I find myself increasingly disturbed by the partisan squabbling taking place on this list, and in American politics in general.  It seems to reflect a growing polarization in all aspects of our life.  Everyone, it seems, chooses sides, then tenaciously filters all input and output through the colored lens that corresponds to that choice.  Thus, Denys posts links to two very thought-provoking articles about the problems of orthodoxy in scientific research and publication, and because we all know Denys is a Republican, some of the Democrats among us seem to want to dismiss or discredit the premise.  I read both the Crichton and the Tipler articles, and I failed to see how either of them is partisan in nature.  While Michael Chrichton's comments about global warming might be construed as "right wing," he didn't really dismiss global warming theory as incorrect.  He simply pointed out that honest inquiry into the question is being inhibited by the pressure to conform to the expected conclusions.  Whether you believe global warming is a human artifact or not, it should bother you that unbiased scientific inquiry is becoming more difficult.  

This morning's exchange between Brice and Wirt is another example.  Although I find myself disagreeing with Brice on political issues more than I agree with him, I do not see a reason for cheap shots.  In defense of Wirt, I think he was mostly trying to be funny and couldn't resist a tantalizing "straight line", but that "humor" was at Brice's expense and seemed mean-spirited.  To add fuel to the fire, comments such as "typical Republican" are far from helpful.

I have some news for everyone.  The world is not as black and white as many seem to believe.  All members of the political party with which you are affiliated are not always right in all matters.  Members of the other party are not all evil, stupid, misguided, dishonest, wrong-headed, etc.  Religion need not be limited to a choice between strict, fundamentalist biblical literalism and atheism.  It is possible to agree with a stated goal or policy, while disagreeing with the means of pursuing that policy.  People who disagree with you on an issue need not be regarded as your enemy.  If you would randomly pick any two people on the planet, you would find that they agree on some issues and disagree on others.  It is possible, even desirable, to express opinions and argue those positions without name calling and sniping.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *