Check the latest polling numbers. Palin’s 15 minutes are up.

e.

We don’t need the daily “talking points” memo from the McCain campaign cut and pasted for us. If we want to read them we can go to the campaign web site.

Are you next going to tell us the story of how his loving wife Cindy sits there every night and types his e-mails for him?

Stephen Hawking is in much worse physical shape than McCain and I personally saw him responding to an email himself. He was discussing climate change with Al Gore.

e.

Criticizing a decorated veteran for his war injuries. Now that’s out of touch.

Your points are well-taken, but I have three quick observations:

First, I’m not sure that the difference in religious and superstitious belief between the two parties is as stark as you believe. Surveys show that non-religious people are a minority in this country by a wide margin (which is why Democratic and Republican politicians alike make a public spectacle of their church attendance), so for Democrats and Republicans to be as close in national polls as they generally are, there must be a fair proportion of religious Democrats.

Second, wedge issues are a staple of politicians everywhere. Indeed, if you take away the wedge issues, there is precious little daylight between the two parties’ platforms. Lately, Democrats have taken to using science as a wedge issue, and science always comes out the worse for it. For example, the 105th Congress passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution on global climate change by a vote of 95-0, which is about as bipartisan as you could ask for. Then, in the 2000 campaign Al Gore turned the issue of climate change into a political football, the battle lines were drawn, and the result was less progress on fighting climate change, not more. Politics wins, science loses, which is pretty much always the case when science and politics mix.

Finally, do you dispute that Democrats would throw science under the bus in a heartbeat, if a scientific finding conflicted with a cherished plank in the Democratic platform? We’ve already seen plenty of anti-intellectualism in the Clinton campaign, but perhaps the Obama camp is different. I wouldn’t bet on it, though.

I suppose my thinking is a bit muddled, inasmuch as I am not even sure what I am trying to convince you of. Certainly I’m not suggesting anyone should vote Republican. I suppose it just bothers me to see so many of my friends and colleagues so willing to be duped. The pursuits of power and science are not consistent with one another, and we should never forget which one the political parties have chosen. In the end, I think we want to believe that there are good guys out there who will crusade for what we know to be right. Having identified the bad guys, we assume that the people who oppose them are the crusaders we seek. We then put away our “baloney detection kits” and give them a pass on any ridiculous thing they might say. I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s more important to debunk the ridiculous things espoused by “our” guys than the ones by “their” guys, and if you ever find yourself at a loss for something ridiculous from your favorite candidate, it’s then that you need to worry most that you’ve been taken in.

rpl,

The points you make are true only in the most abstract sense. Any fair summary of Republicans vs Democrats — the personal views of each party’s participants and supporters — would, I believe, demonstrate that among Republicans generally there is a much higher proportion of religious, superstitious and anti-intellectual thinking. Not just that, but it is something of which they are proud and use as wedge issues to win elections.

Sure, both parties are bad in many respects. Sure, some of my best friends are Republicans. However, in an effort to give the appearance of objectivity “in the end, I think your post shows a lot of muddled thinking.”

That is an interesting perspective. I was obviously focused on the hierarchy of complex systems instead of looking at it from the point of view of an observer of the world.

But what you say does make sense.

e.