Monday, September 7, 2009


Judge Smails asks for a bit more explanation:
Vitter is another Senator who's a Rhodes Scholar. Yikes.

Concur that Schilling is an idiot. Although I disagree that it's somehow impossible to support Republicans if you believe in science research. It's one issue. Very few people agree with every major position of the party they support; those who do,by and large, are simpletons. For example, I presume you support the Democrats despite a strong (and probably complete) objection to the farm policies they support?

A few points. First, yes, science is only one issue, but it is a rather big issue, ranging from one's acceptance of the effectiveness of vaccines to sustainable farming to funding of basic research to climate change. And, more broadly, it signifies a willingness to listen critically to experts and accept what they are saying, even if you don't like the conclusion. This obviously relates to the anti-intellectualism that runs through American right now, which, from my vantage point, has more of a home on the right than the left, at least currently.

I'll put it this way -- there are some circumstances where I could support a Republican over a Democrat, especially if the Republican had a strong record of rational and logical thinking (Sherwood Boehlert, former representative of the district that Hamilton was located in, is a good example). But especially when you're talking about the Senate, where the ideology of the 60th vote matters so much and where Republicans, at least currently, have a helluva lot of party discipline, I just couldn't vote for a member of a party that also has James Inhofe.

Further, I just can't imagine that if Schilling were really into ALS research and asked researchers what they thought of Bush he'd still be defending him. There is no single block of people who despise Bush more than scientists, and I don't think that's an exaggeration.