Utterly Meaningless

“Clinton said her administration would restore scientific integrity by supporting the independent work of government scientists”

Ok Mr. Daryl, you probably know more about this than I do. From what you know about how funding is sought, obtained, and kept – isn’t the above comment kind of a big pile of laughable hooey?

It depends on what the meaning of “is” “independent” is. Gov’t (and academic) scientists are dependent on government funding, of course. But the areas of study and especially the results of the work are really not subject to governmental interference. At least that’s how it worked until 2001. Since then, Bush et al. have attempted to manipulate science and hijack the results to support their ideology. I believe Clinton is promising to bring it back to the status quo ante.

It would be nice if she said that — or anything else — clearly.

Nance

I’m waiting to hear a politician promise to fight to restore Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA provided nonpartisan evaluations of all kinds of science and tech issues until it was whacked by Newt Gingrich & Co. in the ’90s. Their silence on this issue is yet another way the current crop of Congressional Democrats is proving to be a colossal disappointment.

That said, good for Hillary for making scientific integrity a part of her campaign’s platform.

Ask and you shall receive:

Hillary will restore the federal government’s commitment to science by:

* Working to re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment.

“Working to” is not exactly the same as “promising to” but close enough for gov’t work, I’d say.

Like a politician “promising to” do anything really means something?

Did you see in the NYT today that Barney Frank isn’t gay enough for his own constituency? (So maybe Hillary isn’t woman enough for hers?)

I wouldn’t call any of this, um, reality-based . . .

JJ,

I think Franks badly misplayed this one. The Republicans are going to vote against it no matter what. Bush will veto it no matter what. So the only thing he accomplished by dropping the “T” in GLBT was to piss off the one group that cares the most.

There was a serious debate in the GBLT community as to should they support the bill if the transgender language was dropped. Evidently the decision was all for one and one for all.

I don’t disagree. But my take is there’s no real progress to be had for the time being, even when a veteran pol plays something “well” or when a group that really cares works incredibly hard. Remember the old Chinese curse about living in interesting times?
(I don’t think I can stand much more “interesting” . . .)

Did you see Al Gore’s quote in NYT column entitled “The Trivial Pursuit” today? With him all the way on this, personally:

“What politics has become,” he said, with a laugh and a tinge of regret, “requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply.”