Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (National Review Edition)

It is a fact that the non-economics writers of National Review are plumbing the depths of the Luskin scale. Consider Jonah Goldberg, who writes:

Jonah Goldberg: Krugman also notes that engineers and other faculty in the hard sciences are also disproportionately liberal. It’s not just in the humanities. Good point.

What he — Mr. Prize-Winning Economist — neglects to mention or consider is that engineers in the private sector make good money. Ditto many scientists. Indeed, I don’t have the data to back this up handy, but it would hardly surprise me to find out that the most liberal members of the science faculty are probably the least likely to be able to find work elsewhere. I’m sure there’s a market for private-sector biodiversity experts, but something tells me it’s smaller than the market for electrical engineers...

Does Goldberg - Mr. National Review Pontificator - not remember when he writes paragraph 2 that in paragraph 1 he admitted that it's not just the ecologists but the engineers who are "disproportionately liberal"? Surely it's a minimum requirement for sentience that you have enough brain cells to maintain at least a simulacrum of consistency from one paragraph to the next.

Perhaps Goldberg could go ask some scientists and engineers why they aren't Republicans. Do a little legwork. I know that when I ask scientists and engineers why they aren't Republicans, I get back five answers:

1. From libertarians, because the Republicans are really hostile to individual freedom: they want to control people's lives and boss people around.
2. From biologists, because Republican politicians say they don't believe in evolution.
3. From chemists and physicists, because Republican politicians pretend to believe that CO₂ molecules created by human action have a different radiation-absorption spectrum than other CO₂ molecules.
4. From all corners, because Republican politicians are the tools of lobbyists and do not respect the evidence about anything.
5. From all corners, because Republican politicians don't understand how important investment in education is for the future of America--they have no idea where our current wealth and health really comes from.

I think these are five very good reasons.

Comments

[robert the red]

From mathematicians: because Republicans' logical reasoning is even more impaired than Democrats'. (And that's an O(1/epsilon) statement.)

[Julian Elson]

6. From National Review readers, Jonah Goldberg. (along with Moore, Luskin, Lowry, etc, etc)

[howard]

What i really enjoy is that Goldberg not only does no legwork (as the prof notes) in general, but also literally makes up the essential point of his argument:

"Indeed, I don’t have the data to back this up handy, but it would hardly surprise me to find out that the most liberal members of the science faculty are probably the least likely to be able to find work elsewhere."

He doesn't have the data to back this up, but he'll go ahead and assert it - with no shame whatsoever - anyhow. To Goldberg, by definition, if you are an engineer and a liberal and an academic, you must be unemployable in the private sector.

And really, as right-wingers go, Jonah is on the saner end of the spectrum....

[dilbert dogbert]

Is for damn sure that Jonah could not find employment without the help from his parents.

[Cal]

My friends who work at Jet Propulsion Labs, (and who get most of their research money from the Department of Defense), are not Republicans because they are thoughtful people. Their jobs require complex thought, which they apply to politics as well. If anyone actually tries to think hard about the issues, then it is hard to support the Republican line. Republicans don't want to think; they want to exploit their advantages. Why do you think they always resort to the line: "let the market take care of it." That is an excuse not to try to address complex issues with complex thought. Once someone has a PhD in the hard sciences, it is hard to turn of the complex thought mechanisms.

[chris]

Maybe we should start considering why Republicans can't get jobs in academia, can't get jobs in corporate PR but have to settle for the make-it-up scrub leagues of the think tanks where every thought needs a sponsor or every sponsor needs a thought.

[Richard Green]

Could we please stop saying "believe in evolution." Understanding the power of the theory of evolution is not a leap of faith--it is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence.

When we say "believe," we play into the hands of those who fail to understand science.

[chris]

If it's not "believe", then what do we use? "Think." "Know."

[Oskar Shapley]

I always wonder why everybody is focusing on having to find evidence for "evolution". There already are "mountains of evidence" against creationists. It's called "geology". You would have to take that from the curriculum, too.

[Tony Vila]

Uh, hate to defend Jonah, but I think in P1 he is saying "i admit engineers faculty are liberal" and in P2 is explaining that away by saying "they are liberal because liberals can't get jobs elsewhere". It's a mean spirited and fatuous argument - but it's not so wholly inconsistent.

[cvcobb01]

Jonah gets into a debate about why there are more liberal profs and starts off his point with " I don’t have the data to back this up handy"?

The question anwers itself.

[walons]

Which Republican claims that revelation is a sure guide to complex analysis or cancer research? Name one. Name one conservative who thinks computer code is better written with the Bible as a guide. Or one who's trying to set up alchemy shops and close down chemistry departments.

Did Krugman do any legwork on this?

[cvcobb01]

Walons, meet Pat Roberson, former Republican candidate for President.

Where you go wrong, or more likely where you are just trying to give yourself an out, is by introducing alchemy into the equation, which as we all know is demonic. And of course that means that Pat is probably opposed to it.

[walons]

What did Pat Robertson say about the Cauchy-Riemann equations (both devout Christians, by the way, the former Catholic, the latter Protestant) and their relationship to revelation? Did he say the Bible had more to say about analytic functions than those equations? When did he say that?

[Joe S.]

Um, Brad. CO2 created by human action probably is a bit different, spectroscopically, than other CO2. Not much, but a bit. 12/13 C and 16/17/18 O2 partitioning is not quite uniform. It's nothing like lithium, but the carbon trapped in coal or petroleum is probably a wee bit different than that circulating in the biosphere. Or was, at least, before we burned so much of it.
(Of course, Luskin or Goldberg would take my post as a refutation of your point. It is not, of course; I just can't resist the let's-niggle-on-Brad pile-on.)

[Matt Festa]

Brad,

So, wait, you actually agree with Krugman's position? I find it hard to.

1) The % of liberals in positions like business, economics, and accounting are something like 45-55%, much less than, say, "gender studies," which has a liberal concentration rate of about 90%.

2) I have never thought the problem as much as a "liberal problem" as much as a "leftist" problem. The ideological balance of the university was stable, until the 1970's-1980's, where it quickly became dominated by radicals. For Krugmans thesis to hold, there should not have been this shift. It should have been present already. But there was a shift because the radicalization of the university meant that particular fields came into existence specifically to promote a "leftist" agenda (I hardly consider you a leftist, having read your blog and reading your quotes from scripture and mentions of Pascal...I have had leftist professors in my life, trust me, they don't quote pascal...nor attack the Labor Theory of Value.)In fact, why would there have even been a debate in the 1980's about the radicalization of the university if it was always like this? The problem is not that there was an increase in the amount of liberals..it was that there was a noticeable and very significant increase in leftists...thats the problem.

3) The attack against science comes from both sides, not just from conservatives. Post-modernism, long an ally of the fringe left, attacks science daily. Plus, the premise that being religious means being anti-science is absurd on its face. How do you explain people like John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour, Fr. Frank Haig S.J, Bro. Guy Consolmagno, etc? Please. Plus, if I remember correctly it was the Harvard faculty that went insane over Larry Summers, not the conservatives. Pro-science? Please..both sides sin.

4) The causal connection between liberal scientists and conservative scientists has probably much more to do with preference than religious ideology. Liberal scientists, on average, probably prefer the safer yet stable life of the academy. Conservative scientists prefer a more risk-taking entreprenuer type of job. Thus, they enter the private market. Plus, if you are a conservative and you see what the Harvard Faculty did to Larry Summers (A LIBERAL!), you stay the hell away! It is far better to teach part-time or work with a parish if you have a passion for teaching than deal with daily harrassment and comments like the one you made above.

5) If I wanted to flog the data as much as Krugman does, I could easily say that liberals join the university not so much because they "love" teaching so much as they "fear" the private sector. I can back up this assertion with statistical facts like the appalling amount of actual teaching professors actually do (as compared to their grunts--ala me--the research assistants). A passion for teaching among tenured faculty means 25-30 hour workweeks plus full salary, please? If you have a passion for teaching, why so little actual teaching?

6) Then again, that would be unfair. But then we should realize a new phenomenon, the rise of the think tanks, where conservatives preside in large numbers. I think the main reason someone enters the university is that they have (or should have) a passion for the life of the mind. I believe there are plenty of liberals who do. And I believe that conservatives have a passion for this as well. I also believe that many of the leftists professors enter the university not to pursue the life of the mind, but to pursue an agenda.

7) You actually think those are coherent reasons to oppose conservatism? Please. I am personally center-right, but I try and respect (and learn from) the views of good, principled liberals (which is why I read your blog). But to argue that conservatives = dumb, stupid, selfish people. Come on. You can do better.

Matt festa

[cvcobb01]

Walons, now you're just getting silly. As we all know Cauchy-Riemann had little to say that Pat Robertson would even understand, be it about revelation or anything else.

No, you're just trying to dodge your own question. Mr. Robertson has a long history of professing that faith healing works better than cancer research, and that God doesn't need no stinking computer code. Besides, Mr. Roberston thinks it all irrelevent since Armageddon is on its way and all of the learning of man will be swept away in the glorious theocracy to come.

[Matt Festa]

cvcobb01,

Grow up. I am no fan of Pat Robertson. But to assume that "because Pat Robinson believes X, therefore this is a representation of what conservatives think, at all time in all places" is just sick, bigoted, and disgusting.

I have had brilliant liberal and conservative professors in my life. I have learned from discussions and from the give and take, from all of them.

What you are advocating, sir, is the "spacio-temporal connected" monologue of the new left. This gnocistism assumes that it has the truth and that everyone else is stupid and unworthy of critical analysis.

Thus, this is why I find Brad's second point about "well the biologists aren't conservatives because they don't believe in evolution" so utterly repulsive.

So wait, because someone has a flawed opinion in one area means that everything he says is flawed? Therefore, because he doesn't believe in evolution he has nothing of value to say in other areas, say in welfare reform? Oh come on. 8 years of PhD study and this is the level of maturity that goes on?

Matt

[cvcobb01]

Matt,

Wise up. It's hard to take conservatives seriously when they tell others to grow up. And it is very hard to take any conservative seriously when he tells me I'm representing something sick, bigoted and disgusting by pointing out a former candidate for the Republican party. I think those are the right adjectives, I just think you're pointing them in the wrong direction.

Did you not see the GOP leadership grandstanding over the Schaivo case? Did you not read Powerline's accusation about the "forged" Schaivo talking points? They ARE the conservative establishment. It ain't just one person pal.

As for what I'm advocating, I'm advocating that walons not throw out the challenge that we name one Republican who advocates theism over science, and then pretend to be shocked when the most obvious target among many is indeed pointed out. And you shouldn't pretend to be shocked either. The sort of false anger you're tossing around here, with the kind of elitist pseudo-intellectual bullshit about '"spacio-temporal connected" monologue of the new left', is as they say a secondary emotion. I suspect the real one behind it is a mixture of shame about the likes of Robertson and Delay approprating the idea of conservatism, and your own festering embarrassment for having to be lumped in among them.

[anon]

I think there is some truth to Jonah Goldberg's statement, although my conclusion is the opposite of his.

Scientists and engineers CAN make significantly more money outside of academia. This is especially true for the 5-10 years from grad school and then postdocs. From the monetary point of view, the only benefit of academia is job security and that only happens if you are one of the relatively few PhDs who get tenure.

Therefore, why do scientists and engineers stay in academia? They stay because they place more value on the joy of research than on their income. The fact that this doesn't occur Jonah Goldberg shows how foreign this idea is to a conservative mindset. Working at a job where you are not maximizing monetary income is a very unconservative idea and probably discourages conservatives from remaining in academia.

In addition, even in science and engineering, the prime source of research budget and personal income is state and federal grants. A true conservative who thinks that taxes and government spending should be as low as possible would not enjoy begging the government (writing grants) to ask for money for research.

[cvcobb01]

anon,

I don't know if the generality that "they place more value on the joy of research than on their income" is true or not, but I do know that claiming conservatives don't think like that is false. But I think it depends on one's reason for being conservative.

I grew up a social conservative, most of my family is socially conservative and many of my friends are. For the vast majority of them, doing something out of joy rather than for money rings absolutely true. It is the old God versus Mammon credo, and the more religiously active they are the truer that is.

Now whether or not their committment to socially conservative ideals makes them killjoys for everyone else is open for debate.

[walons]

"Mr. Robertson has a long history of professing that faith healing works better than cancer research, and that God doesn't need no stinking computer code."--That's getting me curious. I'm no Evengelical, and don't particularly care for Pat Robertson, but can you direct me to where such statements were made by him? For I've known conservatives of all levels of education, and no one has ever said anything like "Let's get rid of cancer research and focus on faith healing". I have not met a single Republican who would advocate that a math or engineering department be closed.

[Mark]

It's interesting that Sr. DeLong used the word "republican" and the thread changed that to "conservative." They aren't synonyms. In fact given the current batch of republicans they are antonyms.

Also, a friend's father is a chemistry professor at a Big 10 school and he is emphatically not a republican. He is a professor because he enjoys pure research. He also does a lot of consulting for the private sector because he enjoys the money, and he gets it without having to put up with corporate nonsense.

[cvcobb01]

At walon's request heeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrre's Pat!

Pat Robertson: ( This guy is to easy )
- "... A socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
[Pat Robertson on Feminism]

- "I know one man who was impotent who gave AIDS to his wife and the only thing they did was kiss." [Pat Robertson]

- "These are actually chunks of lung itself being coughed up. I don't understand exactly what it is, but God has healed you right now. Amen." [Pat Robertson, during a "faith healing" session]

- "When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple
answer is, `Yes, they are.'" [Pat Robertson, "The New World Order," page 218]

- "Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together" [Pat Robertson, ADL report on Religious Right, page 131]

- "It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-biased media and the homosexuals who want to destroy all Christians" [Pat Robertson, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Sept. 14, 1993]

- "Before the year 2000, the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful organization in America."
[Pat Robertson]

- "I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to
spread their contagious infection to the youth of this nation." [Pat Robertson]

- "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." [Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991]

- "They have kept us in submission because they have talked about separation of church and state. There is no such thing in the Constitution. It's a lie of the left, and we're not going to take it anymore." [Pat Robertson, The State, Columbia, South Carolina, Nov. 14, 1993]

- "That [separation of church and state] was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the communist Soviet Union"
[Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, Jan. 22, 1995]

- Television preacher Pat Robertson, who plans to officially announce his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination next month, said he would not tolerate atheists in his administration, Time magazine reported yesterday. ... Although Robertson firmly denied a quote attributed to him that only born-again Christians and Jews should hold government jobs, he
told Time that nonbelievers would have no place in his administration if he were elected."
[San Francisco Chronicle, 21 September 1987 (UPI)]

- "Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson, a former TV evangelist, once said he believed only devout Christians and Jews were qualified to lead the government, the New York Times reported yesterday. Robertson also maintained that government is subservient to the will of God and that democracy is 'next best' to 'government controlled by God,' the newspaper said.... The Times story cited several articles written by Robertson in which he said God had spoken to him, directed his actions or heeded his prayer to steer away a hurricane. The article also said Robertson had a conversation with Satan in 1960 at the time of his religious conversion. 'I heard Satan say,
"Jesus is playing you for a sucker, Robertson."'"
[San Francisco Chronicle, 28 December 1987 (UPI)]

- "The New York Times reports that evangelist Pat Robertson, who will announce in two weeks whether he will run for the presidency, claims he can pray away bad weather. ... Robertson said in a recent interview that his prayers to keep Hurricane Gloria away from Virginia Beach last June had been successful, which was 'extremely important because I felt, interestingly enough, that if I couldn't move a hurricane, I could hardly move a nation.' ... Robertson said that if the hurricane had come ashore, he would have seen it as a sign from above to abandon his presidential ambitions."
[Leah Garchik, San Francisco Chronicle, 4 September 1986]

- "The Washington newsletter Roll Call reports that a 1981 tape of candidate Pat Robertson, who used to be an evangelical faith healer, has been distributed to several political reporters. The tape shows Robertson at a 1981 faith healing session in Philadelphia, claiming to cure members of the audience of cancer, hemorrhoids and bad teeth. Later, he shouts that God has just
fixed a hernia." [Leah Garchik, San Francisco Chronicle, 14 October 1987]

- "Republican presidential hopeful Pat Robertson said yesterday that a quarter of America's autoworkers use illegal drugs, contributing to declining productivity. The remark was criticized by a labor leader as 'stupid'." [San Francisco Chronicle, 4 November 1987 (AP)]

- "Pat Robertson, who once claimed to have diverted a hurricane from its path, yesterday had his presidential campaign disrupted by a second-rate snowstorm. A dark-horse contender for the Republican nomination, Robertson was forced to cancel several stops on a scheduled 18-city barnstorming tour of southern Iowa when weather grounded the helicopter he had planned to use."
[Jerry Roberts, San Francisco Chronicle, 5 February 1988]

- "Now that he did so well in Iowa, The Reverend Pat Robertson doesn't want to be called a 'former television evangelist' anymore. He told NBC's Tom Brokaw in no uncertain terms that such a 'slur' was the height of 'religious bigotry. And he's right. Who'd want their sister to marry a television evangelist? But how shall we ace newsmen describe him instead? I've given the matter a great deal of thought, and I think the fairest to all concerned is 'former hemorrhoid healer.' This refers of
course, to the former hemorrhoid healer's celebrated, videotaped sermon to his congregation back in 1981, when he cried: 'Satan has gone! God has just healed somebody! A hernia has been healed! Several people are being healed of hemorrhoids and varicose veins! People with flat feet! God is doing just great things to you!' ... 'Former hurricane deflector' struck me as macho, and most voters would probably like a president who could deflect hurricanes. But Hurricane Gloria, which he
deflected back in 1985 to save his broadcasting station in Virginia Beach, slammed into Long Island and Boston instead, doing $320 million worth of damage."
[Arthur Hoppe, San Francisco Chronicle, 12 February 1988]

- "Allegations by U.S. presidential candidate Pat Robertson that the Soviet Union has placed nuclear missiles in Cuba are 'wild fantasy,' the official Soviet news agency Tass said yesterday. 'Of course it is up to the Americans themselves to decide who will be the next occupant of the White House. But
in this case we are dealing with problems concerning international security, concerning all,' Tass said. 'That is why Robertson's wild fantasy gives rise to a legitimate question: How is it that such an irresponsible politician could at all become a candidate for the presidency in such a country as the
United States?'" [San Francisco Chronicle, 17 February 1988 (Chronicle Wire Services)]

-"There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.  How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communist, atheists, New age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers and homosexuals are on top."

-"The courts are merely a ruse, if you will, for humanist, atheistic educators to beat up on Christians."

-"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women.  It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."- Pat Robertson

I suspect that you wanted me to limit my response to only your narrowly defined strawman question, but I say if you want a taste then drink from the firehouse. You'll find all sorts of tasty quotes in there, and you'll also find that not only can he cure cancer over the phone, but he can pray away bad weather and do a little supernatural dentistry.

Oh, and walon, google has several million links just like it. Knock yourself out.

[walons]

No evidence, no comment. Carter thought he could solve the energy crisis by wearing a sweater. I don't accuse him of wanting to dismantle the energy industry.

[Matt Festa]

cvcobb01,

That's your defense. Lets "deconstruct" your argument.

The original charge laid at you was the following:

"Which Republican claims that revelation is a sure guide to complex analysis or cancer research? Name one. Name one conservative who thinks computer code is better written with the Bible as a guide. Or one who's trying to set up alchemy shops and close down chemistry departments"

By Walons.

Here is your response:
"Walons, meet Pat Roberson, former Republican candidate for President"

Wow, Pat Roberston, former presidential candidate...well, he must control the entire Republican party!

But surely I can come up with liberal presidential candidates who also hold asinine opinions on subjects. For instance, Dennis Kucinich and his ridiculous rantings against free trade. Then I can go down the list and look at liberal politicians, like Shiela Jackson lee, of the "the Jews are too blame for 9/11" fame. The point is, ideologues exist on both sides. But the existence of ideologues doesn't mean that the entire movement is riddles with them.

Thus the rest of your argument collapses:

"And it is very hard to take any conservative seriously when he tells me I'm representing something sick, bigoted and disgusting by pointing out a former candidate for the Republican party"

No what is sick and bigoted is your use of Roberston as proof positive that conservatives are idiot nuts. If I were to go "Dennish Kucinich and radical leftis bloggers make ridiculous anti-globilization comments, and thus all liberals, including you, do harm to the poor" I would be a bigot and a jerk. But I make no such statement. I do not assume that the view of one is the view of everyone.

"Did you see the grandstanding by the republicans over Shiavo?"

Oh ok. So there was no principled argument to be made in defense of her life. We can't have a principled disagreement over the issue. And, I guess the liberals who joined in (like Jesse Jackson) were just grandstanding as well. Oh come on.

"I'm advocating that walons not throw out the challenge that we name one Republican who advocates theism over science, and then pretend to be shocked when the most obvious target among many is indeed pointed out"

Wait, so far as I can tell, you merely asserted that Robertson is some sort alchemist wackjob. I saw no proof. And the broader point remains, you are condeming a movmement based on the actions of one man.

But what of the smart principled people on the other side. What of Leon Kass? What of (pro-reseach) Virginia Postel? You give me Pat Robertson w/o any substantial back up. I sent bigotry of the highest order in your assertion.

Nevertheless, lets get back to my main point:

Let's say you meet Person X, who is a creationist. Obviousely, the person's position on evolution is naive (at best.) But does this mean that you should treat this person with scorn, denounce everything he says as irrelevant, and go on your merry way assuming your the best in life. Hardly? I have radical disagreements with protectionist living wage folks. But I do understand where they are coming from. I try and understand the emotion and the reason they behave the way they do and try to come up with solutions that fit in with the reality.

Now lets use your situation with the creationist. Well, what are the motivating reasons behind the person being a creationist. Well, it probably boils down to the use of evolution as a whacking stick against theism and morality. But this link is not necessary, nor is it required.

Many conservatives (or religious type folks) have spent decades trying to grapple with the theory of evolution and its relationship to theism. They have written such books as "Finding Darwin's God" By Kenneth Miller and articles, such as "Edward Oakes and his Critics," a debate where the Jesuit Theologian Edward Oakes vehemently denies the logic of intelligent design, from within the Christian tradition.

But you in principle can't learn from this people because of your prior bigoted assertion that "the heart of the movement is a bunch of whacko's"

Yeah, people like that are just soooooo stupid. So are people like Greg Mankiw, Martin Feldstein, Robert Lucas, Ed Prescott, Tom Sargeant, etc. in economics.

Imagine me arguing that Dennis Kucinich proves that Delong, Blanchard, Summers, Klein, etc. are all a bunch of wackos?

But then I would be a bigot

Again, maturity, please?

Matt

[cvcobb01]

Matt,

I don't confuse Republicans with conservatives. You shouldn't either.

But as for my argument falling apart, using Kucinich as the example? Or Jackson? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The Democratic party has never to my knowledge used all of the levers of power of the government to fulfill Kucinich's agenda. But the Republican party is doing so for Pat's agenda. So which party's "whackjob" as you say is the marginal figure?

Here's a hint: it was not the Democratic party that got the GOP leadership and the president in on Easter morning to sign legislation intended for only one person, in the process negating states right and the rule of law, while also threatening those judges conservative and liberal who upheld the law in the first place. If I recall it was the Republicans who did that, all in service to the religious right.

Wait a minute...the religious right...would Pat Robertson be a prominent part of that? Why yes.

So if Robertson isn't in control of the Republicans, and I grant you he's not, then you've got an even bigger problem don't you? He's not in charge and yet the party is behaving very much as it would if he was.

As for the constant refrain to grow up and "maturity please," nice try. But I think maturity in this case would be to look reality in the eye and realize that by aligning itself with the anti-enlightment and anti-intellectual cause of the religious right, Republicans have made a deal with the devil.

A principled conservative would know that.

[cvcobb01]

Oh, and walon, claiming something isn't evidence doesn't mean it's not. It just means that you've limited your ability to see it as such. Works well as an ideological tool; falls utterly apart as an investigative tool.

[seamus]

Bill O'Reilly last night summarized Krugman's article as, "Liberals outnumber conservatives in academia because people who believe in God are fools."

Not exactly, Dr. Falafel.

[walons]

You claim that you provided evidence that Robertson, and therefore the whole Republican/conservative movement, is anti-science. I say you merely provided evidence that Robertson is possibly a wacko. My challenge still stands: give me a Republican/conservative who explicitly wanted to close down a cancer research facility or a math department on religious grounds. (Warning: Unlike Krugman, I don't admit April 1st SF spoof as evidence.)

[Matt Festa]

cvcobb01,

So principled morality is predicated on the beliefs of Pat Robertson? Oh come on.

Yeah, Leo Strauss, JPII (Rest in Peace), Richard John Neuhaus, Leon Kass, etc have nothing to do with it. And heck, they are really dumb right???

Wrong.

Thanks

Matt

[cvcobb01]

Walon and Matt,

Ahh, sneaking back to the thread when you thought I wasn't looking. Tricky.

Look guys, you are trying to skirt away from the obvious: the Republican Party isn't conservative anymore. How do I know? Been there, done that, can't anymore. I've been a Christian missionary, and now I'm just an entrepeneur trying to run my 4th successful company. I'm not phd, though apparently I'm one of Jonah's Uberman who make the world go round by starting successful businesses and hiring good people at decent wages. Out in the trenches the luxury of these pointyheaded debates is exactly that--a luxury.

But what I do know is that you can try and out-argue me all day using debate club tactics and it makes little difference. Sure you're both probabaly smarter than me and have better grades and all that, and I hope that lifts your self-esteem a little, I really do. But what you don't have is a leg to stand on--the Republican party has abandoned true conservatism. Why? Because the Pat Roberstons of the world run it.

So you can name any libertarian or old school conservative you want to Matt; we both know they would not be welcome in the deficit-expanding, morality-imposing train wreck of a governing philosphy you're trying to defend. Walon, you can slur Pat Roberston all day but his agenda is now your agenda, whether you like it or not. You think Mr. Faith Healer wouldn't hesitate to shut down a cancer center? Willful blindness. And Matt, you can do your sleight of hand by pointing towards a conservative and talking about Republicans all day long, but they aren't the same thing anymore. One day it might be and then I will have to concede your awesomeness, but now you are just trying to defend an incoherent governing philosophy. I would say you strike me as too smart for that, but the cogniitive dissoncance you seem willing to live makes me wondert.

So I'm back to work boys, making the economic engine of America run under one the worst administrations for this economy I have ever had to launch a business in. Wish me luck. And good luck with your studies.

[carbonel]

Er, yes, but I could plug in "Democratic Politicians" for 4 of the 5 and get the same results. Admittedly, I'd have to substitute some inane bit of left-wing biology-denying ideology for "evolution": but the effect is otherwise the same.

[xman]

Brad, no offense bud, but this is one of the dumbest posts on your site ever. You make no point not easily refuted or made irrelevant by facts that would be fairly simple to establish. In the future, stick to something you know something - anything - about.

[larry birnbaum]

And because Republicans' embrace of race-baiting, homophobia, and black-helicopter fear-mongering has done profound spiritual and emotional damage to America and Americans.