WHY “despair” that a political party or cult of idiocy has decided as a matter of political strategy to disrespect scientific evidence – that can inform us of our real-world situation and which pertains crucially to our future welfare and prosperity – if there is another political party which does not?

Why would anybody in their right mind ever wish to PRESERVE such a political party or cult of idiocy? WTF? Haven’t you noticed? These people don’t want you to look at any evidence. They want to obtain and maintain positions of power, and they don’t care about how they obtain it. They are contemptuous of the real world of nature and the science which reveals it. They fully expect to obtain their power through a studied reliance on voter ignorance and apathy. They are not interested in testing their ideas and policies against the actualities of the natural real world, but are only interested in shaping a fantasy world specifically designed to enhance their interest, power and wealth.

Are we to presume now that there is some ridiculous conservation ethic at work to be observed? Is a political party or cult of idiocy or opinion entitled to special protection because it is endangered? Is that a valid concept now??? Can a political tradition now be as important as the welfare of the people? Of the country? Of the world?

Can it possibly get any more insane?

Oh yes. Can it evar.

We can read about how awful it is that a cult of idiocy has infected a political party…and then actually be presented with the proposition that the party which so easily sells itself to management by the cult of idiots might be saved.

As if the idiocy (namely, a disrespect of evidence and nature and the science which reveals it) was a precious and valuable virtue to be protected and nurtured.

Tradition, you know.

Yet the solution is so simple, so obvious. You wanna REALLY “fix it”? Then QUIT IT. One chucks crap. You flush it. You throw trash away, you don’t hang onto it as a keepsake. DON’T try to “fix” it. That’s assinine-caliber stupid. One fixes them by getting rid of them, and the way to do that is by not voting for them, not by helping them to return to the center. They’re GONE. Exterminate them by refusing to preserve them. DON’T VOTE FOR THEM. Knock off all of the imbecilic accomodationist appeals and let the political/religious cults of idiocy DIE already.

Vote for those who respect real-world evidence and the science that actually reveals it. Vote for those who sincerely support science funding. Vote for those who respect evidence that comes from nature. Vote for those who love science and nature and human beings

And be smart. Be a well-rounded human being aware of your astonishingly ancient natural heritage and environment. Be what best makes a fully-competent human being: DON’T listen to a-holes who want to bamboozle you with an idiotic dichotomy which doesn’t reflect the authentic human condition. The dichotomy doesn’t exist. Be BOTH a Free-Thinking “LIBERAL” (THAT’s what the word means, related to the word LIBERTY) AND an authentically careful and practical “CONSERVATIVE” (which is a virtue in any real human being not screwed up by imposters who LIE about what it means just to keep you under control). Why not be YOURSELF instead of their idiotic characatures that make you less than a complete human being?

Return to your natural aptitudes as a complete human being, and tell all those political schmucks who want to mess with your mind to shove it and take a flying leap.

THEN, vote for yourself for a change.

We can’t afford to be so damned stupid and naive any longer.

They focus on an amendment to the constitution regarding marriage, and then they let a one cent sales tax expire that was meant for education. This meant laying off a few more thousand teachers, and other cuts to the schools. It is so hard to recruit science and math teachers to this state (along with others in the South) that there is a company called VIF (Visiting International Faculty) that gets $10,000 for each teacher it brings in, the majority of which are from the Philippines and thus very happy to get the relatively low wages paid in the South.

They get a three year contract, which the state can cancel at any time, and the state makes no effort to keep these teachers, so at the three year mark, if not before, the teachers either go back to Asisa or to Texas (another third world country?) which is so desperate for science teachers that it offers assistance with citizenship for these visitors. On a personal level, I can be quite fond of a Republican neighbor, but as decision makers, they are a disaster (and admittedly, the Dems are not worthy of worship, but at least they approach rationality and compassion and some focus on the future).

Although I taught at the college level for forty years, the only expertise I feel that I have is recognizing intelligence (grade a few thousand papers and it comes with the territory), and that left me with the conclusion that conservatives and logic and intelligence and compassion are not likely to be found in the same room. And we are the poorer for it.

I think that people also should take the 19th and early 20th stories of abuses with a grain of salt and research it more fully.

And when you do research it, you will find that there is very little exaggeration. People really did sell chalk as flour. They really did adulterate goods in all sorts of ways (which is one of the reasons brand names arose). They really did sell all sorts of stuff that was hideously toxic – in some cases through ignorance, but sometimes knowingly.

Government regulation of – for example – medicines really was necessary. Not only to protect people from stuff that was actively toxic, but also to prtect people from unknown hazards, and to protect people from “medicines” that were no such thing. This last point is a battle that is still ongoing.

The abuses were no where near as widespread as claimed, and many cases were used a red herrings to increase power.

Nope, from what I have read and heard, from sources I consider at least reasonably reliable, the reasons for the introduction of government regulation of industry were sound.

If anything, there is too little government regulation of industry – after all, it was a relaxing of regulation that allowed the banks to land us in the hole we are all still trying to climb out of. And yet bankers still award themselves massive bonuses, despite making a complete hash of looking after their customers’ interests.

. . . As a note, I am a liberal and wholly support the need of the state to protect us from fraud and abuse, but not from ourselves.

Well, government regulation of industry is the main tool for protecting the consumer from fraud and abuse. As for protecting us from ourselves, if you refer to what I think you refer to, it seems that the need for this to occur has arisen from the American litigation culture. I mean things like warnings on a cup of coffee that it is likely to be scalding hot, and so on.

Almost all of the recent cases where this exact kind of delayed threat exist were caught by company inspectors, not government inspectors. They were protecting their own brand from third party manufacturers.

This may be the case for recent examples, but the concept of regulation and inspection of industry was introduced by government to protect the people from a multitude of unscrupulous traders.

Or would you recommend heroin for a sore throat, and thalidomide for morning sickness?

Not really going to comment on much other than news sources that are anti-Tea Party to begin with aren’t really reliable sources of information. Remember the fraud Dan Rather participated in that caused him to lose his job. News sources have political agendas, and 99% of them are left leaning. I really laughed when someone above used *NPR* as a resource. That’s almost as silly as using Huffington Post. And for the poster who posted a link to a site that actually said *liberal* in it, all I can say is “Really? You call that unbiased?”

So . . . does this mean you believe in some kind of divine plan that means liberals don’t have access to facts, or what?

Ooh, can I pinch that for future use?