Home
Overtime--2004 and 2003 issues
Overtime
OVERTIME--September 2003 issue
timeovertimeovertimeovertimeovertime
Dedicated to reflecting the collective wisdom of enlightened workers.
Linda Featheringill
4651 West 41st Street, Down
Cleveland, OH 44109
(216) 661-0794
lfeatheringill@hotmail.com
September 2003
Volume 4, Number 4
Greetings!
August has been difficult for many folks - hot in the north and cold in the south. I hope you are taking care of yourself.
Things are kind of smashed together in this issue because of the long article at the back. The truth may be the first victim of ideology. Find a comfortable spot and read the whole thing. You need to know. - Linda Featheringill
The Zealots Have Taken Over
Ideological zealots have taken control of the US. We are burdened with two types - those who want to control the world and those who merely want to control the US. The first group is famous for its powerful think-tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The second group includes such people as US Attorney General Ashcroft.
Controlling the world or even the US would probably be difficult. I suspect the only way to succeed would be to use liberal doses of economic coercion, propaganda, and brute force. The zealots in question apparently think that way, too, and are using all three tactics.
PNAC is a tightly organized group of wealthy, educated, and politically influential men and women who have devised a plan for taking over the world. It is not a religious group. It appears that its members are of European extraction. Most of the members are men. It is public knowledge that the Project has the backing and support of many wealthy and powerful people. This group controls the US government. President Bush’s brother (governor of Florida) is a member. The Vice-President’s wife is a member. Around 15 or 20 members hold high-ranking and powerful positions in the current administration.
They are openly in favor of using military force to achieve their aims. Maybe they want a thousand-year reign over the entire planet. Paul Bennett wrote about PNAC in Socialist Standard (London), August 2003 and stated:
This, then, is the vision of America’s rulers for the coming century: an enormous US military presence on a global scale, laying down what other countries can do, intimidating them into acceptance of the US order, and bombing them into submission when they forget their place. A world of "free trade" where the biggest bully in the playground enforces treaties and agreements in its own interest. A world of massacres and dictatorships, where American capitalists rake in billions and ordinary people, wherever they live, are just pawns on the profit-oriented chessboard.
The other group of zealots isn’t nearly so organized but contains many more people. These are members of the Religious Right - dour, self-righteous Puritans, filled with a dreadful fear that somewhere somebody is having a good life. They are much, much more concerned about sexual activity than about starving people. They adore authority, especially when they have it. They are, each and every one of them, bullies.
They love their god and hate the world they claim that same god created. Some god. If there really were a benevolent supreme being who was in charge of the universe, these people wouldn’t be allowed to live. The very fact that they are here and in charge undermines their argument for the existence of god.
This group doesn’t have as much money as the folks that PNAC represents, so they don’t have large armies. But they support the use of military force, police force, and governmental control of human populations. They are quite willing to see economic coercion used on anybody and everybody. They avidly use all kinds of propaganda and seem to have very little respect for the truth, as is made clear in the last article.
These two groups of zealots are running the US and parts of the rest of the world. They seem to have a secure hold on power. That is the bad news. The even worse news is that they are so firmly entrenched, I don’t see how we’re going to get rid of them.
[L.F., Ohio, USA.]
ECOLOGY
The only way we can preserve the earth is to grant every living entity what it needs to thrive and take from it only what it can afford to give.
Messing around with the food chain
In the 1950s, the nature of the fishing industry changed with the advent of open ocean techniques that opened up at first seemed to be an endless supply of food and profit. It has now been found that in almost every case where such fisheries started, over-harvesting occurred and fish stocks fell dramatically.
From cod in the North Sea to marlin off the coast of North America to tuna and shark in the waters around Australia, the story seems to be the same. Within a decade or two of people working out how to exploit a resource of fish, the stocks are reduced to a point where the fishery is on the verge of collapse.
In less than half a century, it seems that most large commercial fish species have fallen to 10% of their former numbers.
Some commercial species are now listed as endangered but the declines have generally happened so quickly that there has been little time for governments to respond through legislation. Industry tends to respond more quickly, driven by commercial imperative. But industry seems to be seeking out new resources and repeating the same mistakes, rather than attempting sustainability. The Marine Stewardship Council labels only 0.7% of the world’s fish catch as sustainably harvested.
There has also been a massive decline in the size of the fish. Some fisheries are continuing as shadows of their former selves, but the fish being caught are midgets compared with those only a few decades ago. The average size of marlin is a quarter of what it was and tuna a half. Not only have we reduced the number of fish in the ocean, we have also systematically removed the big ones.
No one is sure how this will affect the oceans, but among commercial interests there is now talk of harvesting krill, the shrimp-like creatures on which many commercial fish, not to mention many of the whales, depend.
[M. Bamford, The West Australian, June 9, 2003. Based on a report in New Scientist. Contributed by Goggleworth, West Australia, Australia.]
No! No! No! Not the krill!
All right, world: Listen up. We all live on a food chain. All food chains begin with little-bitty plants at the very bottom. These plants are eaten by microscopic animals, which are eaten in turn by creepy-crawly little creatures that are eaten by slightly larger animals. This continues to the top of chain, where predators feed. Humans are predators and live at the top of the food chain.
In the oceans, the food chain starts with vegetable plankton, which is consumed by animal plankton. These are eaten by little animals like krill, which fall victim to other animals and so on, up to the predators at the top.
We could look at food chains as if they were pyramids. In actual numbers of living things, there are many, many creatures at the bottom but less at the next level and even less at the next one. We might say that the food chain is broad at the bottom and narrow at the top, where we live.
Even more important is that in food chains, as in pyramids, each section is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT on the stability of all that is beneath it. You can remove the top stones from a pyramid and still have a stable, if slightly shorter structure. But if you destroy a layer of stones near the bottom, the whole thing will collapse.
The same is true with food chains. If some or even all of the predators at the top were to die, the chain itself would remain intact. But if the creatures at the middle of the chain died, all animals in the chain above the middle would also die. And if the bottom of the chain died, the whole food system would utterly collapse.
It would be, as the Germans say, zusammengefallen.
Krill do not make up the absolute bottom of the food chain, but they reside close to the bottom. If we take away the krill, we will also take away a lot of other species. We will, in fact, destroy the whole ocean food chain.
And don’t even bother telling me there are so many krill that human harvesting wouldn’t make much of a difference. I’ve heard that one before.
[L.F., Ohio, USA.]
This and that
Anniversary
It was probably pure coincidence that the bloodiest day in UN history, the day a massive truck bomb killed the world body’s chief Iraq envoy and 19 others, came on the 50th anniversary of the CIA-plotted coup in Iran - the coup that seeded today’s Islamic terrorism.
Or maybe not.
New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer calls the August 19, 1953 coup the first time the US government overthrew another government. The Iraq war was merely the most recent. But the eerie parallels don’t stop there.
The 1953 overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq, Iran’s elected prime minister, driven by the same ideological blinders and greed for oil that stoked our current blunder in Iraq. It also inspired a worldwide militant Islamic movement that burped up today’s al-Qaida.
Otherwise brilliant politicians and military and intelligence operatives who plotted the overthrow failed to anticipate any of the negative long-term consequences.
When irate Iranians finally threw off the US- and British-installed shah and embraced radical Islam in the 1979 revolt, Washington looked for allies close by. The result was the brief US embrace of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, just when he needed Western help in his drive for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Other ugly consequences mirror those that soon could face us in Iraq:
--A people who once admired Americans learned to hate us and then rushed the other way politically, embracing radical Islam over Western-style democracy.
--The nation whose influence we most dreaded - Russia - became Iran’s major nuclear supplier and a chief bidder for its oil.
It’s as if we can never learn the lessons of history.
[From an article by E. Sullivan for The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), August 21, 2003.]
News from New Zealand
There are many groups in Auckland and around New Zealand that, while not strictly socialist, certainly are trying to get a better deal for people and to educate folks about what is happening and what to do about it. These groups include the Housing Lobby that fights for the rights of everyone living in a State house or flat in NZ, the Water pressure group that is trying to trying to stop our fresh water from being controlled by private companies and foreigners at that (English, Australians, Yanks, and assorted Asians), the Human Rights group, the Global Peace and Justice group, the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aoteaeroa group (CAFCA), and 3 political groups that see themselves as communists and socialists. It is very rare if any of these groups get any publicity in the main news outlets.
CAFCA had a speaker in Auckland recently from their headquarters in Christchurch. We went along to hear him give a public speak at the Auckland Trades Hall. There were about 30 other people - a piss-poor crowd in Auckland, which has a population of a million or more. The speaker painted a grim picture of the takeover by foreigners of NZ land, businesses, and public services like the railways.
The Yanks even have their own airport in Christchurch that is completely out of bounds to the NZ government and any of its departments. This means it is out of bounds to the armed services, the police, the immigration department, the agriculture department, and all NZ citizens. The Yanks also completely control the spy station in the South Island at Waihopai. All the information going into this spy station from all the Pacific region and beyond goes first to the States, where it is processed thoroughly before being passed on to NZ.
There is an excellent book by Nicky Mager called "Secret Power." It is about the history and story of this spy station. Mager says that the Yanks knew about the infamous bombing of the Rainbow Warrior here in Auckland before it happened but never told NZ because of NZ’s anti-nuclear policy.
[A.C., New Zealand.]
Gambling
The subject of gambling and gamblers has arisen. I sometimes wonder if the object of gambling is to lose. Real gamblers usually don’t take their winnings home and fix up the old homestead. They throw their winnings back into the game and continue to do so until they lose it all. My daughter (representing the young adult population in this debate) says that real gamblers are unhappy with their lives and so throw everything back into the game in hopes of winning a completely new life. The gamblers say they want to "hit the big one”" but she says they don’t really want money. What they really want is a new start.
What do you think?
--L.F.
[South Australia is in the south central region, next to the Indian Ocean. There are about 1.5 million people living there, mainly in the coastal regions.]
Almost $33 billion has been poured into poker machines ["pokies"] and more than $4 billion lost since they were introduced in South Australia 9 years ago, according to State No Pokies MP Nick Xenophon. Mr. Xenophon said the anniversary of the introduction of pokies into SA was a day for commiseration. He said that South Australians were losing $1.8 million a day on poker machines.
Research has shown that 42.3% of these losses are from problem gamblers. There are 23,000 South Australian problem gambles and of these affects the lives of 7 other people.
Mr. Xenophon intends to introduce legislation for a referendum to phase out poker machines within 5 years.
[The West Australian, July 26, 2003.]
On the issue of gambling: Remember that this addiction is not inborn. It is learned and acquired. It is, I suppose, conceived as a safer way of become rich (if you have the luck) than crime, whether it is big-time or just a flutter on a lottery. The UK lottery is a license to the operators to print their own money, as the profits accruing are fantastic. Gambling will have no place in a sane society since the concepts of riches or poverty will be meaningless.
[C.G., England, UK.]
The subject of gambling has me beaten and rather confused. Australia is gambling mad - lotto, poker machines, casinos, horses - you name it. The corruption within horse racing is known and accepted but doesn’t deter "punters." It is an irresistible affliction that many people do not want to curb. It would seem that a majority of people choose to do this as a form of much-needed excitement. Would you believe that?
My question is: How can socialism come about if so many folks are against the abolition of money (the gambling vehicle)?
I enclose a newspaper clipping and C.G.’s views but I’m not satisfied with his analysis of the subject. It is not only the poor trying to find an easy way to wealth. Many multi-millionaires indulge in this passion. In fact, the casinos are really built to accommodate the already super-wealthy and off-load millions of dollars from them.
While such widespread insanity continues amongst the population so voluntarily, there would surely be no support for socialism (C.G.’s "sane" system) from such vast numbers of people, would there? I suggest that gambling is just as big a stumbling-block for socialism as religion is.
[Gogglesworth, West Australia, Australia.]
Lies, damn lies, and goddamn lies
The following is an abridged report of the information published by Politics & Science. It is long, but I wanted to give you an idea of how pervasive the problem is. I highly recommend this website [address at the end] to anyone who has been too happy lately and needs to find something to be depressed about. And thanks to C.T. in Seattle for bringing this to my attention. -L.F.
At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee assessed the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. The report finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. Beneficiaries include important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups. This website is an ongoing record of interference with science by the Bush Administration.
INTERFERENCE WITH SCIENTIFIC FACTS
1. Agricultural Pollution
As the potential impact of agricultural pollution has become more widely recognized, agricultural interests have expressed concern about the potential cost of regulation. In testimony before Congress, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Ann M. Veneman promised that her Department would give farmers "the appropriate tools to continue to make the best decisions" on how to protect the environment. However, USDA has instituted tight controls over the publication of information tending to show negative consequences of agricultural practices, attempted to suppress relevant research, and has prevented a senior scientist from speaking about potential adverse environmental consequences from hog farming.
In February 2002, USDA officials told top scientists in the Department’s Agricultural Research Service to seek prior approval on all manuscripts pertaining to "sensitive issues." According to a Department memo, these issues included: agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences, e.g., global climate change; contamination of water by hazardous materials (nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens); animal feeding operations or crop production practices that negatively impact soil, water, or air quality.
USDA has used this authority to withhold approval to study important issues. The Des Moines Register reported that USDA officials told microbiologist Dr. James Zahn not to publish the results of his study finding antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the air near hog confinements in Iowa and Missouri.
He was also not allowed to present his findings at public or private meetings in the spring of 2002, including one at a meeting of the Board of Health in Adair County, Iowa. According to the Des Moines Register:
Zahn later found a fax trail showing that information about his planned appearance . . . first passed from an environmental advocacy group to a Des Moines TV station, then to the Iowa Pork Producers Association office. Someone there sent the fax to the National Pork Producers Council in Zahn’s building. A pork council worker contacted Zahn’s boss . . . to question the appearance, Zahn said. [His boss] then called his superiors in Peoria, who decided Zahn could not speak at the meeting.
Dr. Zahn’s supervisor at USDA attempted to justify these denials on the grounds that the studies dealt with human health and therefore fell outside his unit’s mission. This claim, however, was groundless. The unit’s web site states: "The mission of the Swine Odor and Manure Management Research Unit is to solve critical problems in the swine production industry that impact production efficiency, environmental quality, and human health."
2. Breast Cancer
Claiming that abortion can cause breast cancer, social conservatives have pushed for laws across the country that require doctors to provide "counseling" about this alleged risk to all women seeking abortions. As these efforts advanced last year, the Bush Administration distorted the science on this issue to misleadingly portray abortion as a risk factor in breast cancer when there is a scientific consensus that it is not.
Until the summer of 2002, the National Cancer Institute posted an analysis on its web site concluding that the current body of scientific evidence does not support the claim that abortions increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. The analysis explained that after some uncertainty before the mid-1990s, this issue had been resolved by several well-designed studies, the largest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, finding no link between abortion and breast cancer risk.
In November 2002 the Bush Administration removed this analysis and posted new information about abortion and breast cancer on the NCI web site. The new fact sheet stated:
[T]he possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted pregnancy.
This new fact sheet erroneously suggested that whether abortion caused breast cancer was an open question with studies of equal weight supporting both sides. The New York Times called the NCI’s new statement "an egregious distortion of the evidence." According to the director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society, "This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate."
After members of Congress protested the change, NCI convened a three-day conference of experts on abortion and breast cancer. Participants reviewed all existing population-based, clinical, and animal data available, and concluded that "[i]nduced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk," ranking this conclusion as "well-established." On March 21, 2003, the NCI web site was updated to reflect this conclusion.
3. Education Policy
The Department of Education has asked employees to censor the Department’s web site based on the political priorities of the Bush Administration.
In May 2002, the Department of Education circulated an internal memo entitled "Criteria & Process for Removing Old Content from www.ed.gov." The memo explains that the www.ed.gov portal, the largest of the Department’s sites, lacks common design themes and navigational systems. Furthermore, it states that "[m]uch of the content on these pages is either outdated or runs counter to current Administration priorities." The memo instructs employees to remove all items dated earlier than February 2001 unless the item:
--Is needed for a legal reason;
--Supports No Child Left Behind or other Administration priorities and initiatives;
--Is important for historical perspective (ie: statistical trends, the Nation
at Risk report);
--Is important for policy reasons identified by an Assistant Secretary; or
--Is useful or valuable to parents, students, or educators and is consistent with
the Administration’s philosophy.
4. Environmental Health
In 2002, the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) impeded the government’s ability to obtain objective scientific advice on environmental health matters by stacking an advisory committee. The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) at Center for Disease Control (CDC) has an advisory committee charged with providing advice on "program goals and objectives, strategies, and priorities" in the area of "environmental health and related disciplines." In August 2002, HHS appointed 15 new members of this committee, apparently without consulting NCEH director Dr. Richard Jackson. The new advisers, who now constitute a majority of the 18-member committee, include individuals with close ties to regulated industries, such as:
--Roger McClellan, former director of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology;
--Becky Norton Dunlop, Vice President of the anti-regulatory Heritage Foundation
and opponent of federal environmental regulations;
--Lois Swirsky Gold, a risk assessment specialist who has minimized reports linking
environmental pollutants with cancer; and
--Dennis Paustenbach, a toxicologist whose firm does paid risk assessments for
industry.
5. HIV/AIDS
President Bush has said that international efforts to fight HIV/AIDS should be concentrated on "programs that work, proven best practices." At home, however, the Administration has obstructed the development of science-based policies and research on HIV/AIDS among the gay population.
In January 2003, President Bush appointed marketing consultant Jerry Thacker to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. Mr. Thacker has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" [as opposed to a lifestyle] and referred to AIDS as "the gay plague." Mr. Thacker has also promoted "reparative therapy," a process by which homosexuals are "reformed" through religion. According to the American Psychological Association, such therapy lacks an evidence base and attracts patients because of social pressure and ignorance. Shortly after the appointment was made public, Mr. Thacker withdrew his name from consideration for the Council.
At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), officials have told scientists who study HIV and AIDS to prepare for political interference with their research. In May 2003, the New York Times reported that HHS may be applying "unusual scrutiny" to grants that used key words such as "men who sleep with men," "gay," and "homosexual." Experts responded that such scrutiny can only undermine effective science to combat AIDS.
6. Lead Poisoning
In the summer of 2002, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was preparing to confront the controversial issue of whether to expand the diagnosis of lead poisoning to include children with lower levels of blood lead. For more than a decade, the committee had advised intervention if levels measured 10 micrograms per deciliter or greater. While the lead industry has opposed lowering the standard, recent research has suggested that the cognitive development of children may be impaired at levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or lower. As the committee prepared to consider changing the standard, HHS Secretary Thompson removed or rejected several qualified scientists and replaced them with lead industry consultants.
Specifically, HHS failed to reappoint Dr. Michael Weitzman of the University of Rochester and then rejected the nominations of Dr. Bruce Lanphear of the University of Cincinatti and Dr. Susan Klitzman of the Hunter College School of Health Sciences. These preeminent scientists have each published numerous papers in the scientific literature on lead poisoning.
In their place, HHS proposed several individuals with significant ties to the lead industry. These included Dr. William Banner, who has served as an expert witness for Sherwin-Williams paint company, a maker of lead paint, and Dr. Joyce Tsuji, who worked for two companies that represented lead firms.
The appointment of Dr. Banner was particularly egregious. His only lead-related research publications involved experimental treatment of rats. Dr. Banner has testified that a lead level of 70 micrograms per deciliter is safe for children’s brains. This position does not appear to be shared by any expert or scientific organization independent of the lead industry. In fact, contrary evidence emerged over 30 years ago, and as early as 15 years ago there was scientific consensus that children’s brains were damaged by lower levels of lead.
Information later emerged that the lead industry had played a key role in the appointments.
7. Missile Defense
After abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, President Bush ordered the deployment of a missile defense system by 2004. In making the case for missile defense, however, leading Defense Department officials have distorted scientific evidence on the feasibility of such a system.
In 2002 and 2003, General Ronald Kadish, head of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, said that they would complete a test facility in Alaska by the end of 2004. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Senate Appropriations Committee that prototype interceptors able to shoot down enemy missiles would be in place at the facility by September 2004. Most dramatically, Under Secretary of Defense Edward Aldridge told a Senate panel that by the end of 2004, the system would be 90% effective in intercepting missiles from the Korean peninsula.
Leading independent experts have reported that these claims are unjustified. Philip Coyle, former director of the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Pentagon, has reported that a missile defense system was "at least a decade" from completion. The editors of Scientific American have said, ?Regarding missile defense, researchers’ best guess is that a reliable system is infeasible." In April 2003, GAO found the President’s plan unworkable and even dangerous.
Under Secretary Aldridge’s claim of 90% effectiveness is particularly misleading. It is not supported by any publicly available evidence, and it appears not to comport with the Pentagon’s own classified estimates.
8. Oil and Gas
The Bush Administration has changed scientific data or suppressed scientific information to favor an oil and gas practice called "hydraulic fracturing." The leading provider of hydraulic fracturing is the energy company Halliburton, previously led by Vice President Cheney. According to the company’s web site, "Halliburton pioneered fracturing . . . and has consistently led in the technology."
In carrying out hydraulic fracturing, companies sometimes inject fracturing fluids containing benzene and other carcinogenic and toxic chemicals into geologic formations containing underground sources of drinking water. In the fall of 2002, EPA officials briefed congressional staff on an August 2002 draft agency study on this issue. The data in the study indicated that hydraulic fracturing could lead to benzene in underground sources of drinking water at levels above federal drinking water standards.
After congressional staff raised concerns about these about these environmental impacts, EPA changed the data. One week after discussing these results with congressional staff, EPA officials produced revised data indicating that benzene levels would not exceed government standards. EPA gave no scientific justification for the change, explaining that it was "based on feedback" from an industry source.
The White House also deleted a discussion of environmental concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing, including the potential for water contamination, from the final White House National Energy Policy. This deletion occurred after such discussion had been included in a draft produced by the Department of Energy.
9. Substance Abuse
The Administration undermined its ability to obtain scientific advice on substance abuse by using an apparent political litmus test for appointees to an important drug abuse research committee.
In 2002, Dr. William R. Miller, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at University of New Mexico, was invited to join the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse. This advisory committee guides policy and funding on drug abuse at NIH. Before Dr. Miller could be appointed, however, an official from Secretary Thompson’s office called him to ask several questions. These questions included whether he was sympathetic to faith-based initiatives, whether he supported abortion rights, whether he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins, and whether he had voted for President Bush.
Dr. Miller recalled that Secretary Thompson’s aide said, "I need to vet you to determine whether you might have any views that would be an embarrassment to the president." After Dr. Miller answered that he does support needle exchange - a public health intervention proven to save lives but opposed by social conservatives - the aide responded, "That’s a problem." When asked whether he voted for Bush, Dr. Miller said that he had not. The aide asked, "Why didn’t you support the President?"
The aide told Dr. Miller he would determine whether his views were acceptable. Dr. Miller was never called back, and his name was not on the final list of appointees.
10. Wetlands
In March 2000, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed new protections for wetlands. After the National Association of Home Builders filed suit, and after President Bush took office, the Corps reversed course and moved to weaken these protections. In the process, Interior Secretary Gale Norton suppressed scientific information and analysis that was contrary to the Corps’ new plan.
Because of the large number of wetlands at stake, it was expected that the Interior Department would provide detailed comments to the Corps on the appropriateness of the proposed rules. Scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the Interior Department, had prepared such an analysis. The scientists found that the new Corps proposal would "encourage the destruction of stream channels and lead to increased loss of aquatic functions." It also found that the Corps’ own data was "overwhelmingly" against changing mining rules, another Corps proposal. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criticized the Corps for its "lack of basic knowledge of the effects of these permitted losses on the environment."
Secretary Norton, however, failed to submit the scientists’ comments to the Corps. Her spokesman stated that the Department had run out of time. This led former Fish and Wildlife director Jamie Rappaport Clark to comment, "This is just nuts . . . For Interior to stop Fish and Wildlife from commenting on something of this magnitude and importance, that’s really unbelievable."
The Corps subsequently issued rules that weakened key wetland protections.
11. Workplace Safety
The Bush Administration interfered with the independence of an important research review committee on workplace safety by rejecting the appointment of qualified scientists, apparently on political grounds.
At the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Safety and Occupational Health study section provides peer review of applications for research grants to study workplace injuries, basing ranking decisions on the scientific merit of the proposals. In 2002, Secretary Thompson rejected three new members nominated by the NIOSH director, all scientists with excellent credentials.
The proposed members were Dr. Laura Punnett, an ergonomics expert and professor at the University of Massachusetts; Dr. Catherine Heaney, a professor at Ohio State University who has published extensively on workplace safety; and Dr. Manuel Gomez, Director of Scientific Affairs at the American Industrial Hygiene Association.
The rejections appear to be based on political grounds. Science reported that one of the rejected nominees, Dr. Laura Punnett, is an expert in ergonomics who had testified publicly in favor of efforts to reduce musculoskeletal injuries. Shortly after taking office, President Bush sided with industry groups by signing a repeal of a national regulation to prevent musculoskeletal injuries. Such injuries affect over a million workers each year, and the Institute of Medicine has found that ergonomic standards in the workplace would significantly reduce this burden.
12. Yellowstone National Park
The Bush Administration has suppressed important information about continuing ecological problems at Yellowstone National Park in order to avoid international attention.
In April 2003, Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Paul Hoffman wrote to the United Nations’ World Heritage Committee and requested that Yellowstone be removed from a list of parks at risk and in need of international attention. He wrote, "Yellowstone is no longer in danger." To make this argument, Mr. Hoffman cited a reported written by Yellowstone Park staff. However, this report had apparently been substantially edited to suppress scientific information.
A draft report in early 2003 discussed several problems that continue to threaten Yellowstone, including the degradation of water from mining toxins, a parasitic disease among native trout, and continued controversy over potentially diseased bison who stray outside park boundaries. The final version of the report sent by the Interior Department to the United Nation’s World Heritage Committee does not include these ongoing concerns.
INTERFERENCE WITH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
The Bush Administration has obstructed ongoing research by threatening political scrutiny of projects that concern social conservatives; obstructed agency research when the results might conflict with the Administration’s agenda; undermined outcome assessment, both by creating easy-to-reach performance measures for politically favored programs and by eliminating programs that identify effective initiatives that conflict with the Administration’s ideological agenda; and blocked publication of research that may upset an affected industry.
MANIPULATION OF SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEES.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires that federal committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented" and provide advice that "will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest." Yet instead of seeking quality advice from expert appointments, the Bush Administration has appointed people with scant scientific credentials but strong industry ties; appointed non-experts with right-wing ideological agendas; stacked advisory committees with numerous pro-industry or ideological appointees; and opposed the appointment or reappointment of qualified experts, including some of the most respected scientists in their fields, on the basis of political litmus tests.
[Politics & Science: "Investigating the Bush administration’s promotion of ideology over science" (www.politicsandscience.org). The website is sponsored by Democrat members of the US House of Representatives]
On the Web:
Overtime is included in the website of Socialism for a Real Labor Union at:
socialismmarxdeleonforarealunion.org
[Socialism Marx DeLeon for a real union]
Money.
Overtime is free, but there are expenses and any help with these would be appreciated. Please make checks payable to Linda Featheringill and mail to me at 4651 West 41st Street, Down, Cleveland, OH 44109. Contributions will be acknowledged in the next issue, or you can remain anonymous if you wish.
Finances at the end of August 2003:
Balance---------------------11.42
Contributions--------------63.12
Copying--------------------35.29
Postage--------------------33.68
Total expenses-------------68.97
Balance-------------------- 5.57
Contributions: Anon. 13.12, C. H. 5.00, S. Jeffrey 25.00, L.A. 20.00.
And, to Everyone, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Linda Featheringill.