The Redskin Rule.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Sorry drafter, that was meant for dmv...

victor809 wrote:

Hang on, we're only supposed to talk about football?
Then why is there a politics forum????

victor809 wrote:

Did I actually get it right? Did he mention the redskins?

MY PREDICTION CAPABILITY ROCKS!!!!

victor809 wrote:

^ help! help! I'm in a box!

victor809 wrote:

Are you a dead cat or alive? I’d open it up to check but that would ensure that the vial of cyanide would shatter.

BuckyB93 wrote:

OOOhhh... are you suggesting a science project?

victor809 wrote:

I have an enormous schwanzstucker... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

I have an enormous schwanzstucker... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Bastian Schweinsteiger is a good midfielder.

HockeyDad wrote:

Is that some Georgetown rubby code?

DrMaddVibe wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy

A long read, I only expect a couple of you to actually have the capability to read past the first page.

I'm sure some of you will just post something stupid after reading the title.

Either way, an interesting article, goes into the history of the current anti-science movement as well as what the author considers to be a few factors in it's current rise. Additionally, it discusses the impact that an inability to identify "fact" has on policy and democracy.

victor809 wrote:

If I missed this let me know, but I found it ironic that I saw no mention of Obama ending funding to NASA.

tailgater wrote:

Apart from insulting the masses before they even have an opportunity to digest the article, what is your point here?
I breezed through it and found some accurate information along with some fluff that has little to do with the subject matter.
His writing style is not easy to enjoy. He jumps from subject to subject. This works fine for a page or two, but 5 1/2" pages of this makes you want to stop reading. Of course, this could be the fact that it's barely interesting at all, and most of it is obvious while only some of it is important.

If I missed this let me know, but I found it ironic that I saw no mention of Obama ending funding to NASA.

tailgater wrote:

The part I found interesting is what I identified.

I thought the roots of the anti-science movement were interesting, the fact that the Dems started the damn ball rolling, as well as the different factors the author tried to identify as causing resurgence (although uncited, so they're more anecdotal than anything). I was not actually trying to make a stance, just thought it would be an interesting read for some individuals. Others, I expected wouldn't read it and would just make some inane comments in big colored font.

I'm not surprised that NASA didn't come up, because there hasn't really been any controversy over it (there should be, but not in a science/antiscience manner). Obama defunded it, and that IS an issue in my mind. No one wanted it defunded because it was a hotbutton issue though, we're just apparently too poor for a rocket. 😞

The other thing that's interesting is the "retirement" so to speak of any individuals with an actual science understanding from political life. This is a real problem in my mind and likely will continue to have a negative impact on our nation. This ties directly in to the issue the author peripherally addressed regarding the philosophy of "every viewpoint is equally valid".

Ah well, if you didn't enjoy it there isn't much I can do about it. At least you read the whole thing. :)

victor809 wrote: