Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Would Charles Darwin Have Made a Good Congressman?

Posted by Soulskill on from the descent-by-natural-election dept.

sciencehabit writes "It's a good 130 years too late to answer that question empirically, but at least symbolically Charles Darwin has won support from more than 4000 voters in the 10th congressional district of Georgia, thanks to an initiative headed by James Leebens-Mack, a plant biologist at the University of Georgia in Athens. Like many others, Leebens-Mack was deeply troubled by a speech his Congressman, Paul Broun (R-GA), gave at an Athens church in October deriding teachings on evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell.' Broun, a medical doctor, is a member of the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and chair of its Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Leebens-Mack says the 'protest vote should make it clear to future opponents that there are a lot of people in the district who are not happy with antiscience statements.'"

155 comments

  1. We can't have good people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It all comes down to this:

    Why doesn't Leebens-Mack run against Broun himself in 2014? "I am a scientist, not a politician," he says. "I enjoy my job as a plant biologist. It would be too big a sacrifice to give that up to run for Congress."

    Who doesn't feel the same way? That's not quite rhetorical; turns out you probably know someone who doesn't agree with that. But they're also someone you probably don't like, aren't they?

    1. Re:We can't have good people by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Part of the problem is that politics is now a career. I wouldn't mind doing the job for a year, maybe two if I could do it part time - say two days a week so I could keep doing stuff that's actually interesting as well. There's no way I'd want to spend even five years, let alone the 20-30 that most politicians seem to have to put in.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:We can't have good people by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That tells me that the politicians know the grass is greener where they are. Let's face it, they get a lot of amazing perks just for being a politician. I'm pretty confident those perks are more substantial than you and I think and those perks make working as a career politician far more lucrative than the "measly" job you and I have. And if you knew those perks were for the rest of your life, wouldn't you be willing to lie to a few people, maybe bend or break some rules, to enjoy those perks?

      Yep.. those politicians know the secret sauce to success in this life.

    3. Re:We can't have good people by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the job of Congressman is crap; you get egoboo but you're a slave to fundraising and spend as much or more time in shabby political boiler room offices calling around begging for money as you do in your nice government office. It's stunningly degrading, and the average person wouldn't be able to stand it. You probably helps to be a major attention-hound, but it still stinks. It's much better when you get out of Congress and become a lobbyist who can afford to screen his calls.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:We can't have good people by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 2

      Actually, that's my opinion of how Congress should work. It should be like jury duty--your name is called at random from a nationwide pool of eligible voters to serve in Congress for a year or two. You, and the baker from Queens, and the auto mechanic from Des Moines, and the mini-mart owner from Phoenix, etc. You're there as often as the current Congress is. Your job is to pass the important legislation, balance the budget, and monitor and fund (or defund) the other two branches as necessary. Accepting money from lobbyists would be a serious crime. The sooner you get the job done, the sooner you get to go home.

      I'd be willing to bet the result would be better all around.

    5. Re:We can't have good people by kanweg · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have that baker bake and that mechanic repair cars. Would you want an unqualified person to do your job? The problem is that you can become a politician without qualifications. They don't need a pass a test to show they're capable of logical reasoning, have a modicum of knowledge etc.

      Bert

    6. Re:We can't have good people by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Still better than President of the USA.

      1) One of the most dangerous jobs in the world - 9% die for job related reasons (get killed).
      2) Almost everyone blames you for everything even though you don't actually have that much power.

      --
    7. Re:We can't have good people by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2

      You make a decent argument, and then provide the best reason why it is flawed.

      If the current crop of politicians, who are mostly lawyers, are clearly and demonstrably unable to do a proper job, how do you know the baker and the mechanic won't do a better one?

      Besides, politicians have to pass a lot of tests. The thing is that the electorate chooses to test on incredibly important subjects such as hair, teeth, flagpin wearing and the ability to spout immense amounts of bullshit instead of looking at minor details such as principles, realism and actual good ideas.

      Let's face it, even if someone who is clearly principled and who actually tells the truth were to run, he/she wouldn't stand a chance. We don't want "leaders" who tell us the truth, we want ones that tell us that we're the ones doing just fine and everything would be peachy if it weren't for $them.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    8. Re:We can't have good people by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The job of Congressman is crap only if you're running for reelection.

    9. Re:We can't have good people by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 1

      It sure is a crappy job, but hey, for $450k salary for LIFE, wouldn't you do a crappy job for 4 years? I sure as hell would. I'd even lie and tell everyone how awesome it was for that kind of pay! I don't know too many people that wouldn't be dishonest for 4 years for that kind of money, and that's the crappy reality of it.

      As much as I'd like to think I'm an honest and trustworthy person who would do the right thing, I think Presidents try to do the right thing. But at the same time there's limits(especially on your time).

      We as Americans need to actually realize that the President is more of a figurehead than anything and start holding the Congress responsible.

    10. Re:We can't have good people by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I can't find the original quote, but anyone who doesn't want political power should be obliged to have it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:We can't have good people by TheLink · · Score: 1

      For much lower risk and stress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives#Salaries
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

      --
  2. Rational by RichMan · · Score: 2

    Informed and educated opinions leading to decisions do not work with without rational politicians.
    A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.

    The first thing I would want in a politician is that they are rational.
    If they are corrupt then ok, we have to figure out what motivates them and we can work with it.

    1. Re:Rational by PraiseBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And therein the problem: What rational person would go through the political process, where they are attacked relentlessly for months, with political teams spending millions of dollars to damage their reputation, digging up every skeleton in their closet, casting them as some type of dangerous idiot, and trying to turn a person's community against them?

      That kind of job description has a hard time getting rational applicants who aren't motivated by goals of personal power.

    2. Re:Rational by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Informed and educated opinions leading to decisions do not work with without rational politicians.
      A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.

      The first thing I would want in a politician is that they are rational.
      If they are corrupt then ok, we have to figure out what motivates them and we can work with it.

      It doesn't matter if a politician is rational -- he represents a group of people with diverse interests. Therefore, he must behave irrationally or be voted out in the next election. This is what we get by having career politicians. If it was non-professional, we'd have people running for a single term, pissing the majority of their constituents off, but actually accomplishing at least part of their agenda. I'm not sure which system I'd prefer.

    3. Re:Rational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.

      It's worked for the last 230 years.......

    4. Re:Rational by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      No it hasn't, maybe you didn't notice, he said democracy.... what does that have to do with the past 230 years?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:Rational by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens. ... The first thing I would want in a politician is that they are rational.

      Obviously a lot of your fellow citizens don't agree with you, or else they have a different definition of "rationality."

      The fundamental problem lies the morons who vote wackos into office in the first place. Which might lead to questioning of the assumption of a functional democracy -- is that even a rational possibility? Unless we're going to require a logic test before certifying anyone's ability to vote, the most rational people in a society will always be subject to the tyranny of the less rational majority.

      That's actually the definition of a functional democracy. Now, if you want a representative republic with all sorts of checks against the irrational masses, as the Founders started with, maybe you could start working toward rationality in politics.

    6. Re:Rational by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      If it was non-professional, we'd have people running for a single term, pissing the majority of their constituents off, but actually accomplishing at least part of their agenda

      Not necessarily. It takes time to figure out how to get stuff done in Congress. By the time most of them have figured it out, their term would be up.

    7. Re:Rational by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And therein the problem: What rational person would go through the political process,

      Someone who thinks they can make a change.
      The 2010 batch of Tea Party representitives are a good example.
      Despite holding political views way out in the fringe, they ran for office because they thought they could make a change.
      They have: they've repeatedly stymied the Democratic agenda and, on more than one ocassion, have tripped up the Republican agenda too.
      And I wouldn't call them irrational. Within their framework of ideas, they are very rational actors.

      Elizabeth Warren is another example of a well meaning person who went through a bruising political fight to get a Senate seat.
      She created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Republicans refused her nomination to head the agency,
      so she ran for the Senate in Massachussetts.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Rational by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      You reap what you sow, in other words?

    9. Re:Rational by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If you start from fundamentally rational positions you cannot be considered a rational actor. You may be considered consistent, but not rational.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Most of the conflict in politics isn't about rationality, it comes from disagreeing desires. Some people want to have universal healthcare, others don't. There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Rational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And therein the problem: What rational person would go through the political process,

      Someone who notes that politicians rarely retire poor...

    12. Re:Rational by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Some people want to have universal healthcare, others don't. There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.

      There is something particularly ethical about universal healthcare and something completely immoral about a first world nation treating healthcare as a commodity. A good moral code is rational. Hence, universal healthcare is rational and our current system is not.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    13. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No doubt, it is always possible for people to come up with post facto reasoning to support their desires, like you have just done.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Rational by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Most of the conflict in politics isn't about rationality, it comes from disagreeing desires. Some people want to have universal healthcare, others don't. There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.

      See... This is why the debate is off the rails in America.

      There absolutely is something rational about wanting universal health care. A healthy population is one that can work, and can stimulate the economy, so there's clearly a vested interest in being able to get all citizens as healthy as possible. It's been demonstrated in tons of other places that nationalised health care is a much more effective, and much cheaper way of achieving this. So yeh, it really is rational to want nationalised health care.

    15. Re:Rational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the sort of reductionism that leads to the idea that all opinions are always irrational.

      Instead, try to do some analysis instead of declaring these desires irrational and declaring all possible justifications to be post facto reasoning:

      1. There's an ethical imperative toward providing healthcare to those who need it. It doesn't matter if this system of ethics traces back to some evolved-in social trait in humanity to help one another, or the golden rule, or what have you.
      2. There's an economic imperative toward guaranteeing a healthy population. Virtually everybody agrees that a strong economy is desirable in and of itself, though they may value it against other principles at different levels.
      3. There's a personal benefit to a healthier population. You're personally less likely to become sick if nobody else is unnecessarily sick, or to have a friend faced with that situation.

      I'll make an attempt at representing some points from the other side of the argument, but I admit in advance that I have an opinion here:

      1. There's an economic imperative against setting up a system that can be abused without corresponding economic consequences. I'd argue that dealing with the healthcare system ANYWHERE is generally deterrent enough...
      2. There's a notion that universal healthcare doesn't lead to better outcomes overall. I'd point to examples that show that US-style healthcare is among the less effective systems and in terms of cost-benefit squarely the least effective, but you could try to plead that they all have different confounding factors.
      3. There's an idea that a significant portion of healthcare problems are the fault of the people who require healthcare, and therefore not the responsibility of the public at large.
      4. Slippery slope arguments -- both "first socialized healthcare, then socialized everything!" and the idea that socialized healthcare inevitably leads to the state restricting access to things that could potentially be unhealthy. Related to the above.
      5. There's a resistance to "socialism" in general that seems to extend beyond the "economic imperative" argument I mentioned before, for which I have yet to find a rational basis (there I go, doing what you did -- there certainly are irrational people, it just doesn't make the two positions irrational).

    16. Re:Rational by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      It is rational to point out that the US healthcare system was one of the most expensive per-head in the world, one of the least efficient per-dollar in the world, and had one of the lowest coverages in the world. Championing a policy of reform to solve those issues is rational.

      Arguing "keep the gubbermint oudda my life!" as a reason to not reform it is ideological and irrational.

    17. Re:Rational by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.

      Actually, there is, and the same applies to a lot of other subjects, like for example drug prohibition.

      There are plenty of different systems and methods that demonstrably do or do not work. It really isn't all that hard to look at them and point that out. There's nothing wrong with deliberately choosing not to use a system that works for reasons of principle, but in that case we could at least be honest and consistent about it.

      If a nation or a state chooses to make health insurance optional, based on principles of freedom and individual responsibility, then do it properly. Let the corpses of those who were stupid or irresponsible pile up outside the ER for all to see.

      Same thing with drug prohibition. It demonstrably doesn't work, it costs tons of money and there's a remarkable correlation between wanting to forbid it and believing in invisible men in the sky, so let's at least have some *honest* reasons why it should be disallowed.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    18. Re:Rational by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 2

      This is something I have never understood. What's good for the economy is a healthy workforce; with enough money to spend (but not so much that they can squirrel it away where it does nothing); the ability to get your kids an education (for the next round of workers); making sure those with power, be it political or financial, are kept in check (to maintain the level playing field so important to vibrant capitalism) and keeping the commons intact so that it can continue to be used.

      Absolutely none of those are priorities of the right, and yet it's liberals that are supposed to be bad for the economy?

      (Grammar nazis will have to accept the horrible abuse of the semi-colon.)

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    19. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      there's a remarkable correlation between wanting to forbid it and believing in invisible men in the sky, so let's at least have some *honest* reasons why it should be disallowed.

      Oh yeah? Let's see your data on this, because it sounds like something you just made up. There are plenty of druggies who believe in god. Making up data is irrational.

      Healthcare: there are definitely people who would prefer to let people die in the streets. You are mistaking 'current system' for 'system people want.' The current system is a compromise, and few people like it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Keeping the government out of your life is a desire. People have that desire, and they choose policies which they believe will lead to that goal.

      Trying to get the highest coverage in the world is a desire. It is not rational, it is a desire, but people who have that desire can make rational choices to achieve that goal.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      OK, be honest now, did you want nationalized healthcare before you thought it would be good for the economy, or did you realize it would be better later on, as a justification for your desire for nationalized healthcare?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Uh, believe it or not, in general all those things ARE priorities of the right. I don't know WHO you've been listening to that makes you think otherwise, but I'm willing to bet they're also telling you the right is racist.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:Rational by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      No, I already have nationalised health care, and have lived in countries which did not. I have many completely rational reasons for preferring the nationalised system. The economic arguments are just one of them, and the order that these arguments were realised in is irrelevant to how applicable they are.

    24. Re:Rational by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Well, that's kinda the point. If they're a priority of the right, and the right still doesn't want nationalised health care, despite economic and social arguments in favour of it, then they're not acting rationally, and I wouldn't elect them.

    25. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought, you were already in favor of it, and later accepted arguments that support it.

      There are plenty of rational arguments against nationalized healthcare, but I won't bore you on a topic where you are unlikely to change your opinion. If you are interested, Milton Friedman has done a good job outlining the opposing arguments, you can look him up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:Rational by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      If those are the priorities of the right, they are poorly reflected in their actions.

      Here in Canada, we have a government that is de-funding useful research programs, muzzling scientists, attempted to repeal banking regulations until the crisis hit (and then took credit for these same regulations keeping our economy from completely going down the toiltet), cutting education funding, reducing the government's ability to gather information about the populace so that informed decisions can be made...it's a long list.

      In America, the right seems terribly interested in enacting policies that increase economic inequality, reduce oversight of corporations and generally make it easier for those with power and money to exploit everything around them.

      You don't need anyone to tell you this, it's relatively obvious.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    27. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'll give you an example......What was Mitt Romney's plan for healthcare?

      To repeal Obama's healthcare plan, and make a 'better' one. Obama ultimately took ideas from John McCain's healthcare plan.

      One thing that confuses foreigners (maybe not you, though, I'm sure you're smarter), is the difference between federal and state funding. A citizen can completely oppose funding on education from the national government, and yet still favor increasing it on the state level, because he feels states can more effectively manage education. If you only hear the first part, and not the second part, then it might be confusing. The independence of the states sometimes confuses people looking in from the outside.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:Rational by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I went and looked up the talk, here's what I got from him:
      1) "The spending for the provision of medical care inevitably leads to control over the fees that are charged for medical care"
      This is simply false – a quick reccy at any other country with nationalised health care (I'm going to use the UK as my example, as I'm familiar with it, and because it's pretty much the poster child for nationalised health care), reveals that private health care providers are still going strong, and choosing their prices just fine. Proof by counter example. QED.
      2) "Control over fees inevitably leads to control over the practices that are followed"
      This is based on the false premise 1. This can further be seen by private health care providers in the UK freely offering all kinds of crazy treatments.
      3) "If this trend continues, it inevitably leads to completely socialised medicine"
      Okay, "if this trend continues" he's right, in that he has an implication in there, and the thing on the left is false, so the whole statement is true. It still means as much as "if this trend continues, god is a purple beech ball who squashes ants for a day job".
      4) I believe this is against everyone's interests (paraphrasing)
      Fair enough... lets find out why :)

      [some retoric about the abolition of free trade, and the gvmnt taking over]
      5) "There is nothing different about the move to replacing private voluntary medical arrangements with compulsory governmental arrangements"
      False premise. No one is trying to replace anything. As again, evidenced by the abundance of private health care in the UK. It just happens that the majority consider the government provided health care to more than meet their needs and see no reason to have any more.
      6) (paraphrasing) loads of people in the medical indurstry have moved us slowly towards more socialised health care, and care has improved. I believe that this is in spite of the move towards more socialised care, not because of it.
      Fair enough, you're welcome to your opinion there, but the evidence shows a correlation between greater gvmnt involvement and increasing standards.
      7) "The mayo clinic is a shining example of how medicine in the US might have evolved if it had not been for this".
      Wait... last I checked the mayo clinic existed, it *has* developed that way, even with the gvmnt involvement.
      8) I doubt the mayo clinic could have evolved if it were built 20-30 years later.
      Fair enough, doubt, but you didn't provide any evidence for that.
      9) If you look around the country at similar attempts, a few managed to survive
      Okay, so doesn't that contradict your earlier assertion that it would be impossible to survive? Isn't only a few surviving entirely the norm for the free market – some survive, many don't, the ones that do are great at what they do.
      [retoric about the evil gvmnt and dangling carrots at the loving business men]
      10) I believe the gvmnt will effectively pump and dump the medical proffession.
      Well, that's a nice belief you have there, but it's not what's happened in other countries, and even if it did happen, then the private healthcare providers would flourish due to the gvmnt providing a crappy service. The only way this can make sense is if you use the false premise that the gvmnt running health care causes all other private providers to be extinguished, which gets us back to 1) again. It's simply false.
      11) Uses the UK as an example, states that the UK would spend more on medical care if it did not have a state system.
      Well duh... that's entirely the point. A nationalised system gets you the care needed, for everyone, and costs you less. He should not be measuring the amount of money spent, he should be measuring the care provided. I can't honestly see how he's used "the UK gets cheaper health care than we do" as an example to support the system you have!
      12) There are fewer beds in the NHS in 1978 than in 1946 when the NHS took over.
      I'd like to cite Barak Obama on this o

    29. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're welcome to inform me if he had any better arguments, but I'd rather not waste my time further if he didn't.

      I know, you already made up your mind before watching it. You only accept arguments in your favor as true, working diligently to find a way to reject any argument you don't like.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:Rational by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      That's fair enough. If you don't have any valid arguments, you're free to not argue. I'd suggest that the person who is making reasoned arguments is in fact the one who's more likely to be flexible, and not the one who's simply made up their mind and is unopen to any other idea ;)

    31. Re:Rational by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In any case, my broader point still stands, politics is about preferences. Certainly there are societies that have chosen to eject their old people, rather than taking care of them. We would consider that barbaric and cruel, but it's very economical, and it's what they chose.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Rational by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Following your first 3 points, I still don't see anyone lobbying for the banning of smoking which to my knowledge has no positive health benefits and is replete with health detriments. Nor to the implementation of mandatory exercise programs for those that wish to be covered under socialized healthcare. Either of these proposals would satisfy your points 2 and 3 at the top.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  3. It sickens me by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2, Funny

    It sickens me that someone as blatantly anti-science as this broun asshat is even allowed to open his mouth in public, let alone have oversight on the subject. I don't care if that guy was just pandering to a bunch of hillbillies or if he really believes the shit that fell out of his ignorant mouth, it needs to stop.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
    1. Re:It sickens me by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 0

      It sickens ME that someone would call for suppressing the opinions of others simply because they don't agree with them. Rather than supply a cogent, reasoned response to those opinions, they result to name calling and demands of censorship.

      Oh, wait... I forgot how Democrats campaign nowadays, and, since they won, how the rights of others are now to be subservient to the "right" to not be offended by differing opinions...

    2. Re:It sickens me by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      There are lots of cogent reasoned responses to those opinions, they are called Biology textbooks, and Physics textbooks, along with other great scientific works like "On the Origin of Species".

    3. Re:It sickens me by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I don't believe you have a right to lie. Further, not once in that guy's post did he actually call for government censorship. So your statement is nothing but an attack looking for an excuse.

    4. Re:It sickens me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the exact words Broun is using. What he says is simply untrue. This is not a matter of opinion.

      If he believes what he says, he is crazy. If he does not, he is knowingly spreading hate towards scientists.

    5. Re:It sickens me by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "It sickens ME that someone would call for suppressing the opinions of others simply because they don't agree with them."

      It's its factual wrong, it's not an opinion, it's a lie.
      You can have your own opinion, but not you own facts.

      " Rather than supply a cogent, reasoned response to those opinions, they result to name calling and demands of censorship."
      We have volumes and volume of books and warehouses of evidences of the facts.

      "Oh, wait... I forgot how Democrats campaign nowadays, and, since they won, how the rights of others are now to be subservient to the "right" to not be offended by differing opinions..."
      Wanting people to use facts and not speak nonsense is called 'reasonable discourse' pushing lies, making up a 'controversy', is not an opinion, it is stupidity. Which would be fine if it wasn't from someone trying to make policy decisions.

      I don't give a shit about your political stance, but if you are spouting lies and ignorance I will call you out.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:It sickens me by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      No one is calling for this congressman to be censored - If anything, his retarded comments have intentionally broadcast so that more people can understand how stupid they are. His comments have already been addressed over and over, and it happened long before he even said anything. Any of the books from Dawkins should be enough to answer any questions he raises. All that's really left is some ridicule.

    7. Re:It sickens me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wait... I forgot how Democrats campaign nowadays, and, since they won, how the rights of others are now to be subservient to the "right" to not be offended by differing opinions...

      Waaah, waaah, waaah. The waaaaambulance is on its way.

      Clue time, fella': if you don't want to lose elections, stop acting like a goddamned retard. Remarkably few answers in life can be found between the covers of a book written 2,000 years ago by nomadic goatherders. Next Sunday, pick up a science book instead, and see how it goes.

    8. Re:It sickens me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this compare to the "right" of people who can afford to take a shit on 10 million dollars as if it were completely worthless to be given even more money by impoverished lower and middle class citizens?

    9. Re:It sickens me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are of course welcome to have your own opinion, that e.g. the moon is a piece of green cheese.

      You are not welcome to base your decisions regarding the money and wellbeing of your constituents on it, however.

    10. Re:It sickens me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe you have a right to lie.

      Free political speech cannot exist without the "right to lie", because any state organ with the power to determine truth and punish lies also has the power to determine "truth" and punish "lies", where "truth" = state-accepted position and "lies" = any inconvenient position. Unpleasant as it may be, we have to allow the creation and antivax crowds their say to protect antiwar, antiWOD, antiTSA, etc. speech.

      Further, not once in that guy's post did he actually call for government censorship.

      "It sickens me that someone ... is even allowed to open his mouth in public"
      Technically, no, he didn't call for government censorship. He just said its absence sickened him. Technically.

    11. Re:It sickens me by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, lots of answers in life can be found in that book. It depends on the questions you are asking.

    12. Re:It sickens me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't about "suppressing the opinions of others", it's about getting an (idiotic) elected official out of office and replaced with someone a little more sane, or at least selected for a committee other than one dedicated to science and technology when the guy obviously doesn't have a clue about science or technology. That expressed desire on the part of some portion of an electorate is called democracy.

      Democrats didn't win here. Broun kept his seat because (in part) he was unopposed. That's a big Democrat fail, there. It's not like Obama's win makes him dictator for life or something, or that he's going to be able to muzzle Broun's idiocy because of it. No, the political system doesn't work that way. Not in a free country.

      Broun can therefore safely spew his idiocy, and all that people can do is continue to be sickened by it and express their outrage. When people do express how much they are repulsed by Broun's attitude, it's only in the paranoid minds of the far right that it constitutes "suppression". It's not "suppression" or an expectation that other people must be "subservient to the 'right' to not be offended by differing opinions". It is free expression too. It's a complimentary thing. If you're truly believe in free speech, then you accept that Broun has as much right to express his stupidity as anyone else has a right to express how much they think he's a loony and shouldn't be in office. But democracy has spoken, so apparently enough people think he's okay. That's both sad, sickening, and acceptable at the same time. And like any democratic loss, such a failure should motivate people to do better next election.

      When people say something like "it needs to stop", they're talking about action at the ballot box, or communication with their own representatives (e.g., writing to the Chair of the science and technology committee and asking "At least get this nutbar reassigned"). It's all very democratic. That's what people are talking about, not "suppression". You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

    13. Re:It sickens me by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you would care to illuminate what a cogent argument against characterizing "evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell" would look like? In my experience, arguing with the willfully ignorant is less than productive.

      He didn't call for anyone being censored, but he is absolutely correct that that kind of idiocy has no place in the very serious business of running a nation. This has nothing to do with right versus left politics and everything to do with having people represent us who are at least semi-educated.

      Unless your preference really is for ignorant representation?

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    14. Re:It sickens me by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      And whether or not you want coherent answers.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    15. Re:It sickens me by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can suffer that problem no matter where you look for answers. It's also closely associated with your abilities.

    16. Re:It sickens me by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      The religious like to think of the bible as a source of hermetic wisdom, something you can learn the answers to life's questions from if you are only open to the spirit. This is an easy way of dividing people into groups of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" based on whether or not they agree with you, with no need to explain oneself.

      You can find nearly any answer you want in the bible, with a bit of knowledge and the ability to construct an interpretation. This makes it a terribly poor source of knowledge about anything more than the history of a particular religious group, and even that requires additional documents and research to provide context.

      I was an Evangelical Christian. Read the bible a few times. I'm pretty familiar with how this argument works.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    17. Re:It sickens me by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The religious like to think of the bible as a source of hermetic wisdom, something you can learn the answers to life's questions from if you are only open to the spirit. This is an easy way

      As I said, you can suffer the same problems elsewhere. The post I replied to was chastising someone for having a religious belief and the thread we are in was started by someone saying they were sickened that someone opens their mouth about certain things. Sounds to me like they found an easy way "of dividing people into groups of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" based on whether or not they agree with you, with no need to explain oneself."

      You can find nearly any answer you want in the bible, with a bit of knowledge and the ability to construct an interpretation. This makes it a terribly poor source of knowledge about anything more than the history of a particular religious group, and even that requires additional documents and research to provide context.

      I guess if you aren't paying attention. The bible talked about hygiene and passing on diseases long before Science had a competent understanding and practice of it. Look at Leviticus and ignore the animal sacrifices.

      Anyways, it is no different then any other source of knowledge. Studying science isn't going to answer the meaning of life or give guidance on how to deal with other people. Philosophical questions pondered in other sources are just as hit or miss. You need the ability to discover in your own right many of these things as if it doesn't make sense, you are likely not going to follow or practice it.

      I was an Evangelical Christian. Read the bible a few times. I'm pretty familiar with how this argument works.

      I've heard similar statements before. I've been consistently unimpressed by some of their knowledge and conclusion. But that is not important, the point is that it's really no different then anything else.

    18. Re:It sickens me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're too fucking stupid to merit all of these cogent responses to your ignorance.

  4. Darwin would not have been elected by iamagloworm · · Score: 1

    listen to his wishy washy talk. what do you think he'd say about drones and kill lists? "I am very poorly today & very stupid & hate everybody & everything. One lives only to make blunders. I am going to write a little Book for Murray on orchids & today I hate them worse than everything" Those poor orchids, feeling the wrath of Darwin.

    1. Re:Darwin would not have been elected by RDW · · Score: 1

      Those poor orchids, feeling the wrath of Darwin

      "We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds - the booby and the noddy. The former is a species of gannet, and the latter a tern. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geological hammer."

      - Charles Darwin, 'The Voyage of the Beagle'.

    2. Re:Darwin would not have been elected by geekoid · · Score: 1

      In the margin he wrote:
      "I don't like the gannet, they wet their nests!"~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. Ran unopposed?? by GauteL · · Score: 1

    Is this actually true? If so, isn't it utterly pathetic that nobody stood up to this guy by running against him?

    1. Re:Ran unopposed?? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, when he was speaking to some Methodist group (or some other religious entity) he made those comments. Why no one ran against him, probably because he represents his constituents well and someone else wouldn't be elected.

      BTW, the entire comments issue is blown out of portion. nothing he has done politically supports that ideology. It was pandering at its best but anyone who looks at his record doesn't believe he puts those views over science. It's more or less just a bunch of Atheists wanting attention and acting outraged because someone associated with science even in a cursory fashion had the gull to act like religion was more important then science.

    2. Re:Ran unopposed?? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Oh really?

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres45
      In 2008, Broun and 91 co-sponsors introduced H.J.Res.89, a proposition for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as "as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman."[

      Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".

      When Broun explained his reasons for voting against climate change legislation in June 2010, he called the entire concept of man-made global warming a conspiracy perpetuated by certain members of the scientific community

      supported by:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Forum

      " It's more or less just a bunch of Atheists "
      I know many believers who were also outraged by the statements.

      " and acting outraged"
      I can't speak for everyone, but I WAS outraged. Unlike you I don't presume to speak for an entire group.

      " because someone associated with science even in a cursory fashion"
      cursory? CURSORY? he is in a position to determine POLICY. that isn't not cursory. Some high school teacher making those comments at there own church is one thing, this is someone who tries to determine police for the whole country.

      " had the gull to act like religion was more important then science."
      no. he had the gall to say the thing he doesn't like were real even though there are warehouse full of evidence, even though they are facts, he acts like they aren't, and he is provably wrong.

      Pay Attention.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Ran unopposed?? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow, gay marriage and anti abortion is the best you have against him? lol.. Those are not even scientific issues, they are social issues. You are not trying to say Science says Gays should be or have to be married and that Abortion must be available as birth control are you?

      As for the global warming, it is a belief held by many who are not what you consider religious either. The conspiracy surrounding global warming is very well documented. The entire science has been corrupted including attempts to mitigate the damages like the Kyoto accords that had no real intentions of fixing global warming. In fact, of the 157 countries who signed on to it, only 37 has limits on their Co2 productions with 2 of them being set at levels they expected to reach more then 10 years down the road while the limited countries could skate around their restrictions by moving the production and the investments of infrastructure into another member country who doesn't have limits. The Jubilee 200 campaign who was among one of the several groups in the 1990's trying to get the world bank and first world countries to forgive the third world debt created by the 1970's oil embargo, announced after the Kyoto accord was negotiated that they had a means to achieve their goals though the Kyoto protocol. His statement on global warming has to do more with fact and perceived reality then religious dogma. Of course if you weren't indoctrinated against all things you don't agree with, you would have seen that too. This is why the US never signed onto Kyoto and why Clinton attempted to hide the debate around it. And yes, Hansen, Gore, Mann, all were supporters of the jubilee 2000 campaign.

      Broun proposed failed legislation that would have proclaimed 2010 "The Year Of The Bible".

      Other then your fear of religion, what has this got to do with science that he was involved with? You see, it's your paranoia not his actions.

      The rest of your comment is exactly the same. Paranoid opinions based around your fears and emotion, not facts or reality.

    4. Re:Ran unopposed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are one seriously stupid fucktard.

    5. Re:Ran unopposed?? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. because I'm not irrationally scared of religion or think it is some massive threat to science because someone thinks differently then I do? Go cower in fear before I thump you with the bible.

  6. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can there possibly be so many retarded people in Georgia that people like this actually get elected?

    1. Re:How? by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      I had the same exact question, so I read his Wikipedia article. If there weren't citations for everything in the article, I'd assume that some liberal had written it as a scathing parody of the Tea Party extremists in the Republican party. I'm still a little shell-shocked and experiencing some denial that people like this truly exist.

      It's time for the North to secede from the Union. The South can have their theocratic confederation. I don't care any more. They can keep everything: the oil, the farms, the National Guard, the military bases -- everything. I don't want to be in the same country as them any more.

    2. Re:How? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Alas, there are many forms of evil, and if you think you're safe if you separate yourself from religious screwballs, you're wrong. The northeast and the west coast have become increasingly accepting of violence, mobs, restrictions on liberty and property rights, and onerous taxation. That's a recipe for universal poverty and an invitation for a military invasion.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  7. He would take one look at Congress . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . and decide that humanity was not evolving, but devolving.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:He would take one look at Congress . . . by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      No such thing as "devolving." Any population-level adaptation over time in response to environmental pressures is evolution; given how succesful the H. sap. politicus subspecies has been in that adaptation (look at the re-election rate for incumbents) I'd say they're a nice example of evolution at work.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:He would take one look at Congress . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But was the Homo Politicus who evolved, or did the Homo Demos have a controlled evolution to allow both to cohesist?

    3. Re:He would take one look at Congress . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And more importantly, was it legitimate evolution? Because if it was, populations have a way of shutting that whole thing right down.

    4. Re:He would take one look at Congress . . . by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I think he would find it very familiar.

  8. There's column in the AJC about it as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/11/09/long-dead-charles-darwin-gets-4000-votes-in-race-against-paul-broun/

    Appologies if someone above has already posted it.

  9. Check your context by Empiric · · Score: 1

    It's a good 130 years too late to answer that question empirically...

    So -you- say!

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  10. No. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    At least not GA-10. For better or for worse, Paul Broun represents his district.

  11. depending on where his remains are ... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    He might be perfect

    1 he is old enough
    2 currently resides in the correct state

    okay so he is a bit deceased but ask anybody in Chicago Illinois that is not a problem. He at least can't be bought and won't try to pass any of the stupid laws we are getting nowadays.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  12. Scientists would make horrible politicians by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    A good scientist's main concern is always the truth.
    A politician, in a democracy, does care about the truth just is instead a mediator and a interpreter of the public's will.

    A good scientist is unlikely to be able to turn off his knowledge and intellect and serve the peoples will, and instead would want to enact laws and projects that actually worked and were based on facts and truth.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  13. No. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    That was Mary Shelley's department.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  14. Re:Darwin? by hyades1 · · Score: 0

    Kindly go fuck yourself. We prefer not to have this place infected with moronic trolls like you.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  15. Citing by Empiric · · Score: 1

    "...on evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell.'"

    By the way, it would be nice if the quote was an actual quote. Bear in mind that the Big Bang was initially proposed by a Catholic physicist/priest, and was roundly attacked as "anti-science" for sounding to much like Genesis, in contrast to the then-prevailing Steady State theory of the universe.

    It's not clear to me what would be objectionable about embryology per se from any theistic stance, and it's really only scientifically-untestable "-only- evolutionary processes occur" that poses a conflict for some views of theism. When I see a semi-quote like this one, I tend to think there's a bit of bias involved with the citation...

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    1. Re:Citing by dl107227 · · Score: 2

      "...on evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell.'"

      By the way, it would be nice if the quote was an actual quote. When I see a semi-quote like this one, I tend to think there's a bit of bias involved with the citation...

      That was pretty much a direct quote. Here is a video of him saying that and more.

    2. Re:Citing by Empiric · · Score: 1

      How about a fully-much direct quote? That's my personal preference for quotes, anyway.

      Though it's more a question of editorial integrity than convenience, and I have only marginal interest in what Rep. Paul Broun says, out of curiosity I watched it. Granted, including "all that stuff I was taught about" didn't add much in terms of clarity.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    3. Re:Citing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not clear to me what would be objectionable about embryology per se from any theistic stance

      I imagine he was thinking of Haeckel's rubbish, which everyone now knows is rubbish, but certain religious characters continue to fight gallantly against.

    4. Re:Citing by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  16. Re:Darwin? by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

    Is knowledge of Darwin and Evolution more important than NDAA authorization to kill Americans without trial?

    Rejecting evolution is willful ignorance of reality, and chosing to live in a world dictated by random beliefs rather than direct observation. Before you can even hope to have a nuanced discussion of the pros and cons of a particular law, and what course of action would best benefit the republic, it helps tremendously to have a grasp of reality and an understanding of the world we live in. How can you have an intelligent discussion on education with somebody who would be unable to pass a 5th grade biology class?

    if someone says something stupid, we get rid of them as an elected official
    Now thats a newsletter I'd subscribe to...

  17. Would Isaac Newton have made a good mechanic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would Julius Caeser have worked out in a boy band?

    Would Abraham Lincoln have been a good NASCAR driver?

    Would Queen Victoria have been a decent haberdasher?

    These, and the question posed by the article, are all equally important.

    1. Re:Would Isaac Newton have made a good mechanic? by 9jack9 · · Score: 1

      However, Charles Darwin got 4000 votes in the recent election, hence the post. The incumbent, who won, is Paul Broun:

      Here's an interesting excerpt from Wikipedia:

      In a leaked video of a speech given at Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman's Banquet on September 27, Broun is heard telling supporters that, “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.” Broun also believes that the world is less than 9000 years old and that it was created in six literal days. In response to this, and as Broun is also on the House Science Committee, libertarian radio talk show host Neil Boortz spear-headed a campaign to run the English naturalist and evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) against Broun, with the intention of drawing attention to these comments from the scientific community and having Broun removed from his post on the House Science Committee.

  18. Broun is a medical doctor??? by turp182 · · Score: 1

    Evolution is one of the basic, but higher level, tenants of science (biology, chemistry, and physics define the parameters upon which evolution executes).

    The study of viruses alone shows clear proof of evolution.

    Does the man understand the point of a full dose of antibiotics? Or does he just have the numbers memorized?

    A doctor without knowing evolution is true is a with doctor at best. Snake oil salesman at least.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:Broun is a medical doctor??? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Witch doctor...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    2. Re:Broun is a medical doctor??? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Yes, doctors just memorize the numbers. That's pretty much what medical school is.

      Science and medicine work differently. Science is interested in learning why things work. Medicine doesn't care why, just if it works or not. It is a set of heuristics and tools. Science improves medicine, but an understanding of science is not needed to practice medicine.

      Classic example: nobody knew how aspirin works until fairly recently. But doctors didn't need to know that. Take two and call me in the morning worked just fine. They memorized the numbers.

      What most people consider a good doctor is someone who is fantastic with the heuristics and tools. A good memory.

      And don't forget, people who say evolution isn't true are talking about evolving new species long ago. They almost never mean ongoing adaptation.

      I'm not saying the guy isn't an asshat. It's just good to know what species of asshat we are dealing with and how it evolved.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    3. Re:Broun is a medical doctor??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a whole lot of culture in medicine that isn't based in science, even today. Despite this, a good GP doesn't need to have a masters in molecular biology or physics to be able to analyze test results, recommend treatments, or refer you to a specialist. People think that doctors should be experts at everything, but they aren't; they just have to know their capacities to make correct decisions, which should ideally be made on evidence.

      You know what they call the guy who graduates last in his class from medical school?

      Doctor.

      Also, the field of biology as we know it today is about a century, or roughly three generations, old. If your grandfather was a doctor from more progressive school, he might have been taught that proteins were the foundation of life, that there were only two biologic domains that all living things fit into, and that women sometimes suffer from a mysterious malaise called hysterics whose only treatments were electroshock or a hysterectomy. If your mom was a doctor, she probably wasn't taught beyond the most basic concepts of immunology, still doesn't see anything wrong with mouth pipetting if you're careful, and doesn't understand exactly how transistors work. If they were properly educated, then they would have learned that they could never know everything, so the best they could do is make the best decisions they could with the tools and evidence they had without doing harm.

      Even today, the definion of life is not yet set in stone. A very good contender is that it is self-reproduction with variations, but even that feels too open ended to some. Broun has made claims without and contrary to modern evidence, much in the same way that some still uphold the idea of a communist threat, that global warming is a lie, or that Obama is going to take away our guns. He said it to let them know whose side he was on, and from the looks of it, it wasn't yours.

  19. Well, It's Quite a Junket... by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Aboard the Beagle, Darwin visited Tenerife, the Cape Verde Islands, the Brazilian coast, Argentina, Uruguay, Tierra del Fuego, Chile, the Galapagos Archipelago, Tahiti, New Zealand, Tasmania and the Keeling Islands... He'd miss a lot of committee meetings.

    --
    Gently reply
  20. Definition of a Good Politician by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    A good scientist is unlikely to be able to turn off his knowledge and intellect and serve the peoples will, and instead would want to enact laws and projects that actually worked and were based on facts and truth.

    I'd argue that this is the definition of a good politician: one who acts in the best interests of the people even if is not exactly what they say they want. While I would agree with your description of a typical politician as a demagogue with mediation skills that does not make the typical politician a good politician.

    1. Re:Definition of a Good Politician by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Except that is not the definition of a democratic politician.
      You are talking about different, more totalitarian, government types.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Definition of a Good Politician by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, he's talking about a representative democracy. You elect someone who represent your interests, not necessarily your opinions.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Definition of a Good Politician by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No, even in a representative democracy the idea is that your representative is supposed to exercise their powers for the wishes of the electorate.

      In real world situations you never have pure ideologies being practiced, so you will always find some amount of acting in the best interests of the people even if is not exactly what they say they want.

      But that idea is completely contrary to the democratic idea.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Definition of a Good Politician by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      No, even in a representative democracy the idea is that your representative is supposed to exercise their powers for the wishes of the electorate.

      If that were the case why doesn't everyone have a system like Switzerland where the population has to vote on most issues? In fact with modern technology we could probably come up with a system where the population get to decide just about everything.

      I would argue that the reason almost nobody has such a system is because, while it would exactly mirror what people want, it would not represent their best interests. Hence we have a system of choosing who will govern us and those people are supposed to act in our best interests but NOT give us exactly what we want. This is also why there are competing political parties: each has its own view about what our best interests are. If it was simply a case of doing what everyone wanted why would you need different ideologies?

    5. Re:Definition of a Good Politician by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well maybe everyone does not want a pure democracy. We absolutely could have most people vote on most issues, and that would be a pure democracy, but that does not mean that most people would vote for that or that that is a good idea.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  21. Boneheads by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

    So some congressman says some boneheaded thing. There's a big surprise. Now the correct respose is the boneheaded idea to elect Charlie Darwin to congress? Would Gengis Khan make a good hostess at the International House of Pancakes? Now that makes sense.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
    1. Re:Boneheads by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      So some congressman says some boneheaded thing. There's a big surprise. Now the correct respose is the boneheaded idea to elect Charlie Darwin to congress? Would Gengis Khan make a good hostess at the International House of Pancakes? Now that makes sense.

      Until you ask for the Puree of Mongol soup.

    2. Re:Boneheads by Genda · · Score: 2

      All that raping and pillaging! Who knew all he wanted was a decent strawberry syrup!!!

    3. Re:Boneheads by Genda · · Score: 2

      First person to laugh at Ghengis when he repeats your Rooti Tooti Fresh and Fruiti order finds out how hard it is to get a waffle iron out of the back of your throat!

  22. what say you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, you ask?

  23. When? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Darwin were elected to congress in 2012 he would see a nation devolving. Most of the public has no real problem with evolution but people who are devolving to a more primitive state would not like a politician who was so focused upon evolution. Nothing could be more proof of devolution than the right wing diatribe and lack of a center core like Mitt Romney.

    1. Re: When? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If Darwin were elected to congress in 2012 he would see a nation devolving. Most of the public has no real problem with evolution but people who are devolving to a more primitive state would not like a politician who was so focused upon evolution. Nothing could be more proof of devolution than the right wing diatribe and lack of a center core like Mitt Romney.
      Funny, but I always though evolution was survival of the fittest. It almost seems like that is the position of the Republicans. The Democrats tend to be more about making sure that everybody gets a chance to reproduce , no matter how fit. In fact, the more responsible, intelligent, and hardworking people are, the less likely they are to reproduce.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re: When? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny, but I always though evolution was survival of the fittest.

      And you are wrong. You know nothing about evolution.
      Go. Read a book.

  24. He's was not rich enough and spoke his mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, no.

  25. Is that what they call Darwinism? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    There is even precedent.

    It seems Americans will vote pretty much anyone into office. Really, I've heard worse ideas. Zombie Feynman 2016, anyone?

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  26. Hannibal Lecter would be ideal by Grayhand · · Score: 1

    He's strong and intelligent, a sociopath so he doesn't care about the agendas of the rich or corporate America. And if some one disagrees with him in Congress and blocks his bill he'll just invite them over for dinner ending the Congressional roadblock by eating his opponent.

    1. Re:Hannibal Lecter would be ideal by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Ha! You made me chuckle. Now imagine how interesting it would have been for Darwin to observe that. The lobbyists would be deep in the organ market, and favabeans would be up.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  27. Re:Darwin? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    " ObamaCare causing thousands of companies to fire and reduce hours for millions of employees?"
    false. as has been proven over and over again with actual numbers and math.

    " Or any number of other issues that actually affect every day Americans."
    like sickness, disease, cancer and a myriad of other medical issue? yeah, he should do something about that.

    "Or, if someone says something stupid, we get rid of them as an elected official?"
    if they are factually lies like this dickhead said? then yes.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. No by shadowrat · · Score: 1

    Thankfully, he wasn't a congressman and instead had time to galavant around the pacific looking at birds.

  29. Broun ran unopposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Broun ran unopposed!

    This says nothing good about the constituency of the 10th congressional district of Georgia. This includes the city of Athens, home of the University (sic) of Georgia, and the city of Augusta, as well as some reasonable sized suburban areas.

    I am shocked and dismayed that there were no alternative candidates from this district.

    Leebens-Mack should have run for office, instead of wasting his time with a senseless "protest" vote. We need scientists and engineers in congress.

    Posting as AC from the 6th congressional district of Georgia.

  30. Don't know by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

    Would Susan B. Anthony have been a good taxidermist?

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
  31. Why not? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    As a fellow Christian and college educated person, I think that Darwin would make an excellent leader. Maybe not a great politician, but we don't need great politicians, we need great leaders. Now science is not the most import plank for a governmental platform, but I think he would properly fund science and research, which has not happened since the heyday of 50s and 60s, when, by a bizarre and surely unrelated coincidence, the United States produced the greatest technological advances in history.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a fellow Christian...

      Gullible fool detected. Next message, please.

    2. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one thing, like Napoleon, Poe, Stravinsky and Einstein, Darwin married his first cousin. That seems a bit weird for today's social-political climate.

    3. Re:Why not? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Gullible fool detected.
      That's not a very nice thing to say about Charles Darwin. He was a brilliant naturalist and extremely well educated. You can't just dismiss all his theories simply because he believed in God.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  32. broun ran unopposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not because his constituants are stupid.
    but because they are lazy.
    pigs squeal before the slaughter. They were bred to be that way.
    much like.... oh, nevermind.

  33. I weep for the future by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Because that was the dumbest question I've heard all year.

  34. Bill Nye 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget Darwin (not that he would be the first dead person to run for elected office), and forget congress. This is the news for nerds site, so let's put Bill Nye in the White House in 2016.

  35. I woould dare say... by Genda · · Score: 1

    That Darwin's moldering corpse would make a better representative than Paul Broun.

  36. Recall ? by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 1

    Don't you guys have recall laws to deal with this sort of crazy ?

    --
    You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
  37. No. Too shy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too much introvert scientist and not enough extrovert narcissistic sociopath in that guy. He delayed publishing his work for decades just because he was worried about hurting the feelings of others.

  38. Re:Darwin? by sumdumass · · Score: 0

    So if someone doesn't believe exactly like you, they are not welcome? I mean we don't have to get into the entire evolution verses creation or the fact that evolution could be a product of creation, it seems you just think anyone who doesn't think like you is not worthy of all the rights everyone else hold. Do I have that right?

  39. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the title is a question, the answer is no ;-)

  40. Re:Darwin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure "fact" means exactly what you think it does..

  41. rationality is overrated by kenorland · · Score: 1

    Informed and educated opinions leading to decisions do not work with without rational politicians. A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.

    Voting is intrinsically an irrational act, because the costs greatly outweigh the benefits, so if people behaved rationally, voter participation would be much lower than it is, and people wouldn't follow politics as much as they do. And no matter what you do, the vast majority of citizens is never going to understand science; they have neither the time nor the motivation for it.

    Underlying your statements is the assumption that it is the job of government to do a lot of stuff for the people: to tell them what to think, to teach them, to keep them healthy, to make them wealthy, to promote equality, etc. Those all require decisions based on complex scientific and economic analyses. The problem with that is that nobody is capable of them. Once you drop that delusion and restrict government to its core functions, protecting liberty, justice, and common defense, rationality becomes much less important. A young earth creationist can fight in the military or adjudicate a murder just as well as some physics professor, probably better.

  42. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask yourself the question:

    Would you want a racist in congress?

    People seem to forget to easy the original title of one of his most important work that included the phrase 'favored races'. And that in the content of Darwin's work he clearly states the Irish race, is the worst of all.

    1. Re:Well by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      That probably would be used against him.

      However, remember that the entire rest of the world was full-bore racist at that point, even the ones who thought slavery should be illegal.

      Darwin's science helped humanity in it's long climb out of that ignorance.

      I have to laugh about people who point out problems with Darwin...or Lincoln or even Jefferson or the Founding Fathers for that matter. Back then, assuming you weren't a slave yourself, you'd be screaming epithets at the slaves, or maybe you'd be part of the small fraction who thought those inferior brown people should not be enslaved, if you were enlightened.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  43. Re:Darwin? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Fact means exactly what it means. You can use a dictionary if you are confused. Reading comprehension helps a bit though. Try understanding what was said and perhaps you might have a different understanding instead of appearing ignorant and unthinking.

  44. Why not yes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And note that title is a question to which you cannot answer no.

  45. Most likely not. by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

    Almost nobody does.

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  46. Of course not by Hentes · · Score: 1

    He was English, after all.

  47. Not mutually exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe in God.
    I also believe in Science.

    They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

    And I don't see anything wrong with science sorting out what makes sense in the bible and what doesn't. I'm sure a lot of you would say "none of it makes any sense", and a few years back, I would have too. But it doesn't make it true.

    There are certainly some things that could have been misinterpreted, either in recent translations, or in the time they were written. Thousands of years ago, we didn't know a whole lot. Still don't know a lot. I'd bet with all of humanity's combined knowledge, there's still far more about the universe we don't know than what we do know.

    I believe in God, but also not because I feel it is the only explanation for the universe. In fact, when people say things like that, I always felt that it was a rather poor explanation, and that it actually argues against the existence of God. I see only two ways (I may be very narrow minded in my thinking of course) that could go. One is sometimes complex things are created by simpler things. I do not believe too many folks would agree that God was very simple/primitive. The second option, God is extremely complex/all powerful/all knowing. Well, if it takes someone like that to make the universe, then what does it take to make the "universe" that God was in? It's just a lousy argument.

    Evolution does not disprove God. If God created the universe, then evolution should have been a simple scheme for Him to arrange as well. The whole six days to create the universe and rested on the seventh day? I propose that they weren't 24 hour days. They didn't exist until the Earth did anyway. I think that is more of a metaphor, or a simple way of explaining things to man.

    I can't really explain why I believe in God, I just do. I also believe in science, despite not knowing how everything works, having never seen an atom or its constituents, and so on.

  48. Dead Guy vs. Idiot by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Is this question really about whether Darwin in his prime would have been a good Congresscritter, or whether Darwin TODAY would be better than his opponent?

    I think that today, what with being dead, he'd probably do less damage than the guy he ran against, so on balance he'd be better, but back when he was alive he'd really rather have spent his time away from Washington, sailing around looking for interesting flora and fauna. Still better than leaving That Idiot in charge.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  49. Your "test" was FLAWED (& massively bogus)... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your test here and HOW/WHY it is bullshit -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3239985&cid=41923329

    1.) He used a LARGER custom hosts file set of "favorites" - mine has 20 @ the TOP of my custom hosts file (important) - NOT 34 (almost double)...

    a.) That is THE only thing I care that gets speed out of MY custom hosts file - the rest are BLOCKED & I could care less HOW FAST they are gotten to - I never intended to get to them since they're blocked out, in the 1st place!

    b.) I place my favorites @ the TOP OF MY HOSTS FILE, which even beats DNS server indexing up to around 2++ million records or so...

    ---

    1.) He used a LOCAL DNS SERVER most folks don't have these setup, as they waste CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O PLUS electricity as a result of those things, and more complexity (as I know there is NO WAY a REMOTE DNS SERVER returns results in only 3ms... no way, as they typically return results for host-domain name resolution to IP addresses in 30-100's of ms...) - NOR DID HE FLUSH THE LOCAL DNS CACHE!

    ---

    3.) He queried a local browser cache AND had the local DNS cache active, non-flushed first!

    a.) NEITHER AdBlock nor FF are able to obtain hosts-domain names resolutions, by themselves as he said, to IP addresses BEFORE the IP stack gets it for it, FIRST - that comes WAY before that...

    b.) The IP stack is written in C & Assembly with over 40++ yrs. of optimization put into it, running in ring 0/rpl 0/kernelmode

    c.) That is FAR faster than usermode browsers OR THEIR ADDONS are which slow up more with addons (firefox proves that much easily, load it up with addons & see)

    d.) HOSTS act merely as a FILTER for the IP stack, & hosts are the FIRST THING YOUR SYSTEM QUERIES (then dns clientside caches, then remote DNS)) for host-domain name resolution to IP addresses...

    ---

    4.) Nor did tenebrousedge account for time taken by AdBlock itself, parsing for WHAT to block out - this is NOT some "absolutely free operation", nothing is... 0ms? Impossible, unless it occurred in nanoseconds!

    ---

    * YES - I've even WRITTEN tenebrousedge on it, as well as Mr. Steven Burn of hpHosts/malwarebytes (for a 2nd opinion)...

    Guess what?

    Mr. Burn agrees MY points are SOLID as a rock, & to "pound tenebrousedge into the dirt", lol!

    (Not out to do that last part, just out to set the record straight... )

    "In most systems, most of the time, hosts will not have a positive effect on how fast your favorite websites load." - by Tenebrousedge (1226584) on Friday November 09, @11:16AM (#41932659)

    WTF? TO THAT?? I put up testimonials -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3239985&cid=41936149

    ( Not only from myself, but 7 others on /. on SPEED GAINS ALONE from custom hosts files as well as the same findings from a SECURITY EXPERT @ SYMANTEC! )

    (Someone's going to be made out a liar here, and I rather STRONGLY SUSPECT, it's NOT going to be myself, the /.'ers whose testimonials I used, OR Mr. Oliver Day from SecurityFocus.com/Symantec... but, we'll see!)

    Someone modded this down last time I posted it - why not disprove what I wrote instead of a "hit & run downmod" IF the downmod is so valid? It apparently isn't, & they're trying to "hide" this post...

    APK

    P.S.=> BOTTOM-LINE/IN CLOSING: AdBlock is owned by ADVERTISERS (you're letting your henhouse be guarded by foxes, and IT DOESN'T BLOCK ALL ADS ANYMORE by default either - this is a shame actually, as I ACTUALLY USED TO RECOMMEND IT TO USERS IN MY SECURIT