Joe Biden Promotes 'Science Advisor' to US Cabinet-Level Position (apnews.com) 146
"President-elect Joe Biden announced Friday that he has chosen a pioneer in mapping the human genome — the so-called 'book of life' — to be his chief science adviser," reports the Associated Press, "and is elevating the top science job to a Cabinet position."
Biden nominated Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, who was the lead author of the first paper announcing the details of the human genome, as director of Office of Science and Technology Policy and adviser on science. He is the first life scientist to have that job. His predecessor is a meteorologist.
Saying "science will always be at the forefront of my administration," Biden said he is boosting the science advisor post to Cabinet level, a first in White House history.... "Elevating (the science adviser) role to member in the President's Cabinet clearly signals the administration's intent to involve scientific expertise in every policy discussion," said Sudip Parikh, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society.
Saying "science will always be at the forefront of my administration," Biden said he is boosting the science advisor post to Cabinet level, a first in White House history.... "Elevating (the science adviser) role to member in the President's Cabinet clearly signals the administration's intent to involve scientific expertise in every policy discussion," said Sudip Parikh, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society.
Promote space? (Score:2)
So will he promote space science or will he trash the Artemis program?
Re: (Score:2)
Promoting space science IS calling an immediate halt to the SLS.
Re:Promote space? (Score:5, Interesting)
stealing tech? you're hilarious, the U.S. went to moon on stolen tech and stolen brains of the goosestepping sort.
China and then India will pass up the USA in everything (wealth, power, tech), don't be amazed when it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
as aside the snowflakes who made slashdots lameness filter are blocking the n word (for certain German political party )
Re: (Score:2)
So you wan to make two stupid idiotic claims?
China goes for political reasons to the Moon? Sorry, that does not make any sense. What would be the political gain?
China is technology wise behind the USA from 1960-1969? Seriously?
Landing probes on the Moon is a far cry from landing humans on the Moon.
Actually: it is the exact same thing.
This is a return, not a new thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
For reference, there's been several forms of science advice, both for congress and the executive. Specifically for this role:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's an interesting history - Nixon just did away with the position, Trump assigned a meteorologist (yes, literally a weather man to stop climate change talk), and FDR started it.
Congress, similarly, has drastically reduced its science advice in conservative terms.
It'll be refreshing to see a more public role for non-industry scientists in public discourse for a while at least.
Ryan Fenton
Re:This is a return, not a new thing. (Score:4, Informative)
"Trump assigned a meteorologist (yes, literally a weather man to stop climate change talk),'
Ehhh, I met the guy and a good friend of mine worked with him. He's not a real climate change denier, though he's further to the "still a lot of uncertainties" side than I personally like. He also recently fired climate change denying sleazeballs David Legates and Ryan Maue from OSTP once the Trump admin got distracted by the whole sedition thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is arguable that the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services is a cabinet level position representing science. Obama used Secretary of Energy in this capacity.
However, the general scientific advisor role that has been in place via OSTP and originally OSRD as you point out has never been a cabinet position. This is not a return, but something new (never mind that the position isn't vacant right now).
I worked as a scientist inside the government during the Obama administration, when OSTP was ful
Which science? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to ask because this is political, which version of "science" are we talking about here? The one where you can't question it? The one that's infallible? Or the one where we incorporate new data into our model and admit what we tried didn't work?
The latter is uniquely difficult for politicians and politics in general because it would include admitting fault, whereas the former is more of a religion and thus attractive to those looking to build their following.
Re:Which science? (Score:5, Insightful)
The science that demands extraordinary evidence if you want to make extraordinary claims. You can believe anything you want in science, but if you want to tell almost everyone else they're wrong you bear a heightened burden of proof. That's how anthropogenic climate change became a theory. In the early 20th century it was believed to be impossible for several good reasons, and people who disagreed with those reasons took them down, one by one.
Just because *you* can't bear that burden doesn't mean people are being closed-minded, any more than a umpire is being unfair if you run half way to the pitcher's mound and back and call it a home run.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're presuming my position. Both parties have issues with science, and tend to treat it more as a religion, just depends on the subject.
Creating a cabinet post is...good? My concern is that it'll be used to bash anyone who dare question the state narrative. Again; both parties would play this game, so don't jump to any conclusion.
Re:Which science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... If I said that physicists do not want you to know that gravity is caused by fairy dust, that is not science.
Well, duh. Everyone knows that anti-gravity is caused by fairy dust.
Sheesh
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, duh. Everyone knows that anti-gravity is caused by fairy dust."
Think happy thoughts!
Re: (Score:3)
And you said it best here: "Presenting opposing evidence is what happens in science". TRUE Scott^W scientists will append "... but more study is needed" to any sentence they utter, because they're right. "Here is what we currently know and think but more infor
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way, if you think about controlling the narrative and squelching information doesn't occasionally occur in science, you need to keep on reading
My point is there is no "controlling the narrative". That implies that science is about stories and who gets to tell them. Also "squelching information" does not mean that the majority of science must acknowledge and recognize every idea.
For a recent case, I suggest you read about the great and instant acceptance of Benoit Mandelbrot. NOT the later ones describing all of the awards, but the early ones where he was ridiculed by his peers.
What part of that was either squelching or controlling the narrative. He presented his ideas; they disagreed with him; they were wrong. And your point is?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as we used to say if you make something idiot-proof, nature will come up with a better idiot. But the potential abuse of a thing doesn't mean it's not a good idea. The US is about 5% of the world, but it is preeminent in world and economic affairs. That preeminence is in no part dependent upon our technological and scientific prowess, which nobody should take for granted. We're not all that much larger than Indonesia or Pakistan.
As always, look at the details. This guy has serious science and sci
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you people getting that?
The climate is changing, yes. Humanity is largely responsible for that, yes. Pollution is bad, yes. We should pursue clean energy solutions, yes.
Knowing that, does it change how you understand what I previously wrote? If the answer is yes, the problem isn't on my end.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There are all kinds of psychiatric conditions where the sufferer feels their body does not match the image people have in their heads on how they should look. There are people with two arms that believe they should only have one. Do we feed into this delusion with surgical removal of an arm? If a surgeon did remove an arm over this then I suspect that they'd shortly lose their license to practice medicine. If a man comes to a surgeon and claims their genitals are somehow "wrong" and should be removed th
Re: (Score:2)
I took a quick look at the man's credentials. He's spent his entire life doing real science, and actually has a pretty broad background not just in generics, but economics, math, and coding theory. Yes, at his level, he's also now involved in some political games. That's part of life and working with other people in a large organization. Now he's stepping into the deep end of politics. But as far as I can tell, his "real science" credentials are beyond reproach - the kind that actually investigates the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what we need in this country: science leadership that engenders trust in the sciences.
People trust science just fine. What people distrust is the government. People will distrust scientists that work for the government because the government has used the veneer of science to hide lies to us before.
The one thing I'd be afraid of is a 'scientist' who politicizes things.
If the scientist works for the government then it is their job to politicize things. If you want politics out of science then don't take science from politicians. As soon as a scientist is hired by the government they become a politician. They might not lie overtly but they will have to play t
Re: (Score:2)
Here, I got something for you, just repeat this when you start making up "integrity issues"
"I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
I will face my fear.
I will let it pass through me.
When the fear has gone,
there shall be nothing.
Only I will remain."
Re: Which science? (Score:2)
What are you? 13?
Fear is a useful tool.
You do not ignore it.
That is weak and children. As are mantras in general.
You learn to use what it tells you, make the best of it, and stay in control.
And accept that there is a use in losing control, panicing, amd running away too, that nature created for a reason, and that you can opt in to use when advantageous. Because it isn't always not.
Re: (Score:3)
Fear is an instinctive animal reaction to stimulation of the amygdala, which is also operative in anxiety disorders [nih.gov]
People make poor decisions while in a state of fear [psu.edu]
People are easily manipulated when in a state of fear [psychologytoday.com]
So yeah, fear may come in handy if a pack of wolves are pacing me through the forest as I make my way to grandma's house, but in day to day life, and particularly in long term decisions... not so much
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, I can't exactly speak for the man's integrity. But he doesn't strike me as the type to be used as a figurehead to push some agenda he doesn't believe in. There's really nothing much we can do but wait and see, of course. If we see him suddenly resign for vague reasons, that's a signal that perhaps he's not being listened to. If he's been *asked* to resign, then it's a signal that he'll telling the POTUS things he perhaps doesn't want to hear, or not playing along with something as requested.
As
Re: Which science? (Score:2)
Which science? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense science, of course. Because, if you don't agree with that, there must be something wrong with you.
Re: Which science? (Score:2)
Common to whom? Those who believe in argumentum ad populum over using science? :D
The latter (Score:2)
Re: The latter (Score:2)
Raise education and research budgets. Massively. And take the money from harm-creating industries that cause traumata and suffering. (Like warmongering or fossil fuel mining or fetanyl making, for lack of better examples.)
Then make sure that stays stable until those people graduate and shape the political climate. (Them going "Dad, I won't have your bullshit anymore!" like Greta Thunberg, suffices. Because the most powerful person on the planet is not the US president, but the president's screaming young ch
Re: (Score:2)
Raise education and research budgets.
If you want good science, education, and research then drive government funding of these to zero.
I was taking a history course at a publicly funded university, a course on modern European history to be more precise. In this course we covered the time before, during, and after World War Two. In a lecture on pre-war Germany the professor pointed to government indoctrination of children towards being accepting of the government killing off the invalid, the mentally inept, and those of certain ethnic backgrou
Re: (Score:3)
I have to ask because this is political, which version of "science" are we talking about here? The one where you can't question it? The one that's infallible?
Nice ad hominem disguised as an real question.
Why don't you go and find out about the appointee before posting your time-wasting rhetoric?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure its going to be the soothsayer variety.
Re: (Score:2)
The former is also disturbingly prevalent among those who claim to be "science and fact based".
he sould do the same (Score:2)
Re: he sould do the same (Score:2)
Hello, my dear Ferengi.
Hint: Money just exists as a means. A tool. Never a goal in itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello, my dear Ferengi.
H Ross Perot is going to make a comeback? That's no longer physically possible.
This seems to be pretty broken (Score:3)
There are numerous sciences, and even a top scientist in one area has only limited and often no scientific insight into other fields. Unless the idea is to just have "science" in there on the level any educated and smart person can do? That would be an admission that politicians do not count as "educated and smart".
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read up on the man’s credentials. The process of science is the same regardless of the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
But most cabinet positions represent rather large federal departments. Giving them a ready-made staff of domain experts. I would expect the Cabinet science adviser to do the same. But that assumes either the creation of a Department of Science. Or this person is going to pick through the reports and studies produced by the staffs of other organizations. Now you have two chains of reporting, so to speak. And a lot of ill feelings when the science chair conflicts with the direct department head member.
Re: (Score:2)
National Laboratories, institutes, research universities, science based offices (NOAA) and various science departments all over the government.
They could use 1 person representing all of them. We've had a science advisor for a long time; hopefully, this allows them to do more than just giving advice.
Like reducing the grant $ begging and start doing some serious honest investment in R&D.
Re: (Score:2)
hopefully, this allows them to do more than just giving advice.
That's mostly what current Cabinet members do. They also run their departments, carrying out policies of the administration. But since we don't have a Federal Science Administration, that would leave this new post to step on the toes of the Department of Commerce (parent organization of NOAA) and all the other departments.
I think you'd find working someplace like NOAA to be pretty miserable if you had two bosses.
Re: (Score:2)
The process of science is the same regardless of the subject.
Very much not as soon as you get to real-world science. Many people make that mistake, even many scientists.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FYI, I would take my high school science teacher (really nice guy, pretty patient, but not MacArthur grant material) over ANYBODY who measures their strength by their ability to believe tribal nonsense written down over the past few thousand years.
Re: (Score:2)
A good high-school science teacher may be one of the best approximations to a "general scientist" we have today, no argument.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this different than any other cabinet position? The Secretary of Energy, for example, is not expected to know everything about coal and nuclear energy simultaneously. By your position, no one could ever have a cabinet post. Secretary of Defense must know how to operate every vehicle in the US military; Secretary of the Interior knows every hiking trail in every national park.
Unlike Trump’s Secretary, Rick Perry, this candidate has a background in the field. That alone is a step up.
Re: (Score:2)
What I am saying is that there should be a council of science advisors that sort-of share that position and that cover most fields at least by being in neighboring ones.
Re: (Score:2)
What I am saying is that there should be a council of science advisors that sort-of share that position and that cover most fields at least by being in neighboring ones.
There already is. This position is the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy [wikipedia.org] which is an entire department to advise the President on scientific matters. Like US Surgeon General, Secretary of Defense, etc this top position is present one voice for a broad topic rather than multiple voices. The President can certainly ask lower members of these departments for advice and information.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike Trumpâ(TM)s Secretary, Rick Perry, this candidate has a background in the field. That alone is a step up.
Rick Perry studied animal science while attending Texas A&M. I'd say that makes him a far better expert in bovine excrement than anyone in the cabinet, and therefore highly qualified to lead any cabinet level department.
Seriously though any secretary in the US Cabinet should be an excellent manager to lead a department. I don't much care if the Secretary of Energy is a scientist since the secretary isn't going to be doing any science. I'd prefer that they had some science background, since part of th
Re: (Score:2)
Rick Perry studied animal science while attending Texas A&M. I'd say that makes him a far better expert in bovine excrement than anyone in the cabinet, and therefore highly qualified to lead any cabinet level department.
What are you smoking? Animal science != energy.
Animal science is a science, even though people liked to joke about his taking a class on "meat" I'm certain his education involved more science than that.
How is animal science related to energy? It is not.
Perry attained the rank of captain in the US Air Force, that shows some leadership. There was one other thing... oh, right, he was governor of one of the largest and most populous states in the USA. A state that happens to produce a lot of energy from wind, solar, coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, and likely even energy from bovine excrement.
And what does that have to do with energy again? Absolutely nothing. You keep missing this point.
Seriously though any secretary in the US Cabinet should be an excellent manager to lead a department. I don't much care if the Secretary of Energy is a scientist since the secretary isn't going to be doing any science.
Who said the Secretary of Energy must do science? The Secretary of any department must have some rudimentary knowledge about the department. Perry wanted to disband the department and he didn't know what it did.
I don't know how well Perry did as Energy Secretary. I can recall his name coming up several times in the news over his efforts to dispose of some of the nuclear waste from nuclear power. That alone makes me believe he's done at least a half decent job. Given that the mandate of the Department of Energy includes getting the USA to energy independence, and that happened while Perry was at the helm, then that likely makes him the best secretary the department has seen yet.
Ummm. Disposing nuclear waste has always been part of his job. That's like praising the Secretary of Defe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This seems to be pretty broken (Score:4, Informative)
Well, as I have an engineering PhD, I have to contest that statement about engineers. In fact, engineers are generally more suitable to understand results (!) from other fields as they need to use results from them all the time. That does not at all mean engineers would be better at obtaining these results. But ask what a scientific result means in the real world and what you can do with it and you want a real good engineer to answer that question, not a scientist from the field the result was found in.
But my actual point (apparently misunderstood by almost everybody) was that there should be a council of scientists (including at least one engineering scientist) filling that position.
Re: (Score:2)
No your brain is broken, a person of science can gather experts in any particular field. This isn't a "science czar" who is going to be the king of U.S. science. This is a person who knows how science, its processes. and the scientific method works.
Re: (Score:2)
No your brain is broken, a person of science can gather experts in any particular field. This isn't a "science czar" who is going to be the king of U.S. science. This is a person who knows how science, its processes. and the scientific method works.
I see you still understand nothing. I am a scientist and I _know_ what you just said to be fundamentally wrong. Methods, approaches, established facts, etc. are different in different sciences, often fundamentally so. Sure, in theory a really good scientist can get to understand any field, given, say, 5...20 years full-time for each one. Science is hard and details do matter.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking out of your ass and in ignorance. The cabinet position isn't to do science nor to understand all science.
Go clean your beakers, "scientist".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not necessarily a valid point of view. World-class and world-renouned opera singer Luciano Pavarotti cannot read music, therefore can't sight-sing, did you know that? He has to have a lesser singer sing arias for him so he can learn them. Doesn't mean Pavarotti can't do the job though.
Indeed. But give him a harp and he is back to an ordinary person.
Great Teacher (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no one "science". (Score:3)
Should not every cabinet level department have a bunch of science advisors? And therefore the President have the ability to call on them as needed? I'd think the NOAA would have meteorologists and oceanologists (or whatever they are called). Then the Department of the Interior would have ecologists, the Department of Commerce would have economists. The Department of Defense has military scientists. The White House should have scientists coming out of their ears to help in setting good government policy.
Where the problem comes in is when you have one science rule over all. A virologist might have a good idea on how to stop the spread of disease but the nation can't just stop everything to fight a virus. You need economists to come in to advise on how keeping people from working will affect the ability of the people to pay their bills. You need the military scientists to address issues of national security. All of this needs to be balanced to get good policy or you have the end of a pandemic at the cost of the end of the economy.
I can see a need for a "shortcut" for the president to access his own science advisors outside of the cabinet level departments, but this should not be a single person. There will have to be a single person in charge of the "department of science advisors" but the science advisors need to have a diverse background of sciences or you get bad policy.
I have to wonder if this science advisor should have a doctorate in anything. Not because we don't need smart people advising the president. I say this because someone with a doctorate in astrophysics might be really educated in how stars form but know next to nothing about lead might leach into a municipal water system. The science advisor should have a broad base of knowledge and then have at hand people who are specialists in a number of fields.
So, Biden picks a geneticist as the top science advisor. I'm sure he's a very intelligent person but how does a geneticist add to the science advice the president would get? Will this geneticist have other scientists to fill in where his scientific knowledge lacks? I'm skeptical that this is some improvement in the scientific basis of leadership we will be getting in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure beats the meteorologist that Trump hired.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure beats the meteorologist that Trump hired.
How?
I don't know who the meteorologist was, what he or she said, or how this meteorologist impacted public policy. Don't take the question as some partisan trick question, it isn't, I simply don't know who the science advisor was or what the person did.
I have no doubt the last science advisors are losing their jobs because the next president will went his own people advising him. I would hope science could be free enough from politics that a good scientist should be able to advise any president. I also k
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A person of science would know how to tap experts in the field, this is leaps and bounds over what we've had up to now.
Who is the new Science Advisor? (Score:2)
What happens when 2024 Trump puts an idiot? (Score:2)
What happens when Trump or his kid comes back in 2024 and puts in the MyPillow guy to be the science advisor?
Need a Psychological Adviser (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How will the paid trolls and shills here at slashdot put a negative spin on this? -FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
I really wonder who is spending money to pay people here. The audience is practically zero compared to big places like reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How (Score:2)
Oh kids. Nobody pays their trolls anymore.
You pay to turn them into *believers*, and then they do it for free until death.
Ditto with lobbyist-politicians. Bribery is two generations of lobbyism out of dare.
s/dare/date/ (Score:2)
Slashdot! how dare you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that the enemies of the United States would like nothing better than to have multiple sources of authority sitting in the Cabinet. Each providing their own, possibly conflicting, view on topics under consideration.
For example, what do you do if the Department of Energy makes one recommendation on renewable energy but your science adviser reaches a different, possibly opposite viewpoint?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, what do you do if the Department of Energy makes one recommendation on renewable energy but your science adviser reaches a different, possibly opposite viewpoint?
Get a third opinion? Use your best judgement? Fake an illness and put the VP in charge?
When it comes to energy policy there's a short list of things needed for an energy source to power a national economy. Perhaps first among them is to be cheap. If energy costs too much then it's just going to drag the economy down. The energy source has to be abundant, which is another way of saying it is cheap. The energy source has to be reliable, which also means cheap. The energy source has to be safe, because
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of good technical arguments. But you are missing my point. If you have two people responsible for making policy recommendations and they disagree, you end up with a pissing match. Somebody goes away mad or in a funk when the other one 'wins'. If that happens often enough, you've got a dysfunctional cabinet. In truth, what you'll have is everyone at the head of an actual department ganging up on the person that they perceive to be butting in to their business.
If Biden can't get the science reported cor
Re:How (Score:5, Insightful)
Where "enemies of the United States" includes a number of ultra-wealthy people who are US citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking the bait ...
I'd argue the choice appears to have been largely made by a virus and by populism, knowing how important the DNS is in fighting COVID19 and how much of a PR stunt it is to have picked "the guy who wrote the book of life and human DNS" in a time such as this. A guy who untangled a DNS string could be useful in untangling political strings, but might lack the diverse knowledge needed to represent all of science, and it may not have been a very scientific choice or a choice in favour of scie
Re: How (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My bad, it's from my time in Germany where it's spelled DNS and not DNA. Thanks for noticing it!
Re: (Score:2)
Will the geniuses here at slashdot put a negative spin on this?
No, I've been pulling for a Cabinet-level science/tech position for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know, but it's sure going to trigger the herp-derping creatards. Worth it just for that.
Note that it's never the creationists you see chaining themselves to construction equipment. It's that other set of anti-science derptards.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let the lack of reaction stop you in yours, Come on, man, you are embarrassing yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad day when we have to be grateful that someone in the administration actually did their job and did not take part in an insurrection.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
imo, pence is still culpable for enabling trump to run amok because pence was getting the judicial appointments that his tribe wants.
At this point, pence is just trying to set up his own "thought foundation" and cannot afford to be drug down any more by trump, because there are no more judges in the pay off.
Between that and the flaccid deployment of the covid vaccines (first they are holding 2nd dose in reserve, then they are going to release them all, then they find out that they already released them all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I am glad he did his job. You did include the term "respect", and I have a hard time "respecting" somebody for meeting that low bar only AFTER he has poisoned the well of US judicial rulings for decades with low-quality judges that were brought up solely for the membership in an activist organization.
But yeah, thank you mike pence
Re:How (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no respect is deserved. What was he doing when the alleged president caused those children to be separated from their parents at the border? Somehow his Christian Ethics found it could willfully look away and not be bothered.
When the alleged president claimed there were good people on the part of the mob in Charlottesville as a dog whistle to the White Supremos, Pence's Christian Ethics managed to do a bunk.
When the alleged president was foisting obvious lies about the last election, Pence's Christian Ethics looked in Bible, saw the 10 commandments and decided they didn't apply.
When the alleged president attempted to get Georgia officials to somehow find him enough votes to win the state (after recounts and voter investigations found the results accurate), Pence remained silent because he saw nothing wrong with the illicit attempt.
When the alleged president found himself a prosperity preacher to be his "spiritual advisor", Pence found nothing wrong because apparently Jesus wants everyone to be rich by siphoning money off the unsuspecting faithful.
When the alleged president trashed NATO, Pence found that trashing NATO was not against his politics per se.
When the alleged president stonewalled getting information to the Biden team to take over, Pence found nothing wrong in that, it was just, y'know, something he couldn't possibly take a stand upon.
When the alleged president leaned on the CDC to make him and his alleged administration, and by implication, Pence, look better in the SARS-CoV-2 disaster, he found that that didn't violate his ethics.
When the alleged president put him in charge of the SARS-CoV-2 response, Pence found that doing nothing and letting the medical workers go without PPE was definitely part of a reasoned response.
When the country finds itself way behind in planning for the immunization, Pence found nothing wrong with having not planned even though he was head the response team.
Now that close to 400,000 people in the U.S. have died from the crisis he was charged with managing, we hear not a peep from him over his failure or even a glimmer of empathy for the people who died and many more who will suffer from symptoms that will not easily go away.
Pence deserves no token of respect. He's simply the more silent face of the alleged president.
Re: (Score:2)
Great summary, but you could have easily gone on for about 20-30 more graphs.
Not that any of it would matter to any Trump supporter, all eager to believe any lie no matter how egregious if doing so "supports" their leader.
Some people never face facts (Score:2)
and it's not always who you think it is. Oh, and it's interesting to see you call Trump the "alleged president"; he is the ACTUAL president, unless you are endorsing the idea that it's totally ok to question the legitimacy of an election and the president resulting from it...
The kids in cages photo used to fuel the whole "evil Trump separates families" meme was, as even the leftists at Politifact admit [politifact.com], from 2014, meaning the kids separated were under Obama and in Obama's cages - it was the year before Trum
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he can explain how boys can become girls just by wishing it.
That would be an interesting lecture.
{Thomas Dolby voice}Science!{/Thomas Dolby voice}
Maybe science can provide a definition of "man" and "woman" in a way that can be measured or observed definitively. Oh, wait, it did. It seems that there is no science that allows a boy to become a girl. Then we get people that claim a person was always a boy or girl from the start but we merely "discovered" the error later in life. That again gets back to defining boy/girl, man/woman, and male/female, in ways that can be measured or observed scientifically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of those people who claim that homosexuality is a mental illness, then? Much research over many decades beg to differ.
What does homosexuality have to do with a scientific definition of male and female?
Is it too much to ask for a scientific definition of male and female? Defined in a way that is observable and measurable?
Homosexuality has nothing to do with these definitions. If we are to define homosexuality then we have to have more than one defined sex. Heterosexual is a term that assumes two distinct sexes. What are those two sexes? How can we determine if a person is one sex or the other?
The word "lesbian" means n
Re: lol (Score:3)
I can do that:
If boys wish hard enough... their neurotransmitter and hormone levels change aka their emotions become very intense, drowning their rational thought. This naturally leads to them behaving like women.
*ducks* :D
On a more rational thought, I figure it leads them to seek out different foods that wreck their hormones ... like soy. And grow estrogen-creating fat while avoiding testosteron-creating muscles ... until they grow mantits and pass a point of no return, decide to cut off their balls and th
Re: (Score:2)
Xhi blinded me - with science!