Comments on: Letter from Henry Waxman to Mike Griffin re: White House influence

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 11 May 2007 03:33:52 +0000

It’s funny. Anytime, everytime the BA posts on the republican suppression of science, the same comments pop up with the same concerns. I laugh when some use the word “shrill” to describe BA’s posts. I guess some people see it as picking on the republicans or not being fair. The simple truth is that you don’t need to be even slightly liberal to be truly disgusted, angry and disappointed at republican stances on scientific evidence and issues, and NOT just lately-more like the last thirty of forty years, depending on topic.
I fully realize that the same thing goes on with the democrats, and every other political party on the planet, but the ratio of well thought, rational, science based or at least science-influenced policy compared to irrational, self-serving rhetoric-based policy is not always equal from party to party, time to time. Since at least as far back as Nixon, the republicans have made it clear, again and again, that little or no science will make it into their calculations unless it already fits the platform. Examples?
Drug policy started by Nixon. No science content whatsoever, all rhetoric, with millions (yes, millions) of Americans losing their freedom and even their lives over it. Expanded by Reagan to the War on Americans (oops, Drugs.) I realize that this is not a big topic with many educated non-indulgers, but never try to claim that it is rational or justified. It’s just tax-funded bigotry and slavery.
Star Wars. Where did that money go, exactly? I was only a teenager but smart enough to know we wouldn’t be getting the neeto James Bond Magic Laser Death Stopper that we paid for.
Anything at all to do with the environment. By republican standards, every resource is magical and will last forever, or will be replaced by God, I suppose.
Any science regarding homosexuals, reproduction, sex ed, law and order issues such as drugs, recividism in prisons, the list goes on for issues that will not even be considered by modern republicans unless the results match the prejudices of the party.
These examples are often considered strictly social issues, I realize, but there is relevant science that is ignored daily, to the detriment of millions.
I have seen a lifetime’s worth of science abuse at the hands of republicans, and that’s without even approaching topics like space exploration.
Too shrill? Put some Catsup on it.

By: Davis

Davis — Thu, 10 May 2007 20:18:17 +0000

…your increasingly shrill political postings…

What kind of political content do you typically read, that you consider the BA “shrill”?

By: The Bad Astronomer

The Bad Astronomer — Thu, 10 May 2007 17:49:32 +0000

Rereading my comment above, it comes across as too harsh. I still agree with what I said, but I should not have said it so strongly, so I apologize to Eric P.

But I do not back down on what I said.

By: Irishman

Irishman — Thu, 10 May 2007 15:04:44 +0000

35yrOldFreshman said:
> I can see BAâ€™s point and how it must appear to him. Incompetence and lack of attention can feel like suppression when it is something that we are very passionate about.

This is not a case of failing to fund science and space programs, or deciding they are not worthy of federal dollars. We’re talking about telling scientists to change their findings. Changing how they state things to fit some personal religious agenda. That’s not incompetence, that’s malicious suppression.

Tom said:
I note that while a certain political party has been in power for a relatively long time, your chronicling of political actions has been going on for a much shorter.

I’m not sure what your point is. That seems to me to be the precise explanation that the BA has offered for why his attacks appear one-sided, aimed at Republicans. Because they’re the ones who have been in power and thus most effective at suppressing science during the timeframe that the BA has has his blog active.

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Thu, 10 May 2007 12:33:43 +0000

I think we need a Science party, to defend rational thinking for ALL americans,,,
,,,anybody here ready to run for Pres?

GAry 7

By: Daffy

Daffy — Thu, 10 May 2007 02:39:14 +0000

Neither do I, Tom. But my anger right now is almost entirely directed at the Republicans for the simple reason that they have been running everything for years. Not to mention the infiltration of the federal government by religious extremists appointed by Bush. That more people aren’t shocked—and even frightened by that—scares me even more than the appointments themselves.

If the Democrats ever have control of all 3 branches, they will no doubt be just as corrupt. When that happens I’ll be yelling at them, I assure you.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 10 May 2007 02:23:15 +0000

Daffy-

I am an independent. I don’t want to be directly affiliated with either of the two major political parties.