Alex Berezow is annoyed. Slate is picking on poor Republicans and Christians for their anti-science views! How dare they! Don’t they know Democrats and atheists are just as bad?
It’s a complaint that ignores reality. We can look at the voting record of congress: it’s eerie how polarized it is, and how the Republicans line up in lockstep to vote against any policies that might combat climate change, for instance. We can look at the current slate of Republican presidential candidates, and it’s terrifying — Huckabee, Santorum, Carson, etc.? Are you really going to argue that it’s one-sided to point out that the anti-science agenda of the Republican party is blatantly in contrast to that of the Democratic party (not that I’m a big fan of Democrats or Obama or Clinton: they are lukewarm swill against the toxic, corrosive sludge of the Republicans)? Of course he thinks it is.
Take Phil Plait, for example, an accomplished astronomer. When he so chooses, he can be an excellent science communicator. Too often, however, he chooses to be a shrill partisan who is more interested in promoting the Democratic Party than thoughtful science policy analysis. In between posting selfies (Hi Phil! Hi Neil!), he provides readers with one-sided rants about how stupid he thinks Republicans are. That is such a common theme for Dr. Plait that he recently managed to post three such screeds in merely five days.
In the first, he criticizes Rep. Lamar Smith and other Republicans for wanting to cut NASA’s earth science budget. Of course, Dr. Plait’s analysis is tainted by a conflict of interest (since he once worked at NASA and still indirectly makes his living from the institution). He also neglected to mention that, historically, Republicans and Democrats are roughly equally generous in their funding for science. In his second article, he blames Republicans for not taking climate change seriously. Absent from his critique is the fact that when, under President Obama, Democrats had control of the House and a filibuster-proof Senate, they chose to take no action on climate change. In his third piece, Dr. Plait absurdly implies that Louisana students are too uneducated to apply to universities because of the state’s Republican policies on the teaching of evolution and Intelligent Design. Dr. Plait, however, neither shows contempt for the Democratic governor of Kentucky, who approved tax incentives for the Creation Museum, nor for the 27% of Democrats who accept creationism.
Plait’s primary beat is astronomy, so no, he hasn’t beat up on minor players in creationism. I’m sure it’s not because he’s unquestioningly Democratic. You have to look at other people who are more focused on the evolution/creation debates…like me. And what do you know, I don’t care much for Governor Beshear’s pandering to idiocy.
As for those percentages, 27% is generous — the numbers wobble about year by year, and poll by poll. But here’s how you ought to look at it: creationists are a minority in the Democratic party, and have negligible influence on party politics; they’re a majority in the Republican party, and dominate the Republican platform. So if we’re going to beat up on a party or organization, the effective level of influence, it is only right to condemn the Republicans.
But Berezow isn’t through saying stupid things.
Along similar lines, Slate has given a platform for Zack Kopplin, a science activist, to attack the Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. While I agree with Mr. Kopplin’s latest piece that Louisiana ought not promote Intelligent Design (ID) in biology classrooms, his purposeful conflation of creationism and ID is clichéd and tiresome. ID is not creationism. Many people who consider themselves ID advocates accept evolution, often to a fairly large extent. Though Christian biologists (like me) prefer the concept known as theistic evolution and take issue with ID on scientific and theological grounds, it is patently unfair to call ID “creationism.” Referring to it as such betrays either dishonesty or ignorance of ID’s actual claims. And, of course, Mr. Kopplin remains silent about the aforementioned creationists in the Democratic Party.
Intelligent Design creationism is creationism.
There are many flavors of creationism. There are young earth creationists like Answers in Genesis; there are old earth creationists like the gang at Reasons to Believe; there are Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu creationists in addition to Christian creationists; there are creationists who insist that every species was uniquely created, creationists who allow evolution within a family, and creationists who say god created phyla, and the variation otherwise is all natural; there are creationists who believe everything evolved except human beings, who were specially created. You don’t get to hide behind the peculiarities of your specific sect to deny the shared attributes of the larger group.
That someone accepts evolution to a fairly large extent
is not a get-out-of-the-stupid-party card. Look at Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis: they are radical, fundamentalist denialists of all kinds of science, thinking the earth is only 6000 years old and that a worldwide flood was an actual historical event. But take a look at the details, and you discover that they accept evolution to a fairly large extent
. The millions of species extant are all the product of diversification from a relatively small number of progenitors that were carried on a big wooden boat 4000 years ago, and that all the varieties within a “kind” exploded into existence in a very short time.
Creationism is the belief that natural, material mechanisms are inadequate to describe the origin and variation of life on earth, and that purposeful intelligent intervention occurred at some point in history. That some say the magic forces were invoked once at the Big Bang, or in the creation of primordial slime on Earth, or at every speciation event, is a difference in degree, not substance. They’re all creationists — including Mr Berezow. We don’t ignore the Discovery Institute, which has a definition of intelligent design that perfectly fits the definition of creationism.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Whenever I see someone trot out the ridiculous objection that Intelligent Design is not creationism, I see an ideologue trying their darnedest to hide the bullshit foundation of their beliefs.
Exactly. Compare this to saying someone accepts physics “to a fairly large extent”, or the germ theory of infectious disease “to a fairly large extent”, or heliocentrism “to a fairly large extent”. It’s precisely the areas of rejection that are the problem.
Heh. I remember debating a nitwit called Peter Borger, arrogant enough to say he developed the Grand Unifying Theory of Biology, complaining how those darn evolutionists always put him in the creation camp, only for asserting that biology proves creation.
This should be interesting.
Isn’t saying that you accept evolution “to a fairly large extent” like saying that someone is “sort of” pregnant?
To be fair, intelligent design isn’t creationism. It’s just a form of cdesign proponentsistsism. Completely different. To say that ID is type of creationism, is like saying that Bud Lite is a type of beer.
Two words: cdesign proponentsists.
I think one of the main reasons so many people seem to think this isn’t ‘creationism’ is the common assumption that spirituality is nothing like religion.
Religion, you see, involves specific dogmas, tenets, creeds, and books. Religion is churches and rituals. But an undefined primary supernatural Intelligent Cause is too vague and general to be religious. Since Creationism comes out of religion, Intelligent Design isn’t creationism. It never mentions the Bible.
No, this doesn’t work. A spiritual view of reality with a spiritual Intelligent Cause directing events teleologically is creationism, too. It doesn’t get a pass just because someone like Deepak Chopra can endorse it.
This is it in a nutshell. People who claim the parties are equally anti-science invariably compare apples to oranges: A republican with massive support and influence in the party who has held or was nominated to high office (say Sarah Palin) , to some obscure internet bomb thrower who claims he’s a democrat but that no one in their own party has ever heard of.
And even if you do an apples-to-apples comparison, say Palin vs alternative medicine shill Tom Harkin, you face the problem that there are 10 GOP Palins for every 1 Democratic Harkin. There is simply no way to portray the parties as equivalent without ignoring the relative influence, numbers, and positions of the people in question.
True.
The real enemy of xianity and creationism isn’t atheists or scientists. It is reality itself!!!
That is why creationism is going the way of the Flat Earth and Geocentrism. Reality doesn’t care what you believe and it isn’t going to go away.
simply depends on you definitions (of each word in that assertion). Yeah,IFF your defn of “creationism” is that literal interpretation of Genesis as an history story of actual true facts; then ID is not that.
Do these deniers not understand that 2nd word in the ID title:”Design”? Even if their imaginary Designer, just tinkers with probabilities to make its desired outcomes more probable, that whole process is an act of creation.
And for this “defense” of Rethuglicans, re climate change: Capt. Obvious will provide the obvious counterexample. Inhofe is a Repub, right? He is the one who threw a snowball in Congress, in anger at all the nonsensical discussion ’bout “global warming”. And didn’t their POTUS candidate Jeb (little broth of W) Bush declare it illegal for the Florida EPA to even mention climate change in any discussion about the subject they got on their masthead, the Environment? So the Rethugs themselves are not providing good support for your arguments in their defense.
—
The title of this OP is reminiscent of the famous phrase, “so incorrect, not even wrong”. Perhaps intentionally?? (I think so, ^_^ )
@8 ScienceAvenger — yes this! They can typically name one or two not particularly well-known Dems with some crackpot theories. Or take the Michael Shermer route and reliably circle back to Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher as anti-science Liberals (and neither is a Liberal, ahem). And while anti-vaxx in its earlier incarnation was embraced by a certain type of West Coast anti-corporate cohort, it is now the proud property of the TeaParty, particularly since the introduction of the anti-HPV vaccine, or Slut Shot as they like to call it. And it is DEFINITIVELY NOT part of the Democrat or Socialist or Green party platforms!
Then they’ll try to roll out anti-GMO, as a false equivalence bit of Loony Leftism — where much of the anxiety on the Left is over the corrosive multi-generational treaties inked by Monsanto and corrupt governments and then rammed down peasants’ throats. Or a demand for labeling. It’s often not an argument over science at all.
A Libertarian talkshow host, a washed up actress, and a handful of students in Seattle protesting corporate agricultural tyranny rather than actually promoting anti-science agendas on behalf of Exxon and Jesus. That’s all they’ve got. Not a single prominent Democrat in a position to affect public policy.
PZ didn’t even quote the best part.
The “Fox News” quote is a reference to this piece of dreck: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magazine/01FOB-medium-t.html?_r=1
PZ is mentioned! But the thesis is essentially the same as for the article in the OP: “Why are you so STRIDENT and so POLITICAL? Gawd!”
Both siderism and militant moderationism strikes again.
That isn’t true, but let’s accept the statement above as being true so it reflects poorly on Democrats. But then one would also have to believe that the gun-grabbing, liberty-hating Democrats somehow forgot to grab all the guns, and bunted on the single-payer option, and wrote bills to ingratiate themselves with the poor, and created oppressive amounts of regulation on Wall Street, etc. The fact that that didn’t happen should either make dunces who claim the Democrats had a two year filibuster-proof majority either conclude that that wasn’t really the case, or have to stare down any one of the other standard claims about Democratic perniciousness.
such irony!!!:
The irony is not just that they are using FauxNoise as the ultimate reference for bad reportage, but that it is NYT saying it. NYT have, themselves, started digging themselves into such a hole, and still do not release that digging is not the way out of a hole. ^_^
Phil Plait is hardly a flaming leftist. In fact, he’s one of those people, like Orac and David Brin, who’ll annoy me by occasionally saying things like “Remember when the Republicans were the sensible party?”. And I think, “No, I wasn’t around in the 19th century.”
It’s fascinating that he only looks at the opinions of actual Democrats and Republicans in regards to creationism but apparently doesn’t find it relevant to other issues.
Look at climate change!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182807/conservative-republicans-alone-global-warming-timing.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161714/republican-skepticism-global-warming-eases.aspx
Or about scientists in general!
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/02/20/many-americans-are-scientific-skeptics/
Or in regards to energy: http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/10/partisan-divide-over-alternative-energy-widens/
And of course this is ignoring the anti-science sentiment or “logic” involved among the pro-forced birth camp, and their opposition to stem-cell research, and opinions regarding science funding (which I am having a hard time getting a clear answer regarding).
Could well be.
Someone please send Berezow a copy of the Wedge Document.
This is bullshit anyway, “partisan” assumes facts not in evidence. To be a partisan, one would have to be guilty of supporting one side over the other regardless of, or indifferent to, the substance of what they support. If one is supportive of a science-based worldview, as I’m sure Phil Plat and the sci-bloggers are, and one party is completely opposed to that, it is not partisan to oppose them at every turn. I, like Phil and the others, would gladly jump to the defense of anyone, regardless of the letter next to their name, that promoted a scientific position on an issue. It’s their anti-science bullshit opinions, not that their name is followed by an “R”, that causes our opposition.
Phil Plait? Really? He already lost me there. You can probably find some good examples of shrill people, let alone, partisans, on what I will loosely refer to as ‘our’ side. But Phil? Should have opened with a better salvo there, because he already makes himself look like an idiot.
And as mentioned above, Alex Berezow apparently has never heard about the wedge document. The IDiots have pretty much openly admitted themselves that they are indeed creationists. No need for us partisan hacks to make these claims.
Which brings us to the real partisan in this discussion. Alex, time to look into a mirror, boy.
Scienceavenger: This is it in a nutshell. People who claim the parties are equally anti-science invariably compare apples to oranges: A republican with massive support and influence in the party who has held or was nominated to high office (say Sarah Palin) , to some obscure internet bomb thrower who claims he’s a democrat but that no one in their own party has ever heard of.
Exactly so. But this is what Berezow consistently claims. Earlier this month I read Science Left Behind, a 2012 book he co-authored with Hank Campbell (I think Berezow wrote most of it.) The whole point of the book is that “progressives” are just as bad as conservatives when it comes to anti-science beliefs. (The authors take pains to distinguish between progressives, liberals, and Democrats. But it soon becomes clear that for them this is a distinction without a difference.)
They do get some things right. For example, they rightly criticize the claim that vaccines cause autism, which is made by certain progressives. But, reading the book, you get the impression that all progressives (read: Democrats) believe this. Likewise, they’re careful to say that Republicans are wrong to deny the reality of climate change. But they gloss over the fact that such denial has become a litmus test for electability among Republicans.
They also trot out many right-wing talking points, including the bogus claim that Silent Spring is unscientific. (And yes, they bash Al Gore for being “filthy rich.”) For me, the takeaway is that they’re so incensed that people are calling Republicans out for trampling on science that they’re compelled to strike back.
@18 It’s almost like Berezow is completely ignorant of the Dover case. If so, he’s a shitty writer/journalist for not doing an ounce of research. If not, he is himself the very thing he’s decrying, a base political hack.
Ah yes, per caseloweraz, Berezow has done this before. Here’s a sample of the argument involved for those interested:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/10/are_democrats_really_the_pro-science_party_115367.html
Two examples given: Democrats and antivax, Democrats and GMOS.
Counter 1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/01/conservatives-are-more-likely-to-believe-that-vaccines-cause-autism/
Counter 2: My yougov link at 17.
Also, found this Mother Jones article which does really well at addressing the relative anti-science stances of Democrats and Republicans. Wish I found it first:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines
Besides cdesign proponentsists, there’s this quote from page 22 of Of Pandas and People.
See, completely different from creationism.
D’oh. I left an italic tag open. Can you please fix that, PZ?
And Alex Berezow is a bare-faced liar.
I issue a challenge to Alex Berezow: name one issue where a majority of Democrats disagree with the majority of scientific experts in the field. I can name several for Republicans:
Climate change
Evolution
The efficacy of abstinance-only sex education
The prevelance and effect of sexism and racism in society
I’m sure our good readers here can name others. Show me an equivalent list for the Democrats, or STFU.
Given the sheer amount of material available, I think Phil has been remarkably restrained.
@rietpluim:
Peter (Pieter) Borger – whatever has happened to him? I still am full of admiration for Tomaso Agricola, for trying to take Peter’s bullshit on. I don’t blame the Volkskrant for ending their sorry experiment with these blogspaces for readers…
Nick Gotts
Now, now Nick, you are being totally unfair.There is another possibility. That Alex is a totally incompetent idiot.
Personally, I don’t know which one I would rather be.
I suspect that a ‘from’ may belong in there between ‘hide’ and ‘the’.
Berezow:
Hm. And, what, exactly, is Berezow’s opinion on the danger of fossil fuel caused global warming?
He thinks we have bigger problems.
Berezow ignores the fact that fossil fuel caused global warming will affect the poor most .
Berezow ignores the fact that solar power can provide power to those without electricity and in many cases, do so far more readily than fossil fuels.
Berezow ignores the fact that prioritizing fossil fuel caused global warming would not prevent us from addressing those problems. In fact, since the costs of replacing fossil fuels are dwarfed by the costs global warming, prioritizing global warming, in the long run, will enable us to have more resources to address those problems.
Berezow also greatly underestimates the danger of global warming.
It is a stance pioneered by Bjorn Lomborg, but it looks better on Berezow, because Berezow chooses mitigation denialism rather than science denialism.
It is also worth mentioning Berezow’s most recent article, which effectively argues that an IMF analysis of fossil fuel subsidies has been reported wrong, apparently on the grounds that enabling fossil fuel companies to externalize health and environmental costs does not count as a “subsidy”.
Additional: Berezow’s stance is an effort to make stage 3 denialism compatible with science. You could call it stage 3.5a .
busterggi @18:
I’m sure he’d find someway to rationalize it away.
zenlike @30:
You forgot Option #3- Berezow is a bare-face liar *and* an incompetent idiot.
“Intelligent Design is not creationism,” says Berezow.
We’ve all recognised that that statement could only have been made by someone completely ignorant of the history of ID, the explicitly-stated purposes of its progenitors and their humiliation at Dover – or by an outright liar. I wonder which designation Berezow would prefer.
Berezow is further evidence that the adage “Want to know what the Bible says? Ask an atheist.” deserves a corollary:
Want to know about creationism? Don’t ask a creationist.
Did you guys hear about a creationist who still embraces his young earth fairy tale beliefs despite being the discoverer of an actual 60 million year old fish?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/28/a-creationist-just-made-a-huge-scientific-discovery-really/
Please. How is ID not “Goddiddit”?
oh good, Alexander Berezow is also an accommodationist
Peak oil is so 90s. Who in this left neck of the woods is worried about peak oil? Between fracking and the tarsands, we have more recoverable oil than we can safely use given the reality of AGW.
The Canadian lefty magazine The Walrus had a cover story a while back titled Vaccination, Our Best Shot and the current issue has an article on Remembering Polio or maybe it was Forgetting Polio. As anteprepro pointed out and as Orac has pointed out on many occasions, Anti-vax is as at least as much a right wing thing as a left wing thing. Conservatism has a built-in anti-science bias because Conservatives are inherently less likely to change in the face of evidence.
notheotherguy wrote:
It probably works either or both ways. Either they’re concealing it from others (the way PZ wrote it), or they’re concealing it from themselves (your suggested correction).
@M’thew #29 – If we may judge his character by his blog, Borger is still somewhere sulking for how those prejudiced atheist biologist refuse to take him seriously. He pops up on creationist websites every now and then as an example of Real Biologists being critics of evolution.
rietpluim
Oh man, Peter Borger and his ‘baranomes’. Yeah, I remember him! He was hilarious.
llewelly, that article seems to be from a Ross Pomeroy.
militantagnostic, the article in question being about Scienceblogs and only citing Pharyngula, GrrlScientist, and Denialism Blog, I imagine the “peak oil” jab could only be imagined as a swipe at the last. And….I can find nothing for or against “peak oil” on that blog. So….yeah, the idiotic author of that article is probably just making shit up because Filthy Libruls.
Peak oil isn’t about running out of oil. It’s about reaching and passing the peak of production, after which oil will become much more expensive.
More on Scienceblogs and Peak Oil: Just googling, it looks like Casaubon’s Book is the only blog that consistently and favorably mentions Peak Oil. Here is the first article that I found from that blog on the subject: http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/01/31/peak-oil-is-still-a-womens-iss/
The focus in regards to peak oil appears to be “I’ve written a substantial number of articles about the ways our present roles were shaped by cheap, abundant energy, and about what happens if that energy become less cheap and less abundant.” But it is hardly just about that. It is also an article that focuses on gender roles, and “the value of human beings”.
Here, Greg Laden presents something he notes explicitly is an idiosyncratic version of peak oil: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/02/02/peak-oil-vs-peak-chocolate-chip-cookies/
And an article about news regarding peak oil, that expresses doubt that peak oil is in the past:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/10/24/peak-oil-a-thing-of-the-past/
My two takeaways:
1. I am not sure if I even know what “peak oil” means anymore.
2. It is highly dishonest to characterize Scienceblogs as a “peak oil” crowd.
@27 scienceavenger:
Not the Alex being challenged, but I felt this was too easy to pass up. In just five minutes of Googling, I was able to find survey reports backing the fact that the majority of Democratic voters are against the consensus position on GMO safety, the existence of extraterrestrial UFOs and ghosts, as well as 9/11 truthism (I’ll admit that last one is a stretch to call “scientific” truth, but I was just too tempted to match your list not only in length, but in including one social issue).
Denial of reality is actually pretty evenly divided on both sides of the aisle in America.
Regarding polls alleging to be measuring the number of Troofers out there: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/08/a_quick_lesson_how_to_misinter.php
Poll measuring a variety of conspiracy theories and then looking at the Presidential candidate they voted for, and ideology. Very interesting stuff: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
When asked explicitly in this poll, yes or no, did the government let 9/11 happen, 15% of liberals and 13% of Obama voters said yes. Slightly more than the number of Obama voters, and less than the Romney voters, who said yes to the claim that the government controls people’s minds via television sets (also roughly the number of people who believe in Bigfoot).
And one final interesting thing on the topic of political party and conspiracy theories:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/conspiracy-theory-partisan-bias
(That article also links to a study that shows that 36% of Democrats believe that “President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened”. The results for number of Troofers varies wildly, based on how word the questions and define a Troofer).
Bullshit. First, your source for 9/11 truthism only gets a majority of Democrats by including “somewhat likely” responses, which is very dubious: you could say that if you believed it was possible Bush “let it happen”. Second, it’s easy to come up with more for the Republicans: birtherism, belief that Obama is a not a Christian, belief that owning a gun makes you safer, and as you can see here Republican denialism over environmental issues is far wider than just climate change. Third, your use of “both sides of the aisle” implies that the findings on registered Democrats or Republicans would be replicated in the beliefs (or at least the statements) of congresspersons. This is certainly true with regard to Republicans in respect of evolution and climate change – no serious Republican aspirant for office would now dare to admit that they credited the scientific consensus, even if they do. Can you show that it is true for any of your issues with regard to Democrats?
Nick Gotts:
Normally I would call this a quibble. Because normally there would be four options: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, very unlikely. Possibly a fifth option in the dead center. And an I don’t know option. But I looked into it and that is the reason why the results, as reported by that Politico article, are utter bullshit: this poll had only three options aside from I don’t know: Very likely, somewhat likely, and unlikely. Those were the only options. The “somewhat likely” option was basically implied to be the “neutral” position. Lumping it in with the “very likely” people is just dishonest, and explains the discrepancy with the other polls I discussed in comment 48. Here’s the direct link to the relevant question: http://www.newspolls.org/surveys/SHOH33/18911
Also there were two other questions about specific Troofer memes. The results available publically don’t specify the results according to political party, but you can see that there is a fuckload less support for them:
http://www.newspolls.org/surveys/SHOH33/18909
http://www.newspolls.org/surveys/SHOH33/18910
Also, regarding ghosts and UFOs, they found no real difference between political parties on this poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/24/study-democrats-are-more-likely-than-republicans-to-believe-in-fortune-telling-astrology-and-ghosts/
(The key differences between parties are in the realms of belief in fortune telling and thoughts affecting reality. Psychic stuff, woo, the kind of stuff that Republicans probably don’t believe only by virtue of it conflicting with their religious ideology. Reincarnation is also a very prominent example of this).
Similar findings here, except additional note of all of the Christian religious concepts that Republicans disproportionately believe in: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx
re troofers poll:
Aside from insufficent answer options, the question itself is too vague to be meaningful. I thought the troofers were very specific about what took place to bring those buildings down, to get us to go to war, etc. So after every specific point was specifically disproven, you can still put such a question in a presentable poll result? I.e. Q:”do you think somebody did something around that day, somewhere, to try to get us to go to war?” A choices: (1)maybe, (2) maybe not.
Looks like ripe to spin however ya want.
/derail
@49 Nick Gotts:
There are two reasons I would refuse this challenge as originally stated, for two independent reasons. First, your wording implies I would be held to useing just the same four issues — “… true for any of your issues with regard…”, empahsis mine. If I had tried to create an exhaustive list, that would be fine, but why should I be limited to only the first issues to spring to mind (and which showed credible sources)? I’m pretty sure I reports on any politician’s belief in ghosts or UFOs are going to be sparse, so why shouldn’t I be allowed to cast my net further afield?
Second, maybe I misunderstand things, but my impression of the general left wing of American politics was that the core, shared ideology between the various factions of liberals, progressives, socialists and what-have-you, was that you shouldn’t show absolute fealty to a patriarchal, centralized authority — that it was masses of “little people” at the bottom to whom we should be giving our full, unwavering support. So frankly, I don’t see how it matters if the leaders believe in boogeymen and woo, because they’re obligated to honor the general populace’s belief and needs, not their own.
Alexander @53:
This is not the case at all.
slithey tove: That was my impression regarding that question too. But (at least according to wikipedia), “9/11 truther” is actually very vague as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
It includes: people who think government had foreknowledge and yet did nothing, people who think the government deliberately conspired with al Qaeda, people who think the government framed al Qaeda, people who have no idea what happened but just believe The Offical Account (TM) is wrong, then there are several ones who blame Israel somehow, others who think it is part of a New World Order, and so many other random arguments and “theories”.
Also, with the wording of the question, this comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
@50 anteprepro / @52 slithey tove:
I did say my list was the result of a somewhat hasty Google search. Had I spent even another minute checking the poll data, I would have seen the same flawed methodology you point out in the “troofer” poll. Mea culpa.
Alexander:
Now here is the question the poll actually asked (emphasis mine):
But from the 9/11 commission report we have this :
Now – personally, I think it is a stretch to say the Bush administration knew enough to do anything useful, and I think it’s likely the Bush administration did not realize the political utility of the attacks until months after they happened.
But given the fact that the administration did know there was some danger, and that after the attacks occurred, they took the opportunity to use them in promoting the invasion of Iraq, by claiming that Al Qadea agents had contacted Saddam Hussein, the belief that the Bush administration “took no action” is very different from the outright “the government put explosives in the towers and blew them up” theology of 9/11 trutherism.
The poll chose to conflate the two, so it’s a very poor estimate of 9/11 trutherism. But most importantly, it means your including has nothing to do with science, because all the science-based arguments against 9/11 trutherism focus on whether the airplanes could have caused the towers to catch fire and collapse. The science says nothing about why the Bush administration did not act.
Alexander@53,
Choose any issues you like.
“Misunderstanding things” is putting it much too mildly. Your “impression” is such utter fucking tosh that it’s hard to credit that you could actually believe it. But if you really do, you’re as far removed from reality as any troofer or birther. Prioritising the needs of those at the bottom of the heap – which it is reasonable, if something of an over-simplification, to see as a left-wing principle – is a completely different thing from being obliged to “honor the general populace’s… beliefs”. For a start, the “general populace” is not a homogeneous mass. Secondly, many of them hold beliefs which are obviously false – such as creationism, and in many cases contrary to their own interests – such as the belief of many poor white people that black people get favourable treatment over themselves, and similarly poor men of women. What I, and as far as I can tell anyone on the left would want to do, is to convince the general populace to share my beliefs – because I think those beliefs are true, and that even if the truth won’t in itself set people free, understanding more of it is essential to gaining that freedom.
Too be fair, Barack Hussein Obama is much better fodder for nutty conspiracy theories.