This page lists pointers to various resources for the Kvamme and Richter talks. If you have additional resources you'd like to suggest, please send them to allison@stanford.edu and we will try to add them to the list. We'd like to identify contributors. Please let us know if it's OK to publish your name and email address.
|
Kerry Science and Technology website blurb from http://www.johnkerry.com.
Other Documents: |
|
Documents from http://www.georgewbush.com:
|
|
From: Denise Caruso, Hybridvigor.org Take a look at the webcast of an event that took place last week at U.C Berkeley called Bush Science: Use and Abuse of Science in Policymaking. It was excellent. Speakers were David Baltimore, President, Cal Tech and Nobel Laureate; Bruce C. Buckheit, the former director, EPA Air Enforcement Division; Andrew Eller, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Kurt Gottfried, Chair, Union of Concerned Scientists and Professor of Physics at Cornell. It was sponsored by The Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism and the Union of Concerned Scientists. It was moderated by the science writer Michael Pollan. |
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
The article below from NYTimes.com
Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan IssueOctober 19, 2004 By ANDREW C. REVKIN Why is science seemingly at war with President Bush? For nearly four years, and with rising intensity, scientists in and out of government have criticized the Bush administration, saying it has selected or suppressed research findings to suit preset policies, skewed advisory panels or ignored unwelcome advice, and quashed discussion within federal research agencies. Administration officials see some of the criticism as partisan, and some perhaps a function of unrealistic expectations on the part of scientists about their role in policy debates. "This administration really does not like regulation and it believes in market processes in general," said Dr. John H. Marburger III, the president's science adviser, who is a Democrat. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/science/19poli.html?ex=1099206377&ei=1&en=d9ecd6326766f478 Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
|
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:22:34 -0400 (EDT) The article below from NYTimes.com
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion. ''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . . ''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.'' Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?''' Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.'' Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!''' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1099206554&ei=1&en=5313e76c8aa26079 Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
|
Associated Press Intel CEO: Candidates Ignore Waning Edge 10.19.2004, 05:26 PM Intel's chief executive on Tuesday decried the presidential nominees' lack of attention to the United States' waning competitive edge in education, research and development and technological innovation. "This is what you don't see being debated by our two presidential candidates today," Craig Barrett told several thousand high-tech industry workers at the Gartner Symposium ITXPO. In the past decade, 3 billion people from India, China, Russia and eastern Europe have become more tightly enjoined in the world economic system, and are producing well-educated engineers who will compete with Americans for jobs, he added. "What we're debating about instead is how we're going to protect a textile worker in South Carolina," Barrett said. "The future of the United States is not pillowcases." Unlike the Soviet Union's launching of Sputnik in 1957, which was a sudden wake-up call in the United States that the nation was falling behind technologically, the current decline has been incremental, said Barrett, who described Americans as "blase" about information technology. "The United States, unfortunately, is very good at ignoring incremental messages," he said. Barrett said the nearly $20 billion the United States annually spends on agricultural subsidies could be better spent on education and research and development. "What do you think the industry of the 21st century is going to be? Agriculture?" he said. "We're sending our workers into the marketplace with a disadvantage, their education. We'll wake up to that eventually. I wish it was part of the debate. But you didn't see it in any of the three presidential debates."
http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2004/10/19/ap1598530.html |
|
From: Lawrence Lessig Date: October 20, 2004 1:26:50 AM EDT [Not quite on topic, but worthy of a look. -dra ] A bunch of us have put together a p2p-politics.org site which I'd be grateful if you could look at, and more importantly, pester the campaigns about. The idea of the site is to enable people to send clips -- both video and audio -- about the candidate they support to people they know, asking them to listen to or watch the ads sent before they vote. These ads can come from the campaigns, or from anyone who wants to make an ad for a campaign. And as this email does, the site permits people to ad text to the message. We were very successful in collecting ads supporting Kerry. Moveon.org had a bunch licensed under a Creative Commons license we we could get automatically. And the Kerry campaign then gave us a few more to include. But despite our repeated requests, through many channels, we've not yet been able to get a reply from the Bush campaign. So here's the request. If you go to the site (linked below) and think it worthwhile, can you send a brief email to the Bush campaign (there's a link on the site) or the Nader campaign (if that's your persuasion)? If that's too much, then enjoy (or be frustrated by) the ads I've selected here. They are all tied to a theme I've written about -- the effect of this election on the next generation -- inspired, no doubt, by my confronting my own next generation, now just 13 months old. Again, I apologize for the intrusion, if this is what this is for you. But if there is ever a time peers need to speak to peers, an election like this is such a time. Child's Pay: http://www.archive.org/download/moveon_bushin30seconds_1911/1911.mpg Michael J. Fox: http://www.archive.org/download/MichaelJFox/MichaelJFox.mov Scary Math: href="http://www.archive.org/download/pollution_ad/pollution_ad.mov"> http://www.archive.org/download/pollution_ad/pollution_ad.mov (If they don't play, try grabbing QuickTime: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/ -- it's free.) Brought to you by p2p-Politics.org. These ads are licensed under a Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/ To send your own ads, or to contribute a clip or remix of your own, visit our website:
|
|
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 140: October 21, 2004
Administration Report on "Science for the 21st Century" The National Science and Technology Council has released a 40-page document entitled "Science for the 21st Century." The report, released this summer, provides an overview of the Bush Administration's perspective on the federal science enterprise, its major responsibilities, and illustrative programs. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) was established by executive order during President Bill Clinton's first year in office. Both the Bush and Clinton Administrations describe the council as a "virtual" cabinet-level coordinating agency for federal science and technology programs. The NSTC has produced various reports, such as the recent "The Physics of the Universe: A Strategic Plan for Federal Research at the Intersection of Physics and Astronomy" (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/075.html ). In an accompanying cover letter, OSTP Director John Marburger explained that "This report presents the critical responsibilities of our Federal science enterprise and the actions taken by the Federal research agencies, through the National Science and Technology Council, to align our programs with scientific opportunity and with national needs." There is precedent for this type of document, an example being a report released by the Clinton administration in 1996 with somewhat similar overarching goals (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/1996/fyi96.158.htm ). The new report explains in a way that will be easily understood by a lay audience the Bush Administration's general science policy and examples of how this policy is implemented. It begins by making the case for federal investment in R&D, outlines the desirability of interdisciplinary research and collaboration, describes the need for excellence in S&T education and the workforce, and discusses management accountability. Under the title, "Science in This Administration," the report states: "This Administration has, as a first priority, responded to the urgent need to combat terrorism and safeguard homeland and national security. Second, together with security we must ensure continued economic growth, both in the short term and in setting the stage for innovations and technologies that will ensure our nation's future growth and prosperity. We must also take steps to maintain and increase the quality of American life - sufficient, affordable health care; affordable and abundant supplies of energy; and a healthy environment now and into the future." Four major responsibilities - promoting discovery, responding to national challenges, developing technologies, and education/workforce development - are identified as the four major responsibilities of the Federal science enterprise. Six- to eight-page chapters with brief science program descriptions comprise the remainder of the report, which concludes with a chapter entitled "A Shared Vision." It states, "Science has always been a national priority. The Federal research enterprise has enjoyed non-partisan support since the Second World War, and the benefits of this scientific research are well recognized." Information on the report is at http://www.ostp.gov/nstc/21stcentury/index.html
############### |
|
CompTIA Questions Bush and Kerry on Technology
The questions addressed are:
|
From the Texas A&M online edition of The Battalion:President Bush Should Focus More on Science, TechnologyAmerica can no longer ignore the fact that its students rank near the bottom in science and math abilities said Dr. D. Allan Bromley, a leading nuclear physicist who spoke Monday at Texas A&M. "This is scandalous," he said. "This is something we have to fix or we are doomed. We can't expect foreign students to fill the gaps in our economy." |
| From Environment News Service:
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 19, 2004 (ENS) - More than 60 of the nation's top scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, and former federal agency directors, as well as university chairs and presidents, issued a statement Wednesday calling for regulatory and legislative action to "restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking." They say President George W. Bush has suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, subjected government scientists to "censorship and political oversight," and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels. "Across a broad range of issues, the administration has undermined the quality of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel," said Dr. Kurt Gottfried, emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Whether the issue is lead paint, clean air or climate change, this behavior has serious consequences for all Americans." Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2004. All Rights Reserved. |
POLITICS Karl Rove: America's Mullahlink to original story Story copyright by the Los Angeles Times (registration required) By Neal Gabler, Neal Gabler, a senior fellow at the Norman Lear Center at USC Annenberg, is author of "Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality." Even now, after Sen. John F. Kerry handily won his three debates with President Bush and after most polls show a dead heat, his supporters seem downbeat. Why? They believe that Karl Rove, Bush's top political operative, cannot be beaten. Rove the Impaler will do whatever it takes ^× anything ^× to make certain that Bush wins. This isn't just typical Democratic pessimism. It has been the master narrative of the 2004 presidential campaign in the mainstream media. Attacks on Kerry come and go ^× flip-flopper, Swift boats, Massachusetts liberal ^× but one constant remains, Rove, and everyone takes it for granted that he knows how to game the system. Rove, however, is more than a political sharpie with a bulging bag of dirty tricks. His campaign shenanigans ^× past and future ^× go to the heart of what this election is about. Democrats will tell you it is a referendum on Bush's incompetence or on his extremist right-wing agenda. Republicans will tell you it's about conservatism versus liberalism or who can better protect us from terrorists. They are both wrong. This election is about Rovism ^× the insinuation of Rove's electoral tactics into the conduct of the presidency and the fabric of the government. It's not an overstatement to say that on Nov. 2, the fate of traditional American democracy will hang in the balance. Rovism is not simply a function of Rove the political conniver sitting in the counsels of power and making decisions, though he does. No recent presidency has put policy in the service of politics as has Bush's. Because tactics can change institutions, Rovism is much more. It is a philosophy and practice of governing that pervades the administration and even extends to the Republican-controlled Congress. As Robert Berdahl, chancellor of UC Berkeley, has said of Bush's foreign policy, a subset of Rovism, it constitutes a fundamental change in "the fabric of constitutional government as we have known it in this country." Rovism begins, as one might suspect from the most merciless of political consiglieres, with Machiavelli's rule of force: "A prince is respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy." No administration since Warren Harding's has rewarded its friends so lavishly, and none has been as willing to bully anyone who strays from its message. There is no dissent in the Rove White House without reprisal. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was retired after he disagreed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's transformation of the Army and then testified that invading Iraq would require a U.S. deployment of 200,000 soldiers. Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he revealed before the vote that the administration had seriously misrepresented the cost of its proposed prescription drug plan to get it through Congress. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was peremptorily fired for questioning the wisdom of the administration's tax cuts, and former U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer III felt compelled to recant his statement that there were insufficient troops in Iraq. Even accounting for the strong-arm tactics of Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, this isn't government as we have known it. This is the Sopranos in the White House: "Cross us and you're road kill." Naturally, the administration's treatment of the opposition is worse. Rove's mentor, political advisor Lee Atwater, has been quoted as saying: "What you do is rip the bark off liberals." That's how Bush has governed. There is a feeling, perhaps best expressed by Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address at the Republican convention, that anyone who has the temerity to question the president is undermining the country. At times, Miller came close to calling Democrats traitors for putting up a presidential candidate. This may be standard campaign rhetoric. But it's one thing to excoriate your opponents in a campaign, and quite another to continue berating them after the votes are counted. Rovism regards any form of compromise as weakness. Politics isn't a bus we all board together, it's a steamroller. No recent administration has made less effort to reach across the aisle, and thanks to Rovism, the Republican majority in Congress often operates on a rule of exclusion. Republicans blocked Democrats from participating in the bill-drafting sessions on energy, prescription drugs and intelligence reform in the House. As Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) told the New Yorker, "They don't consult with the nations of the world, and they don't consult with Congress, especially the Democrats in Congress. They can do it all themselves." Bush entered office promising to be a "uniter, not a divider." But Rovism is not about uniting. What Rove quickly grasped is that it's easier and more efficacious to exploit the cultural and social divide than to look for common ground. No recent administration has as eagerly played wedge issues ^× gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, faith-based initiatives ^× to keep the nation roiling, in the pure Rovian belief that the president's conservative supporters will always be angrier and more energized than his opponents. Division, then, is not a side effect of policy; in Rovism, it is the purpose of policy. The lack of political compromise has its correlate in the administration's stubborn insistence that it doesn't have to compromise with facts. All politicians operate within an Orwellian nimbus where words don't mean what they normally mean, but Rovism posits that there is no objective, verifiable reality at all. Reality is what you say it is, which explains why Bush can claim that postwar Iraq is going swimmingly or that a so-so economy is soaring. As one administration official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality^Å. We're history's actors." When neither dissent nor facts are recognized as constraining forces, one is infallible, which is the sum and foundation of Rovism. Cleverly invoking the power of faith to protect itself from accusations of stubbornness and insularity, this administration entertains no doubt, no adjustment, no negotiation, no competing point of view. As such, it eschews the essence of the American political system: flexibility and compromise. In Rovism, toughness is the only virtue. The mere appearance of change is intolerable, which is why Bush apparently can't admit ever making a mistake. As Machiavelli put it, the prince must show that "his judgments are irrevocable." Rovism is certainly not without its appeal. As political theorist Sheldon Wolin once characterized Machiavellian government, it promises the "economy of politics." Americans love toughness. They love swagger. In a world of complexity and uncertainty, especially after Sept. 11, they love the idea of a man who doesn't need anyone else. They even love the sense of mission, regardless of its wisdom. These values run deep in the American soul, and Rovism consciously taps them. But they are not democratic. Unwavering discipline, demonization of foes, disdain for reality and a personal sense of infallibility based on faith are the stuff of a theocracy ^× the president as pope or mullah and policy as religious warfare. Boiled down, Rovism is government by jihadis in the grip of unshakable self-righteousness ^× ironically the force the administration says it is fighting. It imposes rather than proposes. Rovism surreptitiously and profoundly changes our form of government, a government that has been, since its founding by children of the Enlightenment, open, accommodating, moderate and generally reasonable. All administrations try to work the system to their advantage, and some, like Nixon's, attempt to circumvent the system altogether. Rove and Bush neither use nor circumvent, which would require keeping the system intact. They instead are reconfiguring the system in extra-constitutional, theocratic terms. The idea of the United States as an ironfisted theocracy is terrifying, and it should give everyone pause. This time, it's not about policy. This time, for the first time, it's about the nature of American government. We all have reason to be very, very afraid. |
NASA: Bush Stifles Global Warming EvidenceAP Story reported by ABC News IOWA CITY, Iowa Oct 26, 2004 ? The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience. Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming. |
BUSH, KERRY LAGGING ON HIGH-TECH POLICYA major new study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warns of a potential decline in competitiveness that threatens U.S. innovation and "could eventually lead to the nation being displaced as the world's leading economic power." Many think the problems started with implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Litigation has led to courts throwing out FCC rules three times. "Rather than get engaged, the White House let the Republicans battle it out at the FCC," said Tom Hazlett, a former chief economist for the FCC under President George H.W. Bush and an author of the chamber's recent report. "It led to paralysis of the agency, and here we are, 31/2 years after the Bush administration came to town, with the same policy we had then, except that the courts have thrown it out and nobody knows what's coming next." Telecom issues are not central in the presidential campaign and industry executives and analysts have not seem much leadership in this area from the leading candidates. See the high tech records of President Bush and Sen Kerry at the URL below.
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Carolyn Lochhead ] |