Santorum: Get Science out of Politics

December 11, 2011

Comments

Via the Des Moines Register (Santorum: Parents, not Obama, know what is best for their child’s education) we get this gem:

Discussing controversial classroom subjects such as evolution and global warming, Santorum said he has suggested that “science should get out of politics” and he is opposed to teaching that provides a “politically correct perspective.”

While recognizing the fact that science can not only be controversial but inconclusive and, further, that sciences can be politicized, it is a rather bizarre, yet telling, notion that Santorum would like to throw science out altogether. He clearly prefers policy-making by faith and personal opinion/preferences. The good news is that he isn’t going to win anything. The bad news is that he has a small following who likes what they hear from him.

25 responses to “Santorum: Get Science out of Politics”

john personna

December 11, 2011 at 9:46 am

There has been an interesting evolution of meaning for the words “politically correct.,”

Originally it was about speaking the truth without being decisive, I think. Maybe there were some things that were true that “the PC police” wanted unsaid, for sake of civility. Now we’ve got Santorum saying that speaking scientific truths themselves is just “PC.”

I guess “fundimentalist” is also an interesting word, in the first decades of the new millennium.
john personna

December 11, 2011 at 9:57 am

“without being [divisive]”
Steven L. Taylor

December 11, 2011 at 10:20 am

@john personna: I almost commented on the deployment of “PC” myself. I think to a certain brand of conservative, being “politically correct” means some sort of coerced speech, such as being told to say “African-American” instead of “black” or whatever. In this case, it is being told that maybe scientific inquiry trumps personal beliefs.

It is telling, of course, as to the kind of things people don’t want to have to say.
Have A Nice G.A.

December 11, 2011 at 11:18 am

lol, Maybe he should have said teaching religious dogma such as evolution and global warming as if it was fact should not be done. But I can understand what he meant by this.

Santorum said he has suggested that “science should get out of politics” and he is opposed to teaching that provides a “politically correct perspective.”

I think he was being PC lol…..
Ernieyeball

December 11, 2011 at 11:27 am

G Spot is PC all the time…Practically Clueless…
Have A Nice G.A.

December 11, 2011 at 11:52 am

G Spot is PC all the time…Practically Clueless…

lol, says the Alinsky puppet, PC=Poop Commenter.

Still thinking that you have won an argument? Still thinking that you can out insult me ? lol….
Steven L. Taylor

December 11, 2011 at 12:00 pm

PC=Poop Commenter

How nice. I can get that kind of stellar commentary from my children.
grumpy realist

December 11, 2011 at 12:16 pm

@Have A Nice G.A.: People like you are exactly why the Chinese are laughing their asses off at the stupid Americans. You take the best mechanism by which we have increased the productivity of humans, namely, the scientific method and throw it out the window. Data means nothing to you. logic means nothing to you. Reason means nothing to you.

A population comprised of G.A.s would very quickly dwindle into the technological and economic level of the most backward parts of the world–and never improve. Enjoy scratching at the ground for roots and chipping flints–that’s the highest level of economy all your mentality will lead you to have.
ponce

December 11, 2011 at 1:00 pm

If everybody knows Santorum is being nutty, then why is he saying these things?

So he can make money in the future getting his slack-jawed followers to sell him their gold for half its market value?
Ernieyeball

December 11, 2011 at 1:00 pm

Actually my quips are more about my rewrite of the screenplay for the remake of Scorsese’s 1983 gem The King of Comedy.
Since my budget is limited I will play both DeNiro’s Rupert Pumpkin and Jerry Lewis’ Jerry Langford.
With that red hair G A will be perfect to play Sandra Bernhard’s Masha.
In drag of course!
Steven L. Taylor

December 11, 2011 at 1:08 pm

@ponce:

If everybody knows Santorum is being nutty, then why is he saying these things?

The problem is (as this thread has illustrated, and as Santorum poll numbers show) everybody doesn’t know he is being nutty.

Part of why I think he is worth commenting upon is that there are, in fact, people who agree with him.
Ben Wolf

December 11, 2011 at 1:21 pm

lol, says the Alinsky puppet, PC=Poop Commenter.
Still thinking that you have won an argument? Still thinking that you can out insult me ? lol….

This sort of thing is what limits OTB’s appeal for me. Thanks to the G.A.’s and Floracks it’s impossible to have a substantive discussion or focus in on the operational details of policy because the thread is inevitably dragged down into cave troll territory. G.A.’s only purpose here is to annoy as many people as possible; he knows he can’t persuade anyone to his point of view.
Michael

December 11, 2011 at 2:02 pm

How nice. I can get that kind of stellar commentary from my children.

I’m willing to wager that your children provide significantly better, more thought-out commentary than G.A Philips.
Have A Nice G.A.

December 11, 2011 at 3:18 pm

This sort of thing is what limits OTB’s appeal for me.

lol…
I think you fanatical libs have driven all but a few of the intellectual peeps away from this site and I have been here for more years then almost all of you.

With that red hair G A will be perfect to play Sandra Bernhard’s Masha.

Haha, I was a strawberry blond and I got a big gap in my teeth too..but I am not dressing in drag to fulfill your sick fantasies….

This sort of thing is what limits OTB’s appeal for me. Thanks to the G.A.’s and Floracks it’s impossible to have a substantive discussion or focus in on the operational details of policy because the thread is inevitably dragged down into cave troll territory.

Lets see I make a comment and a joke and then bunch of Alinsky puppets attack me in the same old alinsky puppet way.
And this post is, A) an attack on santorum’s intellect. or B) A policy discussion…Hmmm.. I comment on a few posts a week and only ones that interest me and I joke a lot, but most of the times theses days I just pop in to stick up for folks. lol, and I keep having to explain this to you people…

I’m willing to wager that your children provide significantly better, more thought-out commentary than G.A Philips.

No argument here and the good Dr. can say what he wants to me it’s his show. But why have you, singled me out?

How much you do want to bet that I can come here under a different name and spout libcom nonsense and be praised and thought to be a intellectual?

And grumpy realist lol, they are laughing me? I would think they would be laughing at the brain washed neo marxists like yourself…
mattb

December 11, 2011 at 3:21 pm

@Ben Wolf:

This sort of thing is what limits OTB’s appeal for me. Thanks to the G.A.’s and Floracks it’s impossible to have a substantive discussion or focus in on the operational details of policy because the thread is inevitably dragged down into cave troll territory.

To that point, does anyone know any sites that has a core group of conservative commentators who can thoughtfully argue positions that actually have something to do with reality?

I’ve been searching for one for a while and have yet to find it.
Michael

December 11, 2011 at 3:27 pm

To that point, does anyone know any sites that has a core group of conservative commentators who can thoughtfully argue positions that actually have something to do with reality?

OTB has that, which is why it’s the only right-leaning blog who’s comments I read. Even Florack tends to put some thought into his comments (even if I usually think he’s wrong). GA can hardly be considered one of the core group of commendators. There have been other GA-like trolls that have come and gone in the past,
Steven L. Taylor

December 11, 2011 at 3:33 pm

@Have A Nice G.A.:

I comment on a few posts a week and only ones that interest me and I joke a lot, but most of the times theses days I just pop in to stick up for folks. lol, and I keep having to explain this to you people…

The problem many of the commenters (and I) have with your “style” is that it is frequently (if not always) unclear as to when you are trying to make an argument and when you are making a joke. This makes it impossible to take you seriously and usually makes your comments come across as nothing but annoyances.

Also, a pet peeve of mine (which I think I have raised before): the “lol” thing. You use it too much. Not only do you insert it in ways that seem inappropriate, but if you are, in fact, laughing out loud every time you type “lol” then you are coming across as someone doing a Joker impersonation.

If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you could try to be a bit more serious.
Michael

December 11, 2011 at 3:38 pm

The problem many of the commenters (and I) have with your “style” is that it is frequently (if not always) unclear as to when you are trying to make an argument and when you are making a joke.

Moreover, most of his “arguments” are a joke, so I’m not entirely sure there is a distinction to be made.
mattb

December 11, 2011 at 4:51 pm

@Michael:

OTB has that, which is why it’s the only right-leaning blog who’s comments I read. Even Florack tends to put some thought into his comments (even if I usually think he’s wrong).

Generally speaking, I think the conservative leaning authors at OTB are quite good.

And I consistently appreciate PD Shaw and Boyd’s contributions as commentators.

Eric, is frustrating in the extreme — he can write very well, and on certain issues he has made very thoughtful contributions. But get him on any red-meat issue and any sanity goes out the window — Obama/Liberals/Democrats are destroying America; there is not such thing as a truly peaceful Muslim; the only correct view is a conservative view. And, when he’s on these subjects, facts have absolutely no effect on him.

So, no, I can’t count him as an honest conservative poster. And I have a hard time thinking of him as connected to the real word.

And beyond that, what other conservative commentators are there on this site? JKB? He’s (?) good on science/tech facts, but pretty much after that falls into talk radio conservatism. Jan? She… uh… tries — her heart is in the right place, but judging from her posts she went from being a faith-based liberal to being a faith-based conservative (note I’m not talking about religious faith).

I’m not saying that the liberal leaning commenters on OTB are prefect, but currently, they are, in general, far more thoughtful than the conservative ones.
Steven L. Taylor

December 11, 2011 at 5:09 pm

@mattb:

Eric, is frustrating in the extreme — he can write very well, and on certain issues he has made very thoughtful contributions. But get him on any red-meat issue and any sanity goes out the window — Obama/Liberals/Democrats are destroying America; there is not such thing as a truly peaceful Muslim; the only correct view is a conservative view. And, when he’s on these subjects, facts have absolutely no effect on him.

Agreed.
sam

December 11, 2011 at 6:27 pm

@Steven L. Taylor:

Also, a pet peeve of mine (which I think I have raised before): the “lol” thing. You use it too much. Not only do you insert it in ways that seem inappropriate, but if you are, in fact, laughing out loud every time you type “lol” then you are coming across as someone doing a Joker impersonation.

You ever read GA’s prayer?

Dear lord lol I beseech thee lol to guide my steps lol as I walk through the valley of the shadow of lol Obama. Please lol lord, hasten the day when my tadpole does not shrivel lol when the lol annointed one comes on the tv. lol. Speaking of my lol tadpole, oh lord, lol, since that blue-lol-lipped devil as come on the scene lol, my tadpole has been more tad than pole lol…could you help it to regain its lol manly uprightness lol before the next tea party lol? There will be some lol pretty hot tea partyettes there lol and a limp tadpole will not put me in good standing, if you catch my drift lol. Amen lol.
Franklin

December 11, 2011 at 7:42 pm

Santorum is so backwards that he’s almost forwards again. Actually I’m really quite amused by his statement. It’s such a childish comeback to “get religion out of politics”. Whiny voice: “oh yeah? why don’t you get science out of politics?”
grumpy realist

December 11, 2011 at 10:01 pm

@Have A Nice G.A.: Uh, the Chinese are going to be laughing at “neo-marxists”?! Hello? G.A., may I point out that the communist party is still running China? Or do you think that People ‘s Republic of China has a different government? Do you even KNOW who Marx was, historically? Marx, Engels, Lenin, and all those chaps? Hello? Ding ding ding?

I haven’t seen this level of cluelessness since the idiot on The View showed she didn’t know what “B.C.” and “A. D.” meant….
Steven L. Taylor

December 11, 2011 at 10:07 pm

@grumpy realist:

I haven’t seen this level of cluelessness since the idiot on The View showed she didn’t know what “B.C.” and “A. D.” meant….

Don’t be silly: those are the first four letters of the alphabet in the wrong order! lol!
Ernieyeball

December 12, 2011 at 1:03 am

@Steven L. Taylor: “Don’t be silly: those are the first four letters of the alphabet in the wrong order! lol!”

Someone call David Letterman! There’s a Comedian at OTB that’s actually FUNNY!