March 21, 2007

Republicans and science

I am so sick of Republicans right now. The White House wants their people to appear without oath--which means that they want them to not have to tell the truth--similar to how they allowed the bloated oil executives. I am so tired of Republicans lecturing me on morality. They have turned truth and honesty into partisan tricks. My Republican friends, you are voting and supporting some of the shittiest human beings in our country. And many of them like to wave their "born again" status. Sigh.

But there are moments when I just have to laugh, and also to remind myself that there are responsible and grown up republicans. No, not Chuck Hagel who voted against the rollback of the provision in the Patriot Act that allowed the President to bypass the Senate!

No, this bit of humanity came from the House when one Republican sided with Al Gore:
"Other members in the minority party were far less antagonistic, though. Maryland Republican Roscoe Bartlett said his wife often reminded him of the important connection between conservatism and actual conserving: 'I think it's probably possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot.'"
Yep, that is what I have been saying to my Republican friends. You don't have to align yourself with Dobson, Falwell, Bush and Rove. You can actually have values and also embrace something called "intelligence." If you are willing to take back your party, I will start respecting the GOP, or the party of Lincoln. Until then, I would rather vote for anyone else.


Nicole said...

Well said, Streak. Bravo!

steve s said...

I am not a scientist. Throughout this debate, I must rely heavily on what 'experts' have to say. The more I read, the more I keep coming back to how inconclusive the evidence is. There was a really good book written by an uber-lefty that came out a few years back that was very critical of some elements of the environmental movement called "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World", by Bjorn Lomborg.

Streak said...

Yeah, I am not a scientist either, but have training in environmental history. I would like to hope that Lomborg is correct on the environment, but don't think he is. During my recent ski trip, one of my ski partners is a meteorologist and the evidence supporting climate change is pretty much a "slam dunk." Not all of Al Gore's claims are correct, he noted, especially linking particular storms to global warming, but the overall trends of warming are right on. As my friend noted, if we are wrong about global warming, making changes to the way we pollute would still be a good thing. And if we are right about it, then doing nothing will be disastrous.

steve s said...

Lomborg's point is that some of the claims are incorrect, and some claims take huge leaps based on assumptions. It is a well written book and has some credibility based on the fact that the writer is a long time environmentalist, IMO.

I am keeping an open mind about this and I think you are correct. It is better to err on the side of caution and do something now.

There are some aspects of the environmental movement that disturb me. One is the quasi-religious nature of some of them and how they tend to go to great lengths to discredit and ignore opposing viewpoints.

Streak said...

I think, as in many of these issues, we agree more than we disagree. I had to chuckle at your last graph, because it is almost verbatum what I think about the religious right, including the "quasi" tag.

steve s said...

Very true, though I think this can be said of many religious people, including ones not in the RR.