“Let’s leave science to the scientists” seems to be one of the new Republican talking points and it doesn’t really work, at least not from their viewpoint.
Scientists overwhelmingly say that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that human induced climate change is a reality. So if they want to leave science to the scientists…
That or, because clergy members get to officiate : get yourself ordained by any two-bit church (or, hell, found one for yourself). Then feel free to void and sign contracts with each of your sisterwives on the fly, on an immediate need basis.
I think that Scalia is a stupid Republican idea himself. But here’s something that I think belongs in this thread from The MaddowBlog:
Quote:
A little over two decades ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was dismissive of then-Justice Harry Blackmun’s concerns about the death penalty. In fact, Scalia had a case study in mind that demonstrated exactly why the system of capital punishment has value.
As regular readers may recall, Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death. “For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,” Scalia wrote in a 1994 ruling. “How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!”
It turns out that this case that was perfect evidence that the death penalty was a great idea involved a mentally challenged man who was railroaded, spent 30 years on death row, and to no big shock, was recently exonerated through DNA evidence.
Formatting is messed up and the browser at work won’t let me edit it. Blah. If a moderator fizes it, I’d be obliged.
Ted Cruz is all in favor of you carrying a gun. Just don’t carry one around him.
Best quote in the article:
Santorum, doubling down on the crazy, insists that while Pope Francis should leave science to the scientists, he himself is qualified to talk about climate change because he’s a politician.
However, the scientists who talk about climate change are not qualified to do so, because they believe that they’re right, and therefore they’re engaged in “political science”, and politicians have no place making science;
No wonder the republican scientists that are climate scientists are becoming independent.
*Dr. Richard Alley on the frustrations of a conservative climate scientist. (very short video)*It is clear to me that Santorum even denies that scientists that are Republican could have a different idea than him.
*The Challenges of Climate Change Communication. Interview with Richard Alley and Susanne Moser. (longer video)*So scientific consensus means it’s all politically-motivated bullshit ? Fucking Newton and his stupid gravity, I always knew he was a shill for Big Ballistics.
I wish that were the case, but the people that they’re talking to only hear the “scientists” the GOP wants them to hear. Strangely enough, they all seem to be in that 3% who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming…
From “The Weapon” By Frederic Brown:
*He thought, “only a madman would give a loaded revolver to an idiot.” *
Doesn’t really work. After all the NRA is all idiots!
As it happens, I remember the story. As is noted in the comment section, the original story ended with “to a retarded child”. The central premise of the story is dated, the then-recent rise of the thermonuclear weapon, and the clear threat of such a weapon even existing, never mind who had access to them. That humanity was not mature enough as well as not intelligent enough. (Astounding Magazine, April, 1951.)
Which is to say, using said story as an illustrative allegory about gun control is more than a bit of a stretch, worthy of an admonitory “tut tut! sir, and tsk tsk!”, which I hereby deliver in the appropriate tone of snotty pedantry.
Aside: and not nearly so good as Tuli Kupferberg…
There was once a big atomic bomb
That wanted to be a bullet.
His friends all asked why, when he was such a big atomic bomb, he would want to be a tiny bullet.
“I miss”, he sighed, "the personal touch.”
He’s a Catholic priest, BTW.
Good lord. If I was in charge of Christian PR, my first move would be to declare the Duggars un-persons. Erase all evidence of “19 and Counting” and pretend they never existed.
Speaking of Scalia (a bit of a tangent) did I hear recently that a Supreme Court decision was 8-1, with Clarence Thomas as the sole dissent? :eek:
Which means that, possibly for the first time, Thomas did not vote the same way as Scalia.
I’m such a Magritte fan. This really tickled me.
I assume you’re being hyperbolic, but it happens a lot. Here Scalia blasts Thomas’ majority opinion on a traffic stop. Here Thomas voted the opposite way from Scalia on a cross-burning statute. Thomas also frequently votes differently from Scalia on substantive due process issues, because of his long-held view that SDP isn’t a thing.