American Hypocrisy on Display Again »« Bradlee Dean Sells Product

Santorum Gets It Exactly Backwards

Rick Santorum, author of the infamous Santorum amendment that would have encouraged local schools to teach intelligent design in science classrooms (if it hadn’t been removed from the final bill by a conference committee), says that science should stay out of politics:

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.”

Nope, Rick. You have it completely reversed. Politics should get out of science. It’s the interference of ignorant politicians like you that causes the problems.

Comments

  1. eric says

    Sonuds like a great cause for you, Rick, to champion. You can start by abandoning your microphone, teleprompter, computer, and telephone. Stop using planes, cars, and trains to get to your speaking engagements. Give up your campaign web site, blogs, and twits.

    Lead the way, Rick – we’re waiting.

  2. d cwilson says

    So, we’ve finally reached the point where teaching verifiable facts is derided as being “politically correct”.

  3. D. C. Sessions says

    Yeah, it sounds funny until you realize that a large proportion of our ruling class is largely in agreement with him. They may not explicitly say so, and they may not even be consciously aware of the implications of their attitudes, but the fact remains:

    They think of themselves as being the architects of reality, of being the ones who say how it’s going to be, and that’s how it will be — always barring opposition by other members of their own class. They live in a human-dominated world, and they dominate the humans.

    You see this to a lesser extent as you move up the corporate hierarchy, too. The C-level execs in far too many companies are so insulated from being told that no matter how much they want something it just ain’t gonna happen.

  4. d cwilson says

    That’s not science, it’s technology.

    Technology is applied science.

    But okay, Rick, stop using gravity. And biochemistry. No more breathing and digestion for you.

  5. dingojack says

    Tualha – and one never uses science to create technology.
    Just a couple of sticks, a big ball of lark’s spit, two river-washed pebbles and few magic words, then –
    hey presto!! A mobile phone. See how esay it is!
    @@ Dingo

  6. says

    Meanwhile he leaves his dying daughter at home in order to waste time elsewhere. Obviously a Family Values Republican.
    After she passes away he’ll play the martyr card saying something like: “I sacrificed my time with her in order to save the country. What a good patriot I am!”

  7. Rasmus Odinga Gambolputty de von Ausfern....of Ulm says

    From the article-

    He now believes the law should be repealed and he favors an education system designed around the fact that most parents love their children and want to give their child the best opportunity for success

    Does anyone have a Stupid-to-English translating program that can decipher this? What the holy hell is an education system based on love?

  8. Randomfactor says

    What the holy hell is an education system based on love?

    One that teaches ‘em to hate on the gays and the mooslims.

    /”AAaaaand everyone hates the atheists”/

  9. MikeMa says

    What the holy hell is an education system based on love?

    Could be a manual for a successful career in prostitution.

    Or a plural marriage primer.

    @Randomfactor, good update on Lehrer.

  10. eric says

    Does anyone have a Stupid-to-English translating program that can decipher this?

    Yes. He’s saying there should be no federal or state standards or requirements for education or curriculum. Every school should be under purely local control, and as Christian as it wants to be.

    He would probably also extend this economically; property taxes should not be pooled and then distributed evenly around the state, but rather raised and spent locally. That way, rich folk like him can increase their social and economic edge over poorer families, and reduce/make harder social movement (because, remember, easy social movement is not a good thing if one is enormously rich and wanting to stay that way; once you hit the top, competition is your enemy, not your friend).

  11. D. C. Sessions says

    science reality (anything that conflicts with my sacred bookdesires) should get out of politics”

  12. D. C. Sessions says

    What the holy hell is an education system based on love?

    Start with corporal punishment and mandatory State-dictated prayers. Both separately and together.

    Remember, he’s Catholic.

  13. Larry says

    Once again, Mr. Frothy demonstrates his abject stupidity knows no bounds in either breadth or depth.

    I guess his donations from Big Science, Inc., have been delayed in the mail so he wants to get back at them.

  14. Aquaria says

    Rick Santorum, the greatest mind of the 13th century.
    –The Philadelphia Inquirer

    Truer words were never spoken.

  15. MikeMa says

    Aquaria,
    I read the Inquirer on occasion and missed that gem. Of course PA elected this loon to the senate.

  16. says

    I think it broke my brain to read that remark about “political correctness.”

    “Exactly backwards” is right.

    It’s Creationists who advocate that teachers lie to their students so they avoid hurting community feelings, challenge preconceptions, or stir up controversy. Science is the enemy of wiffly-waffly political correctness because the observable facts in an objectively real universe don’t care about hurt feelings or maintaining illusions of harmony. Science only cares if a theory has predictive and explanatory power.

    Political correctness, in stark contrast to science, is what fringe lunatics and pseudo-moderate apathists use to stifle intellectual discourse. If the evidence hurts someone’s feelings, it’s the presenter’s fault for stirring up trouble and no one should ever have to go through the trouble of developing thicker skin or learning how to deal with conflicts like adults.

  17. Aquaria says

    It was from a Tom Ferrick column in 2004 or 2005. I think you’d have to break out a microfiche to find the exact column, but it’s been bouncing around the leftie blogosphere ever since he wrote it.

  18. d cwilson says

    From the article:

    He said he favors a customized education product, which he contends the federal government doesn’t accommodate.

    Something about this sentence hit me wrong and it took me a while to realize what it was.

    In one sense, Santorum has a point here. The cookie-cutter, teach-the-test approach of NCLB has been a disaster and education does need to be more customizable. Individuals and parents should be more empowered to find the education model that best suits their needs and to become a productive member of society.

    But coming from Santorum, it rings hollow. He’s said repeatedly that people should only have the right to make decisions that he personally approves of. He doesn’t want to maximize freedom of choice. He just wants to be the one who gets to make the choices. Also, the things he’s advocating be taught (creationism and the global warming is a myth) neither serve the public good nor enable individuals to succeed.

    What we need is to have more options available as to how we teach children science, but not to make teaching fantasies as equally valid as science.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply