Ah, I now see Ouelette's article was prompted by the release of the film "The Believers".
Sorry, but when I see SciAm cited, I find myself unmotivated to read the article. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I had hoped to head off your erroneous suggestion by including my > Democratic affiliation at the time I first notice SciAm's political bias. > > Your comment is true but suggests that I was directing my comment toward > Democrats rather than toward "Scientific American"'s political bias toward > the Democratic Party. Moreover, it was directed at SciAm's choice to put > out this hit piece just as we're staring down the barrel of an election. > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> "The Scientific American" has been, for at least 25 years, little more >>> than "The Scientific Democrat". In other words, it is politics posing as >>> science. >> >> >> Let's not suggest that Democrats are more likely to politicize science >> than Republicans. The Republicans are leading the charge to teach >> Creationism instead of biology, and to deny global warming, the Big Bang >> theory and just about everything else that conflicts with Fundamentalist >> Christianity. >> >> Public opinion surveys show that Democrats are more open to things like >> evolution than Republicans. >> >> Old school Republicans, such as Richard Nixon in the 1960s, would never >> in a million years have denied that evolution, vaccinations or climate >> science are valid. Nixon was more of an environmentalist than Clinton or >> Obama could ever afford to be. >> >> Anyway, the problems with cold fusion are not caused by politicians. They >> are caused by academic scientists. Especially people such as Park, Garwin, >> the editors of Sci. Am. and now Ouellette -- making a name for herself, >> no doubt. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
