If I had more time during the week I would be publishing more content daily.

Anyway, here's some odds-n-odds sitting on my back-burner.

Tell Obama No to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
I like the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, however the appointment of Robert F Kennedy Jr. as head of the EPA or anything science based would be a disaster on the grounds alone that he is an anti-vaccination crank and promulgator of pseudoscience. I can only hope that President Elect Obama has not yet properly vetted this man.

Also Kennedy Jr. would just be too polarizing on these issues. We need a science guy in the White House where science informs policy, not someone playing politics with science like the Bush White House. Kennedy Jr. as head of EPA would be a bad choice. Now Gore for the EPA I think would be great, but would probably be to political of a choice.

Read more about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by Orac, over on Science Blogs.

If good, science-base policy is a concern of yours, please contact the transition team and respectfully inform them how you feel. Rejecting Kennedy over this appointment is beyond partisan politics.

My letter:

Dear President-elect Obama and team,

Robert F Kennedy Jr should not be the head of the EPA nor should he direct health policy of any kind.

President-elect Obama made the statement to Scientists and Engineers of America that he would restore "scientific integrity" to the White House and in policy.

Robert F Kennedy JR would be a step in the wrong direction for his anti-science, anti-vaccination views.

President-elect Obama, I voted for you because I believed you would follow through on that promise to the SEA.

Thank you for your time,

MC Pickard

As always, it is the job of the people to govern and be the watchdogs over politicians in a democracy.

Besides, I can not stand Kennedy's voice – however that man ever made it on radio is beyond me...

Vatican Defends Beautification of Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII, otherwise known as Hitler's Pope, is on his way to becoming a saint.

If you can rub two brain cells together, you have to wonder why they would make this move to canonize the former Pope on incomplete evidence?

The Catholic Church, lead by Pope Benedict Ratzinger - a former Hitler Youth and protector of pedophiles, is making this move to protect the Catholic Church from future and past criticism of the church's complicity in the extermination of the Jews. I can hear it now...

"Look the man is Saint  for chrissakes, I don't know what your talkin' 'bout."

On the decision, Vatican's Number 2 official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, stated that the selection is an internal affair and "a religious matter that requires respect."

Really, they are telling you to shut up.

Just because this is a religious matter, like religious beliefs, does not protect that belief or actions from criticism or ridicule.

By the way, the criticism is being lead by Jewish groups.

(Source)

Pope Meets With Muslim Scholars
In a move to patch religious division and establish understanding, the Pope met with twenty-nine religious scholars of each religion.

"We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all"

I know the discussion is between the two religions, but sorry, just because you believe that you can communicate to an invisible sky friend and wear funny robes to parade your ignorance and believe that a cracker can become Jesus' flesh after you utter magic words, or that images of Muhammad are sacrosanct, it does not mean that I have to show you respect. These are ridiculous beliefs which has caused unimaginable amounts of human misery through the centuries.

Again, ridiculous beliefs require only one answer, ridicule. Respect of your beliefs does not eclipse my freedom of thought, expression, and speech. You'll just have to live with it.

However, one thing that both Catholics and Muslims can largely agree on is that "justice for all"  does not apply to the gay and lesbian. For evidence, witness the inequality for homosexuals and women in respect to the Catholic Priesthood.

Hypocrites. Every damn one of them.

Incidentally, the Pope was correct two years ago denouncing Islam as irrational and inherently violent - but so is Christianity. I wonder why the Pope would leave that out?

(Source)

In the past past eight years, we've seen an assault on science by Republicans and by other people who are vested in denying reality in service of their financial, ideological or religious needs.

No more so than the Bush administration. They are guilty of blocking stem cell research, altering data on safe sex and abstinence programs, and an ardent suppressor of global warming data which, in turn, affects our understanding of global climate change and has drawn out every non-specialist crank in the world denying multiple lines of evidence and from a number of interrelated specialties.

These cases are well documented, and hearings by the Committee of Oversight and Government demonstrate this fact conclusively – a republican war on reality.

Science provides us with the best answers as to the nature of reality, even if those answers are provisional and open to revision with the discovery of new data, information, and testing. No other methodology can deliver the goods. Unlike revealed "wisdom" of the religious variety, science shows us the facts on the ground or in the air. The role of science in government has become increasingly crucial in policy decisions. Science must be free of interference so that an electorate may be informed as to the consequences of our actions. A democracy can not function in any other way.

Ultimately, this suppression of reliable science puts people in jeopardy.

In February 2002, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published a report Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, responding to the politicization and the manipulation of science for political or ideological ends. While Republicans are mostly implicated, there are some Democrats who are just as guilty.

With this in mind, I read with great interest a recent questionaire by the Scientists and Engineers of America (SEA) to each presidential candidate (Obama and McCain's) about their positions and policies where science is concerned. There were fourteen areas covered: innovation, climate change, energy, education, national security, pandemics and biosecurity, genetics research, stem cells, ocean health, water, space, scientific integrity, research, health.

Only Obama answered. McCain has not yet responded. Perhaps, Palin will answer for him - an avowed opponent to the science of evolution and a young earth creationist. (Alternately, there is a comparison between each candidate's views from public statements, here.)

What is really encouraging is Obama's answer on Scientific Integrity, which the Bush administration has seen fit to drag through the mud. While promising to "restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees," and to issue an Executive Order that will seek to "establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of government publications." Obama also plans to appoint a CTO - a Chief Technology Officer. It's unclear to me if this is a new cabinet position, however, the job of the CTO is to coordinate between agencies with the necessary resources and information.

If you want specifics of Obama's policies and views toward science in his administration, I urge you to read it. The page also features fact-checking by the SEA at the bottom.

A really good, informative read.

(Source)