| Should the Democratic party split into two: Real Democrats and Political Democrats?
"But on December 17, 2007 - a date that scientists quickly dubbed 'Black Monday' - Congress unexpectedly slashed funding for the ILC [International Linear Collider] and NOvA [to be a neutrino detector in Minnesota] throwing the entire future of American physics into doubt."...talking about president Bush's promises along with Congress to increase funding for physical sciences ... " excised $88 million from the U.S Department of Energy's funding for high-energy physics"..."Congress eliminated the $160 million U.S contribution to ITER" ... "Fermilab director Pier Oddone announced that the lab would need to lay off 200 employees" ... "but the sudden cutoff in funding reduces the chances that the machine [the ILC] will be built on U.S soil".
What happened to the Democrat-majority Congress? For those who don't know, the Large Hadron Collider is soon due to go online. In Europe. Why would the Democratic party abandon its scientific base? Europe's getting ahead, and we're falling behind!
Why Boo to science and Yay to guns? What would Reagan do? I thought he was pro-science and engineering. How many grass-root Democrats are Democrats mainly because Democrats should be more likely to support science? Is this how we decay? Our economy stagnates, we take massive loans, research takes a back seat, and other countries rise in our wake? Has becoming a legislative majority weakened the Democratic party itself? Is that why have these unfilled promises?
|