Today's Washington Post features a very important op-ed by NRDC Action Fund board member and former House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican who represented New York's 24th congressional district for over two decades before retiring in 2007. Surveying the incoming class of Republicans, Boehlert worries that a stance of global warming denial has become all but synonymous with his party's identity. He issues a resonant plea for a change of course:
I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.
The GOP needn't stake its reputation on climate denial, Boehlert argues. It's perfectly possible to be a Republican who doesn't support certain policy suggestions, but who still accepts that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change. That is, disagreeing about climate policy is one thing, but rejecting climate science, despite overwhelming evidence, is something else:
I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.
Boehlert took climate science, and climate scientists, very seriously. He called them to testify, listened to what they had to say, worked to understand the nuances and uncertainties of the various issues.
But there are widespread fears that in the next Congress, we'll see a very different approach: attempts to assassinate the character of climate researchers, rather than calling upon them to provide useful information to aid in policymaking. Boehlert warns against this scandal-mongering tack:
The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument.
In these intensely partisan times, Boehlert's voice is a rare but essential one. He helps underscore the fact that there are still many Republicans who want to have science and reason lead the way when it comes to dealing with our entwined climate and energy problems. Clean energy isn't a partisan issue. And when it comes to the reality of climate change, we can't afford to distort the debate with false information.
There's a better way-and Boehlert outlines it. Let's hope his Op-ed is widely read during this time of congressional transition.
Quite frankly, there is not much of a choice here: if you don't vote, you will condemn us to changes in our country that will be hard to live with and harder to overcome in the future.
For instance, Republican Senate candidates Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Rand Paul in Kentucky, John Raese in West Virginia, and Dino Rossi in Washington have all pledged to roll back or eliminate the minimum wage.
Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado, and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania have all talked about privatizing Social Security - or eliminating it altogether.
Alaska's election could, plausibly, be a determining factor on the nation's (and the globe's) path forward toward (or away from) a clean-energy future.
"Waiting for Superman" (WfS), the much hyped movie on Education reform, is directed by Davis Guggenheim, who also directed "Inconvenient Truth". Guess who produced it? Details below fold.
At present, oil saturates the Gulf Stream. An official six-month cessation of permits for new drilling did not actually affect the industry or government decisions. Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead. To explain such an authorization and waiver, the Department of the Interior and the Minerals Management Services Division which regulates drilling, pointed to public statements by Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar. He did not intend to forbid all first cuts in the Earth's crust. Absolutely not. The Federal Government approved wells off the coast of Louisiana in June. Regardless of the day, or realities that are anathema to our citizenry, little has truly changed. Today, just as in yesteryear, we, the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union, polishpolicies to appear as though our civilization would wish to protect and defend all beings, equally.
The following is a letter forwarded to me by Jeff Bennett, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa. Jeff participated in our call to action yesterday and is also an author of a book on this topic, Banning Queer Blood: Rhetorics of Citizenship, Contagion, and Resistance, and he provides a very extensive science-oriented perspective here. It is also posted here.
If you have not already done so, please submit a public comment to jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov, and urge that the ban be revised to improve the nation's health, meet sound scientific practices, and eliminate discrimination. You can view talking points and a form letter for your convenience in my post here.
Dear Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability,
I am writing to encourage the committee to suspend the blood donor deferral policies currently mandated against gay and bisexual men. In a 2009 book-length study of the policy, I found that the measure is built on a foundation of specious and outdated evidence that situates gay and bisexual donors as more diseased and dangerous than their heterosexual counterparts. The arguments employed to sustain the ban emphasize infectious conditions that pose these donors as threats, overlooking the productive role that gay and bisexual men play in the citizenry. In this brief statement, I would like to highlight some important points for considering the alleged risks posed by gay and bisexual men, the evidentiary fallacies justifying the current policy, and the future problems should the ban not be overturned.
First, the committee should consider evidence that positions gay and bisexual men as citizens and blood donors above all other variables. Procedures for deliberating this subject have tended to assume a priori that these donors are an inherent danger. By refocusing attention on these men as donors, the advantages of including gay and bisexual men in the process of giving blood would become immediately transparent. As the committee knows, blood donors, and especially repeat blood donors, have characteristics that set them apart from the rest of society. Repeat blood donors are more health conscious, tend to be low-risk takers, and much evidence suggests their altruistic nature. Sadly, in the FDA's Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) deliberations about gay and bisexual blood donors, no consideration is ever offered to this most central characteristic. In my own work, I interviewed a number of gay men who regularly "pass" as straight to donate blood under the current regulations. All of the men who denied their sexual orientation did so for altruistic reasons that were motivated by obligations relatable to all people: they had received blood as a child, they had fond memories of giving blood as a family ritual at Thanksgiving, they had a parent who was a repeat donor, they were distraught in the wake of a national disaster. Yet, in all my research, I never found a single government deliberation where citizenship and personal sacrifice were given consideration over gross generalizations of recklessness and disease. The motivating feature of these policy deliberations should focus on individuals as donors first and other demographic traits second. Doing so would significantly shift understandings of these donors and the benefits that might follow.
Shifting the focus to give more attention to gay and bisexual men as altruistic citizen-donors seems especially urgent in light of past discussions. Even a cursory glance at the deliberations about gay donors reveals that the current policy is built on a foundation of suspect evidence. In my analysis of transcripts from the BPAC I found that much of the data used to scrutinize gay and bisexual populations came from questionable studies that collected information from bars, STD clinics, and "various street locations" (the language used in one of the meetings). STD clinical data seemed especially egregious because it foregrounds disease and then made deductions about all gay men. The steadfast articulation of gay men with affliction surfaced time and again, even when it was not pertinent to the measure in question. Discussion of HHV-8 during BPAC meetings illustrates this point well. HHV-8, as many officials noted during those forums, is not transmissible through blood transfusions and is generally associated with HIV-positive populations, not all gay and bisexual men. Indeed, the committee never gave close attention to men who are health conscious, monogamous, and who engage in safer sex practices. The benefit that would be derived from such consideration is clear. A report from the Williams Institute indicated recently that lifting the ban could add another 219,000 pints of blood to the national supply.
Finally, and equally important, because of these generalizations young people are increasingly turning away from becoming repeat donors. Younger people are connecting this important communal ritual with discrimination, potentially turning a generation of repeat donors, gay and straight alike, into ambivalent citizens. This generation, which is more accepting of LGBT people than any in history, are poised to continue resisting any discriminatory policy. There have been protests at universities, colleges, and high schools across the country and this issue will only gain further momentum if current policy trends continue. A recent Facebook page dedicated to this issue attracted over three thousand members in just over a month. To help restore the faith young people have in this vital community practice, the committee should move to treat particular sexual risks with deferrals for all people regardless of sexual orientation. A one-year or five-year deferral exclusively directed at men who have sex with men will only exacerbate the problematic nature of this policy, essentially telling all donors that our science is fundamentally flawed and that gay and bisexual men can never really be trusted. Three years ago it was discovered that the number of people eligible to give blood in this country had been over-estimated by 66 million donors. As a country, we simply cannot afford to lose new repeat donors because of a misguided policy that harbors outdated stereotypes of gay and bisexual men.
The American Red Cross, which collects about half of the blood in this country, receives donations from approximately 22,000 people everyday. And each of them, regardless of race, sex, religion, age, or sexuality, is confronted with a question that positions gay and bisexual men as contagions. While it is impossible to know how each person individually reacts, it must surely give pause to many. I hope the committee alleviates this stigmatizing discourse by revoking the policy, keeping in mind the sound testing measures we now have in place and the potential to collect blood from additional repeat donors.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please, feel welcome to contact me for further discussion or information.
Jeffrey A. Bennett, Ph.D.
Author of Banning Queer Blood: Rhetorics of Citizenship, Contagion, and Resistance. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2009.
Today, the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability is kicking off a two-day meeting to reconsider the FDA ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men (MSM). The current policy has been in place since 1985 when no HIV testing was available and little was known about HIV/AIDS. Since then, while many policies towards blood donations have changed, and HIV testing has significantly advanced to the point where a permanent ban no longer makes sense, the ban still remains in place. The ban is also discriminatory in that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men because it does not distinguish between high-risk and low-risk MSM, banning potential MSM donors who are HIV-negative and consistently practice safe sex or are in long-term monogamous relationships, while others with a significantly higher risk of HIV infection are subject to less restrictive deferrals or none at all. The ban also contributes to a dangerously and chronically low blood supply in a country in which approximately just 5% of all eligible donors give.
The NYC and DC City Councils have recently passed resolutions by votes of 42-1 and 13-0, respectively, urging a revision of the ban. Sen. Kerry and 17 other Democratic Senators urged the same in a letter to the FDA. Today, we are asking that you join their voices in calling for a more sensible policy.
Dr. Jerry Holmberg is the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Committee, and is tasked with accepting formal public comments from both organizations and individuals. He has made his e-mail available for this purpose. Please take a minute to e-mail Dr. Holmberg via jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov and urge him and the committee to revise the ban on blood donations from MSM.
Similar to our "Release your anger!" action aimed at the FDIC on a financial penalty for banks taking excessive risks, there is an open public comment period in which the committee considers outside opinions- and an opportunity for supporters of a sensible policy to make a dent. In writing the note, you can use the facts we have listed below, a form letter we've put together at the bottom of this list post that summarizes the rationale for ending the ban, a personal note- or all of the above! My close friend was just diagnosed with a very serious type of leukemia. She has received half a dozen whole blood transfusions and several platelets transfusions. I am a healthy, HIV-negative, type O negative individual who has previously donated and who meets all additional critera for donating. I want to give, but this policy senselessly won't let me. I just e-mailed Dr. Holmberg with that message and other sound reasons.
Please take a minute to do the same, and drop Dr. Holmberg and the Committee an e-mail at jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov. Urge a revision of the policy that incorporates sound medical, scientific, and non-discriminatory guidelines.
The additional reasons you can cite are below.
Newer tests have shortened the window period in which HIV is undetectable to between 9 and 11 days. A permanent, lifetime ban is outdated and no longer makes sense.
The U.S. blood supply is frequently at critically low levels. Less than 5% of all eligible donors give, while donation recipients include mothers delivering babies, trauma victims, cancer patients, transplant patients and others. The respected Williams Institute estimates that lifting the ban would result in an estimated 130,150 additional donors who are likely to donate 219,000 additional pints of blood each year, while shortening deferral to one year would result in 53,269 additional men who are likely to donate 89,716 pints each year.
The ban is a form of discrimination by unfairly targeting men who have sex with men, or effectively the gay and bisexual community. A permanent, blanket ban is instituted on any male who has had sex with another male even once since 1977 and without regard for his partner's HIV status nor for frequency, safe sex practices, or duration since. Yet if one has sex with an opposite-sex partner who is knowingly HIV-positive, he or she can give again in a year. This is discrimination and it is wrong.
Other countries like Australia, Japan, Sweden and Russia have either revised or completely lifted the deferral period, while Italy, Spain and France screen donors based on risk rather than a blanket ban on a community.
The American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, American Association of Blood Banks, American Medical Association, and a coalition of nearly fifty other organizations all support a revision of the ban.
You can use these reasons in combination with your own personal ones, or the form letter in the extended entry. Please submit a public comment via jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov, and urge that the ban be revised to improve the nation's health, meet sound scientific practices, and eliminate discrimination. Thanks for helping improve the nation's health and eliminating another form of discrimination.
Next week, the FDA, which oversees policy relating to donor eligibility to donate blood, will meet to consider revising the ban on men who have sex with men (MSM) giving blood. The ban has been in place since 1986 in an era of fear around HIV infection spread through the national blood supply coupled with the lack of sound testing mechanisms as well as treatment.
Since then, the medical community has moved significantly in both testing, diagnosis and treatment. Specifically, testing is now available that allows for a significantly shorter window period when HIV is undetectable of approximately 9 to 11 days. Yet still, a lifetime ban still is slapped on anyone who has had sex, even once, with another man since 1977, and it doesn't even matter whether or not the individual was HIV-positive or negative. The lifetime ban obviously applies significantly to the the population of self-identified gay men, not to mention other individuals who are heterosexuals and experimented once (say, in college), identify as bisexual or questioning, and so forth. But if you're a heterosexual who has had sex with another knowingly HIV-positive person, you get a one-year deferral, and then can donate again.
The law makes zero sense and has been something that has angered me for a long time. My grandfather received many blood transfusions and donating in the memory of people like him who need help has always motivated me. I am O negative and the Red Cross keeps calling me to ask me to give, and each time my anger at being forced to decline grows. I want to give, as do many, many other people. This has advanced to a point where it is not only bad science and discrimination, but damaging to the nation's medical health. You always read and hear about blood supply being critically low, and it's true. Less than 5% of all eligible donors in the United States give. Blood donation recipients include mothers delivering babies, trauma victims, cancer patients, transplant patients, and more. Other countries like Sweden, Argentina, Australia and Japan have either revised or completely lifted the ban, while Italy, Spain and France screen donors based on risk rather than a blanket ban on a community.
The FDA last met in 2006 to look at revising the policy and did not take action. The American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, American Association of Blood Banks and the American Medical Association all support a revised policy. It's time to revise the ban in favor of a sound, science-based, non-discriminatory policy that is both medically warranted and just.
Today, I'm happy to say DC Councilmember David Catania led passage of a resolution in favor of such a revision. It passed unanimously, and follows the NYC Council recently passing a similar resolution by a vote of 42-1. You can read the text of the resolution in the extended entry. OpenLeft will also be rolling out an action you can take to help revise the ban.
A Sunday Washington Post editorial asks why liberals are so damn condescending. Seriously:
Why are liberals so condescending?
By Gerard Alexander
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.
But really, why shouldn't liberals should be condescending, and committed to the proposition that their views are based in fact and reason? The people most committed to basing their views on facts and reason, and whose efforts have achieved a standard of living that finally broke humanity out of millennia with an average life expectancy of 30 and the constant threat of starvation, are liberals. In this case, I am referring to scientists:
Less than 10% of scientists consider themselves Republicans or conservatives. Why shouldn't liberals consider their positions to be based on fact and reason, and see conservative views as largely illegitimate?
And the public largely praises the efforts of scientists, too. Only 6% of Americans think science has had a negative effect on society.
Science is both the most popular, and the least conservative, institution in America. What the public doesn't know is that a very small percentage of scientists consider themselves to be conservatives. But, it is something that should be pointed out whenever conservatives whine about how condescending and "fact-based" liberal positions are. Without liberals, and their emphasis on science, reason and facts, conservatives couldn't even use things like the internet, or even television, to continue their whining. They would still be stuck in the frakking middle ages, which is maybe what they wanted all along.
Today, Americans are engrossed in earthquake coverage. The tremor in Haiti bought unimaginable death and destruction just south of our borders. Events related to the recovery and rescues emerge as banner headlines. Haitians Seek Solace Amid the Ruins. For a week now, the struggle to survive, revive the injured, and retrieve the bodies strewn on the streets of Port-au-Prince was also the central theme of most every broadcast. In the midst of the misery, many Americans, felt desperate for a reprieve from the devastation that emotionally drained them. Millions took time to escape in a welcome distraction. Sassy, former Governor and Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin Made Her Debut appearance on Fox. Tomorrow another reality will replace these stories, just as each superseded the hoopla over Harry Reid's reference to race. Metaphorically, the tales provide persons, policies, and, or practices fifteen minutes of fame. In actuality, these fade from our mind quickly.
We're diving deep into "geek world" today with a story that combines economic hardball, the periodic table of the elements, and a barely noticed provision of the Defense Authorization Act that seeks to break a monopoly which today gives China near-absolute control over the materials that make cell phones, electric cars, wind turbines, and pretty much every other tool of modern life possible.
If we successfully break the monopoly, we'll be able to create millions of new manufacturing jobs in this country-and if we don't, somebody else owns the 21st Century.
Ironically, the global warming we're trying to fight with new green technologies might be an ally in our efforts to make those very same green technologies happen.
There's a revolution in industrial processing going on, rare earths are at the center of it all...and in today's story, the revolution will be televised.
Forty years ago this week an event occurred that changed the history of mankind forever.
An event so monumental that the memory lingers on, even though the venue where the event took place has been, shall we say, "repurposed".
But we're not here to talk about the time that Minnesota Twins Manager Billy Martin appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
Instead, let's talk space.
NASA is forever trying to interest the world in space exploration...and forever struggling to come up with the money to get things done.
Well, I'm not a scientist, nor an engineer, and I don't assemble rocket vehicles...but I am a fake consultant, and if NASA took my advice, I'd bet my fake paycheck that money would be a lot less of a problem.
Conyers sponsoring "bizarre", wasteful legislation (metamars) Thanks for posting this metamars!
Lawrence Lessig, of Change Congress, reports:
Right now, there's a bizarre proposal in Congress to forbid the government from requiring scientists who receive taxpayer funds for medical research to publish their findings openly on the Internet. This ban on "open access publishing" (which is currently required) would result in a lot of government-funded research being published exclusively in for-profit journals -- inaccessible to the general public.
This is not a simple issue. As a university professor (but not in medicine), my thoughts follow.
We're worried about the potential for massive unemployment, right? Most estimates put it at 8% unemployment next year, with more dire predictions pegging it at up to 15%.
The problem of unemployment might be especially bad among young people, many of whom have no experience or past skills to market, just potential. Worse still, with unemployment comes crime.
That's why I propose as part of stimulus that the federal government make community college enrollment free for the next 2 years and subsidize state universities; in exchange we ask these schools to increase enrollments and create buzz in their local communities spurring students to go to college to get an AA or BS or MS degree.
STATE BLOGS
