Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
packsaddle

In landslide vote - Darwin loses

Recommended Posts

Sometimes the South exceeds even my own doubtful expectations. So it was in the U.S. Congressional race for unopposed Paul Broun who faced an unexpected write-in opponent, Charles Darwin.

Broun had, during the campaign, noted that evolution, the Big Bang theory, and embryology (go figure) are "lies straight from the pit of hell." Of course it was left to Darwin who rose from the grave to mount a write-in campaign which resulted in more than 4000 votes in his favor. Alas, dead people don't stand much of a chance it seems, if they haven't been crucified, and the state anyway doesn't recognize write-in candidates if they didn't declare properly.

Here's Broun making the great State of Georgia proud:

 

Is this really how the Republicans want to be portrayed to the people? Broun serves on the House Science Committee. While I thank Georgia for providing more comic relief (and I'm truly thankful that Broun won by a landslide against a skeleton) the thought still nags my mind...if this is 'representative' of what the Republicans think our approach to science and technology should be....wow.

 

Now...about those other Republicans on that same committee: Todd Akin and Dan Quayle....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Packsaddle asks: Is this really how the Republicans want to be portrayed to the people?

Answer: Yes, it is..

 

He seems to be in good company at the Republican House of Science committee.. It simply shows that republicans have total disdain for science which might get in the way of business being able to make profit with no regard to the planet or the people who live on it.

 

Todd Akin - the guy who believes women can shut down the ability to get pregnate when being raped, was on the Science committee (but gave up his seat to run in the Senate, where he also lost.. bye, by Todd).

 

Roscoe Bartlet - also just lost his seat, but was on the Science committee.. He too believed rape didn't cause pregnacies.

 

Dana Rohrabacher - (Who they are thinking about leading the committee). who do not believe in man-made global warming, he says it might be due to dinosaur flatulence.. (Well it's sarcasm, while he attempts to point out it could be anything other then the activity of man.)

 

Jim Sensenbrenner (another possible choice to lead the committee). thinks there is nothing wrong with carbon emissions. If we regulate that we will all need to wear catalytic converters on our noses..

 

Republicans go out of their way to discredit Science.

 

Too bad Dawin didn't win.. Maybe he can win in the next election..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a major-party candidate running for U.S. Senate in 2010 from your neck of the woods, Pack, named Alvin Greene? What was his party affiliation? His qualifications for office were..... what?

 

As much as we all want to think so, idiots aren't limited to the other party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, yeh just shake your head about some of this stuff.

 

Happily, Congresscritters for da most part don't actually have to do any science. So it's a bit like laughin' because a representative doesn't know how to change a car tire. A bit pathetic, but hopefully most of what he's actually doin' as a representative doesn't require that skill.

 

What's more disturbin' is da Democrats (and many Republicans) who don't actually know anything about budgeting or economics servin' in the House. Inability to do budget math or understand da relative impacts of policy choices should be far more disqualifying.

 

Or worse still, the large lot of 'em who despite cereal box law degrees don't know a lick about writin' law or policy.

 

When yeh know politicians personally (an unavoidable bit of my business), yeh know that da one skill set they have is that they're quite charming or affable as long as yeh take 'em in small doses. Mostly shallow, but they're da center of a dinner party and will remember your name and your interests.

 

Not what yeh want makin' laws or policy decisions.

 

Sometimes, I think we should select legislators da way we select juries. Pull 'em randomly from da population, with a limited ability for any side to reject nutters.

 

Beavah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but aren't they suppose to come up with proposals as to what to legislate on these topics they join the committee for?

 

Might be nice to be a Science Engineer to be on the committee, but since most likely you are not, I would hope they can find people with an 8th grade knowledge of science and some interest in the subject rather then total disdain, because it either contradicts the Bible, or it might have your billionaire crony friends have to spend a little cash in order to keep this planet inhabitable for the next generation.

 

Whoever assigns these possition (I know the Democrats choose what committee a Democrat will be on, and a Republican chooses their people for the board, and the Party Leader chooses who will head the committee.).. Anyway you shouldn't choose the guy who says he thinks science are lies from the pit of hell, for the science committee, nor people who science stopped at 1st grade..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moosetracker,

 

For once we agree! The level of science education and understanding in the US is dismal. Neither party should allow people with such poor understanding and appreciation of science and mathematics to serve on committees that deal with research or policy related to science and mathematics. Unfortunately, the leadership in both parties in both chambers are typically woefully inadequate. The appointments are made for political reasons rather than how the people are best served. Both parties are guilty and deserve scorn and ridicule. It is unlikely to change and it will continue to harm the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moosetracker, Roscoe Bartlett might have been a troglodyte with regard to reproductive rights, but at least he understood energy policy. I guess there's only a tiny minority who'll match ALL of our policy interests. Moreover, if I scratched around a little I think I could come up with a few Democrats who have idiotic views on certain topics. For example,....

 

Alvin Greene - touche. Yes, that guy was embarrassing even to Democrats who largely abandoned him to oblivion. (anyone really think Alvin Greene action figures is a way to create jobs?) On the other hand he was never ever elected to anything.

As for me, Alvin Greene is the nail in the coffin for any thought I had about Southern Democrats' ability to field a serious candidate. That said, Democrats in this area are, on the surface at least, friendlier to science than Republicans, who seem downright anti-intellectual. It is burned into my memory, that a state legislator on a committee in charge of OVERSIGHT of quality of education proclaimed that "all the textbook we need is The Bible".

 

Beavah, "Mostly shallow, but they're da center of a dinner party and will remember your name and your interests. Not what yeh want makin' laws or policy decisions. Sometimes, I think we should select legislators da way we select juries. Pull 'em randomly from da population, with a limited ability for any side to reject nutters."

Agree with that first part for sure, and except for rejecting the nutters, that process seems similar to what we have now. It might not be picking at random but the result seems to be close to the same. The problem is that 'nutters' emerge EVERYWHERE. Even the Libertarians (whom I've lately embraced, tentatively) have a good number of tax-protest nutters (to be fair, those guys also show up as other party affiliates).

 

vol_scouter and I find a lot of common ground on topics like this. But I caution you, vol_scouter, that if I briefly survey some of my colleagues for their views on various topics OUTSIDE science, even (maybe especially) in physics and engineering, these are smart people in their field but wow...make room for some more nutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about Republican fruitcakes on the Oversight committee what about Senator Darrell Issa get re-elected?.. That's another one that seemed like he didn't fear re-election.. To be releasing papers with highly sensitive information after editing it to remove any information that conflicted with his theroy of what happened in Bengazi, but not remove names of people he put in harms way..

 

I see he won re-election.. How is that given he is a representative in California. They were not kind to Republicans in this election.. He must be in small deep red spot in California.

 

He sure did not seem like he was having to run for re-election given what he did while he wasn't a representative living in the safty of a deep red state..

 

I suppose he will continue to head this committee although he is the one who should go through an investigation about his actions..

 

Packsaddle - with all the people elected to the house & senate, we can all get our wingnuts.. Question is, does the party ignore them, casually except them, or embrace them and make them the head of a committee or one of their spokespersons..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×