LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:13:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:05:05 -0500

Au contraire, if political scientists were really good at doing
politics, then they would easily have prevented Congress from taking
this action, as this article from InsideHigherEd suggests:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/25/senate-vote-prompts-discussion-among-political-scientists-about-their-political.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:19:19 -0700
>
> "Political science" is not a science but politics. Perhaps good that
> it is not to be funded anymore by NSF.
>
> Ari Belenkiy
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:50 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:17:33 -0500
>>
>>  You may have heard that the Senate has just passed legislation, likely
>>  to be passed by the House also, that removes most funding of political
>>  science research by the NSF.  In this case, austerity was used as an
>>  excuse to do something that Republicans have long wanted to do for
>>  political reasons anyway.
>>
>>  Sandy Thatcher

ATOM RSS1 RSS2