Oct 08 2007
Prev/Next Posts: « The Moon, up close and personal || Another Firefly movie?? »
Hillary Clinton on science
Let me start this off with a disclaimer right away: I am not endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. Not yet, certainly, if at all. But she did a very remarkable thing, and it needs to be advertised more, especially among science blogs.
Senator Clinton did something I haven’t seen a candidate do since Al Gore: she made a speech specifically about science.
While I don’t put much stock in political speeches at all, let alone during campaigns, this one rings true. Absorb the smackdown:
Fifty years ago, Sputnik marked the dawn of the Space Age and the beginning of a new era filled with new challenges. Fifty years later, there is no single, galvanizing event to steel our resolve and to lift our eyes to the heavens. The challenges we face are more complex and interconnected. From the rise of globalization to the threat of global warming. These challenges require big ideas and bold thinking.
But instead of fostering a climate of discovery and innovation, the Bush administration has declared war on science. The record is breathtaking: banning the most promising kinds of stem cell research, allowing political appointees to censor studies on climate change, muzzling global warming experts like Dr. James Hansen, overruling doctors and the FDA on emergency contraception, suppressing and manipulating data on mercury pollution, even delaying one report which found that 8 percent of women between 16 and 49 years of age have mercury levels in their blood that could harm future children, denying the risks of toxins like asbestos in the air after the 9/11 attacks, overruling scientists who sought to protect animals under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating scientific committees at the Department of Health and Human Services that did not parrot the politically accepted ideology — or packing those committees with industry insiders, altering scientific tests on the lead content of children’s lunch boxes — and appointing a lead industry consultant to a key panel formed by the Centers for Disease Control, barring a USDA researcher from publishing or even discussing his work on antibiotic resistant bacteria, censoring government websites on breast cancer research, contraception, climate change, and so much else.
Wow. And that’s not even a complete list. Not even close.
To hammer these points home, her campaign has also put up a page called "Ending the War on Science: Hillary Clinton’s Agenda to Reclaim Scientific Innovation". I must say, it’s a tour de force of what must be done to save science, this country, and this planet.
I have not made up my mind on which candidate I like best… or is that hate least? I have things I like about nearly everyone, and things I dislike as well. I really, really wish we could have a legitimate third party in this country, and I don’t mean yet another clueless loudmouth unreality-based one, either. But without getting too partisan here (HAHAHAHAHA), as a scientist, I like where the Dems are coming from a whole lot better than the neocons (and I use that term on purpose– the only real Republican running is Ron Paul, given what the GOP is supposed to be).
Imagine Brownback, Tancredo, or Romney saying what Clinton said:
First, when I am President, I will lift the current ban on ethical stem cell research.
[…]
Secondly, I will end the politicization of scientific research that has marked the Bush Administration and restore a climate of scientific integrity and innovation. We will no longer place ideology ahead of evidence… I’ll stop political appointees from manipulating scientific conclusions in government publications and prevent the suppression of public statements by government scientists.
[…]
I will also have an advisor for science in the White House who reports directly to the President. And I will work to restore the Office of Technology Assessment in Congress. Back in the 1990s, this office was charged with just one task: tell us the truth about science. For decades, they cut through the myths and the spin on everything from Star Wars to AIDS prevention to solar technology. It’s time we put them back in business [BA adds: because Newt Gingrich and the Republican-controlled Congress dismantled the OTA in 1995 because it had the nasty habit of using reality to make decisions, instead of policy]. Third, when I’m President, we will again invest in research.
These are good words, and noble thoughts. She is precisely right in saying these need to be done.
And if she is elected, you can bet I’ll hold her to them. If she starts screwing around like Bush has, I’ll be at the White House lawn with a sign up. I’ll be blogging, making phone calls, writing letters. You’ll hear from me.
But I think she might stick to these words; she very well might. Near the end of the speech, she says this:
As President, part of my mission will be to reclaim our role as the innovation leader. I will pursue an ambitious agenda in space exploration and earth sciences. I’ll fully fund NASA’s earth sciences program, launch a new, comprehensive space-based study of climate change, and reverse the deep funding cuts that NASA’s and FAA’s aeronautics research and development budgets have endured in the last few years.
You know, this is personal for me because when I was in junior high school, I was just captivated by the space program. It caught my imagination. There was such a great burst of interest. I did my 8th grade science project on space medicine. Some of you know that I even wrote to NASA asking how I could apply to be an astronaut and got back an answer saying that they weren’t taking women. (Laughter) I have lived long enough to see that change! (Applause)
Imagine our current President saying something like this. Can’t do it, can you?
Again, I’m not endorsing Senator Clinton here — I like her stance on several issues, and think she’s way off base in others (she voted for the Lieberman/Kyl resolution?? WHAT??). But like her or not, you must admit she is very intelligent. And reading her words, I am reminded of how nice it would be to have someone smart in the White House again.
Note: Looks like my bud Chris Mooney beat me to it this time, with his own thoughts on Senator Clinton’s scientific expositions, and, on the same blog, Sheril Kirshenbaum’s thoughts as well.
So many people HATE Hillary Clinton. And yet, when you ask them why, they almost never have an answer other than some variation on, “She’s a Bi***.” Weird.
Great stuff to hear, and not one bit about “As the Lord Almighty as my guide.”
One thing jumped out at me in the first paragraph: “These challenges require big ideas and bold thinking.”
IMO, this isn’t true. What is required is a shift of attitude. The American people as a whole need to wake up and understand that issues like global warming are real and not going away. The technology is there to make truly significant changes. What is required is for us to change how we live and think about the world.
We (the collective we) operate with a short sighted attitude. We have to look at the world as a long-term sustainable resource. It can be done. It’s not even really all that hard. The technology is there. We just have stop thinking about what is cheapest and start thinking about what is best for continued survival. In other words, stop being grasshoppers and learn from the ants.
Hopefully, an administration that promotes science, rather than stifling it, would greatly help the transition. So, kudos to Hillary Clinton on this issue.
OEJ
My only concern at the moment regarding Clinton winning the Democratic primaries is that there are probably enough people in this country who would vote for whatever Republican happens to be running against her, simply because they don’t want a woman as president. And then where would be be?
(In a Hillary Clinton versus Elmer Fudd election, I have no problem picturing Fudd winning.)
It’s pretty scary for non-Americans to realise how far you have fallen, when a presidential candidate is lauded for talking about Science and not mentioning Angels or Noah.
This is not a standard anti-American rant. The world is an infinitely better place for America being in existence and some of the most intelligent, thoughtful and kind people I know personally are Americans.
It’s the rest who would not mind a theocratic Christian America who scare me witless. They really aren’t any different from theocratic Iranians. That’s why they hate each other so much.
@ Daffy,
I can’t say I hate Hillary, but I have some major problems with her actual ideas (as opposed to her personality, gender, etc.) Do people actually think that a federalized health care system wouldn’t be an even bigger mess than any existing federal bureaucracy, like Homeland Security and the IRS put together? I’m not saying that our system doesn’t need fixing, or than some countries can’t pull off centralized health care, but it’s never going to work here.
When it comes to the topic of science, though, I’m with the BA 100%. I agree with her and would hold her to it if she gets elected.
“muzzling global warming experts like Dr. James Hansen” I’m not sure anyone can muzzle this guy although he pretty well muzzled his own research for years by failing to release his research methods in spite of numerous FOIA requests.
There is a certain defeatist attitude (and an implied NO vote) in saying that there are people in this country who dislike Hillary C. “…because she’s a…(substitute your own invective/derogatory comment).” The next line usually reads …and she could NEVER get elected because she’s polarizing/a woman/the second in the Clinton dynasty/etc. etc.
In a field of Democratic candidates who, to a person, generally outshine most all of their Republican counterparts, I believe that it is absolutely necessary to vote for whomever the Democratic leader is who emerges from the primary as “winner.”
We cannot endure another four years of a Republican administration like this current one, and that seems to be what the Republican candidates are espousing to their voters.
If Democrats have learned little from the last seven years, the two things they should have committed to memory are the superb grass roots organizational skills and the united front the R’s have been displaying. Now is NOT the time to split hairs about the candidate who emerges as the Democratic choice. Hold whomever emerges accountable AFTER they’ve won the Presidency. There is too much at stake. We have come perilously close as a nation to becoming a theocracy with the bible-based decision-making mentioned by Dulouz above.
We must begin to fix the broken Congress; we must begin to restore the Constitution to the document the Founders envisioned; we must repair the antiquated electoral process…there is enough to do which can only be begun when a Democrat is elected president and we begin to replace the old political models of both parties with progressives.
I still refuse to grant Hillary even a modicum of consideration as a candidate unless she does something about her status as “Democratic President Most Likely to Invade Iran”.
People are assuming she won’t, just because she’s a Democrat, but I’m not taking risks based on assumptions. Not with the precarious state of America right now. I want a clear statement from her, but we won’t get it. She may be more liberal than the Republican field on domestic issues, but she buys into the same “American is righteous” foreign policy as everybody else, and that is incredibly dangerous.
That said, the best case scenario in my book is for Obama and Edwards to gank Hillary’s pro-science stance the same way she and Obama ganked Edwards’ health care policy.
Wayne,
Yeah, people really do think that fed-health would not be a bigger mess than any existing federal bureaucracy. People really do.
I’m thinking she just cut her own throat by advocating a return to space. I don’t know how many people I talk to that say something ignorant like “if they were to spend those millions here on earth instead of looking at some far away rock this planet would be better off” or “we have problems here on earth, we should not be investing in space right now”. Like it or not, that is a common attitude of many people.
It would be easy to ascribe this to Hillary playing politics, jumping on the bandwagon of popular criticisms of Bush and the Republicans to rally her base. But she makes some reasonably specific declarations of intent. I suppose we should all be cautious of campaign promises, but it is a refreshing position for a politician to take.
And there was this from her Press Release:
In light of your previous posting, Phil, it’s worth mentioning that under Clinton’s science plan, we will not be going back to the moon.
Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05clinton.html
“But in a telephone interview afterward, she said that in the short term she would subordinate Bush administration proposals for human exploration of the Moon and Mars to restoring cuts in aeronautics research and space-based studies of climate change and other earth science issues.
Travel to the Moon or Mars “excites people,†she said, “but I am more focused on nearer-term goals I think are achievable.†“
Since any decision that any President of the United States makes is likely to affect the whole world, I actually think the whole world should be allowed to vote in U.S. presidential elections. One thing is certain: Bush would have never become president, and Hillary Clinton would stand a good chance. Quite apart from any sense that she might restore to American politics, she would also be suitable to reestablish the good name that the U.S. used to have in the world.
>>> Yeah, people really do think that fed-health would
>>> not be a bigger mess than any existing federal
>>> bureaucracy. People really do.
Why? We’re they struck on the head?
Like I said in a previous thread: will people EVER learn? It’s like most people don’t have minds so much as simple Perl scripts that trigger according to external stimuli.
The choice between leaving the current mess as is or going to a socialized mess is a false dichotomy. There’s dozens of approaches. There’s think tanks that do nothing but churn these plans out.
As for Hillary… eh… don’t even care at this point anymore who wins.
“I actually think the whole world should be allowed to vote in U.S. presidential elections. One thing is certain… HillaryClinton would stand a good chance.”
Ha ha ha ha! Oh, we’re you serious? What are you 12 years old or something?
For a long long time I told everyone that if Clinton won the primaries I would be forced to vote third party. Clinton always seemed to much of a “professional” politician to ever be trusted and such. But this speech will force me to reconsider.
George Phillies, my former Physics Prof, is the Libertarian Front-runner.
The above link will take one to his stances on a variety of issues. His campaign centers on three themes: Peace, Liberty, Prosperity. He and the sentiments of many Americans fed up with the status quo are in alignment on virtually all issues.
I hope you’ll at least take a look at his positions.
Uh oh. Here’s a real test.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/index.html
Obama, who I started liking a tiny bit because he seemed nuclear power friendly, has played the FAITH card.
What will Hillary’s response be?
STAY TUNED!!!
First of all, everything that Hilliarity says, like all the other candidates, is most likely a lie. Politicians lie most of the time especially during campaigns. They must do so in order to get nominated or elected. Therefore, I would advise that we take this science remark with a large grain of salt…a deer lick might be enough.
Hillary scares the crap out of me! She would pump up the government any way she could. Soon, all of our money would be collected by the IRS and given to her to pass out as she sees fit.
If Hillary is nominated as a presidential candidate then I will vote for whomever is running against her…doesn’t matter who it is.
BTW, Christopher Hitchens speculates that if Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize, and he had a very good chance, Gore would consider running. All we can do is hope.
>>> I hope you’ll at least take a look at his positions.
Is he open borders? That’s what drove me away from liking Libertarians for the most part.
[…] Mine Hillary Clinton on science » This Summary is from an article posted at Bad Astronomy Blog on Monday, October 08, 2007 This […]
B. Dewhirst — The Libertarian Party has little or no chance of winning or of of doing much more than possibly diverting a few votes from both of the other major parties. Why not support behind Ron Paul instead? He has a much better chance than Phillies.
Oh- OK, you won me over. I don’t have a vote in this election, but my endorsement can surely swing elections (yes I’m that persuasive).
I will endorse Hilary- but I do have one small request. Can she refrain from invading any countries for a few years? I’ve had enough of pre-emptive wars.
“I actually think the whole world should be allowed to vote in U.S. presidential elections. One thing is certain… HillaryClinton would stand a good chance.â€
Colombo Jane, I have often heard this sentiment expressed as I’ve traveled in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. There was a demonstration in France that had this theme a while back. It is a fact that the decisions taken by U.S. presidents often affect people far beyond the boundaries of our country, and this is why many of us are tired of the old “popularity contest” method of determining our nation’s leaders.
The best way for citizens of other countries to make their influence felt in American politics is by writing letters, both to their own leaders AND to the people in Washington, making their positions clear. Use the power of the WWW as well–both snail mail and email addresses for our representatives in Washington are available online. If a billion people wrote emails on the issues that concern them to Members of Congress, expressing themselves civilly and eloquently, then I think the power of numbers may begin to take effect.
You SHOULD have a voice in what happens in this world. You CAN.
meh… it’s politics. Sputnik’s 50th bday or any other event that gets any attention on any issue involving anything is always going to be used to try to further the cause of any candidate.
I’m sure she would like to have all the science she mentions furthered, but I’d take it with a grain of salt. Once you factor in the practical issues of getting funding, getting the support of legislators, the various interest groups, the opposition to every technicality, the other things a president needs to do… the grand plans often end up either watered down or non-existent.
I don’t know about Iran though. That’s a separate issue. Unlike Iraq they have sponsored terrorism outside the country and they have a very credible nuclear program, which is clearly aimed at getting weapons. They call for death to Israel and have been an enemy of moderate Islam and the west for years.
I have no idea what can be done though, because having a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but Bush has in a bad bad bad situation. If we were not in Iraq we could flex some muscle at Iran and they’d probably start to listen. If need be, we could even take out their nuclear facilities before a bomb is created. But we can’t, because our military is taxed as is. And we’re trying to keep the country nextdoor from getting any worse, which Iran is going to be a player in.
If we bombed Iran that would mess up the situation more. They could start funding more terrorism in Iraq or they could get into the fight directly. They know this. They know that they can get away with stuff they ordinarily would not be able to get away with because of the situation we are in.
Bush’s idiotic preemptive strike not withstanding, I still consider Iran a pretty dangerous, and downright “evil” nation. I’d even say that a pre-emptive war with Iran would have been more justified than one with Iraq. (Not completely justified, but more so).
Now that idiot Bush, rather than keeping Iran in check, has made us dependent on their cooperation and thus empowered a real threatening nation. Good job, George.
Just about every country’s leader affects the world with their decisions. It’s funny though that I have never heard anyone suggest I should be allowed to vote for the leader of China.
Wayne,
As far as a federalized health care system: I need to have a procedure done (possibly life saving, in the long run). In Canada, I would have to wait about a month to have it done but it would be “free.” (covered by taxes, of course)
In the US I can get it done almost immediately… but only if I can afford it, which I can’t because my health insurance, which costs me about $5,000 a year doesn’t cover it. And the thousands I pay in federal income tax don’t have anything to do with my health care at all.
There is nothing Hillary could try with our health care system that would frighten me. Nothing.
> > > struck on the head?’
QD… No, not lately.
The think tanks aren’t in charge. Your government of the false dichotomy, by the false dichotomy, and for the false dichotomy is. And yet you don’t care who wins. (you’re going to say that’s exactly right)
Well, from a false dichotomy sometimes emerges a true median. Not always, but sometimes.
But to get there you have to engage the process.
‘Who’s Pearl Harbor?’
I have to agree with Daffy, there is nothing Hillary can do to our health care system (such as it is) that would make it worse…
I am as uncertain as anyone as to who is the best
candidate. Sen. Clinton scares me for some unknown
reason. I just can’t put a finger on it. But a woman
President, shy not?
But can she stand the pressure of the lobbiest that
want the war to continue and does not give a rat
about science?
We will have to wait and see.
woops “shy not” should be “why not”
Regarding the stem cell stuff: the Nobel price in medicine was announced today and was given to three scientists for their work on embryonic stem cell research.
I don’t know if the Nobel committee normally makes political statements, but the timing of this sure makes it look like a poke at the Bush administration.
> And if she is elected, you can bet I’ll hold her to them. If she starts screwing around like Bush has, I’ll be at the > White House lawn with a sign up. I’ll be blogging, making phone calls, writing letters. You’ll hear from me.
ROFL. Phil, how important do you think you are?
@bigjohn
“Hillary scares the crap out of me! She would pump up the government any way she could. Soon, all of our money would be collected by the IRS and given to her to pass out as she sees fit.”
If you would take a moment to look at which presidents have historically pumped up the government the most (in terms of spending and debt), you’ll notice that the top three names are Reagan, Bush, and Bush.
While I don’t trust anything Hillary says, the current words and previous actions of the Republicans as a whole lead me to trust them even less.
@Wayne
It’s not that people think that government run health care won’t be a mess. It’s that most of us are now painfully aware that it’ll be less of a mess than the current system.
@Frank Ch. Eigler
“ROFL. Phil, how important do you think you are?”
Some of us think he’s more important than you are.
I’ll be right there next to you, Phil.
Her plan for NASA and the space program are essentially those promised by her husband (I’m looking at it right now). And we all know how badly NASA was gutted during his administration.
@Doc: no question, but at least I *know* I’m insignificant.
>>> The think tanks aren’t in charge.
I know. Never said they were. In fact, I implied no one listens to what they have to say.
>>> Your government of the false dichotomy,
>>> by the false dichotomy, and for the false
>>> dichotomy is.
That’s what I said.
>>> And yet you don’t care who wins.
No, I don’t. It’s not worth wasting energy on at this point. I hope to retire early in 8 years and get the hell outta Dodge.
>>> Well, from a false dichotomy sometimes emerges a
>>> true median. Not always, but sometimes.
So, in other words, it fails most of the time.
Great system.
>>> But to get there you have to engage the process.
Been there, done that, wore the T-Shirts, still got politically and financially raped.
>>> ‘Who’s Pearl Harbor?’
Who? Are you sure you have no head injury?
>>> It’s that most of us are now painfully aware that
>>> it’ll be less of a mess than the current system.
Based on what evidence?
My current health care is great. I don’t want to give it up.
QD,
That our health care is currently considered among the worst of industrialized nations.
It’s a national embarrassment.
Basically, “Our health care system is the worst in the world, but let’s not fix it because the solution might be even worse.”
There’s a courageous stance.
Well, lucky for you. Not all of us are so fortunate.
> First of all, everything that Hilliarity says, like all the other candidates,
> is most likely a lie. Politicians lie most of the time especially during
> campaigns.
Could not agree more. After all, we are talking about a classic career politician here.
I thought this blog was supposed to encourage critical thinking. And yet, what do I see? A career politician says something encouraging, and now there’s so enough drool to raise the ocean levels by 20 feet
>>> If you would take a moment to look at which presidents
>>> have historically pumped up the government the most
It’s a list with no names on it. The Legisative branch spends the money.
Is there a sppecific point to the whole “spending increased more under your guy than my guy” piffle? It’s still all just too much. It’s like arguing over which circle of Hell is the worst. It’s just mindless ideology- a circling of the wagons to defend the preciousssssssss Party.
But please do keep up defending the, er… cause. It gives the powers that be in this country a good chuckle.
>>> I thought this blog was supposed to encourage
>>> critical thinking. And yet, what do I see?
Let me introduce you to Quiet Desperation’s First Law Of Skepticism
“Politics dissolves skepticism on contact”
@Quiet Desperation
It’s nice to know you’re so well off. Your level of concern for your fellow man is astounding - you are obvoulsly a friendly and generous individual.
Sometime though you might want to spend some of your idle retirement hours to meet some of the millions in this country who have no health insurance, can not afford it, and who are working their butts off just to keep their heads above water.
@Quiet Desperation
“It’s a list with no names on it. The Legisative branch spends the money.”
You must have fallen asleep in civics class. The president can VETO budgets and spending bills - something that the current Bush forgot up until recently.
Let me add to my earlier statement that you’re clearly also very intelligent, open minded, and reasonable.
Frank Ch. Eigler: I am very important. I vote. I also talk to friends, and write about things. I contact my representatives in Congress. There may be first-hand contact in the future, maybe even citizen lobbying. I go to meetings and talk to people there.
Incidentally, elections were won and lost by margins smaller than my own modest readership here.
This isn’t bragadoccio. This is fact.
BA,
Just ignore Frank. He’s that rarest of breed, a right-wing Canadian, and it makes him cranky to be part of such a small minority group.
http://web.elastic.org/~fche/
My dad said he’ll vote for her, and after reading that, I think he’s on to something. A president who understands “We cannot live in the cradle forever.” would be as great as all-natural coconut-cranbery-pineaple-vanilla yogurt! (But what are the odds that will ever be invented?)
@Colombo Jane: “Ha ha ha ha! Oh, we’re you serious? What are you 12 years old or something?â€
What a strange thing to ask. Oh, that was meant to be an argument for something?
I don’t know which part of my statement you were reacting to, but let me back up my assessment of Clinton’s hypothetical chances in a world-wide election:
“More than four in 10 French and Germans would like to see Democratic candidate and former first lady Hillary Clinton elected US president in 2008, a survey by a Canadian pollster showed on Wednesday. The Angus Reid institute also found Clinton to be the preferred candidate of British, Italian and Canadian respondents to its poll, which asked them to choose between eight of the US politicians running for the nomination.â€
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2173886,00.html
It may just be my Old European arrogance, but my feeling is that people in many other countries feel the same.
Hopefully she keeps to her promises if she is elected next year (quite a long time!).
Will be interesting seeing what the other candidates say about science (and other important topics)
She supported the Iraq war. That makes her responsible for the deaths of more than one million human beings. She is either colossally corrupt or incredibly incompetent, and I don’t see how anyone in their right mind could endorse her.
brtkrbzhnv,
I actively opposed the Iraq war from the start (and received 2 death threats for it). It was a lonely place to be at the time, what with Bush and Cheney and Powell fanning the flames of irrational paranoia across the nation.
So, please tell which candidate you support who also opposed the war from the start.
Daffy,
So you have no problem with forcing ME to pay for your procedure?
@Daffy
You would think that you could get things done immediately under the private healthcare system in the US, but in my experience (and to my great surprise) it’s not necessarily true. At the time I had a great healthcare plan — the best provided by the multinational company I worked for — but on more than one occasion, when I was referred to a specialist doctor, I had to wait weeks for an appointment. And this is in a city of a million people. Given that I was in a panic at the time, the whole experience was very unexpected and unnerving.
In contrast, both my parents live in the UK, and owe their lives to timely treatment by the National Health Service. From cancer treatment to heart surgery to emergency treatment for infections, they had have no complaints at all. They have paid for two private procedures rather than go on a waiting list for non-critical surgery, but it was their decision, and they were able to afford it despite their modest means because their had not had to spend it all on very expensive medical insurance.
Of course, your experience may vary, and no system is even close to being perfect, but it’s obvious that the US health care system is in a great deal of trouble.
@Mark
And there’s the rub. US taxpayers are already forking out billions of dollars a year for treating the under-insured and uninsured. If there was a system in place where people who can’t afford insurance can get timely and preventative treatment, then we all win. At worst, it would be a wash. Americans already pay up to four times as much for healthcare than many countries like the UK and France. Socialized medicine does not have to increase the tax burden. Nor does it prevent people from going private if they can afford it and want to.
Also a comment from the Hoofnagels on the denialism blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/10/hillary_clinton_will_restore_t.php
Mark,
As with jazz, if you have to have the concept explained to you, you ain’t ever gonna get it anyway.
A healthy population is a more productive and cost effective one. Why do you think EVERY other industrialized nation takes care of its citizens?
Ms. Clintons’ proposal to deemphasize manned space flight will certainly please Prof. Bob Park, the man who Dr. Plait says doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Ah, the hazards of writing an early response on a controversial subject. So, to reiterate:
Yes, I think our health care system is seriously flawed. (To Daffy in particular, I really do wish that wasn’t the case for you, but Hillary CAN scare me with what she could do.) I don’t like insurance companies making life-or-death decisions for me, but that means we need MORE choices, not ONE choice.
Yes, I think fed-health will be worse overall. Maybe not for every situation and every income bracket, but a titanic mess with worse care on average and a greater drain on the economy.
Yes, I do find it ironic that the same people who complain about the government having too much control want to hand over our health care system to them.
No, I don’t think our heath care system is bad in comparison to other developed countries. It all depends on what criteria you use to make the comparison. On many lists, “bad” equates to “less socialized”, which is a circular argument for socializing medicine.
Yes, republicans are just as good (or better) at spending my money. I wish the libertarians would get a little more main-stream so that they could be contenders for office.
My taxes are high enough, thanks, I don’t really want to mortgage my house to pay the IRS.
Daffy,
“So, please tell which candidate you support who also opposed the war from the start.”
I think that would be Ron Paul. I wonder if you’ll be asking this same question, but about war in Iran, in 2012? Me? I’m voting wacko 3rd party, sigh…
Randy in Paso Robles
R. T. Merkel,
I sincerely hope not…but a very large percentage of our population is prepared to believe and support anything the chickenhawks tell them. I am not optimistic.
> > > No, I don’t. It’s not worth wasting energy on at this point. I hope to retire early in 8 years and get the hell outta Dodge.
Odd how engaged your disengagement is.
I guess that excludes politicizing “Global Warming”. If you aren’t a member of the global warming fanatic religion, you are hammered by the left wing.
Doc,
OK, I was being flippant, and getting impatient with the spotty Internet access where I happen to be at the moment. Let me expand.
In order to solve the situation of some not having good health care, do we fix the current system, which does work in many cases, or do we rush headlong into a radical change and switch to a system where the entity in charge, the feds, has proven again and again and again and again AND AGAIN (x100) than it couldn’t manage a program that taught bees to buzz?
Why not juat a health care safteynet extension of Medicare? It would be a provider of last resort when all other avenues fail. I’m not an ideologue or Partyliner. I’d entertain such a program if I could have some sort of fiscal safeguards against waste an idiocy (and there are ways to do that).
And please don’t bother to judge me, because the real me would shatter any ideological filters and pigeonholes. I used to be someone who cared a lot. I volunteered heavily in college and during my early career. I cared and tried hard to help, and it was all for naught. Behavior is consistent, and it is the rare case where it can be changed.
The reasons for a lot of misery in this country (forget about the world!) run very deep. Any real set of solutions are going to require nuance, understanding of the deep reasons and time. The support system has to start locally and the feds should be the backstop. The shells of support should be family, neighborhood, city, county, state and, as last resort, federal. I don’t think this due to party lloyalty or rigid ideology. It’s based on my own observations that local support and programs work MUCH better then programs administered by some anonymous bureaucracy thousand of miles away.
But I have reached a point in my life where I don’t care anymore. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is. Maybe I’ll be a rat abandoning a sinking ship when I finally do retire overseas, but what’s to be done? Look at the people leading the pack in this upcoming election. Do you see ANY hope there at all?
I’m out of compassion gas, Doc. People vote these damned fools in over and over, and have no one to blame but themselves.
And my retirement years will be far from idle. One of my plans is to build a 24″ Dobsonian telescope.
And I want to see how many languages in which I can become fluent. I may also go for a degree/certificate/whatever in video game design and start at the entry level of that industry. I can already code as well as any ubergeek out there. I just need to learn some specifics.
>>> Let me add to my earlier statement that you’re clearly
>>> also very intelligent, open minded, and reasonable.
Thank you, and the same back at ya.
I think it illustrates my point that these issues are so complex that rational, skeptical people can hugely disagree on the solutions. The only thin to be done is to gather the properly experienced people to solve them, and keep the politicians as far away from that process as possible. IF it’s possible. 
As for the Veto, oh, I don’t absolve the Presidents of the past from complicity in budget deficits, but it IS ultimately the Congress that crafts the spending. Reagan, for example, SHOULD have vetoed every unbalanced budget. Even if Congress could override it. So let them. MAKE them go to that length and then sic the country on THEM.
Sci_Tchr
Bjorn Lomborg is a good commentator on GW these days. He seems to have found the rational response: “It’s happening, it’s a problem, but we can manage it without throwing our civilization off a cliff”.
Of course he still gets hammered, but, well, who carres what ideologues think.
Actually, it’s a trick question. Ideologues don’t think. 
Wasn’t Colombo Jane a TV show?
Or was that Mrs Colombo? Starring the eventual Captain Janeway, I believe.
I still think she talks like a Smurf.
Hi!
Did you know that your blog post is at the top of our “Hillary buzz” list at Wonkosphere (http://wonkosphere.com)?
In order to figure out which posts to highlight, we take all the blogs that mention the candidate (i.e. Clinton; 333 yesterday) and use our natural language processing technology to determine the “distance” between each pair of posts; we then average that and the posts with the highest average is shown. In a sense, these posts represent the “collective consciousness” of the political discussion that day. Congrats on being #1!
Excellent post, thanks for bringing this to all of our attention. I think I will blog about it too, this is about the most wonkish speech of the campaign so far!
Best, WonkoKevin
QD: “As for the Veto, oh, I don’t absolve the Presidents of the past from complicity in budget deficits, but it IS ultimately the Congress that crafts the spending. Reagan, for example, SHOULD have vetoed every unbalanced budget. Even if Congress could override it. So let them. MAKE them go to that length and then sic the country on THEM.”
What an odd statement. In the course of his presidency, Reagan asked Congress for 16 billion dollars MORE than they gave him.
While it is nice that Hillary takes this modest advocacy for science, if you read between the lines you’ll see what it really entails:
“Mission to Planet Earth as a priority” In other words the moon and mars long range plans will be shelved. Bush is an enemy of science but this was actually where NASA needs to go.
According to a mother Jones article Hillary was a big participant of the John Ashcroft prayer breakfast. She will soon be displaying her religiosity for all to see trying to appeal to some moderate red state women. With Hillary everything is done for political expediency, even her vote for the Iraq war was done to stay in the political game, I bet personally she would have preferred to vote against it.
Hillary supported a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, and as such she supported a repeal of the first amendment. I won’t forgive or forget this.
Hillary’s health care plan still is a big mess. How do you fix health care. It isn’t something that should be overhauled, instead it should have a 5 year 10 year and 15 year plan, that gradually fixes problems with the current system. In particular people who have preexisting conditions, people over using emergency rooms as their mode of health care. Things such as this can be addressed and gradually make a system that while cumbersome pretty much works.
Hillary is no doubt an intelligent and capable woman, she can at least pick her friends well (Bill). She is also a politician and all that implies.
Dick Morris the Clinton aid hired after the defeats in 1994 prophetically states that Hillary will get the nomination, she’ll get the presidency, and it will be a disaster. Unfortunately I believe he is correct.
I’ll support her if we can get a committment to send Bill to Mars right after the election.
@Wayne
Why? Just compare the “drain” healthcare is on the US economy compared with those countries with some form of socialized medicine:
I believe the disparity is even greater seven years on. And that money is coming out of your own pocket, taxes or no.
It is a myth that socialized medicine has to be more expensive to operate than a private system. It’s also a myth that everubody has to use it. It’s there for those people who need it, others can still go private if they want to. When I was in the UK, I had surgery on the private healthcare plan of my company, and my brother-in-law just paid for back surgery because he didn’t want to have to wait (he runs a business). Neither he nor I are particularly wealthy.
Now there are dozens of ways it can be screwed up, but are you saying that the US is incapable of doing something almost every other industrialize nation has managed to do in the last 30+ years?
[…] Shockingly, Hilary Clinton finally said something I can agree with. […]
I wouldn’t really vote for Clinton no matter how much I agree with what she’s saying, simply because I don’t see her as honest so much as someone who will pander to anyone.
This isn’t really a criticism of policy rather than honesty, but after this president I feel it to be of supreme importance.
I really think that you have no real reason for not endorsing her other than her gender. Despite your self promotion as a feminist you simply can not bring yourself to vote for a woman as president. Nor can anyone in your country. For several years I have read your blog harping on about politicians not supporting science and when you finally have a candidate, on record, saying she supports science and wants it changed, you bring up a vote on the Iraq war as your reason for not supporting her? Please, over 80% of the population of your country was in favour of that war! GET OVER IT! If you feel so strongly about her ideas about science give her a chance and hold her to her words as you would for any man. But if you think you are going to find the perfect candidate who voted exactly the way YOU wanted on every issue, that candidate doesn’t exist and never will.
Stop demanding from your candidates that they be something they aren’t and you wouldn’t have Hillary making an ass of herself trying to show her human side, and you wouldn’t have McCain making an ass of himself sucking up to hypochristians.
Uh, Dennis, you have zero reason for saying that. Zero.
I would have no problem voting for a woman at all. My problem with her is not that she’s a woman, it’s that she has some views I don’t hold. She voted for the fracking Kyl-Lieberman resolution! Holy cripes!
And you are way off base with your other comments, too. 80% of the country may have supported the war (citation, if you have it please) but that is immaterial. The Senate should have had better info than we had… and many of us knew the President was lying the whole time during the lead up to the Iraq invasion and occupation.
And science is not the be-all and end-all reason I would vote for someone. We are burning up 11 million dollars per hour in Iraq. That, and the Constitutional crises we have been in for several years are the biggest concerns I have for this election.
You might want to actually get some facts before trying to pigeonhole me, or anyone else.
@ tacitus,
“Now there are dozens of ways it can be screwed up, but are you saying that the US is incapable of doing something almost every other industrialize nation has managed to do in the last 30+ years?”
Not incapable, just very unlikely. I’m simply extrapolating from past experience of our government, who is very good at screwing things up in major and expensive ways. Also, I think you’ll find the total size of the system would be much bigger than the examples you cited (sorry, I don’t have any figures, but just compare the populations for starters).
I do feel a bit more confindent now in Hillary than before. Like you Phil, I hope she sticks to her word. Not sure if I’ll be able to join you in a protest if she doesn’t!
I also hope she doesn’t feel like killing the Constellation project. It seems to me that it is just what we need. IMO, it will reinstate confidence in our technological and scientific abilities to finally be able to leave LEO once more. Ahhhhhh.
I do know her views on stem cells will be frowned upon by some, including my immediate family (thanks to education on the issue, I do not share their views. But I don’t let them know that!).
Here’s to hope for 2008!
@Quiet Desperation
I hear where you’re coming from and understand - I’ve been at that “out of gas” point a couple of times myself.
Still, I think it *can* be fixed, but I don’t think it’ll be easy. The hard part will be keeping the corporate and political intersts from rigging whatever new system we come up with to suit their intersts to the detriment of the country as a whole.
That’s why I (who was rased in a *very* conservative household) feel that a European/Canadian socialized health care system would be better than a “hybrid”. As long as the insurance, pharmaceutical, and health-care industries have an easy way of manipulating the system through the legislature, the population of the US will get the short end of the stick.
The current trend is for these sorts of things to go from the bottom up - it’s easier for the public to control their legislature on a state level. I expect in the next several years for individual states to put state-run universal health care systems in place, and that they will eventually be semi-merged into a federal system - basically something like a massive increase in the SCHIP program.
So anyway, now that I have a better handle on your viewpoint, when I see you getting too cynical and counterproductive I’ll give you a friendly, attitude correcting thump - just as I expect you’ll do when I get cranked up and start acting like a coked up yorkie.
Given the options, she seems like the lesser of all evils.
Steve Sutton writes:
“Given the options, she seems like the lesser of all evils.”
That right there sums up the sad truth of US politics. It’s not about voting for someone you believe in. It’s about choosing which candidate turns your stomach the least.
I’ve always said that any person who wants to be President is unfit for the job.
Al Gore, where are you?
OEJ
Didn’t Al Gore want to be president?
Since I don’t know what to say about a lot of this, or what good it would do, I have this link to an article I found some people may find interesting. Though a lot of it might have been better for BA’s plagiarism post.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/media_dishonesty_matters.html
Ken S,
Yes he did, but he doesn’t appear to want it now, which is a plus in my tally book. Of course, he is a politician, so you never know what to believe.
OEJ
[…] er citeret fra en bloggen Bad Astronomy, hvor man kan læse mere om Hillarys tale. Det samme gælder denne artikel fra New York […]
Despite my cynicism about politicians (I know a couple who are excellent, but still are forced to toe the party line) and the Demopublicans (Republicrats?), and being a Libertarian, I am hopeful that the Democrats boot the Republicans from the White House and Congress. And then that they clean house of conservatives in the bureaucracy so as to correct the anti-science, anti-civil rights/Bill of Rights actions the current incumbents have foisted on us.
Part of the problem of our unthinking, science-ignorant citizenry is the educational system that produces job-oriented students (I almost wrote “graduates”, but there are fewer and fewer of them), not thinking people. The several communities of Center for Inquiry Florida have been working in the process of creating meaningful Florida science education standards for the public school system. It is good to see a strong pro-science stand taken by a politician. It should be exploitable in generating some awareness in the press.
I’ve not been Hillary’s fanboy.
However, what she said in that speech is strong medicine. If she did a third of what she is proposing, we would all benefit.
There are other issues. But her opponents keep making them irrelevant as they go along. And none that I am aware of have put up such clear signals of intent with regards to the ending of the war on science, as she put it.
Thanks for calling attention to this, Phil. It’s food for thought.
The BA said (in part) “The Senate should have had better info than we had…”
FYI: Many weeks ago (mid summer?) Harry Shearer reported that only 3 or 4 senators bothered to read the NIE that ‘W presented as the argument to invade Iraq (no citation, heard it on Le Show.) It looks like Senator Clinton wasn’t one of them. See http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/report_clinton_.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402479.html?hpid=artslot.
(sorry for long links).
So, even if you provide ‘em with ‘evidence’ they won’t bother to read it. Sigh…
Randy in Paso Robles
The only reason any of you are scared of Hillary more than the Republican party is because for the last 10 years the Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, and FOX News have been telling you to be scared of her.
“The only reason any of you are scared of Hillary … have been telling you to be scared of her.”
Oh pleeeease spare us. I’d be interested just how many readers of the BA blog ‘listen’ to the GOP, Rush or watch FOX news.
Randy in Paso Robles
Not impressed. She’ll say anything to get elected. Then watch as taxes are increased for the people that actually earn the money. More social programs that have failed to work in the past. Followed by a recession of a magnitude not seen since Carter.
“muzzling global warming experts like Dr. James Hansen”
LOL!
James Hanses is a shill for George Soros.
The Soros Threat To Democracy:
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836
“It’s pretty scary for non-Americans to realise how far you have fallen, when a presidential candidate is lauded for talking about Science and not mentioning Angels or Noah”
The U.S. rules the world in science, that’s why other countries are always breaking into our national labs to steal our research.
“reestablish the good name that the U.S. used to have in the world”
Europe was caught red-handed with over $40 billion in shady and illegal arms and oil deals in Iraq, and is the number one trade partner with Iran. Do you really care what they think?
“Bush’s idiotic preemptive strike not withstanding, I still consider Iran a pretty dangerous, and downright “evil†nation. I’d even say that a pre-emptive war with Iran would have been more justified than one with Iraq. (Not completely justified, but more so).”
You can’t go to “war” with Iran without taking out Iraq and staying in Afghanistan, Look at a map.
“We are burning up 11 million dollars per hour in Iraq. That, and the Constitutional crises we have been in for several years are the biggest concerns I have for this election.”
Illegal immigration is far worse. It’s destroying our schools, health care system, and our culture. If the ACLU would let us go after Arab muslims instead of harassing little old white ladies at the airport, you wouldn’t have a “Constitutional” crisis.
“President was lying the whole time during the lead up to the Iraq invasion and occupation.”
But it’s true when a Clinton says it.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919212723/http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
“President was lying the whole time during the lead up to the Iraq invasion and occupation.”
But it’s true when a Clinton says it.
Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
Iraq Liberation Act:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919212723/http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
I read this comment and its very interesting one. Your blog’s informative is very rich in contents. I like your way of
presentation. At times I disagree with your views but thinking about it who
presents views that are acceptable to everyone. Keep posting your good
blogs.