This leads me to believe that his software filter interpreted my email to mean something it didn’t. If this is a more widespread phenomenon, this could seriously hamper the effectiveness of sending such emails to our representatives.

I wonder if it would be better to use the words physics and budget more often in the email so they are more likely interpreted correctly. But then again, maybe the filter interpreted my email that way since it didn’t know of the physics budget issue as being a possibility; making emails useless. So maybe a different approach is needed altogether.

If you look back over the last 15 years, it is clear that HEP budget has been suffering a long and steady decline. The rate does not change when there is a change in partisan control of the House, Senate, or Presidency.

The problem is not that one political party particularly disfavors HEP. The problem is that neither party sees it as a significant priority when compared to other budget items. We have been failing to make the case for HEP for 15 years.

If we don’t want HEP to die in the US, what we need to do is to make a better argument for it. It is irrational to hope that the same old failing arguments will suddenly become effective when a new president is elected.