Anti-science rears its ugly head in Congress

[Wikkiwallana]

Stop electing anti-Science people to Congress. Since that's never going to happen, we're just going to have to elect more pro-science people than anti-science. So maybe we should start mobilizing for 2014 right now because these fucking people are the worst.

At least Obama is still here to veto it.

For now. He's got a term limit, Congresspeople don't.

[Vortropolis]

It doesn't matter.

[Divair]

At least Obama is still here to veto it.

For now. He's got a term limit, Congresspeople don't.

Unfortunately.

[Dogapus]

You are a horrible person for thinking Vaccines cause Autism

Going out on a limb here but I don't think Call to Power was saying anything of the sort.

He implied it, Someone said Vaccines don't cause Autism, he said 'Says the man who has never seen Vaccines in concert' He didn't say it but it was implied

[Farnhamia]

Going out on a limb here but I don't think Call to Power was saying anything of the sort.

He implied it, Someone said Vaccines don't cause Autism, he said 'Says the man who has never seen Vaccines in concert' He didn't say it but it was implied

The Vaccines.

[Laerod]

Going out on a limb here but I don't think Call to Power was saying anything of the sort.

He implied it, Someone said Vaccines don't cause Autism, he said 'Says the man who has never seen Vaccines in concert' He didn't say it but it was implied

"The Vaccines", not "vaccines". Note the article and capital letter. He's referring to the band.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

What laws have been passed that requires science to refute its own findings?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782#.UL-QS47B4qY

Fuck I can't believe I forgot that...

Please feel free to kick me...

[Linux and the X]

I've posted the following letter to Chairman Issa (address information removed, of course). I advise anyone else who cares to write a letter as well.

I was happy to see that your Committee have chosen to hold a hearing on autism. I believe this is an important issue for the government to maintain awareness of.

I was particularly heartened to hear the testimony of Mr Carley and Mr Ne’eman. As autistic adults, they were able to provide the most important of the non-governmental testimony; indeed, their importance is at least that of the government witnesses. It is unfortunate that invitations were only sent to Mr Carley and Mr Ne’eman were only sent a few days before the hearing. I hope that for future autism hearings, autistic witnesses will be sent invitations with the same advance notice as any other witnesses. I also hope that future hearings include a greater diversity of autistic witnesses rather than only white men; having a larger number of autistic witnesses — a good idea in any case — can only help with this.

However, I consider it rather shameful that other — non-autistic —witnesses were given a greater representation. There were more non-autistic witnesses, given earlier invitations (and therefore more time to prepare). It also seemed that they were given more time, overall, to speak. It is particularly upsetting that some of these non-autistic witnesses used their time to compare autism to deadly diseases, an “epidemic”, a “crisis”, or a “national emergency”. They speak in terms of “combating” or “curing” autism. To these witnesses, autistic people should be made typical — or at least seem typical, hiding their autistic traits — and any other outcome is failure.

I wish to be clear that I am not opposed to hearing testimony from non-autistic witnesses, but where their goals conflict with the goals of autistic people, it is clear that the goals of autistic people must win. I also wish to be clear that I am not opposed to all forms of treatment, merely forms of treatment that seek to make autistic people non-autistic. This is an absurd goal. Such treatment cannot truly make someone non-autistic; it can only hide autistic traits. Autistic people forced to act non-autistic will have the same problems as anyone else forced to pretend, for a lifetime, to be someone they are not. Instead, treatments should be focused on providing support to autistic people to live as autistic people — Mr Ne’eman’s testimony gave the example of AAC technology. The most important point, however, is that treatment should always be the choice of the autistic person; others should not be allowed to assume any particular treatment is ideal or desired and therefore force a treatment — particularly treatments that attempt to stamp out all traces of autism — on the autistic person.

Despite these problems, however, I wish to reiterate that holding a hearing on autism can only be a good thing. I hope that your committee, or another, will hold further hearings. Should your committee hold another hearing, I hope you will consider what I have written; should another committee hold a hearing, I hope you will forward my advice to them.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I've posted the following letter to Chairman Issa (address information removed, of course). I advise anyone else who cares to write a letter as well.

I was happy to see that your Committee have chosen to hold a hearing on autism. I believe this is an important issue for the government to maintain awareness of.

I was particularly heartened to hear the testimony of Mr Carley and Mr Ne’eman. As autistic adults, they were able to provide the most important of the non-governmental testimony; indeed, their importance is at least that of the government witnesses. It is unfortunate that invitations were only sent to Mr Carley and Mr Ne’eman were only sent a few days before the hearing. I hope that for future autism hearings, autistic witnesses will be sent invitations with the same advance notice as any other witnesses. I also hope that future hearings include a greater diversity of autistic witnesses rather than only white men; having a larger number of autistic witnesses — a good idea in any case — can only help with this.

However, I consider it rather shameful that other — non-autistic —witnesses were given a greater representation. There were more non-autistic witnesses, given earlier invitations (and therefore more time to prepare). It also seemed that they were given more time, overall, to speak. It is particularly upsetting that some of these non-autistic witnesses used their time to compare autism to deadly diseases, an “epidemic”, a “crisis”, or a “national emergency”. They speak in terms of “combating” or “curing” autism. To these witnesses, autistic people should be made typical — or at least seem typical, hiding their autistic traits — and any other outcome is failure.

I wish to be clear that I am not opposed to hearing testimony from non-autistic witnesses, but where their goals conflict with the goals of autistic people, it is clear that the goals of autistic people must win. I also wish to be clear that I am not opposed to all forms of treatment, merely forms of treatment that seek to make autistic people non-autistic. This is an absurd goal. Such treatment cannot truly make someone non-autistic; it can only hide autistic traits. Autistic people forced to act non-autistic will have the same problems as anyone else forced to pretend, for a lifetime, to be someone they are not. Instead, treatments should be focused on providing support to autistic people to live as autistic people — Mr Ne’eman’s testimony gave the example of AAC technology. The most important point, however, is that treatment should always be the choice of the autistic person; others should not be allowed to assume any particular treatment is ideal or desired and therefore force a treatment — particularly treatments that attempt to stamp out all traces of autism — on the autistic person.

Despite these problems, however, I wish to reiterate that holding a hearing on autism can only be a good thing. I hope that your committee, or another, will hold further hearings. Should your committee hold another hearing, I hope you will consider what I have written; should another committee hold a hearing, I hope you will forward my advice to them.

while I do not disagree with your stance I am wondering why no mention of their (the committee) preposterous position regarding the science they attempted to mangle?

[United Dependencies]

What laws have been passed that requires science to refute its own findings?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782#.UL-QS47B4qY

Sadly the reason I am forced to vote straight ticket democrat... to no avail...

[Linux and the X]

I've posted the following letter to Chairman Issa (address information removed, of course). I advise anyone else who cares to write a letter as well.

while I do not disagree with your stance I am wondering why no mention of their (the committee) preposterous position regarding the science they attempted to mangle?

'Cause YOU FUCKING DUMBASSES YOU'RE WRONG, even if written more politely, isn't the best way to convince them to stop being wrong.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

while I do not disagree with your stance I am wondering why no mention of their (the committee) preposterous position regarding the science they attempted to mangle?

'Cause YOU FUCKING DUMBASSES YOU'RE WRONG, even if written more politely, isn't the best way to convince them to stop being wrong.

I lol'd

[United Dependencies]

If I emailed my congressman a polite letter while inserting "go fuck yourself" in the middle, I wonder what would happen?

[Choronzon]

In a perfect world people who didn't vaccinate their children would be hauled into a court and charged with neglect.

[Dilange]

Why does anyone vote Republican now?

They are all become anti-scientists,ultra-religious, rednecks, conspiracy theorists, sexists, racists, and xenophobics.

[Choronzon]

Why does anyone vote Republican now?

They are all become anti-scientists,ultra-religious, rednecks, conspiracy theorists, sexists, racists, and xenophobics.

You answered your own question.

[Gauthier]

Next thing you know, a Christian Scientist gets appointed Surgeon General.

[Dilange]

Next thing you know, a Christian Scientist gets appointed Surgeon General.

Well it does say scientist in their name?

But arent they Christian Scientists in Congress?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Next thing you know, a Christian Scientist gets appointed Surgeon General.

Well it does say scientist in their name?

But arent they Christian Scientists in Congress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Scientists_%28religious_denomination%29#Political_figures

[Gauntleted Fist]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782#.UL-QS47B4qY

This law does not make science refute its own findings. It makes companies and government agencies that use data from findings consider more than the single panel who predicted a 39 inch rise over a 100 year period's data. The language is murky and obtuse (Of course it is, it was passed by Republican lawmakers.), but it doesn't make the findings themselves illegal.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782#.UL-QS47B4qY

This law does not make science refute its own findings. It makes companies and government agencies that use data from findings consider more than the single panel who predicted a 39 inch rise over a 100 year period's data. The language is murky and obtuse (Of course it is, it was passed by Republican lawmakers.), but it doesn't make the findings themselves illegal.

So you didn't read the article, otherwise you would have noticed that the people supporting the law have a vested (financial) interest in not using establish scientific organizations but support local government to pick and choose their own studies. If you think that this is in anyway good you are very sadly mistaken...local government is even more open to manipulation than federal government.

[Gauntleted Fist]

So you didn't read the article, otherwise you would have noticed that the people supporting the law have a vested (financial) interest in not using establish scientific organizations but support local government to pick and choose their own studies.

No, I read the fucking article. It does not provide an example of what I asked for. What it does do is provide an example of what lobbying by vested interest can do to prevent harm to their bottom lines.

If you think that this is in anyway good you are very sadly mistaken...

I did not say it was good, in literally any way. It is, in fact, not even fucking acceptable. But it is still not what I asked for.

local government is even more open to manipulation than federal government.

Yes.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

So you didn't read the article, otherwise you would have noticed that the people supporting the law have a vested (financial) interest in not using establish scientific organizations but support local government to pick and choose their own studies.

No, I read the fucking article. It does not provide an example of what I asked for. What it does do is provide an example of what lobbying by vested interest can do to prevent harm to their bottom lines.

If you think that this is in anyway good you are very sadly mistaken...

I did not say it was good, in literally any way. It is, in fact, not even fucking acceptable. But it is still not what I asked for.

local government is even more open to manipulation than federal government.

Yes.

No...what it does is reinforce the anti-science stance by allowing any kind of "science" as being viable. There is no vetting of these resources so basically a creationist viewpoint is to be considered the same as one based on proper science. "Bottom lines" as used by you are a consequence of using bad science.

[Gauntleted Fist]

No...what it does is reinforce the anti-science stance by allowing any kind of "science" as being viable.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the other side having an interest in winning, too. I'm sure you've heard of it before, but I'm beginning to think you have difficulty imagining not winning all the time. Is this a cultural thing I am not getting or are we just not even talking about the same thing?

There is no vetting of these resources so basically a creationist viewpoint is to be considered the same as one based on proper science.

Yes.

"Bottom lines" as used by you are a consequence of using bad science.

Also yes. These things are a part of the reality in which we exist and are forced to deal with. That my approach to acknowledging this reality and dealing with same is different from yours is becoming extremely obvious.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

No...what it does is reinforce the anti-science stance by allowing any kind of "science" as being viable.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the other side having an interest in winning, too. I'm sure you've heard of it before, but I'm beginning to think you have difficulty imagining not winning all the time. Is this a cultural thing I am not getting or are we just not even talking about the same thing?

There is no vetting of these resources so basically a creationist viewpoint is to be considered the same as one based on proper science.

Yes.

"Bottom lines" as used by you are a consequence of using bad science.

Also yes. These things are a part of the reality in which we exist and are forced to deal with. That my approach to acknowledging this reality and dealing with same is different from yours is becoming extremely obvious.

There is no winning in science...not in the sense of leveraging fiscal certitudes into any given scenario. Science is what it is. You can ignore it at your peril. I'm not sure I can be any clearer...if (as you ask) we are on the same wave length.

At a guess you are looking more of an appeasing of a situation and looking for a compromise which is not usually a bad thing. However there is no compromise in science. Perhaps that is the difference regarding the schism in our approach. After all we do seem to agree on many of the basic points.