… and it’s a BIG step. Bill Foster just won the seat for the House of Representatives!
W00t!
Foster is a scientist, a physicist who worked at Fermilab, and I mentioned him briefly in an earlier post. I just heard from Darksyde and Sean Carroll that Foster won the special election in IL-14 despite steep odds, and a concerted effort by the NRCC to stop him.
This is fantastic news. The only thing that would be better would be if this were for a full term, but unfortunately it’s only to replace Dennis Hastert in a special election (who resigned amidst a lot of controversy in his involvement with the Abramoff scandal and Tom Delay’s shenanigans), so we’ll have to do it again in November. Feh.
In the meantime, though, I hope that Representative Foster can inject a much-needed dose of science advocacy into Congress.
Congratulations, Representative!
March 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Phil, this is huge. Foster gave credit to the Young Democrats of Illinois who came out strong for him. The 14th Congressional District has been a Republican stronghold for a long, long time. I have a lot of friends in that district who worked diligently for the Congressman-elect.
They are thrilled.
I have no doubt the good doctor will serve his constituents well.
The Sun Also Rises: Foster Wins!
http://turningleft.net/2008/03/08/the-sun-also-rises-foster-wins/
March 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
the question is… when this fellow becomes a creationist, will you hate him and reject him like “they” did to Mortimer J. Adler?
March 8th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Let’s hope for a new method of redistricting which involves a cloud chamber.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Too bad he is for the Real-ID and is a anti-immigration zealot .
March 8th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
stopgap, yeah, it does seem that I disagree with him on some issues (he was called a Blue Dog, a democrat who supported Bush), but I also support him on many others.
I hope he doesn’t turn out to be a Democrat like Lieberman.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Lieberman isn’t a Democrat, he’s a psychotic.
Sounds awesome for science but the last thing we need right now is more Bush supporters in power.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:07 am
“stopgap, yeah, it does seem that I disagree with him on some issues (he was called a Blue Dog, a democrat who supported Bush), but I also support him on many others.”
Yeah. Don’t get me wrong I would still support him. We could really use someone with a hard background in science.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:29 am
yah another democratic done is born, who will do whatever the leadership tells him to no matter how much he knows its wrong. I believe in change when I see it not from words
March 9th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Don’t get your hopes up. Like any politician, his primary concern from the moment he gets elected will be how he can get re-elected.
“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the ever expanding bureaucracy.”
OEJ
March 9th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Yes, yes, people who like immigration to be orderly and legal are “anti-immigration”. *snore*
Find a new tune, stopgap, no one is buying that one anymore. It’s propaganda and asinine coming from a self proclaimed fan of science.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:44 am
This is fantastic news.
Ha ha ha! I love ya, BA. Keep up that rosy tinted hope. Someone has to, I suppose.
Here’s some fluffy kittens to help celebrate!
http://img.flash-screen.com/uploads/200704/imgs/1177507294.jpg
I work with people who have job titles like “Chief Scientist”. Smart folks. Blindingly so. In their field. When they talk about political issues, well, it tends to make me silently vow that, if they ever got into power, I would *personally* lead the insurrection that took them down.
However, I support everything on his site. For example, I am totally pro-nationalized health care because I think it would be one of the most spectacularly hilarious multigigaton disasters ever seen in the history of civilization, and I’ll get LOTS of comedy material out of it.
I also have a sizable wager on the subject going with my primary care doctor.
Me? Cynical? Noooooo!
March 9th, 2008 at 1:54 am
stopgap said, “anti-immigration zealot.”
I read his site. He wants immigration to be legal and not millions of people flowing willy nilly over the border. For some reason, every other country in the world is allowed to control their immigration without criticism. Why the double standard?
How is that an “anti-immigration zealot?”
Please explain without resorting to irrational ideological claptrap, otherwise don’t bother.
I’m serious. Please explain how millions of poor, unskilled people flowing over the border, depleting public resources, living in fear and being exploited by corporations and preyed upon by criminal elements is a good thing.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:45 am
I live in the 14th District (IL). This is huge. The district and the area are decidedly Republican. A Democrat winning here is like a Communist winning in Alabama. We are all very excited to have Foster represent us, especially after all those years of Hastert, who had to be the most useless, pork gathering windbag in the House. Thanks for the post BA.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:01 am
The BA said:
“. . . Foster won the special election in IL-14 . . .”
Huh? Please explain the relevance of Interleukin-14?
March 9th, 2008 at 6:51 am
The only problem with Foster winning is that he defeated Oberweis, who owns a dairy in Illinois that makes the most fantastic-est ice cream in the entire world, so with Foster in office, we don’t get free ice cream for every man, woman and child in the state.
Stupid Democrats!
March 9th, 2008 at 6:58 am
That certainly is good news. Let’s hope his incumbancy will give him a victory in November. It is too bad that more politicians aren’t scientists!
However, Jimmy Carter was supposedly a scientist and look how he turned out.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:04 am
The first paragraph of CNN’s piece this morning (at
reads:
“A longtime Republican district fell Saturday to the Democrats when a wealthy businessman and scientist snatched former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s congressional seat in a closely watched special election.”
which leaves themajority of us scientists who are neither wealthy nor businessmen to wonder which of those two he primarily won on and which he will consider more important when voting on legislation, particularly when the legislation leqads to a conflict between business and science . . .
March 9th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I love Democrats! We’d complain if we were hanged with a new rope. Hey, can’t we just be happy for five minutes? Just five minutes before we start bickering again?
Personally, I think this is GREAT news. Yeah, maybe I wouldn’t agree with Foster about everything. So what? I probably don’t agree with ANYONE about everything. I’m a Democrat, after all.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:39 am
@One Eyed Jack
“Don’t get your hopes up. Like any politician, his primary concern from the moment he gets elected will be how he can get re-elected.”
Given that he just a won a term measured in months, that’s only logical. Reps pay their staff out of their own pocket as well as their office rental in an expensive district, have to reorganize their family life, etc. Wouldn’t you want to do the job for long enough to make it worthwhile by a least serving out a full two-year term? I would. Just saying.
@Fifty Pennies; QD:
Thank You.
My other favorite “but we’ve always been a country that never turned away immigrants”. The opposite is true* . Maybe the debate should be over the very concept behind having a border in the 1st place.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Immigration_Acts
March 9th, 2008 at 8:20 am
“However, I support everything on his site. For example, I am totally pro-nationalized health care because I think it would be one of the most spectacularly hilarious multigigaton disasters ever seen in the history of civilization, and I’ll get LOTS of comedy material out of it”
In case you hadn’t noticed, our “healthcare” system is already the laughing stock of the entire civilized world.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Science and politics don’t mix phil..
Unfortunately, politics has effect and influence over science though…
its a one way street bascially—
Don’t you see that when everyones different “scientific” theories start to get legislated, things start looking pretty scary to those of us who don’t subscribe to what Phil Plait, randi, Kent Hovind, or Hagee believe?
Phil, I scares me that any one particular VIEWPOINT can be shouted over all others… especially when we could debate for YEARS on both ends of the spectrum… the debate is not settled, and many (millions) don’t believe in evolution.
So you have a choice— you can shove your view down everyones throat, or you can offer ALL choices on the table so to speak. Some theories are more equal than others, yet all should be discussed, hashed over, and most surely taught to all people in school.
I say, put evolution/creation to a vote … don’t let politicians decide, don’t let school boards that can be stacked decide, don’t let atheists, or creationists decide… let everyone decide what should be taught.
But please phil—- fascism is so unbecoming to freedom loving people like myself… don’t impose your views on others using politics.
After all your kvetching about ‘doomed’ this and ‘doomed’ that because someone ELSE who is pushing THEIR worldview is winning a school board seat, congressional seat etc… to turn around and do the exact same thing is being a hypocrite.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“The only thing that would be better would be if this were for a full term, but unfortunately it’s only to replace Dennis Hastert in a special election (who resigned amidst a lot of controversy in his involvement with the Abramoff scandal and Tom Delay’s shenanigans), so we’ll have to do it again in November. Feh.”
The term may be limited, but he’s got some time to build name recognition and get a track record under his belt – not to mention franking privileges. I don’t have the numbers to back up my assertion, but I think a sizable majority of legislators get reelected multiple times (unless they really botch their job). The problem is getting your foot in the door.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Mike J, I don’t know whether to ignore you, laugh at you, patiently explain why you are precisely wrong yet again, or admire you for standing your ground when a 1000 foot high tsunami bears down on you.
Science and politics do mix, and they have to, because the antiscience horde waits and waits until a chink in the armor appears. As long as politicians want to legislate fantasy, then science can and will be a political toy.
Science is not a viewpoint, Mike, no matter how much you wish it to be so. It’s reality. The fact that I can read your words typed overt the internet is proof of that.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Oh– I just read that Foster does not want to grant immunity to the telecoms, so he just went up another notch in my opinion.
And it does look like I agree with him on immigration. It’s a problem, and building a fence is ridiculous. We need real solutions, not demagoguery right now.
March 9th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“Science is not a viewpoint.” Well said, BA!
I am so sick of people of faith trying to portray science as a peer of blind faith! Rational thought is not a viewpoint!
It is such a sad irony that today even as we are living lifestyles immersed in and empowered by discoveries and inventions of the still-accelerating scientific revolution, many among us are still incapable of appreciating that science is simply a dedicated study of reality. To deny science is to deny reality! Reality is not subjective — opinions about it may be, but opinions are not science!
Our education system must be dedicated to the concept of teaching reality, and our government should stick to reality-based decision making in the running of our country. Hats off to any congressman who does not cloud their judgement with ideologies that deny reality!
March 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Daffy said: In case you hadn’t noticed, our “healthcare” system is already the laughing stock of the entire civilized world.
Well, I guess I shouldn’t have said our current system was good.
Oh, wait, I DIDN’T.
See what I mean about ideology, folks? It makes people hallucinate words.
BA said: Science and politics do mix
I’d to second that. In fact, I with we could make the scientific method an integral part of the political process, and do away with the rigid ideologies that keep us in a slowly degrading stasis.
Ideology is unscientific. It’s the reason government tries the same unsuccessful things over and over again. Look at health care for example. Because of ideology, one side will never consider a nationalized system while the other will never consider anything *but* a nationalized approach.
Personally, I have no conceptual problem with national health care. I simply think nationalized health care in *this* country with *this* population and *this* set of political forces/parties will be the fiscal equivalent of an extinction level asteroid strike, but even I’m still willing to entertain ideas and proposals on that front.
You all see the things like IDists in the school system and telecom nonsense and whatever and complain about it. You see the government waste and incompetence at all levels. Do you think the ones who will be in charge of a national health care system will somehow be better, that we’ll magically get a set of competent and rational administrators?
Sorry, but that’s an act of *faith* as great as trusting your fate to the noodley warmth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
@Fifty Pennies; QD: Thank You. My other favorite “but we’ve always been a country that never turned away immigrants”. The opposite is true* . Maybe the debate should be over the very concept behind having a border in the 1st place.
It’s really very simple. I we think we need, say, X million low skilled workers to do the grunt work in this economy, then bring them in on work visas. If they want to settle here permanently, fine. That’s a different form. All I ask is that it be done legally and orderly.
That simple and open approach gets me called “racist” in some quarters.
What I want to know is why no one ever calls out the activists. *They* are the ones who seem to want to maintain the status quo and keep people living in a shadowy state. They seem quite happy with the state of exploitation. What’s *their* real agenda.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
It’s a problem, and building a fence is ridiculous.
Well, “impractical” is the word I would use. I was sort of rooting for the virtual fence concept but, boy, did Boeing ever make a mess of that. Idiots.
We need real solutions, not demagoguery right now.
Well, there’s plenty of demagoguery to go around on all sides. A nationes *does* have the right to control its borders and maintain orderly immigration. That’s where I feel the Libertarians fall on their faces with their open borders stance. It flies in the face of all history and sanity.
The ultimate solution, by simple observation that we don’t have millions of Canadians streaming across the border, is to *fix* *Mexico*, but I don’t see how that can be done without a, um… [whisper]regime change[/whisper].
Oh, and somehow memetically engineer the Catholic basecoat out of their culture. That’s a big problem, too. Maybe even bigger than their government.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:37 am
I’m sorry, but I’m not all that optimistic. John Glenn, AFAIK, is a far better pilot-astronaut than a Senator. And what does military service and being a POW bring for Mr. McCain?
On medicine: push “the medical VISA card”. The American system is nuts because people other than the patient and doctor are involved in who gets paid what. Just think about how your credit cards work. Restrict this one to prescriptions and licensed doctor visits.
On fences: the real fence is law, which is simply disregarded. Seize the assets and close the business location of a site employing illegals – note the term, “ILLEGAL”? – until those people are deported. Even a WalMart store that loses its whole inventory won’t make that mistake twice. And quit the BS about “jobs Americans won’t do”. Those jobs never get advertised.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:56 am
QD: “Well, I guess I shouldn’t have said our current system was good.
Oh, wait, I DIDN’T.
See what I mean about ideology, folks? It makes people hallucinate words.”
That is one of the more disingenuous postings I have ever seen here.
Try another personal insult, QD; maybe that will make your point more convincing.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Mike J. writes:
[[I say, put evolution/creation to a vote … don’t let politicians decide, don’t let school boards that can be stacked decide, don’t let atheists, or creationists decide… let everyone decide what should be taught.]]
I don’t believe you’ve thought this through. Do you want people to decide whether chemistry or alchemy should be taught in high school science classes, or astronomy versus astrology? The latter would probably win. Do you want people voting on whether mainstream medicine or homeopathy should be taught to new medical students?
I really think the experts have to make some of the decisions. We can decide what to do about the facts, but to decide what the facts are, you need the experts. Any country that ignores that is doomed, as BA would put it.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:05 am
QD, why would national health insurance work in Canada, and national health care work in the UK and France, but neither work here in the US?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
To be fair, he’s not the first scientist in Congress. Last I knew (over an election ago, so I can’t claim that this is still true), there were at least 3 PhD’ed scientists in the House. The only one I can name off-hand is Rush Holt from New Jersey. We share an alma mater, so I’ve been perking up whenever his name makes it into the news for quite a while. I’ve been impressed with his stances on science-related issues, so I have good hopes for other scientists who get elected to the various legislatures.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Mike J said:
“I say, put evolution/creation to a vote … don’t let politicians decide, don’t let school boards that can be stacked decide, don’t let atheists, or creationists decide… let everyone decide what should be taught.”
Erm … so, does this mean you consider science to be a matter of opinion? Whatever happened to following the evidence, trying to remain objective, and drawing conclusions only from what is supported by evidence?
To put your suggestion into some context, Mike, I’ve been trying to think of a simple analogy. Here goes.
Imagine your car is making a clonking sound when you drive it. You take it to a garage, and the mechanic tells you that your big-end bearing is worn out so you need either a new engine or an engine rebuild. Let’s assume you don’t like the sound of this (after all, it sounds expensive), so you take it to another garage, where you are told the same thing. You then go to another, and another, and another. After 12 garages, where you have been told the same thing 12 times, you then ask your local pastor, who tells you that the car needs an exorcism. You are suggesting that we ask the nation to vote between an exorcism and an engine rebuild.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:28 am
He can code assembly to!
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/13/212259&from=rss
July 1st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
[...] hmmm… I wonder if the new Illinois Representative Bill Foster — a particle physicist from Fermilab — had anything to do with [...]