Obama: My Administration Will Value "Science" And "Facts"
It's been pointed out dozens of times that it's pretty cool to have an adult coming in as president, and today's Obama press conference -- now underway -- is a case in point.
At the presser, Obama made his "green team" official: Steven Chu, a physics Nobel laureate, is his new energy secretary. Carol Browner, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is the head of a new policy council to coordinate climate, environment and energy issues. And Lisa Jackson, the chief of staff for New Jersey's governor, is head of the EPA.
"My administration will value science," Obama said, in what sounded like a pointed reference to his predecessor. "We will make decisions based on facts."
Obama went on to describe combating global warming as "a leading priority of my presidency and a defining test of our time."
The glowing praise from liberals of Chu would seem to constitute yet another blow to the "angry left" meme. More broadly, Obama's lines today will encapsulate for liberals as strongly as anything Obama has said just how big the potential of the moment feels right now, since the previous administration's disdain for "science" and "facts" contributed perhaps as much as anything else to the nightmarish quality the last eight years held for them.
Hey, I think I finally spotted a few of that rare species. They were reading The Nation...
December 15, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are plenty who post on FDL and even some on KOS. It's interesting to contrast folks actually debating the relative merits of Obama's choices with those debating the existence of those debating the merits of Obama's nominees.
December 15, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the saying goes, there are two kinds of people in the world, those who think in dichotomies, and those who don't.
We have a two party system. of course 'both sides' get a share of angry/uninformed screamers.
I'd say the difference lays in the institutions Obama promotes, as opposed to Bush, are rooted in reason and scientific pragmatism, having the intellectual muscle to tackle difficult issues. And i don't mean buzzword "science" where anybody with a haughty voice and a grant claims to have "scientific proof." I don't mean rotary clubs like like AEI. I mean actual science, rigorous, empiric, peer reviewed, consensus.
The Republican party has for some decades moved towards anti-intellectual rhetoric and the worst sort of populism. From racism and xenophobia, to fundamentalism, to Utopian ponzi-esq economics based in a sort of macho anti-social anarchism for people who have difficulty understanding complex systems. Then various tools are tenured to regurgitate dogma.
So, it's not really surprising the GOP has imploded and reasonable Republicans are both embarrassed and dispirited. Their surprise is the real failure. Republican politics over the last few decades are akin to strip mining, you don't expect it to last.
Nor is it surprising Dems also have some goof ball supporters who happen to lean left. Though, unlike earlier eras such as the 60's, there isn't widespread support for radicalism for radicalism sake.
There will be "adult" decisions made by this admin that some on the fringes won't get. That's fine and normal. Obama clearly knows how to manage that.
What's also predictable is that Republicans will continue to try and provoke the left fringes hoping to send Obama chasing his tail. That's also fine, and necessary for them to rally their base and avoid facing the difficult challenges ahead of them. Though, it's ultimately wasted time and neglecting their own tough decisions.
The only question is: will it take one two, or three terms of Progressive Democratic Administrations and dominance of congress before Republicans are able to change course, extremely painfully, throwing a lot of dead weight overboard, and find their own version of Progressiveness.
December 15, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much. This is most cogent viewpoint I've heard to date regarding the "angry left" meme and the miserable morass of meta we've been stuck in for about a month now.
Simply brilliant.
December 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put. Thank you.
aka borrow-and-spend
December 16, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put. The "up is down", "black is white", "we don't need no steenkin' facts", "intellectuals look down on the rest of American and aren't really American"...all of this contributed to a sense of surrealism that lurked just outside of consciousness for me. And now it's gone.
But enough of that. When is Obama going to come clean, really clean, about his contacts with the Wild Wild Hair of the Midwest, anyway???!!!
December 15, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
O god, me too. It was very surreal in this country for the last 8 years. And it just got more and more like a fucking Kafka novel every year.
I don't really appreciate Kafka - reading him makes me just as claustrophobic as these last 8 years in America have made me.
December 15, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than just eight years. Seems like Ronald RayGunz really got that ball rolling. Sound about right?
December 15, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you are actually. We went from Reagan to Poppy, who among his other claims to infamy, was head of the CIA and I don't really like that idea one bit - the head of the CIA in the White House. And then you know the rest - with Clinton in office, the Endless Repug Dirty Tricks Machine cranked it out - so the respite we got was only sorta.
For me, the nadir was '04. I was devastated at the loss of the election - I felt like the government was really going to be dangerous and I was actually afraid. I still cannot believe, given how I grew up, that I was for awhile profoundly afraid of my government.
December 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait...you mean acid rain DOESN'T come from trees??
December 15, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the words of Homer Simpson, apparently channeling President Bush:
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's remotely true."
December 15, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{SWOOOOOOON}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
December 15, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The current administration didn't have a disdain for science and facts, but rather Democratic / liberal science and Democratic / liberal facts. I remember hearing someone on NPR Science Friday actually state with sincerity that there was Democratic science and a Republican science.
December 15, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever happened to good old U.S. of A. science?
December 15, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it wandered off sometime during the Cold War.
December 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you want science when we're sitting on the world's largest supply of Jesus magic?
December 15, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!!!!!!
December 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
naw, everybody knows international science is run by a lot of commies and they've infiltrated chardonnay and latte drinking liberal university US science to the point where it's all a big front for the UN to take away our guns and make us drive volvos with our seatbelts on while our children study godless marxism taught by gay social workers in french.
Thanks God for Bob Jones University.
I'm confident their debating team will WIN the whole science argument and put those pencil neck liberals in their place soon as they get a science department to reveal the REAL facts.
December 15, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's impossible to be disdainful about "Democratic science" without being completely and utterly dismissive of science.
December 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the first tenet of Republican science is to be completely and utterly dismissive of science and facts.
December 15, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there really Republican science, other than saying "Global warming my ass!" on cold winter days?
December 15, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all seriousness, there is suppose to be just science.
From a letter by John Dilulio, who resigned from the position of Bush's first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. What he said about the Bush administration in general hits the nail on the head about what they tried to do (and succeeded in many cases) with science:
December 15, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What got me the most, acamus, was when it got out that he had appointed "minders" for leading scientists to keep them from going off the government line on issues like global warming. That's straight up old school USSR shit. I had it drilled into my head in grade school how evil the USSR were for doing just exactly the same thing, among other things. And some of those other things Bush has done, as well.
Commander CooCoo and Cheney went very Old School. I just couldn't believe what was happening in my country. I still can't.
December 15, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was as if they applied the line "we have to destroy the village in order to save the village" to our country. And how we seemed to be drifting toward something more similiar to the USSR, with its KGB: destroy our freedoms so that we can save our freedoms. And we couldn't let science get in the way, especially when it meant the difference between turning a profit or not.
December 15, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nightmarish, indeed.
December 15, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of the Patrick Moynahan (I think) quote: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts."
Republicans do not understand the fundamental difference between "opinion" and "fact". The way they are anti-science, you'd think we were living in the Middle Ages, not the 21st century.
December 15, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
John King on CNN just announced that he got an email from Fitgerald's team corraborating that they asked the Obama team not to release their findings for another week.
Glad to see that Fitzgerald corraborated this.
December 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And kudos to John King if he actually, you know, contacted Fitzgerald rather than the endless speculating that goes on.
December 15, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If John King actually did commit journalism, I think we should call it "pulling a Sargent", after Greg.
December 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL- I likes it very much indeed, C T.
I second that.
December 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. indeed.
December 15, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is Fitzgerald's statement:
"United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed the request in a statement, saying the extra time will allow his office to "conduct certain interviews."
December 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well duh!
Did anyone who doubted this talk to anyone with experience with federal criminal proceedings? Or any legal proceedings, really. The lawyers want to see everything before anyone else sees it. This is evidence in Fitzgerald's case - he needs to know what is in the report, first of all.
December 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Smith says that all he knows is that the week of Christmas is where news goes to die, so I'd say it's obvious that Fitzgerald is in cahoots with either the Wild Hair of the Midwest or with Obama.
Or with someone.
December 15, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or with everyone (cue the sinister music)
December 15, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFL!
You mean - Blago Paygo?
December 15, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Governor Spellcheck?
December 16, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blagola?
December 16, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like Arne Duncan for Education and Ken Salazar for Interior.
I'm surprised the latter would give up his spot in the Senate for the role.
December 15, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Salazar may not have liked the Senate much. Remember, Obama didn't really love the Seante either.
December 15, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either way, one less blue dog Senator to join Bayh's cabal.
Salazar is also outspoken about protecting Colorado's water from bulk transport to the desert States. I assume this issue would fall under the Interior as well? Bulk water transfer is going to be a big issue within the next eight years - Obama being a Great Lakes resident and Senator will understand it's importance as well.
December 15, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Great Lakes Compact was signed and ratified this year. That's off the table now.
If not, the line of people waiting to dynamite the pipelines would have stretched all the way to Arizona, don't you think?
December 16, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
A key advocate group for sound science, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has come out strongly against the appointment of Lisa Jackson:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1136
"WHY LISA JACKSON SHOULD NOT RUN EPA — Disastrous Record in New Jersey Bodes Ill for Reforming EPA"
It will be interesting to see if administrators (from e.g. FWS) who were rewarded with promotions after firing bad science whistle-blowers during the Bush administration will see any consequences after Obama's agency heads replace Bush's.
December 15, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Ms. Takamoto blinded Pres.-elect Obama with science - and hit him with technology.
Cheers to Thomas Dolby.
December 15, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been in science a very long time. I would like more specifics as to why you think this administration disdains science. As to saying facts are facts and prove points....not necessarily so. I can correlate almost anything to what I want if I mishandle the facts. How the facts are analyzed is the critical issue and inappropriate analysis of data is a killer to scientific publication. Always look at how the facts are handled scientifically. There are always opposing hypothesis to a question. Study them. Nature is conservative.....start from there.
December 16, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're involved in biology or chemistry that involves toxins, you shouldn't have to ask. For starters, Google "Julie MacDonald" and that will pretty much show the attitude of the administration to science.
FWIW, I'm a scientist as well, and have dealt with USFWS on endangered species issues, including those that MacDonald interfered with.
December 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did Google MacDonald. It would appear that there are, as usual, differing opinions as to her culpability but the Supreme Court had their own say. This situation is certainly not anything that would cause me to say the administration is anti science. That is nonsense. I have had experience with environmental science vs other areas of science. As I said, nature is conservative but that certainly does not mean that nature seeks to conserve all species but that nature tends to do that which supports the course that conserves the system.
December 16, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are a scientist then you also know that species have been going extinct since the beginning of life on our planet. It is the nature of life. Would you like the dinosaurs back? Certainly, we need to respect all life and not assist the extinction of any species that contributes positively to life. I don't think I would favor protecting the existence of some of our micro-organismal species that are so devasting. Truly, all species are endangered in the scheme of life on this earth. We each face our turn. Efforts to preserve must be measured carefully. Scientific research is monitored by peer review. If my research proposal is not deemed by my peers to be substantitive and scientifically sound, I don't get the funds to carry it out. I can't blame any administration for that.
December 16, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, you don't sound very much like a scientist. What's your field?
The thing is, there's a difference between change that happens over a million-year time scale and when that same change happens over a hundred-year time scale. Sure, species have been going extinct since the beginning of life on our planet, and it's a necessary part of our ecosystem. However, the rate of extinctions has drastically increased in the last 100 years.
Besides, it's not just the endangered species bit of science that the Republicans have attacked. They've also made a mockery of global warming, never quite sure whether they believe in it or not, depending on who their audience is, but always willing to make sure that federal scientists don't say too much that makes it clear it's real. Heck, many Republicans (e.g., Sarah Palin) like to attack evolution itself.
Here's something for you to read:
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php
December 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Molecular biology became my field. Originally, my interest was bioecology.
The rate of change escalates with the increase in civilizatiion and development to be sure. Again, a natural part of life. We cannot save every species nor should we. As far as global warming is concerned, I don't think anyone, Republican or Democratic alike denies global warming.....or cooling, again a natural part of life on this planet. The question is how much man has contributed. Given the very small percentage of the earth surface inhabited by man.....that's a big question none of us can yet answer. I have indeed read all the pros and cons of the argument in actual scientific papers. Not even the scientists agree so how do you expect everyone else to agree. While I don't agree with those who attack evolution I defend their right to do so. For those who argue against it on religious grounds, I would quote Genesis.....Genesis clearly outlines the orderly appearance on earth of organisms in the same sequence that science today knows. How did the writers (actually oral history) know thousands of years ago?
I can't blame Republicans or Democrates for the questions we face and it requires honest research and debate, not one sided debate. Not to criticfally examine all sides would be like setting up an experiment with bias built into it. Not valid.
We need to listen to each other, not build walls. The Republicans are no more anti science than anyone else. There are elements in both parties.
December 17, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Molecular biology became my field. Originally, my interest was bioecology.
The rate of change escalates with the increase in civilizatiion and development to be sure. Again, a natural part of life. We cannot save every species nor should we. As far as global warming is concerned, I don't think anyone, Republican or Democratic alike denies global warming.....or cooling, again a natural part of life on this planet. The question is how much man has contributed. Given the very small percentage of the earth's surface inhabited by man.....that's a big question none of us can yet answer. I have indeed read all the pros and cons of the argument in actual scientific papers. Not even the scientists agree so how do you expect everyone else to agree. While I don't agree with those who attack evolution I defend their right to do so. For those who argue against it on religious grounds, I would quote Genesis.....Genesis clearly outlines the orderly appearance on earth of organisms in the same sequence that science today knows. How did the writers (actually oral history) know thousands of years ago?
I can't blame Republicans or Democrates for the questions we face and it requires honest research and debate, not one sided debate. Not to critically examine all sides would be like setting up an experiment with bias built into it. Not valid.
We need to listen to each other, not build walls. The Republicans are no more anti science than anyone else. There are elements in both parties.
December 17, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Molecular biology became my field. Originally, my interest was bioecology.
The rate of change escalates with the increase in civilizatiion and development to be sure. Again, a natural part of life. We cannot save every species nor should we. As far as global warming is concerned, I don't think anyone, Republican or Democratic alike denies global warming.....or cooling, again a natural part of life on this planet. The question is how much man has contributed. Given the very small percentage of the earth's surface inhabited by man.....that's a big question none of us can yet answer. I have indeed read all the pros and cons of the argument in actual scientific papers. Not even the scientists agree so how do you expect everyone else to agree. While I don't agree with those who attack evolution I defend their right to do so. For those who argue against it on religious grounds, I would quote Genesis.....Genesis clearly outlines the orderly appearance on earth of organisms in the same sequence that science today knows. How did the writers (actually oral history) know thousands of years ago?
I can't blame Republicans or Democrates for the questions we face and it requires honest research and debate, not one sided debate. Not to critically examine all sides would be like setting up an experiment with bias built into it. Not valid.
We need to listen to each other, not build walls. The Republicans are no more anti science than anyone else. There are elements in both. My colleagues whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent seem to be able to hotly debate the issues yet still maintain respect for each others views. That is what America is about.
December 17, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Molecular biology became my field. Originally, my interest was bioecology.
The rate of change escalates with the increase in civilizatiion and development to be sure. Again, a natural part of life. We cannot save every species nor should we. As far as global warming is concerned, I don't think anyone, Republican or Democratic alike denies global warming.....or cooling, again a natural part of life on this planet. The question is how much man has contributed. Given the very small percentage of the earth's surface inhabited by man.....that's a big question none of us can yet answer. I have indeed read all the pros and cons of the argument in actual scientific papers. Not even the scientists agree so how do you expect everyone else to agree. While I don't agree with those who attack evolution I defend their right to do so. For those who argue against it on religious grounds, I would quote Genesis.....Genesis clearly outlines the orderly appearance on earth of organisms in the same sequence that science today knows. How did the writers (actually oral history) know thousands of years ago?
I can't blame Republicans or Democrates for the questions we face and it requires honest research and debate, not one sided debate. Not to critically examine all sides would be like setting up an experiment with bias built into it. Not valid.
We need to listen to each other, not build walls. The Republicans are no more anti science than anyone else. There are elements in both. My colleagues whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent seem to be able to hotly debate the issues yet still maintain respect for each others views. That is what America is about.
December 17, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Molecular biology became my field. Originally, my interest was bioecology.
The rate of change escalates with the increase in civilizatiion and development to be sure. Again, a natural part of life. We cannot save every species nor should we. As far as global warming is concerned, I don't think anyone, Republican or Democratic alike denies global warming.....or cooling, again a natural part of life on this planet. The question is how much man has contributed. Given the very small percentage of the earth's surface inhabited by man.....that's a big question none of us can yet answer. I have indeed read all the pros and cons of the argument in actual scientific papers. Not even the scientists agree so how do you expect everyone else to agree. While I don't agree with those who attack evolution I defend their right to do so. For those who argue against it on religious grounds, I would quote Genesis.....Genesis clearly outlines the orderly appearance on earth of organisms in the same sequence that science today knows. How did the writers (actually oral history) know thousands of years ago?
I can't blame Republicans or Democrates for the questions we face and it requires honest research and debate, not one sided debate. Not to critically examine all sides would be like setting up an experiment with bias built into it. Not valid.
We need to listen to each other, not build walls. The Republicans are no more anti science than anyone else. There are elements in both. My colleagues whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent seem to be able to hotly debate the issues yet still maintain respect for each others views. That is what America is about.
December 17, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Molecular biology became my field. Originally, my interest was bioecology.
The rate of change escalates with the increase in civilizatiion and development to be sure. Again, a natural part of life. We cannot save every species nor should we. As far as global warming is concerned, I don't think anyone, Republican or Democratic alike denies global warming.....or cooling, again a natural part of life on this planet. The question is how much man has contributed. Given the very small percentage of the earth's surface inhabited by man.....that's a big question none of us can yet answer. I have indeed read all the pros and cons of the argument in actual scientific papers. Not even the scientists agree so how do you expect everyone else to agree. While I don't agree with those who attack evolution I defend their right to do so. For those who argue against it on religious grounds, I would quote Genesis.....Genesis clearly outlines the orderly appearance on earth of organisms in the same sequence that science today knows. How did the writers (actually oral history) know thousands of years ago?
I can't blame Republicans or Democrates for the questions we face and it requires honest research and debate, not one sided debate. Not to critically examine all sides would be like setting up an experiment with bias built into it. Not valid.
We need to listen to each other, not build walls. The Republicans are no more anti science than anyone else. There are elements in both. My colleagues whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent seem to be able to hotly debate the issues yet still maintain respect for each others views. That is what America is about.
December 17, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those two sentences contradict each other, unless you're going with the idea that civilization is "a natural part of life", which is arguable semantically, but very unhelpful practically, as any definition which would include that would include everything as a natural part of life.
Again, it's about rate of change. Since humans have existed, the current rate of change in global temperatures is unsurpassed. Not only have climatologists reached almost complete agreement about our culpability in this, they've been predicting this (a good hallmark of science) since the '70s. (In case you're going to pull out the global cooling canard, no one outside of Newsweek and Time were touting it. They are not scientific journals.)
As long as they don't try to pass it off as science, I have no problem with people believing in Creationism.
The key word is honest. Read that book I provided you an excerpt of earlier. You'll note that key Republican leaders have been dishonestly altering or hiding the results of science in order to further their agendas. Sure, there are Democrats who do this as well, but not in key leadership positions, and not as consistently.
I will not respect the scientific views of someone who subverts the scientific process.
Note: I am not saying this is a reason to leave the Republican party. It is, however, a reason to hold your leaders' feet to the fire if you are a member of the Republican party. It is also something for Democrats to guard against happening in their party.
December 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Life is life natural or otherwise. I see no helpfulness in arguing semantics and what is helpful to one may not be so for another.
Of course all processes are about rates. The literature I have read, and it is not Time, but as I said articles from peer reviewed journals, indicates that certainly there is not agreement among scientist about global warming or cooling. I believe I know about scientific journals, having published fairly extensively. And as a reviewer I have seen a lot of trying to pass off poor research as good science. Lots of me too, jump on the band wagon research.
I did read at least part of what you suggested, enough to recognize the biased nature of it. Try reading a bit more broadly. Look at all sides. I suspect I have been around and observed this earth quite a bit longer than you. One learns we don't know half as much as we think we do. Just about the time we think we have it all figured out....we find out something new that just starts it all over again. Makes life interesting.
And who decides whether someone is subverting the scientific process?
You said a key word, respect. Respect other people and their views. You don't have to agree with them. That is one of the things I find most disturbing in todays world, the lack of respect for other people.
I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. There should be a pragmatist party. I look at the issue, the future impact of the issues, and the current facts on the gound. And I hold both parties feet to the fire. At least in my own mind and sometimes in letters to my congressmen.
December 17, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also have published fairly extensively, which is one reason I'm able to recognize that there is far more consensus on global warming than there is on virtually every other aspect of climatology. Of course there are a few climatologists who disagree (depending on what you mean by disagree, I can think of exactly two, but even they are not in complete disagreement), but if you go to the scientific literature, you'll find an overwhelming consensus. Pick one respected climatology journal, from any month, that does not show such a consensus, and then you'll have a leg to stand on when arguing that the consensus does not exist. Just one journal is all I require.
Of course it is biased, but it is also well sourced. As my field is science, and not politics, I was only vaguely aware of much of what they brought up. I was then able to find other, less biased, sources that backed up what they said. I suggest that you read more broadly.
What does that mean to you, "respect … their views"? Does that mean allowing them to silence scientists who disagree with them? That's not respect, that's cowardice.
Good for you, but I think perhaps you're not holding the Republican party as accountable as you should (even in your own mind, and I'll admit that I also do far more in my own mind politically than I do elsewhere) if you're not aware of all of the stuff they've pulled. The Democratic party has disappointed me on numerous occasions, and I'm not a member of it, but at least they still can disappoint me. At this point, the Republican party just can't do that any more. I've come to expect things like the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act (which "recovered" species by taking them off the threatened and/or endangered species list) from Republicans.
December 18, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
see www.explortorium.edu/climat/primer/summary/html
www.worldclimatechange.com
See opposing view response to IPCC report inm I believe "Science".
Respect never involves "silencing" other people's thoughts or opinions. I can think of a few in history who tried to do that. You parse words. Cowardice is not being willing to honestly & openly address issues whether you agree with others in the conversation or not.
It appears to me you have no tolerance for other peoples opinions if they don't agree with yours.
I'm very aware of what each party has done for a number of years. I'd say they are about even.
National and International research priorities fluctuate with world situations and needs. I can't get mad when my field receives less attention from those funding research or they don't agree with my approach. If it is my approach then I have to ask myself hard questions. If it is because of greater more urgent needs in other fields......well that's the way things go. No need to attack or make yourself miserable hating those making decisions you don't agree with. Disappointments come and go, life goes on.
December 19, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink