Skip to comments.Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?
Posted on 09/10/2012 2:29:35 PM PDT by neverdem
A narrative has developed over the past several years that the Republican Party is anti-science. Recently, thanks to the ignorant remarks about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin, the Democrats have seized the opportunity to remind us that they are the true champions of science in America. But is it really true?
No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.
Consider Californias Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label. The American Medical Association is opposed because there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods. Every major scientific and regulatory agency -- including the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, EPA, FDA, and USDA -- recognizes the importance of genetic modification.
Yet, the California Democratic Party has officially endorsed Proposition 37 -- in direct opposition to the recommendation of Americas finest doctors and in contradiction to the scientific consensus. The Republicans endorsed the pro-science position. Did this fact make the news? No.
Digging deeper into the issue, one finds that California Democrats have de facto allied themselves with some of the biggest anti-science quacks in America. Among Prop 37s most fervent supporters are peddlers of alternative medicine, anti-vaccine groups, and even one crank who claims that genetically modified food causes autism.
This anti-science mentality is not a recent development. The Democratic Party has long made common cause with prominent people who thought vaccines caused autism, two in particular who stand out among the rest.
The first person is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who published an influential article in Rolling Stone and the progressive website Salon back in 2005 tying vaccines to...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · " target="x" title="post a new topic">post new topic · subscribe ·|
|Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·|
Yes. Democrats are the pro-science party because they are brilliant, really-really smart, intelligent, bright, superior, and genetically advanced.
On the other hand, Republicans are stupid Christians who believe in superstition and who hate science because they are dumb, stupid, moronic, knuckle-dragging, gun-loving, bible-thumping idiots, ya know?
I hate to say it, but I've seen too many examples right here on FR of people pushing anti-vaccine, pro-"organic", literal creationism, cold-fusion, alternative medicine, etc., to believe that there is really much difference between left and right when it comes to scientific literacy.
The writer has a lot of Faith in the "scientific consensus" of corrupt government bureaucracies, political groups and industry groups. He is not pro-real-science, he is just gullible.
By his thinking, Libertarians are anti-science, since many of them are against stuff like the following:
Science is a religion for a lot of people, and they cannot handle skeptics who question their dogma.
I know what you mean. I've been posting health and science stories for almost 9 years. But not all the anti-vaccine rants are bunk.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Since I was a kid, I heard about “activist science” out of the Left. I had a teacher talked about it. As I recall it was in social(ist) studies - the soft sciences.
But I think it has spread now with the introduction of humanism (moral realitivity) into medical schools/hard science/research. The truth is not relative in Western science...but it is humanist “science.”
We learn all the time that theories are facts and only knuckle dragers dare to question liberalism’s/humanism’s “science.” They all went along with algore’s man made climate science...even though it left out the Sun and ignored ancient climate chage.
Once socialists tamed their independence and analytical ability to speak and think independently in a “bush hates science” head nodding frenzy, socialism ensnared them into socialized medicine. Federal grant and contract funding control was bad enough, but they had their own somewhat independent institutions and businesses in the name of medicine. They are totally owned now.
..The DEMOCRAT Party = The Anti-GOD Party..
Why, we all saw it for ourselves on National TV..!!!
That abstract you linked was not an indictment of vaccines, but a description of people committing deliberate evil. Unfortunately, using the practice of vaccination to hide/commit nefarious acts has the effect of making people distrust a valid public health effort, with the long-term effect that fewer people receive vaccine protection, and more people die of preventable diseases. All of that actually does fit the radical left agenda (those who would decrease human population by any means possible).
As for scientific illiteracy on the right, we have, right here in this thread, posts #27 and #30 demonstrating the kind of scientific illiteracy that I have been trying to counteract for years.
These are the modern Priests of the Temple. Their god is secularism and their trade craft populism. Government schooling keeps them in business. No thinking person would be a liberal.
I think a strong argument can be made against the “life begins at conception” belief, one that meets both a scientific and a religious standard fully in keeping with Christian values. Leave a fertilized egg alone and it will not turn into a baby. It will not live. Instead it will wither and die due to a lack of vital nutrients and hormones all necessary for growth.
Given that eggs, both fertilized and unfertilized can be passed out of a woman’s body without producing life what are the circumstances that lead to life? Only when that fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall whereby those nutrients and hormones can be supplied does life begin. This occurs about 7 days after conception. When would God send a spirit to this little baby - at conception when it cannot sustain life or at this point when life can be sustained?
The argument that “life begins at conception” is unscientific. It also fails to meet the basic understanding of God and the nature of this world. If one moves away from “conception” and toward implantation you have a sustainable argument.
This is why language is so important and why control of language is a major goal of progressivism. They love to undefine or redefine words.
Look what happened last century change - liberalism which had always meant the classical liberal: freedom and liberty loving e.g. The Founders, and conservatism which had always meant monarchists, the Old Guard, etc. were switched. Progressives redefined and controlled the language making us conservatives - yet it is a rare FReeper who fights for entrenched interests like more government or more cronyism.
Today we gleefully call ourselves Red. Reds have always been communists. It is their symbol, yet one election year because some news media colored their political map red for the GOP and blue for the Democrats we’re now Red and the bad guys are now Blue, as in True Blue. How did that occur and so rapidly?
I suspect because it is the Devil’s world. He needs confusion to reign because error needs a crisis.
——This is a case in which entrenched ideology is self-destructive. ——
Meanwhile on Free Republic, myth trumps science every day
Not that we should bailout anybody as a government, but NASA isn’t Constitutional nor necessary for American progress. NASA stifled progress in space.
What is the cause of all this ignorance? Answer: Government schooling. You could dissolve every teacher’s union, close every district and turn education over to “charter schools” or vouchers for private schools and you’d still have the same problem. Why should I trust a government bureaucrat to define what is and isn’t an education?
Government doesn’t belong in education. Get government out of our minds and out of the minds of our children. The same group that blew the Food Pyramid, missed the 9/11 attack intelligence and is making a bad recession into a depression give us our educational standards and mandates.
The government is the gang that cannot shoot straight. They make the Lavender Hill Mob look like stone killers. The government is the problem. It is political by its nature. Why should a free people submit to government mind control?
Teachers believe in government. What then will they teach our children? There is no balance in education and look what it has gotten us - infantilism. People who never grow up and think that money, masturbation and recreational escapism is a real life.
Any real change in America has to come from educating people. Hard knocks produces a lot of conservatives, but it does nothing to eliminate the myths laid down like sediment over the first dozen years of an education.
Even going by your standard - that still excludes most abortive methods.
Let me put it this way - every life has a beginning, and an end.
Your existence on this planet will expire at a pretty obvious point in time.
At what point in time did your existence on this planet begin?
One more thing:
Government schools are godless. Children must think and reason godlessly just to cooperate in the classroom.
Simply by attending children learn to check their religious beliefs at the door. In other words, this teaches children to separate their personal faith from their public life.
So?....When a tyrant then orders government bureaucrats and businesses to abuse fellow citizens will those religious scruples be there, or will the worker be then thoroughly trained to separate personal belief from his public life?
I no longer have government teachers for friends. They are too evil, too stupid, to too much of a Useful Idiot to be a friend.