« Muscle mania | Main | iPod Touch, crappiest mp3 player ever »

November 19, 2012

Comments

I looked at what he said. He artfully dodged the question in my opinion, agreeing with everyone and giving every answer.

He states the possibility that the Earth developed in 'eras' and not days.

He doesn't want to scorn Creationists and he doesn't want to sound like a hardline Creationist either. He achieved that.


Mitt Romney was a horrible, horrible candidate. The fact that he publicly supported evolution is good, but insufficient. Romney didn't have a platform, and thus was completely unelectable from the beginning. No platform = no victory. Even bad platform is better than no platform. Someone who is ideologically placed to win a local election in NY (Romney) isn't a viable candidate on a national Republican ticket, because he doesn't bring the urban Northeast to the table, while at the same time he is going to be weak everywhere else.

By allowing the South to dominate the party the Republicans are allowing themselves to seen as the party of retards. Rick "I was too dumb to become a veterinarian so I became governor" Perry is a great example.

The Republican party's real problem is that its primaries seem to be between urban liberals and southern good ol' boys, neither of which are swing voters. We need to see more midwestern and southwestern influence in the party.

He's not a creationist; he's a cravenist. He'll make an excellent declining stage figurehead for the nominal party of American conservatism as it wheezes its last hopes under the deluge of demographic disaster.

The Tea Party golden boy can't figure out how to say "that has nothing to do with anything, next question"

We are so fucked

"The Republican party's real problem is that its primaries seem to be between urban liberals and southern good ol' boys, neither of which are swing voters. We need to see more midwestern and southwestern influence in the party."

First caucus is Iowa, a swing state.
First primary is NH, a swing state.

My takeaway from Rubio's RNC speech was that he is special because A) he's Cuban, B) his dad was once a bartender, and Marco managed to be elected to the Senate and give a speech at the RNC. It's sort of tautological: he gets elected because he comes from modest background, and his big achievement is having been elected coming from a modest background.

But then again, that was theme of most of the non-Romney speeches at the RNC.

The republicans simply can't compete in the rigged game. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

"You’d think Rubio would imitate the winner and not the losers. "

This makes no sense. Winning the nomination and losing the general is about the worst possible outcome. It wastes a lot of your time and effort, and pretty much kills your chances as a future candidate.

Fighting the last war is probably not a good strategy in any case, but if you're going to do that, don't copy the guy who "almost" won.

Republicans need more Eisenhower and less of this crap. What I don't get is if the Catholic church doesn't think there is a conflict between evolution and God, why is this such a big deal here? It's incredibly asinine. Anyone who believes the earth is 6000 years old is flat wrong.

There was plenty of evidence that Romney would have trouble connecting with regular voters before the November Nightmare. Romney the businessman would have a hard time investing in Romney the candidate based on evidence from 08 and his own approval ratings in Massachusetts. Romney was a flawed candidate. Possibly, a great President but a flawed candidate. I thought Rubio's answer was a little long but fine. Also, super smart Romney didn't do a good job of defending his foreign policy and military budget plans. Your giving 2 trillion to military that they didn't ask for and don't need. It is defensible but Romney didn't defend it.

I don't think he dodged the question, that answer seemed like a genuine stump.

"The republicans simply can't compete in the rigged game. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't."

Yes, damn that liberal media asking them unfair questions like "How old is the earth?" and "Is evolution true?" The game is rigged.

Seth MacFarlane weighs in on this, to his 3.1 million followers on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/270617398707630081

@ HAR

The game is rigged because liberals are never held to account for the stupid things they say to appeal to their much stupider base.

I agree that the Republican party needs more Eisenhowers. Not just because Eisenhower won elections, but also because Eisenhower was the last non-leftist president. Reagen and Bush II talked like rightists, but ruled like leftists. Operation Wetback + Fiscal responsibility? That's what happens when you elected a rightist.

Some on McFarlane's page are comparing Republican creationism with liberal denials of HBD.

It's not a fair comparison. When it comes to evolution and the age of the earth, the Democrats believe in science while Republicans don't. But when it comes to HBD, neither party ever says they believe in it. So it's not a comeback for Republicans to say "you're just as anti-science as we are."

"The game is rigged because liberals are never held to account for the stupid things they say to appeal to their much stupider base."

What scientifically illiterate things do liberals say? I'll grant blacks get a free pass. Liberals deny HBD, but so do conservatives, so there's no difference there.

bitter HAR:
"So it's not a comeback for Republicans to say "you're just as anti-science as we are."

Translation: Our aggressively stupid anti-science stance has effectively cowed the other side to toe our ignorant line.

No, I do think it is an excellent comeback to call out the left on their anti-science ignorance, especially if those doing the calling out are not Republican party members.

"The game is rigged because liberals are never held to account for the stupid things they say to appeal to their much stupider base."

I dunno, I can't recall when someone asked a liberal 'what magazines/newspapers do you read' and not being able to answer the question like Sarah Palin.

[HS: Alvin Greene probably wouldn't have been able to answer, but he wasn't nominated for VP, and Dems were embarassed about him rather than praising him as the second coming of FDR.]

How often does GQ ask people about the age of the planet?

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal urges the GOP to stop being the "dumb party."

Yet this grown man who calls himself "Bobby," once participated in an exorcism.

[HS: I'm not sure that participating in an exorcism is any dumber than participating in secret Mormon rites.]

Liberals are wrong about many things, but they believe the content of conventional high school science text books. Republicans do not.

HS seems to have missed that the age of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution.

I agree with the Darwinian theory of evolution and in all honesty I would not have answered the question any better than Rubio. I have no idea how old the Earth is without looking it up, and I suspect this is the case for most non-geologists and most astronomers. But I could tell you how many games the Yankees won last season. I even had to just look up how to spell "astronomer". Of course I am not running for office.

Really I think it was a bad question. I don't want to click on the GQ link so I have no idea about the context. If they had asked "are you a creationist" I think it would have been a more direct way of eliciting the information they were trying to ask about, and fairer to Rubio. A question on the lines of "are there any views held by most scientists that contradict your religious beliefs, and how do you reconcile this when that happens" would have been fairly interesting and elicited a better answer.

HS does have a point in that it is inconceivable that a Democratic politician would be asked a question like this.

I don't think pointy-head academic bashing really costs the Republicans alot of votes, there are probably more people who are into this than who are turned off. But I think it does create problems when they try to govern.

What I don't get is if the Catholic church doesn't think there is a conflict between evolution and God, why is this such a big deal here?

To these folks the Church is the WHORE OF BABYLON.

Conservatives more willing to ban "racist" speech than liberals...

http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/18/are-liberal-or-conservative-americans-more-likely-to-support-restrictions-on-racist-and-anti-religious-speech/

Why should HBDers identify with the right again?

It seems to me that HBDers are watching two parties argue. From their perspective, one is smart but wrong. The other side isn't even smart enough to be wrong. It's drooling on itself in the corner. Somehow, HBDers get the idea that conservatives are on their "team."

So HS, what does this question have to do with the GDP?

[HS: A smart president will be better at increasing GDP than a stupid president. That's why I supported Romney who is smart. Stupid presidents, like Warren Harding, often screw up. (And Warren Harding seems to me like a well-meaning guy who was in over his head.)]

"Somehow, HBDers get the idea that conservatives are on their "team.""

None of what you say qualifies as a legitimate reason for refraining from calling out ignorant fools like Seth Macfarlane on their anti-science ignorance. Unless, that is, your mood affiliation would be butthurt by such a calling out.

[HS: It's not so much that conservatives are on our side, but rather that liberals are extremely hostile to our side. For HBDers, conservatives are the best hope.]

Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

"Stupid presidents, like Warren Harding, often screw up. (And Warren Harding seems to me like a well-meaning guy who was in over his head.)"

Harding wasn't necessarily a stupid person, having been a very successful self-made newspaper publisher. His weakness was that he let some less-than-honest friends have too much influence over his presidency.

"I agree with the Darwinian theory of evolution"

Since the first empirical studies on bacterial mutations in contact with antibiotics, Evolution is not a theory anymore but a fact. Like, if you heat water to 98 degrees on this planet it will always emit vapor and engage a boiling process.

You may want to watch the BBC 2012 documentary "Defeating the superbugs" for an example of the kind of empirical experiments I'm talking about. You see mutations happening in real time in bacteria, some of them validated by their resistance to antibiotics and then passed on to other bacteria, others discarded because not strong enough to defeat antibiotics.

Evolution is simply irrefutable now, and the denier position has become untenable, except if you outright oppose empiricism and science as a societal model and prefer instead superstition and myth. I have nothing against that from a philosophical viewpoint, contrary to intolerant young American geeks, but regressing to the level of African tribes is not my cup of tea.

"What I don't get is if the Catholic church doesn't think there is a conflict between evolution and God, why is this such a big deal here?"

I see this argument often in Internet arguments, and it would have made Nietzsche, Schopenhauer or Heidegger roar with laughter. It would also have made cleric officials from the XXth century question your sanity.

There *is* a conflict between Christian mythology and Evolution, you really can't run away from that. There's a reason the Churches denied so hard Evolution when it started to be peddled by the media in the XIXth century, and why full admission of Evolution did not come from the Vatican before the 1970s. There has always been a conflict between Christian mythology and post-Enlightenment science, notably on matters of human anatomy and genetic science, since it revealed that:

- Far from being perfect or holy, the human body was actually unoptimized and inefficient, filled with ancient evolutionary relics and useless organs, and strangely similar in both shape and internal functioning to the body of pigs and great apes

- The human brain was the true "life force" in a person, and sufficiently complex to allow one to suppose that the soul was actually simply neurochemical activity in it

- Heredity, not God's hand or chance, determined the talents and physical appearance people were born with. This is especially important, as the Churches used to maintain that everybody in God's world had a special purpose and was created individually by God

- It was possible to actually remedy bad heredity through careful breeding or genetic engineering, therefore meddling with God's creations and robbing them of their special or incredible aspect.

There *is not* a conflict between the idea of a Supreme Being and Evolution, but what does it have to do with Christianity, a very precise religion with its codified rituals?

Even if the GOP were to adopt HBD today, it would still be hawkish, evangelical, anti-science and pro-corporate (unfortunately).

"Liberals are wrong about many things, but they believe the content of conventional high school science text books."

Because they fucking wrote them... which doesn't impress me.

"A smart president will be better at increasing GDP than a stupid president."

Smart politicians - from Wilson to Roosevelt to Obama - are EXACTLY the reason the economy is so fucked up now.

"Harding wasn't necessarily a stupid person, having been a very successful self-made newspaper publisher. His weakness was that he let some less-than-honest friends have too much influence over his presidency."

Plus, every female in his family had a luxuriant natural pelt!

"Even if the GOP were to adopt HBD today, it would still be hawkish, evangelical, anti-science and pro-corporate (unfortunately)."

You should read 'Science Left Behind' by Berezow and Cambell, Bill.

The left is every bit as anti-science as the right, and actually much more so because the right gets called out on it and doesn't get very very far.

Here's actual data on scientific literacy:

'Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are'
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/03/republicans-are-more-scientifically.html

Some huge areas where the left is rotten on science include:
1 - Inability to think rationally about wind power, solar, nuclear and other energy options in terms of hard cost-benefit.
2 - Gender differences are wrongly thought by the left to be a creation of some vast patriarchal conspiracy that existed for all of human history. A mountain of bad policy is based on this.
3 - Ditto for all other effin' human differences under the sun.
4 - Genetically modified food, despised across leftist Europe without thought.
5 - A lot of environmentalism is feel good BS. For instance, the guy at your farmer's market is way less efficient carbon-wise than a corporate farmer but the latter evil and the former is good.
6 - Two degrees of global warming is the biggest threat to civilization ever.
7 - Affirmative action and the war on excellence. This one really has got my goat because here the left is militantly anti civilization.

And more (read the book).

Conservatives and science are not a problem. They are taken to the woodshed by the media and made a laughing stock for one slip up. Liberals on the other hand are free to be as wrong as they want, and the media reinforces wrong ideas by the left.

And also, when it comes to religious fundamentalism Democrats get a free pass. Obama can work black ministers and churches saying Jesus this and that and he is safe (only reported in the British press).
http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2011/02/03/at-prayer-breakfast-obama-calls-jesus-my-lord-and-savior/

Romney dared not mention the J word once ever, for fear of slaughter (a justified fear).

"Even if the GOP were to adopt HBD today, it would still be hawkish, evangelical, anti-science and pro-corporate (unfortunately)."

So very different from the hawkish, evangelical*, anti-science and pro-corporate Democrats...

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_left

"'Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are'
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/03/republicans-are-more-scientifically.html"

Careful with Epigone et al. Their purely statistical and surveyal approach has its limitations.

My personal experience is that liberals and libertarians tend to be overall far more intelligent and interested by science than conservatives. Conservatives are technical, down-to-earth types, but not scientific types. They do not believe science has a role to play beyond the realm of automobiles, industrial machinery and medicine. They do not find it interesting beyond that, and don't understand the point of fundamental or controversial research. They tend to dismiss all the social sciences as quackery, without distinction. They are also not very interested by space conquest, genetic engineering, the Singularity and all this nerdy stuff, preferring their family, their church, their sports team and their friends to dreams about distant planets and xenobiology.

"Some huge areas where the left is rotten on science include:
1 - Inability to think rationally about wind power, solar, nuclear and other energy options in terms of hard cost-benefit."

I agree; there's absolutely nothing better in this planet than atom fission/fusion to produce energy, and it's absolutely incomprehensible that governments worldwide bowed to enviro pressure and absurd safety fears.

" 2 - Gender differences are wrongly thought by the left to be a creation of some vast patriarchal conspiracy that existed for all of human history. A mountain of bad policy is based on this."

Liberals are smarter than you believe they are; we are in 2012, and few still believe in the "genders are equal" craptrap. This meme reached its apex in approx. 2006, and then its downfall began.

I don't know any of my liberal friends who still believes women have the same brain as men. They tend, compared to myself, to overestimate the intelligence of women, but they fully share the vision that women are more emotional, weaker, and so on.

" 3 - Ditto for all other effin' human differences under the sun."

Smart liberals are beginning too to understand that something stinks like shit in Africa. They are beginning to understand that the foreign aid and education programs helped achieve nothing and they will soon want answers.

" 4 - Genetically modified food, despised across leftist Europe without thought."

I agree that GMO are without danger, as the human intestine is able to discriminate in absorption between friendly molecules and unknown molecules, but the problem is that contrary to liberals, who always doubt and read and try to understand, conservatives tend to have a kneejerk "corporations = good / activists and journalists = bad" reflex. Sometimes it works, sometimes it bites them in the ass.

" 6 - Two degrees of global warming is the biggest threat to civilization ever."

The global warming meme is still alive, but liberals have ceased to be catastrophist about it. There are also more and more liberals who deny GW.

" 7 - Affirmative action and the war on excellence. This one really has got my goat because here the left is militantly anti civilization."

I don't know any liberal, in my circle of friends, who actually supports affirmative action. 90% of liberals have a colorblind approach to race issues, not a "stick it back to whitey" vision.

Not even secularists actually know the age of the earth if by "age of earth" we mean EXACT age of earth? So, it is a stupid, juvenile question put forth by a radical liberal, no doubt. Actually, the distinct possibility that God created a universe that had secularists "see" the near exact age of the universe as "this" and had the believers in God see the age of earth as "that" IS ENTIRELY within our "hard science" understandings. The material configurations needed to create these alternate ways of "seeing" things are obviously MANIFEST. In short, Rubio's answer that the secular answer for the age of earth actually tells us nothing substantive rings true. And the creationist view has legitimate potential ROOTED in the hard physical sciences.

Sorry Alex...

But what you have described does not encompass the type of "evolution" that signifies "descent." And let us make no mistake, "evolution" without "descent" is nothing. All you have done is claimed to have witnessed a small part of the SPECULATED TOTAL process while taking the position that one cannot "see" the whole thing AND MUST then make grand claims on partial evidence. You have not witnessed specie to new specie "evolution" in those bacteria experiments. Those experiments give ABSOLUTELY no evidence for "descent." There isn't even a smidgen of evidence that these bacteria "pass" anything if "pass" is to be defined as a purposeful act.

At best, you've described bacteria being bacteria and slapped "evolution" on the phenomena.

What I mean when I say the game is rigged is that the media presents this as "Rubio is creationist, crazy, stupid, unfit"

They present Mourdock as "He thinks rape is a gift from god and women should be happy they got raped"

The game is rigged. The press presents everything republicans do or say as crazy, and they hammer these memes relentlessly.

In reality what Rubio said is "I don't know, who cares, let everyone believe what they want to believe".

And they are acting like he shot Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the head and danced on his grave

Alex, being scientifically illiterate, I will take your word for it that natural selection has been proved, but this is the first time anywhere I have seen Christianity described as "precise".

Alex says :
""I agree with the Darwinian theory of evolution"

Since the first empirical studies on bacterial mutations in contact with antibiotics, Evolution is not a theory anymore but a fact"

The theory of evolution is the explanatory framework used to explain the facts of evolution. There's nothing wrong at all with calling it a theory. A scientific theory is not the same thing as a vague hunch or a mere hypothesis.

"Romney dared not mention the J word once ever, for fear of slaughter (a justified fear)."

Well, as a Mormon Romney doesn't accept the Christian belief that Jesus is God Eternal made flesh. He's probably safer avoiding that topic.

Never mind science, he doesn´t even known the official position of his putative Church (Roman Catholic Church), which is in agreement with evolution.
Rubio is probably an atheist, or deist like Obama. Clueless about religion.

"

Sorry Alex...

But what you have described does not encompass the type of "evolution" that signifies "descent." And let us make no mistake, "evolution" without "descent" is nothing. All you have done is claimed to have witnessed a small part of the SPECULATED TOTAL process while taking the position that one cannot "see" the whole thing AND MUST then make grand claims on partial evidence. You have not witnessed specie to new specie "evolution" in those bacteria experiments. Those experiments give ABSOLUTELY no evidence for "descent." There isn't even a smidgen of evidence that these bacteria "pass" anything if "pass" is to be defined as a purposeful act.

At best, you've described bacteria being bacteria and slapped "evolution" on the phenomena."

Life does not stay stable, but sometimes mutates, and certain mutations become the new norm overtime. How is that not Evolution?

Please, please, read the Wikipedia article on Evolution, or read Richard Dawkins's definition of Evolution, before you start making grand claims about the necessity of proving that men come from apes to prove Evolution.

Creationists claim, as their name indicate, that life forms were created "as is" by God, and that the only reason some ancient life forms have disappeared is because they died, not because they mutated.

Evolution provides a framework to understand that humans were not created "as is" by God (as in the Adam and Eve story) but *undoubtedly* evolved from a more ancient species. This evolution being mutations validated or discarded by natural selection. Classical biological definition.

I suspect the reason you don't believe men come from apes is that you don't understand that Evolution achieved such spectacular effects thanks to time alone... millions of years are a very long time for changes to happen in the phenotype of humans.

"The theory of evolution is the explanatory framework used to explain the facts of evolution. There's nothing wrong at all with calling it a theory. A scientific theory is not the same thing as a vague hunch or a mere hypothesis."

I know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, thanks. But I tend to believe that when one thing is validated by repeatable empirical experiments rather than accumulation of fossiles or computer simulations, it becomes a fact. Would you describe our knowledge about metals' melting point as "theory"?

"Alex, being scientifically illiterate, I will take your word for it that natural selection has been proved, but this is the first time anywhere I have seen Christianity described as "precise"."

Yes, indeed, mutation and natural selection have been definitely proven in recent years, notably by running DNA sequencing and comparisons before/after.

Christianity is originally a codified religion. The fact it started to be "interpreted" and "reinterpreted" New Age-style is not necessarily a modification of Christianity's true nature, but perhaps a departure from God's true will.

"Never mind science, he doesn´t even known the official position of his putative Church (Roman Catholic Church), which is in agreement with evolution."

Actually, that's not the view of the Catholic Church. The Church has no official positions on either the theory of evolution or the age of the universe beyond a few fundamental beliefs that Catholics are obligated to accept.

For example, Catholics are not allowed to believe that the universe is infinite in age, rather they must believe it was created at some point. The most widely accepted view of the origin of the cosmos, the Big Bang, does not conflict with this teaching. Indeed, it tends to support it and the theory was actually developed by a Catholic priest.

Catholics are also not allowed to believe in the evolution of the human soul, but it is perfectly legitimate to believe in the evolution of the human body.

Of course, Catholics can also be Creationists if they want; the Church doesn't require the faithful to believe in any particular theory so long as they don't directly contradict certain fundamental Church teachings.

Alex:
"90% of liberals have a colorblind approach to race issues, not a "stick it back to whitey" vision."

This is so far removed from my day to day experience with SWPL libs that I think you are making it up to score internet debate points. Almost to a man and woman, self-identified libs support AA. Anyone who doesn't support AA is usually, upon further questioning, the opposite of a lib.

Look up "altruistic punishment". You'll find that white libs are quite comfortable with the "stick it to whitey" assault, and have, in fact, invented it and mastered it on a grand scale. "Anti-racism" is a way for insecure white libs to induce guilt in more self-secure whites and encourage the latter to get with the redistributionist program.

Saint Louis, the catholic position is whatever
doesn´t contradict basic church beliefs is acceptable. That´s what I meant by agreement.
It all goes back to Saint Augustine: faith comes first in time, knowledge comes first in importance.
"Credo ut intellegam".
(Anselm later turned it around)
For the record, I studied under the Jesuits, and was taught evolution in biology class. My physics teacher was a jesuit.

Republicans should answer these questions the way Obama answered the question about abortion: "It's above my pay grade." Reference Obama specifically to drive the point home.

"Careful with Epigone et al. Their purely statistical and surveyal approach has its limitations.

My personal experience is that liberals and libertarians tend to be overall far more intelligent and interested by science than conservatives."

lol. Let's ignore what the statistics say, because of my personal experience with some people I know. Science!

If liberals as a whole were really as you described, then the Democrat party platform wouldn't be what it is.

I think that you are not one to be talking about science.

A more honest answer by Rubio would have been, "Most scientists believe Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Faith compels me and many others to believe the Earth was created by God in 7 days." Implying that the scientific understanding and evangelical Christian understanding are equally valid is an anti-scientific view. Period.

"They present Mourdock as "He thinks rape is a gift from god and women should be happy they got raped"

Well, the game may be rigged but Mourdock shot himself in the foot with that statement. If republicans want to win they need to stop going on and on about rape not being an exception for abortion.

More liberal horsecrap on science:

* It is a liberal thing to be terrified of immunization. Our kids' pediatrician in hyper Democrat Bethesda, Maryland must fight hard against antiscience on immunization from rich SWPL parents.

* Libs (and more of everyone else recently) think homosexuality 100% inborn. In reality it is greater than 50% environmental vs. less than 50% innate according to identical twin studies (although by adulthood, it may be fairly rigid). The scientifically incorrect position is the closest thing to truth in the liberal universe that there is, and it was manufactured out of thin air just within the last decade or two.

* Libs think marathons are really really good for you. Moderate exercise is good but marathons will prematurely wear out many body parts and cause scarring in muscles and joints.

* Libs think meat is terrible for your health as compared to the massive amounts of sugary carbs consumed by fat SWPL vegetarians everywhere.

"lol. Let's ignore what the statistics say, because of my personal experience with some people I know. Science!

If liberals as a whole were really as you described, then the Democrat party platform wouldn't be what it is.

I think that you are not one to be talking about science.

Posted by: mike | November 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM "

Statistics work superbly with objects, water or money, they don't work that much with people. Surveys and polls also don't really offer a very accurate picture of a state of things, because of numerous methodological limitations. I have an example in head of a HBD blogger who relied exclusively on social surveys to prove his points, and ended up publishing a grossly stupid article saying that Pakistani muslims were more interested in financial well-being than Jews.

In some cases, personal experience and daily-life empiricism works better than "studies".

This is especially true in the realm of social sciences and other "soft sciences".

Look for "Karl Popper" on a wiki.

If all people here had relied solely on theory, books and studies to forge their vision of the world, and never on direct observation, I suspect they would not be here in the first place... It was oneSTDV who used to remark too the limitations of the scientific method when dealing with complex social analysis.

This makes Rubio look even stupider

"GQ: Your autobiography also has to be the first time a politician has cited a love of Afrika Bambaataa. Did you have a favorite Afrika Bambaataa song?
Marco Rubio: All the normal ones. People forget how dominant Public Enemy became in the mid 80s. No one talks about how transformative they were. And then that led to the 90s and the sort of East Coast v. West Coast stuff, which is kinda when I came of age. There's a great documentary on Tupac called Resurrection about the last few years of Tupac's life and how he transformed. And, ironically, how this East Coast rapper became this West Coast icon, back when all that Death Row/Sean Combs stuff was going on. Hip Hop's 30 years old now and it's crossed over and sort of become indistinguishable from pop music in general. You know, many people say Nicki Minaj is a rapper, but she's also a singer. Kanye's another guy who's also a rapper, but his songs aren't pure rap anymore. There's also all these collaborations going on, which confuses everything. You know you've got the guy from Miami, Pitbull, who's on TV selling a car and then he's advertising for Dr. Pepper.

GQ: Your three favorite rap songs?
Marco Rubio: "Straight Outta Compton" by N.W.A. "Killuminati" by Tupac. Eminem's "Lose Yourself."

GQ: Is there a song you play to psych you up before a vote in the Senate?
Marco Rubio: I'm not like an athlete. The only guy that speaks at any sort of depth is, in my mind, Eminem. He's a guy that does music that talks about the struggles of addiction and before that violence, with growing up in a broken family, not being a good enough father. So, you know that's what I enjoy about it. It's harder to listen to than ever before because I have a bunch of kids and you just can't put it on. But in terms of psyching yourself up, I don't have time for that. You know you can't put on earphones and the storm the floor and vote [laughs].

GQ: So, Pitbull's too cheesy?
Marco Rubio: His songs are all party songs. There's no message for him, compared to like an Eminem. But look, there's always been a role for that in American music. There's always been a party person, but he's a young guy. You know, maybe as he gets older, he'll reflect in his music more as time goes on. I mean, he's not Tupac. He's not gonna be writing poetry."

"This makes Rubio look even stupider"

I'd rather have Texas Senator-elect Ted Cruz run for president in 2016 because, although I doubt he'll play well with any Hispanic group than Cubans, he earned an outstanding score on immigration issues from NumbersUSA.

"* Libs think meat is terrible for your health as compared to the massive amounts of sugary carbs consumed by fat SWPL vegetarians everywhere."

The SWPLs may be inching towards embracing low carb diets. They've just invented a new low carb diet called Gluten Free, but they don't label it as low carb.

They may have wanted to continue the anti-meat diets in order to prove their vegetarian bonafides and higher status but the high carb American diet was beginning to take too much of a toll even on SWPL waistlines. Once more, selfishness and moral posturing triumph over principles.

I just remembered another tidbit of baloney science driven by the liberal political agenda -- that the whole animal kingdom is homosexual through and through, so therefore gay marriage must be right as rain.

Of course everyone knows that bonobos can't stop masturbating themselves and each other for even five minutes, but really I just am not seeing male dolphins giving each other blowjobs and blowing jizz in each other's rectums. I suppose that's what they are doing in the auxilliary tank at Sea World while waiting to do their jumps in the big tank in the middle.


If you're going to admit you're a fan of rap, and you're a Senator from Florida, ffs, why would you disparage the Cuban Floridian Pitbull in favor of Eminem or Tupac?

The left's economic policies qualify as pseudo-science even if assuming blank-slatism is true.

"I just remembered another tidbit of baloney science driven by the liberal political agenda"

And another one: Missile defense systems will never work.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.html

Barack Obama?
Willful ignorance of science is a bipartisan value.

By now you've heard the outrageous quote from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on his doubts about the origins of planet Earth. When asked to give its age, he replied: "I'm not a scientist, man. … Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."

He's not a scientist—no, indeed—and his comments have brought on a slew of finger wags and face-palms from the godless left. The answer was "so confused and error-riddled," wrote Phil Plait in Slate, "it's difficult to know where to start." We all should understand the age of Earth is not a matter of opinion, but a scientific fact: Our planet formed 4.54 billion years ago. If Rubio suggested otherwise, it's because he's uninformed or stupid.

Of perhaps he's talking to his base. Writing in the New York Times, Juliet Lapidos points out that 58 percent of Republicans believe in creationism, as do 46 percent of all Americans. "Mr. Rubio probably figured that these same Republicans have no truck with geologists," she says, "and so there was no advantage to stating clearly that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. But if his response was more proof of cunning than idiocy, it was still ludicrous." By arguing that every viewpoint has a claim to truth—that the geologists and theologians are each entitled to their own opinions—the senator gave up on dealing with reality at all.

[JP: That is precisely the Left's mode of argument - there is no real truth, every viewpoint has a claim to truth. It should not make conservatives happy that a supposed conservative says this, but the Left shouldn't criticize him for it.]

I've no doubt that these critiques of Rubio are sound. But I'm hesitant to let the crown prince of the Tea Party be singled out for blame. His shameless dodge and pander on the matter of the Earth's creation don't mark him as a radical, nor even as a soldier in the war on science. They mark him only as a mainstream politician.

Beware, for thou that judgest doest the same things: Members of both parties have had to squiggle through elections by appealing to a hazy sense of geo-history. In fact, the Antichrist himself—Barack Obama—has had a tendency to get a little soft with science.
Here's then-Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.

[HS: Rubio should have just remembered your Obama quote and said that. Then his answer would be beyond reproach.]

God and HBD. Oil and water.

Ask a liberal politician an evolution question like, "Do you believe that the natural selection that caused the different races of humanity to exhibit different external characteristics also selected for different psychological traits? Why or why not?"

or even something as simple as, "Does evolution still select for traits in the human population, or does evolution no longer apply to modern humans?"

But no one ever asks them these questions which would quickly reveal their creationist anti-science beliefs. Unlike origins which can't be proved directly in the here and now like racial differences can, racial differences have actual policy implications while scientific and religious conceptions of origins have no freaking real world applications.

@ HAR

The game is rigged because liberals are never held to account for the stupid things they say to appeal to their much stupider base.

Posted by: anonymous | November 19, 2012 at 03:27 PM

You know, stupid really isn't that bad. It is the filthy, diseased, ugly, lazy, violent, and expensive part of the liberal base that I object to.

"God and HBD. Oil and water."

Not as I see it. If one's frame is that human value is intrinsic and does not depend on how smart or genetically fit you are, then there isn't a theological problem that some are brighter than others.

If you take a materialist view that human value comes completely from external traits, then HBD says that some people and groups are intrinsically worth far more than others. There lies great strife.

For many centuries people accepted HBD as fact and were also religious, and there was no conflict. Consider the orderly aristocratic societies that rolled on for many centuries in England. Way more stable and longer-lasting than modern democracies.

People just knew that the aristocrats were smarter and fitter on average than others and there was pride and devotion by the masses toward their Dukes, Lords and the Queen.

But at the same time, everyone would come before the Great Judgment and if you were good and your Duke was not, then you would go to heaven and he would not.

It is secular materialism that demands equality. Don't take my word for it: think of the whole 20th century experience with socialism and Communism. Study the philosophers, especially the German ones.


"But at the same time, everyone would come before the Great Judgment and if you were good and your Duke was not, then you would go to heaven and he would not."

Uh, that is not Christianity. Christianity is a free ride to heaven for believing in Jesus. You are confusing the other Abrahamic religions with Christianity.


"Uh, that is not Christianity. Christianity is a free ride to heaven for believing in Jesus. You are confusing the other Abrahamic religions with Christianity. "

Fair enough. In any case, the presence of people smarter and richer than you is no obstacle to your obtaining your just reward, under Christianity.

HBD on a practical basis comes into much harder conflict with secular materialism than with religion, as we are reminded constantly by the PC left.


Rubio is indeed a very stupid man. He is just there to pander to the evangelical hispanics (all two or three of them).

The comments to this entry are closed.