Tuesday, December 13, 2016
American Physical Society decides it is appropriate to enter the partisan politics arena.
Dear APS Member,
In the wake of our recent U.S. election, we believe that it is timely for us to reiterate that the American Physical Society remains unwavering in its commitment to full participation by everyone — regardless of age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, or political affiliation — to ensure that our discipline as well as our Society thrives.
We believe that the values that advance the physical sciences necessarily include open scientific discourse, free from discrimination and harassment, and a willingness to consider diverse points of view. We also maintain that our meetings, laboratories, and classrooms must be safe, collaborative environments that promote a collegial and inclusive atmosphere. The diversity of backgrounds that exists throughout the APS membership and the open dialogue fostered by APS journals and meetings are among our greatest strengths.
The Society has spent decades developing and advancing programs that support these values. APS values are embodied in our Statements and our Code of Conduct. They are evident in our advocacy for robust, diverse research programs within the U.S. and abroad. They are supported by our commitment to STEM education and broad science literacy.
APS will work with its members and the international scientific community to ensure that the core values of our Society and our discipline are maintained and advanced, and we will work to transmit to the incoming administration and Congress an understanding of the critical importance these values have for our members and the physics community worldwide.
With best regards,
Homer A. Neal
Homer A. Neal
2016 APS President
Kate P. Kirby
Kate P. Kirby
APS Chief Executive Officer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
At least they were not as blatant as Bill Goldstein at LLNL.
Fools popping off as if their own personal point of view has exclusive ownership of goodness and success.
The least attractive element of their nannying effluvia is neither the fear they display, nor their superior smugness, but it is the bigotry they display toward their neighbors, not in their own political alliance, who display other, traditional values and cultural norms.
Glad to see these lightweights retire from the scene.
Lots of fat to cut in government funded programs while draining the swamp. The liberal political arm of science should be both weaker politically, more focused on physics, and free of fear. Entitled elites are neither.
The Good Book says it better than these two. Authentic. Universal.
Dear Homer A. Neal and Kate P. Kirby,
Just wanted to take this opportunity to remind you not to misappropriate Society funds for your own personal use; that won't be tolerated. Also note that it is unethical to falsify research results, which also won't be tolerated. We've all worked really hard on these standards of behavior, and now is no time for back-sliding.
Not saying you have or would do these things, just reminding you.
Sure, if I had specific information about misuse of funds or falsification of research, maybe it would be better to take that to an appropriate investigative office for appropriate action. But it so much easier to just blast out vague remonstrances without evidence of wrong-doing, while avoiding saying what I'm actually trying to say. Peace and Love.
In their little list of friends and jolly good behaviors, they left out persons of differing world views, tolerating contrary motivations, and those who embrace faith. Seems bigoted. Narrow. Intolerant of different views. Old fashioned 60s entitled scolding zealotry. How retro.
I finished with downloading SIPR emails to my home server, now When can I start grabbing some...
What exactly is political about the statement? Please point this out.
I think if you don't already see what everyone else sees in the statement, then no amount of explaining will help you see it.
What exactly is political about the statement? Please point this out.
December 14, 2016 at 4:42 AM
There is nothing political about this statement, wanting human decency, respect,
equality and safety in this dangerous time is not political it is the right thing to do morally.
^^Typical liberal obfuscation, that is a lot more transparent than it used to be.
December 14, 2016 at 6:29 AM
Still waiting for you to point out where this statement is political.
In science, if you make a claim, it is your job to prove it. So please, show it to me.
"in this dangerous time"
December 14, 2016 at 7:27 AM
Translation: since the election was won by the (R) candidate.
December 14, 2016 at 2:38 AM
December 14, 2016 at 2:31 AM
December 14, 2016 at 2:55 AM
December 14, 2016 at 7:37 AM
One guy, with small hands, no imagination, spewing out the same tired conservatard Fox crafted talking points polluting the American landscape we've been hearing for years, nothing new here. Grow up(Even 60 year olds have to do it at some time), stop surfing Chan sites, move out of your mommies basement, and get a job you bum. As far as your traditional faith based values, well sorry I ran out of regular TP and I had to wipe with something so....
Translation: since the election was won by the (R) candidate.
December 14, 2016 at 9:41 AM
Hony soit qui mal y pense
So the world is not dangerous? Maybe you should mention that to the people in Aleppo, or the soldiers fighting ISIS or countless other cases.
(A) There is nothing political about this statement, (B) wanting human decency, respect,
equality and safety in this dangerous time is not political it is the right thing to do morally.
December 14, 2016 at 7:27 AM
Seriously? Seriously?
To state the blindingly obvious, the membership of the APS is the same today as it was on November 7. What then was the catalyst for this letter, they asked rhetorically? It was (again, blindingly obviously) Trump's election/Clinton's defeat.
Your assertion at (A) is just flat out untrue. The APS letter is purely political. You know it, I know it, and I know you know it. As if further proof of the patently obvious were needed, your reference in (B) to "in this dangerous time" is clearly a reference to the election. When you say the statement "is not political' in the words immediately following where you made it clear it is political...well, being deliberately obtuse doesn't further whatever your point is.
I do have qualms about Trump, but not like I had qualms about the socialist revolution that Hillary would be gearing up for right now. Here's an idea. Why don't you wait until something actually happens that would genuinely warrant a reminder about what's morally right, other than your Huffington Post-induced whining because the election didn't turn out the way you wanted. Here's an idea. Why don't you consider that respect and equality don't just apply to the people that voted the same as you.
Anybody who claims Clinton would have brought on a socialist revolution is in my opinion not really the balanced arbiter of this discussion.
The irony is just overwhelming:
Why don't you consider that respect and equality don't just apply to the people that voted the same as you
3:02 PM pretty much nailed it, you've already been pwned.
Life in the bubble...change is coming.
"We maintain that our meetings, laboratories, and classrooms must be safe, collaborative environments that promote a collegial and inclusive atmosphere." Apparently, at the next APS meeting people may have to fear for their safety now that the Republicans have won.
Recall that the very same insinuation was made in Goldstein's letter: "People I know have even expressed concern for the safety and security of themselves or their families."
I think December 14, 2016 at 2:51 AM characterizes this letter perfectly accurately. They think that if the effect is achieved by insinuation rather than a direct statement, then nobody will recognize it as a thinly veiled political attack on the Republican voters.
Incidentally, this snippet is really a masterpiece of hypocrisy: "it is timely for us to reiterate that the American Physical Society remains unwavering in its commitment to full participation by everyone — regardless of age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, or political affiliation". Unless your political affiliation is not with Hillary.
Bigotry against differing peoples, cultures, ideas and world views serves nobody well, unless the other ideas really stink.
... then it's " dangerous times"
"(B) to "in this dangerous time" is clearly a reference to the election. When you say the statement "is not political' in the words immediately following where you made it clear it is political...well, being deliberately obtuse doesn't further whatever your point is."
This makes no sense, saying we living in dangerous times now that Trump has been elected is simply a fact and facts are not political they simply are. It is not political to say the sky is blue it is a fact. The APS was simply stating facts that is was making a moral decision.
Maybe this will get through to you, Rick Perry very well may get of the DOE, that means all the DOE labs including the NNSA such as LLNL get shut down and you will be fired. Perhaps that is not true danger as compared to what others may be facing under the new administration but it should give you pause. On several right wing news blogs they are bringing out Wen Ho Lee again and how they hope Perry keeps true to his promise to shut it down.
9:52, you blew any credibility you might have had when you typed, "saying we [sic] living in dangerous times now that Trump has been elected is simply a fact". That indicates you don't understand what "fact" means, and the rest is therefore not worth reading.
I'm new to this thread. The way I see it, 9:52 has an opinion (not a fact).
My opinion is that the APS memo was politically motivated. Irregardless of who holds the right opinion, it was flat stupid to release this memo as those who are soon to have complete control of funding might also see it as a biased political statement.
Let's say you are really not happy that your political party lost the last election. You are mad as hell and you think: what can I go now? Clever as you are, you decide that the best thing at this point is to try to delegitimize the winners and their voters.
You exploit the fact that you are in a position of considerable power. Using this position, you disseminate to your subordinates, or to the members of your professional society, an email insinuating that they - and even their family members - are in imminent physical danger from the supporters of the opposition party. In a stroke of genius you also announce yourself as their savior. "Your families might be in danger", you tell them, "but I reaffirm my commitment to their safety". So, you kill two birds with one stone. Your political opponents are discredited (after all they only won because they were such horrible fascists) and your subordinates will from now on cower in fear and look up to you for support and protection ("in these dangerous times").
Clever plan. The only problem is: your assertion has no basis in fact. None whatsoever. In fact, it falls squarely into the category of baloney and fake news. All you did was sow anxiety, panic and fear.
Clever plan. The only problem is: your assertion has no basis in fact. None whatsoever. In fact, it falls squarely into the category of baloney and fake news. All you did was sow anxiety, panic and fear.
December 15, 2016 at 12:29 AM
That sounds like an excellent campaign plan for winning the presidency. I wonder if anyone will try it?
11:09 did sow false anxiety, panic, and fear. What was 11:09's response? A feckless deflection. He is quick to accuse but can't see when he does what he accuses other of. 11:09 reeks but he is nose-blind.
December 15, 2016 at 4:04 PM
You might want to proof-read your incomprehensible post.
1930s Germany, look it up, history repeats itself, always has always will, Trump is inevitable just as as every other tyrant has been, no one can stop it. People also said Nanos would be good, look at the end results. Hopefully the thing same will happen with Trump as happened to Nanos if Trump goes cowboy.
Post a Comment