Bush-League Science
As a kid, I read a story about a man engaged in target practice whoíd shot a dozen perfect bull's-eyes into a wall. An army officer approached him and asked how heíd managed to score so well. "Itís easy," said the man. "I shoot first, and draw the bull's-eyes afterward."
This article by Nicholas Thompson in Washington Monthly details how the Bush administration does much the same thing -- taking a position on an issue based on politics or religion, then trolling for snippets of scientific data to support it:
"The administration's stem-cell stand is just one of many examples, from climate change to abstinence-only sex-education programs, in which the White House has made policies that defy widely accepted scientific opinion."
The administration also has a tendency to appoint "religious conservatives whose political credentials are stronger than their research" credentials. Check out the voodoo approach to women's health issues:
"For example, on Christmas Eve 2002, Bush appointed David Hager--a highly controversial doctor who has written that women should use prayer to reduce the symptoms of PMS--to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Commission."
One wonders if he suggests the same solution for men whose prayer-treated, PMS-ing wives and girlfriends are chasing them around the house with an ax.
>sigh< Sometimes it seems like no matter what our president does his opponets on the left will go to any length to find someway, anyway to be critical of him. Similarly trolling for any thread to grasp at to support an anti-Bush position. Somebody cue patrick...
Jeep Crew at August 18, 2003 8:38 AM
Actually, I'm not a lefty, but I dislike how our government is being ruled by religion (irrationality over science). Why don't you?
(Amy Alkon) at August 18, 2003 12:14 PM
I would not like our goverment ruled by religion either. I don't percieve it as being run that way. I believe President Bush is a religious man, but many of our former presidents have been deeply religious. President Carter always impressed me that way. But I don't think either "ruled the goverment by religion". I will conceed the fact that President Bush has stronger morals than President Clinton. It seems to me those opponets of our President like to portray that strength as "religion controling the state". Personally, I had never heard of David Hager before today. Nor do I have any idea why he was appointed to that commission. I am not doubting that he did indeed say that. People say stupid things all the time. I do doubt that the president when making that appointment to that commission appointed that person specifically because he had made that statement. I also wonder how many people are on the commission? It is a comission after all. I doubt you could find ten people with medical degrees that even have that opinion, it is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. "Oh Dear Lord, please reduce my girlfriend's PMS". I just support our preident and believe he is a good man, and genuinely believe he has our nations best intrests as his goal.
Finally Amy, I was not refering to you as being on the left, I was refering to the reporter from Washington Monthly. I love your writing, respect your opinion, and your sense of humor keeps me in stiches. Please forgive any typos or misspellings.
Jeep Crew at August 18, 2003 1:51 PM
Is it not our responsibility to be critical of The President? Regardless of "Left" or "Right"? IF President Bush is "deeply religious", fine, but how does that affect the running of a country with religious diversity? Have there ever been candidates of other religions? What if Bush was Buddhist and didn't believe in a personal God? Would he try to fit that into his "leading" of the country. Would the populace be ok with that?
I think we should turn the car around and seperate these two.
A!
Aaron at August 19, 2003 12:48 AM
>sigh< Sometimes it seems like no matter what our president does his opponets on the left will go to any length to find someway, anyway to be critical of him. Similarly trolling for any thread to grasp at to support an anti-Bush position. Somebody cue patrick...
Posted by Jeep Crew at August 18, 2003 08:38 AM
Wasn't planning on replying to this, actually, but how can I not honor a request?
Regarding the "trolling for any thread to grasp at to support an anti-Bush position," that is the nature of the political beast. It wasn't so long ago that the Republicans were doing the same thing to Clinton. In fact, some of them still are. When Whitewater availed the Clinton-obsessed Republicans nothing, they forwarded a paltry affair with a corpulent and ambitious intern. Oh, please! Nearly 60% of all married men have cheated. Please don't tell me that anyone's dumb enough to believe that Clinton is the first president to do so, or will be the last. And men lie about sex, fact of life. GET OVER IT ALREADY!
Personally, I find the whole practice of muckraking to be depressing, especially in the Republicans who are STILL obsessed with Clinton, and STILL are attempting to air his dirty laundry. Do these people have lives beyond Clinton? Do they go to bed at night and dream of him? Do they find ways to introduce Clinton into every sentence of their conversation? "What a nice drawing you made at school, Doris! I doubt Clinton's daughter Chelsea ever drew anything so nice when she was in kindergarten!"
Since we're discussing religion -- and I take issue with Amy's assertion that religion = irrationality, but that's another conversation -- I'm reminded of Jotham's parable of the trees, from the book of Judges. Simply, the parable goes that the trees set out to appoint a ruler over themselves. They asked the grapevine, the fig tree and the olive tree. Now these three are fruit bearers, producing good and useful things (at least as the ancient Israelites valued things; I could probably survive without figs), and each one of them declined, unwilling to give up their good and useful functions to become ruler over the trees.
The trees then asked the bramble to rule over them. The bramble, of course, is good for nothing, and not having a good function to abandon, accepted and became ruler.
The moral of the story: Those that seek political office are the last persons on earth that should have it, and those that are best suited to it would never want it.
Patrick at August 19, 2003 2:31 AM