Republicans are being quickly revealed as being anti-science, which is nothing but counterproductive to the development and maintenance of a functioning society. With Todd Akin's recent comments regarding rape and abortion, he not only revealed a staggering lack of understanding of human biology, but this gaffe paved the way to scrutinizing many conservative politicians in the current political environment. The appalling lack of understanding and downright refusal to accept science by these politicians could possibly make it easier to understand why the United States is so far behind most developed countries when it comes to math and science education -- it needs to be stopped.
If it isn't the morons who think women have a gland that stops rape from conceiving a baby, then there are the idiots who "don't believe in evolution" -- as if it's something that beckons belief. More or less, politicians like Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry and "pray the gay away" Michele Bachmann spread their disbelief in the scientific proof of natural selection, leading to their voter-base swallowing the miseducation up in big chunks.
Now when it comes down to Paul Ryan, who has co-sponsored anti-choice legislation banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest, he is flip-flopping like his running mate is best known for. He's adopting the stance of banning abortion in cases unless rape or incest is apparent -- if you can even trust a word he and Mitt Romney spout with their minds changing frequently. However, Ryan wants to cut spending on everything across the board except for military expenses -- you see because war is the bread and butter of republicans. Among the things getting the big conservative ax will be education -- undoubtedly to keep their voter-base as uneducated as possible.
An uneducated voter, after all, will continually vote for conservatives who continue to keep them uneducated. As studies have shown, liberal voters are more intelligent than right wing voters -- and apparently there is a reason for this. Billy Nye "The Science Guy" was on MSNBC recently and he agrees that the republican party appears to be anti-science, and at this point in history it's "very dangerous."
Yes, very dangerous indeed seeing as though women's rights to choose are under attack by people who apparently never took a day of biology class in their lives, much less absorbed any science knowledge.
Remember, a vote for anyone republican at this point will be a vote against education, a vote against knowledge and a vote against future generations of this country.
Crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on The Huffington Post, Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case and many other outlets. Follow @TheRealChelseaH on Twitter or click here to contact Chelsea directly.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 131 ( 2 removed by Chelsea Hoffman )
It reminds me of back in history when people who said the earth wasn't flat were put to death or jailed for life -- it's the same kind of anti-science mentality today
1) wasn't the church primarily the ones pushing for that position?
Yes, that time it was the Catholic Church of England.
2) like the church is pushing most of the anti-science nonsense being talked for the last twenty years,
Yes again, that would be the non demoninational Evangelical and Fundamentalist Mega Churchs of today
Just as has been recorded throughout history, it is the Christian Church which; creates sinners, starts wars, preaches the hate for others, rejects science, denigrates sovereign governments, causes the annihilation of people, tries to govern from the pulpit, forces indoctrination of it's members, lies to society, creates hovac and chaos around the world, establishes cults, sects, communes of sheeple and extorts money from it's own believers.
Also, up through the nineteenth century (in Europe at least), the Church meant the Vatican. No one religious institution today has that kind of power, or wealth. If the GOP actually tries to install one national 'church', the infighting among all the different denominations will be horrendous.
Republicans have to hate science, at least outwardly, but remember Republicans lie about almost everything they talk about.
The Republican world is to separate out the bad people and keep them stressed and stupid, so if they start to let on about the value of science, that is giving information to people that the Republicans do not want them to know. If you talk about science, you indirectly talk about democracy, because the world is observable equally by everyone. If you talk about science you make assumptions about truth, as in if you find the truth out about something you need to stop and accept it. Republicans do not want the collective world view of the country to change, in fact they would like to see it go backwards a few hundred years.
If you pay attention you notice the only thing you get from Republicans is time wasted - in terms of trying to discuss, teach, listen or anything else, they are just not interested.
And yes, the Republican party - most notably the tea party extremist wing - pretty much make up most of what they say they believe in. And Mitt Romney has been pandering directly to the bigot vote rather than being honest and telling the bigots they are unwelcome. In fact, he needs them since the party has pushed everyone else out of the party.
go figure.
And yet "blue" states tend to outperform "red" states over all in public education performance.
In short, I don't comment as much on this stuff either, it becomes a time waster and as they say at the zoo, "don't feed the animals." I just comment on the articles our side writes, otherwise I cut the diesels, switch to batteries, dive and go on silent running.
You're still just making widesweeping claims without any citation lol
derp herp much? jeez.
There is your factual, cultural precedent.
So it's not just isolated cases, this anti science thing in Republicans. SInce about half of republican voters are hostile towards global warming, evolution, and abortion, it colors every thing that comes out of the mouth of most Republican politicians, other than a handful of people like Scott Brown.
But this appreciation for science and innovation was before the religious right took the party hostage. Those have been joined by the bigots, the birthers, and the buffoons, all of whom deny science on a purely ideological basis. If things can be explained by science, then they feel insecure about their faith.
Personally, a faith that is so insecure isn't very faithful. It's just fakeful.
Have I gone off topic?
Proofs for this are easily found in both political and religious issues.
In politics the right maintains the fiction that conservatives are good managers of the public purse, in complete denial of the historical facts that they always run up big deficits and often leave recession or depression in their wake.
In religion we see many conservatives identifying as Christian while supporting anti-Christian policies that punish the poor and reward wealth. The fact that all the teachings of Christianity, whom they claim to follow, are to serve the poor and rebuke the rich.
I strongly suggest you take this short course designed to give even the least scientific viewers the basics of climate change.
You may also want to read through the articles in this series that will give you enough information to avoid the most common errors in fact and logic displayed in your comments.
The heat generated by everything on Earth radiates out into space through the filter of atmospheric gases and clouds. This is why it is colder on a clear night because there is no cloud cover keeping the day's heat from radiating out into space.
The make up of the atmosphere, which we are altering by burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, controls the rate at which heat escapes. This is the anthropogenic portion of the global warming equation.
I would be more concerned with the diversion of solar energy from plants by covering large areas of ground with solar energy harvesting mega-projects, but no more so than any other large human construct that removes plant life from the equation.
Where to begin....
I would be more concerned with the diversion of solar energy from plants by covering large areas of ground with solar energy harvesting mega-projects....
A valid concern to some extent, but not necessary. Large solar projects are in the interest of utilities and centralized energy production and distribution. A distributive energy system makes energy producers of anyone, who wants to invest in solar, wind, equipment. In that case, any parking lot or roof becomes prime space for the placement of solar panels and wind turbines.
You WERE trying to be funny, weren't you?
Roosevelt past his new deal, Johnson passed his great society. We have spent trillions of dollars fighting poverty and have been redistributing income forever and yet the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer still. Why are you blaming conservative ideology when the republicans of today are more liberal than the democrats of the 60's (Compare Kennedy and Bush and the legislations they passed), while the democrats of today are no longer even liberals, they are radicals that want to give America away to Brazil and Finland and China (See Obama).
The basic, fact denying flaw in the entire supply-side, trickle down economic theory is that it relies on the non-sensical assumption that without ever increasing tax holidays the rich will not have enough money to invest and create jobs. The rich always have enough money to invest and create jobs if that is what they want to do. That's why we call them "the rich".
By exposure to these kinds of seemingly nuggets of life experience ... this is how people learn, and clearly people need to be manipulated to learn the wrong thing and the wrong way to think when they are Republicans.
The basic motivation behind Republicans seems to me to be a sort of unthinking person's way of looking around and finding the most aggressive force and then becoming a supporter of that in the hopes it will help them personally fit into the economy, ie. financially or politically benefit them in some way.
The analogous problem with the Democrats is that they just use their party when they have a problem. For example, some group with a problem appeals for help to the broader community .. if such a community exists for redress of an issue ... ie. racism. If that problem goes away, usually the person drops out and does not maintain their connected to the body politic.
This is what makes an inherent strength behind Republicans, they are like a war machine that is always on ... Democrats slack off when they get to be comfortable.
To integrate these two dynamics would be ideal, but the power elite has taken over the Republicans and removed any connection to facts or democracy in the basic tenet that it is somehow evil or communist to think for yourself.
Thus you have fascism when Republicanism goes too far, or just plain weakness and decay when allow things to break down. I think we have a healthy does of both because the honest truth - the scientific honest trust is that none of us know enough to prove what is the best way to live, there is not science for that, and even if there way it is not known or accepted by people - ie. institutionalized. We are really busy DE-institutionalized our public government in favor of letting private and secret groups step in and take power.
This has not led to anything good in our country, and will eventually lead to disaster in my opinion.
The fact is Richochet that John D. is at the bottom 1% but I am smart enough to know that when a politician says that he cares for me and he will take from the rich to give to me I know that what he means is that he really wants the power to take from everybody and line his own pocket and the pockets of his benefactors that got him elected. From the rich he takes money and from the poor he takes the opportunity to become rich himself. Whatever happened to the famous American rugged individualism that was heard about in older times. You all sound like sissys that are waiting for uncle Sam to save you from yourselves and from life itself. NO I am not stupid but I do want the stinking paws of the government out of my business but it seems a hopeless case. You all are driving this country into the ground because you are afraid to take on life without some godfather in Washington to charge you for his protection.
and
NO I am not stupid but I do want the stinking paws of the government out of my business...
If you are actually "at the bottom 1%" then you are highly likely to be receiving some government assistance.
And of course all of us receive government assistance in the form of public roads, street lights, policemen, firemen, schools, and a very long list of other perks you take for granted.
You all are driving this country into the ground because you are afraid to take on life without some godfather in Washington to charge you for his protection.
That, like virtually every other thing you write, would be just silly if it didn't suggest an underlying paranoia and lack of awareness.
Besides, abortion is legal. The discussion of "legitimate" and "forcible" is simply one more way for "conservatives" to violate and suppress the legal rights of women. Each time the "conservatives" get away with suppressing women's rights, they start working on the next way to take even more rights away from women.
And as Akin demonstrated, many of the most vocal in taking those rights from women are white men with egregious ignorance of even the most basic reproductive physiology. As Chelsea's article above highlights, it has become part of the Republican platform to be anti-science, joining it's planks of anti-gay, anti-women, anti-Muslim, anti-"not the right kind of Christian," and anti-"not the right kind of American" in general.
They like science, a lot, but only when it is locked up in the laboratories, or classified, or something they can use against other people to control or exploit them.
That's really not true MLP ... the Republicans have a real fascist streak, look at how they maintain discipline and have instead of doing their jobs turned every action into an attack Obama ritual.
They have many think-tanks studying CIA stuff on how to influence elections, legally as in changing the voter laws, and illegally such as storming the precincts in 2000 to stop the count of the voters in Florida.
I surely do believe that, and it is not mean, it's just the facts. You should open your eyes, since the Republicans seem to be your own party
Two words, Ms. Lee - climate change.
Two words, Ms. Lee: climate change.
Joe
I'm not sure that's the lens to look through. John. I think it's more than a coincidence that so many Republicans fail to accept climatology and evolution, while a majority of Dems do accept both.
Who are Democrats, and who are Republicans? Each, roughly half of us; Democrats exist who will not fall within my complaint/example. And my comment was not a comparison of the two parties and their tendencies, but merely a statement on human bias.
One could easily run a search on Google on your question and find support for my statement (I did this for fun), and if you consider the social sciences, I would have a field day merely within economics. But instead, I will give you what I was thinking at the time of the comment.
To be continued...
For some reason, the folly of Akins reminded me of another case, more celebrated, concerning Democratic MI State Representatives Brown and Byrum (http://n.pr/KFyDSW). In a nut shell, Brown said "Vagina" and Byrum introduced "an amendment to the abortion regulations bill banning men from getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man's life." At about the same time, a friend posted something by Whedon concerning his character, Buffy: "I don’t think Buffy should have a baby. I don’t think Buffy can take care of a baby."* Is abortion really just a form of contraception, like a vasectomy? When we are discussing abortion, are we talking merely about women and their health? Doesn't the fictional Buffy already have a baby? I think the answers are obvious and validated, but ignored.
So, it appears Democrats consistently ignore (if not outright reject) science in order to protect their ideology.
Thank you for listening.
*http://bit.ly/xHbMz1
**Of course, the latter is fiction, but reflects real life situations and opinions.
Whatever human biases we all have poor people don't much get to abuse their wealth or power, so that alone puts to the lie to your whole pathetic attempted point.
Next?
> In a nut shell, Brown said "Vagina" and Byrum introduced "an amendment to the abortion regulations bill banning men from getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man's life."
Idiocy .... Why are you trying to use ridiculous or comedic points to make an argument? Is that all you got??
Again, show me an example of Democratic ideology has conflicted with science and Democrats have disputed the science ?
This is a fallacy and I challenge you to produce credible sources that have led you to believe this. Show me the stats of "democrats using abortion as birth control."
Also, show me the "science" where an embryo or blastocyst is a "baby" or "child."
If you can't, I'm afraid you are the one who is rejecting science.
I just did: Representative Byrum. Of course, like I mentioned before, this does not apply to every Democrat, and I hope that she is kind of like Akin --someone who misspoke and does not represent the party.
Also, show me the "science" where an embryo or blastocyst is a "baby" or "child."
My New Oxford considers it an "unborn human baby"; I would add from embryo implantation. We can argue about nomenclature all night, but the fact is, once viable, the offspring will continue developing, barring some detrimental event or situation, into a infant and eventually an adult. She needs to be considered. I honestly don't have any political opinions except that --she needs to be considered and mentioned every time "Vagina" is.
I do not have any opinions concerning the so-called "abortion drug" or stem-cell research.
It was nice talking with you.
Last entry here, but feel free to email me. Take care.
In other words you are regurgitating what an individual says without citing any study or credible proof. I rest my case.
Furthermore, the "definitions" you are using don't take into consideration the complex process of fetal development. A baby isn't a baby until it's born. An embryo, blastocyst or fetus prior to a certain developmental stage cannot sustain life without the mother's body and various vital systems sustaining life FOR IT; therefore it is not a sentient lifeform.
This isn't "politics"; it's medical/biological science. So why do you cite a single politician for your source of "knowledge" ??
simply laughable...next?
"last entry here" -- good; do return when you're able to offer things of actual intelligence and fact instead of regurgitated political rhetoric on a science discussion. You've clearly proven the point this article makes.
You simple cannot make a statement like that ... and in that statement you mean to vilify all Democrats in an underhanded way that relieves you from having to make any kind of sensible argument based on facts.
This is exactly why Republicans hates science, it destroys them utterly when they cannot use arbitary authority or corrupt political based force.
Some excerpts:
Most Americans actually disagree with John McCain on abortion, as they do on most of the issues that separate him and his Democratic rival. Polls show that only 30% of Americans believe all abortions should be illegal, and few support a return to the pre-Roe era. The majority -- including the majority of evangelical Christians, who made up Warren's audience -- think we should find some kind of "middle ground" on abortion. The reason is that most Americans are ambivalent about abortion. Virtually no one -- left, right, or center -- is comfortable with late term abortions except when the mother's life or health is in danger. The idea of aborting an 8-month-old fetus for convenience (something no one would really do, but it makes a great bogey man to push Democrats down slippery slopes) is deeply disturbing to the vast majority of Americans in a way that aborting a 10-week-old fetus is not.
Why? Because the concept of life is what cognitive psychologists call a "fuzzy set" -- a concept that doesn't have clear boundaries. Unconsciously, most people view a newly fertilized embryo as qualitatively different from a late-term fetus because it doesn't seem like a person. But the point at which a fetus seems to us more like a person than not is indeterminate.
Regardless of their conscious beliefs -- that life begins at conception or that life begins when a baby takes its first breath -- most people's feelings follow their unconscious perceptions. That's why early in pregnancy even most evangelical Christians find it morally repugnant to force a rape victim to bear her rapist's child, even though they may consciously believe that the fertilized egg is a life, whereas late in pregnancy most people aren't comfortable with abortion except in exceptional circumstances. In their guts, most people feel that Roe v. Wade got it about as right as we're going to get it -- which is why the vast majority of Americans don't want it overturned -- even if they can't articulate why.
...
Americans tend to prefer honesty and nuance to oversimplification. The answer doesn't lie in "dumbing down" our messages. It lies in ratcheting up their emotional intelligence. On some issues it took us several tries in focus groups and online dial-tests to find the words that conveyed what we were trying to express without triggering some other meaning we hadn't intended, but by the time we had completed the latest round of testing, we had multiple messages that beat well-branded conservative messages by 8 to 30 points on every issue.
...
The problem is there issues are complex, not that they are ambiguous, and thanks to people like John here who merely has to drag the level of discussion down by setting people off with his nonsense, the finer points of these issues are able to be kept from the majority of Americans rather easily.
This is another aspect for the public bashing of science, in order to prevent the marketplace of ideas from working ... thanks a lot Republicans!
Abortion should be done ASAP and be safe, legal and rare.
and well-meaning Americans should work together on seeing that happen.
The bottom line for Republicans seems to be to call abortion murder and attack Democrats as being immoral people who are like apostates in Muslims countries ... that is, they are so evil it is OK to threaten and to talk about killing them - and I am f*king sick of it Republicans. No science, no discussion, no respect for anyone else's right to speak, no consideration of the human side of things, just a straight gut ignorant emotional appeal to reptile aggression, with fake nods to the morality of TV religion.
Is representative Byrum a scientist? A medical professional? An expert on studies?
Chelsea,
I misunderstand. Do you want me to find a study that proves that contraception and abortion are not the same thing? Doesn't mere logic satisfy that? I was under the impression that the request was for me to find Democratic thinking (i.e. a Democrat) that departs from science, or at least logical thinking. I found an example pretty easily in Byrum, who made the mistake of comparing abortion with contraception. I will agree that my example does not prove that all Democrats make her specific mistake*, just as Akin's comments offer no similar proof against Republicans.
(Akin's is a bad example to use, actually, since Republicans flocked to dislodge him. This did not happen to Byrum.)
-----
The problem is there issues are complex, not that they are ambiguous, and thanks to people like John here who merely has to drag the level of discussion down by setting people off with his nonsense
I tend to look at political problems as complex with few clear answers, which might be why Bruce thought I was being, eh, diplomatic...
Bruce, since you agreed with me and called it "his nonsense" almost in the same breath, it is obvious that you are not listening. In addition, unless I am mistaken, I have yet to comment directly on the legality of abortion. I have spoken thus far only on its complexity.
----
Seem like a person?
Able to perceive and feel things?
Really?
*Other Democrats (and Republicans) make different mistakes. My friend --a professor who considers himself a Communist (though he is not, really) --tends to have difficulties with economics, which is not his field.
For the record, I do retract my original conclusion that (all) Democrats reject science. Instead, I replace it with "people tend to reject or ignore science when it does not support their ideology" which is closer to my original assertion. Furthermore (this might be fun for another day), I have a theory that people tend to not so much reject science (at least in their own minds), but instead find experts to support their views. This is not universally true, of course.
You are correct, though, that human life begins at conception. There is no other point up to and including birth at which one can designate a starting point of life. An embryo, a zygote is a human life, for it can be nothing else.
However, the salient point is whether it is a viable, independent human life. Until it is I would say it has no individual rights and all its rights, as it's life, are dependent upon the mother. The mother should have the final say on any decision to abort the child because it is her body that supports it entirely.
But if you are a Republican, please ignore. "Honey Boo Boo" is your version of reality TV.
So stupidly short sighted and greed driven that you deserve that fate you would bring down on everyone else, but many others do not.
For example, the tobacco lobbyists, often a lobbying organization called the Heartland Institute, would pay people to say that entire bodies of science were "junk science" while offering a single paper or non-peer-reviewed report that failed to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
Not surprisingly, this same Heartland Institute is funded by the fossil fuel industry and their new bedfellows, the libertarian/tea party/bigot wing of the Republican party, to claim over 100+ years of peer-reviewed scientific work is somehow "junk science" but obviously faked graphs on an anonymous blog that links to fossil fuel funded front groups are somehow "sound science" even though they are laughably idiotic in the transparency of their lies.
Just wanted you to understand the origins of the lobbyist-invented "junk science" mantra so you will understand why it completely invalidates any credibility you thought you might have had.
Consider this a public service that informs you enough to avoid further embarrassment, at least on this particular denialist talking point.
When facts conflict with a belief or a business opportunity people tend to try to deny the facts or develop specious or obfuscatory arguments. It's human nature.
It's the same model radical Islam uses, and it is has been around for almost 1100 years and is still very strong. Palestinians do the same thing. If anyone ever wants to question authority, which after all is what science is all about ... they shun them or hurt them. It is a very good way to maintain an army, which is what my problems with Republicans are mostly, they are at war all the time with everyone else.
The only way to really get along with a Republican is to be a Republican ... and we see that we are fighting this very same thing in the war against radical Islam ... ironic ain't it??
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mitt Romney
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mitt_romney.html#zVfJ1iEY9lc9HpRd.99
Carlos Santana, Associated Press interview, September 1, 2004
That has a nice sound to it, but I'd have to disagree. And Dwight Eisenhower, if he was so prescient and brilliant should have done something to actually stop the "congressional" military industry complex instead of just talking about it.
Mitt Romney
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mitt_romney.html#zVfJ1iEY9lc9HpRd.99
Mitt Romney
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mitt_romney.html#zVfJ1iEY9lc9HpRd.99
If people like these quotations, I will do a sequel with more Romney quotes. My view on gay marriage is that gay marriage will encourage fidelity rather than multiple sex partners and therefore should reduce the spread of AIDS.