Ok, this looks like a good article for debate, since we have a number of spiritual individuals on this board: Kerry Gets Backing
Yes, Dr. Gina - one would think this is good fodder for debating types. But as one who closely follows such matters of science and politics (I am in the U of London env mgmt MSc program), it is a non-starter: it's a Union of Concerned Scientists (i.e., far left) kind of gambit - i.e., eminently dismissable by informed politicos. In other words, it's a case of preaching to the converted, but no one else. "Rule by experts" was valorized by the Progressives 90 years ago - and has long since been discredited by all immunized against socialist planning's self-delusions of successful granduer. There's no second coming for Kerry! (But that's just my opinion - your mileage may vary.) The politicization of contemporary science is a huge topic, but in this case, the shoe is - arguably - on the other foot! As Gregg Easterbrooke has argued convincingly in the pages of The New Republic (and online), Bush has done more for the environment in his first two years than Clinton did in eight. Will this buy Bush any goodwill? Of course not! The facts will be damned because he's a Pubbie. (There's no accounting for hysteria among the well-intentioned Left - and their allies in the media.) --Orson
The most shocking thing at all about the article was that John Kerry actually made a vote in the Senate!!!
Good one, Bruce! (Oddly enough, I just saw Kerry in the Senate moments ago on cable TV. I didn't know he had a day job....) --Orson
One parting thought: If we had had rue by experts in 1980, there would never have been a Reagan Era. The thought occured to me because of the coincidence of Dr. Gina's above provocation and bumping into this twenty year-old news story at the height of that year's presidential campaign: "The New York Times, UPI | October 31, 1984 One hundred one academics who support the Presidential candidacy of Walter F. Mondale bought a quarter page advertisement in today's issue of the New York Times to say Mr. Reagan's suggestion "that his record was in the tradition of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy" was "a flagrant distortion of reality to serve his own political purpose." The group, which includes five Nobel prize winners, comes from 22 colleges, universities and other institutions." --Orson
If John Kerry actually made a vote, it probably was something like a 1000% increase in welfare benefits to illegal aliens, or the total abdication of US sovereignty to the United Nations.
Actually, it's not "eminently dismissible." The article captures very real concerns from the scientific community about the direction the Bush Admin has taken. Bush is controlled by the religious right, and his policy decisions on scientific matters are colored by this. Ron Reagan lamented the Bush Admin stand on stem cell research on Larry King just the other night. Bush is not a smart man (maybe not dumb either, just remarkably mediocre), and unfortunately he doesn't even possess the good sense to know he's not smart. As a result, we have idiots in his cabinet who are controlled by ignorance and fear, and who cannot keep from blending religion and matters of the State. Having Bush directing traffic for the scientific community is the height of lunacy. It's like relying on your dog to teach you algebra. There's not a hope in hell of success. Test question that may take some research: how many Nobel Prize Winners are conservatives? How many are liberals? It may be impossible to research completely, and there are certainly gradations that make "either-or" comparisons impossible, but common sense would dictate that the vast majority are liberals. Great science (or great peace in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize) requires (generally) an open mind and consideration of often contradictory points of view (essentially the definition of a "first rate intellect" given by F.Scott Fitzgerald), certainly not a hallmark of conservative thinking. Conservatives rail against what they call the “elite”, when what they are really fighting with is the “intellectual.” In an interview (about what, I don’t remember) Bush referred to his detractors as the “elite”. The irony is that he is about as “elite” as they come. What he really meant, I suspect, is “intellectuals” who are just plain smarter than he is. Sorry to break it to you, campers. To get the ball rolling, just off the top of my head are 3 prominent liberals who are also prize winners: Einstein, Pauling, and Jimmy Carter. And of course, Gorbachev, not Reagan, won a Nobel for peace. Reagan may have implored him to "tear down that wall." Gorbachev actually did the leg work. Yea, I know. The Nobel Prize is just a political tool used by liberal socialists, commnists, whatever...easily dismissable by those who feel threatened by points of view that, no matter how compelling, make others feel threatened and dumb. Or, I'm sure we'll also hear the claptrap about how Einstein was really a racist, wife beater blah blah. And Carter was really blah blah blah. Cmon let's hear it.
I think that there may be some truth to that, though things like luck and commitment are involved as well. But unlike you, I don't think that open-mindedness is to be identified with either extreme on the political (or any other) spectrum. Open mindedness is the hall-mark of moderation, of pragmatism, of centrism. By definition, open-mindedness means a willingness to consider the views of opponents. It means the ability to see the truth and value in what they are saying. It implies the possibility of reaching a higher synthesis. The extremists, the true-believers, no matter what flag they happen to be flying, believe that they already possess the saving truth. They have no reason to listen to their opponents because those opponents are simply wrong, if not evil. They know everything they need to know. They indoctrinate, they convert, they battle, but they are incapable of listening. So my point is that neither the left or the right are truly open-minded. If you want to find the free-thinkers, look to the middle, to the apolitical, to the seekers, to the skeptics, to the independents. Look to the people who don't already fly a flag, who don't already wear a righteous cause on their sleeve. They might be willing to listen to you, to hear what you have to say. The opposite extreme certainly won't listen, just as you can't hear them.
Whaddya mean terrible President? I mean he gave away the Panama Canal didn't he? Also, there was a brief period of time, very brief, during the Carter administration where it was almost "OK" to smoke weed.... ah for the good old days!
Personally I'm an uncommitted voter at this time. (Not that it matters, any Democrat would carry California.) While the prize winners certainly have the right to express their views, their opinions have no impact on me. I wonder how many have balanced a checkbook? Kerry has yet to clarify his differences from Bush to my satisfaction. I had the opportunity to speak with Bush in a social setting in 1992 and I know he's not the devil Michael Moore portrays him to be. But certain things about the president’s policies make me uncomfortable.
