Discussion for article #235669
Never fear, though, apparently Senator Inhofe is no longer as big a denier of Climate Change as he use to be.
Either that or heās supporting nuclear power after a fracking induced earthquake tried to destroy his house.
Teaching science for non-majors at a community college the students so often say they arenāt āscience peopleā, and believe they canāt do it. That comes from a childhood of being told you canāt. Science education at the elementary level need a drastic overhaul, and it needs it now. Nothing would destroy the GOP faster than a science-literate population.
I can also tell you that with the right push, scientific curiosity can be resparked in older students, but it needs to be reinforced. I only have my students for maybe two classes. When they leave my class they are all excited about science, and some stick with it. But I know the bulk of them lose it after about a semester of no reinforcement. Makes me sad.
17 Likes
You mean the guy who just two months ago threw a snowball on the Senate floor to prove climate change wasnāt real? I think heās as much of a denier as he ever was.
5 Likes
Itās not climate change, itās just high tideā¦
Itās just a dry spellā¦
http://calclimateag.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Texas-drought.jpg
13 Likes
Apparently he recently said something about how we have to support nuclear power because of climate changeā¦but then again, I suspect heās scared of losing his house in an earthquake and wants to support nuclear power so that we can stop fracking.
2 Likes
A bit OT but every time I hear this President speak on almost any subject Iām struck by his insight and sanity. And I have to wonder how much denial the other half of the country has to be in not to have at least some grudging respect for him. I guess thatās how you have to take all stupid teleprompter talkāas a left-handed compliment in response to how persuasive and compelling he is. Just imagine, I ask youāhow much ground might we have made up since 2000 if weād just let him be the leader he naturally is? If the Republicans had been calm, principled, responsible citizens instead of hysterical freaks all these years? Shaking my head.
Just wonderingālook at 2:54, down in the lower right corner. Does that look like a small alligator cruising past? Kinda wild.
28 Likes
Imagine if in November 2000 America hadnāt been subjected to butterfly ballots, hanging chads, Katherine Harris and the GOP stacked SCrOTUS.
20 Likes
Well, as President Gore told the nation himself in the middle of his second term, āright now we are already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists canāt even go over to Europe anymore without getting hugged.ā
11 Likes
Thereās been some social science research recently purporting to show that, for those involved in politics, itās akin to rooting for you favorite team. That is, itās all about your side winning. It doesnāt matter whether or not which side has the most cogent arguments or not.
The survey showed that 41 percent of partisans agreed that simply winning
elections is more important to them than policy or ideological goals,
while just 35 percent agreed that policy is a more important motivator
for them to participate in politics. Only 24 percent valued both equally
or expressed no opinion. - See more at:
http://news.ku.edu/2015/04/13/study-most-partisans-treat-politics-sports-rivalries-instead-focusing-issues#sthash.HPrLXUvV.dpuf
What the research doesnāt seem to cover is the veracity of the issues being discussed. It appears to assume that all issues are equally factual and supported by the preponderance of evidence, which, of course, is often not the case.
Personally I agree that both right and left ends of the political spectrum engage in this, but the research doesnāt appear to to break down the relative magnitude of the tendencies of self-identified Democrats and Republicans to engage in "sports team politics; only that āboth sides do it,ā at least as described in this article.
When it came to uncivil attitudes, 38 percent of partisans agreed that their
parties should use any tactics necessary to āwin elections and issue
debates.ā When those who agreed with this view were asked what tactics
they had in mind, the most common ones they offered were voter
suppression, stealing or cheating in elections, physical violence and
threats against the other party, lying, personal attacks on opponents,
not allowing the other party to speak and using the filibuster to
gridlock Congress. Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to
express this opinion.
This is very counter intuitive to me, my experience is that itās predominantly a right-wing phenomenon, but perhaps I live an overly cloistered existence. Iād like to see their hard numbers, But the full text is behind a pay-wall
13 Likes
Your experience is a good teacher.
It is mostly a right-wing phenomenon.
Iāve been active in politics for over 45 years now, and Iāve never seen much of that sort of crap from the leftāaside from a few loonytunes radicals in the late 60s, whose tenure was brief but noisy.
12 Likes
I havenāt seen any critiques of this research yet. I know Iām being biased, being trained in the hard sciences [biology], but a lot of political science research findings always seem a bit ādodgyā to me. Iād really like to see their numbers and experimental design, but, alas, I donāt want to pay for it.
5 Likes
I canāt help but note that this is carefully written in a way that leads one to infer that partisans on both sides approved of each of those tactics equally, but doesnāt acutally say it. Because āuse filibuster to gridlock Congress,ā ālyingā and āpersonal attacks on opponents,ā yeah those things are just like physical violence, vote suppression, election stealing and cheating and threats against the other party. Totally morally equivalent there.
11 Likes
Iām imagining a Ferrari parked on a sunny boulevard with the keys in the ignition. BHO turns the key, turns his head and smiles that warm, toothy grin, and VROOOM!
4 Likes
āI have the capacity to look at facts and base my conclusions on evidence.ā
This, this line right here is why those who think heās been a great president think heās been a great president, and those who think heās been teh worst president evah!āright and leftāthink that heās been the worst ever. Just this. Itās why the Beltway MSM has come to dislike him, itās why we have the manufactured outrage machine called the Tea Party exists and itās why a persistent fragment of the left continues to despise him. Each and everyone of them, ultimately, are enraged that he insists on looking at facts and making evidence-based decisions rather than doing things that are objectively stupid or futile or awful that would cater to their emotional needs and emotion-based beliefs.
16 Likes
I believe youāre right. Good catch.
President Obama is a smart, rational, and calm person whoās going to outlast the haters on either side of the aisle. And deep down, although theyāll never admit it, they know this.
6 Likes
As I said; dodgy.
1 Like
It also comes from something that I think started with social media: polls that ask questions about facts, but pose them as if it is okay to just have an opinion on the subject.
Do you think humans cause global warming? Yes/No
Do you think President Obama was born in Kenya? Yes/No
Do you think renewable energy sources are too expensive to be worth it? Yes/No
ā¦and on and onā¦it has given incurious and ignorant people the impression that whatever pops into their pointy little heads is worthy of comment, and should be taken into account when the percentages of Yesses vs Nos are added up, and truth should be determined by votes.
Add that to the āscience vs the bibleā crowd, and I just donāt see an end in sight.
4 Likes
Hmm no, I believe thatās Mitt Romney in a gator suit. Unfortunately, heās still operating under the impression if he hangs around long enough, should something happen to the president, heāll be able to pop up, raise his hand, and say, āpick me, pick me!ā and heāll be crowned president. The poor thing still doesnāt understand the presidency isnāt a game of Marco Polo.
7 Likes
This makes a lot of sense. It does seem that over the last decade or so, what used to be regarded as opinion is now fact ,and fact is now opinion, and both fact and opinion are given equal weight. I do think itās partly social media and partly the MSM. At some point, they stopped treating hard facts as facts and began treating facts as little more than opinion. For instance, a reporter might say, āRepublicans say a stand down order was issued in Benghazi, but Democrats say no stand down order was issued at all.ā Even though the reporter knows for fact that no stand down order was issued, they present a thoroughly debunked opinion on the same footing as a fact. That leaves the viewer subconsciously making a choice as to who to believe when there should be no choice. They make their decision as to whom to believe through the prism of what sounds right or truthy, what fits within their preconceptions, so a guy who just watched some action movie about a guy being left behind by his Army unit might actually believe a stand down order seems credible.
9 Likes