Fake Banner
Oil Kept Congo From Starving - Western Academics Don't Seem To Like That

If even a wealthy like Germany has to lie about emissions to placate government-funded environmentalists...

China Sells Western Progressives Solar Panels While Switching To Nuclear Power

China has quietly overtaken France to become the world's second-largest producer of nuclear energy. ...

If You Care About Earth Day, Stop Buying Organic, Fair Trade And Other Junk Stickers On Products

As Lenin's Birthday Earth Day approaches, all of media are pillaged by public relations flaks being...

If A Weedkiller Turned You Gay, We'd Like To Interview You

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a lawyer who leveraged a name that was essentially beatified by Democrats...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Jim Myrespicture for picture for Fred Phillipspicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Hontas Farmer
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

Blogroll
I've long said that what NASA needs is not a James Webb Space Telescope but an actual James Webb for the 21st century.

Webb, if you are not familiar with NASA lore, was a bold leader rather than a bureaucrat tasked with perpetuating funding, and it was due to his leadership that NASA launched 75 missions into space, including putting a man on the Moon.
A Democratic president banned the use of federal money for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, a Republican president restricted federal hESC funding to existing lines and a Democratic president continues to limit federal money for hESC research.   Who is regarded as anti-science on this issue? Republicans.

I know, I know, Democrats are anti-science on plenty of other things - animal research, agriculture, vaccines and a whole list of others - but this is just about hESC research and there it is clearly just a Republican issue.   The mainstream media and science bloggers say so.   
In the immortal Richard Donner classic "Scrooged", the following exchange takes place between Frank, the president of the network, and his boss, Preston:

Preston: Do you know how many cats there are in this country?
Frank: No, ummmm...I don't have...no.
Preston: Twenty-seven million. Do you know how many dogs?
Frank: ...in America?
Preston:  Forty-eight million. We spend four billion on pet food alone.
Frank: Four...?!
It's rare that you will find me arguing for gender quotas.   Obviously I am not for discrimination but, at least in science, mandating representation - which is discrimination against the qualified in the interests of sex organs - does not lead to better science, it leads to equality at the expense of excellence.

Economics, however, is not science and some mandated equality might help.  Science says so.
Conservatives, who generally agree on the value of individual freedom, want the government to limit marijuana.   Progressives, who generally agree on the value of big government, don't want the government to limit marijuana.

Conservatives, who generally agree on the merits of capitalism, like genetically modified organisms, as long as they aren't researched using human embryonic stem cells and curing people of serious illnesses.   Progressives, who generally dislike capitalism unless it is the magical sort that works in a world where regulation of fossil fuels and mandates and subsidies for lousy alternative solutions from 1600 A.D. will still allow capitalism to flourish, dislike genetically modified organisms because they hate science.