Posted on 07/02/2014 5:37:28 AM PDT by cotton1706
I have fond memories of my internship on Capitol Hill last summer, many of which have broadened my understanding of the political culture brewing in Washington. As I mentioned already in the Daily, I had the privilege of meeting Bill Nye, Francis Collins and other well-known faces.
It would be difficult, though, for me to place those delightful occasions ahead of the durable friendships I built during that time. These friendships crossed party lines and I found that we could have thoughtful discussions from across the aisle, absent the scant and cheap points typical of the comments section of any newspaper.
I remember frequently declining invitations to a round of drinks after work in order to spend extra time discussing policy in a Republican office with my Republican friends. A byproduct of those conversations was the subtle realization that there is still a great deal of reason found in the Republican Party, despite the festoon of superstition, ignorance and imprecision adorned by its tea party compatriots.
Safeguarding that reason is of utmost importance to the identity of the Republican Party. Where once the tea party was an asset to the GOP, it has now become a liability.
Despite taking some recent blows, the tea party movement continues to challenge “establishment
(Excerpt) Read more at iowastatedaily.com ...
Glawe: Climate change requires no debate
By Michael Glawe - (intern on Capitol Hill)
michael.glawe@iowastatedaily.com | Posted 1 month ago
I was once given the opportunity to meet Bill Nye “The Science Guy.” By meet, I mean to say that I actually had a conversation with the man. I was a lowly intern on The Hill in Washington D.C., clamoring for the chance to rub shoulders with the elites. My supervisor informed me that Nye graced Congress with his presence, and that if I hurried, I still might be able to catch a glimpse of my hero. I sprinted down the polished marble hall toward the committee room where he had recently given a lecture on education. I turned the corner, and there he was. He was speaking with a colleague, a conversation which I did not wish to interrupt. I intended only to take a quick picture of him. A lady, whose shiny lanyard hinted at officialdom, approached me and asked if I wished to meet my hero. I did, and so I was introduced.
Many of Nye’s public appearances reveal the same humility. Indeed, his crusade against climate change deniers and believers in Young Earth Creationism shows a man who is willing to abandon the innocence of childhood education and rise in defense of science. The opposition is often cringeworthy and infuriating, but Nye always keeps his composure.
John Oliver perhaps explained the dichotomy of the climate change debate best when he said, “More often than not, it’s Bill Nye the Science Guy versus some dude.” The climate change debate has thrust Nye to the forefront of public discourse. The problem, however, is that Nye is too nice, too understanding and too respectful. As Nye once said, “What [people] have done is used the word ‘science’ in this new way.” He then added that they “take scientific uncertainty ... and turn it into doubt about the whole thing.” Disrespect of the scientific method deserves disrespect. It deserves no kindness. Folly must be stamped out, however cruel the means may be. Clearly, simply educating people is no longer enough.
I desire a skilled debater who is fluent in climatology and can hammer down the argument with precision. The arguments of the opposition should not be moderated but rather completely destroyed. By that means, we can rebuild society’s understanding of science. But for now, Nye will suffice.
The root of scientific denial is freshened by the media. John Oliver rightly points out that the major media outlets, in the spirit of public discourse, must have a 50-50 debate on climate change. That’s a misrepresentation — the debate is far from 50-50. Nevertheless, the “debate” — however fabricated it is — exists, and there is a growing demand for both scientists and those skeptical of climate change.
The danger of science becoming political is that it falls victim to public opinion. The nonscientific community should never have the authority to select the truths that best comfort it. The truths revealed by the scientific process are not up for debate. The use of science, however, is up for debate — such as the use of the atomic bomb. That is an important distinction not many people recognize.
Nye once said, “I have no trouble taking these political stances because I think the evidence is overwhelming.” Therein lies the problem: science is not inherently “political.” None of the debates he takes part in are actually debates at all. The scientific community holds itself accountable, and by that process, it proves itself to the public. Alas, that is the portrait of an ideal world.
By allowing science to be discussed by interest-driven and non-scientific demagogues, we lose our sense of what is true in the world — or at least the device by which we can decide what is true and what is not. Instead, truth is spun to fit popular narratives and political interests. For instance, conservative commentator Sarah Elizabeth Cupp once thrust upon Nye the notion that scientists are “bullies” and that the reports on climate change are mere “scare tactics.” However, science itself is oppressed by reality — it is in no position to bully. That shows how much of the discussion has been eroded away. Scientists are now perceived as “bullies” when they report facts. Those who side with Cupp think that scientists are deceiving everyone or that there is some devious twist behind their claims. Nothing could be further from the truth.
George Orwell once wrote, “Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Those vehemently denying the labors of scientific inquiry are pure wind. Nye and his kind will do well to remember that.
This is my first “guest appearance” for Elite Millennial (yeah, I’ll call it that – it makes me sound important) and I suppose it would only be prudent to introduce myself. My name is Michael Glawe. My nom de plume is M.R. Glawe – the “R” standing for Reed, my father’s name. I am twenty-one years old and I am currently a student and columnist at Iowa State University. Saliently, as a matter of qualification, I am a Millennial. That much should suffice for now.
Moderate Republican = Democrat Lite
No thanks.
“Moderate” republicans don’t have any ideals.”
damn you took the words right out of my mouth
Compromising with bad policy is like adding just a little sewage to your drinking water.
How precious.
They’re offering us the clean end of the turd.
Uniparty Ping.
Because apparently the ideas of small government aren’t worth fighting for.
(Why would we need repubs to fight democrats If the only government in our lives was the post office? )
I’d like to see this brainiac, or anyone who touts the moderate nonsense to put together the case study showing where the Republican party succeeded - both electorally and with policy achievements - following their suggested path. Our party wins elections and advances limited government policy when it moves right. It’s a simple undeniable fact.
Reagan, Newt Gingrich of the 90s, to a large extent GWB in his electoral success and 2010 are all electoral successes and at least championed some conservative policy successes (the later being the exception because the DC leadership mangled their duties in 2011 and 2012 and were tactically and strategically a failure). Their path is Ford, Bush senior who dismantled the Reagan majorities, Dole, McCain, Romney, and the failed Northeastern republican efforts that have essentially erased the party from segments of the country.
Run a conservative campaign and advance conservative solutions and you win and move the ball in the right direction. Run to appease the opposition and sign on to slightly less left-wing solutions and you are defeated. It’s simple.
Yeah. I would love to have “Democrat style” compromise from our moderates. If that were so, they’d toss the Democrats a rare bone while getting 99% of what we conservatives wants. That’s what compromise means to Democrats—give me nearly everything I want.
Don’t ask me why the moderates can’t get it through their thick heads that we conservatives aren’t really purists—at least many of us aren’t. Most of us would settle for far less than that 99% compromise so long as we see some sort of smaller government.
I would be perfectly happy to see the moderates reach a real “moderate” result which would mean smaller, more efficient and less intrusive federal functions. So maybe the EPA doesn’t go away, but certainly moderation would mean they might not keep expanding control over virtually every aspect of life with the C02 nonsense, right?
I’m just using the EPA as an example, but I’m sure you get my drift. Since when have the moderates produced moderate/centrist results? Am I really supposed to believe there isn’t a single government program, rule or regulation anywhere that can’t be cut or eliminated—not one???
Using another example, most conservatives I know don’t really want Social Security eliminated overnight. We might want other options that would allow the younger folks to opt out, but nearly all of us don’t really want to cut off the elderly who are dependent on their SS checks. Why isn’t providing more flexibility while protecting current recipients a “moderate” approach?
Reasonable compromise to me is when both sides get something they want, but again, the moderates seem incapable of actually delivering any moderation.
Glawe: Masochism of ‘Atlas Shrugged’
By Michael Glawe, michael.glawe@iowastatedaily.com | Updated Feb 17, 2013
Just this past week a bill was introduced to the Idaho state senate by Sen. John Goedde requiring high school students to read “Atlas Shrugged” and take an exam on it to graduate. He wasn’t being serious, though, as he has stated he has no intention of pushing the bill through the legislature. It was brought up merely to “make a point” about some of the arbitrary decisions being made by Idaho’s Board of Education.
Whether Goedde was subtly and frivolously lauding his favorite book, or just “making a point,” his actions highlight Rand’s influence on politicians nowadays.
Prominent politicians Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Paul Ryan, and other devotees of Ayn Rand’s magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged,” will have you believe that the work is a realistic political parable, even more relevant today than ever before. Sales of the book have soared to great heights (according to the Ayn Rand Institute, more than 7 million copies have been sold), with business leaders emulating the heroines of Rand’s dystopia every day.
Detractors like myself, however, dismiss the work as a silly homage to greed. I should admit, though, that I was once an aficionado of Rand’s ode to capitalism. I snapped out of the fantasy, however, after I realized my egotism was driving my friends and family away. In retrospect, my love of objectivism was, perhaps, just a “phase.”
You can see why “Atlas Shrugged” appeals to most, if not all, businessmen, nowadays.
The novel itself was used as a channel through which Rand could push objectivism, a philosophy based around the pursuit of one’s own happiness as the moral purpose of life, absent of any sort of altruism.
Can we possibly imagine a society that has adopted these principles? I suppose we’d be reinforcing what humans are already good at doing — being self-interested. Rand contends that this is necessary to man’s survival, but haven’t we moved beyond these primitive means? The human solidarity renders objectivism a supererogation. Caring for others is a part of that solidarity. It is our nature to not only be selfish but also selfless.
Many libertarians and conservatives who’ve adopted Rand’s work seek to defend businesses from the “tyranny of big government.” The list of politicians pushing Rand’s ideology is extensive. The major figures include Ryan, Paul, Ronald Reagan and Gary Johnson, all of whom were serious contenders for the presidency. The major political endorsements of “Atlas Shrugged” has, in turn, dramatically altered the political landscape. Because people believe Rand “prophesized” the future of capitalism, a pseudo-revolution against the government has erupted.
Our allegiance to capitalism has rendered us masochists, of which the infliction of pain is given by the corporate sadists who deliberately crash their company in exchange for bonuses. To praise a pure capitalist society, where the powerful “innovators” willfully harm our economy, is the definition of sadomasochism.
I believe the government has the power and the responsibility to prevent the infliction of pain on the participators of our economy. In Greek mythology, Atlas beared the celestial sphere on his shoulders. Oftentimes, the citizens, the true Atlases of our country, must bear the same burdens. Though, the true Atlases will never shrug.
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_b58ce8a6-761a-11e2-b4df-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm
I think this kid has a crush on Bill Nye.
Compromising with bad policy is like adding just a little sewage to your drinking water.
Ever notice when they speak of “compromise” it’s always only one side that’s expected to betray it’s values?
No more compromise
No more “Socialism/Collectivism - lite”
No more BS
Why is it always on us to compromise? Why don’t the so called ‘moderates’ compromise our way?
I think, I have been insulted once again.
copyright restrictions apply down thread as well, thank you.
Bill Nye The Science Guy Dead: Uses Death Hoax Fame to Warn Against Creationism Taught in Classrooms
“The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old. It’s not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs.
If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate.”
*********
In September 2012, Nye claimed that creationist views threaten science education and innovation in the United States.
In February 2014, Nye debated creationist Ken Ham at the Creation Museum on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era.
Nye is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a U.S. non-profit scientific and educational organization whose aim is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.[51] Interviewed by John Rael for the Independent Investigation Group IIG, Nye stated that his “concern right now... scientific illiteracy... you [the public] don’t have enough rudimentary knowledge of the universe to evaluate claims.”
Nye began his professional entertainment career as a writer/actor on a local sketch comedy television show in Seattle, Washington, called Almost Live!. The host of the show, Ross Shafer, suggested he do some scientific demonstrations in a six-minute segment, and take on the nickname “The Science Guy”. His other main recurring role on Almost Live! was as Speedwalker, a speedwalking Seattle superhero.
True, but compromise means the other side gives occasionally, too. When is the last time Republicans moved toward a SMALLER, less intrusive government? When is the last time someone other than an 'angry bird' stood UP to the socialist Democrats?
There's always an excuse, of course. We need more Republicans in office, We need more money, We need you to hold your nose and vote.....AGAIN!
In a moderate Republicans context, 'compromise' means - lay down, shut up, and do it our way.
No! No how, no way, no more.
REMEMBER MISSISSIPPI!
Oh, so no scientists are skeptical of "climate change"? Moron.
Just what we need, some snot-nosed liberal punk explaining to us what we need to do. I knew two phrases in that he was a liberal juvenile, enamored of his poor writing skills. Ironic that he deigns to criticize the writing of others.
“...give yourself the amusement in reading the poorly structured...” This reads like an eastern European who has learned English recently. Admirable in one new to the language, not so much in an arrogant twit attempting to belittle another’s writing.
“Written by a paltry and unlettered...” SHREIKING and reeking arrogance! A stilted use of the word paltry - it reads like he searched for a word to make him sound “lettered”.
“...and reap the benefits of credulity.” Uhhh, misuse of the word you arrogant tool. Credulity is the willingness or the ability to believe. The appropriate, but more common, and therefor less high-fallutin’ sounding word is “credibility” which is the quality of being believable.
” and tries to appear eloquent. I can do that too” You can and do, you yapping pup, and you throw Orwell in to make you sound “lettered” again.
“And for God’s sakes...” it is “sake” for the sake of one being, for the sakes of more than one, you ignorant tool.
‘...who aren’t afraid of evidence that could usurp their positions” Evidence is inert, therefor unable to usurp anything. One can use evidence to help them usurp another’s position, but evidence cannot usurp it. I get a huge laugh when the poorly educated use words with which they are unfamiliar in an attempt to make them sound “lettered”.
“As we witnessed in Cantor’s defeat, duty to the party supersedes compromise.” This phrase is meaningless babble with no connection to actual events. Cantor was both dutiful and willing to compromise. Both traits led to his defeat.
“...their claim to be “non-negotiable.”” Terms are either negotiable or non-negotiable. People are not. The correct word would be “implacable”
The entire “non-negotiable” paragraph is pure nonsense. If the reason for being “implacable” is because one is unwilling to compromise foundational principles, then implacability serves its purpose. The cautionary is instructive here: “Don’t just do something, stand there.” Which reminds me of Eph 6:13 “...and having done all, to stand.”
“What happened to the commentators of the right such as William F. Buckley, who, as many would have it, was the preeminent man to beat on the field of debate?” He speaks of someone about whom he has little or no knowledge. Buckley was not a man of compromise, he was the antithesis. When it came to matters of principle, Buckley was as implacable as any - which was the beauty of his abilities. He not only refused to budge, but he was able to convincingly thrash anyone who tried to bully him to move.
So, after his inept screed about the beauty of compromise, he bewails the absence of a man whose memory serves as a monument against compromise - standing athwart history yelling “stop!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.