A view from the center.......OK left center

Mavrick

LVC Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Location
Puyallup
What you are about to read if you choose to is my personal perceptions. They are in no way indorsed or necessarily reflect the views of the DNC, GOP, FEMA, FBI, CIA, CDC, NFL, MLB, NBA or any other member of the alphabet soup brigade.

At the start of this year I had pretty much made up my mind that for the first time in my voting history I was willing to disregard the GOP out of hand. I personally feel that this administration will need to have 2 or 3 administrations completely tank it sometime in the future for them to fight their way out of the bottom 5 worse presidents in history. Up until the run up for the congressional elections a couple of years ago the GOP was pretty much rubber stamping whatever Bush asked for. The GOP has had the White House for 20 of the last 28 years and they have controlled congress for most of the last 17 years. I feel that the party has gotten away from what I thought was some of the core beliefs that I happened share. I’m not going to get bogged down in these because as I said at the outset this is my perception and it really has no relevance to the thoughts I am putting forth here. Besides, as I continue on you may get an idea what some of them are.

I felt that the GOP was bound and determined to continue marching to the beat of the drummer from the far right. They had only one guy on the ballot that I could see myself voting for and his chances of getting the nomination were about as good as Edwards getting the Democratic nomination. To my shock he wound up taking the nomination. Now I had to go back and rethink this.

At this point I was looking at this as a can’t lose election from my point of view. Let’s face it; the bar with Bush in office is not set very high. I also think that as much as we as a country believe we drive world events I think that some of these events are going to be driving us no matter who is in office. Both of these men in my opinion were qualified to be president and although they have differing views to achieve the same goals I see the possibility that we can take two different roads to get to the same place. I don’t think that one path is the path of destruction anymore than the other is the path to success. I think that with Iraq in particular we will have to revaluate what we will consider to be a successful end from what we would have at the beginning of war no matter who is our president.

John McCain is a man that I admire greatly. His service to our country is above approach. The courage and skill he has shown in dealing with the challenges in his life through all these years deserves to be respected by each and every person that calls this country home.

On issues that he has not agreed with in the past he has split with his party and held to these convictions. One of main reasons (by is own admission) for electing him this year was one of the main reasons he couldn’t get the Republican nomination in 2000.

As more time elapsed between when McCain had sealed up the nomination and the republican convection I was mulling this over again and then McCain made my decision for me. He chose Palin as his running mate.

I do understand the decision. In order to get elected he was probably going to need more support from the parties right. Some idiot thought that they could take away some of the Clinton voters from Obama and shore up support from the right. For me this was his first big test of the type of decision making we can expect as president. He failed miserably. I could have accepted a running mate from the far right. After all you have to get elected before you can do anything and Lieberman or Ridge was not going to get it done for him on Election Day. But damn, they couldn’t find someone from the far right who was even slightly qualified to be vice-president let alone being ready to assume the duties of the president? Mayor of a town of 6000 and a couple of years as the Governor of Alaska doesn’t even come close. Even Alaskans themselves know that they face very different challenges than most of us in the lower 48. My state has over 3 times the population. 4 international ports, 2 of them major, a much larger economy and our governor has been in office for 4 years and state government for many years before that and I wouldn’t want her as a vice presidential running mate either. I will however vote for her reelection.

The few times that the campaign has let Palin say anything outside of scripted campaign rallies I have found her downright painful to listen to. She talks in circles. She doesn’t seem to have a clue about what she is saying if it’s anything other than how John and her are “Mavrick’s” that are going to shake up Washington. The campaign has her playing cheerleader. She has said nothing that I’ve heard of any substance that would make me think I may be wrong about her qualifications. Tina Fey’s impression of her is more coherent than listening to her. I’m not even going to get into the troppergate thing that may or may not be anything. But in my opinion it shows me McCain’s decision process is flawed if they really think this is the best they could do. I do think that she may have a very bright future ahead of her. Maybe even on fox news or on a national ticket at a later date. I think that the next time we see her on the national stage after this election she will be much better than she is now. She needs more time in the minors before she is ready to step up to the majors. Providing of course they lose this election.

I’m also disturbed by McCain’s own admission that the economy is not his strongest area of expertise. This in itself wouldn’t be as big of a deal if I felt he had someone on his team that this was a strong suit but I’m not so sure he does. I found his statement a couple of months ago that the economy was strong quite telling. I know that the crises we now find ourselves in now caught just about everyone off guard. While no one should escape blame this was a house of cards that has been building up before Bush. But deregulation of the banking industry got the sub-prime mortgage off the ground that in turn spawned one of the biggest contributors to this mess the selling of “derivatives”. Guaranties that even these loans that never should have been made should default will they will be repaid if the mortgage company bought these “directives”. Now that sounds a lot like insurance to me but they couldn’t call it insurance because then a) it would be regulated and b) then they would have had to have the funds set aside to cover them. While deregulation in some industries has worked and worked well in this case unlike many of the others we had no way to protect ourselves. It’s not the same as moving to a different phone company or picking a different airline.

As someone who makes somewhat less than $250,000 a year and not currently paying taxes on my medical coverage I personally will come out ahead on my taxes with Obama’s plan as it is now. Having said that if paying some higher taxes now will take some of the burden off my son and then his kids I would pay them. We are in the hole. It needs to be paid for. What’s why we are into China for $500 billion now and the deficit that was such a bad thing during Regan and is acceptable to Bush keeps climbing. I am not an economist by any stretch of anyone’s imagination but even I know something has to give if you make $100 but your expenses are $150.

Prior to G.W. Bush I though that the GOP was the stronger party for foreign policy issues but not anymore. I think that if we are going to hold ourselves up as world leaders we need to conduct ourselves as such. The Bush policy of if your not with us your against us has turned both friends and foes against us or if not against us then keeping their distance.
I don’t think that McCain would be as woefully bad has Bush has been but I think that Obama will have a better chance of helping to heel this rift we have built for ourselves with a large part of the world over the last 5 or 6 years. Even Regan figured out that nothing changes if you just keep the status quo. We cannot be engaged in what is an ever shrinking world if we cannot understand that just because we want someone to act in a certain way it may not be right for them. We stand a better chance of making the changes we would like if everyone can be partners in the process and are not being dictated to. Just read the reactions in this forum when some of this gets heated. It quickly slides to name calling, labels and people get defensive. Do you think its any different when dealing with entire nations?

This same line of thinking has been spread by a small percentage of GOP members towards our own citizens. Some of these people feel that if some of us don’t see things as they do then we are un-American. I would love to know who and when we made this very small percentage of people the countries consciences. I personally resent this. To the best of my knowledge we live in a country of free speech and the free flow of ideas I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I don’t expect everyone to even respect my views. I do expect the respect of my right to have my own views.

Finally, I just see more upside with Obama. I didn’t vote for Regan in his first term but even though I didn’t support him I could see why he was so widely supported. He was eloquent and you could tell that be believed everything he was saying even though you may not agree with all of it. His vision of what America could be again showed that the country needed change after the Carter years. I hoped his message would come true but I voted John Anderson at the time. After he showed that he could walk the walk as well as talk the talk I voted for him in his second term.

In hindsight most of Regan’s vision was correct. At that time a movement to the right was probably the right thing for our country. The nation was too far to the left and the Democratic Party found itself out of step. This time I don’t know if our nation has been moved too far to the right or if the Republican Party just made the wrong choice the last 8 years but I think it now finds itself out of step just as the democrats did in 1980.

Before Obama I have not seen anyone even close to Regan as far as being able to convey the sense of hope and change that resonates with as many people. While I have no doubt that McCain would do a better job than Bush he is too close to the status quo. With McCain’s very poor decision of a running-mate I’m willing to roll the dice on my gut.

As you listen to the stump speeches and the political pundits tell you what their man is going to do for you over the next 4 to 8 years remember that George W Bush stated in one of the debates prior to his first term that United States was not going to be involved in “nation building”. Well, I think that world events conspired to flush that one down the toilet. Neither of these men will be able deliver everything they are promising. Neither of these men is going to be the total disaster we have already endured in the last 6 years or so. None of us is going to get everything we want from either of these men. Nor will we ever no matter who is running.

All though I think that Obama is the right choice now if this was 2000 and not 2008 I could see myself voting for McCain easily. If he can somehow pull this off I won’t be considering it a defeat either personally or for the nation. But other than McCain’s family and friends few people in this nation will be praying for his survival more than I.
 
Obama is a :q:q:q:qing MARXIST. It's not difficult to understand unless you have your head up your ass!!!!
KS
 
Obama is a :q:q:q:qing MARXIST. It's not difficult to understand unless you have your head up your ass!!!!
KS

Ah yes, A careful well reason response to my thread. And here I thought all I would get is garbage. Well done.
 
Thank you maverick - that is just "maverick-y" to quote tina palin...:)

So, it looks like in the past you have voted GOP?

I do think it odd that everyone is so afraid of change - when obviously after the 20 out of 28 years in the white house and 17 out of 19 years controlling congress it is pretty obvious we need change, and not someone who really is just preaching 'status quo' except on a couple of very tiny things (earmarks - which make up .5% of the budget, and maybe something else).

This same line of thinking has been spread by a small percentage of GOP members towards our own citizens. Some of these people feel that if some of us don’t see things as they do then we are un-American. I would love to know who and when we made this very small percentage of people the countries consciences. I personally resent this. To the best of my knowledge we live in a country of free speech and the free flow of ideas I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I don’t expect everyone to even respect my views. I do expect the respect of my right to have my own views.

The right has been taken over by a small elitist group that does think they have the right to dictate to the rest of the nation how we should 'be'. The party has bowed to those few, and it really needs to figure out what it really stands for. Is it the party of William Buckley and Ronald Reagan, or is it the party of Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin?

I respected the party of Bill Buckley and Reagan (although I didn't agree with them), the new GOP is too much of a contradiction when compared to that buckley/reagan standard for me understand where it really 'stands' other than to attack us with the politics of fear and hate.

And to quote Carville - "It's the economy stupid". This election it really is all about the bottom line. It took a liberal democrat to get us out of the last mess. I think it will take another one to get us out of this mess.

Again - thanks :)
 
Puting my dislike and mistrust for blacks aside, My true gut feeling is that Obama is not qualified to be president.
The upside for Obams is at leaste what knowledge he lacks in foreign affairs, his running mate is well versed.
I don't think the short time he has been a senator, and hardly showing up to vote on issues or, voting "present," which is like not voting at all, doesn't qualify him to lead the country.
On the flip side of that, McCain's running mate is equally unqualified.
So now, we voters must make a bad circumstance better.
It isn't going to happen, no matter who is elected.
The democratic leadership in both the house and senate will stagnate any meaningful advancement of prosperity in this country for years to come.
I think had Hillary or Romney been chosen, the chances of some real progress would have been realized.
We are at a point where we must choose the best of the worse.
This is unfortunate with all the capable people that could be running for the presidency.
As discouraging as it is, we still must do our civic duty, and elect one of these two men.
Voting still does give us the right to complain, and if we choose not to excersize that right, then we get what we deserve.
Bob.
 
Thank you maverick - that is just "maverick-y" to quote tina palin...:)

So, it looks like in the past you have voted GOP?

I do think it odd that everyone is so afraid of change - when obviously after the 20 out of 28 years in the white house and 17 out of 19 years controlling congress it is pretty obvious we need change, and not someone who really is just preaching 'status quo' except on a couple of very tiny things (earmarks - which make up .5% of the budget, and maybe something else).
Not all change is good, and we've seen the "benefits" of "change" under Presidents like Jimmy Carter (Misery Index, anyone?) and Clinton (Assault Weapons ban, anyone?), and we don't want Obama's kind of change that equals more government control and less freedom.

I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.
 
Well at least Carter managed to get Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty.
Things were good under Clinton although it could be said the luck of the times had a lot to do with that.
We had the 10 years between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Al Quayda.
Gas was historically at it's adjusted for inflation lowest price ever at 1 dollar a gallon for regular.
The artificial housing bubble was just starting to grow and there would be many years of profits.
And Clinton was an intellectual policy wonk with an equally capable wife.
Bush had much more challenging times and being an anti intellectual ex party boy, made many blunders, relying on his new found faith and his simple convictions to guide him.
People are tired of the Republicans and their strict simple ideologies.
My support for McCain is only based on lower taxes which are really selfish motives.
I don't want to pay more taxes but in light of the staggering total US debt, more taxes and less spending are
inevitable whomever gets elected.
I don't want Roe v Wade revisited as to the majority this matter is settled.
Therefore I want more liberal judges on SCOTUS, people who are aware of the modern times we live in and not people stuck in the 18th century with their strict interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't want anti intellectual, anti science, simple minded superstitious people being the "leaders" of the US.
Since when has it become better to elect Joe Six Pack president than someone of a higher pedigree?
There has been a dumbing down of America under the Bush administration.
There is a real yearning for change in the air.
I'm afraid that eratic McCain and not ready for prime time Palin aren't the change the independant and young voters are looking for.
 
Well at least Carter managed to get Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty.

How many other peace treaties did he get Israel to sign?

How's that working out for them these days?:rolleyes:

Meanwhile, Carter couldn't even get our own hostages back from Iran.
 
Probably better than having no treaty.
And of course we paid off both sides to accept.
We give Egypt 3+ billion a year, only a little bit less than Israel.
 
Fact is, Israel got bullied. Everybody knows they could crush Egypt if they wanted to, and THAT is the only reason Egypt hasn't attacked Israel directly. Instead, they worked through their proxies such as the PLO, led by the Egyptian terrorist Yasser Arafat, one of Jimmy's bestest buds.
 
I don't want Roe v Wade revisited as to the majority this matter is settled.
Therefore I want more liberal judges on SCOTUS, people who are aware of the modern times we live in and not people stuck in the 18th century with their strict interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't want anti intellectual, anti science, simple minded superstitious people being the "leaders" of the US.
.
This is why the GOP had to have someone from the far right on the ticket. McCain has said repeatedly that the abortion issue is one that he thinks should be up to the states and not to the federal government. While it’s not the same as coming out for Roe v. Wade it’s as close as you are going to get from a GOP candidate in these times. I think this would be in the front of his mind IF he is the one selecting the next Supreme Court judge.

John McCain also has acknowledged that a lot of the world’s climate change issues are in fact man made and need to be addressed. With each passing day as more studies are conducted and concluded we get closer to this being is the world flat or round type argument. Even the guy’s with their heads in the sand that we have in office now are starting to come around.

He also has come out for stem cell research. Now he would like some limitations to this but I don’t believe it’s enough that it will discourage research in this area like we have now. If that’s what it takes to get the balls rolling again that’s fine by me.

These are the primary reasons that the extremist on the far right were so dead set that he not get the republican nomination. If any of the 10 to 15% of the undecided independents are reading this and you are making your decisions based on the support of these issues I don’t think you will be too disappointed in McCain. Then again he did let them dump Palin in his lap. The wild card in all this is IF he gets elected they almost immediately get into reelection mode and he may be dragged kicking and screaming further right.

I like to pop into some of these forums from time to time to see how others with differing points of view and from other parts of the country see things. I was reading one a while back and I’m not sure but I think it was here. But anyway one of the members from the far right said something to the affect that if McCain wins the nomination then they were sitting out the election. Once again, none of us are going to get everything we want from either of these candidates.
 
Fact is, Israel got bullied. Everybody knows they could crush Egypt if they wanted to, and THAT is the only reason Egypt hasn't attacked Israel directly. Instead, they worked through their proxies such as the PLO, led by the Egyptian terrorist Yasser Arafat, one of Jimmy's bestest buds.

It's an imperfect world and a stalemate is the best that can be expected in the Arab Isreali conflict.

The Egyptian doctor Al Zarhawi (Al Queda #2 guy) was so upset with the treaty he assasinated Sadat.
Obviously he felt bullied too.
The treaty is a fragile and duplicitious thing.
At least it's still in place 30 years later.
You don't think Reagan would have tried to broker a treaty
if Carter hadn't succeeded in doing so.
 
I don't want Roe v Wade revisited as to the majority this matter is settled.

That is vague...what do you mean "as to the majority"? The majority of people in this country? You are assuming that. There is no accurate evidence of that. Any statisticial and/or political scientist who know how to read stats will tell you that there is no way to conduct an accurate poll on this issue. Because of the nature of the issue (defined by their spin), any question you ask is going to be leading on way or the other. It is called systematic measurement error.

Roe v. Wade is bad law. There really is no disputing that one. It is blatant judicial activism that has no textual basis in the constitution. Really, it should be put up for a vote as an amendment to the constitution, not decided by judicial fiat.

...I don't want anti intellectual, anti science, simple minded superstitious people being the "leaders" of the US....
...People are tired of the Republicans and their strict simple ideologies...

These statements are pretty obvious distortion and mischaracterization. Care to try and back them up?

Since when has it become better to elect Joe Six Pack president than someone of a higher pedigree?

What qualifies a person of "higher pedigree" more so then a "Joe -six pack"? This is a pretty blatant elitist argument.

A "higher pedigree" [higher education] doesn't mean that they are in any way wiser. In fact, with today's schools, it could be argued that a higher education works against that. For the most part, all a higher education means is that you are more well read. It doesn't mean you are wiser. That is dependant on the character of the person, which the college atmosphere can actually work against. Critical thinking is so subjectively applied at colleges that it is more used to indocrinate then anything else.

It is rather clear, that you are buying into certian leftist talking points without examining them. You are buying into a strawman mischaracterization and oversimplification of conservatives and conservatism (perpetrated by the left and echoed by the MSM). You might wanna take another look at those views...
 
This is why the GOP had to have someone from the far right on the ticket.

Bush is hardly "far right", given his actions when it comes to spending, perscription drugs, immigration, school reform, the bailout, etc. etc. McCain is hardly a conservative either (though he is most likely more fiscally conservative then Bush, at least on spending). The problem with the GOP is not the "religious right" or "Joe-six pack" conservative, it is the country club republican's looking to moderate the party. They got their candidate in McCain and he has been shown to be a weak candidate.
 
Foss, I don't think all change is good, and certainly change for change sake isn't good either...

But, at this point status quo (basically what I believe McCain is going to give us) is far worse than the changes Obama wants to make.
 
They got their candidate in McCain and he has been shown to be a weak candidate.
Thanks to evangelical Huckabee who torpedoed Romney's campaign by purpously staying in the republican race after he had no chance of winning.
If Obama wins there is some irony here.
 
It's an imperfect world and a stalemate is the best that can be expected in the Arab Isreali conflict.
No it isn't. In an imperfect world, allowing one side to actually win DOES resolve conflicts. Keeping them at bay only prolongs the conflict. History is replete with examples of this.



Those who cling to the untrue doctrine that violence never settles anything would be advised to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.

- Robert A. Heinlein
 
No it isn't. In an imperfect world, allowing one side to actually win DOES resolve conflicts. Keeping them at bay only prolongs the conflict. History is replete with examples of this.

In 1947 Israel did not have the forces to run off the Arabs who happened to be living in Palastine.
As such circa 1961 they started calling themselves the "Palastinian"
nation wheras this notion or sentiment was not to be found before the modern state of Israel.
Massive force and violence works well at the right time and place when there are favorable circumstances.
In my parents home country of Ukraine, Stalin deported all the Polish people from Galacia, a territory both Ukraine and Poland claimed as their own for a long time.
This has settled things and there is no longer a conflict over this piece of geography although I think Poland got a piece of Chechoslovakia in exchange.
During a larger hot conflict Israel may be able to run off the "Palastinians" into the neighbouring Arab countries for national security reasons,
but can't do it under the current "peaceful" circumstances.
If the Arabs were to launch a hot war then that would present Israel the opportunity for this kind of ruthless manouver.
 
Back Acha

Ah yes, A careful well reason response to my thread. And here I thought all I would get is garbage. Well done.

Not a response, but an extension, from a somewhat different observation point, of your own comments. Nice-y, nice-y won't work with someone like BHO, who's full of platitudinous ponderosities that on exploration mean nothing but sound so wonderful that they create great excitement in the low end of the intellectual scale.

Back up, do some analysis, and ALSO explore all B. H. Osama's said over his public life. Then examine his personal life, his antecedents, and those who were in a position to influence him.

He's a Marxist; to think otherwise is to have your head up your ass!!!

It's been suggested that your comment is sarcastic. To state that you might not be capable of such subtlety may be thought of as an ad hom attack, so I won't say it.
KS
 
Not a response, but an extension, from a somewhat different observation point, of your own comments. Nice-y, nice-y won't work with someone like BHO, who's full of platitudinous ponderosities that on exploration mean nothing but sound so wonderful that they create great excitement in the low end of the intellectual scale.

Back up, do some analysis, and ALSO explore all B. H. Osama's said over his public life. Then examine his personal life, his antecedents, and those who were in a position to influence him.

He's a Marxist; to think otherwise is to have your head up your ass!!!

It's been suggested that your comment is sarcastic. To state that you might not be capable of such subtlety may be thought of as an ad hom attack, so I won't say it.
KS
I’m sorry, being at the low end of the intellectual scale I must have been mistaken about how this works. I thought that I wrote something and then others would come in and write a response or comment on what I had wrote. I had no idea that the idea was to write extensions of others thoughts. I guess I should give this up now because I don’t have the ability to read minds and I don’t have a crystal ball.

I do want to thank you, I didn’t know the meaning of a couple of the multi-syllable words you decided to use so I had to go find the dictionary in the computer I was using. I never had to use it before so it was good to learn how it works. I guess that if I’m going to be interacting with the intellectually superior I should get accustom to it.

In my first sentence I clearly wrote that if you chose to read what I was writing it was nothing more than my perceptions. I thought it was clear anyway. From what I have seen here I thought that was permissible. I didn’t know that I had to be able to write a biography of both the candidates before I was allowed to express my opinion on this site. Someone really should write down these rules somewhere. Being a posting amateur I’m sure that would have helped me out a lot.

I did manage to pull my head out of my ass long enough to look at exactly what the definition of Marxism was. Being at the low end of the intellectual scale and to compound things its been a very long time since I was in school with my intellectually superiors I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. As it turns out this must have been the only thing I had right. Unfortunately after looking into this I was unable to find what it is that makes him a Marxist. Oh well, I guess I will continue on in my ignorant bliss.

By the way, a fine tip sharpie will work very well at filling back in that comma key when the paint wears off.

Sorry again about not understanding how all this works. I hope my limited IQ didn’t drag down the forums average to far.
 
Thanks to evangelical Huckabee who torpedoed Romney's campaign by purpously staying in the republican race after he had no chance of winning.
If Obama wins there is some irony here.

Frankly, the best candidate the GOP had, IMO, was Thompson. We didn't have much to choose from. The MSM wanted McCain for the pick because they assume he would be easier to beat. And he is a weak candidate. The fact that the polls are so tied is at least as much attributable to Obama being a weak candidate as it is to McCain. If Obama were running against a strong GOP candidate, this would be no contest.
 
Quote:
...I don't want anti intellectual, anti science, simple minded superstitious people being the "leaders" of the US....
...People are tired of the Republicans and their strict simple ideologies...

These statements are pretty obvious distortion and mischaracterization. Care to try and back them up?

Sarah Palin's War on Science

The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning.

http://www.slate.com/id/2203120/

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Monday, Oct. 27, 2008, at 11:43 AM ET

In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber. But they did last Friday, when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Gov. Sarah Palin denounced wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place "in Paris, France" and winding up with a folksy "I kid you not."

It was in 1933 that Thomas Hunt Morgan won a Nobel Prize for showing that genes are passed on by way of chromosomes. The experimental creature that he employed in the making of this great discovery was the Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly. Scientists of various sorts continue to find it a very useful resource, since it can be easily and plentifully "cultured" in a laboratory, has a very short generation time, and displays a great variety of mutation. This makes it useful in studying disease, and since Gov. Palin was in Pittsburgh to talk about her signature "issue" of disability and special needs, she might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina. The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent. It's especially ridiculous and unfortunate that the governor chose to make such a fool of herself in Pittsburgh, a great city that remade itself after the decline of coal and steel into a center of high-tech medical research.

In this case, it could be argued, Palin was not just being a fool in her own right but was following a demagogic lead set by the man who appointed her as his running mate. Sen. John McCain has made repeated use of an anti-waste and anti-pork ad (several times repeated and elaborated in his increasingly witless speeches) in which the expenditure of $3 million to study the DNA of grizzly bears in Montana was derided as "unbelievable." As an excellent article in the Feb. 8, 2008, Scientific American pointed out, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act without getting some sort of estimate of numbers, and the best way of tracking and tracing the elusive grizzly is by setting up barbed-wire hair-snagging stations that painlessly take samples from the bears as they lumber by and then running the DNA samples through a laboratory. The cost is almost trivial compared with the importance of understanding this species, and I dare say the project will yield results in the measurement of other animal populations as well, but all McCain could do was be flippant and say that he wondered whether it was a "paternity" or "criminal" issue that the Fish and Wildlife Service was investigating. (Perhaps those really are the only things that he associates in his mind with DNA.)
 
The Republican War on Science

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_republican_war_on_science1/

PZ Myers
Chris Mooney is trying to kill me.
It's true. He sent me this book, The Republican War on Science that he knew would send my blood pressure skyrocketing, give me apoplexy, and cause me to stroke out and die, gasping, clawing in futile spasms at the floor. Fortunately, I've been inoculating myself for the past few years by reading his weblog, so I managed to survive, although there were a few chest-clutching moments and one or two life-flashing-past-my-eyes experiences, which will be handy if I ever write a memoir.
If you enjoy the thrill of flirting with danger, there is a website promoting the book, and you can also read a substantial excerpt to get a taste. Or just take the plunge and buy it when it becomes available in September—trust me, it's good, and it probably won't be quite as traumatic to most people as it is to me. It's always disturbing to see the president, the house, the senate, and the entire danged Republican party targeting one's own occupation for destruction.
And that's really what the book documents: a pattern (and so far, a frighteningly successful pattern) of corrupting the science establishment in America by the Republican party. This is not to say that the Democrats are entirely innocent (NCCAM comes to mind), or that individual Republicans cannot be conscientiously pro-science, but the convergence of the conservative/religious social interests and the well-monied Big Business interests that has driven Republican electoral success is also a perfect formula for driving attacks on the integrity of science and science policy.
Good science needs to be independent of and unfiltered by desired outcomes; it aims to describe the world as it is, not how we wish it would be. This often conflicts with short term economic interests, who want that drug they've spent a billion dollars developing to be effective and who want that rare species living on their proposed factory site to be gone and who want those lawsuits charging them with unsafe practices or marketing dangerous products to go away. Much of Mooney's book describes how business gets its way. They found "think-tanks" that flood a topic with pseudo-science, confusing the issues. They dump money on hired gun lobbyists and our representatives, cleverly gutting the legislation that would allow us to act on scientific recommendations. They work to discredit principled scientists who oppose them.
Religious conservatives have a dogmatic vision of how the world must be, a vision based on 'revealed knowledge' and antique sources that often contradicts empirically determined reality and reason in the grossest way. It's not at all surprising that they directly attack science; what's truly weird, though, is how often they also don the trappings of science, attempting to assume the mantle of scientific authority, in confused efforts to "prove" religious beliefs. That's a pernicious strategy that is also undermining science; when creatures like George Gilder or Bruce Chapman declare their version of creationism a science, they are poisoning minds with false ideas of how science actually works.
Mooney does a phenomenal job of documenting the sins of the corporate opportunists, the incompetent hacks, and the sanctimonious culture warriors who are perpetrating this assault on science. He also explains what it is costing us: the sacrifice of international competitiveness, the blown opportunities to invest in the future, the squandering of our resources and the wasteful poisoning of our environment. This is stuff we need to act on now, if it is not already too late.

I have to give away the ending of the book. Forgive me, but really, this is the kind of book where the journey is the reward anyway, and long before it gets there you know how it is going to wind up. Mooney concludes with suggestions about what we need to do—encourage the non-nutball wing of the Republican party, shore up legislation to create safeguards for objective science advising, and get scientists out in the streets with local activism for science (we really suck at that, I know). He also forcefully damns the far Right extremists who dominate the Republican party.
In this context, and considering its track record, we have no choice but to politically oppose the antiscience right wing of the Republican Party. This does not necessarily entail an outright partisan agenda. Encouraging the electoral success of Republican moderates with good credentials on science [oh, rara avis!—pzm] could potentially have just as constructive an effect as backing Democrats.​

But if we care about science and believe that it should play a crucial role in decisions about our future, we must steadfastly oppose further political gains by the modern Right. This political movement has patently demonstrated that it will not defend the integrity of science in any case in which science runs afoul of its core political constituencies. In so doing, it has ceded any right to govern a technologically advanced and sophisticated nation. Our future relies on our intelligence, but today's Right—failing to grasp this fact in virtually every political situation in which it really matters, and nourishing disturbing anti-intellectual tendencies—cannot deliver us there successfully or safely. If it will not come to its senses, we must cast it aside.
I think there is still a reservoir of respect for science in the US, and we need to capitalize on it before it is corrupted further. Republicans belong to the anti-science party; Inhofe and Coburn and Frist and yes, George W. Bush have made ignorance the party line. It's long past due that we call them on it. And of course, we also have to police the Democratic Party, and make sure they don't also slide into this garbage in their rush to emulate the Republicans.
 
We Can't Afford McCain and Palin's Anti-Science Beliefs
By John Tirman, AlterNet. Posted September 23, 2008.

http://www.alternet.org/environment...and_palin's_anti-science_beliefs/?page=entire

Their combined anti-science positions may be devastating for the economy, the environment and our health.

One of the peculiar oversights of the Sarah Palin media blitz is her strong anti-science views. In keeping with her Pentecostal faith and alignment with the far right of the Republican Party, Palin is opposed to stem cell research, declaims evolution, and believes global warming to be a hoax. Of her many controversial qualities, this anti-science ideology may be the most troubling -- in fact, devastating -- for the economy, ecology, and health.
If the McCain-Palin ticket is elected, we would have the prospect of an administration constantly at odds with scientific advance. As vice-president, Palin would not only be the proverbial "heartbeat away" from the presidency, but the leading contender for the top spot eight years hence.
McCain himself shows some worrisome tendencies as well, supporting the teaching of "intelligent design"-- the beard for anti-evolution propaganda -- in schools, for example. Overall, the prospect of 8-16 years of this kind of bias sends a chill through the science community, even after years of dealing with the Bush anti-science agenda.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent watchdog group, has documented dozens of cases where the U.S. government has interfered with, undermined, or falsified science in public policy over the last seven years. It is a shocking record, revolving mainly around environmental issues but ranging from abstinence-only AIDS prevention (shown repeatedly to be ineffective) to phony information about breast cancer. Bush cut funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control, among other science agencies, in his final budget. Overall, he has starved non-defense R&D at a time when China, the EU and other rivals are investing vigorously.
More of the same, and possibly worse, is likely to be in store if Republican rule continues. The right-wing hostility to science is a mystery. Some years back much skepticism about scientific progress came from the left, ire focused on the way science was used to further corporate priorities. But an attack on science per se is now the province of the right wing, partially based on religious dogma (itself reserved to a tiny minority of the fundamentalist churches) and partly another way to divide the political culture into an us (small-town just folks) versus them (pointy headed intellectuals). But whatever the reasons, this steady assault on science is alarming. Why?
Science and engineering remain America's most powerful assets in the world economy. As we have lost steel mills and other hard-hat industries, innovation has become the font of prosperity. Without a robust scientific community, hopes for creating the new technologies and processes that fuel sustainable economic activity will surely decline.
Equally important, science offers solutions to urgent problems. The climate change threat is most obvious in this regard. We need to do more than burn less fossil fuel; we need to find ways to increase efficiency and develop new kinds of fuels to reverse the trends of global warming. Yes, we can do a lot with stronger political will to put in place what we already know about energy efficiency in particular. But given the scale of what we face-including the immense problems stemming from rapidly growing India, China, and other developing countries-new technology has to be a big part of the solution. Science and engineering is what will take us there.
Or consider stem cell research. The potential for developing medicines and other therapies from this research is virtually unlimited. Diseases and disabilities like diabetes, arthritis, heart ailments and other maladies that affect tens of millions of Americans are likely to be cured or their severity greatly lessened as a result. Yet stem cell research is now blocked and would face the prospect of further interference from an anti-science government. The Republican Party platform passed this month states that "we call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes."
The best young researchers facing this harsh prospect would be better off going to Britain or Germany or Singapore or the many other places where their research can thrive, and where governments recognize its value. New talent in the form of graduate students from Europe and Asia particularly (and my campus is loaded with such young brainiacs) would likely choose other universities to earn their PhDs if their biological research would be constrained here.
In computing science, another field potentially buffeted by McCain/Palin's cluelessness, the "five-year stay rate for Chinese students with temporary visas who received [science and engineering] doctorates in 1998 was 90 percent. It was 86 percent among Indian students," says Computing Research News. Some of these numbers declined as a result of harsh homeland security barriers, sending a cascade of foreign students to non-U.S. grad schools. The increase in recent graduates seeking employment outside the U.S. jumped by 67 percent in 2004 from 1997 levels. With an anti-science government in Washington, the stay rates and new applications both will surely erode further.
This is not a flashy issue, needless to say, for the pyrotechnic campaign we're now witnessing. It is, however, the meat and potatoes of governing. There are certain things government can do to gainfully affect our lives, and promoting science, science education, research, and a spirit of discovery are high on that list. The McCain/Palin shakiness on science issues is not just another occasion for SNL skits or jokes about the U.S. being the laughing stick of the world. They're life-and-death issues for global health and ecology, as well as our own well being.
So we have both an economic liability and a moral deficit resulting from anti-science policies. The economic problem is that the U.S. will lose, possibly forever, its competitive edge in innovation. The moral setback is that we are unable, as a science community or as a nation, to help those most in need of these scientific advances. And of course the immense challenge of global warming-creating sustainable economic growth and equity-needs U.S. technological leadership.
Scientists, who are generally apolitical, are reluctant to call out the Republican establishment on its anti-science bias. But it is time for this to become a campaign issue, because the anti-science jeremiad could actually ruin the country that all the candidates profess to put first.
 
The disdain of religion towards science goes back to Galileo.
Einstein said religion was a childish product of the weakness of man and wishful thinking.
We need an administration that will move science forward if we are to remain
competitive with the rest of the world which doesn't seem to suffer from this religious handicap.
 

Members online

Back
Top