Monday, September 12, 2011

The Tea Party Debate

Tonight, we have a treat. The Republican Presidential candidates will vie for the support of America's Stupidest Voters - the Tea Party party movement.

This is not name-calling. This is reporting a verifiable fact.

A recent Yale-George-Mason poll shows that 66% of the Tea Party members deny the truth of global warming and evolution.

Really, on average, these people excel in stupidity. Interestingly, they also exhibit one of the primary characteristics of idiots - an inflated sense of their own intellectual superiority.

Tea Party members are much more likely [than Democrats, Republicans generally, and Independents] to say that they are “very well informed” about global warming than the other groups. Likewise, they are also much more likely to say they "do not need any more information” about global warming to make up their mind.

Golly, mister, I already knows everything there is to know. Why on God's green earth would I want to waste time learnin' stuff?

Questions about evolution are not policy questions. There is no "liberal" or "conservative" position on global warming or evolution, any more than there is a "liberal" or "conservative" position on the effects of feeding ground glass to a child of firing a bullet through a person's heart.

I think it is time to revive an idea that came out in the last Presidential election.

It is time for a science and technology debate.

If we can have a debate that panders to the egos America's Most Stupid, then I think there is room on the debate schedule for the candidates to field questions in the area of science and technology.

It will be a debate about medicine - such as preparing and handling a potential pandemic.

It will be a debate about natural disasters - such as a potential tsunammi, earthquake, ot hurricane.

It will be a debate about energy - energy technology, alternative sources of energy, and the technology of conservation.

It will be a debate about transportation - various ways of getting people and things from one place to another.

It will be a debate about the environment - what might be killing us and how do we avoid them?

It will be a debate about the communication infrastructure, computers, and the internet.

It will be a debate about terror - weapons of mass destruction and how to prevent their use.

It will be a debate about education. How do reduce the nation's obvious surplus of idiots?

There's plenty to be discussed in such a debate.

So why is it that we have no debate on science and technology, but only a debate where candidates grovel for the favor of American Most Stupid?

4 comments:

Kristopher said...

anything public, television, radio, presidential debates, and movies; has to pander to the lowest common denominator if it wants to succeed. if you give a speach that idiots can understand than you have given a speech that everyone can understand, you can speak to the entire elctorate. and a candidate needs to use every oppurtunity that they can to reach as many people as possible if they want to win. if you give a speach that only intelligent and well informed individuals can understand then your only speaking to a small fraction of the potential voters, and thus you have wasted an oppurtunity to win a large amount of votes, to chase an oppurtunity to win could potentially only win asmall number of votes since just becuase they understand you doenst mean they will agree with you.

we have built a system where if a politician does the right thing they will lose outright

and if they pander to idiocy they have a chance to win

if we as an electorate actively weed out all the intelligent people from the political process can we blame the ambitous for pandering to idiots? furthermore would you want leaders who choose policies that are disigned to have no chance of success?

i don't know how to fix this problem but i think politicians are put in a lose (morally) or lose (the race) situation.

the real problem is with politicians that are not pandering but actually believe the nonsense they say.

for example when obama makes a pubilc display of religiosity i see this as an unfortunate but necassarily practical thing for him to do as a politician. as long as he doesnt mix that with his policy initiatives, its okay, not ideal but better than the alternatives.

when i see perry making a public display of his rligiosity (is that a word?) i think "holy expletive that guy really believes this nonsence!" that's when it gets scary

psychadelicfuse81 said...

I agree 100% Alonzo. I would just add an addendum to that:

Have a debate on economics. That is, really test the in-depth understanding that politicians have on how the economy works. Scrutinize it to the deepest level possible.

Economics is supposed to be a science, just like every other branch of sociology. There is no reason for it to be excluded.

I have a feeling that many politicians, particuarly the Teabaggers, would not come out looking so good.

Anonymous said...

Yes it is a long overdue focus in political discussions.

I remember there was an effort to get such a debate in 2008.

Seems they are trying again in 2012

http://www.sciencedebate.org/

Dea said...

awesome post! I would love to see a science and technology debate!