Rant #2, plus a suggestion for framing Bush

I really should stop reading the political pieces in the New Yorker. It just upsets me. My blood pressure rises and my jaw starts to ache from clenching my teeth as I ingest the latest proof of the religious-right-wing (I use the two terms collectively, not interchangeably) assault on every front of what formerly made this country great. But halfway through reading "Political Science: The Bush Administration's War on the Laboratory" in this week's New Yorker, I had an idea of how to apply George Lakoff's framing principles to Bush's Evil Empire. And I needed to blog it before I forgot.

First the rant: Michael Specter's article describes in excoriating detail dozens of instances in which the Bush Administration has bullied or simply bulldozed scientists. Merck has invented a vaccine that would prevent the human papilloma virus, an STD, in women -- but it has to be administered before the woman becomes sexually active and is exposed to the virus. Meaning, probably around the age of 15. This runs contrary to the RRW's insistence on abstinence as the preferred method of combatting teen pregnancy and disease and so they are gearing up to prevent its distribution. And then there's the morning-after pill, approved by an overwhelming majority on the FDA's advisory committee of scientists but declined in an unprecedented move by the FDA's politically appointed director. And the EPA head who removed damning sentences in a report on global warming and replaced them with energy industry recommendations. Scientists prevented from speaking to the World Health Organization "who do not represent the views of the U.S. properly." Evolution versus creationism (excuse me, intelligent design). Terry Schiavo. Stem-cell research.

The stem-cell research ban, Specter explains, is really debilitating because facilities that have received any federal funds, like a university building constructed partly with federal funds, cannot mix stem-cell research with their other research. So anyone doing it needs their own electron microscope and spectrometer, which as you can imagine really cuts down on those able to do it.

I guess that was more of a recap than a rant. But if you read the article, you too will slowly realize that there may come a day when you will not have access to the life-saving cancer intervention that people in Europe will -- because it was based on stem cell research. That if you are raped and impregnated, you'll be carrying the baby to term. This country is going to look more and more like Mississippi, circa 1950.

So, I was thinking we need to start calling the RRWers what they are: reality hijackers and truth terrorists. They see a fact they don't like, and they immediately go on the offensive against it. With science, they completely omit or eliminate any information that doesn't accord with their religious -- not moral -- worldview, whether by forcing out the scientist who came up with it or preventing him/her from presenting their findings or getting further funding. Instead of cowering and wringing our hands about it, progressives (and liberals, damn it) should start attacking. Doesn't "reality hijacker" have a nice ring to it?

Annoyingly, the New Yorker has not made this particular article available online, instead offering a Q&A with Michael Specter that is shorter but not as alarming.