YES to RFK Jr to Head EPA

[davidswanson]

After numerous disastrous appointments and rumored appointments, some good news out of the Obama camp: consideration of Robert Kennedy Jr to head the EPA. Say yes to this and say it loud and now to Obama and to the media and to your friends and to Kennedy. And take a look at what Kennedy would be coming in to restore at the catastrophe that is the Cheney EPA.

[midnight]

1. If you want to clean up the country, he would be the person

who would know what to do.

[NightWatcher]

2. that's crazy. Next you'll want the Surgeon General to be a Doctor

who's in charge of the Arabian Horse League, maybe we can get him to run the government office.

[glinda]

34. H. Dean and Bobby K Jr. Yeeeeeeeees!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. What "numerous disasterous appointments and rumored appointments"

are you referring to?

[Romulox]

5. Emmanuel, Summers, Goolsbee, Furman, for a start. nt

[upi402]

121. a 100% DLC disastrous repeat

In other words, no opposition party to corporatism.

[cali]

4. so tired of the endless drama queens. the only appointments made

to date have been Podesta and perhaps Emanuel. And at least as many "good" appointments as "bad", have been rumored.

That said, Kennedy would be an excellent choice.

But, Jeebus, the hysterical crap about Obama- less than 2 days after he won, is such a predictable bore.

[Romulox]

6. I remember you being quite cross on my Emmanuel thread a couple days before the election.

Now that the "disgusting rumor" (your words, IIRC) has turned out to be 100% true, it seems like Obama, not DUers, is fueling such speculation.

[cali]

9. Yes, I'm disgusted by all the speculation about eac h and every appointment.

I'm an adult. I don't expect to agree with every Obama appointment. I don't feel like I'm entitled because I'm a progressive. I recognize that Obama is not someone who's going to lead a progressive revolution- at least not at the outset of his administration. I know his cabinet is going to be a mixed bag. I realize that Obama wants to have the same kind of impact on the American political landscape as Reagan had- just in the opposite direction. And I know how difficult that will be. Too many aren't going to give him a chance. And they aren't only on the right.

[Romulox]

11. This is a political discussion forum. This is an entirely appropriate topic of conversation.

"I realize that Obama wants to have the same kind of impact on the American political landscape as Reagan had- just in the opposite direction. And I know how difficult that will be. "

Especially if he surrounds himself with advisers who are a half step to the Left of Reagan, eh?

[Zhade]

112. nm

misread

[shadowknows69]

7. Hell yes

[mzmolly]

70. Ditto. According to many non-scientists here. RFK Jr. doesn't "understand" science

because he believes what some scientists have said about vaccination.

[trotsky]

8. RFK Jr. is a principled liberal, however he does not understand science.

His anti-vaccine crusade is ample evidence of that. I would not want him heading up the EPA.

[WoodrowFan]

14. agreed (NT)

[Peace Patriot]

15. Please provide links on this vaccine thing. I would be astonished if RFK Jr

"does not understand science." It is a potential slander. So you need to defend it. What vaccines? In what circumstances? I've listened to a lot of "Ring of Fire" shows, and have NEVER perceived RFK Jr. as "anti-science." Just the opposite. So please provide evidence so I and others can research it for ourselves. Thank you.

[trotsky]

16. Here's a great recent writeup with plenty of links.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/11/say_it_aint_so_barack_say_you_aint_serio.php

RFK Jr. is a great guy but he wrote a very irresponsible article alleging things that simply weren't true about a particular scientific conference, and about vaccination in general.

On edit: Cleaned up link.

[Peace Patriot]

21. I cannot find objective information at this web site. The writer is so vitriolic that I am

becoming convinced that HE is the wingnut.

And it doesn't help that he's defending Big Pharma, the CDC and the medical industry. I am not inclined to trust the this multi-billion industry AT ALL.

I will continue to research this issue, but the blogger at the site you recommend--an anonymous blogger who claims to be a doctor, but certainly doesn't write like a doctor or a scientist (he writes like Rush Limbaugh would write, if he could write)--tends to link to his own writings, or similar over-the-top vitriolic personal attacks, which go on and on with more name-calling, rather than to original sources. It's as if he doesn't want his readers to know what the original sources have to say.

So I will have to find information elsewhere. This site you recommend makes me distrust your opinion of RFK Jr.

[trotsky]

30. LMAO

Attack the person, not the argument. Ad hominem. Nicely done!

[girl gone mad]

39. I think that Peace Patriot is correct.

My problem with the writer of this blog is his reactionary, confrontational style. Linking autism to thimerosal wasn't "pseudoscience", it was a valid scientific theory based on research and corollary evidence. The theory has since been weakened by contradictory studies.

The writer of this blog seems to have a poor understanding of the scientific process. As a scientist, and specifically a theoretician, I understand that ideas are regularly invalidated by data. When I was a graduate student, I wrote a paper which directly contradicted some of Stephen Hawking's ideas. Experimental data later revealed Hawking was off base, his math had been wrong. I wouldn't think of calling Hawking a "crank" or a "hack" because he believed in and pushed am incorrect theory for years. I never demanded an apology. That's just not how science works.

RFK wanted to err on the side of caution with thimerosal, a chemical that probably hadn't been properly tested before being used in vaccines. I hardly think that was an extreme position or that his push to make vaccines safer makes him "anti-science".

[trotsky]

45. More ad hom.

That particular blogger has written several pieces on RFK Jr. and his terrible methods. I'm glad that you understand "ideas are regularly invalidated by data" - so you realize that the idea of thimerosal causing autism has been invalidated by the data. Primarily the data that shows 8 years now AFTER thimerosal was eliminated from the standard schedule of vaccines, we still have autism, and the rates have NOT gone down.

"a chemical that probably hadn't been properly tested before being used in vaccines"

You really haven't studied this issue, have you?

[girl gone mad]

48. Was anyone ever arguing..

that thimerosal was the sole culprit in the dramatic rise in cases? Or just a potential factor?

Apparently, some people, including doctors and researchers still have concerns.

You may not agree with their skepticism, you may not like outsiders questioning the FDA, but calling them "cranks" is an ad hominem attack, as you suggested, and it's a bit over the line.

ETA: it isn't my field, but even a cursory google search reveals that "Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign."

[trotsky]

50. Oh, the anti-vaxers have shifted their argument now, to be sure.

They've learned from hitching their wagon to one factor which can be isolated and easily disproven - the talk now is all about generic "toxins." But until very recently, their main focus was on thimerosal, blaming it for everything. Hilariously, Kennedy (like many in the anti-vax movement) made the error of believing that the very common MMR vaccine contained thimerosal - but it never did.

You may not agree with their skepticism

Strawman.

you may not like outsiders questioning the FDA

Bigger strawman.

but calling them "cranks" is an ad hominem attack

Good thing I didn't use the term - the site I referenced does. Perhaps YOU would be willing to address the various problems found with Kennedy's article, including his selective out-of-context quoting, his confusion of correlation with causation, his double standards in declaring "conflicts of interest," and his use of the "hidden hordes" fallacy. All are fully documented here.

and it's a bit over the line.

You mean like using strawmen such as claiming I don't like people questioning the FDA? :eyes:

[varkam]

58. Look at the data - not the personalities.

And, if I may, the only studies that I am aware of that advanced the hypothesis that autism was caused by thimerosal has either been discredited since publication or started out in ill-repute as a consequence of being produced by either the Geier / Shoemaker team or Andrew Wakefield across the pond.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. He claims vaccines cause autism

and there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support that.

[orleans]

41. vaccines?? i thought he claimed it was the mercury/ thimerosal that

was being used as a preservative or something with the vaccines (so you could vaccine 25 people from the same bottle/batch or whatever.)

[Overseas]

42. CA Dept of Public Health study on lack of thimerosal autism connection published in January 2008

I was preoccupied in January 2008 and didn't notice the story about the California Dept of Public Health study.


=========================================================================
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/california-s...

The mercury-containing vaccine additive thimerosal is not a primary cause of autism, says a study published yesterday in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

High doses of thimerosal were used throughout the 1990's in infant vaccines before being largely removed from U.S. supplies in 1999. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, and some people have blamed it for the dramatic, tragic rise of autism in the United States.

Yesterday's study, authored by California Department of Public Health researchers Robert Schechter and Judith Grether, used California Department of Developmental Services data to track rates of autism diagnoses since thimerosal's removal. If thimerosal was responsible for the autism epidemic, there would ostensibly have been a drop in diagnoses in children born after the 1999 removal -- but that's not what they saw. The numbers continued to rise.

[mzmolly]

81. Another look at the data:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/is-autism-declining_b_55869.html

[mzmolly]

76. He doesn't have blind faith in big pharma, thus according to big pharma

defenders, he's anti-science. It's quite simple. There are about six people here who fear any information coming out about vaccination that does not fit into their religious beliefs. Sadly, while most of this group rejects organized religion, they have replaced it with a worship of Eli Lilly.

That's about all you need to know. ;)

Here is an article where Kennedy dares to think, it's part of the reason he's maligned by a small minority of vocal DU-ers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. My thoughts exactly

I support his heading the EPA but he is so out in left field on his vaccine argument it's scary.

[trotsky]

20. Left field?

He's not even in the freaking stadium! :)

[girl gone mad]

26. He wasn't "anti-vaccine", he was anti-thimerosal.

Big difference.

[Cetacea]

27. Thank you.

And even if he had gotten this one wrong it does not take away from his excellent record.
The calls for a moderate EPA chief on another thread are truly out there.

[trotsky]

31. Hey, great - but thimerosal has already been removed from the standard childhood vaccines.

So why the continuing crusade? Hmmmm?

[TZ]

44. No. He claimed MMR WHICH NEVER HAD THIMEROSOL

caused autism. He can't even keep basic science straight. How the hell does this make him qualified to run a scientific agency?

[dailykoff]

52. God forbid somebody should challenge the drug merchants

and ask what the F##K they're forcibly injecting our children with. That's "anti-science" according to the astroturf brigade.

[Junkdrawer]

53. Big Pharma's defenders have a monopoly on science...and the scientific method...

I can't tell you how many times I've encountered that talking point.

[LeftishBrit]

62. God forbid that anyone should defend people's BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to access to vaccines and other

forms of modern medicine against the ideologues!

At least two million children die in developing countries every year from diseases that could be prevented by vaccines. THAT is the scandal that should be addressed. And yes, the drug merchants are partly to blame for not making their vaccines and other medicines affordable to poor people and countries.

And America doesn't yet have a universal health care system; and Britain's is contantly being threatened by the cost-cutters. We should be fighting for the universal RIGHT to access to vaccines and other medications that people need, not against them.

I don't know enough about RFK Jr to comment on whether he would be a good appointee; but the universal right to preventive medicine is a very important issue!

And most vaccines haven't contained mercury for a long time, and MMR never did.

[dailykoff]

77. We don't have a universal health care system for exactly the reason

you see on display here: whenever we get anywhere close to one the medical and drug industries kick up a shit storm of false issues, like this one, and their minions obediently spread them through the media, like in this thread.

For example, if Obama actually did propose a universal health care system, the same concerned "scientists" would be squawking about how it limited our "choices" yadda yadda yadda barf.

:puke:

[varkam]

79. You have no idea what you're talking about. Surprise, surprise.

[dailykoff]

83. You can't even complete a message box and you're telling me

I have no idea what I'm talking about? Please.

[varkam]

84. Nah. I just know you don't read past the subject line. I keep it simple for you.

[dailykoff]

85. The word is "simplistic" and it describes your false arguments.

Sorry, not buying. Try another message board.

[varkam]

86. Funny that you can't even manage a cogent response to my "simplistic" arguments.

Rather, you just devolve into name-calling and baseless accusations. So am I a troll now? I thought I was a shill.

Like I said, all you have indeed.

[dailykoff]

87. What argument? You haven't made one. You said I didn't know what I was talking about

and you left the message box blank. That's not an argument, it's a slogan, like "Kennedy is anti-science." You really need to peddle your snake oil elsewhere.

:hi:

[varkam]

88. I was referring to my argument below - though you don't know what you're talking about here, either.

Of course, below, you just immediately started calling me names instead of making any sort of a rebuttal of the arguments that I advanced (I mean, unless you consider ad hominem attacks an effective means of rebutting an argument - which you clearly do). You seem to think that issues of science are purely ideological, and that anyone who disagrees with you must therefore be a shill or a troll, since you are obviously correct.

The thing is, it's not an issue of ideology at all.

[dailykoff]

90. False. I haven't made a single ad hominem. You and your friends resorted to them

almost immediately. Fail. Bye. :hi:

[varkam]

95. Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

It's kind of silly to try and deny the things you have written...when the things you have written are recorded, and in the same thread, no less!

[dailykoff]

100. Yes, and your objections to RFK are nothing but.

Your style of "argument" is all too familiar to me.

[varkam]

122. Wrong. Try again. eom

[LeftishBrit]

136. Then how come...

Europaean countries have universal health care systems AND support vaccines and science-based medicine?

[Junkdrawer]

32. No, Big Pharma's and Big Coal's problem is that he DOES understand science...

what they want is some political hack who will kowtow to their agenda

[OneBlueSky]

10. there oughta be a spot for Jim Hightower, too . . .

I'd suggest Secretary of Agriculture, but the policies he'd want to push would be so forward-looking that he likely won't get the job . . .

[Hotler]

55. I second that! eom.

[Tumbulu]

96. Let's start a new thread on that one! Jim Hightower for Secretary of Agriculture!

Now that is an exciting idea.

[marmar]

12. MIKE PAPANTONIO FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL!

Some corporate criminal ass will get kicked......

[Overseas]

43. Yeah !! This country needs a Pap Attack !! //nt

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

56. that's what I've been saying all along!

he'd be perfect

[WoodrowFan]

13. self-deleted

oops, replied to wrong post

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. Let Obama know how you feel!

Washington, DC Office
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
[phone]
[phone] fax
(202 228-1404 TDD
http://obama.senate.gov/contact /

Chicago Office
John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn St.
Suite 3900 (39th floor)
Chicago, Illinois 60604
[phone]
[phone] fax

[Cetacea]

22. Kicking

And happy to give this a fifth rec.

[ColbertWatcher]

23. YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!! n/t

[Tuesday_Morning]

24. yes!!

Now that's change!

[BrklynLiberal]

25. That is an excellent choice

[dailykoff]

28. Agree wholeheartedly.

K & R.

[earth mom]

29. YES YES YES!

:bounce:

[underpants]

33. Is THIS what the WSJ guy was going off about on Morning Joe?

all I heard was "this is a bone headed play"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Disastrous Appointments ROFLMAO!!!!

You're a hoot!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sometimes I still find myself in absolute disbelief that you're for real. But you are!

I love the irrational melodrama!

[Marnieworld]

36. No I'd rather have an environmental Scientist

with Administration experience. He can work on election reform though.

[dropkickpa]

37. I agree

[dailykoff]

49. How about former Senator Frist?

He's a "doctor"!!111

[Marnieworld]

60. He's not an environmental scientist

A Phd not an MD

[Cetacea]

38. Bush was smart hiring an attorney to head Interior

We are going to need someone to undue the damage done these last eight years.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Yes to Ben Stein to the head of the Department of Education.

He stands up to school administrators and teachers!

[Bjorn Against]

47. I assume you are being sarcastic...

But sadly enough I could see that actually happening if John McCain were President.

[Bjorn Against]

46. He would be a great choice, and we also need Henry Waxman as Attorney General

[lonestarnot]

51. I think I'll join Green Peace and go after whalers.

[begin_within]

54. And what of Al Gore?

I thought he would want the EPA job.

[Cetacea]

57. I don't think he would want it.

And with all due respect to Gore, we need a bull dog in that position.

[defendandprotect]

73. Gore is an oil industry beneficiary .. ever hear him mention electric cars ...???

Think he'd ever recommend NATIONALIZING oil industry---???

[varkam]

59. Pardon me for saying, but that would not be a very good choice.

I'm not trying to say anything bad about RFK, but his stance on vaccines makes me question his grasp on science and its attendant methods. That's not to say that I don't want RFK to have any sort of position within the Obama administration, but this is precisely the sort of thing that so irked me about Bush with respect to science-heavy positions - the nomination of singularly unqualified individuals to fill those posts. RFK is an attorney - so give him an attorney's position within the administration.

At least, that's my .02.

[dailykoff]

61. Exactly how would RFK's views on vaccines make him "not a very good choice"

to head the EPA? Could you please specify exactly what "not very good" consequences you foresee from his adminstration of that agency, other than the talking point that he's anti-science?

Thanks.

[depakid]

63. It demonstrates a lack of scientific acumen

as well as poor consideration for the consequences of his actions- namely, a higher incidence of infectuous diseases.

That's not the sort of behavior that garners respect from the scientific community.

[dailykoff]

65. That isn't what I asked. Please tell me how you think his admin of the EPA

would be problematic, OTHER than the ridiculous "anti-science" talking point flogged by the pharmaceutical and coal industries, thanks.

p.s. and no Cape Wind bullshit either if you don't mind.

[varkam]

66. As I point out below, the 'exact consequences' argument is immaterial.

And you're getting dangerously close to accusing fellow posters of being shills, which doesn't lend itself to civil discourse - does it?

[dailykoff]

68. So you don't have any specific objections other than a RW talking point.

Thank you for admitting it.

[varkam]

69. And off to ad hominem world we go.

Sigh.

[depakid]

74. People engaged in conspiracy theories- without regard for the actual data

have no business being anywhere near positions responsibility and agenda setting like the EPA.

That quite aside from the fact that the guy lacks the administrative experience to manage a gutted agency and put it back to work.

[varkam]

64. I believe I laid out my objection clearly.

From my post:

(B)ut his stance on vaccines makes me question his grasp on science and its attendant methods.

(emphasis supplied).

This is so because within the scientific community, there is no controversy as to whether mercury in vaccines cause autism. The scientific data is pretty clear-cut on the issue, and the fact that RFK disregards that is demonstrative of a few different possibilities; none of which bode well for an appointment to a science-heavy position such as heading up the EPA.

Could you please specify exactly what "not very good" consequences you foresee from his adminstration of that agency, other than the talking point that he's anti-science?

The 'exact consequences' arguments is immaterial to the point that I am making. Furthermore, I am not a fortune-teller and none of us are.

Also, note that I never said that RFK was "anti-science" in an ideological sense. RFK is a trial lawyer, and trial lawyers tend to see the world in shades of products liability and intentional torts. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes it leads one to draw conclusions that are unsupported by empirical evidence (as evidenced in RFK's case by his clarion call on vaccines).

[dailykoff]

67. Yes, I heard the RW talking point and asked you not to repeat it. You just did.

I see that's all you have, as I suspected. No further questions.

[varkam]

71. I guess when you can't attack the message, you need to attack the messenger. All you have, indeed.

[defendandprotect]

75. The vaccines are a problem ... proven over and again by tests/studies ---

This is drug industry power which wants to ignore studies, parents and RFK --

FOR PROFIT ---

[depakid]

78. Not sure where you get your information but

it certainly isn't out of peer reviewed scientific journals or public health authorities around the world.

[dailykoff]

80. Links please.

And don't forget "around the world."

[depakid]

89. Links to what?

10,000's of pages of journal articles showing vacciation to be safe and effective?

Public health agencies around the world that accept scienttific research and engage in large scale programs to potect their citizens from infectuous disease?

Like this:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/gardasil_hpv.htm

The only people who oppose vacaccination are fundies on the right-and kooky conspiracy theorists on the left. In most other countries, they're not taken seriously, so you're not going to find much addressing their unfounded "concerns."

[dailykoff]

91. "peer reviewed scientific journals or public health authorities around the world"

Better get started as you gave yourself a lot of homework. :hi:

[depakid]

92. It's foolish to attempt to argue with global warming denialist types

or try to prove that the earth isn't flat.

Or that it's not a good idea to allow the world credit markets to collapse.

And hopefully, we won't have any more of those types running our adminstrative and regulatory agencies.

[dailykoff]

93. You made the claim, now back it up--with links, and note the plural. (n/)

[depakid]

94. The "claim" is the status quo of the past 200+ years

and is accepted by everyone around texcept cranks who have no grasp of the science nor any appreciation of the method.

You go on believing its a worldwide conspiracy theory, but just don't expect to have any credibility.

[dailykoff]

127. I asked for links, not baloney. No further questions. (n/t)

[depakid]

133. Not sure what you consider "baloney" to be

Lots of people thought this guy was speading balony (or some such thing)



(Why anyone would be asked to convince people about fundmental concepts like medical efficacy, herd immunty and the nature of infectuous disaeses in the 21st Century is something that I admit I am baffled by).

That sort of thing would- one would think, have been better left to people like Edward Jenner, above. Or to those who took the handle off of the Broad Street Pump in London.

Now, it doesn't baffle me as to why some people would spread variola (smallpox) laced blankets among various peoples who had no immunity.

It also shouldn't surprise anyone that the occasional nutter might raise a stink- heck, even the Lochner Era court had to deal with that back in 1905:

http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Reader/docs/Jacobson.pdf

But damn- some of the ignorance and ideological posts on this thread are just shocking.

[dailykoff]

134. You're intentionally misrepresenting the vaccine issue, which isn't even relevant.

RFK Jr. isn't questioning the "nature of infectuous disaeses," he's questioning the unnecessary use of mercury as a preservative. In my mind, that's just the beginning of the information that should be made available to parents of children required to receive vaccines.

In any case, the issue is irrelevant to the EPA, and is nothing but an obvious RW smear, like Cape Wind.

[depakid]

135. Simply noting how mindsets work

Yesterdays as todays.

Not that much is new under the sun- yet science moves on, as does the common law.

[defendandprotect]

102. misplaced

[defendandprotect]

101. Well, your views are clearly r-w propaganda and intended to deny reality ...

the reports and tests over decades show problems with the vaccines --

and it's undeniable that MERCURY was put into them merely for convenience/PROFIT

of drug companies...

[varkam]

82. Huh?

The only studies that I am aware of that show any connection were studies conducted by Andrew Wakefield or the Geiers, the science of which has been thoroughly discredited (and the fact that there was a major financial incentive for both Wakefield and the Geiers to come to that conclusion, "FOR PROFIT", being that they were involved in litigation against vaccine manufacturers on precisely that question).

[defendandprotect]

104. Studies ignored and suppressed .. sound familiar?.

PROFIT being that they used MERCURY to keep product on shelf longer ...

for no other reason ...

also problems with timing and administering large quantities of vaccines at one time --


As with every other scientific issue and drug issue, info has been "FDA-BUSHED" ...

flat world/Genesis re-created before our eyes---!!!

[varkam]

123. Put up or shut up. eom

[curse of greyface]

103. A deranged Rolling Stone article is not a study.

If autism rates were dropping fast you might have a suspicion of causation. They are not. This is a water is wet kinda thing. It can't be the mercury.

[defendandprotect]

105. A deranged, biased attempt at rebuttal ....

[curse of greyface]

106. Have you read RFK's work? Do you think any of it would been published if he wasn't a Kennedy?

It's laughable stuff.

[defendandprotect]

107. Of course I've read it and the information he puts forth in it ---

have you--???

Any chance you're biased against the "Kennedy" name --???

[curse of greyface]

109. I am definitely not biased against the Kennedy name.

I have read his Rolling Stone article. I found it one-sided, full of dubious cherry picked information, and as history has shown, quite wrong.

[defendandprotect]

110. Odd.. I found it highly intelligent, factual, logical, well balanced and well supported --

[curse of greyface]

111. And hysterical, conspiracy minded and very wrong. It read like an X-files script. nt

[defendandprotect]

114. ...but your comments don't suggest personal animosity ---!!

Sooo ... obviously, you and I know discussion with you isn't what could be called

beneficial to enlightenment ---

You're on ignore --

[curse of greyface]

115. I have never met the man. I have only met two Kennedy's and one is tragically dead.

I disagree with his positions and feel his methodology isn't a good fit for a science based agency.

[defendandprotect]

72. yes..!!!

[Tumbulu]

97. Yes! (nt)

[spanone]

98. k&r

[WCGreen]

99. Jesus H. Christ...

He's appointed one person so far...

Get outside and watch a football game or something...

Take a walk and watch the leaves drop...

But give the guy a break...

And who would you rather Obama have by his side some wishy washy person he doesn't know...

Or a fucking junk yard guy who is loyal and will do what it takes to protect the man...

Christ Almighty, give the guy some room...

[mzmolly]

108. LOL

Contender for "best.post.ever." :hi:

[dailykoff]

113. I can honestly think of no better advocate for the environment or one more suited

for this position than RFK Jr. It's a highly political job, and from what I've seen and read, he's intimately familiar with both the science and the policy involved.

At this point, the last thing we need is some industry-friendly stooge heading that agency, as we're basically in the middle of an environmental crisis.

[depakid]

116. Apparently, you can't honestly think

Therein lies the problem- whether on the left or on the right.

It's the last thing Ameirca needs- more of that sort of deal.

[dailykoff]

118. Your responses are laughably inappropriate, but what else is new. (n/t)

[depakid]

130. What some of the posts in this thread show

are that there are ideologues on both sides of the aisle who fail to think critically and honestly- which may make them fine activists, but which also make them unsuitable for positions of responsibility in state or federal agencies.

[alarimer]

117. No fucking way.

I will spell it out. As a scientist I am appalled that this anti-vaccine and conspiracy nut is even considered a good appointment. Because he believes one bit of woo (that vaccines cause autism), he is likely to believe other sorts of woo. This is an agency that requires the Administration to have some knowledge of science. Appointing him politicizes the agency just as badly as hiring an industry person. We complain when the Republicans do it. Let's not fall into the same trap. The appointment needs to be a serious scientist or someone who is already heading a state environmental agency, like Mary Nichols (I think), currently head of California's air resources board.

[dailykoff]

119. Exactly what do vaccines have to do with the EPA?

Could you please spell out what policies would be adversely affected by this appointment? Thanks.

[varkam]

124. You seem to have trouble with your reading comprehension.

Read the post again. Slowly. Take extra time with the big words, if you need to.

[dailykoff]

125. The answer is, nothing, and no specific objections. Just smears. Thanx (n/t)

[varkam]

126. You didn't even go back and re-read the post, did you?

No, you didn't - and I know you didn't because of the turnaround time.

Thanks for playing.

[dailykoff]

128. Let me know when you're ready to answer the questions, thanks. (n/t)

[varkam]

129. I would, but then you would just say that I'm parroting RW talking points and need to find...

a new message board.

This game bores me. Have a good night.

[upi402]

120. He's great. There seems a disingenuous move or two here

to sink any Kennedy influence in American government.

[Junkdrawer]

137. Yep, reading some of the posts, it seems that several newly unemployed McCain ad writers....

have been tapped to write posts here....

:rofl:

[varkam]

138. Right - because if someone disagrees with you they must therefore be a Republican.

:eyes:

[Junkdrawer]

139. I said that because the posts trashing RFK seem coordinated, follow a fixed set of talking points...

and employ the kind of half-truths and outright lies one associated with the McCain campaign's attack ads.

But if you insist that they come from the Democratic party, the stated audience of DU, well then, I guess it's against the rules to disagree.

[varkam]

140. Oy.

People can disagree, and can disagree respectfully - you don't have to color the opposition as somehow dishonest. I have been a democrat all my life and Obama had a special place in my heart ever since his speech at the '04 DNC.

But I guess that since I think RFK would be a terrible choice to head up the EPA (not necessarily other administration positions, though) then that means I'm a paid republican operative as I have the temerity to criticize the positions that RFK has taken on matters of science.

But, if you wouldn't mind, where has anyone peddled "an outright lie" about RFK here with respect to the possibility of his nomination to head the EPA?

Thanks.

[LASteve]

131. yes

A great pick.

[specialed]

132. Excellent choice!

I love Kennedy's outlook.

[yellowcanine]

141. Sorry but I think a scientist such as Dr, James Hansen would be a better pick.

Head of NASA Goddard and the government's chief climate change scientist whom the Bush EPA tried without success to muzzle for 8 years. Please no lawyers as EPA head unless they also have a solid science background as well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

142. I would rather it be a real scientist

RFK is not the best choice, IMO.