Politics and Science Often Don't Mix
Political debate is always a great thing, but sometimes it's not. I know that this page, and its new direction, could stir even more political debate than the page that existed before this. Not to say that politics aren't going to come up in the blogs in snarky comments here and there, but not often. Therefore, let me get it out of the way early: Where I stand politically is where the atom stands politically. The atom with an excess of electrons allows an atom with a deficiency of electrons to bond with it, thus sharing the excess of electrons with the needy atom. From this, fantastic things are made, and without this, we wouldn't be here to talk about politics, or anything else for that matter. When a neutron gets health insurance, he's never charged. When something is red, it's getting farther away, and when it's blue, you're getting closer. And much like a hydrogen atom who's lost its electron, in times of loss, always remain positive. You could also sum it up with Spock's last words, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." I prefer to call it Atomacy or Atomicism, but you would also be right in calling me a bleeding-heart, liberal secular progressive. That said, my political beliefs have nothing to do with my love and respect for science. If empirical, double-blind evidence, having perfectly conformed to the self-correcting scientific method, were to turn up tomorrow stating that welfare was somehow bad for our species overall, I would go where the evidence takes me. A true scientist has no bias when speaking of matters of facts and/or evidence. A bad example, but it stands. Politically, I am an Atomist, and yes, I do think it was a clever observation.