physics politico

So, the Spousal Unit and I had dinner with a good friend this weekend (a physicist), who offhandedly asked if I really thought an Obama Administration would be that much better for science than a McCain Administration. Bear in mind that he loves to play Devil's Advocate, but it is, nonetheless, a valid question. Regular readers know that I rarely delve into politics on this blog, except as an occasional aside or to highlight something that directly impacts science. I keep informed, but prefer not to immerse myself in political news -- mostly because it makes me want to take a shower to wash off all the crud and slime after just a few hours' reading. But there comes a time when even folks like me need to speak out, stand up and be counted. Consider this one of those times. (We'll return to our regular science programming with the next post. And within a week I hope to announce the Top 100 popular science books, culled from the outpouring of suggestions from the science blogosphere. A secret inner cabal of "Deciders" begins deliberations soon!)

For the record, I really, truly, am a registered Independent. It's not for reasons of "journalist integrity", but because I loathe being limited by pointless labels, and/or having some political party platform dictating what I "should" think on any given issue. The fact that so many people automatically assume I am a Democrat kinda proves my point. (The Spousal Unit, as anyone who reads his blog knows, actually is a stalwart Democrat. Somehow our marriage survives. And Jen-Luc Piquant? She follows the creed of the Rogue Ninja and considers herself above petty politics.)

I think our creaky two-party system is unnecessarily divisive, hopelessly outdated, and inadequate to serve the country's needs in an increasingly complex 21st century world, with an increasingly diverse citizenship. And I believe that blind partisanship is the enemy of sound reasoning and responsible governance. If I have opted for the Democratic presidential candidate in the last several elections -- which I have -- that is because the Republication Party has been hijacked by right-wing social extremists and morally corrupt, money-grubbing corporations. Also? I'll take a "tax and spend" liberal over a "spend and spend" conservative any day; at least the former understands that money doesn't grow on trees. Dear GOP: Kick those bums out, start showing some fiscal restraint, and become the party of Lincoln again, and you might just win back my vote. 

Now, the John McCain of 2000 might have been able to do that. Sure, he was always conservative, and not nearly as much of a maverick as he pretended to be, but he had energy, verve, and he really did speak out eloquently against government abuses of power. But where does McCain stand today on the critical S&T issues? Because let's face it: science and technology are going to be key to meeting future challenges in virtually every sphere. We ignore it at our peril. [UPDATE: My sincere apologies to the folks at Physics Today, who have been laboring tirelessly to cover the current election with regards to science, for forgetting to link to them in this post. Check out their site!]

Whither the Maverick?

McCain's campaign hasn't responded yet to questions from Science Debate 2008 (in fairness, they're in the middle of a campaign muted by the onset of a hurricane, and fighting off a media feeding frenzy on the new VP pick -- they're kinda busy). [UPDATE: As of September 15, the McCain campaign's response to Science Debate 2008 can be found here. It's nice to see more fleshed-out answers on these issues than can be found on the official Website, but they don't change my conclusions below.] So I spent a couple of hours browsing his official campaign Website. Disappointingly, there's very little specific science policies outlined there, apart from space science. Tom Levenson gives a bare-knuckled breakdown of McCain's position (and Obama's) on space science (i.e., NASA) over at Inverse Square. But it's not very encouraging to find so little about science on the site.

Still, there are some promising statements scattered throughout. McCain certainly recognizes the need to cut carbon emissions as rapidly as possible and offers a reasonably detailed plan to do so, from a cap-and-trade system to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions, to substantial tax credits for consumers who buy zero-emission vehicles, as well as incentives to automotive companies to get off their butts and introduce an affordable electric car already. Scientists are kinda divided on biofuels, particularly corn-based ethanol, but it's certainly a worthy area of R&D investment, given the energy challenges we face, and the McCain plan will make that investment.

On the downside, he's made it pretty clear that he supports offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in previously protected regions -- a short-term, stop-gap measure that won't do anything to stem rising oil costs because those are as much the result of speculation trading by unscrupulous investors as anything else. At least McCain also supports cracking down on these sorts of abuses (the site denounces empty "wagering in our energy markets"). Too bad he makes no mention of the notorious abuses of the Bush administration on squelching scientific data on climate change, except to say that "Climate policy should be built on scientifically sound, mandatory emission reduction targets and timetables." This is so laughably vague and filled with bureaucrat-speak, it could mean almost anything. 

More pluses: McCain advocates incentives to develop green alternative technologies, the "greening" of the federal government (the largest consumer of electricity on Earth), and wants to invest in more nuclear power plants. (I am not a huge fan of nuclear power because of the waste issue, but I recognize it is necessary to include it in a broad energy portfolio for the next 50 years, until fusion or hydrogen sources become more viable. I just hope those new McCain plants draw on newer closed-fuel cycle designs, rather than just recycling the old plant designs of yore. Sadly, I suspect the latter.)

More minuses: He advocates a permanent R&D tax credit for companies investing in innovative R&D, which might be promising if he had said anything, anywhere, on his site about how important S&T is to building a strong economy. He says nothing about declining federal funds for basic research, at a time when Fermilab narrowly avoided a shutdown, and many science departments and labs across the country are struggling to keep their research programs alive. (It's not as bad as it is in England, but unless something changes very soon, it could be.) Given that, his tax credit seems more like yet another example of favoring businesses and large corporations. Hopefully he'll address that by answering Science Debate 2008's questions.

Enter the Upstart.

Unfortunately for McCain, the soundest of his science-based policies are also addressed by Barack Obama -- in far more detail, and in far more sweeping, forward-thinking ways. (Anyone who repeats the talking point that Obama is short on specifics needs to spend an hour or so browsing his Website. It's all right there.) Funding for renewable energy technologies like wind and solar? Check. Foster innovation and entrepreneurship? Check. Permanent R&D tax credit? Check. Greening the federal government? Check. Reducing carbon emissions with a market-based cap-and-trade system? Check. Invest in biofuels, nuclear power,  and new vehicle technologies? Check, check, and double check.

Furthermore, Obama supports a doubling of federal funding for basic research over the next 10 years, and vows to "embrace" science and technology expertise rather than squelch it. He also shares the goal of increasing the number of PhDs earned by Americans, particularly those in under-privileged communities. He even plans to appoint the nation's first Chief Technology Officer. Oh, and he says this: "Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views." This is a man who will listen to reason and respect scientific expertise. Imagine that! Apparently he's already assembled a team of top-notch science advisors to help "shape a robust science agenda for my administration." His answers to Science Debate 2008 reflect that.

Nowhere is the difference between the two candidates more stark than in their stated policies on education. McCain predictably champions No Child Left Behind (NCLB), when every educator I know considers the program to be a major FAIL. Beyond that, his education policy is inexplicably vague and obsessed with giving parents greater control over where their kids attend schools -- so much so, that I suspect it's a bit of a "dog whistle," i.e., code for something else that only those tuned to that particular frequency can hear, especially since there is no specific mention of math and science education. (Yet there is a lot of harping about how parents are the ones who should decide what their kids should be learning.) At least he recognizes the potential for online learning through virtual schools, and offers financial support to help low-income students pay for access to those online resources. 

But again, Obama also supports online educational tools, with far broader financial support for educational opportunities of all kinds, and offers many point-by-point specifics. He supports the need for accountability in schools, but recognizes that NCLB has failed in large part because funding promises weren't kept by the Bush Administration. His policies seek to address not just teacher training and retention, but also high dropout rates, soaring college costs, and the need for high-quality childcare to assist working parents (particularly single moms). And he wants to make math and science education a national priority.

Obama also specifically addresses a number of key issues near and dear to those of us in the blogosphere. He's a champion of network neutrality, for starters, and favors the "sanity not censorship" model for protecting under-aged children online while preserving freedom of expression. He wants to create Public Media 2.0, what he calls "the Sesame Street of the Digital Age," featuring Web-based video and interactive educational programming. He hopes to bring about "the transition of existing public broadcasting entities and help renew their founding vision in the digital world."

And he supports diversity in media ownership: "Unfortunately, over the past several years, the FCC has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president [Obama] will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum." You know, my folks are evangelical Christians and staunch Republicans of the far-right variety; mostly, we agree to disagree on key issues, and focus on our mutual love and respect for each other. But the sorry state of broadcast news coverage is one of those issues almost everyone can agree upon -- even those of us who make our livings in the media. It's been turning into a red-faced shouting free-for-all between pompous, bloviating, partisan talking heads for years, more crass entertainment than useful information, all in a desperate bid to boost ratings. Meanwhile, public broadcasting is hanging on by a thread.

Anyone who's caught the numerous clips from The Daily Show on YouTube has seen Jon Stewart's withering montages revealing just how shamelessly the major media outlets mindlessly repeat the same talking points. And MSNBC's commentators practically had a nuclear meltdown during the Democratic National Convention last week with some truly embarrassing unprofessional displays: Olbermann sniping at Scarborough, who sniped at Shuster, coming full circle with Chris Matthews butting heads again with Olbermann -- all on the level of the classic schoolyard taunt, "I know you are, but what am I?" Hug it out, guys, will ya? And grow up. We need a return to basic standards of professionalism, decency, and yes, even altruism if our profession is to survive. So I'm glad Obama has included that, even if he's uncharacteristically a bit short on specifics on that issue.

Finally, while both McCain and Obama favor more accountability and transparency in government, Obama offers more than just vague rhetoric. He provides a detailed plan for a degree of openness that is nothing short of astonishing. Live public Internet feeds as various agencies debate critical policy issues? Requiring Cabinet officials to hold periodic town meetings to answer the public's questions about issues of the day? Giving the public a chance to review and comment on the White House Website for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation? Broad use of federal blogs, wikis, and other online tools? Wow. Oh, and scientists should find this encouraging: Obama wants to restore "the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best available, scientifically valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials."

In a Nutshell.

In short, Obama offers a comprehensive, sweeping plan to bring the government, the health care industry, the media, and all Americans boldly into the 21st century, while McCain is -- well, learning how to send an email and conduct his very first Google search. His age is no excuse; my parents are around his age, and they've both been online for years. Heck, my mom even has a Facebook account. The charge that McCain is out of touch with the 21st century Internet technology that is increasingly shaping our culture and national discourse is a valid one. He clearly lacks a well-defined vision for tapping into the vast potential of Web 2.0 and beyond.

Even more damning points against McCain: he notoriously flip-flopped on the abortion issue, and now is opposed to stem cell research. Obama supports stem cell research. Plus, McCain's shiny new VP pick, Sarah Palin, is a far-right social conservative, global warming denialist, anti-choice advocate, (and is thus anti-stem cell research), plus she supports teaching creationism in public schools (via the "teach the controversy" strategy). If McCain thinks he can co-opt Obama's message on the need for change by calling it "reform," he's got his work cut out for him. Reform isn't change; it's business as usual with a fresh new coat of paint to hide the rotting wood underneath. With Palin at his side, and a party platform filled with ideological rhetoric so stale it's developing icky green moldy bits around the edges, he's offering a change, all right -- all the way back to the late 1980s. (Cue chorus: "And that's not change we can believe in!")

Honestly? Regardless of how McCain answers (if he answers) the questions from Science Debate 2008, his selection of Palin pretty much makes it impossible for anyone who values the science and technology enterprise to vote for him. I've got nothing against Ms. Palin as a person. I could care less about the tawdry family squabble that has her under investigation back home in Alaska, and like Obama, I think her teenaged daughter's just-announced pregnancy should be off-limits in this campaign. I object to her solely on the basis of her policies, particularly given McCain's advanced age. And while it's nice to see a woman in that position, it's not unprecedented: the Dems had a female VP candidate in the 1980s.

As so many have observed, Palin's selection is a bold move, a bit of a wild gamble, and it might even pay off in the short term, despite being an obvious gimmick. It's a close election, and all McCain has to do is pick up more votes than he loses with his controversial pick. But to paraphrase Scripture, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, if he loses his soul?" This is not the McCain we once knew. That McCain would have told the Rove Squad to go f%$& themselves, and picked the running mate he wanted (Lieberman). That he didn't, tells me he's a slave to the GOP Machine now, potentially sacrificing the long-term interests of our nation to win an election -- McCain 2000 would have found this unthinkable. How can we trust him to stand up to special interest groups in the White House if he can't even do it in his own campaign? It might explain why his campaign thus far has been curiously lacking in his characteristic energy and passion; either that, or he's been replaced by one of the Pod People. (John McCain: The Stepford Candidate.) It actually breaks my heart a little, to see the once-proud Maverick so bound and chained.

A Defining Moment.

McCain's choice of Palin certainly proved an effective strategy in one respect: drawing attention away from Obama's electrifying acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (full text here). And that's too bad, because -- whether he wins or loses come November -- his are words that will echo down through history as a defining moment in our national politics. Consider this:

"These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain. But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism. The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain."

Or this:

"America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that's what we have to restore."

And finally, this:

"If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things. And you know what? It's worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.... But I stand before you tonight because all across American something is stirring."

That's the kind of soaring rhetoric you get to hear maybe once a generation, at best. You don't have to agree 100% with him on each and every issue to know that Obama is the real deal: a true leader, capable of igniting a spark of hope in people who've given up on their ability to make any kind of difference in this country's governance -- people like me, who rarely dare to hope because we've been crushed so many times in the past. Mostly, we hope the person elected president isn't too terribly awful, and at least marginally competent, so we can go about our lives with minimal interference from Uncle Sam.

Obama is right: something is stirring. The jaw-dropping failures and gross incompetence of the Bush Administration changed everything. People like me can't afford to stand on the sidelines any longer; we need to stand up and fight for it if we want our country back. That said, Obama is a politician, not the Messiah, and very much a human being. He'll disappoint folks eventually -- his vote on the FISA bill was very disappointing (and against his own stated policies). Even sincere campaign promises don't necessarily translate into concrete action -- not right away -- and he's inheriting a godawful mess from Dubya. Realistically, Obama probably won't be able to accomplish very much on his ambitious policy agenda until the economy rebounds and we stop hemhorraging funds on the Iraq war. Real change takes time, a bit of compromise here and there, an exhausting amount of effort -- and an inspiring leader to boost flagging spirits when the going gets rough.

Honestly? This election shouldn't even be close, at least among moderates and independents. (The partisan extremes will never budge from their respective positions.) Obama should win in a blowout, except he's black, and he has a funny, foreign-sounding name. Anyone who thinks race isn't an issue in this election is deluding him/herself, just as sexism most definitely played a role in Hillary Clinton's primary campaign. We are not always aware of our own partisan biases and gender/racial prejudices -- in fact, we are hard-wired to view ourselves in the most flattering light possible -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to see past them.

I'm reminded of the climactic scene in A Time To Kill, in which Matthew McConaughey's character, a white small-town Southern lawyer named Jake, is defending a black father for killing the white men who raped his 11-year-old daughter. The odds of acquittal, frankly, are not good; the father gunned down the rapists in a public courthouse, in plain view of dozens of witnesses, and wounded a (white) policeman in the bargain. He's facing a hanging jury. So Jake asks the jury to picture that little girl on that fateful day, visualize her innocence, how horribly she was violated and left to die, and how her life was irrevocably changed in just a few terrifying minutes. Then he pauses, and delivers the coup de grace: "Now imagine... that she's white."

Okay, it's just a movie, and I would never advocate vigilante justice. But I wish those people who smear Obama on comment threads (there are some truly ugly ones on the Internet) and via mass emails, those who call him "elitist" and "presumptuous" (make no mistake, that is code for "uppity ni***er"), those who think he's a closet Muslim in league with terrorists just because his background is multicultural, his middle name is "Hussein" and his last name rhymes with "Osama" -- I wish all those people would take the time to listen to what Obama is actually saying, while picturing him as if he were white, Republican, Independent, blue-collar Democrat, or however they self-identify, instead of some scary Other. Because he is "one of us." He is the face of 21st century America. Get used to it.

Comments

[kevin z]

Amazing article. Well put. I wonder how the effect of race goes the other way. White people voting for him because he's black. Because they just want to see that milestone reached in american culture.

[Lab Lemming]

I think it is unfortunate that you seem to be basing your opinion of Palin on her beliefs, and not her achievements. In less than two years, she's practically dismantled the Republican machine in her home state. While I find her scientific credentials to be lacking, her ability to take out vested interests in her own party is something that the Democratic candidates haven't shown.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

I am basing my opinion on her stated policies, with which I disagree. She can believe whatever she wants.

[MAC]

Thank you for that post. It cut right to the base of both the scientific and broader issues at hand. I agree that, "all across America something is stirring," and think actions such as your speaking up are exactly what can help move our country forward.

[Tom Levenson]

Great, great post, Jennifer. I'd offer one caveat to your praise of John McCain's position on global warming: his advisors and his decision not to vote on his own proposal (or the Warner/Lieberman version of it) suggest that his commitment is about the same as that of candidate Bush back in 1999-2000: a promise not meant to be kept, or even believed by the dog-whistle right.

Also, if anyone cares -- I wrote an earlier, perhaps bare-knuckled, analysis of McCain on science that can be found here: http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/q-does-john-mccain-hate-science/

Short form: McCain's budget priorities doom any real hope for support for science in the most tangible ways should he become President.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Thanks Tom. I was, of course, basing the post on what the candidates actually say. I don't follow politics closely enough to keep track of all the individual voting records on issues, but certainly that is relevant information...

[Long time reader...]

Thank you for writing this article. It voices many of my same thoughts and questions... but in the end just solidifies my belief that Obama is the right man for the job at this time. I have voted republician for as long as I can remember, but that is no more.

[boonie]

Jennifer,

While this is an excellent post, and one that, considering that it comes from avowed independent, heartens me greatly, I have a nit to pick with you.

You write that you "couldn't care less" about the "tawdry family squabble" back in Alaska, but you should really look into the particulars of the investigation. Abuse of executive power, even if not yet confirmed, by an elected official (and potential VP !) should get more attention than it does in this day and age. Perhaps the awesome fecklessness of the last 8 years has inured the public to such things, but I expect better from a self-professed journalist, even if politics is not your primary beat.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Well, Boonie, I expect better from my commenters sometimes, too. :) If that's your only nit in 3000-plus-word post, I think I'm already doing much better than most...

[Lab Lemming]

"I am basing my opinion on her stated policies, with which I disagree."

Ah ha. I tend to ignore statements that candidates make and look ad their previous records. But I'm sort of jaded.

[Gordon Wilson]

Obama fought to restore funding of Fermilab. He also emailed some scientists at
Triumf at UBC, Canada (meson facility) (my son works there) to offer support. I think that scientists have an advocate rather than a Luddite who says he gets his wife when the internet comes up.
BTW Sarah Palin slashed funding for housing to support teen pregnancy, wants Creationism taught in
schools, and is against choice in the cases of rape and incest. That and murdering Moose, shooting off AK-47s---she is a real Republican dream girl....

[Gordon Wilson]

Less seriously than your analysis of McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU

[Paul Guinnessy]

Or you could also have looked at the Physics Today web site, as we went through all the policy documents months ago, and posted a critique of their documents to the web. Its updated weekly and we're blogging the conventions daily.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08

[Sarah]

Fantastic post, Jen. (And I especially appreciate the plug for Science Debate 2008. It would be great if they could pull it off, but I don't think McCain will go for it. Obama accepted already.

that's much what I thought about Sarah Palin. Bad for science Perhaps I'm more of a feminist hardliner then you, because I thought bad for women also. But so far it's good; her family struggles have opened up real discussion on those issues.

[Sarah]

I didn't know that about Obama and opening up at the media. As a former, um, Clear Channel employee, freelance writer and death-before censorship free speech activist, that's an issue near and dear to my heart (and my wallet). Thanks for mentioning it.

[RD Padouk]

Jennifer - I am a new fan of Cocktail Party Physics, and continue to be impressed. Thanks for writing such a lucid and far-reaching piece.

[Chimera]

What a scintillating and riviting (spell? - apologies...not strong point) post! Thank you very much. I have not had a chance to get to get a clear perspective on the issues and so your article was eye opening especially with refernce to Obama's ideas about the media, science and technology. It was also kind of you to add the Denver speech. He is impressive indeed!
Great piece! I shall send as many people to it as i can.
Tanvir

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Chuck-- Well, yes, candidates have been known to lie about their stated positions. What a shocker. :) Nonetheless, those official positions do tell us something about them: how they want to be perceived. That's why I only linked to external sources like Science Debate 2008, and just focused on what the campaign sites themselves said. This is what they say to put themselves in the best possible light -- and the McCain campaign fails miserably on the S&T/education front. There are many other non-S&T-related reasons why my choice this election is Obama but for this blog, I kept it to S&T. :)

BTW, let me officially apologize publicly to Paul G and the folks at Physics Today for not providing a link to their election coverage. It's excellent and very in-depth. I'll update the post shortly to include the link in the text.

I am actually starting to feel bad for Sarah Palin. But not for McCain and his campaign. It was unfair of them to thrust her forward with so little preparation and almost no vetting. I don't feel bad enough not to be TERRIFIED they could win, however....

[jongleur]

The nearest thing to a white Obama is the UK's Tony Blair - another self-serving poster boy lawyer/orator. Obama is no more a nigga (the racial epithet that dare not spell its name) than Blair is a socialist - what you have is an image exquisitely crafted to exploit the zeitgeist. Look at the mess the UK is in - in 1997 'New Labour' came to power on a tsunami of goodwill and with the benefit of a much healthier world economy than we have now. This capital was dissipated in an orgy of self-congratulatory public and personal expenditure and ill-advised foreign policy. Your man Obama could easily do the same: be careful what you wish for. The SU's party should have chosen Hilary.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

I love it when Brits think they know more about our politics than we do. :)

[pd]

New reader of this blog, and glad to find this discussion taking place. Jennifer, I'm curious: after last night's speech, do you still feel bad for Palin? My $0.02: it was nasty, it was smug, and it was one long ad-hominem attack with little of real substance. The gloves are clearly off, and as far as I'm concerned she deserves whatever drubbing she gets.

[Nashville Bill]

Thoughtful, clear, outstanding post. Thanks --

[Jennifer Ouellette]

Yeah, you're right, I no longer feel as sorry for Palin -- even though she was just reading a prepared speech technically written for a different VP nominee to give -- but I still think the Obama campaign should stay classy and keep driving home the "patriotism has no party" and "if you don't have any issues, you make it about personality and you shamelessly smear your opponent" message. Because it's true. And there are plenty of us who are really drawn to Obama precisely because he's chosen to play things differently. It IS possible to be tough AND fair when campaigning against one's opponent.

It wasn't just Palin. The entire night was nasty, arrogant, and smug. These people have NO shame and no sense of irony. Mitt Romney waxing poetic about Northeast elisitm? REALLY??? They had their "script," and I guess it doesn't much matter who said what, so long as everyone stayed on message. Which they did. And they shamelessly exploited her pregnant daughter. Poor kid.

It reinforces everything Independents like me loathe about presidential politics. Maybe one day the GOP will come out of the Dark Ages, and I'll be able to vote for their candidate again. [I have voted for moderate Republicans at the city and state level, BTW. It all depends on the candidates, and who I think is the best person for the job at that particular time.]

[Monica S]

Haphazardly discovered your blog a few months back and truly enjoy learning something new (or getting switched on a nifty link) each time I visit. The subjects you write about are often a good deal over my noggin, but I think female science geeks are awesome.

S&T was something that must have washed over me back in high school (I'm 41 now) or I just didn't get to delve in as much as I could / should. Geez - I don't even own an I-pod, use much of my cell phone's capabilities and don't have a home computer or laptop.

Your original posting and this comment thread has been right in line with my thoughts. It's personally satisfying that not everyone in America is asleep at the wheel about honesty, changes needed, new blood in place, moving forward, fixing what's gone wrong here in the US, ect. Sigh, it goes on and on and I've never considered myself "political". This year, I'm very interested (even if my gal is out of the running).

The pundits and commentators this morning (at least the 10 min of NBC coverage I caught) were critiquing Mrs Palin's speech as bold, aggresive and all around swell. I thought she came off as shrill, mean, haughty and out of her league (state gov 'experience' or not). And the fact that she finds a way to insert personal religious ideals in there (during the course of the week's stories and citations), bugs me to no end. I believe there should always be separation.

My fingers are tightly crossed that Obama prevails in November (but he really should have picked Hillary for Veep though [wink]). His speech last week was so very strong and I admire that he has kept it classy so far. I'm staying tuned.

[Gordon Wilson]

Jennifer--the Palin delivery was superb, but it shows she can act and read a teleprompter. Undoubtedly, she is impressive, but her core beliefs are repellent to me. This short commentary from the Huffington Post summarises well my objections:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rosen.palin/index.html
One commentator said that the Republican ticket was Mr. Burns and Marg Simpson (the beehive/Librarian schtick).