The Democrats have accommodationists, too

With friends like these…Mudcat Saunders has some advice for the unions in Wisconsin.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, David “Mudcat” Saunders, a longtime Democratic political strategist known for his work with blue-collar voters, had a different take. Rather than worrying about floodgates bursting open, he argued that the best public relations move for the Democrats would have been to simply let Walker’s bill pass and then demonize it.

“Sometimes the best punch you can throw is to let somebody throw theirs first,” Saunders said. “I would have debated it forever, as long as I could have kept it going, and I would have voted against it. Let the Republicans have their way and then work on getting the state house back and the governor’s mansion. But a protest, that can only work so long.” [HuffPo, emphasis added.]

Wow. Brilliant. So let’s allow the Rethuglicans to gut the unions first, and then we’ll work on supporting labor rights. Maybe then they could start working on why so many of us have little loyalty to the Democratic party anymore, too. I’m sure they’ll be mystified by the idea that they’ve become the Republican-lite party, and don’t seem to have much attachment to any of the principles some of us value.

But then, maybe I’m just prejudiced against any comment given to the Huffington Post, that faux liberal rag.

Solidarity with Wisconsin

One bright spot in the country right now is the sight of union workers rising up and peacefully protesting anti-labor Republican policies, and some Democrats finally growing a spine and resisting as well.

I feel a little better about this. I’m not going to be content until those Rethuglicans are thoroughly marginalized politically, however; they’ve been wrecking my country since Nixon.

 

We have an informal request here at scienceblogs that everyone avoid putting profanity in our article titles, since those may appear on everyone’s site, and some people find it objectionable. Fair enough; unfortunately, in this case, all I could think of to put up there was a paragraph’s worth of obscenities. So I left it blank.

House Rethuglicans have just voted to deny all funding to Planned Parenthood.

As part of their stated mission to focus on jobs (specifically, the job of preventing women from getting healthcare), House Republicans this afternoon voted 240-185 to bar federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

This is a big win for Rep. Mike Pence, the Indiana Republican whose deficit-minded crusade against Planned Parenthood hinges not on the argument that taxpayer money shouldn’t pay for abortions (the Hyde Amendment put a stop to that in the mid 1970s), but on the conviction that taxpayer money should not go to organizations that provide abortion services, regardless of what else they might do.

Pence’s plan, which will likely stall in the Senate, would mean the end of federal support for an organization that each year provides more than 800,000 women with breast exams, more than 4 million Americans with testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and 2.5 million people with contraception, which, not for nothing, is the stuff that prevents unintended pregnancy, and thus abortion, to begin with.

Bastards. Mother-fucking evil bastards.

This is what we can expect from these lunatics in the Republican party — years and years of destructive policy-making, in which they’ll rip out the infrastructure of the country, demolish the social safety net, and criminalize everyone who isn’t a wealthy white man.

I can’t say more, because from here on out I just get screamingly angry. Watch this video to see someone calling these monsters out.

Then go support Planned Parenthood. Sign their open letter. Never vote for a Republican, and do everything you can to see that vile party eradicated.

Another Minnesota embarrassment

It’s state representative Mike Beard. Republican. Christian. Moron.

He thinks we don’t have to worry about natural resources.

God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable. We are not going to run out of anything.

Nuclear war and the death of a few hundred thousand people? Whatever. Get over it.

How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki work out? We destroyed that, but here we are, 60 years later and they are tremendously effective and livable cities. Yes, it was pretty horrible. But, can we recover? Of course we can.

No, he’s not from the same district as Michele Bachmann. But he fits right in with her.

A physicist agrees with me!

So I guess they can’t be all bad. Yesterday, I chastised Michio Kaku severely for stepping out of his expertise as a physicist to say something stupid about biology. James Kakalios agreed with me, and sent along a little essay about the subject that also makes the point that expertise is important.

In Defense of Elites

James Kakalios

Following the recent mid-term elections, the consensus of many pundits is that this past November the American public sent a strong message of “anti-elitism.” The good news is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Americans are certainly not anti-elite, nor are they anti-intellectual. Everyone, after all, wants their doctor, lawyer, or auto-mechanic to be an expert in their field. Few would willingly choose a brain surgeon who was at the bottom of their graduating class, no matter how much fun they may be to share a beer with.

However, Americans are anti-snobbery and have no patience for those whose insecurity compels them to tell us why we’re “wrong” to like what we do, whether it’s NASCAR, fantasy baseball, comic books or Star Wars (OK, the critics may have a point about Episode II: Attack of the Clones). Given the demands of the ever-expanding modern work-week (forget about the jetpack, what I want to know is where’s my four hour work week that was similarly promised to be here in the 21st century!), it is no wonder that that many Americans might devote their limited free time to learning the starting nine players of their local baseball team rather than the nine justices on the Supreme Court.

But there is a real issue that goes beyond a lack of free time. Nearly every week brings another news story of the low regard in which the general public holds intellectuals and scientists. From doubting claims of climatologists concerning the source of changes in the Earth’s average temperature, to persistent attempts by some local school boards to sabotage their children’s education of the principles of Darwinian evolution, the view of many seems to be that “science is just another opinion.”

As a physics professor who is also an avid reader of comic books, I know that it was not always so. Back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, superhero comic books reflected the popular zeitgist and, whether the planet was threatened by invaders from planet X or superpowered master villains, it was typically a scientist that saved the day. Science fiction comic books whose stories took place in the future (sometimes all the way in the year 2000!) often promised that we would live in a gleaming utopia brought to us by scientific advancements.

And in many ways the comic books have been proven correct. Diseases and ailments that were fatal just a few generations ago can now be easily treated, we can peer into the body without the cut of a knife using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, there are few points on the globe that can not be reached by wireless communication, and the computing power of a laptop exceeds that of room-size calculating machines that represented the state of the art in 1950. All brought to us through the efforts of elites.

And this is where the current distrust of scientists becomes a major concern. For there are real problems that need to be addressed, but we can’t handle them without the advice of experts, which are often not respected by both the general public and the scientific community.

The findings and conclusions of scientists and engineers who have devoted years and years to the mastery of their fields of inquiry should be accorded the respect they deserve, and not dismissed for ideological reasons. Few people second-guess the political motivations of their dentist when informed that they have a cavity – why would they do the same with atmospheric scientists when they discuss a hole in the ozone layer? Strong science, elaborated by experts, is the foundation for sound policy.

What happens when experts disagree? More good news — this happens much less than one might think, at least concerning questions of fact (interpretations are another matter). Of course, it is important to realize that not every scientist is an expert in every branch of science (I am concerned here with scientific communication, and not interdisciplinary research). If my cardiologist tells me that I need open heart surgery, I may seek a second opinion before having a difficult and expensive operation — but I won’t consult a dermatologist.

It pains me to say this, but — physics professors are not experts in all fields of science. While we may be able to address, for example, the quantum mechanical mechanisms by which carbon dioxide ignores visible light but absorbs and re—emits infra—red radiation, and can discuss the application of the scientific method, we are not climatologists, and should respect the conclusions of those who have devoted the same time and effort to their field as we have to ours. As the science fiction author Robert Heinlein wrote: “Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.”

Most couples therapists will tell you — miscommunication is a two-way street. Scientists and the general public need to stop talking past each other, so that we can all benefit from the counsel of elite experts. For the problems that we as a nation face are as serious as a heart attack!

James Kakalios is the Taylor Distinguished Professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Minnesota, and the author of The Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics (Gotham, 2010).

Buying science

This week’s Nature has a substantial and fairly even-handed article on the unease Templeton funding causes. Jerry Coyne is prominently featured, so you know it isn’t an entirely friendly review.

Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning,” says Coyne, echoing an argument made by many others. “In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice.” The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to break down that wall, he says — to reconcile the irreconcilable and give religion scholarly legitimacy.

They also quote scientists who found the Templeton Foundation fairly open and tolerant of results that were not supportive of their prejudices…but I still don’t trust them. They’re busy putting on a show of open-mindedness, and they are staffed by some competent and politically savvy people, and they know that a few Potemkin scientists with contrary results will help in their overall goal of counterfeiting scientific credibility for their religious cause.

This is especially pressing now as Republicans strain to cut science funding — do we really want American science to become increasingly reliant on funding from organizations with an agenda?

How can so many farm state politicians fail to understand the phrase “seed corn”?

Paul Krugman has a lovely phrase to describe Republican policies: Eat the future. They are under pressure to cut spending, any spending, but they refuse to touch anything that might cause immediate pain to the electorate…so instead, anything in the budget that affects future voters is going to get the axe.

Once you understand the imperatives Republicans face, however, it all makes sense. By slashing future-oriented programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on voters. And as for the future costs — a population damaged by childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax evasion — well, tomorrow is another day.

He could have mentioned a few other areas that can be cut, like education, and especially science. Republican voters don’t understand science, they don’t support science, so if there’s anything in the budget that makes Republican politicians salivate in a hungry, predatory way, it’s science. So you won’t be surprised at the prospects for the NIH.

Dear Colleague,

For months the new House leadership has been promising to cut billions in federal funding in fiscal year (FY) 2011. Later this week the House will try to make the rhetoric a reality by voting on HR 1, a “continuing resolution” (CR) that would cut NIH funding by $1.6 billion (5.2%) BELOW the current level – reducing the budget for medical research to $29.4 billion!

We must rally everyone – researchers, trainees, lab personnel – in the scientific community to protest these draconian cuts. Please go to [this link] for instructions on how to call your Representative’s Washington, DC office today! Urge him/her to oppose the cuts to NIH and vote against HR 1. Once you’ve made the call, let us know how it went by sending a short email to the address provided in the call instructions and forward the alert link to your colleagues. We must explain to our Representatives how cuts to NIH will have a devastating impact on their constituents!

Sincerely,

William T. Talman, MD
FASEB President

The cannibals are out there, and they don’t look like you might expect: they wear nice suits and dresses, and they go to church every week, and they are fervent in their patriotism. But they’re planning to eat the future, anyway.

It’s gonna be open season on abortion doctors in South Dakota!

I’m only a few miles away from the Dakotas — if HB1171 passes, I could put on some hospital scrubs (camouflage, you know), lurk quietly in a hospital, and when some ob-gyn pokes his or her head out, BAM, justifiable homicide.

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

They’ve still got to amend this thing, though. There’s no mention of a season or of bag limits.

As you might guess, this abomination of a law is the product of Republican legislators and their crazy far-right-wing allies.

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the “unborn child”; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota’s justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was “hoghoused”–a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee–in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

Read the rest. South Dakota already has the most indefensibly restrictive set of abortion laws in the country, and last I heard, had no abortion doctors — they rely on a very few Minnesota doctors who regularly fly in to a few locations to deliver essential services. Now the South Dakota legislature is doing even more to discourage responsible reproductive health and is doing further harm to women in the state.

Congratulations, Egypt

I think. Mubarak finally woke up and noticed that nobody likes him, and has resigned. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that power has been turned over to a military council. Shouldn’t a stable state have a plan for managing succession and change that is entirely civilian?

But for now it’s entirely for the better that a man who held onto power for 30 years has been deposed. Let’s just hope they aren’t trading one dictator for another.

Hey! Who let those Rethuglicans into my state government?

It’s astonishing how regressive Republicans can be. Would you believe the Minnesota Republicans think women are worth less than men, and are willing to pass legislation legalizing that view?

Minnesota Republicans have introduced legislation that would repeal the 1984 Local Government Pay Equity Act (LGPEA), which directs local governments to ensure that women are paid the same as men. While local governments say reporting requirements are costly, equal rights groups say the law needs to stay intact in order to ensure fair pay, especially for women of color.

HF7/SF159 would repeal a laundry list of mandates on local governments — including regulations on part-time police officers, agricultural programs for low-income farmers and grants for libraries — but buried in the bill is a full repeal of the LGPEA.

Republicans have lately grown very fond of tossing descriptive rhetoric into the titles of their legislation. I would propose calling this one the “Buy Female Slaves Cheap Act”, except that I’m worried that such a label would make the Republicans stampede to favor it.

Deeper in the article, it mentions that Minnesota was the first state to pass pay equity laws. Once upon a time, we would have been proud of that.