Obama Is Blinding Us With Science

[alienlovechild 75]

As usual, I doubt anyone really listened to what Obama says. He said he wanted "to slow global warming". So things the world will be worse off at the end of Obama's term since he can't reverse the trend. Never mind that the U.S. has had the biggest reductions in GHGs without Kyoto. How does Obama hope to sell global warming as millions of Americans lose their jobs and there's no money to pay for Obama's plans?

Obama has no intention of reforming science education in schools and lose the teacher unions in the process.

The innovation of American medical science that Obama praises will slow as it comes under Obamacare price controls and regulations.

Never mind any of this and just focus on the phony anti-science ####### label on people that dare question global warming while those same people use all the same technology that everyone else does. There's no real major anti-science movement in the U.S. and you don't see people embracing say the Amish lifestyle except the anti-bio tech leftists who shun anything except organic food and fear computer ballots (except this last election).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As usual, I doubt anyone really listened to what Obama says. He said he wanted "to slow global warming". So things the world will be worse off at the end of Obama's term since he can't reverse the trend. Never mind that the U.S. has had the biggest reductions in GHGs without Kyoto. How does Obama hope to sell global warming as millions of Americans lose their jobs and there's no money to pay for Obama's plans?

Obama has no intention of reforming science education in schools and lose the teacher unions in the process.

The innovation of American medical science that Obama praises will slow as it comes under Obamacare price controls and regulations.

Never mind any of this and just focus on the phony anti-science ####### label on people that dare question global warming while those same people use all the same technology that everyone else does. There's no real major anti-science movement in the U.S. and you don't see people embracing say the Amish lifestyle except the anti-bio tech leftists who shun anything except organic food and fear computer ballots (except this last election).

I think you need to listen to it again. The crux of what he was saying you somehow completely overlooked.

"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process," Obama said.

"Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. [...]

"I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity."

[alienlovechild 75]

I think you need to listen to it again. The crux of what he was saying you somehow completely overlooked.

"I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity."

That's not an education plan nor is it an explanation of it can be paid for. It also fails to reconcile immediate economic realities that will overshadow most of Obama's energy, education (?) and health care policies.

[HAL 9000 96]

scientist don't represent the average joe-six-pack, screw science and its nerds,

Nascar and monster trucks FTW!

HAL 9000 says screw you!

(but... what about monster truck driving scientists?)

Ohhh hold your horses son, if they drive monster trucks they are not as nerd as we thought. Hallelujah!

And for all of y'alls that believe in that crazy "Big Bangaro" theory, I say screw you! Read the bible, god created the universe, period! Like we come from a fish, that Derwein was bananas y'alls...

[HAL 9000 96]

As usual, I doubt anyone really listened to what Obama says. He said he wanted "to slow global warming". So things the world will be worse off at the end of Obama's term since he can't reverse the trend. Never mind that the U.S. has had the biggest reductions in GHGs without Kyoto. How does Obama hope to sell global warming as millions of Americans lose their jobs and there's no money to pay for Obama's plans?

Obama has no intention of reforming science education in schools and lose the teacher unions in the process.

The innovation of American medical science that Obama praises will slow as it comes under Obamacare price controls and regulations.

Never mind any of this and just focus on the phony anti-science ####### label on people that dare question global warming while those same people use all the same technology that everyone else does. There's no real major anti-science movement in the U.S. and you don't see people embracing say the Amish lifestyle except the anti-bio tech leftists who shun anything except organic food and fear computer ballots (except this last election).

I think you need to listen to it again. The crux of what he was saying you somehow completely overlooked.

"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process," Obama said.

"Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. [...]

"I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity."

I think he might have to submit a re-write becuase me, as a scientist, couldn't understand much of what he wrote.

[alienlovechild 75]

As usual, I doubt anyone really listened to what Obama says. He said he wanted "to slow global warming". So things the world will be worse off at the end of Obama's term since he can't reverse the trend. Never mind that the U.S. has had the biggest reductions in GHGs without Kyoto. How does Obama hope to sell global warming as millions of Americans lose their jobs and there's no money to pay for Obama's plans?

Obama has no intention of reforming science education in schools and lose the teacher unions in the process.

The innovation of American medical science that Obama praises will slow as it comes under Obamacare price controls and regulations.

Never mind any of this and just focus on the phony anti-science ####### label on people that dare question global warming while those same people use all the same technology that everyone else does. There's no real major anti-science movement in the U.S. and you don't see people embracing say the Amish lifestyle except the anti-bio tech leftists who shun anything except organic food and fear computer ballots (except this last election).

I think you need to listen to it again. The crux of what he was saying you somehow completely overlooked.

"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process," Obama said.

"Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. [...]

"I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity."

I think he might have to submit a re-write becuase me, as a scientist, couldn't understand much of what he wrote.

You might add your own editing since it's unclear you're referring to: Obama, Jabba or me. What don't you understand?

[alienlovechild 75]

Even with the omissions and mispelling, I don't think it's too difficult to figure what's being said.

[HAL 9000 96]

As usual, I doubt anyone really listened to what Obama says. He said he wanted "to slow global warming". So things the world will be worse off at the end of Obama's term since he can't reverse the trend. Never mind that the U.S. has had the biggest reductions in GHGs without Kyoto. How does Obama hope to sell global warming as millions of Americans lose their jobs and there's no money to pay for Obama's plans?

Obama has no intention of reforming science education in schools and lose the teacher unions in the process.

The innovation of American medical science that Obama praises will slow as it comes under Obamacare price controls and regulations.

Never mind any of this and just focus on the phony anti-science ####### label on people that dare question global warming while those same people use all the same technology that everyone else does. There's no real major anti-science movement in the U.S. and you don't see people embracing say the Amish lifestyle except the anti-bio tech leftists who shun anything except organic food and fear computer ballots (except this last election).

I think you need to listen to it again. The crux of what he was saying you somehow completely overlooked.

"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process," Obama said.

"Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. [...]

"I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity."

I think he might have to submit a re-write becuase me, as a scientist, couldn't understand much of what he wrote.

You might add your own editing since it's unclear you're referring to: Obama, Jabba or me. What don't you understand?

Sorry- I'm not into doing other people's homework.

[alienlovechild 75]

As usual, I doubt anyone really listened to what Obama says. He said he wanted "to slow global warming". So things the world will be worse off at the end of Obama's term since he can't reverse the trend. Never mind that the U.S. has had the biggest reductions in GHGs without Kyoto. How does Obama hope to sell global warming as millions of Americans lose their jobs and there's no money to pay for Obama's plans?

Obama has no intention of reforming science education in schools and lose the teacher unions in the process.

The innovation of American medical science that Obama praises will slow as it comes under Obamacare price controls and regulations.

Never mind any of this and just focus on the phony anti-science ####### label on people that dare question global warming while those same people use all the same technology that everyone else does. There's no real major anti-science movement in the U.S. and you don't see people embracing say the Amish lifestyle except the anti-bio tech leftists who shun anything except organic food and fear computer ballots (except this last election).

I think you need to listen to it again. The crux of what he was saying you somehow completely overlooked.

"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process," Obama said.

"Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. [...]

"I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity."

I think he might have to submit a re-write becuase me, as a scientist, couldn't understand much of what he wrote.

You might add your own editing since it's unclear you're referring to: Obama, Jabba or me. What don't you understand?

Sorry- I'm not into doing other people's homework.

Yet another poster hog-tied by his own posts and unable to answer even the most basic questions. Am I supposed to research why a scientist can't explain a post on science? We're in worse trouble than I expected.

[HAL 9000 96]

As usual, I doubt anyone really listened to what Obama says. He said he wanted "to slow global warming". So things the world will be worse off at the end of Obama's term since he can't reverse the trend. Never mind that the U.S. has had the biggest reductions in GHGs without Kyoto. How does Obama hope to sell global warming as millions of Americans lose their jobs and there's no money to pay for Obama's plans?

Obama has no intention of reforming science education in schools and lose the teacher unions in the process.

The innovation of American medical science that Obama praises will slow as it comes under Obamacare price controls and regulations.

Never mind any of this and just focus on the phony anti-science ####### label on people that dare question global warming while those same people use all the same technology that everyone else does. There's no real major anti-science movement in the U.S. and you don't see people embracing say the Amish lifestyle except the anti-bio tech leftists who shun anything except organic food and fear computer ballots (except this last election).

I think you need to listen to it again. The crux of what he was saying you somehow completely overlooked.

"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process," Obama said.

"Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. [...]

"I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity."

I think he might have to submit a re-write becuase me, as a scientist, couldn't understand much of what he wrote.

You might add your own editing since it's unclear you're referring to: Obama, Jabba or me. What don't you understand?

Sorry- I'm not into doing other people's homework.

Yet another poster hog-tied by his own posts and unable to answer even the most basic questions. Am I supposed to research why a scientist can't explain a post on science? We're in worse trouble than I expected.

Huh? Still not sure where you want to take your argument beyond the mundane and frankly sort of laughably prophetic tone you attempt (yet again... with no substance, proof, or knowledge) to unsurprisingly attack and administration that hasn't been sworn in.

But to keep with reality and with trends much more in line with incoming Democratic President- Elects as well as with those that have a few more intellectual ties to academia than those that think 'thinking' is an elitist exercise...

Its no surprise that scientists are very optimistic about the upcoming improvement in funding coming in the next fiscal year. Which usually stems from an administration's overall dedication and commitment to research.

I wonder where that money will come from? Oh right! From places presently wasted. You see- if you paid attention during the campaign season, its what he called taking a scalpel to the right areas and improving the areas that are worth improving.

What I suppose you could research is in how to deal with sore-loser-itis.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think you need to listen to it again. The crux of what he was saying you somehow completely overlooked.

"I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity."

That's not an education plan nor is it an explanation of it can be paid for. It also fails to reconcile immediate economic realities that will overshadow most of Obama's energy, education (?) and health care policies.

When Bush committed himself to an endless war on terror, did you question why he didn't give an explanation of how he would pay for it? Or pick any presidential address that Bush has made over the last 8 years where he claimed is committment towards one thing or another. Your scrutiny is quite selective.

[alienlovechild 75]

Its no surprise that scientists are very optimistic about the upcoming improvement in funding coming in the next fiscal year. Which usually stems from an administration's overall dedication and commitment to research.

What dedication from an administration that isn't in office yet? You're easily convinced and campaign promises may amount to little with current budget priorities.

I wonder where that money will come from? Oh right! From places presently wasted. You see- if you paid attention during the campaign season, its what he called taking a scalpel to the right areas and improving the areas that are worth improving.

Is this the first presidential campaign for you? Incoming presidents frequently claim they will cut the fat out of the budget but iy doesn't amount to much when the realities of Washington take hold.

What I suppose you could research is in how to deal with sore-loser-itis.

It does take a while to get a straight answer from people like you so some prodding was more than justified.

When Bush committed himself to an endless war on terror, did you question why he didn't give an explanation of how he would pay for it? Or pick any presidential address that Bush has made over the last 8 years where he claimed is committment towards one thing or another. Your scrutiny is quite selective.

I question defense spending but it's usually considered an exemption even under previous attempts at having balanced budget amendment. I was out of the country in 2001 and 2002 but it was an emergency situation at the time. I don't question a fire department's spending during a fire but there needs to be scrutiny later on. You missed that Bush has been a big spender on nearly every issue and the Democrats have bitched that it wasn't enough. Nobody is questioning where billions of dollars are going until it got to the auto industry. The difference is Obama is going to have far more presidential powers than Bush could dream of with little scrutiny from a fearful public and a fawning press.

Edited December 21, 2008 by alienlovechild

[HAL 9000 96]

Its no surprise that scientists are very optimistic about the upcoming improvement in funding coming in the next fiscal year. Which usually stems from an administration's overall dedication and commitment to research.

What dedication from an administration that isn't in office yet? You're easily convinced and campaign promises may amount to little with current budget priorities.

I wonder where that money will come from? Oh right! From places presently wasted. You see- if you paid attention during the campaign season, its what he called taking a scalpel to the right areas and improving the areas that are worth improving.

Is this the first presidential campaign for you? Incoming presidents frequently claim they will cut the fat out of the budget but iy doesn't amount to much when the realities of Washington take hold.

What I suppose you could research is in how to deal with sore-loser-itis.

It does take a while to get a straight answer from people like you so some prodding was more than justified.

When Bush committed himself to an endless war on terror, did you question why he didn't give an explanation of how he would pay for it? Or pick any presidential address that Bush has made over the last 8 years where he claimed is committment towards one thing or another. Your scrutiny is quite selective.

I question defense spending but it's usually considered an exemption even under previous attempts at having balanced budget amendment. I was out of the country in 2001 and 2002 but it was an emergency situation at the time. I don't question a fire department's spending during a fire but there needs to be scrutiny later on. You missed that Bush has been a big spender on nearly every issue and the Democrats have bitched that it wasn't enough. Nobody is questioning where billions of dollars are going until it got to the auto industry. The difference is Obama is going to have far more presidential powers than Bush could dream of with little scrutiny from a fearful public and a fawning press.

Trying to separate reality from what you think may be coming based on your own perspective are two different things, Dave.

1. Sure- as Obama has also stated quite frequently on the campaign trail as well as during post campaigning- things can't occur overnight you know nor do they appear magically just because you have a perception that Obama has a free pass which in reality he does not. That does not preclude that present funding be increased by simple arithmetic, does it? Again- scalpel and improvement. Common sense 101.

2. Straight answers to questions that have been asked and answered countless times previously. Yes. Have a big cup of fail while you're at it.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Somebody accused HAL of misspelling a word! sacrilege!! Sir, I would advice you to apologize and excuse yourself until tomorrow w/o showing your back to the mighty HAL.