A Question Regarding Ms Bachmann

I didn’t really follow the career and recent campaign of Ms Bachmann closely, it was not local and didn’t run across my radar. What I did garner was that the left, lumps her with Ms Palin, as a female unequipped and/or completely unsuited for public office. For a mild example, see this post. The left will claim that their outrage is not based on the fact that both are female, in the public eye, and do not (!) support abortion on demand. 

Both of these women had somewhat similar trajectories into politics. Both were mothers who got involved in their school board to right things they found wrong. In Ms Palin’s case, she found corruption and chasing the same (often against her own party) led to a seat in the governors mansion. Ms Bachmann, saw one of her children doing “coloring circles” in high school algebra and was outraged. More on her trajectory here, please read this and this … we’ll wait here. OK. You’re back? For both of these women, if they happened to be not against abortion, and were firmly on the left, then their narrative that brought them to the political stage would be championed as prime examples of how the best of mixing motherhood and public service. But … instead they are targets of outrage and venom from that same source. So ….

Here’s my question to the left, what’s your beef in particular with Ms Bachmann? Why is she seen by you as “completely unsuited” for office? 

47 Responses to A Question Regarding Ms Bachmann

  1. Here’s my question to the left, what’s your beef in particular with Ms Bachmann? Why is she seen by you as “completely unsuited” for office?

    You’re right, it’s a complete double standard. For example, remember when Hillary called for liberal gun owners to exact a ‘2nd amendment solution’ to address the failure of Congress to pass HillaryCare under Clinton? We didn’t hold her accountable for that! Yet we inexplicably hate Bachmann for opposing the coloring circles exercise in the all sacred High School Algebra I lesson plan!

    BTW, what specifically was the deal with ‘coloring circles’ in algebra? I’ve tutored quite a few kids taking alegbra II and never saw any topic that looks like that would be an exercise unless it was maybe Venn diagrams.

  2. Boonton,
    You didn’t answer my question.

  3. I think she’s completly unsuited for office because her ‘schtick’ is not one who is interested in implementing responsible policies but rather gaining applause and attention by making bombastic and outrageous statements. Her ‘2nd amendment remdies’ statement was just one such example. In other words, the antics of a wannabe successor to Rush Limbaugh rather than a wannabe President.

    This is marginally acceptable in the House with 400+ members or so you can afford to have a few ‘class clowns’, it’s much less acceptable for more powerful positions.

  4. For a mild example, see this post. The left will claim that their outrage is not based on the fact that both are female, in the public eye, and do not (!) support abortion on demand.

    Did you select the wrong link here? The blog you linked too doesn’t talk about abortion at all. Clearly Palin and Bachman are hardly the first Republicans to oppose Roe.v.Wade, hardly the first female Republicans to do so. I’d be rather surprised at a serious left wing commentator who really asserts that Palin and Bachman’s only problem is that they aren’t pro-choice.

  5. She appears to have that dangerous combination of ignorance and immense confidence in her beliefs. She’s a creationist, a homophobe, a fear-mongerer about illegal immigrants, and a scientific and economic crank.

    She wants “Intelligent Design” to be taught in public schools.

    She proposed a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban gay marriage. She voted no on prohibited job discrimination against gay people. She went to Oral Roberts for law school.

    She wants to phase out Social Security and Medicare.

    She wants to make English the official language. (This might in theory be a defensible position, somehow, but in practice it tends to signify anti-immigrant and especially anti-Latino feelings.)

    Some quotes:

    ‘This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.”

    “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. Its all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”

    “The President of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day.”

    It’s true that many of the Republican candidates agree with her on some of these issues. I view many or most of them as cranks. She seems to ramp it up to a new level, though.

  6. Let’s turn the question around. What is it about Ms Bachmann that makes a non-trivial portion of people on the right feel she is suited for high office or even the White House?

    Invariably, I notice that both women share among their supporters a common assertion that a large part of their appeal is “they make liberals angry/crazy/upset etc.”. Why does this not show that:

    1. The right is made up of people who are basically mean. There is no other way to really describe those who get enjoyment out of making others upset.

    2. Many on the right are indifferent to implementing actual helpful policies.

    3. Many are immature, seeing powerful offices as being about popularity contests or some type of entertainment rather than a place where serious decisions are made and should be held by people capable of making them.

  7. And the ‘trajectory’ here seems to have been written by the usual Republican school of “let’s find something for unemployed Soviet Pravda writers to do, let’s hire them to write our bios!”. Bachmann did not jump into politics to ‘confront corruption’ or because her son’s homework assignments were too easy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann. She was a political animal since her youth working on both Carter and then Reagan’s Presidential campaigns.

    Likewise Sarah Palin did not enter politics to improve her children’s education or ‘fight corruption’ but to supervise the spending of the funds raised by a new sales tax and to oppose a measure to close bars two hours earlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_political_career_of_Sarah_Palin). As far as ‘finding corruption’, where? Whom was prosecuted and convicted of corruption during Palin’s brief years as a ‘corruption fighting governor’? The only thing I can find in wikipedia is that she supported and signed an ethics in public office bill…but that’s hardly very notable, there are hundreds of ethics bills in all 50 states and the Federal gov’t. Since you and her other supporters seem to imply she was some type of Elliot Ness when it came to corruption I’m sure you have much more stunning examples than that.

  8. It’s also amusing to see people like you unquestionably sopping up the ‘fighting corruption’ meme when Palin’s stated reasons for stepping down after not finishing a single term as governor is because she felt the state would have to spend too much money invetigating the ethics complaints against her.

    Which reminds me, what became of Palin’s $100,000+ wardrobe budget that she charged? She asserted that she was donating it all to a charity auction. The 2008 election is going on 4 yrs old now and I don’t recall any such auction? At this piont I fear the orphans will not be helped much by Todd’s silk boxers!

  9. Boonton,

    The 2008 election is going on 4 yrs old now and I don’t recall any such auction?

    How would you know? And how is this relevant?

    It’s also amusing to see people like you unquestionably sopping up the ‘fighting corruption’ meme when Palin’s stated reasons for stepping down after not finishing a single term as governor is because she felt the state would have to spend too much money invetigating the ethics complaints against her.

    Hmm. So when the WSJ wrote,

    She got started in politics after seeing the failures in public schooling. “The kids were coloring posters in 11th grade algebra class,” she says. “I decided to do my duty, go to the Republican convention. I had on jeans, a sweatshirt with a hole in it, white moccasins, and I showed up in this auditorium and everyone said, ‘Why are we nominating this guy [Gary] Laidig every four years?'”

    You take that as … what? A lie? Do you not believe her stated reasons for going into politics and why she became conservative? Why are you not enthused that a representative is reading fundamental economics texts?

    Working for != running

    And for heaven’s sake, the Carter/Reagan campaign were 35 years ago. She didn’t run for office until 2006, and in the meantime has been raising 30 (!) kids. Sounds to me like her career was most emphatically not politics. Strike one for you.

    The right is made up of people who are basically mean. There is no other way to really describe those who get enjoyment out of making others upset.

    In the context of a post which says “I know next to nothing about this woman, except that she gets you, in your words, upset .. and asks why?” that position makes no sense.

    Many on the right are indifferent to implementing actual helpful policies.

    Well, to contrast, many on the left are actively supporting actual harmful policies (Obamacare, CO2 caps in a recession).

    Many are immature, seeing powerful offices as being about popularity contests or some type of entertainment rather than a place where serious decisions are made and should be held by people capable of making them.

    Ms Bachmann is in her mid 50s. She’s raised 20+ some kids. I have no idea in what context that remark is meant.

    JA,
    OK. We’ll your answers at least point to why the left is rabid about her. Although …

    She’s a creationist, a homophobe, a fear-mongerer about illegal immigrants, and a scientific and economic crank.

    Well, reading Mises doesn’t make you a crank. I didn’t see the first (and frankly don’t see the relevance) …. and I’ve seen no evidence for “scientific crank.” You have links? Data? Or just hearsay? There are two meanings of homophobe, the literal meaning (phobia associated with homosexuality) which is almost certainly neither what you mean nor a thing for which you have a shred of evidence. For the more common meaning, which is that you have political opposition to gay marriage … that’s not exactly news.

    She wants to phase out Social Security and Medicare.

    She wants to make English the official language. (This might in theory be a defensible position, somehow, but in practice it tends to signify anti-immigrant and especially anti-Latino feelings.)

    Well, I’m up for both of those. Furthermore I want to let specifics of curricula be set by the local school boards, unlike (oddly enough) former Democrat Presidential candidates (Kerry and Obama) I see here that’s she’s sponsored some bills (which are likely a better judge of governance than rhetoric). Nothing really outrageous to my eyes. What frightens you?

    Moving on ..

  10. I know I’m never going to convince you. I’m just offering my perspective. She seems to represent the worst parts of the Republican Party. She doesn’t just oppose gay marriage, she openly complains that kids might learn that homosexuality is “normal” and “natural.” She doesn’t just believe in Republican economic propaganda, she rails hatefully against Democratic “socialism” and “Marxism” and lies preposterously about Obama. She doesn’t just believe in Intelligent Design, she wants it taught in public schools! Michele Bachmann scares the hell out of me. She’s like a small-minded, hateful caricature of everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party since Nixon welcomed the bigots and Reagan opened his arms to the Christian nuts.

    If you think none of that is a big deal, well then I’d probably feel the same way about you if you were running.

  11. JA,
    Except that to look at her sponsored legislation it seemed to me the vast majority were on economic issues, which seems to be her real interest.

    And I agree that her interest in federal legislation regarding curriculum is problematic, seeing as I support removal of all of that sort of thing.

    I wonder on the other hand how you reconcile claiming she is a creationist and an ID supporter. The former says there is no such thing as evolution, the other supports it implicitly. Could it be that you don’t have your story straight?

  12. How would you know? And how is this relevant?

    Well since the intention to have a public auction for charity was announced, one would think Google would catch some wind of it if it happened.

    Why is it relevant? Starting from least important issues to most:

    * Broken promises
    * Improper dispotition of funds and assets
    * Tax Fraud by the RNC and Sarah Palin

    You take that as … what? A lie? Do you not believe her stated reasons for going into politics and why she became conservative?

    Errr yes its a lie, by her own statements she worked on Presidential campaigns in 76 and 80 so yes if she said elsewhere poor quality alegbra homework motivated her to ‘get into politics’, well that’s a lie.

    Why are you not enthused that a representative is reading fundamental economics texts?

    I suspect your WSJ link is accurate that Bachman’s ‘reading list’ represents more intelligence than Palins….but then you’ve asserted that intelligence is unmeasurable and its shrill to even talk about it in regards to Palin so if reading lists must be taken off the table for Palin’s benefit I’m not going to let you put them back on for Bachman’s benefit. Choose one and stick with it.

    Working for != running

    Working for campaigns is being ‘in politics’. Most people don’t just run for office out of the blue.

    that position makes no sense.

    Why not? It’s point blank. Many right wingers assert they like Palin or Bachman because they get liberals mad. It is a mark of meanness to enjoy making someone upset simply for sake of making someone upset. If I said I enjoyed pissing on a cross outside a Catholic Church because that got Catholics mad…not because I thought Catholics were wrong and for the sake of their own souls must give up their belief in the cross or something like that…you’d likely say I’m a mean person, at least when it comes to Catholics. Enjoying making people upset for the sake of making them upset is meanness.

    Well, to contrast, many on the left are actively supporting actual harmful policies (Obamacare, CO2 caps in a recession).

    Irrelevant. They didn’t say they like either woman because they have better policies. At least in Palin’s case we often don’t even have a grasp of which policies she is actually advocating.

    Ms Bachmann is in her mid 50s. She’s raised 20+ some kids. I have no idea in what context that remark is meant.

    The immaturity is on the part of Bachmann and Palin’s supporters who assert their support is motivated by a desire for what is essentially to be entertained and to accomplish this by electing them to high office rather than, say, seeing them on a TV show, hearing them on the radio or reading a blog by them.

    I wonder on the other hand how you reconcile claiming she is a creationist and an ID supporter. The former says there is no such thing as evolution, the other supports it implicitly. Could it be that you don’t have your story straight?

    ID = Creationism + Dishonesty

  13. Anyway, I think Mark’s question remains fully answered by the 3rd comment on this thread. What’s the deal with the ‘abortion’ issue? It’s not in the links Mark provided?

  14. Except that to look at her sponsored legislation it seemed to me the vast majority were on economic issues, which seems to be her real interest.

    And that will harm the most people! Fighting the losing battle against tolerance for gays might hurt tens of thousands, but if she had her way with Social Security and Medicare (or if she’d had her way on TARP or tons of other issues) it would harm millions. The social issues get me in a visceral way, because you can just FEEL her hatred and small-minded bigotry when she talks about gays and lesbians, but it’s true that the economic ones might be even more important.

    I wonder on the other hand how you reconcile claiming she is a creationist and an ID supporter. The former says there is no such thing as evolution, the other supports it implicitly. Could it be that you don’t have your story straight?

    It’s all the same bullshit. She herself explicitly sets them in opposition to each other in this video. I assume you will never admit you’re wrong about this, though.

  15. Boonton,
    Broken promises? This is an issue for an Obama supporter? Cognitive dissonance bothering you muchly?

  16. Boonton,
    Sorry about answering in piecemeal, but … what you do in college or just after high school does not constitute “going into” politics. So it isn’t a lie.

    And I have made no issue of Bachmann vs Palin’s intelligence. My only comparison was to note that there seemed to be a lot of hyperventelation on the left regarding both. I have not (as you might note) argued or suggested that Ms Bachmann is or is not intelligent. You can lambaste me royally when/if I do.

  17. Boonton,
    ID is not creationism, per se. It may perhaps be for some, but you’d have to dig deeper to make that claim about an individual’s stance on the matter.

    NOVA agreed with my stance that fundamentally the argument of ID vs the mainstream view is one about reasonable times for changes (even if JA thinks that isn’t the point somehow the editorial staff at NOVA found that to be reasonable independently from my coming to that conclusion).

  18. JA,

    Let’s take one piece of that. An not unimportant one. You say she is hateful. OK. Back that up. Demonstrate why/how you say she is hateful. A sound bite? A transcript? Legislation? Why do you call her hateful?

  19. The way she talks about gay people. The way she wants to amend the freakin’ constitution just to keep them from marrying. The way she talks about Obama and the Dems. Etc.

  20. Way to ignore my VIDEO EVIDENCE of her setting ID up in opposition to evolution, by the way.

  21. Broken promises? This is an issue for an Obama supporter? Cognitive dissonance bothering you muchly?

    Obama has very few broken promises if you factor out matters of legitimate interpretation (such as what exactly is meant by ‘you can keep your current coverage’ in reference to Obamacare), matters of pragmatism (closing Gitmo is not so easily done if Congress essentially prohibits you from doing it) and when offset by the magnitude of promises kept (directing forces to focus on getting Bin Laden rather than toying with yet more adventures in Iran).

    What promises has Mrs. Palin kept? What has prevented her from fulfilling that rather basic one which would also eliminate the chance of committing a serious fraud? It’s not so hard, here in NJ the press caught gov. Christie using the state helicopter to fly to his son’s baseball game, he reimbursed the state for the cost of the flight. The RNC later reimbursed the state for the cost of coptering Christie to a fundraising event.

    Re:Bachmann, note that her first major post college political acts were running not for school board (where one would expect to target a too easy alegbra class) but protesting an abortion clinic with her first elected office being state Senate. I will grant you that she helped found a charter school so the coloring posters story might be true in the sense that it really happened but to me it sounds more like an ancedote as part of a sales pitch rather than the true motivation for her to get into politics.

    NOVA agreed with my stance that fundamentally the argument of ID vs the mainstream view is one about reasonable times for changes (even if JA thinks that isn’t the point somehow the editorial staff at NOVA found that to be reasonable independently from my coming to that conclusion).

    No it’s simply not. If you argue that evolution alone is not sufficient because it would require more time than is available from the fossil record for certain changes to happen you’re NOT arguing ID. You’re confusing (and maybe NOVA did as well) criticising one theory (evolution) with arguing for another theory (ID).

    For example, consider the endosymbiotic theory of the mitochondria. It basically is the idea that mitochondria (which have their own DNA and appear to be tiny cells inside a larger cell) came not from evolution but when one cell tried to eat another cell but couldn’t digest it. The eaten cell and eater cell then evolved in a symbiotic relationship. That’s not a theory of natural selection but its not an ID theory.

    ID theory, as much as it is a theory, asserts that a quality called ‘design’ can be objectively measured and ‘design’ of some certain amount of complexity cannot be produced by simple natual forces but only by an intelligent force. It’s not really a theory so much as an outline for a proposed theory since most of these essential terms are undefined, there’s no way provided to actually measure ‘design’ or ‘complexity’ or to actually test the theory.

  22. I notice that quite a few of your questions have been answered Mark but you’ve answered few of ours. This creates an unlevel playing field as you’re free to pick apart any of our numerous answers with nitpicks but we have been given very few answers by you to examine on any level.

    Let me push what I think is the most important one again:

    What is it about Ms Bachmann that makes a non-trivial portion of people on the right feel she is suited for high office or even the White House?

    (You can also swap in Ms Palin for Bachmann if you wish). Your original question (“Why is she seen by you as “completely unsuited” for office? “) seems to assume that the default is that anyone is to be assumed suitable for office until demonstrated otherwise. Yet in this nation of over a quarter billion people we only have, what, 500 ‘high offices’ at the Federal level? Certainly we can afford to be somewhat selective and insist that a person being supported for high office come with some type of demonstration by her/his supporters of their suitableness.

  23. Boonton,
    Well, why? Hmm, well, she has been elected several times as a GOP candidate in a non-GOP friendly district. So the voters of her district found her to match that criteria. She won last nights debate so her speaking skills are not insubstantial. She is a two term House Representative and she is running for said office. You were willing to grant that she seems intelligent for what that might mean.

  24. So again your reasoning is entirely circular. Someone is suited for high office if they win an election for high office. So who should the rational voter vote for? Someone who won an election?

    Let’s note the common lines of defense Mark and people like him draw for people like Bachmann and Palin. When asked about their intelligence he ponders that intelligence can’t be defined. When asked about their judgement, who is to judge judgement? Who is to judge who is suitable for higher office.

    People who argue like this do so because the person they are defending is not intelligent, does not have good judgement and is not suitable for high office. If it was any different they would assert point blank that these are great people worthy of respect for a numerous reasons. Instead we get the Pilet treatment of ‘what is truth’, the truth is neither Bachmann or Palin are suitable for high office.

  25. It’s infuriating when I completely nail Mark on a point (e.g. the VIDEO EVIDENCE that Bachmann places ID in opposition to evolution) and rather than admitting he was wrong, he simply refuses to let on that he even saw the comment. He probably won’t say anything else on that particular subject today, but a week or a month from now, he’ll trot out his claim that ID assumes that evolution is true all over again, like my ownage of him on that point didn’t even happen.

    I’ve tried everything, from simply posting the same comment over and over again to refusing to address anything else. Nothing works. Mark is incapable of admitting he’s wrong. I have literally never seen him concede on ANY POINT, no matter how small, in a debate. The farthest I’ve seen him go is admit that he misread something I wrote, which itself happened only after the 1000th time.

  26. Boonton,
    I said I didn’t know anything about her. So … if you didn’t know anything about a Democrat candidate but knew that he/she drew the ire some GOP people with whom you correspond. How would you pose the question? How would you respond to offers that you “demonstrate her fitness to hold office?” Perhaps that other Democrats found her fit might be a suggestion you might use? Why is that circular. It is not “my defense” it is my response given my current state of ignorance.

    Look, Mr Schraub just today offered this little post

    Folks keep saying that Bachmann is like Sarah Palin, but with actual campaign skills and the ability to not constantly shoot herself in the foot on television. My comparison, of course, was that Bachmann was like Palin if you injected a metric ton of LSD straight into her eyeballs.

    See? He’s rabid about her. Why? What is the source of this opinion? What? I mean to look at him she should be like a GOP reaction to a Mr Flynt or that largish filmmaker whose name escapes me injecting himself into the Democratic race for Presidential candidacy. Why this reaction. I’m asking for source and to be honest y’all are serving up pretty weak tea. A metric “ton” of LSD (which is psychoactive in micrograms btw)?

    JA,

    I didn’t say she didn’t offer support for ID, I said ID and creationism were incompatible. Creationism I took as the typical meaning, e.g., God created the Universe in 6 days in recent geological history.

    And what do you mean ID and evolution are “incompatible”. Let’s see, do ID supporters thing that fish/amphibians evolved to breath air, moving onto land, dinosaurs developed and later were replaced in the age of mammals? It seems to me that they do. That is evolution. ID assumes that happened. That process is … wait for it … evolution. What is at dispute are the mechanisms for driving evolution.

    The way she talks about gay people. The way she wants to amend the freakin’ constitution just to keep them from marrying. The way she talks about Obama and the Dems. Etc.

    OK. How does she talk about gay people? I take hate as a strong emotion. It leaks out. If you actually hate someone I’d think there would be verbal or visual cues. Do you have some quotes? How does she talk about Obama and the Dems? Why do you think she hates y’all?

  27. JA,
    Sorry I might add, I didn’t actually watch the YouTube before, I was reading comments on my tablet and didn’t jump to the video link … in part because video is so so slow to convey information. I heart text. :D

  28. Let’s cut through the semantics and agree that she does not believe in evolution.

    OK. How does she talk about gay people? I take hate as a strong emotion. It leaks out. If you actually hate someone I’d think there would be verbal or visual cues. Do you have some quotes?

    As quoted above, she thinks it would be a bad thing for children to be taught that homosexuality is “natural” or “normal.” To me (in an adult) that obviously comes from a place of hate.

    She spreads the worst kind of lies about gay people: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.”

    On a leader of a teacher training workshop who cites discrimination as a cause of suicide among homosexual youth: “(He) also fails to acknowledge other psychological factors that could contribute to homosexual youth committing suicide, like family problems or abuse or maybe the fact of what they’re doing.”

    Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle – we have a member of our family that is. This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It’s anything but gay.

    Also, her husband is supposedly one of those psychologists who practices or practiced “reparative therapy.” You can hear him going on like a closet-case religious nut in this video.

    I know you’ll have a million and one rationalizations about how this comes from love and she hates the sin and not the sinner and all that. To one without your blinders on, though, the hatred is obvious.

  29. JA,

    Let’s cut through the semantics and agree that she does not believe in evolution.

    OK, fine creatures evolving is not evolution … “Evolution” is something else. But I guess you need a term to define the evolution of creatures in ID vs … via natural selection. And of what relevance is this?

    Hate: Feel intense or passionate dislike for … a thing. I don’t think your use of the word fits that meaning. Again, I think to call a thing hatred there must be intense or passionate emotion. There are cues for that. Flushing, elevated heart rate, etc& You cannot dispassionately hate. That is a direct contradiction of what hate means.

    I’ll see if I have time to watch the clip tonight. But … you say that’s her husband? Are you suggesting Mr Schraub talks about Ms Bachmann in wild hyperbole because of her husband!?

  30. OK, fine creatures evolving is not evolution … “Evolution” is something else. But I guess you need a term to define the evolution of creatures in ID vs … via natural selection. And of what relevance is this?

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but the point is that Bachmann wants ID to be taught in public schools.

    Hate: Feel intense or passionate dislike for … a thing. I don’t think your use of the word fits that meaning. Again, I think to call a thing hatred there must be intense or passionate emotion. There are cues for that. Flushing, elevated heart rate, etc& You cannot dispassionately hate. That is a direct contradiction of what hate means.

    You’re being overly pedantic. Suppose someone refuses to associate with African-Americans, forbids their children from interacting with them, wants to ban them from public schools, and thinks that no African immigrants should be allowed, but they’re completely calm about it. Would you really insist that they don’t “hate” black people?

    I’ll see if I have time to watch the clip tonight. But … you say that’s her husband? Are you suggesting Mr Schraub talks about Ms Bachmann in wild hyperbole because of her husband!?

    I threw in the husband as an aside. It just fills out the picture.

    As for Mr Schraub, I don’t know what he talks about, let alone why he talks about it. I’m speaking for myself.

  31. JA,

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but the point is that Bachmann wants ID to be taught in public schools.

    I had said initially regarding ID that ID!=Creationism … and you’ve been going on about ID != Natural Selection. As I’ve made clear in the past, I oppose Ms Bachmann’s notion that school curricula should be set at a National level to that level of detail. Generically speaking I don’t care if ID is or is not taught in a particular school. Primary and Secondary school education in my view needs to focus primarily on teaching learning skills. What is taught is of lesser importance. I’ve abstracted that as four fundamentals for education (reasoning, memory, perseverance, and diligence … if a child has continual improvement in those four ‘disciplines’ then they will be well prepared for college and life. The particulars of the what is taught is less important.).

    Would you really insist that they don’t “hate” black people?

    A priori? Absent context or explanation, yes.

    You’ve repeated the “normal/natural” theme a few times. Is that quoted from her or not? I’d take issue with “natural” as it doesn’t parse, i.e., it makes no sense. Surely every human behavior is natural (as opposed to what? synthetic?). Normal is a statistical term. Is trisonomy 21 (Downs) Normal? That’s .1% of the population. Congenital defects are 2-3%. Is that normal? Homosexuality is 3%. Is that normal? Depends where you cut the exceptional 1-30, 1-50, 1-100, 1-1000. You support aborting the .1% normal Downs, even though Downs children/adults are from what I gather happier than the norm. Will you support aborting the 3% when it comes to discovery of genetic markers for homosexuality?

  32. Primary and Secondary school education in my view needs to focus primarily on teaching learning skills. What is taught is of lesser importance.

    I agree that skills are the most essential, but I think at least the foundations of every field need to be taught, and evolution is the foundation of biology.

    On another level, the fact that Bachmann can’t admit that evolution is true, and in fact goes out of her way to prevent children from learning that, demonstrates that she believes what she wants to believe instead of what’s true. That has huge implications for every issue, from economics to AGW to deciding whether the next country we’re thinking about attacking has WMD. She just does not live in the reality-based community.

    You’ve repeated the “normal/natural” theme a few times. Is that quoted from her or not?

    Seriously? I quoted this IN THIS THREAD: “This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.”

    Do you even read my comments?

  33. You support aborting the .1% normal Downs, even though Downs children/adults are from what I gather happier than the norm.

    Wait, what? When did I say that?? I support a woman’s right to choose, but you act like I’m a eugenicist.

  34. JA,

    I agree that skills are the most essential, but I think at least the foundations of every field need to be taught, and evolution is the foundation of biology.

    !?? Evolution is the “foundation” of biology? Huh? That makes no sense. In fact, it’s complete fabrication. It’s like pretending tectonic plates and the movement of contentents is the foundation for ecology and is a pre-requisite.

    She just does not live in the reality-based community.

    Nobody does. You do not. I do not. Data is not data absent theory. You are living further from anything pretending to be “reality” based if you do not accept that.

    ID contains evolution. Creatures evolve in ID theory. Your continual denial of that demonstrates clearly that you are the one how believes what you want to believe instead of what is true.

    Do you even read my comments?

    Yes I do. I had forgotten. As I said, natural makes no sense, and I’d take issue with that for the reasons stated.

    Wait, what? When did I say that?? I support a woman’s right to choose, but you act like I’m a eugenicist.

    You’ve said that abortion is ethically akin to sneezing, if I recall. Where have you said that you think some reasons a woman might choose are out of bounds? I’ve never ever seen you offer that suggestion. So, let me ask you straight out. A woman in the first trimester finds her child is has the trisonomy 21 anomaly and wishes to abort. You support that or not? (many if not most women are choosing to do so, btw). How about the 2nd? How about the 3rd?

  35. !?? Evolution is the “foundation” of biology? Huh? That makes no sense.

    Evolution is the answer to almost every “why” or “how” question in biology.

    Nobody does. You do not. I do not. Data is not data absent theory. You are living further from anything pretending to be “reality” based if you do not accept that.

    Don’t go all meta on me. Obviously we all have biases and are limited by the limits of our perceptions, but it’s a question of degree. Denying something as obvious as evolution is a good indication that you put wishful/religious/emotional thinking ahead of reason and empiricism. I have the same reservations in this respect towards Bachmann as I would towards someone who denied that HIV causes AIDS or that the moon landing was a hoax.

    ID contains evolution. Creatures evolve in ID theory. Your continual denial of that demonstrates clearly that you are the one how believes what you want to believe instead of what is true.

    For the tenth time, ID does not contain evolution as far as Bachmann is concerned, and that is who we are talking about.

    You’ve said that abortion is ethically akin to sneezing, if I recall. Where have you said that you think some reasons a woman might choose are out of bounds? I’ve never ever seen you offer that suggestion. So, let me ask you straight out. A woman in the first trimester finds her child is has the trisonomy 21 anomaly and wishes to abort. You support that or not? (many if not most women are choosing to do so, btw). How about the 2nd? How about the 3rd?

    I support her right to abort in that I think it should be legal and accessible. I don’t necessarily support her decision in any particular case, whether it’s aborting a Down’s baby or a gay baby, but the point is it shouldn’t be MY decision, it should be hers. That’s what pro-choice means.

  36. JA,

    Denying something as obvious as evolution is a good indication that you put wishful/religious/emotional thinking ahead of reason and empiricism.

    Yes. And ID descriptions all contain evolutionary development and speciation. What is being denied is that natural selection is sufficient to generate the rate of development that is seen. How is that the rate observed is sufficiently explained by the mechanisms obvious?

  37. JA,

    Evolution is the answer to almost every “why” or “how” question in biology.

    Nope. Not one bit. My daughter last term did a project on the kidney. She learned how a kidney works. Oddly enough evolution never entered in. Why the kidney is necessary also doesn’t require evolution, but thermodynamics. Why you have a heart. Not evolution. How does it work? Not evolution. Evolution doesn’t answer those questions that you think it does.

  38. That’s not even a God of the gaps argument, it’s a God of the gaps-that-aren’t-really-gaps argument.

  39. JA,
    Huh? I think you misunderstand. You’ve been claiming ID deny evolution. That’s not right. They say evolution occurs but that random mutation and natural selection don’t explain the changes. You know that. I can’t imagine why you are pretending it isn’t like that.

  40. I’m talking about Bachmann. In that 16-second video clip which I posted above, she makes it clear that SHE BELIEVES that evolution is not true and ID is. I’m not talking about what YOU think ID is or even what ID itself actually is, but what SHE believes.

  41. JA,
    Yes and in your conversation have you or have you not been using the word “evolution” to mean mutation+natural selection to distinguish it verbally from ID? (ID which claims that the process of evolution is not explained by random mutation and selection).

  42. I don’t care what ID is for the purposes of this conversation. I’m talking about that-which-Michele-Bachmann-does-not-believe-in.

  43. JA,
    My point is that your word usage, terming the discussion as one of ID vs Evolution is the common vernacular. That’s the terminology everyone uses. However, as you and I (and likely Ms Bachmann) know, ID theory is one which contains evolution. Recall that those who dislike ID because it it is not supply a theory for how things occur but is merely a negative criticism of natural selection+dna error as an explanation for the observed evolution.

    My point in pointing that you use the same terminology is to point out that it is the vernacular. The simplist and most likely supposition is that the common terms are the ones used by the speaker in question, e.g., Ms Bachmann.

  44. However, as you and I (and likely Ms Bachmann) know, ID theory is one which contains evolution.

    It seems clear to me from that video that she does NOT believe that ID includes evolution.

    This is all kind of pointless, though. Even straight-out theistic evolution has no place in public school. It’s not science, it’s religion.

  45. JA,
    I’ve never ever every heard of anyone talking about ID without evolution. ID is a theory of evolution (or to be more exact a theory criticizing a particular mechanism within the theory of evolution as insufficient). You have an active fantasy life.

    Even straight-out theistic evolution has no place in public school.

    Well, OK. But inasmuch as ID is a criticism of a mechanism. That in fact, is science. I had a physics Prof at the U of Chicago who didn’t believe quarks were real because they couldn’t be detected. He was conducting experiments to find a bare quark looking for fractional charges. That was science. What I never saw was people asking for him to defend his motivations for this peculiar belief.

  46. JA,
    I should point out that none of this really explains the reaction I’ve seen coming from the left to Ms Bachmann in the public sphere. What hasn’t been mentioned here, is that she heads the “Tea Party” caucus in the House or her strong pro-life stance. Both of these things counter Democrat expectations of the natural order of things, women should be pro-choice, populist risings should be within not against the Democrat party. It seems to me that these are better explanations for the allergic reaction than that she is just a smart (following Boonton on this … don’t attribute it to me) politician who espouses pretty vanilla GOP/Conservative positions.

  47. ID is not just a criticism as you maintain but an alternate hypothesis — the Intelligent Designer. That’s why it’s called ID and not “how did that happen in that timeframe?” Unfortunately for you and Ms. Bachmann, it’s not a scientific hypothesis but a religious one. Science doesn’t deal with magic.

    I should point out that none of this really explains the reaction I’ve seen coming from the left to Ms Bachmann in the public sphere.

    Look, you don’t have to agree, but I’m telling you, she comes off as batshit insane to us liberals, much more than most Republican contenders. When she starts rambling about God the way she does, she might as well be going on about having been abducted by aliens, even for religious Democrats (the intellectuals, anyway.) Her affiliation with the Tea Party does play into it, I agree, because we feel the same way about much of the Tea Party, but I don’t see how her sex is relevant. I mean there’s a small element of “a woman should know better than to be anti-choice” but it’s a small part of the anti-Bachmann feelings. The big thing is the crazy. If a man acted the exact same way, there would be very similar feelings.

    I, in fact, feel similarly about Ron Paul (different kind of crazy, but still crazy) and Santorum (same crazy, but has less influence.)

    Maybe you’ll understand if I put it this way: she’s a fanatic and what she’s a fanatic about is either evil (the anti-gay stuff), crazy (the economic stuff), or both.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>