more lovely, self-righteous, idiot fundamentalists

> NIH Faces Criticism On Grants
>
> By Rick Weiss
>
> A coalition of conservative church groups said yesterday that it
> will ask the Justice Department to investigate how scores of
> research studies relating to health and sexuality gained federal
> funding through the National Institutes of Health.
>
> An NIH official said the studies, including several aimed at
> documenting the behaviors of prostitutes, intravenous drug users and
> others at high risk of spreading sexually transmitted diseases, are
> an important part of an effort to devise better public health and
> education strategies. But the coalition called them "smarmy
> projects" representing at least $100 million in wasted federal
> money.
>
> The group's call for Justice Department intervention is the latest
> volley in an escalating war of words and actions in recent weeks
> between the Washington-based religious group and the NIH and its
> congressional and institutional supporters, who see the attack as
> part of a larger effort to foist conservative religious values on
> the federal scientific enterprise.
>
> "There needs to be some adult supervision at NIH," said Andrea
> Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, a
> public policy organization that says it has more than 43,000 member
> churches. "We have nameless, faceless bureaucrats doling out money
> like a federal ATM to do things like study the sex habits of
> Mexicans before and after they cross over the border. This doesn't
> pass the straight-face test."
>
> Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), calling the coalition's tactics
> "scientific McCarthyism," has in the past four days sent two angry
> letters to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson
> calling upon him to stand up to the coalition in support of the
> NIH. The agency is internationally renowned in part for its system
> of scientific peer review, in which committees of established
> scientists decide which grant proposals have the scientific and
> medical merit to deserve funding.
>
> "That's the right way to make scientific decisions," Waxman said
> yesterday. "The wrong way is to use a political and ideological
> review process, which is what the coalition is urging."
>
> Asked whether HHS supports the NIH grant reviewers' decisions to
> fund the challenged studies, HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said: "We
> strongly believe in the scientific process and the mission of NIH."
> He stopped short of any statement of support for the research
> projects themselves, saying "to get involved in that would not be a
> responsible thing to do."
>
> Among the projects that Lafferty's group has highlighted are a study
> of truckers who have sex with other truckers and with female sex
> workers (a common mode of AIDS spread in Africa); a study of AIDS
> prevention in drug users in Russia; and a study of the impact of
> adult cohabitation on family formation and children's well-being.
>
> "Everybody knows that cohabiting is not good for children," Lafferty
> said. "Children need a mom and a dad that are married."
>
> Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association
> for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest general science
> organization, warned that society would suffer if religious values
> were to influence federal health priorities. "We can't have
> moralizing and ideology trump science when it comes to protecting
> the public health," Leshner said. "It's vitally important that we
> understand the processes by which public health problems spread if
> we're ever going to get a handle on issues as important as HIV/AIDS
> and drug abuse."
>
> Lafferty yesterday took sole responsibility for compiling a list of
> about 200 NIH research projects dealing with sexuality, AIDS and
> risk-taking behaviors, and passing it along to Congress. Waxman has
> aired suspicions that HHS officials or others in the Bush
> administration helped compile or release the list.
>
> In a letter to Waxman yesterday, Thompson denied any HHS
> involvement. The letter did not address Waxman's request for
> information on any meetings or communications between HHS officials
> and the Traditional Values Coalition.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
>
> 2003 The Washington Post Company [Fix formatting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 10-31-2003][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-31-2003]

Damn, you beat me to it...I love the biting criticism: "Smarmy". What idiots.These idiots can't possibly have any influence, can they?Did I mention they're idiots?[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-31-2003]

They're in the Bible belt.Also, I found this:Smartest State 2006-2007It seems that by at least the above measure, that Louisiana ranks 49th out of 50.

Very interesting! And the states where concerted efforts were made to teach Creationism in public schools were Louisiana (49), Ohio (41), Tennessee (39) and Arkansas (38).--Percy

The intro page:
Most Livable State 2003 Press ReleaseThe 2003 rankings:
Most Livable State 2003The rankings for 91 to 03:
Most Livable State Award 1991-2003A certain state has pulled the #1 rating for 7 straight years.Moose{Message title edited to add the "'Most Livable' state is...". The system still doesn't like (") marks in message titles. Carry this correction on to the next message also. - Moose}[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-31-2003]

Yeah... I was considering moving to MN for a while... but Iowa is pretty darn nifty itself, as you'll notice (#2) And we're up from #14 in '91.I still can't believe you went from Wellstone to Coleman... is your state insane?'To be very blunt, and God watch over Paul's soul, I am a 99 percent improvement over Paul Wellstone' -- Norm Coleman------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

There is room for some circularity. The measurement seems to be paritally based on quality of eduction. If that includes comprehensiveness of the science education then any attack on it by creationists would affect the "smartness" measure.What I am saying is that there is a possibility that the smartness measure is low because of creationist interference rather than the creationists gaining a foot hold because the population is not smart.I'm not interested enough to check out exactly how smartness was measured. And my personal view would be that if a state allows interference with the classroom by fundamentalists then it isn't "smart" . So I'd go along with the results on a personal basis.

It seems to me, that Schraf's message 3 was actually intended as a reply to the "Louisiana Governor Candidates Support Teaching of Creationism" topic.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

It seems to me, that Schraf's message 3 was actually intended as a reply to the "Louisiana Governor Candidates Support Teaching of Creationism" topic.

---

Imo, if allowed at all, at least it should be restricted to the FFA. It is verbally insultive to the ideals of some members of EvC, i.e. those of us who hold to certain fundamentals. Shraff herself an evo fundie, often exibits a hateful attitude towards ideological counterparts. It would be nice if she'd stick to respectful ideological debate and discussion.I guess my above statement is more in reference to Schraff's title than to the contents of the opening post. Some supportive comments by others seemed to be meanspiritedly inflamed by the title.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-01-2003]

In a republic where origionally, the Bible and creationism was once standard cirriculum in American public schools, folks who feel creationism should at least be allowed as an alternative informative subject or object to other objectionable cirriculum should not be regarded as idiots. No creationists are demanding anything, as often, others of different persuasions do. They simply use the lawful means afforded by the system to lobby and encourage legislation and other lawful measures to promote their agendas. That's the way a republic is suppose to work, last I heard.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-01-2003]

Well, Buzz, If I was living in the US I would support the study of creation science in the science class. It has to be creation science though since I also support the separation of church and state (which since you are in a minority I'm sure you do too).It isn't necessary here since the creationists have little to no influence on our schools.There I would love to see some time spent examining creation science. Since the evidence that has been presented here is pretty typical of what is available I would enjoy the howls of outrage when the fundamentalist viewpoint was torn to pieces in the public classrooms. It is too bad that classroom time is so tight and doesn't allow for fitting in too much more.If you think it can stand up in a science class then please suggest a curriculum. Supply what you would have taught and the evidence for it. This is a science class you understand. No miracles, no bible, just evidence and tight logic. That has been in short supply here.

quote:

---

In a republic where origionally, the Bible and creationism was once standard cirriculum in American public schools, folks who feel creationism should at least be allowed as an alternative informative subject or object to other objectionable cirriculum should not be regarded as idiots.

---

No, they should be regarded as idiots for thinking that it is a waste of time to study sexual behavior which will help us understand the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD's.

quote:

---

No creationists are demanding anything, as often, others of different persuasions do.

---

Perhaps not, but the kinds of things they demand are sometimes particularly idiotic, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted and just plain stupid.My OP is but one of many examples, Buz.

quote:

---

They simply use the lawful means afforded by the system to lobby and encourage legislation and other lawful measures to promote their agendas. That's the way a republic is suppose to work, last I heard.

---

I have no problem with that.Never once did I say that they should not be allowed to persue their agendas.I can also call them idiotic.

Well, he did die, after all. And who was the alternative? Walter F'in' Mondale. Woo-hoo. (I voted for him anyway, though...)Now, a lot of people were pissed about the "political" aspect of Wellstone's funeral. But he was in the middle of a heated political race. After all if Wellstone had been a preacher, his funeral would have had an evangelical tone. I thought a political tone was appropriate. He was a political man.

Al Franken has a chapter on the Wellstone funeral and coverage of it in his new book which is really interesting, you should check it out. Great book all around, says me.

I think "idiot" is an entirely defensible statement. An idiot is one lacking in intelligence, and these people are demonstrably morons.