There’s nothing wrong with like minded people forming coalitions and working together to achieve similar goals. That’s what everybody does. But when you look at who is doing what to and with whom, it is revealing. Unsurprisingly, probably presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has ties to “Kill the Gay’s” preacher Bradley Dean, the Anti-Vax movement, and a right wing anti-child pro-creationist anti-science group originally known as the Maple River Education Coalition, now known as Education Liberty Watch.

The ties are political, ideological, and financial. Oh, and they lie.

This is covered by MinnPost in an article by Beth Hawkins. Here. Hat Tip Monica.

Comments

  1. #1 --bill
    June 9, 2011

    When I read this post, there was a Michele Bachmann ad displayed just to the right.

  2. #2 Anthony
    June 9, 2011

    anti-child pro-creationist anti-science

    Can we say rhetorical excess? And “anti-child” is too reductive. Science education is just one aspect of child-rearing, and certainly not the most important.

  3. #3 Greg Laden
    June 9, 2011

    Anthony, that was not excessive. There is much more here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/people/michelle_bachmann/

    And even that is not excessive.

    Any particular reason you’d like to share for defending her? Are you perhaps one of her 28 children? A campaign worker? A fellow teabagger?

    Oh, never mind. But if you’d like to add something substantive other than “you should not talk about things that I’d prefer no one else here” that would be great!

  4. #4 Anthony
    June 9, 2011

    Wow Greg, you certainly inferred a lot about me and my motivations from my brief comment on three words of your post. Now rationally speaking my personal beliefs should have no bearing on the validity of my comments, but just for the record:

    I am not a Christian, and creationism makes me sick.
    I am not a Republican, and Bachman and the tea party make me sick. (Lately I would describe myself as left-of-center economically, and I’m quite liberal on social issues.)

    And where exactly did I defend Bachman? I was just commenting on this phrase,

    anti-child pro-creationist anti-science,

    which was about the Maple River Education Coalition, not Bachman per se. (Right?)

    Whatever. I’ve been following your blog for a month or two (found it through John Wilkins’s), but not really reading the comments. Think I’ll go back to being a lurker if you’re such a jackass to first-time commenters.

  5. #5 MacTurk
    June 9, 2011

    Oh dear shit, so Bachmann is with the “Back to Medieval Times” movement then? Why am I not surprised?

    Why do alpha females on the right always push the Kirk, Kids and Kitchen Agenda for all other women?

    Silly me, these rules are NOT going to apply to them, now are they?

  6. #6 Anthony
    June 9, 2011

    Oh, and if you had cared to engage in a real discussion, I would have pointed out that I thought anti-child pro-creationist anti-science was rhetorically excessive, i.e. redundant, because to be pro-creationist is already to be anti-science. Duh.

  7. #7 Anthony
    June 9, 2011

    Seems my second comment never appeared. My browser did seem to have trouble with the comment submission form. Well, I’m not going to rewrite it. In summary: I hate creationism and Republicans, and Greg Laden is a ______ for his knee jerk response to me.

  8. #8 Stephanie Z
    June 9, 2011

    Ooh, fill in the blank. Let’s see. “person keenly aware of the difference between sneering and conversation”? “busy individual unwilling to spend precious time on a brat”? “bored blogger keeping himself entertained to balance out the exchange of information for abuse”? Oh, the possibilities are endless.

  9. #9 Anthony
    June 9, 2011

    Ooh, Stephanie, cute. Enjoying the rush?

    You’re right, though: why bother to read what your interlocutor is saying when you can ridicule them, even if the ridicule is hilariously off-target? That’s beyond pathetic — it’s almost pathological.

  10. #10 Stephanie Z
    June 9, 2011

    Anthony, pathetic is whining because someone else (or a lot of someone elses) is better at handing out what you tried to dish up. Whether it’s pathological or you’re just having a really bad day, I wouldn’t presume to say.

    What I will point out is that the next time you want to have a “conversation,” you might want to avoid “Can we say…?” given that it’s a formulation aimed at children learning vocabulary. If you decide to do it anyway, don’t be surprised when someone else decides you’re in kindergarten yourself.

  11. #11 Greg Laden
    June 9, 2011

    Anthony, sorry if I misread your comment (it seems I did). I’ll go look to see if you’ve got something stuck in moderation.

    But I don’t agree that anti-child, pro-creationist, anti-science are redundant. They overlap, but there are ways in which Bachmann excels at each uniquely and in a non-overlapping way.

    She is against all social welfare programs. That’s anti-child.

    She is a creationist. That’s pr-creationist independently of anti-child.

    She’s anti-global warming. That’s anti-science independently of being creationist.

    I chose those words on purpose. In each case I had in mind specific events/statements/policies/etc. See the link to the 120 posts or so for more info!

  12. #12 Greg Laden
    June 9, 2011

    which was about the Maple River Education Coalition, not Bachman per se. (Right?)

    Ah, good point. I said that poorly. I was thinking more of the unholy coalition of all of them, with the underlying theme that they are all in it together and share the same political and social philosophy.

  13. #13 Val
    June 9, 2011

    I too Anthony as defending Bachman and the anti-education coalition. I am not convinced he was not. This is an old trick: Jab followed by duck and cover. Makes the opposition look bad.

  14. #14 Anthony
    June 9, 2011

    Wow. I’m just not used to this level of rudeness or nonsense. (I’m always puzzled when such things happen on a “science” blog, but I mostly read philosophy blogs where there’s a bit more restraint.) Seriously. Bye.

  15. #15 Sarah
    June 9, 2011

    Every time I see that darn Michele Bachmann ad on your blog I click on it. Let the bitch pay.

  16. #16 Anthony
    June 9, 2011

    Greg,

    Well, with Stephanie’s gentle urging, I will grant that my comment was obscure and perfunctory. I can see that it was reasonable for you to make the inference that I was defending Bachman. This happens sometimes when I jump into a political conversation talking about logic or rhetoric divorced from the issues, which, I admit, is bad form. I apologize for that, and really I should know better by now.

    You’re right that “pro-creationist anti-scientist” is not, technically, redundant. And that’s the only reason I commented! Oh well. Thanks for clarifying. I still think anti-child is over-the-top, but I know why you say it.

    Reading some of that would give me apologetic ammunition against Bachman fans, but everyone in the state where I live is quite liberal. :) I did not know that she is against all social programs, however. Of course as a politician you could expect her to change her tune once she had actual political power.

    Val,

    Seriously? I was waiting for someone to say that. I flirted with libertarianism when I was younger, but that’s it. I’m currently reading some leftwing literature, but I don’t consider myself radical left (yet?).