<a href=”
Chris Mooney sent me an email earlier letting me know that his book "The Republican War on Science" is out in paperback. I have the hardcover edition, and it was a tough book to read. Don’t get me wrong: it’s written well, and thoroughly researched, but it’s so infuriating to read about what’s going on in our government right now! With mid-term elections coming up very soon, this is a book you’ll want to read if you care at all about the future.
Chris has also posted an excerpt about intelligent design from the book. He’s on tour as well, and I’m hoping to see him when he hits this neck of the woods in a few weeks.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:48 am
Any political book that doesn’t make your blood boil is written poorly. That’s what they’re designed to do, and if they don’t, the author did something wrong.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:07 am
Just FYI – Morgan Spurlock (SuperSize Me, 30 Days) will be producing a documentary based on this book.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:43 am
Oh those evil Republicans!
September 5th, 2006 at 3:38 am
“Just FYI – Morgan Spurlock (SuperSize Me, 30 Days) will be producing a documentary based on this book.”
Add that to the list of reasons why I probably won’t read it. The wide brush with whitch the author applies his charges also ranks high on that list.
Regardless of your views on the book, the way in which Spurlock presents his views through “documentaries” is the golden standard in dishonest media, save for perhaps Michael Moore.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:20 am
The Golden Standard of dishonest media is still set by Fox News.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:20 am
It’s so easy to fall into a soundbyte war about how bad the republicans are that people forget that democrats and republicans have been screwing the country over long before iraq, abortion and ratings on video games.
One day their grip on america will crack and a fresh thrid party will make it into office. Untill then the “Red vs Blue” extremes aren’t really helping anyone in my opinion.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:26 am
“The Golden Standard of dishonest media is still set by Fox News.”
Find a new mantra already. The ideological fashion trend of bashing Fox News is far past being old and tiresome. Or back up some of those claims. That’s a fundamental aspect of this web site, yes? Every time I ask someone to point to actual bias, they mention one of the political opinion shows. Wow. An opinion shows has biased opinions. Who woulda thunk?
As for science, ALL politicians misuse and abuse science. Here in California, questional results of even more questionable studies are used for all sorts of “nanny state” legislation. They want to put nine year olds in booster car seats because of some neglegible risk of death, and the study involved wasn’t even about using booster seats.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:28 am
“Any political book that doesn’t make your blood boil is written poorly.”
Or the reader is emotionally unsound, and their mind is degenerated by their own opposing ideology. Seriously, if you succumb emotionally to a political rant book, you need to seek professional psychological help.
Politics is bad. Period. All of it. Ideology is a mental illness. The sooner we evolve past it, the better.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Watch the documentary Outfoxed. Or better still, watch Fox News, BBC, CNN, and read the major (international) newspapers. It won’t take you long to realise that FN is a propaganda channel.
That is a very simplistic point of view. Politics is the main way to change things for the better (or worse, for that matter) in a democracy.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:36 am
[QUOTE]As for science, ALL politicians misuse and abuse science. [/QUOTE]
How can you know anything about “all politicians”? To take one obvious caveat, what about those in prescientific societies? Regardless, as Chris repeatedly points out in his book, while some members of any political party will abuse science, some groups do it much more often than others. For the last decade or so, the overwhelming majority of political abuse of science in the US has been done by Republicans.
[QUOTE]Politics is bad. Period. All of it. [/QUOTE]
Politics is how groups govern themselves and manage their relations with other groups. How can that be inherently bad? All ideologis are political, but all politics are not ideological, unless you define “ideology” very loosely.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Politics is a necessary evil. It’s necessary but it’s still evil.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Some of the earlier talking points posted in this thread are actually conservative rhetorical strategies. This is typical whenever Republicans are criticized, though the posters may not realize it.
Typical responses usually include:
1. Democrats are no better than Republicans. (More popular during election years. A talking point to encourage disillusionment with politics and to discourage participation by younger people, idealists, progressives, etc.)
2. Implied universal vilification of liberals – i.e. any liberal concept or person is framed or assumed as always bad, as if it were a given. (i.e. mentioning Michael Moore only with distain.)
3. Any opposition (such as Morgan Spurlock’s movie or Chris Mooney’s book) is described as dishonest, or elsewhere you might see terms like old hat, failing, lacking support, sensationalist, etc.
Additional right wing strategies are also outlined here:
http://www.adamkotsko.com/weblog/2006/08/rhetorical-strategy.html
An open, progressive society suffers from these manipulative selfish schemers, but there is hope. Open minded people are getting wise to right-wing co-opting, posturing and baloney.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Politics is here for the same reason science also is here: not everyone can, in all honesty, agree with everyone else. Thus, we have politics, in which the citizen is institutionally empowered to publish views and cast votes in all sincerity, regardless of dissent from consensus, and we have science, in which the scientist is institutionally empowered to study a problem and publish the findings in all sincerity, regardless of dissent from consensus. We have such institutions because we aren’t a colony of ants or a hive of bees. We are capable of mutual disagreement.
One important operational difference is, of course, that politics is usually about policy, about allocating common resources, and a majority vote must be arrived at on such issues, whereas scientific findings don’t have to be popularly voted upon, but only accepted or rejected on an individual basis.
This is the ideal state of both politics and science. The trouble occurs when social elements can’t be content with their own, private slice of the big pie. They want to own the whole thing and sell it off. The price for a slice: surrendering your identity to the new pie-owner. That’s what’s going on now with the war on science. Certain elements want to own the pie, and thus own the people & their ideas. In order to get the whole thing, it must be popularly voted to them legally.
But independent science tends to promote people owning their respective slices, not renting them from the Lords. A society of many pie-slice owners are a free people. Science tends to demonstrate that the populace don’t have to hastily vote away their slies. They don’t have to be suckers. Both real science and real politics are practices of freedom-loving people. Both are being agressively discouraged in the current age. Of course they’re always being discouraged. What’s precarious about the current age is that it’s getting a good foot hold.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Good Lord, you people have swallowed the political cyanide tablets.
By “politics” I mean the system of making decisions based on ideological rules, and not on data and real world numbers. It’s just like religion. How many times have you seen an issue debated, and the end result is that the best solution could never be implemented because of politics. Politics IMPEDES progress.
Ideology, to paraphrase Frank Herbert, is the mind destroyer. It’s a “one size fits all” point of view on the universe. You can’t possibly look at the politics of today and think there is anything good there. All we get is extremists due to gerrymandering and voters toeing the political line. To be political or ideological is to abandon critical thought, and never think outside a tiny little box ever again.
If you really need to ask how politics can be inherently bad, you are NOT paying attention. If you think the GOP (who I don’t like or support, mind you) have done most of the junk science, you are NOT paying attention. If the book really says that, the author has an ideological agenda, or has blinkered himself.
If the book is simply focused on the GOP without absolving the Donkeys, that’s fine then. I’ll probably read the book either way because, in the end, I hate the way the GOP is treating science. I’m just tired of the slanted POVs. The enemy of rational thought is much bigger than a single Party. By excusing one and not the other, you don’t accomplish anything.
Chip: you must not live in California. Our state level Democrats are the stupidest, vilest jack*sses ever to hold political office. Armed insurrection followed by slow hanging executions would be too kind for these scummy SOBs.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
>> Typical responses usually include:
>> 1. Democrats are no better than Republicans.
Well, they aren’t.
>> (More popular during election years. A talking point to encourage
>> disillusionment with politics and to discourage participation by
>> younger people, idealists, progressives, etc.)
Disillusionment does not need any encouragement at this point. If you are not disillusioned by the political “process”, you are living in some sort of self imposed ideological bubble.
>> 2. Implied universal vilification of liberals – i.e. any liberal concept or
>> person is framed or assumed as always bad, as if it were a given. (i.e.
>> mentioning Michael Moore only with distain.)
Well, I have disdain for anyone who can use a single word to label themselves, and that includes conservatives. When someone calls themselves “proudly liberal” or “prou to be conservative” I know I never have to bother listening to anything the have to say ever again, because it will be 100% predictable and will toe an ideological script.
>> 3. Any opposition (such as Morgan Spurlock’s movie or Chris Mooney’s
>> book) is described as dishonest, or elsewhere you might see terms like
>> old hat, failing, lacking support, sensationalist, etc.
*shrug* They have the right to free speech to say what they want. And others have an equal right to pick it apart and question the motives and presented data. And some of the criticisms are valid. I enjoyed Super Size Me for what it was, but I didn’t really understand the point. If you eat poorly, your health will suffer. OK. Thanks, Morgan. I guess.
This is a site that champions science and the scientific method, right? If someone feels so strongly about a topic they make a documentary or write a book, well, they better expect not to be shielded from criticism. If you make public claims and accusations, be prepared to back them up.
>>Additional right wing strategies are also outlined here:
>> http://www.adamkotsko.com/weblog/2006/08/rhetorical-strategy.html
*shrug* You could write a similar list for the left wing or any other wing you care to present. Nothing new there.
>> An open, progressive society suffers from these manipulative selfish
>> schemers, but there is hope. Open minded people are getting wise to
>> right-wing co-opting, posturing and baloney.
The truly open-minded are wise to tactics of BOTH sides of the House. The folks wise to only one side merely THINK they are wise.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Easy there, Tookie. I don’t think anybody here is particularly in favour of rigid ideologies. So you’re tearing down a straw man.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
What PK just said above, plus…
The Ghost Of Tookie wrote:
“Chip: you must not live in California. Our state level Democrats are the stupidest, vilest jack*sses ever to hold political office.”
All of them? I think not. They are amateurs compared to what’s in the Whitehouse right now.
The Ghost Of Tookie wrote:
“Armed insurrection followed by slow hanging executions would be too kind for these scummy SOBs.”
Whoa! Settle down. I take it you’re trying to be funny. Otherwise you’re including little school girls playing jump-rope in their back yards if their parents happen to be Californian Democrats. Your joke is against democracy as well as politics. If you dislike Californian Democrats you should just forgive them, and go vote out those you don’t like. Your disgusting tirade here sounds too much like Ann Coulter or something from Mein Kampf.
The Ghost Of Tookie wrote:
“The enemy of rational thought is much bigger than a single Party. By excusing one and not the other, you don’t accomplish anything.”
True, and there are some things I dislike about the Democrats. (Mainly that they have, by and large, been wimps in Congress.) Its an imperfect world. People are people. But the Dems still have one major plus – even a mediocre Democratic administration in Washington, by its inherent nature, would tend to bring in more folks who have at least a rational, altruistic, and/or non-fundamentalist mindset, or a sense of public service rather than self service.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:06 am
So how do our politicians in the UK handle science?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:51 am
Not too badly. They pretty much all acknowledge global warming. The conservative leader David Cameron goes around by bike, no doubt more to impress the voters than out of conviction, but still. However, in the end it is all about the economic status quo versus environmental protection.
Politicians here also have a much better attitude towards stem cell research. And no-one takes creationism seriously. The biggest political science debate right now is whether animal testing is necessary (they are building a lab here in Oxford, which makes the university a target for terrorists).
September 6th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Have you ever seen Big Daddy from Chic?
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
It’s one of my favorite examples of creationist babbling.
The best part is where the prof. is asked what keeps the opposite charges on electrons and protrons from tearing atoms apart and is reduced to tears becuase he doens’t know the answer. It turns out that Jesus is cosntatnly performing trillons of miracles from instant to instant to hold them together. (the talk about gluons you will find at the link is a new edition–in my older printed copy he just doesn’t know)
September 6th, 2006 at 9:08 am
“And no-one takes creationism seriously.”
Probably not, but here in the UK, it seems that Tony Blair would have no problem with having more faith based schools, because their grades in general are good, so look good for statistics. Problem is, more faith based schools would mean more oportunities for creationism to be taught (Peter Vardy’s school in Newcastle for example) and we have no law of seperation of church and state here. See:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/brits_to_teach.html#comment-86077
Also I would worry that more faith schools would encourage more seperation of these faiths from each other.
Anyway, politics aside, I think Chris Mooney’s description of “Intelligent Design” is dead on.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
That Big Daddy bible tract is a laugh riot. I did a report on an evolutionary topic in college and the creationists actually place little propoganda tracts randomly in the pages of some of the journals (the obviously named ones with evolution in the title. It seems creationist propganda like that could be effective if a person didn’t know any better, the same way it is possible to lead a horse through a busy street by putting blinders on it. Another thing about the Big Daddy bible tract is that it doesn’t represent the situation at all. I’ve had professors basically apologize for teaching evolution, and this is for students most likely getting biology or medicine based minors and majors. I’ve never seen a professor fly off the handle like that, they might express a bit of shock or dismay in the proportion of students that won’t accept evolution, ultimately though they’ll say to such students you don’t have to believe it but you do have to understand it.
As for the Republicans, hopefully when Bush goes (and it wouldn’t hurt to have divided government) maybe things will beging to reform. If a New York or California Republican is elected president the religious right might find they have no where else to go (hopefully to form a 3rd party so they can once again bathe in their own irrelevance).
September 6th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
[blockquote author="PK"]The biggest political science debate right now is whether animal testing is necessary (they are building a lab here in Oxford, which makes the university a target for terrorists).[/blockquote]
The issue of genetically modified food is just as bad there.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I’ve yet to hear of anyone blowing up a building over GM food. Anyway, it seems to me that the controversy over that has passed to some extent.
Actually I think the same is true of animal testing. As far as I can tell, almost all politicians recognise the need for it, and it’s just the group of extremists that have thursday protests outside the science area that make any real noise about it.
The UK has some of the world’s strictest laws for dealing with animal rights, so I don’t think there is likely to be much more movement on that front.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
[blockquote]I’ve yet to hear of anyone blowing up a building over GM food.[/blockquote]
Yeah, they burn fields instead.
[blockquote]Actually I think the same is true of animal testing. As far as I can tell, almost all politicians recognise the need for it, and it’s just the group of extremists that have thursday protests outside the science area that make any real noise about it.[/blockquote]
Yes, the problem is the a significant numbers of the extremists are violent. No necessarily even close to a majority, but enough to be a serious risk to those involved in improving our health.