So..I've Been Slapped Around A Bit. By Conservatives!

Well, I am going to let my Liberal friends have a huge chance to say "I told you so." And I will take it like a lady.

For years -- forever -- I've stood up and defended Conservatives when my Liberal buddies bashed them and said they were dumb, rude, etc. etc. I thought I was Right (couldn't resist the pun) because although I do now and have in the past belonged to quite a few email lists, mostly conservative, I had never seen the things my liberal friends accused us of. That is, until yesterday, as a new member to a Conservative list.

To be fair, I have to admit I brought it on myself. Someone posted an article about Muslims being able to broadcast daily prayers in a city somewhere in Great Flyover Land. Remembering how much I love hearing church bells in the small towns of our country, I thought that sounded a bit unusual -- but lovely. I didn't comment on the post at that time.

However, several posts immediately followed that, saying the poster hated Muslims and would like to kill them all. That's when I spoke up.

I said not all Muslims are terrorists; that the terrorists are an extremist faction (like skinheads or some equally fringe outfit) and that as Christians and as Americans we are called to resist hatred. I also said that if we hate Muslims, the terrorists win. And I said more along those lines.

Boy, did I bring the wrath of the Right down on my head.

So to my Liberal friends who have claimed to be cursed and worse by Conservatives, I apologize. We're not all like that, but obviously some of the worst Conservatives are at least as vicious, narrow-minded, stupid and blind as the worst of the Liberals.

I promise I won't ever take up for Conservatives as a generic breed again.

Here They Go Again!

When are major media going to stop LYING to the public?

Now that social security is in the news and being scrutinized, the Washington Post and the NY Times are outdoing each other to either intentionally or through shabby reporting to mislead the public. As in The Washington Post. What the Post and "government official" they interviewed are saying is that Social Security acts as sort of a savings account and you get back what you put in.

That is NOT true. Social security is not and never has been an account you pay into, then receive all the money you invested later like a savings account. When you retire you are given a proportionate amount in return. That money comes from the money the present generation is contributing to the system, just as the money you put in went to the generation before you.

What President Bush wants to do is make it possible for you to actually get some of your own money back, by investing it in savings of some sort. The little bit you put into those savings you'll get back. It's yours; you can leave it to your heirs, you can spend it -- whatever. That's not true with social security.

I was amazed to see an article in our local newspaper by our congressman, who spoke of social security as if it were a savings account. Even HE doesn't know the difference!

The money young people pay into social security today pays for benefits given to the older generation today. That's the way social security has always worked. It has never been a savings account for old age and no one has ever gotten as much out as they put in.
To earn social security benefits, you earn "credits." Let's get this information "from the horse's mouth." The Social Security Office explains it this way:

The credits are based on the amount of your earnings. We use your work history to determine your eligibility for retirement or disability benefits or your family’s eligibility for survivors benefits when you die.

In 2005, you receive one credit for each $920 of earnings, up to the maximum of four credits per year.

Special jobs earn certain credits so that's not necessarily true for all. What IS true, however, is that you're not getting as much money back as you would from a savings account BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GIVEN CREDIT FOR ALL THE MONEY YOU CONTRIBUTE.

Not only that -- you have to work for a while before you can even get benefits:

Anyone born in 1929 or later needs 10 years of work (40 credits) to be eligible for retirement benefits. People born before 1929 need fewer years of work. (Again, from the Social Security Adminstration website)

Now, with the President's plan you keep a tiny percentage to invest or save. It slows up your qualification for points a little (not much) but that money is yours and is earning more money for you while you're working up to the points you need for retirement benefits. Also, that money is yours -- you get it all back, not just money based on "points" -- a proportion -- of what you earned.

There's a rundown on the hatchet job the Washington Post and the New York Times have been running against the President's plan here, with dates and links to the articles. The article that is on the site now is a retraction of what they originally posted. That, however, makes my point!

Okay, so social security isn't in trouble for twenty or so years -- that's plenty of time to fix it. Maybe. But if I were a young person I'd love the idea of having the choice to be able to keep some of my money. As an older person I sure want them to keep contributing because I need my benefits -- and I earned them by paying for my parents' generation.

Then here comes the NY Times with a poll.

Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll underscores just how little headway Mr. Bush has made in his effort to build popular support as his proposal for overhauling Social Security struggles to gain footing in Congress.

But look what they don't say until way down deep in the piece:

The poll was conducted by telephone with 1,111 adults from Thursday through Monday. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

AND it was taken just after the election, before the President even defined his plan for social security.

I take issue with 1,000 "adults" speaking for 200 million in the first place but claiming that a poll taken at the time this was -- and held until now -- speaks to me of political and intellectual dishonesty.

What we all need now is some truth from media. Reporters either need to do their research or they need to quit lying -- one or the other. Or both.

Habeas Corpus for Terri

The "writ of habeas corpus" is a legal proceeding, protected by the US Constitution, that gives a person whose liberty has been constrained by state courts in violation of his or her Constitutional rights. This has been traditionally used by prisoners but in 1968 the US Supreme Court ruled "the use of habeas corpus has not been restricted to situations in which the applicant is in actual, physical custody. ... in the state courts, as in England, habeas corpus has been widely used by parents disputing over which is the fit and proper person to have custody of their child ...."

Comes now FL Representative Dave Weldon, M.D. who will introduce The Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act in Congress tomorrow, March 8. This is a bill that would give the Schindler family access to a federal court to argue for the life of their daughter, Terri Schindler Schiavo.

Although there are court rulings and precedents, there is no law to guarantee that someone with a disability, charged with no crime, can turn to Federal courts for protection. That's why a law is needed -- to protect the innocent from murder by irresponsible judges.

Please write your state's representative today and ask him/her to support the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act.

And just in case it doesn't pass, please sign the petition to ask President Bush to spare her life HERE at Ipetition.com.

Important Support For The Fair Tax

For the second time in 10 days, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was complimentary of consumption taxes. He spoke last week on improving the nation's savings rate. During his testimony at the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform on March 3, 2005, Chairman Greenspan pointed out the merits of a consumption tax - such as the FairTax in spurring economic growth.

"This is great news for America," stated Tom Wright, executive director of FairTax.org. "Though Greenspan did not say the magic words 'FairTax,' we are America's leading consumption tax by both Wall Street Journal and CNN recent polls. The FairTax meets every criteria and solves most every problem mentioned in his testimony: Fairness, simplicity, predictability, and ends all taxation on capital - the driver of economic expansion. We look forward to working with the chairman on the transition from income to consumption taxation."

"We also believe in the positive impact of a progressive national retail sales tax on the economic well being of this country," continued Wright.

"Dr. Dale Jorgenson, former chairman of Harvard University's economics department, forecast a 10.5 percent GDP growth in the first year after enactment. Over the last decade FairTax.org has spent more than $22 million on research with other top institutions, which delivered similar expansion predictions. This has enormous implications for the federal budget deficit and the job creation picture, among others."

"Former Secretary of the Treasury Jim Baker also recommended the investigation of a consumption tax at Thursday's hearing," Tom Wright said. "For me, the most telling part of the Honorable Jim Baker's
testimony was in the Q&A when he reiterated his recommendation on a "move" to consumption taxation, a switch, not an add-on - a question that keeps coming from the president's panel."

Former Secretary of the Treasury Baker also stated that the sweeping reforms of which he was an integral part in 1986 were "transitory." As a solution Mr. Wright said, "The FairTax, as a sales tax collected under the bright lights of the retail counter, is inoculated against lobbying. It brings transparency and simplicity to the tax system even an 11-year-old can understand. Anything that simple is not immune to special interests, but it sure makes such back room deals much harder."

"The suggestion by some to combine different forms of taxation such as the French value-added tax (VAT) would be in direct violation to Chairman Greenspan's advice to make all things visible," added Wright. "VAT taxes, such as those France forces on new members entering the European Union, are levied and hidden throughout the manufacturing process, building a playground for special interests similar to that of our income tax. Ultimately the FairTax is the only replacement for our income and Social Security tax systems that is open, accountable, simple to understand, and fair to all Americans."

What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a rebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar revenue neutrality, and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This non-partisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate,
capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax - collected by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. So it is also cost neutral the final cost for goods and services changes little under the FairTax. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

What is Americans For Fair Taxation (FairTax.org)?
FairTax.org is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to replacing the current tax system. The organization has hundreds of thousands of members and volunteers nationwide. Its plan supports sound economic research, education of citizens and community leaders, and grassroots mobilization efforts. For more information visit the web page: www.fairtax.org or telephone 1-800-FAIRTAX.

Anyone Want To Bet?

I simply can't understand why young people don't realize that the money they put into social security now isn't theirs. It goes to pay for MY benefits, not theirs; just as mine paid for my parents' generation and they paid for their parents'. What's so hard about that? That's the way social security works and it has been ever since its inception in the 1930s.

This piece in Thursday's Wall Street Journal helps me understand what has happened, though.

As it stands, millions of Americans still believe in the fiction that their payroll taxes are being squirreled away in a savings account in their name somewhere in the U.S. Treasury. This is largely because politicians of both parties have spread this fantasy over the years, the better to be able to continue to spend that loot themselves to buy votes for the next election. The undeniable truth is that Mr. Bush's reform is the only idea on the table that would create such accounts, complete with ownership rights written into law.

Americans need to understand that as of now they have no such property right. While politicians have made promises to pay future benefits at gradually rising levels, the Supreme Court's 1960 Fleming v. Nestor decision makes clear that such promises are not an individual asset and that the taxes people pay today guarantee nothing at all down the road.

Of course it's understandable that my generation would be suspicious and truly hesitant to encourage that kind of privatization at all, except for the fact that our benefits are fixed. No matter how much young folks put into the system, we won't get more out. And, we won't get back all that we put into the system. It just wasn't set up that way.

The Wall Street Journal continues:

Meantime, tens of billions of dollars of payroll taxes in excess of current Social Security benefits continue to flow into the Treasury each year, only to be spent today on other things by the same politicians who claim that personal accounts are a "risky scheme." As if putting one's trust in politicians wasn't the riskiest scheme imaginable.

As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress yesterday in his most vigorous support yet for personal Social Security accounts, one of their virtues "is that money allocated to the personal accounts would no longer be available to fund other government activities." He added that "if existing promises need to changed, those changes should be made sooner rather than later." In other words, the longer Congress waits to reform Social Security, the more likely it is that the politicians will repudiate their benefit promises.

Well, if that doesn't kill it, nothing will. Anyone who has looked into it, knows that Bill Clinton "balanced" his budget and "paid off" deficits by filching the social security accounts. Cooking the books, as it were. Even that didn't keep a recession from beginning toward the end of his second term, but that's another story.

I suspect President Bush knows he'll never get even the least bit of privatization of social security through Congress. It's too good for the people and, frankly, Congress has been better at talking the talk than walking the walk.

And so we come to the crux of the issue, ie: the dawg that's REALLY in the fight: "Reformers need to make clear that the main issue is who will own the payroll taxes that workers contribute to Social Security: The workers themselves, or politicians."

Anyone want to bet me: I say the politicians win, as usual.

Congress To Help Terri

March 4, 2005

Congressman David Weldon (R-FL), a medical doctor, plans to introduce legislation titled the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act (Terri's Law), which will hopefully help save Terri Schiavo's life.

The legislation would give Terri and others in similar situations the same constitutional protection of due process as death row inmates. Already this week, attorneys for Terri's parents have filed six different motions to help save their daughter, all of which are now on appeal.

Dr. Weldon's legislation would allow Terri to have her own counsel who can argue her case, a right given to any criminal in the United States. Terri is, of course, not a criminal but a woman fighting for her life.

As Terri's fight intensifies, I cannot be more frank on the fate of this poor woman if her husband has his way. If Terri's feeding tubes are removed, she will face a slow death through starvation, which can take anywhere from 7 to 30 days. Terri's parents, as do Congressman Weldon and I, truly believe Terri is alive and deserves to continue living.

Please call, e-mail, AND fax your U.S. representative to support Terri's Law -- truly life-saving legislation. Time is of the essence.

Additional Resources
Contact Your Elected Officials

Leaving A Line In The Sand and A New Nation Arising

America is so blessed.

Although our media can't seem to see it and probably wouldn't recognize it if they did, good old-fashioned patriotism is alive and well in this country. And not only among those of us who remember other wars, put among the young men and women who took up the mantle of freedom and spread it on the sands of the Middle East.

Chris Missick is coming home and for that we are grateful -- at least we will be when we see him blogging once again; this time from his home in California. You may not remember Chris. I've referenced his blog from Bagdad several times in writing my observations about the war. Chris is a very special young man, an unusually talented writer with an interest in politics. With a little luck, he'll run successfully for a national office one day.

But now he's coming home. And this is what he wrote -- this is what Chris Missick wrote:

For those of you who read this, I want you to know I appreciate absolutely every word you have said. The support was overwhelming, and I am not ashamed to say that many of your letters brought tears to my eyes. Though my blog may have put a face and a name to what may seem like a faceless war for many of you, the e-mails, the care packages, the letters and the support put a name and sometimes a face as well to the heart of true American patriots. As I said to some of you, soldiers may be the fists of American might and goodwill, but you are all the heart and the backbone of America. You support us in our mission, you give us the strength to go on when the days seem so long you just want to throw up your hands and quit. It always seemed that letters of support came at the moments I needed them most, and they were always uplifting. Even the letters from folks who disagreed gave me strength, because I knew in those moments that what I was writing was being read and was having an impact. My mission was not to change hearts or even to change minds on the war, but merely to open minds as to what one soldier was experiencing, what he was thinking about, what was weighing particularly heavy on his heart.


The heart of America's patriots is one of the things I have discovered more than anything else on this deployment. Despite the rhetoric that seemed to go back and forth in the United States on the war, the one thing I am most proud of is the hope that the American people hold for those in Iraq. People from across the world may find it hard to believe that the world's greatest power would be willing to expend its treasure, and even more importantly some of its greatest citizens, just to help out another nation. Regardless of where we started with this war, I believe that this is where we currently stand. We are an incredible nation, I feel that in the depths of my bones, I can sense it in my spirit. Your support of us solidifies that sense, it shows me what being a patriot is, it encourages me to do the same when I return. I too plan on "Adopting a Platoon" once I am a civilian again, on writing letters of support to those soldiers currently away from friends and family.

When I first discovered Chris we exchanged emails on a subject or two and I asked him what his favorite cookie is, thinking I'd send him a batch. He answered "chocolate chip" but cautioned me not to send them because he had learned his unit would be coming home. Shortly after that he wrote:

In speaking with a friend the other night, he asked me what I was planning on doing when I got home. The answers probably won't surprise you. In thinking about what I wanted to do, I quickly transitioned to the things I'll be happy not to have to do. As a result, I compiled a small, rather tame list of 10 things I will be happy to leave behind when we re-deploy.

1. Walking what feels like a mile to the showers only to be covered in sand once you come back to your tent. Not running out of water when you're taking a shower, or having to use a bottle of water to brush your teeth.
2. Relaxing in July and August in the shade of 120 degrees.
3. The aggressive flies. At home when you swat at a fly it goes away. Here, when you swat at a fly, they seek revenge.
4. The smell. Everything here has a smell, from the sand to the air.
5. The generators, the constant hum of a generators, trucks, artillery shells in the distance.
6. Living out of duffel bag or black footlocker.
7. Checking your boots in the morning for camel spiders and scorpions.
8. The port-o-potties, especially in the summer. Using a real porcelain, clean toilet that flushes will be heaven.
9. Finding dead rats in the rat traps in the middle of the night.
10. Sleeping in a tent with 8-10 other guys.

Minor inconveniences they may be, but they are still things you look forward to leaving behind.

He hasn't deleted his blog, although he is on his way home now. If you haven't found Chris's LINE IN THE SAND, click here and read it. You'll be glad you did.

Welcome Home, Chris. Be safe.

Does Kerry Keep His Promises?

On January 30, 2005, in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press, John Kerry promised (you know, like in "I promise...to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States)...he PROMISED that he would sign Form 180. That's the government form that authorizes TOTAL and COMPLETE war records. So far Kerry has successfully avoided doing that and, in spite of the promise he made a month ago, he still hasn't signed it. Is that how you keep promises Mr. Kerry? (I don't think you deserve the title of Senator because you were a traitor back in 1970.)

Here's a copy of part of the transcript:

Transcript. Key excerpt:

MR. RUSSERT: Many people who’ve been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians…

SEN. KERRY: I’d be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren’t even relevant to the record. So when we get–I’m going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn’t in the record and we’ll put it out. I have no problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim…

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will.

Well? When?

Glimmers of Scientific Truth by Dr. Fred Singer

Scientific American has done it again -- demonstrating its devotion to the cause of Global Warming and disregard for scientific balance.

The March 2005 issue (pp. 34-35) carries a paean of praise for Michael Mann, contributed by science journalist and blogger David Appell. It pictures Mann as the victim of persecution by evil forces, which remain unnamed throughout. We never hear about Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, or any of the others -- nor are their publications cited. Mann's Corrigendum in Nature is used to show the "errors of his attackers." Mann himself describes them as "contrarians" and "pathetic."

There are swipes at the Greening Earth Society and Tech Central Station, with mentions of "disinformation campaign" and "oil money." And there is a plug (in fact, several plugs) for Mann's blog site with Gavin Schmidt and other activists -- with no word on who is funding their effort.

Mann's cautious reply as to whether global warming is really a problem: "To some extent, that's a value judgment." Interesting.

*****************
Gregg Easterbrook noted in the The New Republic that "The world's first international anti-global-warming agreement to take force is not the Kyoto treaty. It is a Bush Administration initiative, and you have not heard a peep regarding the initiative because the American press corps is pretending it does not exist."

That program is the Methane to Markets (M2M) initiative. According to Easterbrook, "The White House's July 2004 agreement requires the United States, United Kingdom, India, Ukraine, Mexico, and Italy to reduce global methane emissions by an amount equal to roughly one percent of all greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere by human activity."

Bush's methane initiative will remove 50 million metric tons by 2015. According to the Energy Information Administration, that amounts to the equivalent of:

** Taking 33 million cars off the road for a year.
** Eliminating 50 coal fired electricity plants.
** Providing enough heat to warm 7.2 million households for a year.

The most the Kyoto cuts will accomplish, according to the climate models cited by its supporters, is a delay in warming by six years at the beginning of the next century. And at a cost of hundreds of billions in economic losses annually.

Meanwhile, M2M will only cost the federal government about $53 million over five years. Why so little to do so much? Because methane is about 20 to 30 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, the main target of the Kyoto accord.

Further, M2M may actually produce some economic benefits for both developed and developing countries. Plugging methane leaks in natural gas lines means saving product. Capturing it from landfills to help run a local power plant gives local communities that permit them an economic benefit. Cleaning it from coal mines can reduce explosions.

And it can help in the exploitation of animal waste as a fuel and for food (not directly, but as a fertilizer). The United States alone has nearly 9 million dairy cows, 11 million cattle, and 60 million hogs. Just the thought might turn some vegetarians into meat eaters if they knew that the waste from these animals would help provide a clean fuel to combat global warming while offering organic farmers a new source of fertilizer.

Sound far-fetched? Well, dung from 5,000 cows is fueling a biogas plant in Devon in England. And EARTH University in Costa Rica -- endowed with $103 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development back in 1990 -- has developed a biodigester for the tropics that converts animal waste into fuel, so farmers don't burn trees, and fertilizer for crops, so they don't need to import it, all while helping purify the water supply through fish ponds.

So why aren't greens celebrating all this? As Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr. wrote in The Atlantic back in July of 2000: "A central tenet of environmentalism is that less human interference in nature is better than more." And the great symbol of non-interference has become reduction in CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide, which makes life on this planet possible, became the poster child for the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Greenpeace and the like, of all human interference with Nature.

But as Sarewitz and Pielke argued then, "[E]nvironmentalists and scientists, in focusing their own, increasingly congruent interests on carbon-dioxide emissions, have framed the problem of global environmental protection in a way that can offer no realistic prospect of a solution."

The reason: The vast majority of developing nations have nothing to gain from emissions reductions for themselves. They only gain from developed nations seeking to meet emissions targets -- and either transferring their heavier industry to poorer countries that are excluded from Kyoto's emission cuts or getting money directly from developed countries not to develop industry themselves -- by becoming climate welfare states.

That Kyoto's unintended consequence may be more interference with the environment and more pollution in developing countries is lost on environmentalists and scientists on the anti-CO2 Kyoto bandwagon. Consider the comments of EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas regarding Bush's other push for combating climate change -- technological innovation.

The Bush administration has provided $700 million in tax credits to promote clean technologies next year, $3 billion in research on new clean technologies, and $200 million to help in the transfer of clean technology to developing countries. "Emerging technologies, such as hydrogen-powered vehicles, electricity from renewable energy sources, (and) clean coal technology will encourage economic growth that is environmentally responsible," Bush said in Brussels.

"Technologies are important and the European Union has always been keen for progress in this area," Dimas sniffed. "However, to combat climate change, this is not enough."

Think about that for a bit. The alternative to technology providing solutions for climate change -- either in aiding adaptability to change or curtailing emissions or finding a use for them -- is what? Lower living standards -- and probably less freedom. Europeans will be in for a big disappointment once they discover what Kyoto is really all about -- that it is a non-starter in the developing world and that it's all pain and little gain.

SOME of the Truth About Global Warming

I haven't blogged on one of my soapbox subjects in a while, so it's time to remedy that little failing.

I found this statement on my favorite liberal blog (yes, I read Libs and Progressives, too -- don't want to miss anything). Political Pundit wrote: "A parcel of studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer. Also, a report produced by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) found that global warming is reaching the point of no return, with widespread drought, crop failure and water shortages the likely result."

OH, Pol, Pol, Pol, Pol! Why do you, especially you really smart Libs, persist in this nonsense?

Of course there's Global Warming. It's been going on to some degree (if you'll pardon the pun) since the end of the last ice age. Those dinosaurs with their SUVs, you know!

You really need to do some research into the subject -- check out the scientific community instead of the politicians.

The Truth: Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty, negotiated at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro "Earth Summit," and are the driving force behind United Nations efforts to force restrictions on the use of oil, gas, and coal. The Third Conference of Parties (COP-3) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) (a.k.a. Global Climate Treaty), meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 agreed to set mandatory limits and timetables. Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling," when in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the evidence.

And why would something like this happen? In an interview published in Environmental Science, Dr. Malcolm Ross, a recently retired research mineralogist with the U.S. Geological Survey who holds a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University, is past president of the Mineralogical Society of America and has published 84 papers and 63 abstracts in peer-reviewed journals, is currently affiliated with the Science and Environment Policy Project in Fairfax, Virginia and is a research associate with the Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York says:

Cohen: How serious is the politicization of science in the United States?

Ross: It is very serious. Having 40 years experience as a research scientist with the United States Geological Survey, I am appalled at what I refer to as "politically correct science."

Scientific investigation continually asks the question - is it true? The role of science is not only to discover new facts and phenomena, but to uncover errors appearing in previous investigations. Science is continually in the process of correcting previous work; no study is fixed forever in time. As the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman stated (if I may paraphrase him), the highest calling of a scientist is to show that his or her previous investigation is incorrect.

But this is not what happens in politically correct science. Once a political policy initiative has been introduced, sometimes but not always based on scientific investigation, the initiative persists even when new studies indicate that the premise on which the policy was based is incorrect.

Cohen: Could you give us some examples of junk science at work?

Ross: Examples of the misuse of science abound. My own experience is with asbestos and acid rain and how they relate to human health, both of which subjects I worked on as a U.S. government scientist. We have spent nearly $100 billion to remove asbestos from schools and other buildings, despite warnings by many of us that there was no nsk to the health of the building occupants. In 1990, EPA finally agreed with our risk estimate, but the damage had already been done, most of it by EPA.

Acid rain is another example. After nearly $600 million in scientific research by many scientists, it was found that acid rain has little or no effect on lakes or forests—despite the efforts of some environmentalists to promote the "politically correct" conclusion that acid rain is poisoning our lakes and killing our forests.

Other examples of the misuse of science are found in the propaganda promoted by the apocalyptics: that trace amounts of pesticides cause cancer, that radon and lead in homes are a serious health hazard, that electromagnetic fields pose risks to those around them, and that the manufacture of chlorinated organic compounds must cease because they pose a risk to human health and destroy ozone.

There's so much really good science out there that the media ignores and the politicians sneer at that it is up to each of us to get serious and study these issues to find out what the truth really is.

For other scientific resources check out sites like:
**American Science of Life and Health
** The Cato Institute
** The Atlas Economic Research Foundation
** Envirotruth
** National Center for Policy Analysis
** American Meterorological Society
** NASA Space Science Missions
** Nature.com
** New Hope Environmental Services, Inc.