« StarTalk Radio

When Science Crashes the Party

2013-03-28 | 🔗
Janeane Garofalo engages in political warfare, delving into the furious debates between Democrats and Republicans and the science issues that divide them.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Skip. The commercials support star talk on patriarch to listen to every episode, commercial, free increasing industries with many questions to be answered. We find ourselves searching for those answers as the very fabric of space science and society are converging here for the first time. What what recently the domain the brakes that bring us into Graham all South Brenda, get lab
John DOE, that radio host to deal with cases of direct aid and humanitarian this week, subjects when science crashes, the party what My party, I mean political party, we're going to spend a whole our analyzing, how science gets made in Congress. The contents of that sausage, his mysterious to most people, is something I couldn't by myself, I had to bring an especial guest co host. For this analysis, none other than the one the only Janine Graphic Janine welcome to start on radio. Thank you. Thank you,
are you my gosh? I feel I feel like I'm in the presence of royalty here having committed. That's very kind of you buddy you you, you need I'm here, I'm here you're going to do it, you don't inhabitants, you don't have to keep closely elderly career. You may know, or from give many tv movie roles in first learned of her. Distance as a standard comedian, but she's been recently her she's been a writer and political activist right or left wing like off the left edge political activist. I would say: would you agree to that? Yet wild I'll take it out of Anglo going and liberal progressive. I want to call it I'd, buy preferred if you mean by that Social justice issues and intellectually curious in a person who cares. That has an. I vow relationship with the world was eight, then. Yes, her left, you just started a new season of de located on a dull swim with comedy sexual becomes. Very progress will welcome. Welcome. Thank you.
A just talk about these skirmishes adamant going on between the Democrats and Republicans, because, of course they argue about anything, but there's something you think. Maybe they shouldn't be arguing about an science and what I for the show is clips with a a twenty year republican while he served in the house, are represented for twenty Ernie Republican. We're gonna get my view clips with Bob Walker in just a few minutes, and so, but its wanted to discuss talk about this with you a bit right now, of course, there aren't. They know Republic little democratic debates because I guess oh had not yet not yet, but right now we ve been like exposed practically weekly to Republic, debate and last night was the Huckabee. The fox. How could be ridiculous haven't I haven't seen I haven't been following them rise. You only need it you'll need to see what I didn't see warrants a very similar they're, all just variations on the failure to how would you characterize them? Well, I,
characterize it. The way that I would characterize republican politics or overlap thirty years, but especially over the last fifteen years, just much more anti intellectual. Much more! Pandering, much more myth, were either love method, love a good story, but what had the was composed, what you re, apparently, the public laws against about half the public public that better heat that that response to their medical officer. You arguing about the candidates, we organ about the people who are going to vote for them with its this. Thank the cynics suckers right with others that annex over, so if a good story gets people of all for you than by what we are doing good stories well because sometimes a good story doesn't make it a true story and it could be a manual matters is what you say. Yes, I was so when the Republicans pander to their base, which basically is appalling. Apart this point, the tea party, which is merely a subset of republican Party. They are not in that they are not a grass roots Jeff.
Ad hoc organization. They are a subset of the Republican Party. There fully financed and a lot of them primarily motivated by racial intolerance and anti immigrant sentiment. So we can win com. He part, if you want that's fine, they merely part of Napoleon Base, that's fine raised that appeal to them that base gets catered to. The right if society suffers and as the democratic base gets ignored, society suffers are so So I will, let's get to my first clip my interview with Bob Walker, he's a Republican represented Pennsylvania in the? U S house presented in reserve for twenty years from making seventy seven through ninety seven says that the entire tenure of the ragged administration, for example- is right smack tab in the middle and club of hysteria. Clinton is well, that's right he was an outspoken conservative, as so many leading Republicans had been any work, a strong
ally of New Gingrich there, like Gulf bodies, as well as when repugnance deserves, were slightly different than they are now also there's. A change has been a change happening over thirty years, but it still wasn't quite where it is now back in it was there. Ok, so he's like a good Republican, not who I am. I haven't heard the claim by saying that there wasn't that date. The absurdity that goes on today, my interest in whom is that he served as the chair of the science community, how Science committee and effective work with him many times and might tours of duty and Washington. Let's run it was his opening remarks. The process that our forefathers established is an adversarial process. It was purposely adversarial. Our forefathers did not one power to be exercised easily and so created three branches of government, all of which have tensions among them and you have two houses of Congress that institutionally hate each other, and so the fact that you get something through the house. Doesnt mean that are even ever come up in the Senate.
The Senate is able to achieve some sort of compromise in order to get it through its very, very stringent process. It does mean that once it gives over to the house that we will achieve a majority vote there, the forefront We it be that difficult, nor can run away with power right precisely and so people who are used to decision making that either upon a known stream of knowledge, or used to as many businessmen are used to acted okay, we have accumulated data, here's the decision, a decision by here solve their report from there, but but that doesn't work in the Congress. I've known some ceo that have come to Congress got themselves like the Congress and so on, who ended spending the first three or four years. They were there just frustrated as all get out, because the way in which they were used to making decisions. So We didn't happen in the cup, so it's institutionally resist,
It's not just the resistance of an individual right, so we locate it any individual. Any one part organ already. It is designed to prevent you for me swift, powerful decision. Look. I often tell people that the difference between being in the majority in being the minority is in the minority you can fight. Hundred radiological battles every day. You can t take a look at a piece of legislation that here the weaknesses in it you charge up the hill with your flag flying and so on. You come down at the end of the day. You're all bloody you're really feel good about about what you lose, but you feel good about. The majority actually have to work, because at the end of the day you have to win. There's no this being the majority view, don't win? How does that happen? While the chairman, for example, goes around and talks to members of the committee starts with a bill. The thing gets compromised out over a period of time, as each member says. I can live with this section, but this here I can't live with, and so on. Will you say? Well you no doubt congressmen so and so from Tennessee. He had to have that section of the bill
can we modify it this way, and will he take it that way and show you go through writing bills through a series of compromises, so, at the end of the day you win, but sometimes biofuel, that good about it, but the essence of the process that what has to take place in it, very, very different. In that sense, we always creates how we became a country in the first place tapestry of compromise is the essence of our constitutional convention that man, I don't want to hear that Can you disagree with that because I know it's true, but Supposing it was officially Janine, you know you can bring up the forefathers and that's all well and good another difference. There would be the forefathers, Raul intellectuals who were now under the impression that epileptics were possessed by the debt which was a common theme at that time, that in mind that they would be arguing what they were I do is as make sure there was no monarchy and they were did they were developing their system upon the enlightenment lot with the french enlightenment, so they they
a very different idea. They did not foresee K Street and lobbyists and Lee Atwater and CALL were over him. All manner of homosexuals in United Frames or all the is that our at play now could not have unforeseen, then so yes, the idea of you don't on somebody to consolidate power, there should be rigorous debate, they meant was rigorous intellectual debate from honest brokers and what it isn't. Both sides fall. There is an intractable eighty that is Ben, stated very clear. By Jim Dammit Mitch Mcconnell at this point, It is a zero sum game right now the Republicans refused to allow Barack Obama any victories. Unfortunately, Brok Obama isn't hasn't, on the great leadership skills either, but there they are in practical and then also Hubert, European Fox NEWS. Haven't fortunately well, but that so how does how'd it? How did I
ethical issues get passed out there well up. There are two things I would say idea. Ideology is another word that I do. I dont think adheres to fact that they were where forgetting about facts here and I want to be annoying and read the the dictionary definition of fact various at once, just in case anyone got another or not that you didn't, but I just want to anything that actually happens in time or space a strictly true statement a sir the truth or reality now ideology is defined as a set of ideas prejudices. Then doctrines of a group or a moment. So I am not an audio lock right. I am a fact based person and I try and do my due diligence. Try and understand what's going on because I didn't want liked. It just happened to me right or on Fox. That's a propaganda network set up entirely to Courson and dumb dazzle heard unappreciated ideologies don't have to be very brief,
No right, so I'm not ignore and also sank. Partisan is not accurate either. A partisan defined a little proud of to day. I did I'm not, I don't know what it meant, but I just want to reduce inherent or follower to a person cause or party. That's It doesn't address facts, so we gotta use the right words here. The very important there's, a difference between believing in facts then arguing partisan, stuff, arguing ideology or arguing propaganda. These are the comments of June gruff Hulu. My yes co host for striking did annoying even my own voice. Irritates me to a degree. I cannot even tell irritate yourselves in irritates me, but believe me, I'm I'm the strident over order, a cup of coffee. Like I just the way I sound unfortunate. Let me go to my next clip where we talk about science as a partisan topic is not with shoeing. Today does not, but in practice it is worth five. Let's get some insight into that from my prerecorded record,
with representative Bob worker twenty year representative in Congress Let me give you an example. The kind of thing where you end up with some divides, I'm the co author of the climate change, build it ever came in the Congo Stores Brown of California, and I sponsored climate to change bill the bill did so what we need is additional research data on what impact the climate so over a period now we did this back in the recent reminders of joint round. As a Democrat was an exceptionally have a bipartisan minorities in Belarus, Africa and that's always safer precisely- and this was a time when they were in control of the Congress when one was as environmentally went into the seventies right Democrats ran everything right, no precise, and so at that point we co authored this bill and is history. It was a lot of the satellites and signs instruments that are now used to major climate activity across the world. I think at that the data, is what gives us a basis on which to make good judgment. It does,
necessarily mean that I'm as a Republican and as a conservative necessary enthusiastic about changing the entire economy of the country in the world in order to accommodate one people a few rise as climate change, and I actually end up being so What suspicious of some of the research models that are out there, that to predict the climate, only because I got volt early in the research on it and no that their data out there that we have yet to collect me. We only have a few years of data of the ocean, atmospheric interface, for example, and without that kind of data it real hard to say that you know with great certainty. What's going, I've been going forward in flight, so what's the matter, so you can get a partisan divide, then, over what The policy should be that follow on from some of the research right. I say so what you're saying is, because there policy implications. The changes, how people react to information and in Britain something that big, I
the things you have pretty firm data and you're have a lot of it before you, begin to make fundamental policy changes about changes in the entire economy. Culture we're gonna pick up on that it have you when we get back from our first break on our talk, radio, that was my interview with republican representative Bob Walker. Dissidents are taught radio secret for you gonna consider singing all of the ads on this show? just one way to get out a hearing there go to patriarch arms last started talk and The porters at the five dollar level or higher to listen the star talk ad free. You can download. All current episodes into your favorite park has player and net I hear another commercial on star talk ever again. You will definitely not happy.
Hear me sing if you support us at Patria Dark coms. Last our talk. Radio I mean, I'm just sing it I mean just SAM. The future is space and the secrets of our planet reveal starter dear. Mr President, will you allow me I will come back to you start talk. Radio station host running me this week is my special, yesterday's Janine Garage for all. She changed her voice going into the brain. Are she was commenting, how annoying her voices even to herself, it isn't just We had to cut by Walker Short, but I want to get the full answer to my question of him here. Describing some of the sort of republican resistance to the emerging science on global climate change, and I too,
That is a point. Why couldn't agree with where they were taking those scientists? She's, let's see how he replied to me why those are really very much. Individual judgments mean age individuals to decide for themselves whether or not he thinks It is fundamentally important enough to take an adversary position within your party within the party have sometimes within the Congress. I mean that there were times when I decided, as of Congress that this just wasn't right and I had a few bills were passed in the only vote against them on the house for was mine, because I just you know I came to conclusions in right, so is it? Is it? Is it fair to say that if there is a science topic that does not have policy implications, there is no obvious reason for anybody to A one party once wrote and generally done so the genie. What he sang is that when a science, when a factual issue has policy implications. People split one party lines, but if they if there are no policy implications that everyone agrees? That's what it comes down to. It seemed I'm not sure if that action,
If everyone agrees that this point, but the thing is, is it isn't up to the individual? There are things. As you say, it say we're talking by gravity, electricity, but pretty segregation, women's suffrage. This is not up to the individual. There are some things. Our true and that are there is being a good citizen. You I'm in here rights are not up for debate and science is not up for debate when we can clearly see the effects of global warming all around us and Frank can call it you think he wants and rename it by the fact is that the problems are resistant to it because their pandering to their corporate backers and because it's not good for business and also then there is, of course, a view very intellectual republicans who believe that God, you know ok, but for those who were not that anti intellectual, the fact is he saying that it has policy implications and some in their politicians. This is why it becomes a debate, he'd be very honest about the ok, but the debate has
applications to the air that we breathe the water. We think they have kids, don't they do they not have children, and I haven't grandchildren who is it not that important to them that they do what I'm saying it's it's it there. Sometimes the Supreme Court has to step in right over the years virtual reality. Screwed things have a number of times do, but they have over the years. Historically, lead people to to better themselves. Ok, so that the making of science policies, it is a complicated business and in Congress, there's an authorised asian process, an appropriation process- and I got Bob Walker Discs- explained some of that to me with check him out. There are two different processes in Congress: there's an authorization process which sets the policy and says ok to implement this policy. We think this kind of money needs to be spent on it. Then there's the appropriations process, it actually spend the money and sometimes authorizes inappropriate or are not on the same page. It were
best, if we ve actually follow the rules of Congress and say that you cannot appropriate the money unless you have an authorization. The problem with appropriations process is only as a one year horizon there. Probably money every year in the science area, is really important to be setting policies that are three four or five years out of horse had the timescale of the research that development the input. Forget it, you don't do it a year. You can do it a year, and so, if you're dealing strictly with people whose horizon is a one year horizon the chances are that you'll end up really undermining the science mission rather than enhancing it? So you people with that kind of foresight. Obviously, you need to have a process where committees are looking at what's in the best long term. Interests the programme and in setting priorities, because there are thousands, maybe milk
of good things that you can be doing in the arena of science, and you have to do is say, okay. What is the most important thing we can be doing at the present time and there's always a tendency to say well, we ve started this programme and can always been gone for a long long time and once approach in places very hard to get rid of it, but sometimes you really have to say no was a priority of a few years ago. If we're going to have the resources spent wisely, we need to move on to some of the new things that are now Holocene. Has shifted. Policy needs a shift to reflect the realities and
the budget within NASA Redistribute according to just such policy recommendations in one of the problems becomes, for instance, when you have jurisdiction over NASA, then people when a load, all kinds of things into it, that some others think it superfluous. I mean they're all kinds of things that NASA's then told to do. The question is whether or not if you have limited dollars a NASA, whether that's where the money needs to be spent, and that's why we elect you guys to push this out. One of the problems often is, though, that you have people on the committee that have a NASA facility in their district so they want to make certain that they carve out a unique stream of money to go into that special project that particular centre is interested here. I see many people criticise that, but that's how it works. That is what a representative does do not represent anybody else. The representing the people voted for and put him in office ran. That's true that if they behave any differently from that, you'd be surprised well, except,
You got any real careful on that safety. University research project in some member of Congress wants to get something for your favorite university and put it into. They all have a favorite university, I'm a favorite university and our industries. While this ends up being then money that allocated for something it hasn't been appropriately peer, reviewed, It goes against the grain of science also making determination about what is the most useful source of distribution of limited science dollars itself complicated process and Washington Janine. Yes, it is, of course it is geared towards failure, but the thing in other doesn't seem to be any any thing: stopping science, when they want to weapon eyes or militarized or web my space or get things from MIT that make us have full spectrum dominance. That is all fine or big. Far so the perverse effects from dormant involves magnificently miss when its Carter you and it's something you know that Reagan was into and Bush and Bush we're into they want make sure that science can be utilised?
in violation of multiple tree: ok, so both to weapon eyes and dominate the rest of the growth of the executive branch, has the office of science and technology policy, always teepee and there's ahead of them right now. It's Doktor John Hall during the previous head by the way under Bush, he was a Democrat, but I use a former head of the brave. National labs, and so this mixture in there. They happen all be physicists right for that year, working under Bush a year you're what they call blue dog Democrat or you, you played all what was only blue dot. Conservative Reagan, Democrat there's, a dead, Bush Lamy for everything its label? It's just what it is that that's what they call them he's gonna use at by the Bush administration doesn't have any by working under them. That isn't gonna play ball, ok so now also Congress used to have some equally office of technology, assess yes, where they would use to advise them on science policy in society, she's, but that was disbanded and so now there
they make an own phone calls. You know that this is where they wanted it. This man is so they could just deal directly with the lobbying groups and bitter directly with the corporate entity. So now why? Why have a middle man when you can just go right to the money so Dorothy under the writing policy papers? At the end of the day? What matters is not what people think of No, but where money goes, and so that's interesting, we you touched on- and I will get back to it after this next clip about how the between how Democrats and Republicans fund policy so that the end money talks, let's find out There is a fundamental difference between where many liberal Democrats are on the issue of technology development and where many republicans are there are many liberal Democrats, I believe that the government ought to set up technology administrations. That kind of pick and choose among emerging technologies, and then one those ones that they think are the best technologies out their. Whereas
many on my side of the equation. Many of the conservative Republican say no. When the government starts picking winners and losers, we are in deep trouble because it could well be that the government. Its battle One thing that we do know is government takes a long time to pick, and so it may be months. It may go through a couple of appropriation cycles before they can actually get the money out to one of these companies and, in the meantime, technology has moved forward and if what we're doing is waiting for the government to act. It simply doesn't get innovation is disagreement is practical disagreement is no disagreement on whether the technology of good or useful. Look it's how you implement what year on this guy is man can now? Can you love anymore? So, actually, now do you speak? Did you not do? Let's, on
what he drew up work first of all, he said what what the Democrats want to do is wait and see and pick and choose a whole other show. With rush hold leading liberal Democrat, whose hd physicist we have a whole other show we're going to not just I'm saying it's not that to come. Just so you know what I'm saying now you just let him kind of war just give you such a lie The ball is unbelievable to me. First of all, if the government picks winners and losers, first of all. The government is she under conservative handling elegance. That's all they do is pick cronies and give contracts to special people that they have relationships with
and also to show me democratic. Don't do that and I'm sure they do. But you know republic, they are not absolutely the same and that this this cut type of devils advocate you're, doing to me, then being mainstream new show. I mean people, let's get serious here this guy. Your guys centrist advocate this guy is also stand in the middle and both I gotcha. Ok, what it means is you didn't you? You don't want to take a stand, because you are greater experience. I think, there's a scientist stand that can be taken off with you in the middle there. You know it can't be in the middle. Now that the stakes are too high, you gotta go to the map or something I would put it in the middle, because this would belongs site. Has anyone come to science in the mill? That's right! That's what you are saying that the environment is degrading and as we are not investigating renewable and sustainable energy and as there's more mercury, and led and and more autism and more children suffering, and all these things you can,
stay in the centre on this one and you're gonna talk to guys like him into coil. You government we can. We forgot, claimed as a place to stand in the center where everyone that comes to you, because you unexploded networks that why, oh sure truth works like a real beacon. Will rail Clare? I will. I will tell you all the things that belong in the center after this break, your listening to start talk, radio virus on the web star talk, radio dot net, also download back episodes on. I too brief space and sat down to earth listening to start this discharge on radio, numerous subjects, politics and science featuring prerecorded interview between me and twenty year, republican representative from Pennsylvania Bob walk.
And the inimitable the irreplaceable Janine garage in studio with me, and I got my different choice: Jimmy. I think you blow gasket before the parade LAO gas coming to ask us to have. I got a lot again currently so get ready, I'm ready for you, so politics I mean it's. It's fascinating because, yes, his allotted, I think, a lot of hot air at both extremes and I found it and have identified it but at the centre. Where I like to stand and give me the vista on both sides, I find that the liberal left and the conservative right will fund science they do get together when they want to up the further National Science Foundation, they all get together and they up the budget and for the national, the two to health, and pardon of energy scientists, physics, basically, the particle accelerators. There are places. Where they agree that they should up the budget.
But let me just stop you for once again that the liberal left there so very few representatives of the liver left in Congress, the scent of the house in the mainstream media. So let's just get that straight. Illiberal left opera. Mostly outside of of of the net, framework, through their detriment, currently what it's very hard to to get into these positions and power? Because as bad as liberals, you get with a few exceptions, is centrists or centre and the ruling party has moved so far to the right that, even those in the centre have to to move to the right to even get a load of the newly define centre in the newly defined centre, so in our mainstream media and in our positions of power and corporations and government for the most part is quoted. Quote conservative with a few. Dangerous in their the liberal left. Doesn't I have access to power, will have at this well served. The fake news talk shows those are all essential, liberal based right, I mean that the chosen central in the light
Do they all that? What I would say is there telling the truth you keep using other? If, yes, if the truth and social critique is, is gonna cotton, well, then good I'll, take it, but by one million Commodore and Bill MAR and Stephen Colbert among us, Yours and you know its large car linen a great tradition of this inherent in comedy when it's good is, is a greater dish. Of Social critical role: do you think it play a social, create namesake plays a very great role because it picks up the slack where people in power are not doing there. The doing their job comedians Herman have special insight. That others wouldn't depends. I mean there's somebody who are hack terrible hacks, you don't have any insight whatsoever, and you know the case by case. Just like anybody. Look bad, there's some comedians that that you know I just use George Carlin there or Nicholson may or back in the day or the lamp whom national amply earlier. The onion yeah that they're there above average intelligent. They have, I guess, an insight into pointing out the absurd of shoes from for offers, while Frank
did a great job. Ok, but I shook me, I don't know if it's just because your committee does make you fit for all what it does mean a book, but if a comedian of great mainstay of comedic material is criticising, politicians become a politician, the thing is you can get a lot more done outside of the system. You know that rodion are going to be heard by a lot more people outside of having ascendancy so before so Republicans on and off being accused of being at our science but mobile hacks, you don't have any insight whatsoever, and you know the case by case. Just like anybody look bad there's some comedians. That Sandro business. More than anti science. There probe what is good for the corporation is good for the earlier. Ok and so in their some of the science policy that is voted for and funded. Does promote, I say we go on a business or the r and d in business circles are not directly other pure science necessarily I'm just saying, you're willing to throw stem cell research out the window there willing to throw. You know at certain points that help for third world
crazy about bill allow Monsanto to patent seeds, you know that they were there big I'm a suitable giveaways. You know So there is science and their size, their science. That's good for the cooperation that the Republicans and some Democrats are fully behind and in their signs. That would be good for humanity. There's no profit and accept that. That is how the motto recently, put it on a daily show regarding. Age charity work that he could eat. He gave a shout out to George W for the amount of money his administration gave aid programme right. But let's not forget that there was a design genes that when they gave that money they could give no more sex education and no more condoms. Okay. So to get that money, the that the key institutions that were helping the AIDS victims in those countries could no longer have section patient or birth could look at some of that is, is derived from people's religious point again. This is, I can't have it. I can't have it with his devil. This religious prince.
Like an organisation which is our current and there has been another. Will you to think women couldn't write, bikes, limerick, hysteria, the womb of you want to go down that road? Let's find its that's. Why you're blocker listen above work, I've gotta go. What are you gonna hear these Cliffs asked him he is. He was in Congress and you were not so so that's matters while so must find out. But when you asked me to be here, I want you out, so you had a comment about faith based versus information based decision making in politics. I want to find out what he had to say about the hat weight. As a scientist, I liked being evidence based in my decision making, there's a lot of non evidence based politics going on today. It specifically, faith, based posturing, in one of the questions about their, for instance, it falls into the areas time. That is the whole question of evolution. I think for most people in the political and that these are not the same kinds of questions that they are for. Some of the people who advocate on one side or that of the other of those issues, for example, I see nothing in the
theories of evolution that violate the principles of the Bible whatsoever. Now, if you believe that God works on the same twenty four hour days that we have an earth, I suppose I tell you gotta problem their understanding this, but I'm prepared to believe that you wanna gods days, maybe billions of years and eco inside of that framework. Evolution, then, is simply that which God has ordained over a period of time, and what interests me is how close those ancient writers in the Bible came to the sequencing that we have found true in evolutionary theory and missed a couple of things by the EP. Considering that the knowledge base, if they have, you have to believe that they had some sort of inspiration to that. But I am saying that I don't find funding differences in all that, but I don't remember that for my red of history, I just don't remember seeing any of that get into policy, Did I miss something drew back their go back to the great awakening of eighteen forties
our religious revival period during the mid part of the nineteenth century. I know what you're talking about massive political. Location. Living organism came out at all. It was the origins of prohibition, for example. Yes, you know I've been everything over and started as a religious Yemen's ice in the fourth, the whole issue of slavery. The abolitionist grew religious stand, citizens and so on, the ideal hasn't played a rule is I'd, think wrong. There Is whether or not you will like people whose short through that and understand that constitutional principle is to permit, free exercise of religion, but not use that free exercise in a way that ends up being the establishment of a state religion, these to be an honest, maybe or his pen You know he's got to cite the founders, let's be consistent and founders were quite secular, and I want to read with rom religion, but he was quite willing to cite them earlier when it came to government
fusion and things taking too long to go down the pipeline and, secondly, I again it. This is an adult right. Isn't it doc. I cannot have these converse here these conversations or have them with other adults about is God's they're dead or didn't exist of Willie. If we lived in Egypt here we would be talking about the sun, God or more we'd. Be talk yes on raw made. Haven't fertile evolution is real, you can intelligent design is not creation is not. This should not be part of school board policy. This is not up for debate and same way. Gay rights are not up for debate and human they are human rights. Women's rights. Reproductive justice is not up for debate this. There is two sides to every story, or people are people they deserve to be respected. Not every day. Why couldn't this guy be respected because inherently what he is lying
to me, Japan, relieve you think that its Rosa become more of an issue and be an emergent politics than in the past, and we were not enough to have been around during the temperance and arrogant, scalps tram, terrorist movement, but don't know what we're talking about now is what happened in eighteen. Seventy nine, when pushed the first was advised by Jerry Farwell among other people than would be wise to go after evangelicals, because european parties basis shrinking and thinking over the years because, as society progressive forward the message, the Republican Party, as is less and less Britain, there are science issues that both Republicans and Democratic come together and fund and letting lose NASA, even though NASA funding is not what I'd like to be sure. We weigh more and better way more coiners than they have been plenty problems, but there are probably want to twenty four weapon weapon to station purposes and again full spectrum dominance, but they corners like crazy and NASA there's Vanessa. Scientists have been complaining about this four year like ok, but did you know that nets a real spending drop by twenty five San under President Clinton, but that doesn't get talked about, but you have no idea what contracts were dropped or for
for why there's the portfolio of the spending, the money was what you don't know where, while artisan labelled felling, where like like, like, I said what the republic. Extend to fund science for is very different than what? Hopefully dammit that's motivations whenever the motivations are very different and then and one of them the really motivation set before dominions you're gonna make sure that, where armed to the teeth, and so that we will unfortunately the way the former Soviet Union we will bankrupt ourselves just like they had been bankrupted during the cold war, What is happening right now? So just so, you know the different agencies that is considered that are part of this size portfolio of the government NASA's, one of them the National Institute for Health and H, National Science Foundation NIST, nor has ever heard of NIST nationally two for scientists for standard technology and also the deployment of energy, said earlier? They find a particle accelerators and so those that those have been you know, money comes and goes, but you write the motivation for why those budget,
increase or decrease their different between the two parties, but basically there's some agreement. The size matters at some level and you cannot faint based policy affecting things like it does our Israel policy, there are some he'd right wing nuts who believe Jesus can't come back unless the Palestinians are completely gone from Israel, so it affects the policy decisions that they make regarding Israel, maybe those very important stuff around people vote for those within represent them with those views. So jargon is really not with the politicians, but with your fellow countrymen. I took both Edwards completely with both in its on behalf of my fellow countrymen,
but I make certain that is the voice in person of Janine grow awful here. Listening to start talk, radio we'll be back after the break more about science and politics, and what goes on in Washington and my interview with republican representative Bob Walker marking the secrets of everything orbiting around it. Systematize noise weeks we Rebecca, starts work. Radio undergoes astrophysicist yielded restoration, we're talking about science, if made in Washington DC, with clips of my interview with representative Bob Walker twenty year representative from Pennsylvania.
And in studio with me is Janine? Grovel cut nobody any slight: it's not that mankind, you slack. What I am saying is is it's sort of I dont sort of understand where you're coming from our way that you are not really. You are the scientist. You're the astrophysics arms astrophysical you're, talking to a gentleman Agora grown adult he's telling you that the Bible it has the underpinnings of of of evolution. These work, you know he's not that he can this desirable, stop it stop it and start he was not in the Bible. Literally sounds like he was taken to pray literally to me, You were allowing him to do this. We find out so there's a lot of issues that show up and become that art that that have science technology involved in them stem cell research stood suicide. A governments want vaccinations backs against HPV. Which some people say what that means people should have more sex.
It is absurd, absurd, absurd again and I think your sex education be left more Saxon. Here's the fundamental problem with in the mainstream media they are in. All this nonsense. They they allow somebody who says if they have the hpv that people will have more sex or intelligent design is a theory that way you know me viable as if There are two sides to this: it is not or the bully and the anti bullying law. That is, no no no go areas undergoing law that they tried to pass recently in Michigan that the Republicans gutted, because they said you can Bali, if you really believe, there's a religious basis behind and the fertilized person hood fertilized Eggs person law that did not pass. Luckily, in Mississippi, saying a person of resource and just recently, as such As the egg is fertilized, it is a person and has the full rights of said persons, the cooperation of all the rights and freedoms of a corporation and person. They did.
Things are, are utterly absurd. Now they won't allow vitriol. They don't want birth control at these, so called religious convictions as they enter into politics, which they are not supposed to cause. There must be a separation of church and state by law. The they they model the process and they dumb down a segment of the society not a most interesting to me about whether the the freshly fertilized embryo is a person is at most abortions are spontaneous and they happen. Naturally, within the human body and most women's women who have such an abortion, never even know it because it happens in the first. My very calm is very, very cumbersome, in fact the biggest abortionist, if in fact, God responsible for what, on your body is, then, God it's an interesting and talked about the words again. Its anti choice is not pro life attendee choice because others, prologue people they loved guns and death penalty in war and torture and no social services. They they love and electrocuted fence for immigrants, Dang offer so there's nothin pro
I got over, they love the penalty and more war attack IRAN. If they let's find out about the future of America. I think Sciences is a fundamental dimension of what America needs to embrace and to appreciate and to be fact based as we go forward in my last clip with Bob Walker, after just what he thought, challenged America in the future and what role the prevailing g Oh political landscape played in that, let's find out, raising our challenge right now is competing with countries on the Pacific rim, in particular China. I think The whole issue of asymmetrical warfare is something There is certainly a challenge to our pre eminence we asymmetric warfare. Just remind me: that's a ritual warfare means that you're not faced off against a particular country. Your face, against movements that have the power The ability these days to attack you in a variety of different ways is primarily the home.
Terrorism, so let s state sponsored ass. I saw some of it not so understanding those kinds of challenges that we face even further what we can do is strengthen the economy to reflect twenty first century concerns yeah. Well, I don't think we in the twenty first century at well precisely one of the problems that we got is dead men the decisions that we make in government today and why which we organise. Government still reflects an economy that existed in the nineteen fifties and we had not yet adopt the tools of information, the business for instance, have that would allow us to govern and respond to economic challenges better. If we adopted twenty four, don't so we are undergoing a fundamental change than America needs to get ahead and we're not to add is that change brought. It because we have sunk so low because My sense of this is when I reviewed the space race- and I realized we didn't led anything
every decision we made in space, was react to something that we know what is going on in Russia, and so I can't then claim that we were leaders even if we ended up ahead. We ended up ahead only because we didn't want to bore behind, and so, is there every time we could just say: let's led the world just because that's a good thing to do. Rather, this leading because we're scared witless, because the Pacific rim is gonna, be eaten our watch. I think there are four revolutions taking place simultaneously. I think there's political revolution, there's an economic revolution, there's a technological revolution and there's a cultural revolution. All of the above I agree. We need to figure out how to understand that is a revolutionary period in how to adapt ourselves to the new circumstances, sharing and whack right, I'm not not. I don't know about, and what these NATO icing way- and I know this revolution in a good way, but it enlargement means developing energy policy that allows you to sustain the future with clean energy
it means that you can do it as some people ever want to do, shut down your ability to utilise energy, but you gotta do is figure out where new resource of energy as well. The reason why I've been for three years now proponent, of moving to a hydrogen economy is because It allows us to utilise a resource. That is, at least in theory. Unlimited no shortage of hydrogen in the universe, precisely no shortage of hydrogen in the universe journey. We do you want to take the future. You want everybody be have exactly your political view, going forward, and be grain, and I would be wonderful if not, but I'm certainly not not that I personally you gotta, be like me, but what are you saying like their run? What because I'm trying to tell me to tell you and I get it gets we very upset and very striking- is that some of- these issues are not debated
and we don't have the time to keep going through this nonsense arguments and to stay in the centre to pretend you're being journalistic. The objective is just as as much of a time waster and just as dire to me and you don't. The threats from outside of us are not our biggest threat? What's going, on inside this country is our biggest threat. We do need sustainable energy. We do need better public education. We do need infrastructure. We need to. Reform we need more revenue streams. United, we need, we need, occupies, page to resonate with people things have. Change. What you're saying is that of what if of your of your sense of the world is something that is not is not a deep political, angle is just what isn't should be native to everybody felt, or else justice, Social, because without a label to it, it is just social justice period exclamation upon dot dot
I gotta. Let me I need a twitter the week here. Let's see, what I got, I don't I'll say here's an interesting experiments next time. Someone asked you if your Democratic Republic in reply instead, You think for yourself about that non rather be a Democrat. I wish I d Democrats represented what I believe them accredit party to be, but I am a liberal Democrat very proud. You been listening to start talks, radio join next week for another addition, as we take you to the limits of science in culture, people look at it. Like Galileo job, the organs which you could listen. The star talk, commercial, free, joint startled, compatriot, for as little as five dollars per month and the ads will disappear. Learn more at patriarch dot com. Last star talk, radio
Transcript generated on 2020-01-25.