Ask a high-school math student.
A couple thousand scientists took time out today from a national conference at the Hynes - or just their weekends at home or in the lab - to protest attacks on science in general and climate science in particular, in a rally in Copley Square.
The rally was something of a warmup for even larger science-based protests planned for April 22 in Boston and April 29 in Washington. Speakers also blasted Trump's immigration and visitor restrictions from seven countries, including Iran, for limiting the open door and dialogues that had long helped make the US the global science superpower.
"When science is under attack, what do we do?" an organizer asked. "Stand up and fight back!" the crowd replied.
Speakers pledged to organize and fight new EPA head Scott Pruitt, who left a career in Oklahoma of suing the EPA, new Secretary of State and, of course, Donald Trump, who once called climate change a Chinese hoax.
Among the speakers: Chiamaka Obilo, a senior at Boston Latin Academy and a fellow at the Alliance for Climate Education, who said she became interested in climate issues when she left the hospital following ten hours of surgery for scoliosis, took a deep breath - and promptly breathed in exhaust fumes.
Obilo said that growing up, half her classmates had asthma. "We can't ignore the fact that climate change is as much a social-justice issue as a science one," she said.
Naomi Oreskies, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, spoke of the difficulties many people had just showing up at the rally.
"We don't want to be here," she said. "We want to be doing science. We want to be in our labs. We want to be out in the field."
And some scientists just don't want to get sucked into a political battle, she continued.
But she compared what the Trump administration is doing and plans to do to a bunch of men who burst into a house and threaten to burn it down.
"Our science, our work, is under attack," she said. "We can no longer sit on the sidelines assuming someone else will protect us. ... It's not political to defend the integrity of facts. ... We did not politicize our science. We did not start this fight."
She quoted Benjamin Franklin: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
This
By anon
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 3:06pm
is getting tedious. And you better hope Trump remains president and not Pence if somehow Trump is removed (highly unlikely); Pence is Trump's insurance policy, unless if course people trying to get Trump out of the way actually prefer a hardcore neoconservative like Pence over Trump who far more moderate.
Tedious?
By adamg
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 3:13pm
That's OK, you don't have to go to any rallies. I'm sure there's something good on HBO or NetFlix to watch.
Don't think the whole Trump/Pence succession hasn't come up. Until 2018, at the least, the thinking I've seen is that as bad as Pence is, at least he won't get us into a nuclear war.
What does that even mean?
By Roslindaler
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 3:59pm
Tedious? Expect this to be the new norm. Donald Trumps election changes nothing about the fact, evidenced by the thin margins by which he lost the popular vote, that most people in this country don't want him to be president and reject his ideas as shameful and unamerican. People aren't just going to sit down and be quiet about it. And pretty soon Congressional elections will be upon us. The republican majority, given its current complicity in this sham, should hear the clock ticking. And once that is gone, you will have another 4 years of nothing getting done. Quite a situation.
You're right
By Kaz
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 8:25pm
I tire of Republicans lying and their policies and ideas being immune to reality. It's becoming tedious.
Self gratification at best
By Lunchbox
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 8:32pm
David Frum put it well a few weeks ago:
"Left-liberal demonstrations are exercises in catharsis, the release of emotions. Their operating principle is self-expression, not persuasion. ... They seldom are aimed at any achievable goal; they rarely leave behind any enduring program of action or any organization to execute that program. Again and again, their most lasting effect has been to polarize opinion against them—and to empower the targets of their outrage."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/...
(I know you lefties see Frum as some kind of boogeyman, but he has been steadily beating the anti-Trump drum for months.)
That's nice dear
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 10:07pm
I wouldn't exactly go to Frum for anything other than validation of the Clinton/Bush Neomoney world view.
In other words, he's one of the fools who got us into this by not listening to anyone with an income under seven or eight digits. Why should we listen to him now?
ADDENDUM: https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/83342674554619...
This is what I'm talking about
By Lunchbox
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 9:54am
It's this kind of smug bullshit that got that buffoon elected in the first place. The left can either try to find new allies or build bridges, or it can keep marching in circles in its echo chamber, repeating the same catchphrases that lost them the 2016 election.
I don't want Trump around another 4 more years (or 4 more minutes) any more than you do. A bunch of scientists marching around with funny or obscure signs might make themselves and their friends feel better, but it's not going to bring Trump down.
How Ironic
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 11:18am
You posted a Frum article, and then you call my response "smug bullshit"?
Have you read his stuff, ever? The guy is the Rodeo King of Smug Bullshit. Or was this the first thing that popped up from a semi-respectable news source when you googled "protests don't work" and you went with it?
Take a look at his track record of columns from mid-2015 to now and look carefully at how effective a prognosticator he has been. Also make note of how he's a mouthpiece for validating the interests and beliefs of the wealthy far more than he ever speaks truth to power.
In hell
By SamWack
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 11:28am
In hell, the chief topic of conversation, the only topic of conversation, is: hell sucks. It sucked yesterday, and it sucks even more today, or it would if there were any days, but it just goes on and on, getting worse and worse. As a topic of conversation, it sucks. It's really tedious. But what else is there to talk about, really ?
square root of -1 = (i)... pretty funny...
By John Pappas
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 3:31pm
implying imaginary...
math humor is the lowest form
By anon
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 4:53pm
math humor is the lowest form of humor
Your Claim Just Doesn't Add Up
By Elmer
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 7:42pm
Yes and...
By Stevil
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 4:59pm
He won the popular vote by | -3,000,000 | votes.
And that's my problem with theoretical physics
By Waquiot
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 6:25pm
The embracing of "alternative numbers" is disturbing. Give me real physics with real numbers any day.
How about square root of 2?
By MrZip
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 8:01pm
Irrational...?
Imaginary - but ha sa function
By Canardly Hear Yah
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 9:17pm
Square Root of a Neg 1 is an imaginary number of course since it is impossible to resolve the positive and negative factors.
However... that said... It does have a function.
If you plug it in at just the right place in a Polar Equation, you can use it to cancel a Square Radical Symbol in the string.
Advance Calculus.
Rally today
By cybah
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 4:41pm
I just finished editing/uploading my photos. They can be seen by clicking here. Have a look.
Good crowd. Not as big as previous rally's but this rally for some reason went un-noticed by alot of people. (I only saw it here and on a tweet by WBZ-TV earlier this morning)
Ah well. I'd guess there were at least 2-3k people there, maybe more. It's always hard to tell when you're standing on the ground. I'm sure BPD will have numbers in a bit. It started off slow and then more and more people came streaming in!
The signs, as expected, where excellent. I tried to get as many as I could. Very intelligent signs.
Great group of people. And speakers you could actually hear! (If you were on the right side and not near the generator)
I loved your 4th and 5th
By Rob
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 4:16pm
I loved your 4th and 5th pictures.
I had to zoom in quite closely to realize the object in the foreground was two photographers - one kneeling behind the other. At first glance at the wide view, I thought it was somebody impersonating a mounted cop - wearing a little horse costume and clopping a couple of coconut shells together!
Thanks
By cybah
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 4:27pm
haha amazingly enough I don't look in too much detail in the photos. I just edit for speed so I can get them uploaded. For days after I have people going "did you see so and so in your photo" and I truly do not :-) But good catch.
Nice job!
By APB
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 4:49pm
It was a small but passionate crowd. Loved the close-up of my spouse hidden behind our "Make America Think Again" sign.
Head up to the big reading room on the second floor of the BPL for a straight-on aerial view of future rallies. Note that you can easily open the dusty casement windows for a clear shot.
Thank you
By cybah
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 5:04pm
And thanks for the suggestion for the next rally (there will be another one, I'm sure). I wish the Copley Mall wasn't so nasty about pictures. I wanted to get one from the Westin's second floor (from the entrance on Huntington)
I do want to get a selfie stick for next time. Will help with the crowd shots to get raise the phone above the crowd and get better shots. And of course, better pano's.. all I will have to do is turn the stick.
(And probably will switch to my Samsung Galaxy S6 Phone, as I do with my Silver Line Gateway photos.. it just takes better, crisper photos without much fidgeting with the settings. Sorry Apple Fans!)
I felt I was there
By cw in boston
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 7:15pm
looking at your photos. Thanks!
Crowd size
By lbb
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 9:06am
This rally was organized over a few weeks if I'm not mistaken; the women's march (which you're probably referencing as "previous rally's") was organized since the election. FYI.
Brand Confusion
By cybah
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 9:52am
I also think people were confused about this also.
Because every time I said "oh I'm going to the March for Science", friends were like "oh that isn't until April 22nd", I didn't hear about this one.
I honestly didn't know myself until Adam posted it a few days ago and I had to *look* on social media to find the event itself.
Yes indeed
By lbb
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 11:44am
This sort of thing does take at least a little effort.
well yeah
By cybah
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 12:27pm
I think my point was I had to search for it. I know enough like-minded individuals who just invite me to stuff like this (and alot of garbage too). Was just surprised that I had to actually *look* for it and put a whole 30 seconds into looking for it, unlike the other two where I was invited (or saw endless shares about it)
Is it all soft science or
By anon
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 4:50pm
Is it all soft science or were the hard sciences represented too?
Soft science?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 8:51pm
I only hear that sort of talk from people who find that "soft" science is any science that is too "hard" for them to understand.
That typically happens when said science deals with icky humans or someone can't deal with uncertainty very well.
You could check the AAAS Conference Program if you really want to know.
Happy
By Bugs Bunny
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 5:07pm
That these marches/protests have mild weather, gets people in the city to spend money. Huge!
Anyone done the math?
By anon
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 5:38pm
How many cabinet appointments have been prevented by these protests? How many by Warren?
The only thing Warren
By anon
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 7:23pm
Is preventing is her own re-election.
Please explain
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 8:57pm
When a substantial percentage of the people in the more populous portion of your state turn out to march at an event you are speaking at, how does that affect your reelection chances, exactly?
.
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 8:58pm
replicator failure
What good are protests anyway?
By Daan
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 8:34pm
They are like a tugboats that can help correct a ship that is off course. Right now we need as many tugboats as can be found.
The Republican intellectual atavists are steering the nation to a level of collective stupidity. A President who calls climate change a Chinese conspiracy, state legislatures that advocate mythology as science and a Supreme Court that declares legal fictions are equivalent to human beings.
Since there are many voters who have their heads up their mental butts we need to let other voters understand that flat earthers are in charge and want to take everyone off the edge.
Do voters pay attention to
By anon
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 8:34am
Do voters pay attention to protests?
Dunno
By adamg
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 11:15am
You should go to one of the protests and ask some of the voters there.
Local impacts, too
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 8:48pm
Large numbers of people turning out put pressure on local and state politicians to pay attention. We can't stop all the damage done by a criminal administration, but Massachusetts is wealthy and regionally well configured to alternate between "we won't cooperate" and "we'll do it ourselves".
Precisely
By APB
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 10:35pm
Odd that Charlie hasn't figured it out yet.
Might be counting on fatigue to lower the turnout down the road
By Cutriss
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 10:39pm
n/t
nah
By cybah
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 11:24pm
We're just getting started. Just wait until April 15th and April 22nd...... you think the Women's March was large. Just wait. Just wait.
People are more energized than ever now.. the more he does, the more we march.
Tax Day protest?
By anon
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 8:33am
You are stealing the Tea Party's thing?
http://legacy.wbur.org/2010/04/14/palin-tea-party
As if
By lbb
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 11:45am
Yes, because April 15th had no special significance until the Teabillies came along.
I'll take a whack at this
By Waquiot
Sun, 02/19/2017 - 11:53pm
In looking at the protests against Trump, they have fallen into 2 camps. The first is like this one or the Women's March on Washington, which were very vague and almost seemed like catharsis for those who were strong Clinton supporters. Their goal is just to show that there are like minded folks who oppose the President. Since there were no strong specific goals, there is nothing to be seen, at least in the short term, from the protesting.
Then there's the immigration protest when Trump issued an executive order. They were loud and had a specific goal- thwarting the executive order. While it could look like they failed, they didn't. The Department of Homeland Security noted flaws in the "execution" of the policy, meaning that the bad optics of preventing green card holders from entering the country which came out through the protests at airports across the country, may have affected change. Heck, the administration is now saying that they are going to come up with a different EO to deal with the possibility of terrorists entering the country. Perhaps the next EO will be a bit saner what came out at first, and the protesters can be thanked if that happens.
In the end, there have been no physical demonstrations against any cabinet appointments, which has lead to a lot of party line votes, but that said one nominee has withdrawn his name from consideration, and in another case the Vice President needed to vote to break a tie.
I think that people do need to get over this "Trump is a bad, bad man" mentality and start focusing on policies with which they disagree with him on. That's how you affect change.
Not either / or
By perruptor
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 7:16am
Making Trump out to be a bad man and pointing out how his policies are bad are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more people think of him as bad, the less forgiving they will be of his policies. You may be falling into the line of thought that Bush-Cheney weren't bad, they were just incompetent. It isn't true; they were genuinely bad, and their policies were bad. Their apparent incompetence was actually indifference toward what most people considered good, and an expression of their being bad.
Bush wasn't bad
By Waquiot
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 10:43am
He was a good man who either got bad advice or made bad decisions.
I never saw the rationale for invading Iraq, but I totally understood Afghanstan. In the run up to Iraq, I saw protests that said the US shouldn't be flexing it's muscle militarily, which made no sense in the actual battle against Al Queda (as opposed to the fake one in Iraq). I also saw at these protests opposition to US policy towards Israel/Palestine. The conflating of issues weakened the good argument against going into Iraq.
Trump's personality isn't for me, but marching against boorishness isn't as effective as marching against an anti-Muslim immigration policy.
He was a bad president
By perruptor
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 11:39am
Until this one, he was the worst one in at least 100 years. He authorized torture, for Christ's sake! He started an unnecessary war that killed more Americans than 9-11 (which he ignored warnings about). A war that destabilized an entire region --so far, permanently. Not "a good man." A war criminal.
Take Iraq out of the equation
By Waquiot
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 12:17pm
And at that, both Iraq and torture were more Cheney/Rumsfeld things.
W is as bad a person as Bill Clinton is. The difference is that W had to react to Al Queda striking in New York and Virginia.
It was the Bush Administration!
By anon
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 1:26pm
There were no Cheney/Rumsfeld things. They were all Bush things. You can't be serious.
He made the final decision to invade Iraq and if he did it based on bad info from his own people then he still owns it, lock stock and barrel.
Good lord.
Bullshit
By perruptor
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 2:15pm
W was in charge, and he signed off on all of Cheney's evil doings. It's all in his lap. I'm no fan of Clinton, but he did far, far less damage to the country and world than that smug fratboy with his asshole agenda.
Mental health and criminal activities concern the man
By Daan
Mon, 02/20/2017 - 10:53am
I see two issues that are about the man rather than policy:
One is that Trump's irrational behavior indicates bona fide mental health problems. The question I've heard is whether he is crazy or crazy like a fox? When KellyAnne Conway refers to a false event she sounds like crazy as a fox. That's a job of a subordinate to the President: see how far lies can go. But when the man who is where the buck stops refers to events that never happened then there is a worse problem than just narcissistic personality disorder. It's one thing if he is the head of a large corporation; it's utterly a different matter when he is the one who can launch a nuclear strike.
I have a hard time imagining that this could be a reality and hope to hell that I am unreasonably fearful. But I never feared this under Nixon, Ford, Reagan or either Bush, and certainly never feared it under Carter, Clinton or Obama. I was too young to have any awareness of the fears of Soviet preemptory strikes from Cuba coming out of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Anyone aware at the time want to add their thoughts of comparison between today and the fear during that period?
Two that he engaged and via subordinates continues to engage in criminal dealings with the Russian government so that he can enrich his personal fortune. If he is directing his subordinates to remove sanctions against Russia for its invasion and continued harassment of Ukraine for his personal gain then I would imagine that is criminal.
These are not policy issues. These are behavioral issues which go directly to the man.
Pages
Add comment