Lately I've been hearing a lot of local election ads on the radio and television, and I find it fascinating how it's often acceptable for politicians to be exceptionally vague and hand-wavy in their rhetoric.
"Our town lost a lot of jobs last year. If you elect me, I will create more jobs! Vote for Bob Smith."
(How will you create more jobs? What is your methodology? Which sector will you create jobs in? Will you do the job creation, or will it be your staff? Where's your 4-year project plan?)
I think it's only fair. Given how harsh many of these politicians are on science funding, it should be reasonable to turn the tables.
Given the kind of peers politicians have, what kind of a review can we expect?
ReplyDeleteTee Hee! I agree. You made my morning.
ReplyDeleteAlso, where's your preliminary data? It needs to be of sufficient depth and rigor to prove beyond all possible doubt that your plan will work as intended (to the degree that there's almost no point in doing it). If your plan is to create 10,000 new jobs in our community, let me see the first 8,000 before you apply; then we'll have something to talk about! :-)
ReplyDelete