More politics and science

The Scientist has a thought provoking editorial on how ideological policies in the federal government affect science development in this country. It's not surprising that ideology impacts all facets of a society, but this particular administration seems to impart more of a conservative religous tone towards science policy. Stem cell research, and the blocking of federal, taxpayer dollars towards embryonic stem cell research, is a good paradigm for this policy and Bush's "compassionate conservative" theme. This theme includes the failure to embrace the science behind global warming (and anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change), to fully support AIDS research, or the view that resource utilization trumps environmental stewardship.

This president didn't have a mandate to do much of anything after the 2000 election. 9/11 gave him a mandate, based on people's fears, and the Republicans have run with it, affecting deeper change in our society than they would have been able to otherwise. They still manipulate the populace using fear of terrorism as a tactic. Yes, terrorism is real and yes, it has to be dealt with in a very permanent way to make us all safer. But I believe the threat of terrorism can be reduced without invading countries that did not pose a threat to the United States. So far, it seems all we've really done is create a new breed of terrorist with no end in sight.

We can only hope that 11/2/04 reverses the ideology in power. The election of John Kerry will go a long ways towards reversing some of the extreme conservative changes and corresponding inroads on personal freedoms, as well has removing religion-based restrictions on science in this country. It will also remove the use of fear as a method to further a political agenda.

NY Times Endorses Kerry for President

I hadn't seen this earlier but the NY Times has endorsed John Kerry for President in an October 17 editorial. I think it's the most comprehensive and cogent list of arguments why the Bush Presidency has been nothing short of disasterous for the country and why Kerry has the ability and wherewithal to be a very effective and strong Commander-In-Chief. The Bush economic policies of tax cuts and more tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy and large corporations), combined with tremendous increases in spending and the war in Iraq, has made our country vulnerable.

Spending on education is down, Homeland security is not even close, civil liberties have been degraded, the American military is stretched to the breaking point, science is underfunded and abused, and the environment is being raped. This has truly been four years of ineffecutual leadership. People appointed to power like Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz are ideologues of the worst order, with agendas that only pay lip service to American values of truth, freedom, and civil liberties.

The tight Presidential race could be decided by....!

With all the daily polls on the 2004 Presidential election, it gets really hard to pay attention to their results. Each poll uses slightly different questions, sampling size, etc., to make their predictions on who's ahead, what population demographic supports which candidate, and so on. However there's one growing segment of the US population that will not be included in any poll, and that's those who use cell phones as their primary form of telecommunication. And who are the most likely to fit this demographic? Young people, newly registered voters. Presumably many of these (e.g., college students) are more likely to be a little more liberal in their thinking, to be more against the war in Iraq, and to be more educated and pro-active in social and environmental issues. Robert Cringely discusses this in his latest I, Cringely column --he calls this the Diddy Factor, the reason which is made clear in his essay.

Now, couple the Diddy Factor with the extensive voter registration drives targeted at first time voters this year (see Rock the Vote or Democracy for America to name a few). The hope (at least by me) is that the number of pro-Kerry voters are continually being under counted in the various polls. With predictions of an election as close as the disputed 2000 one (where Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College), a strong turnout by the cell phone crowd could/should lead to a John Kerry win over George Bush.

Heads in the sand

On NPR's Talk of the Nation program today (oh yes, that bastion of left-leaning liberal media biase) there was a story about a study that shows that the majority of Republicans and Bush Supporters still think Iraq has (had) WMD (audio story link). The study, carried out by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), shows that the majority of Bush supporters had WMD and or a major program to develop WMD that was supported by al Qaeda. Not too surprisingly, the majority of Kerry supporters believe the opposite. And again not surprisingly, supporters of both candidates agreed that the US should not have gone to war without definite proof that such a program or actual WMD existed in Iraq in the first place.

But this is where it gets interesting. Even after the Duelfer report (CIA) to Congress that says Iraq did not have a viable WMD program, the majority of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq did, and in fact, perceive that the 9/11 Commission actually concluded the exact opposite! Bush supporters want to believe that the US went to war for justifiable reasons and want to believe the Administration. However, what do they do if the facts and what the President says doesn't agree? In a quote from the PIPA director Steven Kull:

"To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

In other words, they're soooo confused!

The complete report (go here) is well worth reading.