Scientists should not use their status to give political affiliation a veneer of legitimacy, as our opinions are no more valid than truck drivers, shop assistants or lumberjacks.
Well, I hope truck drivers speak out on trucking, and so on. As scientists, we should speak out when the government handles science wrong, e.g., when an administration ignores scientific consensus for obviously political reasons, which has happened on numerous occasions with this administration.
Nature's quick blurb "Manipulation of Science" is in fact something we should all be concerned about. Yes, scientists have biases too - just as we all do - but the purpose of science is to look past preconceived notions, test them, and get at the facts, as much as is possible. So if you ask scientists to study a problem, like weather patterns, or the effectiveness of birth control methods, and then disregard the advice you get on the basis of prior, ideological/political considerations, there's something really wrong.
Sadly, the claim that Bush doesn't listen to scientists on scientific issues fits a pattern: he doesn't listen to economists on economic issues, and he doesn't listen to military professionals on military issues. I guess this is why the Republicans are selling him as "decisive", and avoiding any discussion of the actual outcomes of his decisions.
I agree with this thread about 80%. The current system of checks and balances will at least somewhat broken unless better when different parties control different branches of government. If Bush is elected, there will be a Republican lock on presidency, house, senate, and (with up to four nominations coming up) supreme court. Decisions will be made not by balancing the left and right, and ending up somewhere in the middle, but by balancing the needs of republican moderates and republican wingnuts like the ones that wrote the Taxes GOP platform. And instead of decisions between 37% and 39% taxes on the top 1%, we'll be deciding between flat taxes or national sales taxes, and debating whether or not to return to the gold standard. And who knows where we'll end up....
I think if Kerry gets in, there country will keep going forward more or less as it has - there's no way he can push an extreme liberal agenda even if he wanted too, with a republican house and senate to pull him back. If Bush is re-elected, tho, we're going to make a sharp turn right of center, and any correction will be a long time coming.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, the claim that Bush doesn't listen to scientists on scientific issues fits a pattern: he doesn't listen to economists on economic issues, and he doesn't listen to military professionals on military issues. I guess this is why the Republicans are selling him as "decisive", and avoiding any discussion of the actual outcomes of his decisions.
When you're home is invaded, I recommend coming down the stairs with a hockey mask on, wielding a small gas-powered chain saw.
I agree with this thread about 80%. The current system of checks and balances will at least somewhat broken unless better when different parties control different branches of government. If Bush is elected, there will be a Republican lock on presidency, house, senate, and (with up to four nominations coming up) supreme court. Decisions will be made not by balancing the left and right, and ending up somewhere in the middle, but by balancing the needs of republican moderates and republican wingnuts like the ones that wrote the Taxes GOP platform. And instead of decisions between 37% and 39% taxes on the top 1%, we'll be deciding between flat taxes or national sales taxes, and debating whether or not to return to the gold standard. And who knows where we'll end up.... I think if Kerry gets in, there country will keep going forward more or less as it has - there's no way he can push an extreme liberal agenda even if he wanted too, with a republican house and senate to pull him back. If Bush is re-elected, tho, we're going to make a sharp turn right of center, and any correction will be a long time coming.