"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[Cleon]

Are we electing a president or a biologist?

How many people believe in evolution without being able to explain or understand it. That is just as bad if not worse because you believe something because it is the right thing to believe and you just skip over the qualification that one should understand something before believing it.

I believe in evolution because I understand it. It is science, not politics.

We're electing someone who will have a great deal of influence over matters of education and, yes, science.

I want a pro-science president. Why don't you?

 

[leftysergeant]

Science goes where the majority of the facts point. Sometimes the data does not all point in the same direction. The world is not rational. It is not rational in any way.

Excuse me, but that means that you are working from defective or insufficient data to reach a correct conclusion.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Bill is a good example that, given long enough, all Conservatives will start to resemble Robert Prey.

 

[bikerdruid]

Bill is a good example that, given long enough, all Conservatives will start to resemble Robert Prey.

hey, i kinda like bill.

 

[RandFan]

Are we electing a president or a biologist?

How many people believe in evolution without being able to explain or understand it. That is just as bad if not worse because you believe something because it is the right thing to believe and you just skip over the qualification that one should understand something before believing it.

I believe in evolution because I understand it. It is science, not politics.

After 8 years of Bush's war on science I want a president that understands and accepts science.

 

[cwalner]

Are we electing a president or a biologist?

How many people believe in evolution without being able to explain or understand it. That is just as bad if not worse because you believe something because it is the right thing to believe and you just skip over the qualification that one should understand something before believing it.

I believe in evolution because I understand it. It is science, not politics.

You are almost right. The president also has a position on his staff called science adviser. It is his job to understand the science and explain the implications so the president can set prudent policy (and when necessary get other scientists who specialize in the field to advise him).

It is asking too much for a president to be an expert on every piece of science out there. It is not asking too much that a president actually use his science adviser and avoid setting policy that is contradictory to science (such as abstinence only sex education.) because of his religious beliefs.

 

[leftysergeant]

So who do you want for a POTUS? I would rather have the brightest man in the room than a superstitious twit who thinks it helps the poor when we feed the rich.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Where do I get my information? I lived through it. I'm 68. Perhaps you're younger and don't remember the Vietnam war.

Here's a bit of my biography that might explain something to you. When I was 17, about to turn 18, my parents pushed me into joining the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army, thus to keep me a step or so back from any war. Since I was still 17 when I joined, I was in for what was called the Minority Enlistment: Join before you're 18, you get out the day before you turn 21. Those of us in for the minority enlistment were called, in the Navy, "kiddie cruisers." I joined in 1961 and was released from active duty in 1964. In addition to getting out before I turned 21, I got an earlier out to start college. I would have gotten out in mid October, but actually got out in early September of 1964.

I was raised in the 'burbs and was rather insulated from the outside world. Thus, my political values were somewhat moderate to conservative. During my last year of enlistment I discovered the works of Ayn Rand and became infatuated with her philosophy of objectivism. It really did appeal to a 20 year-old with limited life experience. In 1964 I registered as a Republican and enthusiastically voted for Barry Goldwater. Thus, when the Vietnam war started, I was an avid supporter of the war.

My support for the Vietnam war steadily eroded when government after government in South Vietnam fell. Each one was touted by the Johnson administration to be the one that would bring political stability to South Vietnam. None of them did. Further, year after year of American involvement in the war failed to make any gains. No territory was taken from the Viet Cong, and there was no conversion of the countryside into supporting our side in the struggle.

I began the war as an Ayn Rand enthusiast and a Goldwater Republican. By the end of the war, I was on the political left. Reality and my initial political ideology clashed. Eventually, reality won.

Let me end with an anecdote that indicates the duplicity of the American government toward its people concerning why and when we were drawn into that conflict. I was a hospital corpsman in the Navy. One of the hazards of being a Navy corpsman is that, upon graduation from Hospital Corps school, you might get sent to the Fleet Marine Force; i.e. you had joined the Navy, only to end up wearing Marine uniform, undergoing infantry training and being in combat with the Marines. Generally, only one or two guys from each company would be taken into the Fleet Marine Force. Suddenly, as our company was about to graduate in 1962, they started taking whole companies for the Fleet Marines (They leap-frogged our company, and I was spared that danger). The rationale given for this was that they were building up WestPac, i.e. the west Pacific Fleet. Since we were all naive 18 year-olds, t didn't occur to us to ask why they were building up WestPac. Of course, they were building it up to get ready for the Vietnam war. Thus, the assertion that we only went into Vietnam reluctantly in 1964 in response to North Vietnamese PT boats attacking our Navy ships is bogus.

Frankly, I think my living through the years of the Vietnam war trumps any book you can throw at me.

Unless the book is taken from a number of sources and written by a number of historians like the one I linked to.

Your personal experience was not the whole war anymore than my personal experience was about the whole Lebanon Peacekeeping Effort.

 

[TimCallahan]

Unless the book is taken from a number of sources and written by a number of historians like the one I linked to.

Your personal experience was not the whole war anymore than my personal experience was about the whole Lebanon Peacekeeping Effort.

Wow! It took you a long time to respond to my post. Okay, my personal experience isn't the whole deal, quite correct. However, if you look into the history or the Viet Nam war you will find that my experience was common. These facts remain true:

1. The American people were misled by their own government to get us into that war.

2. The South Vietnamese governments we supported were incompetent.

3. When we left Viet Nam we left the South Vietnamese government with an up to date air force after having destroyed the North Vietnamese air force, a large well-trained, well-equipped army and control of a sizable portion of territory. They should have been able to make a fight out of it at least. Instead, the collapsed.