Chariots of Iron

A new PR campaign has been launched in the UK, “Science: So What? – So everything”.

It is my sincere hope that Obama and his new administration would strive to bring something akin to this campaign to the US. Ignorance, mistrust and misunderstanding best describe the general population of the United States’ attitudes toward science and scientific research.

With 2009 being the anniversary of a couple great scientific landmarks it is far beyond time that not only scientific research got the federal funding it deserves, but also an effort is made to educate the public in the value of such research. If the US is to keep a shred of it’s dignity a new generation of scientists and engineers is going to be absolutely vital, we need a new “inspired generation”.

Just as my generation was inspired by David Attenborough and Carl Sagan, new public faces will be needed. Unfortunately the over-saturation of media is a difficult obstacle to overcome. Cable came late to the small town I grew up in, and even then cable television was only tens of channels instead of the hundreds available to me now. How do we get children and adults to see the message when there’s a dozen christian broadcast channels and 24-hour Reality TV networks?

I don’ t know how to overcome these obstacles, but I feel it is necessary, perhaps entertaining and educational science videos sponsored by the National Academies mandatory in school science classes?

This fundig is just as important as the money going to directly fund research, in the long term it will pay back tenfold, ensuring a higher quality of life in prepetuity, not just for americans but around the world.

Disaster continues for this fine nation I live in and the forces of the “christian right” (as opposed to the respectable right, the fiscal conservatives) are galvanizing and pushing their religious agenda harder than ever. Shortly after becoming absolutely incensed over Bill-O the clowns remarks concerning the Atheist sign in Washington state (which has now gone missing). We’ve got this revisionist historian airing his opinions in the Miami-Herald.

read more »

it’s election day here in the united States of America, and like millions of other political junkies across this nation I’m glued to some form of media. In my case, the internet, refreshing fivethirtyeight.com cnn.com/politics and my various other news feeds just to know the split second any results are in at all. It’s exciting it’s a strange combination of hope and anxiety.

For those of you who listen to the podcast or read this regularly you’ve probably gotten the hint that I’m a supporter of Obama. I want him to win, but not only for the reasons I’ve espoused previously.

This campaign season has been quite long, and throughout the general election we’ve seen two very different styles of campaigns run. In this battle of campaign styles I want a message sent to campaign mangers everywhere. Campaigns which focus primarily on a negative message must stop. I have been highly disappointed in the campaign of a local candidate for U.S. Senator here in Oregon. The campaign of Jeff Merkley has focused almost entirely on a single message in its advertising, “Gordon Smith is bad”. The trend of politics since 2000 has not been to get you to vote for someone, but against someone. And frankly I’m sick of it.

The Obama campaign has focused primarily on a positive message, Obama has told me what he’s going to do and how he’s going to do it. Sure he’s also tried to link Senator McCain with the policies of the current administration, but his Half-hour spot last week had nary a mention of his opponent, and at least for the television ads here in Oregon, they’ve been light on attacks and strong on issues. I contrast this with the McCain and Merkley campaigns where nearly every ad i have seen has been a character-based ad-hominem on the opposition. Ayers and Rev. Wright and “Socialist” against Obama, and “Smith’s frozen food factory hires illegal immigrants” in the Senatorial race. Frankly if it were not for the local Senatorial debate and work by Merley surrogates like the CFL-AIO I’d have no clue as to where Merkley stands on the issues. Same goes for McCain, if I were to base what I know solely on the advertising.

I hope this election sends a refferendum to those who run political campaigns that negative doesn’t work. I hope the american people don’t fall for such tactics. I want the level of political discourse in this country to rise above such childish strategies. We’ve seen it backfire in the North Carolina race between Dole and Hagan, may this trend continue.

I’m going to chime in a little on politics due to recent comments by Alaska Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Governor stated at a campaign rally that she enjoys going to “Pro-American” parts of the country, implying of course that some areas of this nation I call home are not “Pro-American”. While this is a shameless “wedge strategy” to malign the generally democratic-leaning urban areas, pandering to rural voters. I take umbrage as an urbanite. We’ve seen recent (and not so recent) comments by politicians maligning atheists as “Unamerican” or implying that being atheist is unpatriotic, so these comments again raise my ire.

In response I thought I’d do a little experiment (being the scientific-minded fellow I am). I’m going to break down the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, arguably the most important document in the founding of this great nation and see where a stereotypical liberal and a stereotypical conservative stand on each of them. I could go through the whole constitution, but I feel this is a good litmus test. Please keep in mind that these are taken as the “stereotypical” views of these positions and do not reflect my own personal views on these amendments. Text of the amendments is taken from Wikipedia.org.

1.) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Liberal View – “Well, except for hate speech”.

Conservative View – As long as that religion is a christian one, and no one is burning flags, or desecrating a host, or taking prayer out of school, or….

Advantage: Tie.

2.) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Liberal View: Guns are dangerous and should be outlawed, see there it’s tied into a “well regulated militia”.

Conservative: See there “shall not be infringed”, it is the right of “the people” to keep weapons.

Advantage: Conservative

3.) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Liberal: I don’t want to house a warmonger!

Conservative: Get off my lawn! My property, my rights!

Advantage: Tie

4.) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Liberal: Everyone has a right to privacy, what they do in thier own homes with mutual consent is nobody’s business but those involved.

Conservative: If you’re not doing anything wrong then you’ve got nothing to hide.

Advantage: Liberal

5.) No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Liberal: Due process is important, sometimes the guilty may go free, but it’s the price of living in a fair and just society.

Conservative: I don’t want a rapist or a murderer to go free just because some police officer forgot to fill out a form, or signed on the wrong dotted line.

Advantage:Liberal

6.) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Liberal: No problems here…

Conservative: well, unless they’re a terrorist! Stupid trial lawyers!

Advantage: Liberal.

7.) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Conservative: Fine by me…

Liberal: Me as well

Advantage: Tie.

8.) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Conservative: Well, unless they’re a terrorist…

Liberal: It’s important that America takes the high moral ground as an example to the rest of the world, what right do we have condemning torture if we inflict it ourselves?

Advantage: Liberal

9.) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Conservative: Unless they’re a Homosexual…

Liberal: Spot on!

Advantage: Liberal

10.) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Conservative: That’s right, let the states decide!

Liberal: If we’d have let the states decide how would Civil Rights, or Reproductive rights or the rights of Women stand today?

Advantage: Conservative.

Totals:

Advantage Liberal: 4

Advantage Conservative: 2

Tie:4

So, who’s really more “Pro-America”? Liberals agree with 8 of the first 10 ammendments and Conservatives agree with 6 of 10. Grading like a school I’d give liberals a “B” or high “C” and Conservatives a “D” or high “F”. It’s clear both groups have work to do if they want to be 100% in-line with the values the founders of this nation held dear, but it’s fairly clear that some have more work to do than others.

With recent changes in the US Presidential race polls there has been a grasping by the media to explain what is going on. Dubbed the “Palin push” this phenomenon is currently being attributed to an upsurge in political activism by conservative women who see the VP pick as a reflection of their own values.

And herein lies the problem, I don’t really know why it never struck me earlier (maybe it did and I’m just not recalling right now). It’s not that the “Family Values” voter wants a candidate who shares their vales, but rather, wants to make sure that those values are reflected in national policy. They want these values enforced.

Now excuse me, but part of the whole aspect of “Freedom of Religion” is it is an implicit recognition that we all have different values based upon our own faith (or lack thereof), and that one could define freedom is the ability to live within a framework of ones own personal values (excepting where they inhibit another from having the same opportunity).  to the “family values” voter, this is not enough, the presence of those living by a different set of ethical and/or moral behavior, is seen as a threat to their own moral code. This, in my view, is a tacit admission of just how weak they think their values are.

All of us, to one degree or another have a value position we wouldn’t mind seeing enacted into a law, however, flip that coin over and you’re not so happy. Having a particular dogma promoted by a government is great, as long as it’s yours.

I wish that for just a moment voters who value “values” and thier protection would understand this basic fact, that the only way to protect any level of “family values” in by ensuring the freedoms supposedly guranteed by the U.S. Constitution for us to each hold our values as our own. Vote for the candidate that is going to let you hold onto your own values and not subject you to anyone elses.