Politics

The War on Science

Michael Koppelman, 6 Comments

The folks at Effect Measure have a great post on the war on science and they make a very tangible point:

The attack on the science has two components. The first is the most obvious: to use what appear to be scientific arguments to cast doubt on what the scientific community deems valid arguments about climate change. But the second may be the most important: to do it in a way that casts aspersions on all kinds of scientific argument. The attackers don’t care if they are accused of political or economic bias in making their own scientific arguments because one of their objectives is to establish a covert narrative that says science is always biased and tainted by political corruption. The aim is to destroy the moral authority of science, not its factual basis. They then erect a new standard based on economic promise and the virtues of “progress” and modernity.

I’ve said before that scientists tend to be liberals. It’s just a fact, just like big business guys tend to be conservatives. I don’t think either side needs to apologize for this. But the Right Wing hates this because science does hold a special place in our debates. You can’t argue about issues like climate change, embryonic stem cell research or natural selection without involving science and the fact that all the scientists are on the Left makes it seem, to some, that “science” is just a political tactic to win debates. The above quoted paragraph makes quite clear how the Right Wing has chosen to fight this: just claim that all science is biased!

I interviewed a particle physicist lately (which I will soon post over at Slacker Astronomy) and he said, and I quote, “I don’t believe anything.”. He has trained himself as a scientist to not believe things — he either knows or he doesn’t know and “knowing” involves a file cabinet full of data and research. He has purged himself of belief because it is a liability as a scientist.

So, I’m sorry, you sad little Righties. Science is not a tactic and when your beliefs are in opposition with science your beliefs needs to be modified.

The War on Science

Smart, educated and well-informed people should run this country

Michael Koppelman, , , 10 Comments

Micadelic said:

What I am pointing out also goes to why you Obama cultists are so clueless. You all do not understand America, or the American electorate. You elitists long for this country to be something that (hopefully) it will never be. You don’t understand the majority of “gun-loving, bitter, religious, stupid people” that must be won over in order to be elected to lead them. You just do not get it. You all are so smart you’re stupid. You live in these bubbles where your views are continually reinforced, so much so you start to believe they are mainstream.

The problem with this point, Micadelic, is that it is really 50/50 in this country, as we saw in the last couple of elections. I agree, there are many people who disagree with me. There are also many, many people who agree with me.

I am wondering about the word “elitist”. I think your average gun-loving, pro-life, fag-hating redneck is wrong about a lot of things. That is not to say they are bad people, they are not, and I know and love many a gun-loving, pro-life, fag-hating redneck. But I argue with them and I argue based on thinking. I admit it! I base my arguments on thinking. I try to gather facts and information and think about all sides of an issue. Then I try to use my best judgment, based on balancing my principles with what I think is practical and achievable.

Let’s use guns as an example, the data is in and the US has more guns deaths, by far, than any other westernized country. The US also has the most gun proliferation in the westernized world. Prior to discussing what our policy should be, you have to be an idiot if you don’t see causation between the vast proliferation of guns in the US and the vastly higher incidents of gun deaths.

I’m not anti-gun. I have no desire to deprive rednecks of their guns. But the streets of Minneapolis are very different from the farms of northern Minnesota. Cops are in grave danger every day due to the proliferation of guns. Do you think we can take that into account when we debate gun policy? Am I an “elitist” because I think that, yes, god dammit, we have to be able to debate gun policy?

The 50% of the people you are supporting in the above paragraph think that gun policy should be off the table. They hated the Brady Bill and they’ve worked to thwart any effort to debate gun policy. They are wrong and I’m not going to pander to them to get their vote.

If you think gun policy should be off the table, that doctors should be thrown in jail for performing abortions and that gay people should be denied spousal rights and benefits, you’re wrong. I can’t care if you have a majority or not, you’re wrong. A majority of people were in favor of slavery, too. Populism can be just as bad, or worse, than elitism.

I think smart, educated and well-informed people should run this country. I think ignorant, uneducated and uninformed people should not. Do you disagree? One could argue that “smart, educated and well-informed” constitutes an elite. If so, I’m an elitist.

Smart, educated and well-informed people should run this country

OH NO! 8 years ago Franken wrote some comedy!

Michael Koppelman, 3 Comments

It’s sad to see that U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum has trouble with context switches. Yes, 8 years ago Al Franken wrote an off-color piece for Playboy. She said:

“As a woman, mother, a former teacher and an elected official, I find this material completely unacceptable,” McCollum told the Star Tribune.

I bet you don’t subscribe to Playboy then, huh? Good! That’s how the marketplace of ideas works. If you don’t want to read things like people joking about pornography, you are not required to read it.

Franken’s office responded:

“Al understands, and the people of Minnesota understand, the difference between what a satirist does and what a senator does,” Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr told the Associated Press. “It’s unfortunate that she’s trying to create divisions in our party rather than working with other DFLers (Minnesota Democrats) to take on the special-interest senator.”

Listen up, Democrats: you’ll recall we had a governor in this state named Jesse Ventura. You floated up a limp whale of a candidate against him and you lost. The people of Minnesota are real people and we don’t mind that our elected officials are real people. Al Franken is a huge liability if you think like the people who lost against Jesse Ventura. He’s a huge asset if you think that honesty, humor and non-career politicians are a good thing. Franken will trounce Coleman unless you guys keep on this puritan bullshit. Al Franken has spent most of his life being a comedian. There are all sorts of off-color remarks in his past. We don’t care.

OH NO! 8 years ago Franken wrote some comedy!

Obama is more experienced than Reagan

Michael Koppelman, 5 Comments

People keep trying to bring up Obama’s “inexperience”. I have two objections to this. 1) He is a very accomplished person professionally and 2) Why is it, all of a sudden, that people think the only ones capable of being President are career politicians? Who else has direct foreign policy experience except people in government? Are we non-politicians so stupid and so ill-informed that we could never be considered for President?

No, of course not. Obama has a law degree from Harvard and he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was professor and a lawyer before serving in both the state senate and the US Senate. He has more government experience that probably 99.99% of the people in the country.

By contrast, Ronald Reagan was the governor of California for 2 terms. That is the sum total of his political experience. Note that this includes no foreign policy experience. Oh I guess I should mention he was the president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Obama is more experienced and more educated than Reagan was and much better prepared to be President.

Obama is not perfect. I disagree with some of his positions. But STFU with this bullshit that he is incapable of doing the job. He is completely capable and he represents a welcome change from the 8 years of incompetence we just endured.

Obama is more experienced than Reagan

Politics == Compromise

Michael Koppelman2 Comments

Here is my new revelation: we’re doing this wrong. What we are doing is expecting a rational compromise to come out of political warfare. We are expecting the compromise to occur on the global level — lots of righties, lots of lefties and hopefully something gets done somewhere in the middle.

That’s wrong. What we need to do is be prepared to compromise ourselves, internally, in terms of how we elect our leaders. This is exemplified easiest as “single issue politics”. There is not a more irrational strategy than single issue politics. We must accommodate multi-issue politics in our decisions and we have to be immune to the constant pressure by single-issue institutions to do otherwise.

There are conservative values I agree with. Many conservatives share some of my liberals values. This is not binary. We need to elect sensible, thinking people who really want to solve problems. That is more important than electing people who punch the same answer as you on the scorecard.

For example: Hey, Righties, could you live with someone who raised taxes on you if they delivered a robust economy? Hey, Lefties, could you live with fewer social programs if they delivered you situation where fewer people needed it? Can we worry a little more about the strategies and less about the tactics?

Some of the goals are a good standard of living, a robust economy, peaceful relationships with the world, minimal government interference in our lives and a just and equitable society. Can we agree on that? If so, can we be ready to compromise on the tactics and methods to achieve these things?

The compromise doesn’t happen “out there”. It happens in you and in me and it happens when we look at the big picture. We need better leaders. We have the power to select better leaders. We have to stop electing ideologues and start electing problem solvers. You’re the only one who can do that.

Politics == Compromise

Operation: Desperation begins

Michael Koppelman, , 16 Comments

I really can’t add much to this article at the Minnesota Monitor: Rightwing blogs decry Obama’s meeting with imam Bush kissed except to try to point attention to it.

I have a challenge for conservatives and middle of the road Republicans — give Obama a chance. Just give the man a chance. John “Bush 3.0” McCain represents nothing more than a minor tweaking to Bush’s policies on Iraq and the economy. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. I know the far right could never vote for Obama but many of you that voted for Bush and were disappointed owe it to yourselves to listen to Obama and give him a chance to earn your support. I don’t agree with Obama on every issue. It’s not required that you agree with a candidate on every issue. Separate the person from the political party and give each candidate a fair shot at your support.

I respect John McCain. I really hope he doesn’t give me reason to withdraw that respect during this campaign. I agree with McCain to some extent on several issues, I respectfully disagree on some issues and I think he is dead wrong on some issues. I will listen to him during this campaign and I hope he surprises me. The Dept. of Opinion Manipulation in the Republican party is going to try to make him say all sorts of stuff*. I hope he doesn’t say it.

* I was dismayed that McCain went to the NRA with same old tired and incorrect bullshit about how Democrats want to take your guns away. I think Obama should go talk to the NRA and say “how long are you gonna let Republicans buy your vote by uttering the one sentence they know you want them to say? It’s fucking naive to think that any single issue is more important than the management of the United States of America as a whole. Your interests are much broader and more vital than the single issue of gun legislation. No one is trying to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens. Relax and let’s move on to the important stuff.”

Operation: Desperation begins

Appeasement

Michael Koppelman2 Comments

This is entertaining:

It’s a key point and it is good that Matthews pushed it: appeasement does not mean “talking to”. It means giving up something in hopes of avoiding a conflict. Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler by signing the Munich Agreement, conceding part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

John F. Kennedy said “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” I agree with him. I think Bush is a dumbshit.

Appeasement

Fer fuck's sake, Pawlenty

Michael Koppelman3 Comments

Stung by criticism that his Monday letter explaining a veto of legislation to ban a fire retardant and a known toxin in children’s toys was “riddled with inaccuracies,” Gov. Tim Pawlenty yesterday acknowledged factual misstatements and apologized.

But he still stands behind his veto:

And so, the governor altered his reasons for vetoing the bill which, he said Tuesday, was because “many studies regarding the impact of DECA do not support a ban.”

Meanwhile, in reality:

Dahl said the “overwhelming conclusion” of independent, peer-reviewed studies is that DECA is a “dangerous neurotoxin.” She produced a long list of abstracts for scientific papers documenting known hazards of DECA, and another list of studies on another toxin, phthalate (pronounced fail-ate), that would be phased out in the vetoed bill.

Dahl said that both DECA and phthalate do not bond to the products in which they’re used, meaning that the chemicals are released as children chew on playthings or as products heat up.

Forty-one nations, including the European Union and Mexico, have banned phthalate; the giant retailer Toys R Us and toymaker Mattel have vowed to be phthalate-free by the end of the year.

The flame-retardant DECA — a “developmental neurotoxin” similar to PCBs, which were banned in Minnesota in the 1970s — is used in textiles, mattresses, and electronics. Heat causes DECA to be released, exposing firefighters to elevated chemical risk as they respond to fires.

Children are affected as heat from laptops and TV sets release DECA into dust that then circulates around the home and into carpeting.

Hmmm, I wonder whose pocket the Gov. is in on this one?

(via MinnPost)

Fer fuck's sake, Pawlenty