Where is Science in "Science and Politics"?

I've been asked this question before. Well, with the election and everything, politics took over and science went onto the back burner.

Although I intend to continue writing about politics, and building onto my previous analyses (e.g.,
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/11/two-americas-past-present-and-future.html), I also will try to put in more science.

While some may consider cognitive linguistics a science, I do not treat it here in that way. While much of this blog builds upon Lakoff's scheme (and adds insights, or at least metaphors, from evolutionary biology to it), I treat this as an intuitive more than scientific understanding of current US political atmosphere. I have linked to some sites that have a beef with Lakoff - those are cognitive linguists (or related) themselves, involved in internecine (often semantic) struggles over territory, so typical of young disciplines. Until neuroscience proves Lakoff right or wrong, I will treat his work as a useful, but intuitive way of looking at things. Just because it is not scientific (yet) does not mean it's bad. Horse-training techniques have never been scientifically tested, yet they work - those horses do end up at the Olympics and jump all those jumps with no ill effects.

Several posts about the Evolution/Creation controversy, including the one in Serbia, are in the domain of "science", I guess, but I do not see myself contributing anything that others have not already done much better than I could ever do. Look, for example at this great post by a deeply religious biology teacher:
http://tamingthetiger.typepad.com/bvnwbiology/2004/10/frequently_aske_1.html

Posts I wrote that have more to do with real science also tend to be quite political, and ideologically driven, I admit (e.g.,
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/10/genocentrism-aids-anti-abortion.html and
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/10/god-genes-and-conservatives.html).

Whenever I wrote about something from my own field - circadian biology - it was also politicized (e.g.,
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/10/early-to-rise-early-to-bed-makes-bush.html).

Am I completely unable to write purely about science? Did the elections completely mess with my mind? Why are others blogrolling me under "Science blogs" - just because I have "science" in the title? I have not written a single post that would be eligible for, or interesting to the readers of The Tangled Bank, a wonderful bi-weekly collection of writing from around the science blogs (go check it out, there is some great writing there: http://tangledbank.net/).

I'll try to do better in the future. I promise.