How Progressive Are You?

[Berkut]

I found this article, which seems like a fairly interesting treatment of this subject:

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-5/p12.html

That is interesting.

I am not sure I buy the validity of their metric though - why would we measure spending on physics research on a per physicist level, as opposed to as a matter of total expenditure, or percentage of GDP, or percentage of the federal budget?

Interesting that it does note that the largest cold war drop came about during the Clinton years. I wonder if Vinny would refuse to vote for the Dems because of that?

[fhdz]

That is interesting.

I am not sure I buy the validity of their metric though - why would we measure spending on physics research on a per physicist level, as opposed to as a matter of total expenditure, or percentage of GDP, or percentage of the federal budget?

I dunno.  I think early in the article it mentions that science funding has essentially stayed flat but that there are now more physicists doing or trying to do research.

[Barrister]

The notion that the Republican party has been hostile to research science in terms of their funding priorities during the Bush administration is perfectly reasonable.

It may be reasonable as a point of argument or debate.  I don't think it's reasonable as a statement of fact, in that it seems quite contrary to my own knowledge and experience.

The notion that the Republican party has a strong wing fundamentally hostile to basic tenets of scientific thought (support of creationism/ intelligent design, banning stem cell research et. al.) is not spurious.

I'll give you creationism, but I think it's a cheap shot to say that opposing fetal stem cell research is "fundamentally hostile to basic tenets of scientific thought".  There are all kinds of limits placed on research for various ethical concerns.  Surely merely because you don't, say, conduct experiements on unknowing subjects doesn't mean you're opposed to the principles of science, or that if you oppose animal testing you are opposed to science.

But that's a side issue, and in any event it's also an unanswered question how much these "wings" have on the entire Republican Party.

Thus it is perfectly reasonable for someone who cares about research science to consider the Republican party broadly opposed to his interests and values.

Vinny is of course free to vote as he choses without any input or permission from us.

But it was his statement of fact that 'the republicans are opposed to science' that underlied his reasoning that many of us wanted to question.

[Iormlund]

They have enough power to be granted a VP slot in a ticket with a sick and elderly candidate to POTUS.

I don't know enough of US politics to ascertain if Palin is an exception or the rule, but the way the GOP was unwilling or unable to find someone with a biology high school education to advise her on her public addresses was quite telling.


BTW Berkut, wouldn't that increase in funding be mostly about Bush's military drive? While sometimes useful (I still think Teh Shield is stupid), I doubt it makes a whole lot of difference in basic research, which is what we're talking about.

[Berkut]

They have enough power to be granted a VP slot in a ticket with a sick and elderly candidate to POTUS.

I don't know enough of US politics to ascertain if Palin is an exception or the rule, but the way the GOP was unwilling or unable to find someone with a biology high school education to advise her on her public addresses was quite telling.


BTW Berkut, wouldn't that increase in funding be mostly about Bush's military drive? While sometimes useful (I still think Teh Shield is stupid), I doubt it makes a whole lot of difference in basic research, which is what we're talking about.

Indeed - attacking the Bush administration about the priorities they place on various types of research spending would be a rather relevant in insightful critique.

Going after them because they are "anti-intellectual" and dominated by religious zealots, and THAT is why they are not gung ho over science, however, is simply not honest - which is why Vinny got nailed for it - not because of his conclusion (although that is rather spurious as well, since science funding under Bush did not materially drop, and it dropped plenty under Clinton).

There simply is no good, factual, data driven reason to believe that the Republican party has some kind of vendetta with science research over the last decade or so. You can argue where they spend that research, of course. But then, that doesn't really fulfill the goal of the person going on about "anti-intellectualism".

[Berkut]

They have enough power to be granted a VP slot in a ticket with a sick and elderly candidate to POTUS.

Sarah Palin has no objection that I have ever heard of in regards to federal spending on science research. Her father, IIRC, was a biology teacher. I ahve never once heard her say anything about cutting spending for scientific research.

Not only is she not an exception to the rule, she isn't an exception at all, and there is no rule.

[FunkMonk]

Sarah Palin has no objection that I have ever heard of in regards to federal spending on science research. Her father, IIRC, was a biology teacher. I ahve never once heard her say anything about cutting spending for scientific research.

She had an objection to "...fruit fly research in Paris, France", though I think it was mainly on grounds that it was an "earmark".

[Berkut]

Sarah Palin has no objection that I have ever heard of in regards to federal spending on science research. Her father, IIRC, was a biology teacher. I ahve never once heard her say anything about cutting spending for scientific research.

She had an objection to "...fruit fly research in Paris, France", though I think it was mainly on grounds that it was an "earmark".

Yeah, that was a winner, wasn't it?

Christ, and to think Republicans are atually considering her as an "up and comer". Jesus wept.

[FunkMonk]

Yeah, that was a winner, wasn't it?

Christ, and to think Republicans are atually considering her as an "up and comer". Jesus wept.

She's also a supporter of teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Not something that engenders much confidence among most scientists, I imagine.

I'm not saying if she were Queen she'd end all public funding of the sciences. Just that the sciences wouldn't be very high on her totem pole of priorities, for good or ill.

[Berkut]

Yeah, that was a winner, wasn't it?

Christ, and to think Republicans are atually considering her as an "up and comer". Jesus wept.

She's also a supporter of teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Not something that engenders much confidence among most scientists, I imagine.

Actually, she isn't. At least, not really.

She made a comment once about it, then pretty much retracted it and made a campaign pledge not to push creationism in schools, and kept to that promise as governor.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

[Neil]

The quote is enough to convict her.  She's an enemy of civilization.

[FunkMonk]

A fine display of political backtracking, but I suppose it's better than nothing.

[Berkut]

A fine display of political backtracking, but I suppose it's better than nothing.

All politicians backtrack at some point or another.

The question is: what is her record? What has she actually done?

On that it is very clear: She has payed lip service to the idea of creationism, but done nothing at all to actually promote the teaching of it in schools.

She is saying just enough to keep the fundies happy. No more.

There are so many better reasons to find the thought of her in the Oval Office horrifying than this one.

[alfred russel]

215/400

Some of those things were bizarre.  Are Conservatives really convinced that Oil and Coal are great and we should NOT move to alternative fuels?

285 for me, and I answered that question that moving to alternative fuels like solar and wind are not necessary.

[grumbler]

...Bush was pushing for a renewed investment in space, including going to Mars...

Bush was pushing for future budgets, not under his control, to fund such efforts.

I saw it as an echo of Kennedy's bold speech, and thus insincere.  Your milage may vary.

I simply cannot see, frankly, any Republican short of McCain (and he is done) annpouncing that they will undertake a Federal program "because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone."  That is just how I see it.  I weep for the fact, because my natural home should be among Republicans, but they repel me, and mine.

Edit:  some more of the Kennedy speech, which I cannot imagine from the Rpublicans:

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.

I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute.

However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.