned Scientists has historically championed what many would consider to be left-leaning or liberal causes, and we are also sensitive to the fact that the political climate of this election year 2004 is an emotionally-charged one; nevertheless, either the Bush administration has taken actions to steer science in a direction parallel to its political agenda, or it has not. This is a factual question that can be answered with facts. The UCS documents are extensive, so the following are just highlights. Readers should check the facts for themselves.

Political Vetting of Scientists

In the spring of 2002, Richard Myers, Chair of the Department of Genetics at Stanford University and Director of Stanford’s Human Genome Center, was nominated to serve on the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research. According to Myers, shortly thereafter he received a call from Secretary Tommy Thompson’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services. After a brief review of Myers’ scientific credentials (which are stellar), the Bush administration official began probing into Myers’ political preferences. “She wanted to know what I thought about President Bush: did I like him, what did I think of the job he was doing,” Myers said. He describes himself as “nonpolitical,” yet he told the interviewer that:
I thought it was inappropriate to be asked these kinds of questions which led, I think, to an awkward situation for both of us. She said that she had been told that she needed to ask the questions and it appeared to me that she was reading from a prepared list. Because of her persistence, I tried to answer in the most nonspecific way possible. I talked about terrorism and the fact that it seemed that the attacks of September 11 had brought the country together. But there is no doubt that I felt the questions were an affront and highly inappropriate.
Soon after the interview, Richard Myers was denied the position. He appealed his case to Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project and chair of the National Advisory Council, and Myers' nomination was approved.

Political Screening of Drugs

“Plan B” is an emergency contraceptive drug that consists of two high-dose pills that interfere with either ovulation or fertilization, or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The pills can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse to prevent pregnancy. The drug was approved by the FDA in 1999, and in 2003 the FDA granted the drug over-the-counter status (which it has in 33 other countries), when over 70 scientific organizations, including the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed the findings of a number of labs. In 2004, however, Steven Galson, Director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, overruled the advice of the agency’s staff and two independent scientific advisory panels (who voted 23 to 4 to grant over-the-counter status) by declaring Plan B “not approvable” for nonprescription status. Although Galson denies any political motive to his actions, there is no scientific reason why Plan B cannot be granted nonprescription status and, according to the UCS report, “FDA insiders also note that after the hearings on the matter late last year, conservative groups had mounted a political campaign to try to block the drug’s approval” and that after the FDA received the recommendation of its scientific advisory committees to grant nonprescription status, “49 members of Congress wrote to President Bush urging White House involvement.” It is well known that the Bush administration supports a policy of “abstinence only” when it comes to teenage sex, so such political machinations, although difficult to prove, are nevertheless apparent in this and other cases.

Bioethics or Biopolitics?

Ever since Dolly the sheep was cloned the field of “bioethics” has grown dramatically. Given the current administration’s stated objections to stem cell research, therapeutic and reproductive cloning, and other technologies deemed “unnatural” or “in disrespect of life,” it may not be surprising that biologist Elizabeth Blackburn and bioethicist William May were dismissed from the President’s Council on Bioethics. According to Blackburn, one of the nation’s top cancer scientists, she and May were dismissed because they frequently disagreed with the administration’s positions on biomedical research. For example, she was removed from the panel soon after she objected to a Council report on stem cell research. In an opinion editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, Blackburn “recounted how the dissenting opinion she submitted, which she believes reflects the scientific consensus in America, was not included in the council’s reports even though she had been told the reports would represent the views of all the council’s members.” According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, advisory bodies are required to be balanced, yet the removal of scientists in disagreement with an administration’s stated position turns bioethics into biopolitics.

Source: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic10-08-04.html


Finally, whew. This article is very, very excellent.. I like this statement:
“Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue,” George Will wrote recently. “Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.” 30 Bush has finally met his match. The Universe is the one foe more steadfast than he is. It cannot be bullied or intimidated. The laws of physics know no compromise. This is a game of chicken Bush will lose. If he doesn’t take his foot off the accelerator, then the only question is: how will we recover from the crash?
I love that... "The laws of physics know no compromise. This is a game of chicken Bush will lose." It just give me the ecstasy when I read that statement.
 
Here is an oposing opinion piece. It too is long, so I won't cut and paste, but I will give you he source.

CEI: Advancing Liberty—From the Economy to Ecology

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace. Since its founding in 1984, CEI has grown into a $3,000,000 institution with a team of over 20 policy experts and other staff.

We are nationally recognized as a leading voice on a broad range of regulatory issues-from free market approaches to environmental policy, to antitrust and technology policy, to risk regulation. But CEI is not a traditional "think tank." We frequently produce groundbreaking research on regulatory issues, but our work does not stop there. It is not enough to simply identify and articulate solutions to public policy problems; it is also necessary to defend and promote those solutions at all phases of the public policy debate.

The best environmental think tank in the country" - The Wall Street Journal,

"One of Washington's feistiest think tanks" - The Boston Globe

"CEI is...one of the most influential Washington think tanks" - Now with Bill Moyers

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03960.cfm
 
Magatsu said:
Codger, I heard about CEI, to my understand that CEI is funded by Religious Right & Neoconservatives.

So naturally, they will 'rally' for Bush admin. I found this information through editorial article in one of science magazines. I believe it is Popular Science. It may explain everything about their (CEI) 'biased' opinion.

Edit: I gather that you didn't read the article, are you?
So, should I look up info on who funds all those names in your post? Maybe, perhaps the radical leftists and ecoterrorists? Is it not natural they would attack the Bush administration? It works both ways. I merely presented an opposing viewpoint. I did not attack the source of your op-ed piece.
 
Here is one of your first sources:the Union of Concerned Scientists
from The Cato Review of Business & Government

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

The activities of the Union of Concerned Scientists deserve special mention. That widely supported organization was originally devoted to nuclear disarmament. As the cold war began to end, the group began to actively oppose nuclear power generation. Their position was unpopular with many physicists. Over the past few years, the organization has turned to the battle against global warming in a particularly hysterical manner. In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed consideration of nuclear power. When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the second page was omitted. In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario. Such a disturbing abuse of scientific authority was not unnoticed. At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Frank Press, the academy's president, warned the membership against lending their credibility to issues about which they had no special knowledge. Special reference was made to the published petition.
 
Magatsu said:
Codger, I don't know much about you but I would like to know if these articles & comments that you posted lately seem indicated that you do support the war, toxic chemicals in our backyard, drugs mandate, etc etc? I am not pointing or accusing, I merely asked.

Edit: or you merely enjoy opposing my views :P
I support our soldiers no matter what sent them where. Toxic chemicals in our backyard? I remember Love Canal very well. And no, I am not in favor of dumping toxic chemicals. That is a ploy used to bash conservitave thinkers like calling returning vets "Baby Killers" back in '70. What drug mandates? Forced drugging? No. Mandatory responsibility and accountability of drug companies for what they push doctors to prescribe? You betcha.
 
Heck, I just presented an opposing viewpoint. I didn't start using labels and buzzwords and trying to impeach sources. Would you rather I just let you post anything you want espousing your own viewpoint and never showing AD'ers that there is another point of view? If so, just say so. Site or thread ownership is a new concept to me, but if that is what you want, I'll not post any more. I simply thought that the folks here would benifit from seeing that the world is not all black or white, but sometimes a lot of gray exists. I mean, isn't that what liberal thought is all about? Examining the facts from all viewpoints THEN deciding as individuals what is true?

Time and again you seem annoyed or worse that someone would DARE refute your posts. O.K., no more replys. Your ball, your game. Deal with ravinsteve.
 
Uh? You challenged my sources and I challenged back.

I don't know why you determine that I am annoying by your posts... I actually enjoying being challenge by you. I am sure as hell that you were annoying by my posts as well but I actually crave for your challenges and viewpoints. Codger, please continually refute my posts.

Maybe, next time, I will not say anything right after creating any topics so that's way you will not feel 'attacked' by me when you represent the opposing viewpoints.

Edit: Even though I am at loss as of why you feel that way but I am sorry for my 'attacks'.. but actually I enjoy being challenge by you and I keep my eyes out for your new posts in my topics.
 
Magatsu said:
Uh? You challenged my sources and I challenged back.

Post numbers 1-3 were your article. Post 4 was mine.. no editorial added. Post 5 was yours attacking my source. Read post 5! :applause:
 
But you challenged my posts with your opposing viewpoints... But I can see your point. You haven't attack my sources. Will you accept my apology by then?

Edit: I am going to ask mod to delete my 'attacks' to resolve this issue.
 
No NO! Don't delete! Let it stand. Just remember that when we sling mud, we can't help but get some on us! :wave:
 
Well, it is unethic (I don't know the best word to define... and I know that there isn't word like that) of me. I made a mistake and it is my responsibility to correct it, is it? You actually made me think second about what I said to you.

Come on, give me some dignity to correct my mistakes, lol. Also I gather that you accepted my apology as well.

Edit: Btw, it was my nasty habit to examine anyone's sources ever since they attacked my sources. I shouldn't carry that 'habit' around here...
 
Apology accepted, though not needed. Remember though, that as often as we agree on something and I post supportive info, I might post opposing info. And there might be a kernal of truth in both. This goes for history, science, theology, sociology mathematics and on and on. I did not really disagree with you totally on this post. SURPRISE! :jaw:
 
Yeah, you are quite right that every subject, every politicial movement, every issue, etc have two or more of viewpoints/sides. That's one of reasons why I want you to continually post your opposing viewpoints (even though I was wrong to attack your sources).. We live in 'grey' world and I expect that I don't know or rather, lack of knowledge about other side.

We already agreed on few issues like vaccination and other medical issues so it is not really 'surprise' for me :)
 
politicial science = oxy-moron

:lol:

We've talked about the separation of church from.... why not think about government's separation from science? That way, politics do not get in the way of advancements and impartial truth in science... and lets us focus on the important environmental issues that benefit all humankind.

I do commend Codger and Mag for setting a fine example of proceeding in a debate with different sidepoints!

I think it's such a shame when people have to mock others for being liberal or republican or whatever. Cant we all just get along? Long live Rodney K.
 
Liza said:
........ Cant we all just get along? Long live Rodney K.
Lol! Yep, R.K. is my hero too, though he won't live long if he keeps it up.


The Arrest Record of Rodney King
Rodney King's criminal history played a large role in the high-speed chase that led to his arrest, in his controversial and violent arrest, and in the trials that followed. King explained his decision to flee--at a speed exceeding 110 mph--from CHP officers as resulting from a fear that his arrest for speeding would lead to a revocation of his parole and a return to prison: "I was scared of going back to prison and I just kind of thought the problem would just go away." Sergeant Stacey Koon, the supervising officer at King's arrest, concluded (correctly, it turned out) from King's "buffed out appearance" that he was most likely an ex-con who had been working out on prison weights--and assumed therefore that he was a dangerous character. Finally, it was King's criminal history that explained the decision of prosecutors to keep him off the witness stand. If King testified, defense attorneys would be allowed to present the jury with his record of arrests--a record that might influence their deliberations.
Many of King's problems with the law stem from his serious drinking problem. According to his parole officer, Tim Fowler, King "was a basically decent guy with borderline intelligence....His problem was alcoholism." (Cannon, p40.)

King's Trouble with the Law Prior to His Beating

July 27, 1987: According to a complaint filed by his wife, King beat her while she was sleeping, then dragged her outside the house and beat her again. King was charged with battery and pleaded "no contest." He was placed on probation and ordered to obtain counseling. He never got the counseling.
November 3, 1989: King, brandishing a tire iron, ordered a convenience store clerk to empty the cash register. The clerk grabbed the tire iron, causing King to fall backwards and knock over a pie rack. King swung the rack at the clerk and fled the store with $200. King was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree robbery, and intent to commit great bodily injury. In a plea agreement, King pleaded guilty to the robbery charge and the other charges were dropped. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was paroled on December 27, 1990.


The Arrest of Rodney King on March 3, 1991
March 3, 1991: After being seen speeding on the 210 freeway by CHP officers, King led them on a chase at speeds estimated at up to 110 to 115 mph. When finally stopped, King refused requests to get into the prone position and appeared to charge one of the officers. He was beaten and arrested. King was charged with felony evading. Charges were later dropped.
King's 3/3/91 Arrest Record

King's Trouble with the Law After March 3, 1991
May 11, 1991: King was pulled over for having an excessively tinted windshield. Although King was driving without a license and his car registration had expired, King was not charged.
May 28, 1991: King picked up a transvestite prostitute in Hollywood who happened to be under surveillance by LAPD officers. King and the prostitute were observed in an alley engaging in sexual activity. When the prostitute spotted the officers, King sped away, nearly hitting one of them. King later explained that he thought the vice officers were robbers trying to kill him. No charges were filed.

June 26, 1992: King's second wife reported to police that King had hit her and she feared for her life. King was handcuffed and taken to a police station, but his wife then decided against pressing charges.

July 16, 1992: King was arrested at 1:40 A.M. for driving while intoxicated. No charges were filed.

August 21, 1993: King crashed into a wall near a downtown Los Angeles nightclub. He had a blood alcohol level of 0.19. King was charged with violating his parole and sent for sixty day to an alcohol treatment center. He was also convicted on the DUI charge and ordered to perform twenty days of community service.

May 21, 1995: King was arrested for DUI while on a trip to Pennsylvania. King failed field sobriety tests, but refused to submit to a blood test. He was tried and acquitted.

July 14, 1995: King got into an argument with his wife while he was driving, pulled off the freeway and ordered her out of the car. When she started to get out, King sped off, leaving her on the highway with a bruised arm. King was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (his car), reckless driving, spousal abuse, and hit-and-run. King was tried on all four charges, but found guilty only of hit-and-run driving.

March 3, 1999: King allegedly injured the sixteen-year-old girl that he had fathered out of wedlock when he was seventeen, as well as the girl's mother. King was arrested for injuring the woman, the girl, and for vandalizing property. King claimed that the incident was simply "a family misunderstanding."

September 29, 2001: King was arrested for indecent exposure and use of the hallucinogenic drug PCP.


Rodney King slams SUV into house, breaks pelvis
Wednesday, April 16, 2003 Posted: 4:03 AM EDT (0803 GMT)



Rodney King

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIDEO
Rodney King was hospitalized after police said he lost control of his SUV while weaving through traffic at 100 mph and crashed into a house. KCAL's Suraya Fadel reports (April 16)

PLAY VIDEO

RIALTO, California (AP) -- Rodney King, whose videotaped beating led to the deadly 1992 riots in Los Angeles, was hospitalized with a broken pelvis after he lost control of his sport utility vehicle while weaving through traffic at 100 mph and crashed into a house, police said.

King, 39, was spotted Sunday by a police officer who said King was speeding and weaving through traffic in his 2003 Ford Expedition when he slammed into a utility pole, a chain-link fence and then the home, police said. No one in the home was injured.

King was in fair condition Monday afternoon, hospital spokesman Jorge Valencia said. His condition was not available Tuesday as hospital officials did not answer phone calls.

Police said they suspect that King was intoxicated, and a blood sample was drawn to determine his blood-alcohol level. Test results have not yet been released.

King was not arrested, but a report detailing the crash circumstances will be submitted to prosecutors, police Lt. Kathy Thompson said.

King, who is black, was chased by police through the San Fernando Valley in 1991 and was captured on videotape being beaten by four white officers.

After their acquittal, riots broke out and lasted for four days, leaving 55 dead and more than 2,000 injured. The mayhem caused $1 billion in property damage.

King later received a $3.8 million settlement from the city of Los Angeles in 1994.

He was convicted of spouse abuse in 1999 in San Bernardino County and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and four years' probation.

King pleaded no contest to three counts of being under the influence of PCP and a count of indecent exposure in October 2001.

A judge gave King a year in a drug treatment center even though a prosecutor argued King should spend a year in county jail.


What a man!!!!
 
Liza said:
politicial science = oxy-moron

:lol:

We've talked about the separation of church from.... why not think about government's separation from science? That way, politics do not get in the way of advancements and impartial truth in science... and lets us focus on the important environmental issues that benefit all humankind..

Well put, Liza. That very same proposal was made by Michael Crichton in "State of Fear ", and more recently on a re-broadcast on C-Span. You may not agree with the plot line of the book, but he makes a very, very strong argument for doing just that. The way it is now is much too close to sponsored artists in feudal Europe - "If you don't paint my wife without that honkin' mole on her cheek, or me without my very unflattering crossed-eyes, you'll get no more patronage from me."
 
Back
Top