Wisconsin's Shame - this is atrocious. The United States is supposed to be a country that protects human rights and freedoms. My thoughts on this:
1) This is what happens when people in a position of power are completely sure of their own moral superiority and also completely sure that people on the other side of the political aisle must be no good or evil
2) This is a problem of the increasing militarization of the police in our country
3) It is ironic as usually the Left is very critical of the police state
4) If this had been a Republican prosecutor going after Democratic party people, this would probably be national news being covered by all the major media networks along with an investigation by the Justice Department with an army of federal agents descending into Wisconsin to investigate
5) This is but another example of the violence and intimidation unions oftentimes lead to. Unions are notorious historically for attempting intimidation, and here we see intimidation by people sided with the unions.
Here is an additional article and an excellent blog post on the issue as well:
LINK 1
LINK 2
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Shows the Democratic Party's Extremism On Abortion
So if you have been following the news over the past few days, you've probably noticed that Rand Paul and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (head of the DNC) have been in a bit of a battle over the issue of late-term abortion. A reporter asked Rand Paul about if he is for exceptions in abortion for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother. Rand Paul responded by telling the reporter to ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz when she believes life begins and that if she believes it is a right to kill a seven pound unborn baby, and then to get back to him when they get that answer.
By doing this, Paul did something rather extraordinary, which has been to put the Democrats on the defensive about abortion, which is something that usually doesn't happen. Instead it almost always is the GOP that is put on the defense, but Rand Paul flipped it. Schultz responded by saying the following:
“Here’s an answer,” wrote Wasserman Schultz that same day. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.”
The problem is that this is just a total cop-out. It ignores completely the issue of whether late-term abortion is essentially a form of infanticide. It isn't just as simple as the decision being left between a woman and her doctor (or her religion) because there is science involved (something the Democratic party claims it is the party of). It is a completely unscientific claim to act as if the baby in the womb isn't a child until the moment of birth, as if it just turns on like a toy upon exiting the womb. Clearly it is a baby before it comes out of the womb. Thus if a woman can just kill it without any limitations in the third trimester, that essentially is a form of infanticide.
What puzzles me is why Schultz doesn't just acknowledge this and say that she is fine with limitations for the third-trimester abortions, but it is the early-stage abortions that she is most adamant about protecting, which the GOP is also bent on outlawing. It seems that she, and hence much of the Democratic party, want no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.
What Rand Paul has thus done is to help show how extreme the Democratic party really is on the subject of abortion. Now that said, this isn't to say that the GOP doesn't have extremists as well (the kind who want to outlaw all abortion, and for some including in instances of rape, incest, or life and health of the mother). But the idea that it is only the GOP that has extremists on this and that any criticism of abortion is based on religious dogma is not true.
The media has for many years left the Democratic party alone on this issue, never questioning Democratic politicians and candidates on the issue of late-term abortions but very much questioning Republican candidates on abortion. I would love to see a debate moderator ask Hillary Clinton for example, "Do you believe that third trimester abortions should have no limitations whatsoever? Do you believe that late-trimester abortions are a form of infanticide?" and see how she responds.
By doing this, Paul did something rather extraordinary, which has been to put the Democrats on the defensive about abortion, which is something that usually doesn't happen. Instead it almost always is the GOP that is put on the defense, but Rand Paul flipped it. Schultz responded by saying the following:
“Here’s an answer,” wrote Wasserman Schultz that same day. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.”
The problem is that this is just a total cop-out. It ignores completely the issue of whether late-term abortion is essentially a form of infanticide. It isn't just as simple as the decision being left between a woman and her doctor (or her religion) because there is science involved (something the Democratic party claims it is the party of). It is a completely unscientific claim to act as if the baby in the womb isn't a child until the moment of birth, as if it just turns on like a toy upon exiting the womb. Clearly it is a baby before it comes out of the womb. Thus if a woman can just kill it without any limitations in the third trimester, that essentially is a form of infanticide.
What puzzles me is why Schultz doesn't just acknowledge this and say that she is fine with limitations for the third-trimester abortions, but it is the early-stage abortions that she is most adamant about protecting, which the GOP is also bent on outlawing. It seems that she, and hence much of the Democratic party, want no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.
What Rand Paul has thus done is to help show how extreme the Democratic party really is on the subject of abortion. Now that said, this isn't to say that the GOP doesn't have extremists as well (the kind who want to outlaw all abortion, and for some including in instances of rape, incest, or life and health of the mother). But the idea that it is only the GOP that has extremists on this and that any criticism of abortion is based on religious dogma is not true.
The media has for many years left the Democratic party alone on this issue, never questioning Democratic politicians and candidates on the issue of late-term abortions but very much questioning Republican candidates on abortion. I would love to see a debate moderator ask Hillary Clinton for example, "Do you believe that third trimester abortions should have no limitations whatsoever? Do you believe that late-trimester abortions are a form of infanticide?" and see how she responds.
Monday, April 13, 2015
The Maker Movement
One of the things I really love is the rise of the Maker movement. In short, this is a movement which basically unites all of the diverse arts, crafts, and hobbies out there together under one umbrella. So you'll find everything from electronics to crocheting all combined together. It is a celebration of DIY and things people make on their own (hence the name).
What I really also like about it though is that it is leading to a revival of a lot of what were thought to be forgotten skillsets. Lots of the old handicrafts and practical skills that used to be common knowledge amongst the population have since become lost, where today knowing how to do basic woodworking, basic plumbing, basic sewing and cooking, etc...are all completely alien to many modern men and women. What no one saw however was the rise of the Internet, which has since democratized a ton of this information. We have Google books making available lots of old books from the 19th and early 20th centuries that are no longer under copyright, and we have new books being published on many of these skills, including by the Maker publishing company. We also have Youtube, which allows people to demonstrate many of these skills that otherwise might be difficult to glean just from books.
In terms of myself, one DIY area that I had no idea existed is that of home machining and machine tools. I had always assumed that many things made out of metal required ultra-expensive sophisticated machines to manufacture. I had no idea of the level of DIY manufacturing that is available to a person from just manual machine tools, simple old-fashioned metal casting, wood pattern making, etc...and that is with the old technology. Today you can combine it with special design software which is becoming commoditized and affordable, 3D printers, CNC machine tools (you can build your own CNC machine tools even), etc...
The movement is really a glorious way to promote and encourage production and creativity in our society and in the world overall.
What I really also like about it though is that it is leading to a revival of a lot of what were thought to be forgotten skillsets. Lots of the old handicrafts and practical skills that used to be common knowledge amongst the population have since become lost, where today knowing how to do basic woodworking, basic plumbing, basic sewing and cooking, etc...are all completely alien to many modern men and women. What no one saw however was the rise of the Internet, which has since democratized a ton of this information. We have Google books making available lots of old books from the 19th and early 20th centuries that are no longer under copyright, and we have new books being published on many of these skills, including by the Maker publishing company. We also have Youtube, which allows people to demonstrate many of these skills that otherwise might be difficult to glean just from books.
In terms of myself, one DIY area that I had no idea existed is that of home machining and machine tools. I had always assumed that many things made out of metal required ultra-expensive sophisticated machines to manufacture. I had no idea of the level of DIY manufacturing that is available to a person from just manual machine tools, simple old-fashioned metal casting, wood pattern making, etc...and that is with the old technology. Today you can combine it with special design software which is becoming commoditized and affordable, 3D printers, CNC machine tools (you can build your own CNC machine tools even), etc...
The movement is really a glorious way to promote and encourage production and creativity in our society and in the world overall.
Thoughts On The Candidates So Far
So thus far, four candidates have announced their campaigns to run for President. They are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, and Marco Rubio. I personally do not think that Ted Cruz or Rand Paul have a shot in hell at winning. Ted Cruz is perceived as far too extreme right-wing while Rand Paul is perceived as being too extreme libertarian right-wing. Cruz also is a first-term Senator and comes across as thinking that he is the smartest guy in the room.
Rand Paul meanwhile comes across to many as sexist after how he handled the interviews with two female news anchors. Some point out that he has also been snarky with male news anchors too, but there are two problems with this. For one, perception is what counts for the votes, not reality, so if too many people perceive him as sexist, then that's just as bad as actually openly being sexist. Two, even if he is not perceived as sexist, he can be perceived as not being able to control himself, which is not a good sign for a leader, in particular for President of the United States.
Rand Paul strikes me as having the arrogance that, in my own experience, too many libertarians have, whereby the perceive themselves very smugly as the smartest people in the room, sneering at the utter stupidity of those conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, neither of whom can see the ridiculousness of their ways. Yet, if one of these conservatives or liberals confronts the libertarian on why they see the libertarian views as ridiculous, said libertarian then gets bent-out-of-shape or resorts to name calling. Paul demonstrated this in his interview with Fox News's Megyn Kelly, when he was referring to the "neocons," which is a derogatory name for neoconservatives, usually thrown out by people who don't really know what the term actually means. Paul used it multiple times in reference to other Republicnas, and when Megyn Kelly asked him, "What is a 'neocon,'" he replied with (paraphrasing), "They know who they are." He exhibits that same type of libertarian arrogance that assumes that it and only it is the "true" form of conservatism or right-wing thinking and that variants such as neoconservatism are perversions of right-wing principles and not "true" conservatism. He also is a first-term Senator like Cruz, which is a disadvantage. Being a Senator period in running for President on the Republican side is a disadvantage, because you haven't actually run anything and the media will point this out, while they will cover much more for Democrats.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton launched her campaign with a social media video. It was very professionally/slickly produced, and basically shows everyday Americans and then Hillary saying that Americans need someone who will stand up for them, and thus she is running for President. Hillary has a lot of baggage, and many people either like her a lot while others hate her. I am more ambivalent about her as I don't know what is truth and what isn't about her. The recent e-mail scandal with her though does feed the impression that she is one for whom the normal rules don't apply. I do not think she will have any special advantage or disadvantage in running. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that whether she wins or loses will depend on the Republican.
Marco Rubio announced his campaign with a big speech in which he took a shot at Hillary, saying, "Yesterday, a candidate from yesterday promised to take us back to yesterday." Rubio is young and dynamic, but he is a first-term Senator and, combined with how young-looking he is, I think will make it very much a toss-up in terms of whether he could beat Hillary as many might look at him as being too much of a kid. He could be a good Vice Presidential nominee though.
It is interesting in that Hillary strikes me as being a very beatable candidate (not that I am any political expert, but this is just my opinion), yet, the GOP thus far is fielding lousy candidates. If either Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is the Republican nominee, it will be a President Hillary Clinton I have no doubt. If Marco Rubio is the nominee, it is probably a 50/50 toss-up. Hillary is old, both politically and literally, and establishment, and perceived as power-hungry. But she also can be perceived as experienced, or at least much more so than Rubio. Her having been Secretary of State will mean she can tout having actual foreign policy experience (whether she was a good SoS is a separate issue, but the media will try to cover for any flaws in her time as SoS). Rubio is young and dynamic (both politically and literally), but that also is the problem. He could be looked at as an inexperienced kid, and people also will factor in how Obama lacked experience and the country hasn't faired well under him (which IMO, is more due to his ideology than lack of experience, but many will consider it his lack of experience and that may well also be a contributor).
I very much want the GOP to win, so this all concerns me. Many in the Establishment GOP have been pinning their hopes on Jeb Bush. That you'll have these various other candidates run, such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, maybe Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and maybe Donald Trump, but in the end, these will all be jokes, and it will be Jeb Bush, the establishment guy who will end up getting it, as he was a successful governor of Florida.
The problem as I see it thus far with Jeb Bush, and that apparently also is beginning to concern the establishment GOP, is that he is such a blah candidate. He seems to have no personality and just comes across as an OGRE, i.e. Old Guard Republican Establishment. He is like the epitome of the old-guard, boring, old, blah, establishment white male Republican. And if pitted against Hillary, well then it will be a total toss-up most likely, because we will have two totally establishment candidates, a Clinton and a Bush.
But who else in the GOP could possibly defeat Hillary? Rand Paul can't. Ted Cruz can't. Marco Rubio is most likely a toss-up. Ben Carson can't (he has no executive experience, has come across as rather ignorant on certain issues, and as very anti-gay which will hurt him with moderates). Carly Fiorina most likely can't (she has the aura of having driven Hewlett-Packard into the ground---I don't know how factual that is, but that is the impression that many have about her). Donald Trump can't (he would likely make a mockery of the whole process if he really ran, although I do like a lot of his positions). And Jeb Bush thus far it looks like would at best be a total toss-up. I think the only candidate who might have a shot is Scott Walker, who has been a successful governor of Wisconsin, a purple state and been re-elected in said purple state after running on and following through on conservative policies.
If Only Marco Rubio had Jeb Bush's experience as a governor. Also, I almost forgot to mention, the grassroots of the Republican party DO NOT like Jeb Bush. Some say that Hillary will also most likely lose because generally the public only elects someone from the same party twice, going back to Eisenhower. That George H. W. Bush only got elected after Reagan because Reagan's presidency was so successful, whereas Obama's presidency has not been. But I think in modern times, some of the old "rules" of politics have changed and that this particular rule doesn't hold nearly as much anymore. I would not be surprised at all if people elect Hillary over the GOP candidate, unless the GOP candidate is able to really articulate a good vision for American and counter Hillary. And while Hillary is perceived by many in the GOP as just being a continuation of Obama's policies, many in the general public I do not think see it that way. She is seen as being more centrist then Obama, and thus could be seen as being sufficiently different from him that she wouldn't be a pure continuation of him, thus prompting many who do not think Obama has been a good president to vote for her. Hopefully I am wrong on all this though. It is a shame that the GOP has to choose it seems either between extremist candidates or establishment candidates who are unable to defend conservatism and just come across as light versions of the Democrats.
I also think that the issue of abortion and same-sex marriage could doom the GOP again as well. I wonder if the GOP will ever be able to win the Presidency again due to the perception of it as being anti-Hispanic because of its stand on the border, and it losing too many independent, youth, and women's votes due to its hard-line stances on abortion (completely outlaw except for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother) and same-sex marriage. Romney soared in the polls after that first debate with Obama. Women went into the debate actively disliking him due to months of Obama campaign propaganda and then came out really liking him. But then the Obama campaign concentrated on his social conservatism, and that helped do him in with women, independents, and youth voters. And then the Hispanic vote was terrified of him and thus big-time went for Obama (to the apparent shock of the GOP, who for some reason thought that they Hispanic vote would vote in larger numbers of them even with all the anti illegal-immigration rhetoric and not going and actually talking with Hispanics).
Rand Paul meanwhile comes across to many as sexist after how he handled the interviews with two female news anchors. Some point out that he has also been snarky with male news anchors too, but there are two problems with this. For one, perception is what counts for the votes, not reality, so if too many people perceive him as sexist, then that's just as bad as actually openly being sexist. Two, even if he is not perceived as sexist, he can be perceived as not being able to control himself, which is not a good sign for a leader, in particular for President of the United States.
Rand Paul strikes me as having the arrogance that, in my own experience, too many libertarians have, whereby the perceive themselves very smugly as the smartest people in the room, sneering at the utter stupidity of those conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, neither of whom can see the ridiculousness of their ways. Yet, if one of these conservatives or liberals confronts the libertarian on why they see the libertarian views as ridiculous, said libertarian then gets bent-out-of-shape or resorts to name calling. Paul demonstrated this in his interview with Fox News's Megyn Kelly, when he was referring to the "neocons," which is a derogatory name for neoconservatives, usually thrown out by people who don't really know what the term actually means. Paul used it multiple times in reference to other Republicnas, and when Megyn Kelly asked him, "What is a 'neocon,'" he replied with (paraphrasing), "They know who they are." He exhibits that same type of libertarian arrogance that assumes that it and only it is the "true" form of conservatism or right-wing thinking and that variants such as neoconservatism are perversions of right-wing principles and not "true" conservatism. He also is a first-term Senator like Cruz, which is a disadvantage. Being a Senator period in running for President on the Republican side is a disadvantage, because you haven't actually run anything and the media will point this out, while they will cover much more for Democrats.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton launched her campaign with a social media video. It was very professionally/slickly produced, and basically shows everyday Americans and then Hillary saying that Americans need someone who will stand up for them, and thus she is running for President. Hillary has a lot of baggage, and many people either like her a lot while others hate her. I am more ambivalent about her as I don't know what is truth and what isn't about her. The recent e-mail scandal with her though does feed the impression that she is one for whom the normal rules don't apply. I do not think she will have any special advantage or disadvantage in running. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that whether she wins or loses will depend on the Republican.
Marco Rubio announced his campaign with a big speech in which he took a shot at Hillary, saying, "Yesterday, a candidate from yesterday promised to take us back to yesterday." Rubio is young and dynamic, but he is a first-term Senator and, combined with how young-looking he is, I think will make it very much a toss-up in terms of whether he could beat Hillary as many might look at him as being too much of a kid. He could be a good Vice Presidential nominee though.
It is interesting in that Hillary strikes me as being a very beatable candidate (not that I am any political expert, but this is just my opinion), yet, the GOP thus far is fielding lousy candidates. If either Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is the Republican nominee, it will be a President Hillary Clinton I have no doubt. If Marco Rubio is the nominee, it is probably a 50/50 toss-up. Hillary is old, both politically and literally, and establishment, and perceived as power-hungry. But she also can be perceived as experienced, or at least much more so than Rubio. Her having been Secretary of State will mean she can tout having actual foreign policy experience (whether she was a good SoS is a separate issue, but the media will try to cover for any flaws in her time as SoS). Rubio is young and dynamic (both politically and literally), but that also is the problem. He could be looked at as an inexperienced kid, and people also will factor in how Obama lacked experience and the country hasn't faired well under him (which IMO, is more due to his ideology than lack of experience, but many will consider it his lack of experience and that may well also be a contributor).
I very much want the GOP to win, so this all concerns me. Many in the Establishment GOP have been pinning their hopes on Jeb Bush. That you'll have these various other candidates run, such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, maybe Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and maybe Donald Trump, but in the end, these will all be jokes, and it will be Jeb Bush, the establishment guy who will end up getting it, as he was a successful governor of Florida.
The problem as I see it thus far with Jeb Bush, and that apparently also is beginning to concern the establishment GOP, is that he is such a blah candidate. He seems to have no personality and just comes across as an OGRE, i.e. Old Guard Republican Establishment. He is like the epitome of the old-guard, boring, old, blah, establishment white male Republican. And if pitted against Hillary, well then it will be a total toss-up most likely, because we will have two totally establishment candidates, a Clinton and a Bush.
But who else in the GOP could possibly defeat Hillary? Rand Paul can't. Ted Cruz can't. Marco Rubio is most likely a toss-up. Ben Carson can't (he has no executive experience, has come across as rather ignorant on certain issues, and as very anti-gay which will hurt him with moderates). Carly Fiorina most likely can't (she has the aura of having driven Hewlett-Packard into the ground---I don't know how factual that is, but that is the impression that many have about her). Donald Trump can't (he would likely make a mockery of the whole process if he really ran, although I do like a lot of his positions). And Jeb Bush thus far it looks like would at best be a total toss-up. I think the only candidate who might have a shot is Scott Walker, who has been a successful governor of Wisconsin, a purple state and been re-elected in said purple state after running on and following through on conservative policies.
If Only Marco Rubio had Jeb Bush's experience as a governor. Also, I almost forgot to mention, the grassroots of the Republican party DO NOT like Jeb Bush. Some say that Hillary will also most likely lose because generally the public only elects someone from the same party twice, going back to Eisenhower. That George H. W. Bush only got elected after Reagan because Reagan's presidency was so successful, whereas Obama's presidency has not been. But I think in modern times, some of the old "rules" of politics have changed and that this particular rule doesn't hold nearly as much anymore. I would not be surprised at all if people elect Hillary over the GOP candidate, unless the GOP candidate is able to really articulate a good vision for American and counter Hillary. And while Hillary is perceived by many in the GOP as just being a continuation of Obama's policies, many in the general public I do not think see it that way. She is seen as being more centrist then Obama, and thus could be seen as being sufficiently different from him that she wouldn't be a pure continuation of him, thus prompting many who do not think Obama has been a good president to vote for her. Hopefully I am wrong on all this though. It is a shame that the GOP has to choose it seems either between extremist candidates or establishment candidates who are unable to defend conservatism and just come across as light versions of the Democrats.
I also think that the issue of abortion and same-sex marriage could doom the GOP again as well. I wonder if the GOP will ever be able to win the Presidency again due to the perception of it as being anti-Hispanic because of its stand on the border, and it losing too many independent, youth, and women's votes due to its hard-line stances on abortion (completely outlaw except for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother) and same-sex marriage. Romney soared in the polls after that first debate with Obama. Women went into the debate actively disliking him due to months of Obama campaign propaganda and then came out really liking him. But then the Obama campaign concentrated on his social conservatism, and that helped do him in with women, independents, and youth voters. And then the Hispanic vote was terrified of him and thus big-time went for Obama (to the apparent shock of the GOP, who for some reason thought that they Hispanic vote would vote in larger numbers of them even with all the anti illegal-immigration rhetoric and not going and actually talking with Hispanics).
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Muslim Bakery
Recently, a man went undercover to a Muslim bakery to ask them to bake him a cake for a same-sex wedding. They refused. There has been no uproar at all among the media. This makes me wonder if all the hoopla about Christian bakeries and businesses that would refuse to service a same sex wedding is more about going after Christians than about the issue of discrimination period:
LINK
LINK
Thoughts On Celebrity Scientists
As of late, I've noticed the political Right has really gone after Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Part of this is because he was caught using some fabricated quotes and having questionable facts about some stories he has told about his past. Here are some links to the original article that started the whole debate:
LINK1
LINK2
A standard story among many on the Left is that the Right goes after Tyson due to racism and being anti-science. I do not at all buy the racism charge. Tyson could be white as a marshmallow and would still receive the criticisms he has been getting. The real reason, in my own opinion, regarding the Right's criticisms of Tyson are because Tyson has inserted himself repeatedly into issues of politics. He is not just a popularize of science, but a political commentator overall who also does science popularization. The thing is, if you move yourself from doing just science popularizing into general political commentary, where you comment about general issues of the day, then you open yourself up to criticism.
In addition this, when you look at Tyson's jokes and criticisms regarding President George W. Bush, you are in particular going to attract attention from the political Right. If the facts the jokes are based on turn out not to be real facts, then this especially will open you up to criticism.
With regards to the political Left who make up the bulk of Tyson's fan base however, these people also have some issues. It isn't just the Right-wing that have an issue with Tyson. In the case of his fan-base, in the aftermath of it being revealed that Tyson has either at best been careless with the facts and at worst flat-out lied about some things, they have done everything they can to ignore and even cover up the whole issue, claiming that the Right is only going after My. Tyson based on racism. What this shows is that much of the Tyson fan base is itself not interested in truth or reality as they claim, but rather that Tyson has become a form of demigod to them and they will do anything they can to protect that status of his.
An ample example of this is Tyson's Wikipedia page. Multiple attempts have been made to write on it about what is mentioned in the articles written on [I]The Federalist[/I] website, but thus far all have been deleted.
I think a problem with too many celebrity scientists overall is that they think that because they become popular for reasons of science, that this means people want to hear their views on political and policy issues, and that they are in any way qualified to comment on such issues. If you are popular for being a Food Network chef, no one wants to hear what you think of President Obama's healthcare law. If you are popular for home repair skills, like wood working and carpentry, no one wants to hear what your thoughts are on the Iran deal. And so forth. Similarly, if you are popular for science, IMO, stick with that, and don't share your opinions on other things.
I think one issue with the scientists is that they think that because they are scientists, and hence experts in a field that requires intelligence, that this means they have intelligent opinions to share on other issues as well. But that isn't always the case. Being a smart scientists doesn't mean you will be smart regarding things like economic or healthcare policy, or foreign policy, and so forth. You really may be a complete moron or just completely average outside of your particular area of expertise.
This has been an issue though going back to Carl Sagan, who commented on political issues, and continues with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"), and even Stephen Hawking who has made some negative comments about Israel.
LINK1
LINK2
A standard story among many on the Left is that the Right goes after Tyson due to racism and being anti-science. I do not at all buy the racism charge. Tyson could be white as a marshmallow and would still receive the criticisms he has been getting. The real reason, in my own opinion, regarding the Right's criticisms of Tyson are because Tyson has inserted himself repeatedly into issues of politics. He is not just a popularize of science, but a political commentator overall who also does science popularization. The thing is, if you move yourself from doing just science popularizing into general political commentary, where you comment about general issues of the day, then you open yourself up to criticism.
In addition this, when you look at Tyson's jokes and criticisms regarding President George W. Bush, you are in particular going to attract attention from the political Right. If the facts the jokes are based on turn out not to be real facts, then this especially will open you up to criticism.
With regards to the political Left who make up the bulk of Tyson's fan base however, these people also have some issues. It isn't just the Right-wing that have an issue with Tyson. In the case of his fan-base, in the aftermath of it being revealed that Tyson has either at best been careless with the facts and at worst flat-out lied about some things, they have done everything they can to ignore and even cover up the whole issue, claiming that the Right is only going after My. Tyson based on racism. What this shows is that much of the Tyson fan base is itself not interested in truth or reality as they claim, but rather that Tyson has become a form of demigod to them and they will do anything they can to protect that status of his.
An ample example of this is Tyson's Wikipedia page. Multiple attempts have been made to write on it about what is mentioned in the articles written on [I]The Federalist[/I] website, but thus far all have been deleted.
I think a problem with too many celebrity scientists overall is that they think that because they become popular for reasons of science, that this means people want to hear their views on political and policy issues, and that they are in any way qualified to comment on such issues. If you are popular for being a Food Network chef, no one wants to hear what you think of President Obama's healthcare law. If you are popular for home repair skills, like wood working and carpentry, no one wants to hear what your thoughts are on the Iran deal. And so forth. Similarly, if you are popular for science, IMO, stick with that, and don't share your opinions on other things.
I think one issue with the scientists is that they think that because they are scientists, and hence experts in a field that requires intelligence, that this means they have intelligent opinions to share on other issues as well. But that isn't always the case. Being a smart scientists doesn't mean you will be smart regarding things like economic or healthcare policy, or foreign policy, and so forth. You really may be a complete moron or just completely average outside of your particular area of expertise.
This has been an issue though going back to Carl Sagan, who commented on political issues, and continues with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"), and even Stephen Hawking who has made some negative comments about Israel.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
I hate our political parties
So I love political philosophy. But I have to say that I hate the American political parties. As I study policy issues more and more, I find myself truly somewhere in the middle. If I was at a forum filled with Democrats, I could come across easily as the most hardcore, right-wing conservative Republican to them. On the other hand, if at a forum filled with Republicans, I could come across as the most hardcore left-wing liberal Democrat to them.
I do not like that the Republican party has such a preponderance of hardcore social conservatives who hate homosexuals (and other LGBTQ people) and want to force religion onto the public. On the other hand, I also don't like that the Democratic party has such a preponderance of people who want government to micromanage every little aspect of people's lives, create such a massive social welfare state, an anti-military component, and a complete disrespect for the right to keep and bear arms. One might wonder what I think of the Libertarian party. Well I don't like them either. To me, they are way too far-right-wing on economics and government, and way too far dovish (or maybe delusional is the proper word) on foreign policy.
In terms of my own beliefs, I would describe them as center-right. I am most definitely not center-left, not on issues of economics and foreign policy anyway. But I am most definitely not solidly right-wing overall either. I feel sad that the choices have to be between say a Ted Cruz or an Elizabeth Warren, a Hillary Clinton versus a Jeb Bush, and so forth. Among the Republican party, it seems we either have the OGREs (Old Guard Republican Establishment) who can't defend conservative principles worth a damn, or we have the really far-right Republicans who are excellent on issues like defending gun rights, but way too conservative on issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, religion, etc...I wish we could have a more moderate conservative who can defend things like gun rights, limited government, etc...but in a way where they do not come across as being far-right-wing at all or being Democratic party-lite. I have made this point in previous posts about how the GOP too often in trying to be moderate just comes off as a more light-hearted variant of a Democrat, which is a recipe for failure in the elections. Many in the GOP see this as meaning that we need a solid conservative to run, but I think that will be a losing proposition as well. What we need is someone who will run as a conservative and defend conservative principles, but who is more moderate. Someone who CLEARLY is a CONSERVATIVE, but perceived as a center-right conservative, as opposed to just being some wishy-washy Republican who can't defend or explain conservatism and instead comes across as a light Democrat.
I do wonder whether the GOP will ever win another Presidential election because of its social conservatism. Mitt Romney shot up in the polls after that first debate, so his form of center-right conservatism appealed to many people. The social conservatism of his stances dealt him a hard blow however and helped him lose the election.
I do not like that the Republican party has such a preponderance of hardcore social conservatives who hate homosexuals (and other LGBTQ people) and want to force religion onto the public. On the other hand, I also don't like that the Democratic party has such a preponderance of people who want government to micromanage every little aspect of people's lives, create such a massive social welfare state, an anti-military component, and a complete disrespect for the right to keep and bear arms. One might wonder what I think of the Libertarian party. Well I don't like them either. To me, they are way too far-right-wing on economics and government, and way too far dovish (or maybe delusional is the proper word) on foreign policy.
In terms of my own beliefs, I would describe them as center-right. I am most definitely not center-left, not on issues of economics and foreign policy anyway. But I am most definitely not solidly right-wing overall either. I feel sad that the choices have to be between say a Ted Cruz or an Elizabeth Warren, a Hillary Clinton versus a Jeb Bush, and so forth. Among the Republican party, it seems we either have the OGREs (Old Guard Republican Establishment) who can't defend conservative principles worth a damn, or we have the really far-right Republicans who are excellent on issues like defending gun rights, but way too conservative on issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, religion, etc...I wish we could have a more moderate conservative who can defend things like gun rights, limited government, etc...but in a way where they do not come across as being far-right-wing at all or being Democratic party-lite. I have made this point in previous posts about how the GOP too often in trying to be moderate just comes off as a more light-hearted variant of a Democrat, which is a recipe for failure in the elections. Many in the GOP see this as meaning that we need a solid conservative to run, but I think that will be a losing proposition as well. What we need is someone who will run as a conservative and defend conservative principles, but who is more moderate. Someone who CLEARLY is a CONSERVATIVE, but perceived as a center-right conservative, as opposed to just being some wishy-washy Republican who can't defend or explain conservatism and instead comes across as a light Democrat.
I do wonder whether the GOP will ever win another Presidential election because of its social conservatism. Mitt Romney shot up in the polls after that first debate, so his form of center-right conservatism appealed to many people. The social conservatism of his stances dealt him a hard blow however and helped him lose the election.
Still here
Well I got kind of bored and ended up taking a one year hiatus from this blog. However I am still here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)