If Chris Mooney didn’t seem so serious, I would think this was a joke. He’s predicting that George W. Bush will use the State of the Union Speech to stake his claim as “the Science President.”
A while back I blogged about an idea floated by Morton Kondracke: That George W. Bush should try to become the “science” president by emphasizing, in his State of the Union speech, themes of global scientific competitiveness and the need to ensure that the good old USA is leading the pack. Well, it now seems official: According to the Boston Globe, in his speech tonight Bush plans to highlight Norman Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin CEO who “last year led a congressionally mandated National Academies team that issued a report warning that America is ‘on a losing path’ in the global marketplace.” Why are we falling behind? If you believe the NAS, it’s because of inadequate scientific and mathematical training for our high school students, not enough funding of basic scientific research, etc etc.
That’s right. George “Let’s teach intelligent design” Bush. George “Let’s censor climate scientists” Bush. George “Let’s watch while particle physics withers away” Bush. George “Let’s slash funding for basic research” Bush. George “Let’s politicize the scientific decision-making process and suppress results we don’t like” Bush. George “Let’s divert research funding to my Moon-Mars boondoggle” Bush. George “Most anti-science President ever” Bush.
I understand that, after staking his claim as the Science President, Bush will present himself with a coffee mug that says “World’s Greatest Leader, Ever.” And a pony.
Whither physics? To wither away
True enough. The blogosphere self-corrects again.
and lets waste billions on a missle defense system whose basic premise violates basic physics.
Elliot
I was thinking that if he’s going to dub himself the Science President, he might also dub himself The Feminist President. The two are about equally accurate.
and the fiscally responsible president as well…
Elliot,
How does missile defense violate basic physics? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t; it’s just very hard (as the limit of hard goes near impossible).
Elliot,
How does missile defense violate basic physics? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t; it’s just very hard (as the limit of hard goes near impossible).
Sean,
P.S. Was getting php errors for a regex statement. Why is quantoken banned? Or maybe I misundertood the regex.
Sorry about the dupes! Just think of me as the science blog comment poster…
missle defense as currently proposed implies that you can distinguish the real target from dummies by way of their infrared signitures. It is impossible to do this based on the infrared alone. references available.
Elliot
Bush Jr is far from my favorite ‘science president’, but its not like we’ve had a very good ‘science president’ for a long time. Between Clinton and the whole SSC fiasco, and Bush sr and the NSA budget cuts etc
I view both parties as having irrational beliefs
Repubs have issues with ‘god’, so stemcell research, ID, and the like are problems. They also tend to slash governmental aid for fundamental research (which really can’t solely be taken up by the private sector as there is no payoff).
Dems have issues with postmodernism fog, nuclear power, overzealous environmental regulations (lumbering policies, genetically engineered food) and well im a climate skeptic so lets jsut say I think thats controversial (at the very least I think Kyoto was a mistake).
I doubt anyone would take any statement he makes seriously. So the more he claims he has anything to do with science, the better for science.
After all, this is the dude, who promised peace in the middle east and is on the road to nothing but a nuclear revolution….
oh, wait…his physicists genes are speaking…maybe he has something up his sleeves…
wait…that was just a pretzel!
Hmm, I doubt anyone would take any statement he makes seriously. So the more he claims he has anything to do with science, the better for science.
After all, this is the dude, who promised peace in the middle east and is on the road to nothing but a nuclear revolution….
oh, wait…his physicists genes are speaking…maybe he has something up his sleeves…
wait…that was just a pretzel!
Please, it’s Science Preznit!
“There are WMDs”
“Terrorist are operating out of Iraq”
“I believe we will be greated as liberators”
“We don’t torture”
“I am a science president”
It’s perfectly coherent.
The issue at hand is not wether it is true in some sense, it’s not obviously enough false that a sufficient media reality and corresponding statement can be established through repetition and the other usual channels.
Decision are by neccessity based on the perception of reality rather then on reality, these decisions in turn create (part of) reality.
Therefore controling the perception of reality is for many purposes equivalent to controling reality. This has been and continous to be the underlying mechanism of Bush’s political success. And it’s been why the political success has not been hampered in proportion to his failures in reality, it wasn’t build on achievements in reality to begin with.
On a positive note, I guess this means that Bush et al think that science is overall still highly positively connotated. Maybe he’ll upset a sufficient number of scientists by his latest manipulations to create enough public backslahs that the statement he is constructing will not stand….
From the iht:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/31/news/bush.php
Bush urging development of alternative energy sources
[…]
Bush will also use the address to announce new proposals in health care, fiscal policy and what White House officials are calling “American competitiveness,” which includes investing in math and science education and in job training.
[…]
I’ve been thinking about our potential new “Science President.” My initial reaction was total and complete disgust and distrust. But perhaps any publicity for science is good publicity, just like the old Hollywood adage. Perhaps the nation could engage in a debate about science. Perhaps we might even be tossed a crumb or two. Or perhaps I’m hallucinating and we’ll double our effort to send people to Mars and call it a science program.
Yeah, my first instinct is to assume he has some present to give to his friends, and he chose to wrap it as a science initiative, we shall see.
My attitude is, show me the money. Bush can say whatever he wants in his State of the Union address—it doesn’t have to be true (cf. yellowcake from Niger). Tonight is just pomp and circumstance; the real test is what science policies get implemented. However annoying it is to imagine Bush wrapping himself in the mantle of science, if it does spur the development of viable alternative energy sources, that can only be a good thing. (Five years into the Bush II dynasty, I’m a pragmatist and will take what I can get!)
As a foreigner of capitalistic system that run through the veins of societies, what value the common wo/man as a citizen of the state?
I think he will talk about “healthcare” and how he wants to make this available at a “decent price” to you all?
Also, he will talk about staying the course in IRAQ?
Some food for thought.
Oil “profits” existed before the natural disaster became the basis for increasing that profit margin and having an excuse to fix things damaged. Statistical evidence found in my own country raises this perspective, also, is there for you to look, as I did, within your own government recordings. I speculate that, unless otherwise confirmed. What was the profit margin before Katrina, and now?
Oil is used now to fuel inflation. Poor people struggle while the oil make some rich. Using “religion” to fuel a society is not a good thing, and the lessons we see in the middle east is that such religion not take over the minds and hearts to garner illusions about about a heaven, while disasterous deeds take hold of one’s reasonings.
Securing natural gas reserves, means inflating the price in order to secure profit margins. Is this right, or wrong?
I would like to see the veins that run through these countries adjust themselves, and think more baout th estruggle of th ehuman being as we progress society not send it down avenues that feed the decay of a society.
I am amazed that posted when I decided not too, because I thought it better here? If you like, please delete that post and let this one stand.
My working group is waiting to hear any day if the NASA Dawn mission will be given a green light or a cancellation (our fully-to-spec built Italian, German, and American instruments are presently sitting at the spacecraft company in longterm storage). It would be a beautiful and tragic piece of irony for Bush to give a speech about US scientific competitiveness if, at the time he talks, his space agency cancels a project with international partners, hundreds of millions of dollars/euros spent, and years of many people’s time.
NIH pay lines are currently around 10%, that is 10% of projects get funded (the pay line is 9% for my institute). Under Clinton, the NIH pay lines got as high as 25%.
It is thus considered one of the worst times in recent memory in basic biological research.
Memo to Science President – learn to correctly pronounce “nuclear”.
Nucular
Samantha: Interesting NIH percentages. It’s what many new investigators suspect, despite being told by more established people that the pay lines are still at 20%. Perhaps those people are referring to bio-weapons research, or things that can be connected to bio-weapons (bio defense?).
Kristin: your p.o.v is dead on. But don’t be surprised if there’s a Bush III. As you know, everything’s changed since…..