Bush Calls U.S. a “Nation of Prayer”

News of the weird, my friends. Our “politics-and-religion-mixing President has declared, on this the national day of prayer, that the U.S. is a nation of prayer”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060504/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_prayer;_ylt=Auh2YG3m0lrz_xYEcS4QLD6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-. I wonder if, on the national day of reason, he’ll declare the U.S. a nation of reason? Oh, right, we don’t have that national day. Yikes.

Thinking back to that recent study on prayer [TAOMPH245], it is now clear to me why the U.S. is split down the middle politically. If you have a 50% chance of suffering complications after heart bypass surgery whether people pray for you or not, I guess a nation of prayer has a 50% chance of being Republican or Democrat. Double yikes.


.. [TAOMPH245] http://steve.cooleysekula.net/blog/?p=653

 

No help, no food, no water – madness.

“New Orleans is in utter chaos”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/hurricane_katrina;_ylt=AnJD_2nAkz_gYy_5_IA_tO2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ–.
I’m all for optimism, but it’s not clear to me that Federal officials are willing to back up all that talk. When even those in charge of New Orleans lose hope and cry for help, there can be no deeper desperation. What does it say when the richest nation in the world cannot apparently amass its resources for its own people? What example is this?

My thoughts are ever with the people of New Orleans and its surrounding cities and towns. May you get the relief you deserve, the relief you’ve been promised, soon. And may reason prevail over the madness that is spreading.

Three Senators attend Hearing on Climate Change

It’s sad. I know it was a busy day on the Hill, but every day is a busy day on the Hill. So when I read that “only three U.S. Senators from the Senate Commerce subcommittee on global climate change attended hearings where the new head of the National Academies spoke about the scientific consensus on global warming”:http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/21/global.warming.ap/index.html?section=cnn_space,
I was saddened.

Who were the three attentive Senators? They were David Vitter, R-Louisiana, Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. What at least impressed me about the mix is that is was statistically bi-partisan. If you read literally into small numbers, it was overwhelmingly Republican – also encouraging.

Who were the missing subcommittee members? They were Republicans John McCain (AZ) and Olympia Snowe (ME), and Democrat John Kerry (MA). What a sad list of those missing. Half the committee was not present, and 2/3 of those not attending were people I know well enough to admire! John McCain and John Kerry are two of my favorite Senators, some of the few I consider Statesmen and not just politicians.

I just hope they had a good excuse. This was a rare opportunity for such a group of Senators to sit, ask questions of the National Academies’ new President, and have a healthy public discourse on the science of and the overwhelming evidence for human-induced global climate change.

What’s $100M when you’re defending democracy?

I am concerned by this recurring “story about 100M dollars going missing in the Iraq reconstruction effort”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050505/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_money;_ylt=At9K0nB3DggPB8jukqks16ZG2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl. The AP news story on http://news.yahoo.com leads with “U.S. government mismanagement of assets in
Iraq, from the lack of proper documentation on nearly $100 million in cash to millions of dollars worth of unaccounted-for equipment, are setting back efforts to fight corruption in the fledgling democracy, auditors and critics say.”

I’d say that a “set back” in Iraq is the least of the ethical baggage the government should worry about when it comes to losing $100M. Agents who distributed the money claimed that “were under the impression that it was more important to quickly distribute the money to the region than to obtain all necessary documentation.”

So much for fiscal responsibility. So much for the idea that putting a businessman in the office of the President will improve this nation’s financial footing and ethics. Let’s frame this from my perspective.

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, as a “matter of public record”:www.sc.doe.gov/orm/Budget_Finance/FY_05_Budget/HEP.pdf, is funded by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE SC) at the level of $120M. The total budget of the DOE SC is at the level of $3.2B, which is a fraction of the many billions spent on both the war and the reconstruction in Iraq. As you can see, the amount “lost” in Iraq is comparable to the amount spent to generate great science at a great national treasure, SLAC.

So here’s what I am worried about: losing $100M seems to be chalked up to the price of defending democracy, here and in Iraq. Spending $100M on great science to make this country worth defending is becoming a growing complaint within the federal gov’t, which seems loathe to spend money on the science that has made this country great. Even the President’s own party is concerned, as “evidenced by this letter from Republican Frank Wolf (VA) to the President expressing his concern about the ongoing trend to decrease basic science funding”:http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/064.html.

Let us not become complacent with our money. Can we afford to lose $100M defending democracy, yet feel worried about legitimately spending $100M to make a great democracy? That’s for Americans to decide.