>>I'm amazed that there're people happy with the situation.

Your amazed at the stupidity of the world. Have you been asleep for the last few centuries

oh yeah and its probably not a good idea to even mention stem cell research we don't want a huge thread about that do we?

 

frankly, I dont know. But, do you think Kerry would have been any better?

 

frankly, I dont know. But, do you think Kerry would have been any better?

Most scientists seem to think so, specially since Kerry wouldn't bend so much to the christian right. That's why they openly opposed Bush.

 

And yet another anti-Bush thread pops up. Considering the fact these have a 100% closed ratio, anyone wanna take bets on how long this one lasts?

 

However this delves on a side that most of you people choose to forget, and that's the scientifical one. As many people have said before, the excessive conservative policies that Bush seems to follow will make nothing but make America lose it's edge on the science area, all for the sake of outdated morals and twisted thoughts >.<

 

And yet another anti-Bush thread pops up. Considering the fact these have a 100% closed ratio, anyone wanna take bets on how long this one lasts?

Frankly, most political threads dealing with Bush are borderline flame wars with the partisans screaming and yelling at each other.

Nothing wrong with that but this thread is a legitimate criticism of Bush and his stone age science policies... speaking of Kerry, he wouldn't have done that much better considering that Republicans would have controlled congress and the senate. However, that being said, Kerry in matters of scientific public policy wouldn't be as much of an activist as Bush has been... ironic since Bush criticizes liberal judges or liberal judicial decisions for being "activist".

 

And yet another anti-Bush thread pops up. Considering the fact these have a 100% closed ratio, anyone wanna take bets on how long this one lasts?

The point of this thread is showing how GWB's scientific policies are harming the US - not merely flamming him (not that it's always bad :evil: ). I see no reason at all to close the thread, it's much more likely that it'll die for lack of interest.

speaking of Kerry, he wouldn't have done that much better considering that Republicans would have controlled congress and the senate.

I forgot about this part. Rationalism is steadily declining in the US

 

I thought this thread is already dying from lack of interest...

speaking of funding, our own local universities sure do need alot -_-;

Yours,
-Elly

 

Yeah, four more years of crappy sci...res so badly? You are all acting as if science were only available in the US...

 

Ok, maybe this thread won't be as dead as before....

Yours,
-Elly

 

Blame yourselves for reviving it, I'm merely adding non-flamable (sp?), yet oddly enough true, content...

 

I'm amazed that the entire world focuses and project their scientifical expectations on a country they loathe so much... your countries lack smart figures so badly? You are all acting as if science were only available in the US...

Considering the large number of brilliant scientists in the US, and that the US the biggest potential for scientific development due to their large ammount of resources; and also considering the fact that all those brilliant scientists are extremely unhappy with their current situation, I can only extend my sympathies to them, and wish that a more rational government were in power.

Science knows no borders, you know. If you look at the physics departments of american universities you'll see chinese physicists happily working side-by-side with american researchers. That's part of the beauty of science, and we should not let nationalism and misguided politics destroy it.

Science is available everywhere, but the more the merrier. And the US IS the biggest country out there, the only superpower left.

 

Science is available everywhere, but the more the merrier. And the US IS the biggest country out there, the only superpower left.

That's too bad, uh? So, since the whole world sees (or saw if you would) the US as teh country for science people (US residents) have no vote whatsoever and must acomodate (sp?) to the rest of the world's desires? :rotflmao:

 

That's too bad, uh? So, since the whole world sees (or saw if you would) the US as teh country for science people (US residents) have no vote whatsoever and must acomodate (sp?) to the rest of the world's desires? :rotflmao:

Nope. Just ask their own scientists. ALL US scientists are unhappy with the situation. That's because scientists are less short-sighted than the majority of the population.

Or perhaps you think that scientists' opinion do not count, or that they're not "true" americans. Read the article that I posted, and you'll see the opinion of several american scientists.

Scientis (and science-enthusiasts) from other countries, are extending their sympathies towards their american fellows.

 

you're acting like the stem cell research should be the only scientific research done in the next four years. Have you forgotten there are plenty of other branches of science without the amount of contraversy? Bush has said he's going he's funding research into alternative forms of energy so we don't need to be reliant on foreign oil. And he's also the only president to allow stemcell research. Your precious clinton didn't even allow it. Don't judge Bush's entire scientific policy entirely on StemCell research because that would discredit the other scientific work he is trying to get done.

 

Nope. Just ask their own scientists. ALL US scientists are unhappy with the situation. That's because scientists are less short-sighted than the majority of the population.

Well, it'd amaze me to see them happy... they are the damaged part, however they have nothing to say. Their Savior-to-be Kerry lost the election... nobody imposed anything on them (in terms of president), the country spoke (or at least a slightly bigger half) in favor of Bush, if they don't like that's another issue... people vote for a reason, to elect that which they want them to lead. Whether other agrees or not with that reason is a completely different matter.

The US is what they want to be, if other countries don't like it then feel free to invite the unhappy ones to yours...

 

Well, it'd amaze me to see them happy... they are the damaged part, however they have nothing to say. Their Savior-to-be Kerry lost the election... nobody imposed anything on them (in terms of president), the country spoke (or at least a slightly bigger half) in favor of Bush, if they don't like that's another issue... people vote for a reason, to elect that which they want them to lead. Whether other agrees or not with that reason is a completely different matter.

The US is what they want to be, if other countries don't like it then feel free to invite the unhappy ones to yours...

You're being unreasonable just to sound like a badass. You cannot deny that the scientists are american, and that they're unhappy about Bush's policies. It's not about what the world wants.

you're acting like the stem cell research should be the only scientific research done in the next four years. Have you forgotten there are plenty of other branches of science without the amount of contraversy? Bush has said he's going he's funding research into alternative forms of energy so we don't need to be reliant on foreign oil. And he's also the only president to allow stemcell research. Your precious clinton didn't even allow it. Don't judge Bush's entire scientific policy entirely on StemCell research because that would discredit the other scientific work he is trying to get done.

Then why Bush doesn't allow federal funding for stem cell research?

BTW, why don't you try reading the article first before criticizing? There's a lot more of criticism going on them just stem cell research. And Bush's plan for "alternative forms of energy" is a joke - have you ever seen it?

Now, if you're too lazy to open the article and read it, I'll post part of it here:

Science versus the President ...

On the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Under President Bush's energy policy, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, some 19m acres of pristine habitat and unique biodiversity, will be opened for oil drilling. That doesn't mean the oil companies will pile in quite yet, though. Pressure to open the refuge is largely from Alaskan senators keen to bring their state more revenue. "The industry doesn't really care that much," says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Estimates suggest that the refuge holds only six months worth of oil, and even at today's high prices, it is probably not worth extracting. "The companies would like to bank the permission to drill and come back in 20 years to actually do it," says Oppenheimer.

Drilling the Arctic refuge is about more than the oil reserves that lurk beneath. Amy Mall, at the Natural Resources Defence Council, says: "If they can get into the Arctic wildlife refuge, they can drill anywhere, there will be no holds barred on drilling elsewhere, such as the Rocky Mountain regions and areas of New Mexico."

Attempts to open the refuge before have been blocked by bipartisan groups of senators keen to preserve it. Any new effort by oil companies to move in is likely to meet similar resistance. "Bad ideas never die," says Mall. "We're expecting to have to fight this battle again."

On climate change

In 2001, Bush asked the National Academy of Sciences to review climate change research. When the academy reported that a causal link between greenhouse gases and climate change "cannot be unequivocally established", Bush commissioned a raft of research projects to get a definitive answer. Many scientists objected, claiming enough research has been done to show that climate change is a big threat.

"The window of opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change is closing rapidly and it may be too late," says Michael Oppenheimer at Princeton. "There's no excuse for inaction and now we are looking at four more years of delay."

On creationism

Under Bush, some states have seen a religious majority take hold in schools and then push for changes to the science curriculum. In some schools, the pressure has led to the relegation of evolution to one of many theories to explain how we all got here.

Now, alongside the teachings of Darwin, pupils also learn about creationism and "intelligent design", both of which demand the meticulous help of a superbeing. This week, the school board in Grantsburg, Wisconsin amended its curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism. The recent re-establishment of a religious majority on the Kansas state school board is expected to lead to a second attempt at getting evolution relegated within the next nine months.

What goes on the school curriculum is a state matter, so direct influence from Washington is minimal. But some scientists believe that John Kerry, the losing Democratic presidential candidate, would have argued in Washington to hamper the efforts of creationists.

On funding

The outlook for US science funding is bleak. The treasury is in the red, and with Bush's plans to cut taxes, many scientists find it hard to see where their cash is going to come from.

"I just don't see that we have money for science. It's not that the Bush administration are Luddites, if they had the money, I'm sure they'd spend it," says Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York.

While the prestigious National Institutes of Health, which enjoy immense public support, will probably be safe, other funding bodies such as the National Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection Agency could face freezes or even cuts.

"It's hard to see how any government that's in debt, wants to cut taxes and run an expensive war at the same time can do anything but cut non-defence related research," says Krauss at Case Western Reserve University.

On nuclear power

Bush supports the construction of new nuclear power plants, and proposes to store the radioactive waste deep within Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

On space

In January, Bush announced ambitious plans for Nasa. With the phasing out of the currently grounded fleet of space shuttles in the next decade or so, the agency will look to set up a permanent base on the moon, and eventually send a crewed mission to Mars. While the plans grab headlines and ensure Nasa officials have plenty to think about, many scientists believe that manned space missions are an inefficient way of doing science.

"The Bush administration has caused a delay in important projects designed to do cosmology and astrophysics because of their desire to have humans orbit the globe and perform acrobatic feats, or whatever it is they do on the International Space Station," says Lawrence Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. "There's a place for manned space missions, but it's not to do science."

On stem cell research

Bush policy states that federal funds can only be used for research on embryonic stem cells created before August 2001. There are no restrictions on privately-funded scientists, and work on therapeutic cloning is allowed. The US has yet to ban reproductive cloning, the creation of cloned human babies.

 

You're being unreasonable just to sound like a badass. You cannot deny that the scientists are american, and that they're unhappy about Bush's policies. It's not about what the world wants.

My, my, my... and you are throwing dirt at my reasoning just to take off value out of it... :evil:

Let me as clear as possible...

Did the scientists vote? Yes.
Was the election fair? Yes.
They lost, what can they do if they don't like their current country? Nothing. Because based on the above 2 items the rest of the country has as much right to vote as scientists. A part will always end up losing during elections, suck it up.

That being said, with the exception of Aeris and Galvatron all, if I'm not mistaken, the people complaining nowadays are... outsiders who are not even US residents, right? So, tell me... are you sure that this is not about what the world wants instead of what a faction in a country desired? Can you answer that question without being biased?
.
.
.
.
But what am I asking, I'm sure you can... I'm only being unreasonable to look like a badass...

 

Did the scientists vote? Yes.
Was the election fair? Yes.
They lost, what can they do if they don't like their current country? Nothing. Because based on the above 2 items the rest of the country has as much right to vote as scientists. A part will always end up losing during elections, suck it up.

I opened this thread to complain about scientific policies in the Bush administration. If you don't like it then don't post on it. Scientists are unsatisfied and have the right to complain about it, and I can sympathize with them.

You still didn't say a single word about scientific policies, which is the actual subject of this thread, only complain about the thread itself.

That being said, with the exception of Aeris and Galvatron all, if I'm not mistaken, the people complaining nowadays are... outsiders who are not even US residents, right? So, tell me... are you sure that this is not about what the world wants instead of what a faction in a country desired? Can you answer that question without being biased?

If you are talking about the forums, then you're right. But if you look at the bigger picture, you'll see a lot of americans complaining. Look at Chris Mooney's or Lawrence Lessig's blogs. Or Dale Carrico's. Or the Cyborg Democracy blog. They are all americans, and they're complaining. Look at the Union of Concerned Scientists - a lot of americans, and they're complaining.

I guess you're not a member of mail lists as full of americans as I am. And the vast majority of the members (being liberals and scientifically-oriented) are complaining about GWB's victory.

It's hardly a matter of what the world wants, as I've said before.

EDIT: Speaking of Lawrence Lessig, see what one of his readers (and American, before you start crying) said shortly after Bush's victory was announced:

I’m going to spend time these next few days looking for the America in my heart. It may be a while before I see it anywhere else.

But perhaps he's not a "true" american. Or he's an "outsider"...

 

I opened this thread to complain about scientific policies in the Bush administration. If you don't like it then don't post on it. Scientists are unsatisfied and have the right to complain about it, and I can sympathize with them.

Uhuh, I never said I didn't like it but truly on a forum where freedom of speech is a right did you truly expect to meet no ideas opposing yours?
I commend your support to them... now if you'd, I'll support (on a very slight issue) the other part, the one who won the election...

You still didn't say a single word about scientific policies, which is the actual subject of this thread, only complain about the thread itself.

I never complained about your thread, I merely commented on the huge "OH NOS!" thing going on... science is everywhere. Don't like the US policies? Then be grateful that you don't live in there.

If you are talking about the forums, then you're right. But if you look at the bigger picture, you'll see a lot of americans complaining. Look at Chris Mooney's or Lawrence Lessig's blogs. Or Dale Carrico's. Or the Cyborg Democracy blog. They are all americans, and they're complaining. Look at the Union of Concerned Scientists - a lot of americans, and they're complaining.

And the truth is, if liberals would have won and republicans would complain the first part will tell the other "bah, quit whining"... not that I expect anyone to acknowledge this. Point is, a lot of americans may be complaining but they are not the majority (even if the majority is half of the country + 1)... just a huge number of people who is (rightly so perhaps) unsattisfied with this turn of events.

I guess you're not a member of mail lists as full of americans as I am. And the vast majority of the members (being liberals and scientifically-oriented) are complaining about GWB's victory.

Yes, and they all voted for Kerry... and yet Bush won, sorry for you. It may be full of americans, but they weren't enough to grant Kerry the victory, get over it.

 

Uhuh, I never said I didn't like it but truly on a forum where freedom of speech is a right did you truly expect to meet no ideas opposing yours?

I expected more intelligent opposition. Even Seta-San's post was better than yours, since he actually addressed the issues at hand. You're just complaining and trying to attack me as an "outsider". You haven't said a single word about the actual subject of the thread.

I commend your support to them... now if you'd, I'll support (on a very slight issue) the other part, the one who won the election...

:lol: They're right just because they won? They could have won by a much larger margin, and I would still be against their ideas.

Or do you support people solely on the basis of they winning an election? If this is not the case, you still have to provide any sound argument for GWB's scientific policies.

Yes, and they all voted for Kerry... and yet Bush won, sorry for you. It may be full of americans, but they weren't enough to grant Kerry the victory, get over it.

Scientists and futurists will not stop complaining just because they're the minority. If anything, it can still raise awareness on the part of the public, who is still largely ignorant.

 

>>Scientists and futurists will not stop complaining just because they're the minority. If anything, it can still raise awareness on the part of the public, who is still largely ignorant.

well said boltz, if the majority was always deemed right then the world would be a much different place.

It's also a fact that the US election was based almost entirely on the war on terror. The "outside" opnion seems to be against Bush but evidently within america he has a large following for this war. My point is that his voters probably voted for him to continue the war on terror not for his science policies which would have been swept under the carpet therefor you can't say "more people voted for Bush so people don't care about science" because it just isn't the case

 

My point is that his voters probably voted for him to continue the war on terror not for his science policies which would have been swept under the carpet therefor you can't say "more people voted for Bush so people don't care about science" because it just isn't the case

Yeah, being a wartime president gave him the advantage.

 

I expected more intelligent opposition. Even Seta-San's post was better than yours, since he actually addressed the issues at hand. You're just complaining and trying to attack me as an "outsider". You haven't said a single word about the actual subject of the thread.

My goodness, would you be so kind as to point where did I attack you? Since you are there be as kind and point me where is the complaint (note: since your current mood is quite biased and therefore you are a bit irrational I'll just give you the hint that pointing out the fact that you people are complaining over and over and over about something is not a complaint but rather an opinion).

Anyways, I did say something very interesting about the point of the thread... just from another perspective. You guys continuously loathe the US but you focus on the country as if it were the center of the world. Again, it's a point of view, you may think about it or not, tis not of my concern what you do on the end though sadly in you current state I can easily foresee another flammable answer...

:lol: They're right just because they won? They could have won by a much larger margin, and I would still be against their ideas.

As I've said, in your current state you are nothing but a nuisance, you have lost objectiveness and decided to engage in a flame war against me... truly I expect a better reply once you chill down man.

Let's see:
a) I never said they are right because they won, I said that they won and therefore the country decided what they want for their future. Whether we like it or not that's another issue... but elections are about that, a faction will always lose, you can't keem them all happy.
b) Nobody forbids you to be against their ideas, but your crusade contradicts your so called liberalistic stance... you just can't endure the fact that a country decided in favor of something that establishes severe boundaries on science.

Or do you support people solely on the basis of they winning an election? If this is not the case, you still have to provide any sound argument for GWB's scientific policies.

*insert critic to your current state in here*

That's not what I said, what I said is that a bit more than half of a nation decided against something that harms the other (slightly less than a) half. They knew what they voted for, it's not like Bush ambushed the country after the election with these policies... do I approve them? Most likely not. But hey, they voted for something in hopes of achieving that.
I don't support per se what's going on, but I do support the fact that they chose what they wanted for their country... I can understand a resident of the country who got screwed because of the ones who voted against their insterests... however in your case I don't seem to find a justifiable reason to your crusade.
I don't have to provide an argument for anything since I didn't post anything pro / anti Bush's policy. I merely pointed out that:
a) The world is focusing too much on the US.
And later:
b) They voted for something... and like it or not, people voted Bush because they knew policies like this one would be established. Therefore I see no point in complaining about something they sought (again, the ones who voted for Bush... my condolences to the rest).

Scientists and futurists will not stop complaining just because they're the minority. If anything, it can still raise awareness on the part of the public, who is still largely ignorant.

Perhaps, but they are entitled to their vote... their vote was ignorant, dark-age based, yadda, yadda... but they voted. If the story where other now, will you stand for the loser faction's complaints?
That being said, I've no quarrel with the complaints of the people who are subdued to this bad period... I've no quarrel with you and your complaints either, I just don't find a real point for them considering that you are not an US resident and therefore are not directly affected by this (I suppose that the slower development in science until things settle a bit, harm you in some way... but that's just for the sake of giving you a point)...

 

You guys continuously loathe the US but you focus on the country as if it were the center of the world.

Whether we like it or not the US IS the major contributor to science in all the world, and any problem that affects the US research directly affects the efforts of the rest of the world. As the science enthusiast we are we DO worry about Bush being elected, since we see in his policies the perfect key to go back 200 years in society evolution. We may be legal outsiders, however, you cannot deny the fact that what USA does will affect its sphere of influence in a major or minor degree, and sadly USA's sphere of action covers the whole world...

Now the point at hand is not discussing wheter Bush election was right or not, but rather how right or wrong his policies towards science are.

...if you ask me when i heard the part about creationism I was left speechless... after that I felt dissapointed, followed by an access of rage at the stupidness of whoever let those people do that -.-