Why even bother consulting the scientists at all?

[kirksnosehair]

I tried to drag it back on topic.   

[kirksnosehair]

This should come as no surprise at all in a state like Texas where they are also editing history books to provide a conservative narrative of United States history.

Texas is pretty much the anti-intellect capital of the United States and the Republican Party is at the head of the whole anti-intellectualism movement.

I don't get why Conservative and Intellectual have to be such opposite words? Like Science and Religion. There are no reasons why they can't work harmoniously with each other.

Wouldn't it be nice if that were true in Texas?  But it's crap like this along with what's in the OP that gives conservatives a bad name when it comes to intellectualism.

I think part of the problem is when you head down the road of science, you inevitably encounter facts that are in evidence that fly directly in the face of religious belief, and while there are certainly plenty of people on the liberal side of the political spectrum who are "religious" to some extent, the political right in this country, especially the HARD political right is pretty much dominated by various sects of the "Christian" religion.   Many of whom (note that I did not write ALL) have an agenda and no problem using whatever means to get that agenda into the mainstream.  If that includes changing a scientific report to reflect the political views of the people currently in power, well, apparently that's OK with a lot of people in Texas. 

[snapple]

This should come as no surprise at all in a state like Texas where they are also editing history books to provide a conservative narrative of United States history.

Texas is pretty much the anti-intellect capital of the United States and the Republican Party is at the head of the whole anti-intellectualism movement.

I don't get why Conservative and Intellectual have to be such opposite words? Like Science and Religion. There are no reasons why they can't work harmoniously with each other.

Wouldn't it be nice if that were true in Texas?  But it's crap like this along with what's in the OP that gives conservatives a bad name when it comes to intellectualism.

I think part of the problem is when you head down the road of science, you inevitably encounter facts that are in evidence that fly directly in the face of religious belief, and while there are certainly plenty of people on the liberal side of the political spectrum who are "religious" to some extent, the political right in this country, especially the HARD political right is pretty much dominated by various sects of the "Christian" religion.   Many of whom (note that I did not write ALL) have an agenda and no problem using whatever means to get that agenda into the mainstream.  If that includes changing a scientific report to reflect the political views of the people currently in power, well, apparently that's OK with a lot of people in Texas.

I think it's one of those situations where people ought not to paint all Christians in the same light as the assholes who push an agenda. I find most Christians, while having very strong opinions/beliefs, generally do not give two honest shits about what is going on outside their lives (families, friends and such). I can buy into science not negating Christianity. Big Bang? There is just as much evidence for and against it as there is Creationism. I don't believe the world is an age anyone REALLY knows. I mean, we all have our best guess but, it's just that; a guess.

Yeah, I know about the political right being dominated by "Christians". Those people are assholes and I'd rather have nothing to do with them. Preaching and speaking following Christ is one thing. The way they cast judgement on others (see Westboro Baptist Church for extremes) and assert themselves as better and intolerant is completely different. If you're going to follow Christ, just shut up and do it. That's why I swear. My words mean nothing. What I do is more important.

[Podaar]

I can buy into science not negating Christianity. Big Bang? There is just as much evidence for and against it as there is Creationism. I don't believe the world is an age anyone REALLY knows. I mean, we all have our best guess but, it's just that; a guess.

  Not sure if you're serious.

[kirksnosehair]

This should come as no surprise at all in a state like Texas where they are also editing history books to provide a conservative narrative of United States history.

Texas is pretty much the anti-intellect capital of the United States and the Republican Party is at the head of the whole anti-intellectualism movement.

I don't get why Conservative and Intellectual have to be such opposite words? Like Science and Religion. There are no reasons why they can't work harmoniously with each other.

Wouldn't it be nice if that were true in Texas?  But it's crap like this along with what's in the OP that gives conservatives a bad name when it comes to intellectualism.

I think part of the problem is when you head down the road of science, you inevitably encounter facts that are in evidence that fly directly in the face of religious belief, and while there are certainly plenty of people on the liberal side of the political spectrum who are "religious" to some extent, the political right in this country, especially the HARD political right is pretty much dominated by various sects of the "Christian" religion.   Many of whom (note that I did not write ALL) have an agenda and no problem using whatever means to get that agenda into the mainstream.  If that includes changing a scientific report to reflect the political views of the people currently in power, well, apparently that's OK with a lot of people in Texas.

I think it's one of those situations where people ought not to paint all Christians in the same light as the assholes who push an agenda. I find most Christians, while having very strong opinions/beliefs, generally do not give two honest shits about what is going on outside their lives (families, friends and such). I can buy into science not negating Christianity. Big Bang? There is just as much evidence for and against it as there is Creationism.

uh, no offense, but there is ZERO evidence for "creationism" 

[Podaar]

Not to mention we're left with the question of which creation narrative (of which there is a not shred of evidence for) to use.

BTW, the Big Bang theory has nothing to say about first causes and only observes the expansion of the universe (way over simplification there).

[snapple]

Something had to come from something. Where did the Big Bang come from?

[j]

I've lived in every major city in Texas, as well as several big cities in other states.  I don't consider myself a very "conservative" guy, but I really haven't encountered but a small handful of the vacuous, confederate flag-wearing, Sean Hannity disciple, militant Dubya apologists that people from other places seem to have in their head as the stereotype.

The supposed statistics regarding standard of living and the like are obviously skewed by the huge number of immigrants in the state, but cities like Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio do have high density areas of low-income populations.  Just like every other metropolitan area in the country.

Texas has high property taxes, but no state income tax and the cost of living is low.  The weather's a great reason not to come here though, for most people.

Most rational people agree stuff like the textbook thing is complete and total horse shit, but you wouldn't be able to live anywhere if you refused to go to a place where idiots try to further their agendas.  And if you think public education anywhere else in the country is significantly better, you're delusional.  As a whole, the state tends to perform poorly on standardized tests, but there are lots of Texas public school districts and schools that are very highly rated nationally.  It's a very big state, and again, there are significant low-income areas and lots of disadvantaged immigrants heavily affecting the statistics.

Anyway, not sure why this nose hair guy seems to have such a personal vendetta against Texas. It's not the proverbial Promised Land or anything, but I like it quite a bit better than most other places I've lived.

-J

[GuineaPig]

Something had to come from something. Where did the Big Bang come from?

If you want to make a thread about it, I'd encourage it.  This thread isn't really the place.

[Podaar]

Something had to come from something. Where did the Big Bang come from?

That's what the physicists are working on. I'm sure as soon as they have the evidence to make a supportable theory they'll let us know (or not, we may never know). In the meantime, it's not very helpful to say, "the FSM done it."

[snapple]

Something had to come from something. Where did the Big Bang come from?

That's what the physicists are working on. I'm sure as soon as they have the evidence to make a supportable theory they'll let us know (or not, we may never know). In the meantime, it's not very helpful to say, "the FSM done it."

  Gotcha.

I should stay away from these kinds of forums anyway. Nothing mean has been said to make me not want to be here, but they're like crack for me and I never end up explaining myself correctly. Pint night awaits!

[Scheavo]

Until their budget gap becomes more of an issue, their economy starts to suffer from the increasing desert conditions; and we'll see what happens with all the Federal money in Texas.

TX has a balanced-budget amendment in their state Constitution. Their economy will stay fine because of oil and natural gas (which is causing a huge BOOM in North Dakota too). There are also cities in TX that house many corporate headquarters. Companies are flocking to the state, and so are people (typically Conservatives from California that can't take it any more).

They keep a balanced budget through budget trickery, though. Don't be fooled, they have financial problems. Oil and natural gas will certainly be fine for the next few years, probably decade, but beyond that we get into more uncertainties regarding newer technologies.

[slycordinator]

Btw, even though it was a minor point... Texas DOES have sales tax (6.25%, although local taxes often increase it). They don't, on the other hand, have income tax.

[El JoNNo]

Something had to come from something. Where did the Big Bang come from?

This explains it fairly well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[hefdaddy42]

I don't get why Conservative and Intellectual have to be such opposite words?

Because most prominent Republicans perpetuate that.

[snapple]

I don't get why Conservative and Intellectual have to be such opposite words?

Because most prominent Republicans perpetuate that.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Which ones?

[kirksnosehair]

I don't get why Conservative and Intellectual have to be such opposite words?

Because most prominent Republicans perpetuate that.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Which ones?

This is an opinion piece, but I think it does a good job of illuminating WHY there is such a strong anti-intellectual contingent in today's Republican party. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html

[William Wallace]

I don't get why Conservative and Intellectual have to be such opposite words?

Because most prominent Republicans perpetuate that.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Which ones?

This is an opinion piece, but I think it does a good job of illuminating WHY there is such a strong anti-intellectual contingent in today's Republican party. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html

Interesting article; a few observations:

It's not necessarily the Republcians' embrace of good ole' 'merican values that drove away the intellectual vote. The people discussed in the article are a famously liberal demographic, and I think a more academic conservative candidate would piss them off just the same, if he held a typical small government platform. Brooks said that Republicans used to be much more thoughtful, but were they anymore convincing to the voters in question? I doubt it.   

[rumborak]

The people discussed in the article are a famously liberal demographic, and I think a more academic conservative candidate would piss them off just the same, if he held a typical small government platform.

Living myself in one of those "famously liberal" places, I can say that yes, while there is of course a certain percentage of uber-liberal people here, they are not the ones that make or break an election result. Massachusetts voted a Republican senator into office, frankly because the Democrat one was pure shit.
Up to the Palin nomination, quite a few friends of mine were favorable to McCain. Only when he played the divisive card too hard by nominating an affront to intelligence, did every moderate jump ship.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

The people discussed in the article are a famously liberal demographic, and I think a more academic conservative candidate would piss them off just the same, if he held a typical small government platform.

Living myself in one of those "famously liberal" places, I can say that yes, while there is of course a certain percentage of uber-liberal people here, they are not the ones that make or break an election result. Massachusetts voted a Republican senator into office, frankly because the Democrat one was pure shit.
Up to the Palin nomination, quite a few friends of mine were to McCain. Only when he played the divisive card too hard by nominating an affront to intelligence, did every moderate jump ship.

rumborak

But Scott Brown is a fairly moderate republican. Had he been a smooth talking, free market think-tank wonk, nothing could have won him the election. My guess is you would have held your nose and voted for the pure shit or just abstained from the voting booth.

[rumborak]

I'm not sure I follow your point, WW. Of course the Northeast wouldn't have elected a free-market wonk, but barely anybody elects free-market wonks in the first place. There's no denying that the Northeast is more liberal than the heartland in general (duh!), but it's not as die-hard set in its voting scheme as you seemingly are trying to make it look like.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I'm not sure I follow your point, WW. Of course the Northeast wouldn't have elected a free-market wonk, but barely anybody elects free-market wonks in the first place. There's no denying that the Northeast is more liberal than the heartland in general (duh!), but it's not as die-hard set in its voting scheme as you seemingly are trying to make it look like.

rumborak

I didn't mean to imply more rigidity than exists. I was just responding to the NYT piece, and I don't think it's a lack of kowtowing to intellectuals that hurts the Republicans. How in the hell do we talk past each other so much?