But what unites George Will the climate warming denier and George Will the science and federal R&D cheerleader, are that both positions benefit the parasites he protects in the private sector.

George Will is all for the federal government doling out billions on basic research and development. He just doesn't want any of those "entrepreneurial" companies that take that research and make billions in profits off it to pay any taxes for the privilege.

I can only imagine what the WaPo's commenters are saying about Will's column: more proof that the Post is a communist liberal rag! 20 million potential Einsteins were slaughtered in the abortion holocaust! we didn't need "science" to write the Constitution, and we don't need "science" to follow it!

"Research, including in the biological sciences, that yields epoch-making advances requires time horizons that often are impossible for businesses, with their inescapable attention to quarterly results."

So therefor we need to cut the taxes of corporations and of millionaires (again). Doing that, and speaking the proper magical incantations is certain to cause prosperity to trickle down onto all rising boats this time.

Or maybe we need to sacrifice a goat, too.

"Republicans are rightly determined to be economizers. They must, however, make distinctions."

This is where the President can use some of the Republican drive to economize to achieve his own goals, as expressed in his Inaugural Address:

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

It's all a matter of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If Republicans are serious about cutting spending, then they're going to have one or two of their favorite oxes gored. And there's the rub.

I am not optimistic as Cantor is calling for gutting the NSF.
I believe the reason that Americans do not study natural sciences is that it doesn't pay well plus religious ignorance and bias against science.
Americans are ignorant about how federal funding to the sciences lead to major scientific breakthroughs, internet is one of the best examples. Private companies can't take over NIH and NSF in funding research as their major role is to satisfy the bottom line.

Will's Burkean street cred is a bit tattered so he trots out some long views from time to time. The problem is that conservatism is no longer a philosophy of skepticism but a millenialist religion. I suspect his denialism about climate change is just the tithe to get him to the front pew of the new congregation. Otherwise, it's still the same old story: detach long-term consequences from short-term gains, celebrate growth for the sake of growth, and disparage anything that falls outside the tenets of their Roman candle ideology.

"South Korea and China award 38 percent and 47 percent, science degrees"

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the Chinese 'refudiate' Darwin. Believe that the earth is 6000 years old. We are our own worst enemy.

This is an example of Will tacking back towards the traditional conservative "center". He's taking an enormous amount of heat and criticism for some poorly-thought out and poorly-researched columns in the past year or so. I don't think that Will cares much about how he is viewed by the Tea Party base--they probably don't read him and most don't even know who he is. But his credibility with the intellectual community, including academics, is important to him, and I suspect he felt the need to repair his reputation in those circles.

"Research, including in the biological sciences, that yields epoch-making advances requires time horizons that often are impossible for businesses, with their inescapable attention to quarterly results."

To put the most cynical nasty spin on this, Will has a Down syndrome child, which mean he has, as they say, skin in the game. It's like G Gordon Liddy and prison reform, or Bob Dole and the ADA. Nothing matters to these people unless it effects them personally.

George likes science when it can make money for his overloards (not misspelled). If the science disagrees with his moneymaking opportunities well then it's got to go. No such thing as an objective world.

I remember my grandmother making some very firm comments about what decent people were expected to know , and perhaps more importantly expected to know enough to not talk about . Now this , it seems , has to be about as silly as being perceptive enough to go about the serious business of dead horse kicking . The particular Victorian sensibilities of this worthy the Eminent (Post Imperial) American may be written by an opponent with hemorrhoids , he should be so blessed lucky .
Perhaps his end will come from the revolutionary forces he has encouraged with the bulk of his encyclopedic Know Nothing-ism as suggested by the entertaining and brilliant Michael Lind . Anything provided by the Eminent American and its separation into useful discrete , or tangible , information that doesn't float like a buzzard , up up and away on the hot air drafts is a crumb from his plate . What is exhaled as propaganda for the priestly herd reminds me of elderly aristocrats who have outlived all their contemporaries and family stories . Retired and frail with all their bank accounts plugged into automatically coping with the daily drudge , this is the final stage of the "Good Life". With the need for a capable staff gone the only indication of life will be an unlikely bookkeeping error , or a letter slot jammed up with a decades worth of circular junk mail . George Will is invisible as a drone , the vitality missing from his contributions matches his ability to see beyond his cornea(s) . Dying alone in ones favorite chair only becomes a satisfying idea when the reason you are alone is not as sterile as the vision ordered or limited by a neurosis of anything including "The Public" .
Decent people just don't talk about it .

George Will is either an atheist or an agnostic, yet still fails to understand the hold the Religious Right has on his party, and why it is so hostile to science.

I lost all respect for George Will when he posted his incredibly dishonest columns on climate change last year. When presented with clear and easily accessible evidence that his initial column on the subject was wildly inaccurate, he chose to persist with and even enlarge his distortions. I got the sense that Mr. Will had become not just a bad journalist, but also one who pays the ultimate insult to his readership - that being the assumption that they will not do their own research, or that he should even bother to address the views of those who have done so.

DAY asks "It would be interesting to know what percentage of the Chinese 'refudiate' Darwin. Believe that the earth is 6000 years old."

None of them. China's history goes back further than 6000 years, and they have the documentation.

As I have mentioned on another comments thread, Matt Yglesias has written a number of good posts recently on the choice of our political leaders to not pursue policies that will allow the US to remain economically strong. A recent one is on this topic of decisions not to invest in science and technology education.

The plutocrats cannot afford to have a well-educated, well-informed electorate in the US because that electorate might figure out the con and vote to raise their taxes and limit their wealth. Supporting the Fundies anti-science anti-intellectual agenda works out perfectly for them.

"They must, however, make distinctions."

So George Will wants to make "distinctions" in the budget. Okay. The problem is some people think farm subsidies are a "distinction". Some people think the Tennessee Valley Authority is a "distinction". Some people think NASA is a "distinction" too.

You add up all those distinctions, and pretty soon we're talking about real money here.

I think that one should differenciate exactly what Will means by supporting science. I think he has no problem with supporting funding for the physical sciences that deal with the remaking or altering the material world. It's the life sciences to which he would present the short end of the stick. It's this branch that he sees impeding the progress of the former. For Will, science is only really useful if it melds with his ideological framework keeping it intact.

From 1970 to 1995, federal support for research in the physical sciences, as a fraction of gross domestic product, declined 54 percent; in engineering, 51 percent. -- George Will

I must assume that the numbers for the benighted oh-ohs were not available? Or were they too awful and too tied to just one President to show?

"South Korea and China award 38 percent and 47 percent, science degrees"

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the Chinese 'refudiate' Darwin. Believe that the earth is 6000 years old. We are our own worst enemy.
***

25% of the South Korean population is Christian and many of them awash in fundamentalism. No drinking, no smoking, etc. But so far, I've only come across 2 Darwin deniers--both of them recently. My impression is that anti-Darwinism is a new phenomenon here. (I've only found one, count 'em--one!--climate change denier.)

Koreans claim a 5,000 year history (it's actually 2,000 years of history + 3,000 of myth and legend).

The remarkable thing, to me, is that when I ask why someone chose his major, the most common answer is that engineering, medicine, research is a way to serve the country.

I can never understand why anyone would ever object to elites being in power. After all, as long as the elite group is a meritocracy, thus open to anyone willing and able to show that they have earned their position in the meritocratic elite and not have it purchased by Daddy, what's the problem?
Nevermind, I just answered my own question...

But -- and you had to know a "but" was coming -- I can't help but notice that the message is far more compelling than the messenger.

To be fair, George Will is a big but(t).