About This Blog
DougJ at Balloon Juice.com, discussing Rick Perry's anti-science march to the GOP presidential candidacy....
But if Perry wins the Republican nomination partly by being more anti-science than Romney—and I suspect that he will—then one way or another Paul Krugman is probably right:
"[T]he odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge."
The anti-science stuff may be half-hearted but when you say things for long enough, you start to believe them. I see the Republican base getting more and more Medieval on all of our asses and I see the media going along with all of it in the interest of fairness and balance.
That is exactly right. And truth be told....it's a scary proposition. Some superstitious numbnutz with access to the silo codes.
But Krugman was actually talking about what GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said about his own party. Here's what Huntsman said....
"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party -- the anti-science party, we have a huge problem," Huntsman told ABC News Senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper. "We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012."
"When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said … about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position," Huntsman added.
Finally, a Republican who tells the truth about climate science. Huntsman corrects the totally bogus Foxian spin put on global climate change by simply stating the facts. 98% of climate scientists have concluded that man is contributing to the greenhouse effect. Huntsman, apparently, doesn't accept the childish "ClimateGate" gotcha wingnuttery about scientists being in some secretive cabal of information manipulation so's they could all continue to get them, you know, socialistic grants from government and corporations and stuff. Boneheads.
Here's what Perry calls global climate change...
"a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question" while claiming scientists have "manipulated data" on the issue.
Rick Perry on evolution....
It's a theory that's out there. It's got some gaps in it.
America does not want a president who is so easily caught up in mystical explanations of how the world works. It would be like electing a soothsayer, a medium, an astrologist to the White House. Jon Huntsman's concerns about his Republican Party are warranted. The conservative movement has pushed so far to the right in the last few years in their attempt to stifle any progressive initiatives.....that their frontrunner for the presidency today is an evolution-denying, young-earth-believing, Creationist and a global climate change denier.
Is the image that conservatives want to portray for America one of hickdom? Ignorance? Will America be stronger with a president who denies science...will America be well served if we have a president who chooses to rely on prayer instead of scientific consensus?
Independents and moderates need to keep this stuff in mind as we move closer to November, 2012. The drivers of today's Republican Party are something straight out of the medieval age. Science is anti-god, so science cannot be trusted. Scientists can't be trusted because they try to explain away god. And scientists are mainly, you know, liberal, critical thinkers....and that's not good.
Rick Perry is one of these guys who says he doesn't trust science. He believes that the fossil record, carbon dating, and all geological and biological evidence which verifies evolution and a multiple billion year old planet are all just theories. Take 'em or leave 'em....just theories that are, you know, "out there". If mystical nonsense and fairy tales are preferred by Governor Perry over mainstream science, what kind of decisions would he make as president?
Krugman is probably right....eventually, with the back and forth of our two party system being what it is....we will most likely vote in a medievalist Republican to the presidency some day. American conservatism moves closer to a mystical comprehension of reality every day...and so it just seems inevitable that in one of our four year election cycles....a Republican who would be more comfortable in the days of Galileo's prosecution, will sit in the Oval Office.
Eventually...maybe....but not in 2012...and not Rick Perry.