Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?

Rush Limbaugh conservative enough for you?
And he is not a politician.

Why NASA Isn’t Big Government

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/06/why_nasa_isn_t_big_government

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Just as an aside, Obama wrote a book where he said he did cocaine. How much more disclosure do you want from the guy? I mean, the least Romney could do is release his tax returns and prove that Harry Reid’s a liar.

RUSH: I’m not suggesting Obama divulge anything. I’m asking where’s the media trying to find out for the rest of us?

CALLER: Well, let me get to the point I called about, which is NASA, because you opened you up your show with it and you were talking about this wonderful miracle, just about, that they pulled off, how technically intricate it was and how they nailed it. And I’m thinking to myself, well, NASA’s populated with hundreds, maybe even thousands, of PhDs who went to federal schools on federal student loans and federal student aid. It’s a government agency itself, and it got it right. It seems like a premise of the show is the government doesn’t get anything right. Yet before the EPA you had rivers catching on fire —

RUSH: In the first place, I’ve never said that government never gets anything right. Secondly, throughout the course of this program, I have always heralded NASA for the contributions they have made to the advancement of science and the human standard of living, American standard of living. Obama shut it down. Some people told me, Ray, that they didn’t know there were any Muslims on Mars because that’s what Obama’s turned NASA into after this, Muslim outreach. I don’t know how many of the people in the Jet Propulsion Labs got student loans or any of that. I don’t care. None of that matters. They did great work. It’s a phenomenal thing.

I’ve never said that government’s totally worthless, but I can tell you the people running the government right now don’t know what in the hell they’re doing, and this program predates Obama and any of his people arriving on the scene, and we’re just lucky they didn’t shut it down. We’re just lucky that they didn’t decide this trip was worthless, because they’ve pretty much said that everything else about NASA is. They walked away from NASA, gave the money to Solyndra, gave the money to a bunch of worthless so-called green energy. This is an illustration of what government can do right, and I’ll guarantee you, Ray, I’m gonna get some people calling me telling me that I’m a little bit confused, that they’re not that great at NASA, that happens sometimes. But NASA started and really is a Department of Defense program, is where you go to trace its roots, which of course people on the left don’t dig at all.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, one might say when speaking of NASA that the space flight realm of NASA, the vast majority of it is actually done by private aerospace companies bidding for the jobs. Private aerospace companies bid for certain aspects. Like the government didn’t build the rover. They got a contract for it. A private sector firm — yes, with Obama bucks — I take it back. The money was allocated before Obama came along. That’s probably why the money was still there. But it was our taxpayer dollars that were rewarded to a private sector company, probably a bunch of ‘em combined, built various aspects of the rover. The rocket. Somebody won a bid to build that parachute, for example. The rockets to slow the rover down as it approached the Martian surface.

What you’ve got at NASA is the flight engineers and these people that manage the actual mission on the computer side, you know, engineer managers and so forth. And none of this stuff is cheap. There’s always been an argument, what’s the reward here, the risk-reward, what are we as a society gaining? Okay, what’s the big deal, landing on Mars? I had somebody ask me yesterday, I was marveling at the achievement here, and I was going on and on, somebody said, “What’s the big deal about landing on Mars?” and there are a lot of people looking at it that way.

When you compare what it costs to get there and pull this off and what we derive from it, benefit-wise, versus the age-old argument, “How many starving people could we have fed with the money spent on the mission to go to Mars.” Never-ending question. “How much money could we spend on education, Mr. Limbaugh, and rebuild some crumbling inner-city schools for the money we spent?” You’re always gonna have those questions. We always have had. And the people that want to argue the benefits of missions like this fall in some cases woefully short in trying to explain to society at large how everybody benefits from the technological advances to pull this off.

It’s always been part of the space program. There have always been the naysayers and there have always been people opposed to it who claim that the money — and, of course, incumbent in this whole phony argument is the assumption that we’re not spending enough. We’re already not spending any on education. That we’re not spending anything on feeding people. If we weren’t spending any money on poverty, and we weren’t spending money on education, then they might have an argument. But we are. We’re spending much more than we’re getting any return on, in all of these social programs. I would argue the return that we’ve gotten on the space program, in terms of advancing American lifestyles, technological advances, oh, the things... You know, back in the sixties and seventies there was a list, and it was a long list of all of the advances in everyday life that were outgrowths of the manned space program to the moon.

Now, the Curiosity, not the mission, but the vehicle, the whole thing, two-and-a-half billion dollars, two-and-a-half billion dollars. Two-and-a-half billion dollars is a drop in the bucket in education, but there are still people who make the argument that two-and-a-half billion dollars to build the Curiosity spacecraft was a total waste of money. What are we doing going to Mars? And those people are always gonna be there. But the point is, that guy Ray called, “Look at what all government did.” Government did what they always do here. Private sector aerospace companies built everything involved here. Nobody in government built the rover, pure and simple. This is not to put anybody down, just to be accurate about this.

END TRANSCRIPT

That's my exact definition, so how can we come to differing conclusions? Because you're practicing a type of scientism in an attempt to leave God or human spirituality out of it. This method is wholly incapable of answering any of life's serious questions.

I am not "practicing scientism", as you say. Science is a methodology concerned with characterizing the real world; it does not deal with religious or philosophical matters.

The reason I concentrate purely on the scientific matters when discussing abortion is that the moment you bring up religion, many of those who are pro-abortion automatically dismiss you as a religious freak intent on controlling women. Focusing on the science makes it impossible for pro-abortion zealots to dismiss pro-life arguments as religious beliefs that they do not share.

You couple this with a type of halo effect over "scientific" explanations and definitions you agree with. This is serious bias. Look at your very next paragraph

As I said before, science is a methodology dedicated to describing the real world. There is no "agreement" here; the purpose of science is to be as objective and accurate as possible when describing natural phenomena. Everything I have said concerning the aliveness of sperms, ova, zygote, blastocysts, and embryos is verifiable by simple biochemical tests that can be performed by anyone. Ditto for everything I said about their being human.

Clearly, that's not the natural environment of human cells. Do these cells naturally seek you out? Do they normally occur in Petri dishes? So you've just violated your own definition. They may be cells from or of humans, but they're not human beings. You've not grown and killed numerous human beings have you? Of course not, so what are we discussing here?

You are completely missing the point, which is that, scientifically (i.e. objectively), there is no distinct point at which life begins. You can make valid arguments for destroying that life, based on objectively observable characteristics, but to argue that a growing human embryo is not alive or is not human is nonsensical and unsupportable by any objective measure. If that is your basis for being pro-abortion, then your abortion advocacy is based on a lie. If you acknowledge that the embryo is always a living human, but you feel it is okay to kill it up until it crosses some developmental point, you move the abortion argument away from the science and into the realm of opinion, which is not objective.

You have noticed that I have not discussed human beings, or my opinion of what constitutes a human being. Although you are using that to try to "prove" some inconsistency in what I have said, my avoidance of that specific issue is completely intentional.

Rush has his opinion, but I think you're misreading the transcript. I too am not saying that NASA has had some benefit. I am disputing that the benefit was:

1. Cost effective.

2. Not available in the private market

As a way to move away from NASA and government funding of many unConstitutional programs including things like the AdCouncil, NPR, and etc. Romney should move toward an X-Prize type program.

Notably, Limbaugh is criticizing Obama for his policy priorities and I agree with him. I'd rather fund NASA than a Muslim outreach program. If given the choice between funding NASA or not funding NASA I'd drop the funding for NASA. This isn't an attack against NASA per se, but against the extra-Constitutional expansion of the federal government into realms in which it doesn't belong.

As conservatives we must ask ourselves were will it lead? Let's take a look at the comments by the caller (who I suspect is a liberal):

And I’m thinking to myself, well, NASA’s populated with hundreds, maybe even thousands, of PhDs who went to federal schools on federal student loans and federal student aid.

That's the money quote in the transcript. The problem is that America doesn't need federal schools, federal student loans or federal student aid. It violates federalism in which the 50 states compete and good ideas win over bad ideas.

Look here:

Microwave weapons: Wasted energy

and here:

Golden Goose Award

Here's the press release for the "Golden Goose" award. Note the leftist organizations sponsoring it.

Golden Goose Award Press Release

As conservatives we should be very wary when our ideas intersect with the ideas of the left. You said I was being too extreme and asked if I were a libertarian. I am not a libertarian. I am a Constitutionalist. It is a God-given document and one that works really well. It has been undermined through the insidious fascist/communist thought toward the end of the 19th and during the entire 20th century. Is it too extreme to ask government to exist within the bounds set by the Constitution?

The argument isn't can government funding of basic science bring benefits and not even should government do it. The argument is and always must be is it Constitutional? We've watched our rights get flushed down the toilet all in the name of progressivism. Our nation's runaway debt, crony capitalist bailouts, entitlement debt bomb are all an outgrowth of asking "can government help?" and then answering "should government help?". The real question is "what is Constitutional?". That's the only way to keep our rights and retain our freedom. There isn't any other way out.

As an aside here is a good article from the Cato Institute. They are a libertarian outfit and I don't agree with all their positions, but this article gets it right:

End Government Science Funding

That article was written in 1997. Has it gotten better? Look at all the fake science out there used to promote any number of dubious, political agendas. Note that the funding for the global warming hokum comes from the federal government.

Here's another one:

He Who Pays the Piper: Federal Funding Of Research

That one is from 1983 and it is still true because it is based on a fundamental principle - 1. Government is political by its nature and 2. Who pays decides.

Please realize that I'm not against basic science funding or NASA's goals. I am just against the unConstitutional use of federal money and power to achieve it. It's dangerous to our republic. As conservatives we have to understand our basic principles and then adhere to them.

First chance you get please read this book: The Myth of the Robber Barons

It will change your view of private investment, public finance and the proper role of government in a market economy. Also read all you can on Bastiat. This same stuff has been happening for centuries and it was just as destructive then as it is now.

Best FReegards,

TenTen

——Romney should move toward an X-Prize type program-—

Newt made what some thought were fantastic short order goals. What the naysayers dis not know is that technology is pretty much already in existence. The market has designed it all and even has some in production. Ant body that wants one can buy a space station suite now. Moon colony/structure designs are laying around in computers ready to go.

I did not know that, but I am not surprised. I’m also not surprised that fellow “conservatives” have been brainwashed in government schools. I used to be one of them.

What do we expect a government school teacher to teach?

Thanks for the insights. If you have links I’d love to learn more.

Just to clarify, I am not in favor of abortion.

You say: I am not "practicing scientism"...

Please reread the definition of scientism: a term used...to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints... the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.

Doesn't that characterize your approach to the subject of abortion and the beginnings of human life?

Science is a methodology concerned with characterizing the real world...

Religion is a methodology concerned with characterizing the real world. People see and feel things that cannot be explained by science or even the promise of some future science. People long to believe and to know God.

it does not deal with religious or philosophical matters.

That's a cop out. For science to have any value it must deal with religious and philosophical matters. There aren't any facts in a vacuum. Science is a part of human life and it always was. It must be accounted for and it must account for human life.

The reason I concentrate purely on the scientific matters when discussing abortion is that the moment you bring up religion, many of those who are pro-abortion automatically dismiss you as a religious freak intent on controlling women. Focusing on the science makes it impossible for pro-abortion zealots to dismiss pro-life arguments as religious beliefs that they do not share.

That is an interesting argument, but is it fruitful? How many "abortion zealots" switch over the pure science of "life" (not human life)? My personal experience is that the Spirit teaches deeply and swiftly in the soul that's ready to listen. Zealots rarely listen and even more rarely are ready to change. Real change in human thinking happens at the margins with those who are at the edge of a camp of thought, ready to move forward or away from their previously held beliefs. All human beings believe. It is a fundamental part of the human condition.

Everything I have said concerning the aliveness of sperms, ova, zygote, blastocysts, and embryos is verifiable by simple biochemical tests that can be performed by anyone. Ditto for everything I said about their being human.

So they're alive, they're human, but they are not human beings? This argument feeds the abortionist's argument (we can't really know when it is a human being - it's just a blob of living human cells) and clouds the reality. The only important question about abortion is "when does human life begin".

You are completely missing the point, which is that, scientifically (i.e. objectively), there is no distinct point at which life begins. You can make valid arguments for destroying that life, based on objectively observable characteristics, but to argue that a growing human embryo is not alive or is not human is nonsensical and unsupportable by any objective measure. If that is your basis for being pro-abortion, then your abortion advocacy is based on a lie. If you acknowledge that the embryo is always a living human, but you feel it is okay to kill it up until it crosses some developmental point, you move the abortion argument away from the science and into the realm of opinion, which is not objective.

This paragraph doesn't make sense at all. You've admitted to "killing" living human embryos as part of your experimentation. Why are you not charged with murder? Because they're not yet human beings. At what point of a pregnancy would you consider it murder to kill the developing embryo? You yourself state that at some "developmental point" you can kill it without recourse or regret. The wholly objective point at which a developing embryo becomes a human being is when it attaches to the uterine wall. That's my definition. It is objective and it is observable. Why isn't that as scientific as your ability to kill or preserve "human life" in your Petri dish?

You have noticed that I have not discussed human beings, or my opinion of what constitutes a human being. Although you are using that to try to "prove" some inconsistency in what I have said, my avoidance of that specific issue is completely intentional.

I noted this immediately. Unless you know what is or isn't a human being then how can you claim to be scientific or anti-abortion?

Please reread the definition of scientism: a term used...to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints... the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.

Your link goes to a Wikipedia entry which points out, in the very first sentence, that the word is pejorative. Of course, I recognize immediately from the suffix "ism" that it is coined for the purpose of denigrating scientists and the scientific method, and I do take offense at its use. Psychologically, it gives an interesting insight into those using that word. The use of the "ism" suffix is meant to communicate that science is a de facto religion, with the implication that religions are just superstitious beliefs with no intrinsic validity, and science is no better. What message about your attitudes toward faith do you seriously think you send when you try to denigrate science by comparing it to a religion?

Doesn't that characterize your approach to the subject of abortion and the beginnings of human life?

It's not even close. Science is not a "worldview"; it is a methodology used to try to describe the real world as objectively and accurately as possible. I don't claim human cells of any type are alive because of some arbitrary belief; I claim they are alive because I can perform biochemical tests upon them. Those tests are not subject to interpretation, and will show the same result no matter who performs them.

Religion is a methodology concerned with characterizing the real world. People see and feel things that cannot be explained by science or even the promise of some future science. People long to believe and to know God.

Religion has nothing to do with the real world. It covers the spiritual world. The topics covered by religion cannot be addressed by science. It is as ludicrous to try to substitute religion for scientific inquiry as it is to try to substitute science for religious inquiry.

That's a cop out. For science to have any value it must deal with religious and philosophical matters. There aren't any facts in a vacuum. Science is a part of human life and it always was. It must be accounted for and it must account for human life.

You may wish fervently that science would deal with religious or philosophical matters, but it can't. And the facts do exist, all by themselves. For example, hydrogen is a simple atom, which normally consists of a proton and an electron. Whether we can describe it or not, whether or not anyone even exists to try to describe it, the nature of hydrogen won't change. Some of us are born with a fervent desire to observe and describe hydrogen, but if no curious person were ever born again, hydrogen wouldn't change.

That is an interesting argument, but is it fruitful? How many "abortion zealots" switch over the pure science of "life" (not human life)? My personal experience is that the Spirit teaches deeply and swiftly in the soul that's ready to listen. Zealots rarely listen and even more rarely are ready to change. Real change in human thinking happens at the margins with those who are at the edge of a camp of thought, ready to move forward or away from their previously held beliefs. All human beings believe. It is a fundamental part of the human condition.

It is my observation that most abortion advocates spend a lot of time and effort convincing themselves and others that nobody really dies during an abortion. They push this scientifically nonsensical idea that, somehow, something that is utterly devoid of life suddenly becomes alive at some arbitrary point. I have not seen much evidence that religious beliefs are a factor. The most devout Catholic in the world can fervently advocate for abortion, if they are unaware that the embryo is a living human being. An atheist can be fervently pro-life if they understand the nature of the embryo. I try to educate people on the facts that there is no point during human development at which something that is not previously alive spontaneously becomes alive, and that the sperm, ovum, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, etc., are human. I do that because it is a lot more difficult to defend abortion when one understands that the object of the abortion is, in fact, alive and human. Anyone who defends abortion on the basis that the object being aborted is not alive or human is, in fact, saying that they do not think it is acceptable to destroy human life. Educating those people on the pure objective scientific facts actually does a lot to convince them to be pro-life.

So they're alive, they're human, but they are not human beings? This argument feeds the abortionist's argument (we can't really know when it is a human being - it's just a blob of living human cells) and clouds the reality. The only important question about abortion is "when does human life begin".

No, it doesn't help the abortionist agenda at all. The abortionist is perfectly aware that they kill a human being every time they do an abortion. They rationalize their actions on non-scientific criteria--for instance by telling themselves that since "society" does not have any time or effort invested in the unborn child, the unborn child does not have the basic rights of a human being. On the other hand, most or all abortion clients convince themselves that they aren't killing anyone when they have their abortions. Educating them on the fact that there is no distinct start point of human life, and that human beings can only relay human life really does not help the abortionist's sales efforts; abortionists encourage ignorance.

This paragraph doesn't make sense at all. You've admitted to "killing" living human embryos as part of your experimentation. Why are you not charged with murder? Because they're not yet human beings. At what point of a pregnancy would you consider it murder to kill the developing embryo? You yourself state that at some "developmental point" you can kill it without recourse or regret. The wholly objective point at which a developing embryo becomes a human being is when it attaches to the uterine wall. That's my definition. It is objective and it is observable. Why isn't that as scientific as your ability to kill or preserve "human life" in your Petri dish?

You might go back and reread what I said. I have never said that I have created or killed human embryos. I said that I grow living human cells--not embryos--and have killed countless millions of them. The cells I grow come from people... a two year old boy... a 67 year old woman... etc. They do not have the capability to develop into separate, new human beings; therefore, no one is deprived of life by killing them.

I do not use arbitrary points as dividing lines before which it's okay to kill and after which it isn't; it is counterproductive. By arbitrarily deciding that implantation is the point at which the blastocyst should be considered human, you are saying that such a thing is a matter of opinion and, as such, cannot be objectively verified. If you choose the arbitrary point of implantation, and someone else chooses the arbitrary point of first movement felt by the mother, and someone else chooses the arbitrary point at which the expelled fetus first draws air into its lungs, and no one is using any objective scientific measure of human life, then you can keep arguing opinion all day without anyone's position ever changing. That practice of considering someone human at some arbitrary point opens up a can of worms that I'd rather just keep closed.

I noted this immediately. Unless you know what is or isn't a human being then how can you claim to be scientific or anti-abortion?

As I've already said multiple times, I consider a human organism with the ability to grow into a functional human being deserving of protection. This means that the countless millions of living human cells that I have grown and killed did not deserve any kind of protection; they simply did not have the capacity to grow into autonomous human beings. Whether or not a human organism has the capacity to become an autonomous human being actually *is* something that can be determined objectively and scientifically.

OK, at what point does human life begin?

OK, at what point does human life begin?

It is impossible to point at a spot along a continuum and say "There! That's the beginning!"

The only thing we can be certain about is the end of life.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense. You’re avoiding the decision you must make. Are you an atheist?

Nonsense, absolute nonsense. You’re avoiding the decision you must make. Are you an atheist?

I'm sorry, but is it really so hard to grasp that life exists along a continuum? Is it really incomprehensible that something that is not alive will not and cannot become alive?

What is this “life” you are talking about? You’re a high priestess of Science. You’ve created a psychologically convenient, but wholly irrelevant definition of “life”. If a squirrel dies in the forest, a monkey in the jungle, or a “life” in your Petri dish what difference is that to me?

When does human life begin? At what point in your “life” continuum” can I know I’m dealing with a human being?

If “life” is a continuum at what point would you be arrested for murder for killing off a human life?

Don’t you see how unscientific your answer is? If it is just a “life” continuum until death what difference does it make when you end “life”? By your definition all “life” is equivalent. That’s not very thoughtful or scientific is it?

Imagine a situation where there is only enough of a life saving solution - Solution X - to save either the “life” growing within your body or the “life” growing within my Belgian mare. How do we choose who gets Solution X?

What is this “life” you are talking about? You’re a high priestess of Science. You’ve created a psychologically convenient, but wholly irrelevant definition of “life”. If a squirrel dies in the forest, a monkey in the jungle, or a “life” in your Petri dish what difference is that to me?

When you have to try to discredit science by comparing it to religion, that tells me very clearly that you have a low opinion of religion.

When does human life begin? At what point in your “life” continuum” can I know I’m dealing with a human being?

If “life” is a continuum at what point would you be arrested for murder for killing off a human life?

I have already explained over and over in several posts the objective, scientific definition of life, and why it is impossible to choose a distinct start point. Life does not arise from non-life, period. Either you are purposely refusing to understand, or you are genuinely unable to. Either way, it's a waste of time to explain it to you again. It's like trying to explain color to a blind person.

You sound a lot like someone who wants to reject any biological definition of life because you want to be able to excuse abortions at any point. And I will not give you a scientific justification to do so. Abortion at any time is the killing of a human being. Period.

Oh, I'm not going to explain the abortion laws to you, either, because I'm sure you already know them. I'm a scientist, not a lawyer.

Don’t you see how unscientific your answer is? If it is just a “life” continuum until death what difference does it make when you end “life”? By your definition all “life” is equivalent. That’s not very thoughtful or scientific is it?

I doubt I could say something unscientific if I wanted to. There are many things that exist in nature as a continuum on one side, and a distinct end on the other side. There is, for example, a bottom limit to temperature, but no top limit. I'll bet you see examples of the continuum of human life all the time. At what distinct point does a baby become a small child? At what distinct point does an adolescent become an adult? At what distinct point does a young adult become a middle age adult? And so on. Only when a person dies is there a distinct demarkation between them being alive and being dead.

And you're reading things I didn't say. Again. If you can quote exactly where I said that human and animal life are equivalent, feel free to do so. Otherwise, don't put words in my mouth.

“Consider California’s 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 America’s 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 37’s 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.”

Who in hell is writing this shit? I am a scientist. I am a conservative of long standing...it is in my genes. We who know about science and truth know that GMO is very dangerous. Even the EU recognizes this. The the ‘prestigious’ National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, EPA, FDA, and USDA are not about protecting us, they are about protecting those who support their causes...especially the FDA and the USDA...Big Pharma and Big Agriculture.

It is also well known that vaccines are a major culprit in the cause of Autism. This article is way off base and it has nothing to do with ‘Progressive vs Conservative’.

It is high time that Conservatives and Republicans recognized these issues for what they are...very important to the well being of ‘We The People’.

And if you think ‘supporters of alternative medicine’ are leftists, you all have another think coming...alternative medicine has the answers and solutions for many of the diseases that Big Pharma, the AMA and the FDA think are incureable, but are great income producers for Big Pharma, the AMA and the FDA.

And in many cases, the ptb know the answers, but are witholding them because it is not profitable to have solutions.