memekiller

Ophiolite - you didn't detect a hint of sarcasm in the piece?

The quote is true. Read the article in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position

http://www.whoslying.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=636&Itemid=2 In "Without a Doubt", New York Times, Oct. 16, 2004, Ron Suskind quoted a “senior advisor to Bush” who said people like Suskind were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' He continued: ''That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' Having been heavily indoctrinated in the “reality-based community”, we had some difficulty understanding what exactly this senior aide was getting at. So it was to our great pleasure and surprise that the President of the United States, George W. Bush, agreed to sit down with Whoslying to explain the difference between these two world views. WHOSLYING: First of all, thanks for agreeing to speak with me. BUSH: My pleasure. WHOSLYING: I want to talk with you about what you mean by “reality-based community”, but first off, I’d like to clear up, once and for all, the question about your National Guard record. On your application form, next to the question “Do you volunteer for Vietnam?” you checked no. BUSH: That’s right. WHOSLYING: Later, you were asked in an interview if you had volunteered for Vietnam, and you said “No.” BUSH: That’s right. WHOSLYING: Then your campaign chairman Marc Racicot came on NPR and said you had volunteered. BUSH: Mmm-hmm. WHOSLYING: So which is it? BUSH: I volunteered. WHOSLYING: But when you were asked this question before, you said you hadn’t. BUSH: That’s right. I didn't. WHOSLYING: So again, which is it? They can’t both be correct, can they? BUSH: I can see why this would confuse some people, so let me try to explain. You see, back then my service wasn’t really an issue, and when I was asked if I had volunteered, I said I hadn’t, so I didn't. But now my service is an issue for a lot of people so I’m telling them I did volunteered, and so I did. I don’t see why you’re having so much trouble with this. WHOSLYING: Uh… this wouldn’t have anything to do with the “reality-based community” issue, would it? BUSH: Yes, it does. WHOSLYING: Please explain. BUSH: You see, I would define the reality-based community as those who rely on observation -- academics, journalists, researchers… people who put their faith in the faulty creations of man like science. But the new way of thinking puts faith in a higher source. WHOSLYING: God? BUSH: No. My instincts, which happen to be in tune with God’s will quite a lot. WHOSLYING: But what do your instincts tell you about whether you volunteered or not? BUSH: My instincts don’t tell me what reality is but what reality should be. As Mr. Suskind quoted one of my advisors as saying, we’re an empire now and capable of creating a new reality. WHOSLYING: How does one create a “new reality”? BUSH: By believing in it. See, when I was building a case for war, there was Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hussein had to be stopped because he was an imminent threat. WHOSLYING: But, there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction. BUSH: That’s why we didn’t go to war for that. We went to free the Iraqi people from a nasty dictator. That’s what this was about. I've been very clear about this. WHOSLYING: You just said it was about Weapons of Mass Destruction. BUSH: It was about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam refused to disarm so we disarmed him. Now he doesn’t have any WMD, so we’re there to liberate the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator… WHOSLYING: But you didn’t disarm him… he never had any weapons to disarm. BUSH: Just because he never had any weapons doesn’t mean we didn’t disarm him, Dylan. You’re not listening to what I’m saying. Let me finish. Let me finish. Now these reports, the Kay report, the Deufler report, they confirm what I’m saying to you… WHOSLYING: Actually, the Deufler report and Kay report says Saddam didn’t pose an imminent threat… BUSH: See, there you go again. The only reason you're saying those reports contradict me is because that's what the report says. The world doesn’t work that way any more. I’m telling you those reports vindicated me. WHOSLYING: It seems to me what you’re saying is that truth is whatever you say it is. BUSH: I wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true. WHOSLYING: But it's true if you say it? BUSH: I’m a man of my word. WHOSLYING: Then why don’t you just say there are WMD’s in Iraq now? BUSH: Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people in the reality-based community who don't believe that. WHOSLYING: But isn’t saying there are no weapons because it's a fact an admission that reality matters? BUSH: No, Dylan. All that matters is what people believe. If everyone believed there were WMD in Iraq, I guarantee we’d still be saying it today. Take a person from the Midwest for instance. Now Kerry will tell them our jobs are going overseas, the deficit’s increasing, there are less people with health care. These are all facts, Dylan. Facts are the old way of thinking. When I go to Iowa, I tell these people the country’s moving forward. We’re creating jobs. We’re democratizing the Middle East. Which country would you rather live in: mine or Kerry’s? WHOSLYING: But wouldn’t that be lying? BUSH: Not if I believe it, Dylan. I believe we’re creating jobs and moving forward. WHOSLYING: The fact that we’re losing jobs is reality, so it’s… BUSH: Old way of thinking. WHOSLYING: Gotcha. BUSH: Like just the other day, an aide comes to me and says, “Mr. President, there’s been an incident in the Green Zone.” And I told him, “No there wasn’t. The Green Zone’s impenetrable. The Green Zone’s secure.” So now there’s no problem. (BUSH turns to aide standing at the doorway.) Isn’t that right? AIDE: That’s correct, Mr. President. WHOSLYING: That sounds irresponsible… BUSH: Making the Green Zone safe is irresponsible? In fact, I think there have been far too many incidents in Iraq lately, so I’m going to make the Green Zone bigger. It’s stable. How long’s it been since we had an attack in the Green Zone? AIDE: Never, Mr. President. The Green Zone is impenetrable. BUSH: So let’s make all of Iraq a Green Zone! AIDE: That’s a great idea, Mr. President. BUSH: I think Iraq should be a democracy, too. From now on, everyone in this country is to refer to Iraq as a democracy. WHOSLYING: Don't you need elections to be considered a democracy? BUSH: Not in the new reality! In the new reality, you don't need elections for a democracy! The will of the people will be expressed through my appointments. That's leadership! WHOSLYING: So you’re saying, if you can convince a majority of something, that becomes the new reality? BUSH: Precisely. So why wouldn’t we want to make the new reality as good as possible? WHOSLYING: What if I convinced everyone that you didn’t go to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. Would that still be true, even though it’s reality? BUSH: That makes me look bad. How are you going to convince my followers it’s true if it makes me look bad? WHOSLYING: I think I’m finally beginning to understand now. The fact that I completely made up this entire interview and never spoke with you in my entire life only means it didn’t happen in the reality-based community. But in the new reality, if I believe this interview happened and it helps convince people nothing’s your fault and everything’s going well, then it really did happen. BUSH: Bingo! WHOSLYING: I believe, I believe, I believe…

"Reason Public Policy Institute is a public policy think tank promoting choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress." Hardly a scientific organization. And it should be noted that Lindzen is a Cato scholar, and in the minority on the issue of climate change. About any time you hear about dissent in climate science, it's from him or fellow Cato scholar Patrick Michaels and a few others. Hardly a consensus. And the Cato institute is hardly any less partisan than UCS. The UCS is not the only one complaining either. Many Republican scientists have resigned and/or voiced concerns over the present administration's handling of policy. If you don't believe the UCS, all you have to do is read the Washington Post, Discover, Scientific American or the New York Times. And how many nobel laureates support Bush's science policy?

I guess we're just talking about a matter of degrees then, which is subjective. I don't think it's a deep quagmire. But I will say that the number of scientists who have resigned and who have voiced concerns (Republicans and Democrats), and the number of scientists (including 20 Nobel laureates) who have signed the Union of Concerned Scientists letter protesting this administration's attitude towards science, at the very least, shows the situation is more dire now than it has been with past administrations (who have done their fair share of meddling). So it sounds like we're basically in agreement about the particulars. It just freaks me out more than you.

Alien-ated Youth They're the next step in human evolution. But they're just like everybody else. At first glance, they look like perfectly ordinary first-graders scribbling feverishly on the blackboard, but there is something striking about the boy's deep blue eyes that suggests a maturity well beyond his years. Jake's in advanced classes and already reading at a third-grade level. Jan is the quiet one, but has a presence that immediately draws attention. Her predilection is toward art, though at the moment she is choosing to write math equations on the board, erasing them as soon as she's completed each of her computations. Jake's mother is a teacher at this Baytown-area school, and worries that he may be ostracized by his peers if word ever gets out about his special gifts. "He questions everything because he wants to know," she says as her son draws a picture of a lollipop tree. "The questions he asks are not even age-appropriate." These children tend to know things without ever being taught or told. Jake's companion Jan "can use a compound bow very well," says the girl's grandmother, Jill Spence. "She can shoot a BB gun; she goes fishing." It just came naturally to her, Spence says. She can't explain it. They go by many names, such as Star Kids, Indigos or Crystalline Children. Whatever they're called, believers say this group of prodigies started appearing about 30 years ago and may now make up as much as 90 percent of the population under ten. They also exhibit strange side effects, like a higher resistance to pollutants but an increased sensitivity to sugar and food additives. These are babies born with an inherent knowledge of art, language and spirituality, possessing an impressive wealth of wisdom. Some will even go so far as to say these kids are not only prime candidates for the gifted and talented program, but the next step in human evolution. Parents and those who study these children have been asking themselves why here? Why now? Theories about their origins range from spirits entering from other planes and dimensions to chosen ones delivered from heaven. Some even suggest aliens have been abducting and manipulating the DNA of these children and their parents to prepare us for when they make their presence known. The one thing all these groups do agree on is that the kids are out there, and they're coming to teach us a lesson.

Global Warming is Good For You! From the Houston Press Above all, Gerald T. Westbrook is a man concerned with truth. For hours he works at his computer in the small office of his Memorial-area home, writing his latest scholarly paper or drawing up a lecture. He's the kind of guy who writes everything out in lists, and packs boxes with files of news clippings and interesting tidbits he's come across in his research. His cane, needed after a knee injury, and hair as white as paper add to the professorial image. He insists he's a firm believer in the scientific method, and a strong proponent for making sure research is dictated by facts, not personal agendas. Westbrook regularly delivers talks to trade associations and seminars to local universities. His scientific papers have appeared in several publications, and he's even had an opinion piece published by the Houston Chronicle. Westbrook's specialty has spawned a near cottage industry of sorts in the Houston area. In this energy capital of America, eager listeners still abound for the message delivered by Westbrook and at least a handful of colleagues: Global warming threats are just so much foolishness, hatched by environmentalists to fuel the fears of the populace. He himself boasts no more than a master's degree and a career focused on marketing and economics, rather than doctorates or published research in the field. But in this war for the public's collective mind and soul, credentials don't have to get in the way of a worthy crusade against the common enemy called environmentalists. Westbrook still considers himself a scientist. "A degree's not everything," he says. "Look at Rush Limbaugh. He's only got, what, one and a half years of junior college? And he's smart as a whip."

The latest issue of Skeptic Magazine that takes Bush to task for his abuse of science: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic10-08-04.html The Politicization Of Science in the Bush Administration: Science-As-Public Relations Dylan Otto Krider 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