An insightful excerpt from this article:
And right now the Republican Party accommodates too much quackery, belligerence and misplaced moralism to play a fully credible part in a vital, essential debate about the size and scope of government.
I make special note of the phrase "right now" because the Republican Party was not always that way. The editorial also notes that there’s hope, which is encouraging.
Interestingly, back when gas prices were hitting the $4.00 per gallon mark, the right-wing was absurdly shouting blame at President Obama for the increase. Now that gas prices have dropped around sixty cents, I don’t think I’ve read or heard a single peep from that same right-wing group thanking the president for lowering prices… or even acknowledging the drop.
It’d be nonsense, either way, since the president has little, if anything, to do with gas prices, but it’s amusingly hypocritical. No doubt, there would be some "explanation" about how Obama was responsible for the increase, but not the decrease.
At the "State" Fair at my daughter’s school today (where all the students show off the projects they did about their selected US state), I just found out that the state bird of Minnesota is the Common Loon (also known as the Great Northern Loon).
It struck me as wholly appropriate, given that Minnesota is the home state of Michele Bachmann.
It’s got to be a coincidence, right? Right?!
I had planned to write something about Obama’s announcement regarding his support for marriage equality (which was long overdue, I think), but decided to just post a couple quotes I found in a discussion thread started by Phil Plait.
From Steve Keller:
"Language and culture" do not define marriage or its purpose. The laws put in place that provide the legal benefits and responsibility of marriage do. Being denied those benefits and responsibilities because someone else says you don’t deserve them – well, that right there is the very definition of a civil rights violation.
From Owen Roberts:
It is a VERY simple issue. You either believe in human rights or you don’t. i.e. You believe that the same rights apply to ALL humans, or you believe that some are more deserving than others.
Jon Stewart addresses the birth control mandate and the oppositions claims of “religious persecution” and “wars” on religion.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Vagina Ideologues – Sean Hannity’s Holy Sausage Fest | ||||
|
||||
In yesterday’s Republican debate, Michele Bachmann made an uncharacteristically lucid comment regarding Newt Gingrich’s claim that “I did no lobbying of any kind for any organization.” (Freddie and Fannie)
Said Bachmann…
You don’t need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence-peddling.
Gingrich comes off as very Clinton’esque when he makes his “I didn’t lobby” claims.
Of course, at another point during the debate, Bachmann headed back to her comfortable but loopy world of sunshine and rainbows.
I think it’s just outrageous to continue to say over and over throughout the debates that I don’t have my facts right, when it as a matter of fact, I do. I’m a serious candidate for president of the United States, and my facts are accurate.
Ummmm…
That sounds very much like, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”
I saw this the other day and was stunned because of how well done it is… the substituted words match up perfectly with her mouth movements.
httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFB6LQ1-WKU
I’m also amused at the first comment.
It’s more coherent than she usually is.
Paul Krugman had an editorial today in the New York Times about the decidedly anti-science bent of the Republican party… or at least of the current crop of candidates. John Huntsman seems to be the only candidate grounded in actual scientific reality at the moment. Romney was, too, but now he’s hedging.
When it comes to science, Republicans seem to have no problem with things like atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, physics, chemistry, etc. The problem is just when it comes to science that reaches conclusions that don’t mesh well with their ideology (or the ideology of their base). The obvious mentions are evolution and climate change, both of which are supported by an astounding amount of evidence, yet both of which cause Republicans some discomfort; one on political note and one on a theological note. But rather than acting responsibly and dealing with the reality the science represents, they attack the science or the scientists or the data or (more often) the make-believe stories conjured up as easily-attackable straw men.
Sadly, Huntsman is way behind in the polls, so that leaves either the outright anti-science group or Romney, who has, in a politically stereotypical move, hedged his bets on science in an attempt to placate the Republican base. That leaves the party with pretty lame options. As Krugman says in his editorial…
So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.
Phil Plait, on his Bad Astronomy blog, follows up on Krugman’s piece with a few more details on some of the candidates, and with this thought…
[Huntsman] recently said he thinks both evolution and global warming are real. This makes me sad, and scared. Why? Because this statement is considered bold.
How can it be bold to accept reality, to not deny the overwhelming evidence, and to agree with the vast, vast majority of scientists studying the very topics of discussion?
Huntsman wants his party not to be "the antiscience party". But that shouldn’t be bold. That should be common sense.
It should be common sense. Sadly, for most of the Republican presidential candidates, it seems to be neither common nor sensible.
With two notable exceptions, the Republican candidates really need to take a page from Woodrow Wilson’s playbook.
Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.
Woodrow Wilson
Letter to Winterton C. Curtis (29 August 1922)
Update: Sadly, it seems Romney is hedging on the science, presumably to pander to the science deniers that tend to inhabit the Republican base and the Tea Party. He said, ”Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.”
As I’ve said before, if you want to argue policy, that’s fine, but do it honestly. Don’t try to discredit the science just because you don’t like related policy suggestions.
Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, beating Ron Paul by a narrow margin. I’m not really that surprised, but I am disheartened. She won with a total of 4,823 votes (over Paul’s 4,671). However, by some reports, she gave away 6,000 vote tickets herself, tickets which normally cost $30, so the people who voted for her didn’t have to shell out the $30 themselves, so as the Hot Air article says, it’s "not exactly a big endorsement."
However, just the fact that there are 4,823 people, in Iowa alone, who are willing to vote for this woman (whether it cost them $30 or not) is what I find disheartening. This is the woman who has touted theocratic views, anti-equality views, anti-scientific views, and just general nonsense (including revisionist (read "false") history) on a regular basis for years, putting her ignorance and bigotry on display for all to see… and people still want to vote for her.
That someone like this is given even passing consideration for political office is a sad statement about our country.
