Everything Hitchens writes is true. In one of the primary debates Hillary used the throwaway phrase "the Bush administration's war on science," and I'm rather surprised Barak didn't pick up on the idea and develop it. But, for all its truth, let's not forget that the Democrats are capable of letting political ideology prevail over dispassionate science. The most conspicuous example, of course, is that of global warming: it is an article of Democratic faith that global warming is both real and man-made, probably because they regard this as congenial for implementing social policies they favor (and because it feeds the kind of self-flagellation so dear to the Liberal mentality), and scientists who have questioned either of these two tenets have been ridiculed, harassed, and accused of professional incompetence. Then again, for some reason I don't understand -- please, nobody try to enlighten me, I'm not especially interested -- gays take deep umbrage at any scientific speculation that homosexuality has a biological or genetic component. Again, God help the scientist who even wants to conduct research on this subject, it's politically off limits. And of course scientific research into differences between the races comes with its own special minefield. So, when it comes to the politicization of science,neither side exactly enjoys a monopoly.

dfs:

gays take deep umbrage at any scientific speculation that homosexuality has a biological or genetic component.

They do? I honestly don't think I've seen any such "umbrage," and you would think they would encourage such research to counter religiously-motivated claims that they have somehow chosen to be gay. Care to provide some examples?

(1) As for global warming is caused by humans or not, I've always perceived the Democratic position to be less an "article of faith" and more an "there's a lot of research to support it, so let's err on the side of caution and act as if it's human-caused." The consequences are so immense, prudence would appear to be the safer course.

(2) As for gays, like Lowell said, I've yet to see any great umbrage at the notion. If anything, anecdotal evidence strongly points to a biological factor - as with twin studies. Also, a biological basis would buttress legal arguments for gay equality.

(3) Race is a social construct. For scientists to research "differences," they would first need some quantifiable differentiating factor. I am "Black;" however, within the last four generations of my family, I have, in addition to my African ancestry, two Native American tribes, Irish, French, and English forebears. And I am not unusual among "Blacks." Moreover, what is "White?" Does it matter what percentage is Irish or French Huguenot or Italian or Lebanese? And so on...

The most conspicuous example, of course, is that of global warming: it is an article of Democratic faith that global warming is both real and man-made

If by "article of faith" you mean "provisional conclusion drawn by examination of evidence and in accordance with viable theories whose component elements have been repeatedly and independently verified," then maybe.

I don't know if this is about wanting to be "fair and balanced" or if it's just right wing projection, but the last item I'd list in the vast catalog of Democratic party flaws would be adherence to "left wing" ideology.

The right, of course, makes no apology about their "ideology," having effectively marketed it. But whither Coke without Pepsi to bash, right? So therefore their political opponents must ALSO be driven by ideology. Not, you know, facts or actual results. Heavens no.

There are ideologues everywhere, it's true, but it's ridiculous to claim parity between programs designed to find ways to "fix" gays the vast, overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made.

Praying away the gay is an explicit ideology. "Gay is bad, God said so, therefore it is good and righteous to fix the gay." That's the unapologetic radical straight agenda: turn everybody straight. As an aside, that's where there must, of course, MUST! be a "radical gay agenda" that wants to "turn everybody gay."

Global warming on the other hand is about predicting climate impact of human activities based on, you know, actual data. It so happens that the results are convenient for people who have a strong environmental ideology, but that does not mean that the science itself is motivated that ideology any more than epidemiology is driven by ideological agenda to blame things on microbes.

But here's the thing about global warming: facts matter. The earth is getting warmer or it is not (it is.) This will have a large scale disruptive impact or it won't (it will.)

Now, you can continue to argue against it on the basis that it's just a bunch of tree hugging hippie crap, but at the end of the day, someone is going to have to pay the bills for all that widespread disruption and those people are going to tend to be fiscally conservative big business CEOs of insurance companies. Republicans, in other words.

So, while we're all sitting around trying to culture up a nice vaccine to cure "teh gay," who do you think these rock-ribbed, no-nonsense, steady-hand-on-the-wheel, steely-eyed men of action are going to want to listen to when they're deciding how to underwrite drought insurance?

Will it be:

A) the 99% of the scientific community who can demonstrate to them the range of effects they can expect?

or

B) the Heritage Foundation think tank that says we won't have to worry about it because we're all gonna get raptured up before things get too bad?

Your point that science is being politicized to an agenda on both sides, probably has some forbearance. But using Global Warming as a means of allowing the Liberal agenda to forward social programs is akin to Creationists stating that Evolution is the agenda of Athiests trying to promote moral relativity. The facts on both issues present themselves loud and clear without any ancillary motivation. The Scientific Method has not prevailed for several centuries based on ulterior motivation. Some scientists have. But REAL Science is not in the business of projecting bias to complete a balanced equation.

As for looking at science to understand the nature of homosexuality, one only has to see the regularity in the frequency of statistical components to understand that something more than choice is at work in such behavior. The natural decision to follow up with this in experimenting with genetics is a logical course. I ,however, have my own "cogito ergo sum" component which stands the test of incorrigibility. I dare anyone to think of the exact moment they decided to become either hetero or gay. It is simply not a matter of conscious choice and thus stands apart from the nastiness of the concept of "sin".

I dare anyone to think of the exact moment they decided to become either hetero or gay.

Actually, if you did the research, you'd learn that the choice to be heterosexual is a decision that has to be actively made, every day, with the help of faith.

Yes, because you see, the temptation to be gay is all pervasive and constant. Without constant vigilance, the forces of gayness can overwhelm you at any moment.

That's why it takes prayer. Constant prayer. And the constant support of loved ones, family, clergy, the community, to keep all gay influence out.

Because the gay is persistent. You'll think it's gone. It might even disappear for weeks at a time. But don't let your guard down.

Why, you may even have good, Christian, procreative sex with your (oppositely gendered!) spouse once a month on the first for years...and years...and long, long, uh, blessed years and then on one trip to Vegas you find yourself blowing a Spanish choir dancer from Circ d'Soliel while he lays out monster rails of Peruvian blow on the nightstand.

What I'm saying is, faith can be a struggle sometimes. I guess.

"for some reason I don't understand -- please, nobody try to enlighten me, I'm not especially interested --"

nuff said

Well said, Arashi.

Also, in terms of umbrage from the first post, I think that term is a little strong. Concern might be a better phrase. But I do remember a discussion about the idea that homosexuality being predetermined genetically leading to a discussion on personal liberties, and some gay rights advocates said that excusing it by way of genetics was like classifying it as a handicap, and some folks might look for a test and a "cure" for homosexuality. Their position was that you should be free to chose who you sleep with, full stop, without requiring a justification through medical research. If you had two sons, and one had the genetic disposition for homosexuality and was openly gay, and the other one had the genetic disposition for heterosexualtiy but slept with guys too, would you say that the second one was wrong for his choices, etc.

Faith is overrated and the crutch that one uses when the facts are not appealing. I have been hetero all of my life. I have been an atheist for all but the 1st 12 years. Never once have I appealed to faith for anything..... I'm still hetero. How's that work for you?

And just to weird everyone out, here is a little snippet from the Kuwait Times, June 3.

Committee Spokesman Muhammad Hayef Rebuts: "Gays and Lesbians Need Special Treatment for Their Hormones; By Raising the Subject, We Are Actually Helping Them, Not Harming Them"

The extensive criticism against the committee evoked responses by its members. Dr. Walid Al-Tabtabai called the criticism of the committee "inexplicable," stating that the committee had been appointed "to study negative phenomena in [Kuwaiti] society – such as drug addiction and violence – which undermine national unity [and] security as well as our traditions and norms."(8) About Star Academy, Al-Tabtabai said that "the recruitment of youth for a program that destroys morals and fights our [Islamic] values is no less bad and dangerous than recruiting them for terrorism or for peddling drugs."(9)

Committee spokesman Muhammad Hayef stressed that the committee was working for the benefit of Kuwaiti society, saying: "For example, gays and lesbians need special treatment for their hormones, and by raising the subject we are actually helping them and not harming them..." He added: "If some people think that drug abuse, homosexuality, and juvenile crimes are not negative [phenomena], that's their business."(10)