Support NeoGAF

[Particle Physicist]

I can't see how one being a proponent of intelligent design theory should oppose scientific research. They are not mutually exclusive unless I miss something and intelligent design theory has some radical, fundamental flavour in US as religion in some states.

He already has a history of dismissing advances in science and technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham

Intelligent design is not a theory. It's a religious hypothesis.

This too.

 

[besada]

While the Iowa results will be entertaining to see, let's not make the bad assumption that they mean anything. Remember, Romney won in 2008. Beyond that, they tend to go to whoever spreads money and food around the most, since it's basically a carnival.

Edit: Looks like we're up about 1,500 votes in total from 2008. Apparently they're counting write-ins now.

 

[subversus]

He already has a history of dismissing advances in science and technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham

I browsed the article, I haven't found where he opposes science or something like that. Again intelligent design as I understand it doesn't exclude evolution. Unless Perry is a hardcore creationist I don't see a problem with that.

 

[besada]

Again intelligent design as I understand it doesn't exclude evolution. Unless Perry is a hardcore creationist I don't see a problem with that.

I'm not sure what sort of ID you're discussing, but ID in the U.S. is a carefully crafted cover for creationism. While the idea has been around a long time, the phrase and the movement date back to the late 80's, and is driven entirely by creationists.

It's also not science, because it's unfalsifiable.

 

[KtSlime]

I browsed the article, I haven't found where he opposes science or something like that. Again intelligent design as I understand it doesn't exclude evolution. Unless Perry is a hardcore creationist I don't see a problem with that.

Dude, that's what ID is. It's a wacky counter 'argument' to evolution - not an argument that a 'God' exists. ID is a new name for the Fixity of Species, where a 'God' created each individual species as separate, and humans as the pinnacle of his creation - Perry is as you would describe it 'a hardcore creationist'.

 

[teh_pwn]

I can't see how one being a proponent of intelligent design theory should oppose scientific research. They are not mutually exclusive unless I miss something and intelligent design theory has some radical, fundamental flavour in US as religion in some states.

You don't understand what scientific theory is. Intelligent design is not scientific theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

This isn't an opinion. It is a fact that Intelligent Design is not science whatsoever.

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.

You can't test ID through experiment. Saying "we don't know therefore jesus" isn't science. It's the opposite of science.

 

[besada]

Paul's people are predicting he got a third of the vote. The year of the Doctor!

 

[Clevinger]

I browsed the article, I haven't found where he opposes science or something like that. Again intelligent design as I understand it doesn't exclude evolution. Unless Perry is a hardcore creationist I don't see a problem with that.

Please just watch this lecture from Ken Miller (a biologist who is also Catholic). It explains the movement and rebranding of ID a couple decades ago and some of the recent court cases its advocates have lost. It's very informative if you don't know much about Intelligent Design.

 

[besada]

Dude, that's what ID is. It's a wacky counter 'argument' to evolution - not an argument that a 'God' exists. ID is a new name for the Fixity of Species, where a 'God' created each individual species as separate, and humans as the pinnacle of his creation - Perry is as you would describe it 'a hardcore creationist'.

And to continue bringing this back around to Perry, he's responsible for appointing a Young Earth Creationist to the Texas State Board of Education. He himself may not be a YEC, but he certainly likes appointing them to educational roles.

Edit: On a side note, the music they're playing on the live stream for Iowa is making me want to choke myself.

 

[maximum360]

Well that was done with great taste.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I browsed the article, I haven't found where he opposes science or something like that. Again intelligent design as I understand it doesn't exclude evolution. Unless Perry is a hardcore creationist I don't see a problem with that.

That article is lacking many details. But he refused to accept the new science that exonerated the guy because of his belief that the guy was guilty


http://www.texastribune.org/texas-p...-death-penalty-stance-a-mixed-bag-nationally/

Since Willingham's execution, public reports have revealed that Perry’s office was aware that serious scientific questions had been raised about evidence used to convict Willingham. Perry has dismissed the reports of scientists who concluded Willingham was not responsible for the blaze and has called him a guilty “monster.”

 

[Mardak]

I thought libertarians were supposed to care about efficiency. The most efficient way to make sure food is safe is to have one national agency regulate it.

Efficiency comes from competition where sellers need to be more efficient than the others to get the consumer to purchase from them instead of another. Things aren't efficient just because only one entity is in charge.

You imply that having duplicate efforts leads to inefficiency, but as long as people/retailers are willing to pay and competitors are willing to sell, who is to claim that money is being wasted?

The worse situation is where the FDA gets to pick and choose which drugs get approved first and who to ignore. If there were multiple options for drugs to get certified, the turnaround time for new drugs could be faster.

But what about the quality of certification? How do you know if one certifier is good or better than another? Well, if there's only one with the FDA, it just has to be good as there's no alternatives for better or worse?

 

[besada]

That's a weirdly orthagonal line of attack. It's not as if he sat down and said, "I disagree with the forensic scientific details!" He just didn't give a shit. He didn't so much dismiss science as ignore the evidence altogether because there was no political upside for him to pardon Willingham.

Edit: Apparently the only people watching this live stream other than me are Ron Paul fans. Always fun to see. Oh, there are also a few Cainiacs.

 

[Particle Physicist]

That's a weirdly orthagonal line of attack. It's not as if he sat down and said, "I disagree with the forensic scientific details!" He just didn't give a shit. He didn't so much dismiss science as ignore the evidence altogether because there was no political upside for him to pardon Willingham.

He called the guy a "guilty monster." There was no downside in pardoning him either. Either way you cut it, be it lack of respect for scientific data, or murdering a guy due to politics.. he is not someone you want anywhere near the white house.

 

[SecretMoblin]

Well that was entirely expected, except for the booing.

 

[besada]

Bachmann wins Iowa.

 

[state-of-the-art]

Well that was done with great taste.

Somebody should photo shop Bachmann's crazy eyes on the guy in the corner.

 

[besada]

He called the guy a "guilty monster." There was no downside in pardoning him either. Either way you cut it, be it lack of respect for scientific data, or murdering a guy due to politics.. he is not someone you want anywhere near the white house.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. The downside in pardoning him is that Perry was a Texas Governor and the state of Texas doesn't like seeing convicted killers pardoned.

He isn't someone I want anywhere near the WH, as I'm pretty sure you know.

 

[KtSlime]

Efficiency comes from competition where sellers need to be more efficient than the others to get the consumer to purchase from them instead of another. Things aren't efficient just because only one entity is in charge.

You imply that having duplicate efforts leads to inefficiency, but as long as people/retailers are willing to pay and competitors are willing to sell, who is to claim that money is being wasted?

The worse situation is where the FDA gets to pick and choose which drugs get approved first and who to ignore. If there were multiple options for drugs to get certified, the turnaround time for new drugs could be faster.

But what about the quality of certification? How do you know if one certifier is good or better than another? Well, if there's only one with the FDA, it just has to be good as there's no alternatives for better or worse?

Knowing relatively what is in my food is of great importance to me, due to my beliefs and allergies. Can you please cite as evidence any certification systems that are comparable or superior to the ones the FDA has made - that were created due to market forces, and not by government intervention? Not asking to be an ass, I really am curious. Because to my knowledge prior to government intervention there wasn't much of that sort of thing.

If we were to get rid of the FDA, and a company made a candy bar and decided to not list that it was manufactured in a plant that also processed peanuts and someone was to die, who'd be in charge then? In your utopia, would the family be able to sue? What if the company that made the candy is from out of state? What sort of mechanism would be in place to make sure that it was tried in a suitable locale? What if it is only for beliefs? Could a Jew sue a company that stretches their beef with pork but was not informed?

I want to know more about this utopia government of yours.

 

[kkaabboomm]

BACHMANIA > Bachmann 28.5%, Paul 27.6%, Pawlenty 13.6%, Santorum - 9.8%, Cain -8.6%...

eesh. paul almost pulls it off, and santorum/cain battling pawlenty 'close'

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/13/7366544-bachmann-wins-ames-straw-poll

16,892 total
Bachmann 4,823
Paul: 4671
Pawlenty: 2293
Santorum: 1657
Cain: 1456
Perry: 718
Romney: 567
Gingrich: 385
Huntsman: 69
McCotter: 35
Scattering: 162

 

[Particle Physicist]

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. The downside in pardoning him is that Perry was a Texas Governor and the state of Texas doesn't like seeing convicted killers pardoned.

Are you saying that convicted killers have never been pardoned (in Texas)? If the evidence overwhelmingly supports his innocence, there is no downside. Are people in Texas that bloodthirsty?

He isn't someone I want anywhere near the WH, as I'm pretty sure you know.

*Sigh* That wasn't directed at you.

 

[RustyNails]

That's a weirdly orthagonal line of attack. It's not as if he sat down and said, "I disagree with the forensic scientific details!" He just didn't give a shit. He didn't so much dismiss science as ignore the evidence altogether because there was no political upside for him to pardon Willingham.

He already had his mind made up. Willingham was convicted based on eye witness accounts from a local bar (hello, people are usually drunk there) and a sparse arson report from the fire department. Since 1991, "father of arson science" popped up and he helped greatly improve the field of studying fire. In 10-15 years, the field improved dramatically and the scientific community largely coalesced behind new evidence which suggested that the burning was due to "flash fire", or rapid burning due to things in home placed in close proximity that are susceptible to fire, For example: a Christmas tree right next to a sofa on fire (Christmas tree would send the fire to the ceiling within a minute). In face of new evidence, Perry did not stay the execution of Willingham largely because he wanted to 1) Preserve death penalty and 2)Disregard science.

 

[besada]

Are you saying that convicted killers have never been pardoned? If the evidence overwhelmingly supports his innocence, there is no downside. Are people in Texas that bloodthirsty?

I'm saying that it's politically unpopular for a Texas Governor to pardon convicted killers, which is why it happens so rarely. You said there was no political downside. That's simply wrong. If you want to stay in office in Texas, you err on the side of execution, not clemency. About 70% of the state is in favor of the death penalty, giving it some of the highest approval numbers in the nation.

As for the bloodthirstiness of Texans, the Texas Death Penalty accounts for more than a third of all U.S. executions since 1976. We've killed retarded people, women who found jesus, Mexican nationals, and pretty much anyone poor enough to not avoid it. At every single one of them, there are people standing outside waving signs in favor of the execution going on inside.

In face of new evidence, Perry did not stay the execution of Willingham largely because he wanted to 1) Preserve death penalty and 2)Disregard science.

A) Thanks for enlightening me about a case I've been following since the original conviction and B) It had nothing to do with dismissing science (which was the original claim) which implies he disagreed with the science. He simply did not care about it. You've painted this picture of Perry as a guy who allowed the execution based on some fundamental scientific disagreement, and it's simply not true. It's so much worse than that, I'm not sure why you're cutting him that sort of slack. He allowed an innocent man to die because it was politically easier to do so. It's that simple and that horrifying.

 

[jwluther]

The biggest news from the straw poll is Perry's 718 votes. Those were all write-ins, and he managed to beat quite a few declared candidates.

 

[Mardak]

16,892 total votes

Bachmann 4,823 (28.55%)
Paul: 4,671 (27.65%)

Difference: 152 (0.90%)

For comparison with 2007 Ames Straw Poll:
1 Mitt Romney 4,516 31.6%
2 Mike Huckabee 2,587 18.1%

 

[scorcho]

so this glorified beauty pageant means that Pawlenty is suddenly a serious candidate?

okay there Chuck Todd. off you go!

 

[KtSlime]

I'm saying that it's politically unpopular for a Texas Governor to pardon convicted killers, which is why it happens so rarely. You said there was no political downside. That's simply wrong. If you want to stay in office in Texas, you err on the side of execution, not clemency. About 70% of the state is in favor of the death penalty, giving it some of the highest approval numbers in the nation. We've killed retarded people, women who found jesus, Mexican nationals, and pretty much anyone poor enough to not avoid it.

As for the bloodthirstiness of Texans, the Texas Death Penalty accounts for more than a third of all U.S. executions since 1976. We've killed retarded people, women who found jesus, Mexican nationals, and pretty much anyone poor enough to not avoid it. At every single one of them, there are people standing outside waving signs in favor of the execution going on inside.

Shouldn't the person that holds the ability to pardon someone that is sentenced to death be held accountable for stopping that execution if there is new evidence that casts doubt in the reason that someone is being executed?

I think anyone that has the ability to pardon an innocent person but does not should be sentenced for murder. Perry is a murderer.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I'm saying that it's politically unpopular for a Texas Governor to pardon convicted killers, which is why it happens so rarely. You said there was no political downside. That's simply wrong. If you want to stay in office in Texas, you err on the side of execution, not clemency. About 70% of the state is in favor of the death penalty, giving it some of the highest approval numbers in the nation. We've killed retarded people, women who found jesus, Mexican nationals, and pretty much anyone poor enough to not avoid it.

First of all, no need to get so uptight about this, we are just having a conversation here. Yes it happens rarely, but how often has the backing of the whole scientific community been ignored? The last person to have their death sentence be commuted to life in prison at the request of the governor (Bush) was a convicted serial killer. I'm not sure how it was in Texas, but Bush didn't seem to have any issues become president after that. Either way, like I said earlier... whether he dismissed the scientific data due to political reasons, or ideological.. they are both horrible.

 

[besada]

Shouldn't the person that holds the ability to pardon someone that is sentenced to death be held accountable for stopping that execution if there is new evidence that casts doubt in the reason that someone is being executed?

I think anyone that has the ability to pardon an innocent person but does not should be sentenced for murder. Perry is a murderer.

Where are you seeing me disagree with that?

 

[ezekial45]

Romney lost?

EDIT: Good lord! Hahaha

 

[KtSlime]

Where are you seeing me disagree with that?

Sorry, I wrote that before your edit, and I thought you just didn't care that Perry didn't stop it because it would be inconvenient for him. (I had assumed you actually had more knowledge than me on this case, since IIRC you are a Texan)

 

[unomas]

Bachman? America dissapoints once again, Ron Paul is close even with his "views" being distorted compared to the rest of the puppet candidates. Hopefully he can build something here and the joke candidate Bachman can fall to the wayside.

 

[Luckyman]

Bachmann must be a sick sick joke. Madness in the USA

 

[Alcibiades]

Perry's showing is not really a surprise... there was a concerted effort by some pro-Perry group the last few days to get write-ins for him and he is currently riding the "announcement"-wave. It is a little impressive but not earth-shattering.

 

[Piecake]

Bachmann must be a sick sick joke. Madness in the USA

nope, just madness amongst the hardcore GoP. We shouldnt be moaning about America, what we should be moaning about is how horrible the primary system is

 

[scorcho]

Bachmann must be a sick sick joke. Madness in the USA

wait till she wins Iowa. you'll be in an absolute tizzy then.

 

[ezekial45]

It's hilarious and a little scary at the same time. I just hope she doesn't gain much momentum till then.

 

[besada]

Sorry, I wrote that before your edit, and I thought you just didn't care that Perry didn't stop it because it would be inconvenient for him. (I had assumed you actually had more knowledge than me on this case, since IIRC you are a Texan)

Just to be clear, there is no one in this thread (with the possible exception of EV) that hates Perry more than I do. I'm pretty comfortable saying that.

I was standing outside the gates of Huntsville when they murdered Willingham. I've been outside those gates plenty of other times. I am adamantly against the death penalty. I've been fighting the death penalty here in Texas since 1986, when I first stood outside those gates. The thing to know is, the group protesting against is usually smaller than the people who come out and cheer while inmates die.

I am also in a minority in Texas, and the majority has little problem with the way our death penalty is enacted, save for the fact that it's too slow. Seriously. Ask your average Texan and that's the answer you're going to get -- too slow.

My only point of contention was that Perry's decision had anything to do with the viability of the science. It didn't.

Edit:

The last person to have their death sentence be commuted to life in prison at the request of the governor (Bush) was a convicted serial killer.

Actually, Perry agreed with the commission and allowed Kenneth Foster off death row, because there was a political upside -- there was massive political pressure over the fact that Foster hadn't actually killed anyone, but had been convicted under the law of parties. To be clear, no one cared about whether he lived or died, they were afraid his execution would open them up to Federal tampering in Texas's death penalty.

 

[Vanillalite]

In terms of total straw poll turn out is this high, low, or about expected?

 

[indigo-cyclops]

I don't even know what to believe anymore...

 

[RustyNails]

Bachmann must be a sick sick joke. Madness in the USA

Heeeeeeeere's Bachmann!!

 

[Kettch]

Parry didn't beat anyone? That's disappointing.

 

[Raxus]

Bachman? America dissapoints once again, Ron Paul is close even with his "views" being distorted compared to the rest of the puppet candidates. Hopefully he can build something here and the joke candidate Bachman can fall to the wayside.

It is a straw poll. It means next to nothing.

 

[speculawyer]

so this glorified beauty pageant means that Pawlenty is suddenly a serious candidate?

The opposite. He's toast. He was relying on being the mid-west governor of a next-door neighbor state to help him win Iowa and get momentum. Instead he got trashed by crazy-lady the Paulites.


I suspected a Bachmann win due to her Iowa connection. How embarrassing . . . one of our two biggest parties picked a creationist paranoid conspiracy theorist for president.

 

[ezekial45]

Parry didn't beat anyone? That's disappointing.

I'm more surprised by Romney's blowout. I guess keeping his silence cause most voters to forget about him.

 

[RustyNails]

I don't even know what to believe anymore...

It's nothing. Just a way for podunktown in a cornfield in middle of Iowa to get some revenue. In 2007, John McCain got 150 votes in the Iowa poll and Romney got upwards of 4,500. John McCain became the nominee.

In terms of total straw poll turn out is this high, low, or about expected?

I have 2007 numbers, and the turnout in 2007 was 14,302

 

[PhoenixDark]

16,892 total votes

Bachmann 4,823 (28.55%)
Paul: 4,671 (27.65%)

Difference: 152 (0.90%)

For comparison with 2007 Ames Straw Poll:
1 Mitt Romney 4,516 31.6%
2 Mike Huckabee 2,587 18.1%

Republicans are fired up

There's still plenty of time for Bachman to drop the ball in Iowa, especially now that Perry is in the race. Bachman will benefit from Iowans and their bloated perception of relevance - they might feel put off by Perry not participating in the poll or debate.

Disappointing results from Pawlenty. I wonder if Huck will throw him a lifeline with an endorsement.

 

[besada]

I'm more surprised by Romney's blowout. I guess keeping his silence cause most voters to forget about him.

Was he even in the poll? I thought he was a write-in like Perry and Huntsman.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

It's nothing. Just a way for podunktown in a cornfield in middle of Iowa to get some revenue. In 2007, John McCain got 150 votes in the Iowa poll and Romney got upwards of 4,500. John McCain became the nominee.

I have 2007 numbers, and the turnout in 2007 was 14,302

Haha that's true, I was being a bit over-dramatic I suppose!

 

[empty vessel]

Efficiency comes from competition where sellers need to be more efficient than the others to get the consumer to purchase from them instead of another. Things aren't efficient just because only one entity is in charge.

Neither are things efficient just because more than one entity exists. We are talking about an entity that sets and enforces quality standards. Competition is anathema to that end. Why on earth would I want various entities competing to make my food safe? Why would I want to invest all that fucking energy into goddamn food? Now I have to research food ratings companies in order to know which ones to rely upon just to buy fucking food? What the hell is wrong with libertarians? There is value in public goods and services. I don't want to live in your stupid-as-hell world that makes me research what the best apple-ratings company is just to avoid being poisoned when I can use the organization that was created specifically to manage my society to do it.

You imply that having duplicate efforts leads to inefficiency, but as long as people/retailers are willing to pay and competitors are willing to sell, who is to claim that money is being wasted?

I am. Because I have a brain that is usable. Oil spills create buyers and sellers of clean-up services. Are oil spills wealth? Just because something can be bought and sold does not mean that any genuine social wealth (e.g., a refrigerator) is being created.

The worse situation is where the FDA gets to pick and choose which drugs get approved first and who to ignore. If there were multiple options for drugs to get certified, the turnaround time for new drugs could be faster.

I can think of plenty worse situations. Like the situation before the FDA came to exist.

States exercised the principal control over domestically produced and distributed foods and drugs in the 19th century, control that was markedly inconsistent from state to state. The illustration at right shows an act passed by Massachusetts [act against selling unwholesome provisions], which led the way in state-sponsored food and drug laws. The Vaccine Act of 1813, though short-lived, was the first federal law dealing with consumer protection and therapeutic substances. Federal authority was limited mostly to imported foods and drugs. Adulteration and misbranding of foods and drugs had long been a fixture in the American cultural landscape, though the egregiousness of the problems seemed to have increased by the late 19th century (or at least they became more identifiable). By this time science had advanced significantly in its ability to detect this sort of fraud. Also, legitimate manufacturers were becoming more concerned that their trade would be undermined by purveyors of deceitful goods. Quinine-containing cinchona bark powder could be made less therapeutically effective--and much more profitable--by cutting it with just about anything, alum and clay masked poor wheat flour and thus netted a heftier return for the unethical company, and sufferers of any number of serious or self-limited diseases were relieved only of their finances by vendors of worthless nostrums. Even the so-called ethical drug firms were guilty of this practice.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Origin/ucm124403.htm

I am not interested in quick turn-around time. I am interested in safe food and drugs. Only the government can reliably provide that public service.

But what about the quality of certification? How do you know if one certifier is good or better than another? Well, if there's only one with the FDA, it just has to be good as there's no alternatives for better or worse?

That is correct, it does just have to be good. And since the FDA is publicly funded (i.e., a collective) and does not need to generate a profit, it is in the best position to be good and reliable. It would be even better if we could get the money out of politics that negatively influences (i.e., partly privatizes) it.