…and this is a 
Yes, Texas could. After ditching creationist dentist Don McLeroy as head of the state board of education, Governor Rick Perry is now considering Cynthia Dunbar for the job. Dunbar is the author of a book called One Nation Under God, and despises public education…just the person to put in charge of public education, right?
In a book published last year, Dunbar argued the country's founding fathers created "an emphatically Christian government" and that government should be guided by a "biblical litmus test." She endorses a belief system that requires "any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern."
Also in the book, she calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion."
The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even "tyrannical," she wrote, because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children.
The discussion in that article is bizarre. Crazy Dunbar is regarded as a likely choice because her selection would make far-right conservatives happy; they don't even want a moderate Republican to be considered for the job. And Dunbar claims that she is just the person to bring together the various factions on the current board!
Politics
Comments
Posted by: MadScientist | July 6, 2009 9:19 AM
Ah, Dumbar ... and Dumbar ... and Dumbar. Dar's no limit to how much dumbar one can git - stupidity knows no bounds.
How the hell do such morons even get onto a board of education?
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 6, 2009 9:20 AM
Do Texan Republicans really, conceivably utterly despise educating children that much, or are they totally blinded by their fanatical party loyalty?
Posted by: varlo | July 6, 2009 9:20 AM
Is it permissible to throw up online?
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD | July 6, 2009 9:22 AM
How can you argue that the "founding fathers" (as if that phrase should carry any weight) created "an emphatically Christian government" when the constitution emphatically says otherwise?
I can't figure out whether Dunbar wants a theocracy or an idiocracy?
Posted by: John Bode | July 6, 2009 9:27 AM
Yes and yes.
Posted by: Debbie | July 6, 2009 9:30 AM
Where are they finding these people!? I swear, you get rid of one maroon and another, even worse one pops up to take their place! They're like roaches!
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 6, 2009 9:33 AM
Couple nights ago, I had an annoying dream where I'd continuously vomit. I'm having a flashback, so I'm with varlo.
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
July 6, 2009 9:40 AM
OT-
Robert McNamara Dead
Karma is doing it's best to balance out for Farah.
Enjoy.
Posted by: DRK | July 6, 2009 9:42 AM
Depressingly, the year Cynthia Dunbar ran for the school board, heavily funded by James Leiniger, a school voucher fanatic, she ran opposed only by a Libertarian. His views on schooling, or on anything, were impossible to find online. I voted for him nonetheless because Dunbar scared me to death.
I believe the Democrats do plan to challenge her next election, but by them, what harm will she have done?
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 6, 2009 9:44 AM
Have these idiots ever read our constitution? They are like roaches. You can even boot stomp them and they get back up get their friends to swarm.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | July 6, 2009 9:44 AM
Worse... it's like getting rid of a roach, but gaining a rat with plague-spreading fleas and ticks. And for some reason termites that eat away solely at buildings of education...
One step forward, two steps back... Can we all agree to go ahead and let Texas leave the United States? (Personally I would just enjoy watching the theocracy crumble...)
Posted by: chris | July 6, 2009 9:46 AM
I may be moving with my family to Houston for a job soon. I dearly hope that there is at least one decent school system down there that these shit for brains haven't destroyed.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 6, 2009 9:47 AM
"Unconstitutional."
She uses that word, but...it does not mean what she thinks it means.
But anyway, this is the GOP we're talking about; the politicians who say government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. That Perry's looking at a school-hating wackaloon to be in charge of the state's board of education shouldn't be a surprise.
Posted by: James F | July 6, 2009 9:49 AM
Some quick notes. Bob Craig, one of the pro-science Republicans, is also apparently under consideration. Both McLeroy and Dunbar are being challenged in the upcoming SBOE elections, and McLeroy's GOP primary challenger, Thomas Ratliff (son of former Texas Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff) has weighed in over at The Sensuous Curmudgeon.
Posted by: Alverant | July 6, 2009 9:54 AM
No Dunbar, what's unconstitutional is having a biblical litmus test for people who want to govern. The 6th article of the Constitution clearly forbids any kind of religious test for public office. Even if you're just talking about state positions, the federal laws overwrite the state laws.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 6, 2009 9:56 AM
Also, there's a professor of mathematics at UT Austin who announced his candidacy against Dunbar recently.
Story here from 23 June.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 6, 2009 9:59 AM
My brain just died a little...
I just don't understand how one person can be so publicly be committed to blatantly false beliefs... at some point you would think someone would have handed her a copy of the United States Constitution.
Posted by: Becky | July 6, 2009 10:01 AM
Ms. Dunbar needs to look up the treaty of tripoli, this shows the distrust of the founding fathers for religion’s influence in government (separation of church & state). This shows her belief that the country's founding fathers created "an emphatically Christian government”, is just incorrect.
Then again she publicly admits to having an imaginary friend, so she’ll believe just about anything.
Texas gave us W, so their stupidity knows no bounds.
Posted by: drew | July 6, 2009 10:01 AM
I'm confused, doesn't the state legislature still have to confirm the nominee? If that's the case, and they rejected McLeroy for turning Texas' education system into a laughing stock, why would the governor think that they would confirm someone who is overtly contemptuous of the very concept of the public school system?
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 6, 2009 10:05 AM
See, I was so upset I couldn't even write a grammatical sentence...
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 10:07 AM
It doesn't surprise me. They don't read their bibles either.
I keep saying they're building that fence on the wrong border of Texas (sorry rational Texas people, but your state is infested with morons).
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
July 6, 2009 10:20 AM
Well, in reality there is a de facto litmus test of faith even if it is illegal to impose one de jure. Just try to get elected without being a bible-thumpin', god-fearin', science-hatin' moron in this country. Guess it's called representative democracy for a reason.
Posted by: Lynna | July 6, 2009 10:26 AM
Re several comments above, people like Dunbar are less like roaches and more like ticks. Ticks can be flattened, even stomped on with a boot, and still survive. If you want to kill a tick, you need to cut it in half with your pocket knife or burn it (not that I am suggesting such techniques for humans of course).
Point being, even if you flatten one in an election or a debate, you haven't really harmed the tick-like fundie. You need to seriously scorch them by ridiculing their foundational ideas; or you need to cut them off from their funding.
Ticks are sneaky too, they're embedded before you even know they are there.
I think money is the key. Strip the fundie funding.
Posted by: raven | July 6, 2009 10:30 AM
Cynthia Dunbar has also stated that teaching evolution leads to cannibalism.
She quotes Jeffrey Dahmer as a moral authority.
Of course there is only one case and Dahmer was raised in a fundie Death Cult household. But fundies never let truth, common sense, or reality get in the way of their lies.
Texas is a good example of what happens when the inmates run the asylum.
I predicted that Perry would try to appoint Dunbar as the Head of the Texas school board. The Texas Taliban must get up every day and say, "what sort of extremely crazy , dumb, and destructive things can we do today".
Posted by: Deepsix | July 6, 2009 10:30 AM
Dumb and Dumbar.
Posted by: raven | July 6, 2009 10:38 AM
There is never just one cockroach. In Texas, they don't get rid of them. They invite them in for drinks, target shooting, and bible readings.
Posted by: matt | July 6, 2009 10:40 AM
could Texas possibly consider an even greater wackaloon to replace him?
yes, defintely,
if you cant make it anywhere, move to texas!
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 6, 2009 10:40 AM
Governor Rick Perry is clearly incapable of doing his job properly if he is even considering this dumb bitch.
-from the article(another pick) would not sit well with hard-core conservatives-
This is about child education not a fcking popularity contest.
Posted by: TK Kun | July 6, 2009 10:45 AM
That wouldn't help. In my experience I've found that most of these people think that just because the exact words "separation of church and state" aren't in the Constitution, that somehow means we're supposed to have religion in government.
"Where does it say 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution? Oh that's right IT DOESN'T!!" I swear I am going to go postal if I ever hear that again.
Posted by: Charles | July 6, 2009 10:47 AM
A home-schooler running the board. Umm... Conflict of interest? First Amendment? Sounds as politically well-advised as Sarah Palin quitting. I'm still trying to wrap my head around both of these bits.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | July 6, 2009 10:48 AM
@ #4
Is there a significant difference?
Posted by: raven | July 6, 2009 10:54 AM
These Death Cultists aren't hiding anything.
1. They hate public education and would destroy it because it prevents them from brainwashing the kids with their lies and fairy tales.
2. They openly hate the US and seek to destroy it because it is a democracy and prevents them from setting up a theocratic dictatorship and heading on back to the Dark Ages.
And the problem isn't Chief Roach Perry and his little Roachettes. Somebody elects them. Toynbee pointed out that all civilizations fall eventually and they rot from within. Someday it will be ours. No doubt who will be holding the knife. A bunch of Roaches waving bibles and screaming Goddidit.
You will know when they start burning witches again. Modern day witches are a diverse lot but scientists are a prominent component. "Have you ever been or are you now an astronomer, geologist, paleontologist, or biologist"? Torch please!!!
Posted by: Chris | July 6, 2009 10:54 AM
@ #4
"I can't figure out whether Dunbar wants a theocracy or an idiocracy?"
I wasn't aware there was a distinction between the two...:)
Texas of late is giving me mini-strokes. Gah! When will it end?
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | July 6, 2009 10:57 AM
For an enlightening and scary take on this subject, read Frederick Clarkson’s 4 part article: Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence, at publiceye.org.
From that article:
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 11:01 AM
"Theocracy" is a subset of "idiocracy".
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 6, 2009 11:04 AM
Finished writing up my first blog entry for my birthday.
Here's to hoping watching some Miyazaki movies with my parents puts me in a better mood. I'm so glad to be an intelligent social animal instead of one of the mindless reproducing insect robots the fundies want us to be.
Posted by: norm! | July 6, 2009 11:07 AM
We of SBOE district 10 have another alternative to Cynthia Dahmer: Judy Jennings.
http://votejudyjennings.com/
Anyone is better than the incumbent, but I have met Dr. Jennings and can vouch for her support for science.
Posted by: gma | July 6, 2009 11:07 AM
#4: "I can't figure out whether Dunbar wants a theocracy or an idiocracy?"
the answer is clearly "both"
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 6, 2009 11:14 AM
Where will the next McLeroy come from, if they don't put people like Dunbar in to decide "education" in Texas?
I mean seriously, we need Texas for comic relief, folks.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 6, 2009 11:17 AM
"Houston, we have a problem."
Posted by: speedwell | July 6, 2009 11:19 AM
Chris @ #12: I may be moving with my family to Houston for a job soon. I dearly hope that there is at least one decent school system down there that these shit for brains haven't destroyed.
Is there? No. Next question?
Seriously, do not fall for the lies you'll be told about what the "good" school systems are. Katy, New Caney, and Cypress schools are just as bad as, if not worse than, the ones in the city. They don't respect children or parents, let alone science, math, and literacy. Some of the private schools and a few of the schools in the really expensive areas are reportedly mediocre to OK.
Posted by: Dr. P | July 6, 2009 11:21 AM
WTF?! So Thomas Jefferson's last years spent founding our first public university (U of Virginia? I don't remember) and all of that correspondence with James Madison regarding the same is a communist plot? Idiot.Or should only people with means have an education?
Posted by: Mr Fire | July 6, 2009 11:21 AM
I think Spirited Away is one the best movies ever.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 6, 2009 11:22 AM
Yes, Yes they could and probably will. I just returned from a family trip down to Richardson to visit my wife's relatives. They proved themselves to be representative of the population at whole. Having lived in Texas 3 different times in various cities from the Panhandle to Houston to North Texas it is obvious to me that with the exception of Austin the State of Texas is insane. I got so pissed off at a couple of my employees and was very tempted to fire them for continously calling blacks "blue gums" and "Nappy Headed". I would have failed in my attempt because my boss was right with them. Most of them are close-minded, chavaniustic, bigotted creotards. The proof is in the pudding for Texas folks. Its tastes bitter. That's why I left as soon as I could.
Posted by: speedwell | July 6, 2009 11:37 AM
Richard Eis @ #28: Governor Rick Perry is clearly incapable of doing his job properly if he is even considering this dumb bitch.
I was at the San Antonio "Tea Party" this weekend, dragged along by my brother and his wife. Now, practically everyone here knows I identify as a libert... oh, you know... but the Tea Party rallies are not, uh, my cup of tea. I let my brother and his wife drag me along so I could point out to them what crazy fucks they were involving themselves with.
Our Gubnor spoke at the rally, along with the lawyers currently representing the moron better known as Roe, Joe the Plumber, some "hero" so dignified for having his squad killed off around him, and a couple preachers. No, I take that back, they were ALL preachers, including our Dear Leader.
My brother, the son of an immigrant, and my sister-in-law, herself a Mexican immigrant, sat with folded arms and frowns as Gubnor Perry made snide remarks about "Our Southern Border." I think the wall is starting to crack.
Posted by: MrFire | July 6, 2009 11:57 AM
Cynthia Dunbar's own website is a war on spelling and grammar: check out the SBOE tag. I found typos and Palin-esque phrase-manglings in her education 'mission statement'.
What fucking, fucking dumbass.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | July 6, 2009 12:08 PM
There's a difference?
Posted by: MrFire | July 6, 2009 12:10 PM
What a fucking, fucking dumbass.
I'm going to go lunch now and and order a nice big plate of hypocrisy :(
Posted by: Dan | July 6, 2009 12:24 PM
I'm pretty sure most western countries would put anyone so completely delussional and paranoid (Obama in league with Terrorists and preparing to invoke martial law) on medication, or under care.
Only in the USA do they get elected to public office.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 6, 2009 12:26 PM
As I said earlier today on Dispatches, it is getting harder and harder to tell conservative Republicans from wingnuts.
Obviously Dunbar has never heard of the Land Ordinance of 1785 or the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The two are considered the most important pre-constitutional laws passed by Congress. They established how new states would be added and required public education to be established in every new territory applying for statehood. When adopting the constitution the convention and the ratifying states never revoked those ordinances and, in fact, structured new territorial acts based on the precedent established by these acts.
The woman is a wack-a-loon. Went to a wack-a-loon "law school" where they want to make the US a theocracy, one method? Destroy public education. That the moron Perry or the idiot voters of her Board of Ed district would select her tells me a lot about the stupidity of Texas. That a conservative isn't conservative enough for these people...? Unbelievable... Should be a sequel to What's the Matter with Kansas, obvious topic, Texas...
Posted by: SimonG | July 6, 2009 12:28 PM
I can sort of understand a Republican governor picking someone the religious freaks will appreciate, secure in the knowledge that they'll never be accepted. He can then turn round to his supporters and say that he tried. But surely once is enough.
More generally, don't the people who put these nuts into positions of power realise that they're almost inevitably going to cause trouble when they start blatently disregarding your constitution? That can lead to espensive legal trouble. It strikes me as very poor management.
Posted by: Dianne | July 6, 2009 12:42 PM
"any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern."
This could be...useful...if followed through. If, as I assume, she means that any person desiring to govern should know what is written in the Bible, then most fundies would be disqualified: few seem to have actually read the Bible and I'm sure PZ appreciates it more than they do (as literature and toilet paper, I mean, not as a guide to behavior). Dunbar is probably disqualified by her own "litmus test".
Posted by: thinkoplex
|
July 6, 2009 12:43 PM
dogmeatIB wrote:
I just finished reading David Neiwert's The Eliminationists. He makes a strong case that right-wing talk radio has served as a transmission vector for extremist memes to enter the conservative movement and Republican Party as a whole, and that this has been responsible for the continual transformation of the party over the past couple of decades. Though I could never have endorsed it, traditional conservatism was nothing like the paranoid, theocratic movement conservatism of the present, which is not only detached from reality, but punishes people for not being utterly ignorant - cf. "elitists".
There is a large bloc of conservatives - extremists Christians and their enablers - who truly want the most ignorant person possible to head the SBOE, because they make a distinction between education and education. One is elitist, secular, and godless, based on evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and the like. The other is preferred, but is little different from sheer ignorance.
Ah, this pisses me off! I could go on and on, but I have other blogs to catch up on (I'm not even done with Pharyngula yet), so I've leave it at that for now.
Posted by: Dianne | July 6, 2009 12:48 PM
Texas gave us W, so their stupidity knows no bounds.
Ok, Texas can take the blame for lots of things, but let's not forget that the Bushies are from New England and only moved to Texas because they're too cheap to pay income tax. Dubya's accent is totally Hollywood fake. Real Texans, as in people who grew up in Texas, do NOT talk like that.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 6, 2009 12:57 PM
@SimonG #51
That it costs money is not a problem, it's the State's money that gets wasted, not theirs. Taking on the despised constitution is also evidence of being hard in wingnut circles and plays well to their base. From their p.o.v. it is a good strategy. Especially since these cases can be dragged out for a long time meaning they can do lots of damage in the meantime. You have to think yourself into their mindsets to understand it, though I don't recommend doing it for very long or habitually. I used to be a YEC in my yoof* so I know how their minds work.
*It's alright, I got me a science education and so am immunised. Gives me a headache though, probably due to all that unused grey matter.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 6, 2009 12:58 PM
... Dunbar claims that she is just the person to bring together the various factions on the current board!
Why not? A certain other Texan by the end of last year succeeded in bringing together Americans of all stripes in shared loathing.
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 1:03 PM
Believe me, I'm not proud she's a Texan. But let's try not to bash Texas, as a whole, for one or a couple people's actions. Not all Texans are fundamental Republican Christians. There are a decent amount of us here, whether atheist, humanist, agnostic, or the like, who are trying to get the word out that it's okay to be a nontheist in Texas. Or that it's okay to be a liberal in Texas. I think the way we present/comment on these stories makes NON-fundamental Republican Christians in Texas less likely to speak up against it because "everyone in Texas must be like that, so I'll keep my mouth shut." Well, we're not all like that. Please don't judge the entire state of Texas on the actions of a few. *steps off soapbox*
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 1:21 PM
@Janet Marcum #57
(For the record, I did qualify my comments to "not all Texans")
First, I don't think anyone is saying all Texans are fundamental Republican Christians, morons, dumbasses, etc.
Second, when the foundation is cracking, the roof leaks, the plumbing is plugged, and the electric is a fire waiting to happen, you can forgive us for forgetting to mention the wallpaper in the bathroom is nice when we say the house should be condemned.
Third, some friendly advice: if you have issues with some people's comments, take it up with them specifically. Otherwise it sounds like yet another "hey you group of people, stop grouping people!" complaint.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 6, 2009 1:28 PM
There are a decent amount of us here, whether atheist, humanist, agnostic, or the like, who are trying to get the word out that it's okay to be a nontheist in Texas.
Ahhh, the rare Angosticus Texanius, I saw a herd of them once while traveling through Houston.
Or that it's okay to be a liberal in Texas.
I had heard that Liberalus Texaniu was extinct in the wild, that they had a breeding program going on in a couple of zoos, but that it wasn't going well, both specimens were working on their doctorates and were holding off having children until their careers were established.
;o)
Posted by: Drosera
|
July 6, 2009 1:42 PM
This is like proposing a butcher to head a vegans' organization. Morons like Dunbar hate education because they perceive it as a threat to their brand of superstition. And they are right.
In Europe, Christians managed to establish and maintain a theocracy for a long time — we call it the Dark Ages. They should never be allowed a second chance.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 6, 2009 1:45 PM
THe last time I checked New England didn't make him governor of Texas. ANd most if not all of New England didn't vote for him to be president. Texas has lots of problems, and many of them stem from the attitudes of those who live there.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 6, 2009 1:56 PM
Something to keep in mind during this Texas SBOE issue is that Perry is thinking about the future: specifically, his job. It's not all that clear that Perry will still hold office after the next gubernatorial election (though I confess my ignorance as to who the biggest challenger will be; I've heard Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's name thrown around). Perry's move (at least in part) appeals to the creationist Christian reactionaries, which, as other posters have already noted, are a not-insignificant group in the state population (they're certainly very vocal). However much Perry may himself be a creationist reactionary (and I don't know how much he truly is), he's certainly been paying lip service to reactionary elements of late (q.v. his boneheaded and vague "secession" intimation a few months ago vis-a-vis the economic bailouts), and I'm guessing it's motivated in no small part by a desire to shore up a voting base.
But more astute political minds than mine can no doubt comment more, uh . . . astutely.
I really went overboard on the parenthetical comments on this one. Hmmmm.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Mark | July 6, 2009 1:58 PM
What is it about Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution that Republicans and Christians hate so much: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Why must they constantly test the Constitution and our patience with their patently anti-intellectual nonsense.
Why do Texans allow intellectual vandals to hold public office.
Indeed, why do Christians cherry pick their very own Bible.
Well, I have the answer. They are morons.
Posted by: Kobra | July 6, 2009 2:00 PM
Any Texas atheists want to publicly announce their willingness to serve in this position and try to rally support for them to try to pressure the governor into appointing them for the position? Because he isn't going to figure it out if you don't.
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 2:08 PM
@Desert Son #62
You make it sound like manipulating religion for power is a new concept. It's all it was ever for.
Posted by: mgmoody42 | July 6, 2009 2:13 PM
One bad apple...
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 6, 2009 2:15 PM
tsg,
Then I apologize for not writing more clearly, as I certainly don't imagine it to be a new concept in the least.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 2:20 PM
@Desert Son #67
It was more an observation than a criticism. I wasn't trying to say that you meant to make it sound like that.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 6, 2009 2:33 PM
tsg,
Which is how I took it! :) As usual, I'm lousy at conveying on the Intartubes the tone with which I'm composing something as I type. Looking back over my post (and I even previewed!) I think your observation is accurate: it sounds like I just stumbled on the idea! Machiavelli would've had a field day with me (or rolled his eyes at my naivete, perhaps ;) ).
I meant my apology in sincerity; as I mentioned, looking back at my post, it's pretty elementary. I thought it would illustrate the other side of the Dunbar issue: she on the one side as a TrueBeliever(tm), and he on the other in the service of political expediency. Yet another good reason I find to spend time at Pharyngula: it's a solid community with a good eye.
No offense taken nor intended in return, and all good in the spirit (not the supernatural sense) of the blog. Thanks!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Conor H. | July 6, 2009 2:37 PM
Diane at 54,
I've spent plenty of time under the shade tree, drinking Jim Beam in Rains County with Texans who sound EXACTLY like G-Dubs. Plus, I don't believe he's suave enough to pull off a constant affectation like that.
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 2:41 PM
@Desert Son #69
No offense taken or meant, either.
I have a bad habit of trying to be pithy and having it come out wrong.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 6, 2009 2:42 PM
And I see that I was unclear again. Maybe I need some caffeine. I didn't mean to suggest Perry was the "other side of the issue" in relation to Dunbar, as that implies the named parties are in opposition, and I think that's far from the case.
What I meant to say was that Perry is more like the "two" in the "one-two punch" of reactionary activism (which sounds almost paradoxical, but . . . ) and creationist activism.
Some days I shoulda stood in bed! ;)
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 6, 2009 2:43 PM
@#66
One bad apple orchard...
------------
Fixed that for you...
Posted by: mikespeir | July 6, 2009 2:44 PM
I think I spend too much time on atheist blogs. Makes me forget the world is really full of LOONS!
Posted by: Canuck | July 6, 2009 2:46 PM
It's difficult to understand how a government could put in charge of public schools a person who believes them to be unconstitutional and tyrannical. The mind boggles. The mind virus called religion really does make people crazy. All of the actors in this drama are living proof of that.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
July 6, 2009 2:50 PM
You know, it's the 90% of Texans who give the other 10% a bad name.
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 3:10 PM
@tsg #58
Sorry, I thought when I said "present these stories" that made it clear I was referring to THIS article, and the person who presented (authored) it. If that's still too dense, I am talking about "McLeroy is down; could Texas possibly consider an even greater wackaloon to replace him?" by PZ Myers. I hope we're on the same page now.
Right off the bat, the use of the state in the title lumps all Texans into the same boat. Then, in the first sentence, "Yes, Texas could" it again implies an act of the whole state. Yes, our governor is stupid. No, that doesn't mean we all are. We aren't working as a team on this one; our governor is working on behalf of SOME. (Did you embody every personality trait of your former president? Did you support all his actions? Do you want to be judged as a person, as an American, based on him?)
"Second, when the foundation is cracking, the roof leaks, the plumbing is plugged, and the electric is a fire waiting to happen, you can forgive us for forgetting to mention the wallpaper in the bathroom is nice when we say the house should be condemned."
As for the above-mentioned ridiculous statement - thanks for condemning our entire state based on the actions of our governor. Now I guess I can see how other countries hate America so deeply based on the actions of our former President. They must be filled with bigoted people like you.
Let's give credit where credit is due. Rick Perry is an idiot, and those who voted for him made a big mistake. Just because I'm a Texan doesn't mean I fit that bill.
By the way, what state are you from? Maybe I can find an inept leader there and start bashing you because of him.
Posted by: wsinda | July 6, 2009 3:30 PM
Soon, Texan kids will be taught the three R's: Reading (scripture), Religion and Republicanism.
Posted by: Rob Jase | July 6, 2009 3:34 PM
"Though I could never have endorsed it, traditional conservatism was nothing like the paranoid, theocratic movement conservatism of the present"
I did subscribe to much of it and still do to some. But the Republican party moved away from me when Reagan ran in '80 and I wouldn't join the version that exists now for anything.
The frightening thing is that Obama is the first presidential candidate I've voted for that's won since I voted for Nixon in '72. No, I voted for various independents most of the time in betwixt.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 6, 2009 3:50 PM
Janet Marcum,
As a fellow Texan . . .
Lighten up, Francis.
That is to say, one of the things you'll have to get used to around here is Texas abuse, including the occasional unwarranted Texas abuse.
I wish I could say that all the Texas abuse was unwarranted. Sadly, Texas continues to demonstrate instance after instance of running to the forefront of reactionary and superstitious inanity, in regular heats against locations such as Oklahoma and Florida (with occasional entries by come-from-behind-in-the-back-stretch Minnesota ridden by jockey Michelle Bachmann-Turner Overdrive, and which PZ will be the first to admit, I daresay).
Texas has many outstanding people, decent, kind, compassionate, charitable, easy-going, intelligent, diligent, conscientious, critical-thinking, playful, eager, interesting, and humorous (to name but a few admirable qualities). Some of them frequent Pharyngula.
Regardless, I find that the energy I could spend defending Texas and Texans from aspersions is better channeled toward making Texas a better place, such as, for example, supporting the Texas Freedom Network, or trying to support candidates in opposition to the likes of Cynthia Dunbar.
We do more service to Texas, and it's image and name, if we help Texas strive for greatness, rather than rail against everyone who comes along to point out a shortcoming of the state. Texas pride has long been around and is unlikely to go away anytime soon. I humbly submit that Texas has spent far too much time basking in that pride, and not enough time striving to make itself worthy of the pride.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Jon H | July 6, 2009 3:51 PM
She's a graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent university. Damn him.
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 3:58 PM
Okay, relax. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm merely pointing out that "Texans" could be read, and was likely implied, as "Texans, in general" rather than "all Texans". Second, I was embarrassed, as an American, by the former President. I recognized that he got elected by the American public and was ashamed to be associated with them. But I didn't blame others for pointing out that stupidity. Mostly I agreed with them.
A governor that was elected, twice, by the people of Texas, don't forget. So, no, it isn't just one person. It's a lot of people, enough that Rick Perry thinks he needs to pander to them to get elected again.
When we make a big show about how our country is so much better because our leaders are elected by the will of the people, we are absolutely responsible for the people we elect. When the President is a moron, it is directly reflects on us as a people. Don't like it? Stop electing morons.
Or they hold us responsible for putting idiots like that in power in the first place.
No one, and this the entire point, is saying that every single Texan is an idiot. Stop reading that into every statement that has the word "Texan" in it and you'll be a lot happier.
I'm from New Jersey. There's a whole list of stereotypes for New Jerseyans that you can make fun of. I think a lot of them are funny. Some of them are true, even for me. When people ask me "what exit?", I tell them and then laugh when they give me a blank look. I measure distance in minutes. I call it "pork roll" and have a buttered roll for breakfast. No, New Jersey is not one big chemical factory, but I can certainly see why people think it is: Newark Airport, where most people who come to New Jersey come through, is in the center of the biggest industrial zone in the state. We can be rude, mostly because there's so many of us packed together in a small place. I'm not a Bruce Springsteen fan, but I got thrown off his lawn once. I'm not Italian but a good number of us are. No, they aren't all in the mafia, The Sopranos not withstanding. The point is that, while I don't fit most of the stereotypes for people who live in New Jersey, I understand why they are there. And if New Jersey elected a governor who was trying to destroy the public school system by appointing a religious nut to the Director of the State Board of Education, I would expect the rest of the country to say "Hey New Jersey, what are you, fucking stupid?"
No one is saying you are an idiot simply because you are a Texan. However, the actions of your governor do reflect on you as a people: Texans put him in office.
If you don't like the stereotype, stop living up to it so well. If you don't fit the stereotype, recognize that we're not talking about you personally. But either way, stop blaming the messenger for pointing out the stupidity that's going on in your state.
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 4:09 PM
Re my #82
especially when you agree that it's stupid.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 6, 2009 4:11 PM
Janet Marcum,
All of us here recognize there are Texans who aren't wing-nut wackaloons. However, when Texas keeps electing people like Perry, Dunbar and McLeroy, then it seems like a majority of Texans are wing-nut wackaloons.
At least you folk aren't like Illinois, where they keep electing soon-to-be-convicts as governor.
Posted by: Zeno | July 6, 2009 4:13 PM
It's like when Nixon was angry with the U.S. Senate for turning down his appointment of Clement Haynesworth to the Supreme Court. He decided to teach the senators a lesson by making an even worse appointment: G. Harrold Carswell. (He was the nominee defended by Sen. Roman Hruska as being an apt representative for mediocre people -- "mediocre people deserve a little representation, too!") But the U.S. Senate persisted in their resistance and turned down Carswell, too.
Nixon's third nominee was Harry Blackmun, who was confirmed. It pays to hang in there.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 6, 2009 4:32 PM
"At least you folk aren't like Illinois, where they keep electing soon-to-be-convicts as governor."
But we didn't know that when we elected them
Quinn doesn't seem to be a criminal yet, but we didn't elect him as governor. ;)
Posted by: CTD | July 6, 2009 4:36 PM
I always suspected that Spirited Away was Miyazaki's backhanded homage to C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce. Very similar imagery and themes, set against a pointed rejection of Lewis's Manichean outlook.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 6, 2009 4:38 PM
Janet,
As has been pointed out, no one is arguing that all Texans are wing-nut reich wing wack-a-loons, problem is, you seem to keep electing them, selecting them, supporting them, etc.
Perry was elected with over 55% of the vote, he was reelected with 39% of the vote, but another Republican running as an independent got another 18% of the vote, which means, yet again, 57% of the vote to Republican candidates. Bush won reelection there with 60% of the vote. The state hasn't elected a Democrat to governor in nearly 20 years, hasn't voted for a Democrat for president in over 30 years. 20 of their 32 representatives are Republicans, both of their senators, Republicans control both houses of the legislature and have for the last 15 years.
Sorry, Texas has been leaning towards the lunatic fringe for years. It, like Kansas, Florida, etc., has done incredibly stupid things yet the morons who propose these these are either elected, reelected, or replaced by even bigger wingnuts.
Your comparison to the US and Bush would be comparable if the country had reelected Republicans in '06 and then elected McCain, we would have proven, to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the majority were complete morons.
As it now stands, the majority of Texans have proven to the rest of the country, that they are complete morons. That doesn't mean every Texan is a moron, it means that enough of your compatriots are that we honestly and truly feel for you, but, if you don't like being associated with morons, you have two choices. First, as has been pointed out already, take steps to improve your state; second, move.
But really, don't get pissed off at us because you're surrounded by idiots.
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 4:39 PM
@tsg
I'm not blaming the messenger for the stupidity, I'm blaming the messenger for the way he frames/reports the stupidity. It's not his fault it is happening, but I just don't see how bashing/generalizing/demoralizing is the way to go about change. Forgive me for taking offense. That's great that you can own your stereotypes and laugh at them, even when they're unwarranted and false. Kudos to you.
@Desert Son
Kudos to you also for being able to ignore trash-talking about your state. I have that Texas pride you speak of, which makes it hard to turn the other cheek. Maybe the best way for people to understand my feelings is to hear your entire family bashed for the actions of one member. It's hard to walk away from, even if that one member behaved badly.
I'm not an angry Texan, and I'm fairly confident that my original post was tame. I was just asking for a little leniance on behalf of the "rest" of the state. I admitted I was on a soapbox, so I'm not sure why I was jumped on. Oh well. You live and learn. Me and comments should probably go our separate ways. :)
Posted by: JHS
|
July 6, 2009 4:40 PM
It sounds like outright negligence on Perry's part. Surprising, no -- I'm sure he'd back every office from Lt. Gov. to dogcatcher with god-fearin', secessionist wackjobs like him if he could.
But at what point does it become objectively negligent (not to mention crazy) to appoint someone who essentially doesn't believe in or is actively hostile to something as its leader and architect, especially something as important as education. Homeopaths don't need to be heads of neurosurgery, an illiterate person doesn't need to teach reading comp, and someone who thinks the world is flat probably shouldn't be piloting a ship. If Perry puts someone in charge of public education who is actively hostile towards the very concept, is he not derelict in his duty? And yes, I know, plenty of dumbasses have been appointed to positions far out of their depth (FEMA anyone?), but this really does seem like purposefully letting the wolf guard the henhouse.
Posted by: JHS
|
July 6, 2009 4:43 PM
Also, this sounds like yet another example of the great Republican cycle of incompetence. They hem and haw about how the government can't do anything right, then spend all their time in office proving their own point.
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 4:53 PM
Actually, and don't take this as an insult, you're blaming the reporter for how you interpreted it.
Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous and, despite the objections from framers and accomodationists, it does have a way of affecting change: there are some views that people should be embarrassed to hold.
You seem to be missing the point: it isn't just one person. That person was elected twice by the voters in the state.
You are perfectly free to make your comments as I am to make mine, even when mine is to say I think yours are wrong. It's the whole point of blogs like this. And, to be frank, you weren't treated harshly at all.
Posted by: Tim H | July 6, 2009 4:54 PM
This Illinoisan would like to take this opportunity to point out that our soon-to-be-convict ex-governor actually vetoed the pro-school-prayer bill when it came to his desk. Probably the only good thing he ever did for the state. (I still have no idea who bribed him to do it, but thanks whoever you are.) Of course the veto was overridden, but the courts quickly struck the bill down. My rep was one of the few who voted against that bill. Go Naomi! My state senator voted for it. His office got an angry call from me, and I will leave that spot on the ballot blank in 2010 rather than vote for Mike Frerichs.Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 4:59 PM
This is like purposely letting the wolf guard the henhouse and claiming it's in the hens' best interests to be eaten.
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 5:07 PM
@tsg
You seem to be missing my point as well. I'm not saying it is only one person that is the problem. I already admitted the voters are at fault, along with Perry. The family member example was a metaphor. I was hoping you could extrapolate that out, and not interpret it to literally mean one person is the problem.
My mistake on thinking I was treated harshly. I guess I should consider you picking apart every line of every one of my comments as flattering. As such, thank you. I look forward to you doing that with other commenters as well, so that I can stop feeling so special.
Posted by: speedwell | July 6, 2009 5:09 PM
JHS @ #90: I'm sure [Perry]'d back every office from Lt. Gov. to dogcatcher with god-fearin', secessionist wackjobs like him if he could.
On Saturday, at that execrable roadshow of a "tea party," he said so, right out loud, in so many words. He called for the "faithful" to run for public office and to support their fellow cultists, all the way down to and including, yes, the dogcatcher.
Posted by: JJR | July 6, 2009 5:09 PM
To respond to this:
>I may be moving with my family to Houston for a job soon. I >dearly hope that there is at least one decent school system >down there that these shit for brains haven't destroyed.
Firstly, Houston is second only to Austin in terms of Coolness and Diversity and Culture. There are good schools within HISD, but there are bad ones, too. If you have a choice, I'd pick either the Montrose District or The Heights--or anywhere else inside Loop 610. Montrose is very close to the Museum District and is the heart of Houston's gay community.
Outside in the suburban areas, I'd recommend Fort Bend ISD or Friendswood ISD, but only because I've lived in both places and went through the Fort Bend ISD system myself, and I taught in Friendswood ISD (Fort Bend is on the Southwest side, while Friendswood is on the Southeast side, not far from NASA).
Houston's inner core is really beautiful, it's just far too spread out with mile after mile of dreary strip-mall and suburban wasteland for too many miles in all directions.
BTW, every major metro area in Texas was a little blue pool of sanity in a sea of red in the last election, even Dallas.
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 5:13 PM
@JJR
"BTW, every major metro area in Texas was a little blue pool of sanity in a sea of red in the last election, even Dallas."
I know! Wasn't it great to see? I love progress.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 6, 2009 5:30 PM
A few? Don't you mean a majority? Last I checked, the governor of Texas is elected by majority vote.
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 5:44 PM
Then I misunderstood and retract my comment.
You're in the wrong place if you think anything you say is going to be met with nothing but agreement. I took exception with your portrayal of the article and the comments here and told you so. I wasn't uncivil or unkind. I didn't insult you personally. I was direct and honest. If that's not the kind of discussion you are looking for, then I suggest any of a number of other forums where dissent and honest discussion is frowned upon under the guise of preserving the other person's feelings.
Hang around for about, oh, three seconds, and you will see that you are not, in fact, special. Go back through any other thread where I have commented and you will see not only where I have criticized another's viewpoint, but where others have as well, some not quite so charitable or patient as I have been with you.
I'm not here to coddle your opinions or make you feel better about yourself. I think you'll find that almost no one here is. If you can't handle a little criticism of your opinions then I suggest, as respectfully and civilly as I possibly can, with all due deference to your feelings and self-esteem, that you keep them to yourself.
On the other hand, if you are interested in honest and open discussion, hang around and participate. Just don't take it personally when someone disagrees.
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 5:47 PM
@truthspeaker
Thanks, Captain Obvious. Yes, I'm aware of how elections work. A plurality is required to win for this position. Perry won with the most votes; that doesn't mean he gained an absolute majority of votes. He was reelected with 39% of the vote, with the next closest candidate receiving 30%. So, that was a majority OF the votes that were cast, but not really a true majority.
Semantics aside, I was speaking more about the actions of Governor Perry, Don McLeroy, and Cynthia Dunbar when I said "few."
Ugghh, this argument is so tired already. Can I delete my prior comments so that they can stop being used in later comments?
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 5:47 PM
Actually, it's a plurality. Perry won in 2006 with ~40% of the vote.
Posted by: Dianne | July 6, 2009 5:48 PM
I've spent plenty of time under the shade tree, drinking Jim Beam in Rains County with Texans who sound EXACTLY like G-Dubs.
Hmm...my relatives in Glascock county don't sound a thing like Dubya. Perhaps it's a local variation thing. I grew up in Dallas/San Antonio and people identify my accent as being midwestern, eastern, occasionally even British (I don't get that one at all.) Almost no one suspects Texas. Go figure.
Posted by: tsg | July 6, 2009 5:51 PM
One of the problems with forums like these is that people don't always read to the end before responding. Annoying, but it happens.
Posted by: Dianne | July 6, 2009 5:53 PM
Just to point out, Texas did also give us Molly Ivins. There are liberals in Texas and they're hard core unlike the wimpy northeastern types.
Posted by: LRA | July 6, 2009 5:53 PM
Methinks Ms. Dumb-ar needs to read the Texas Constitution (here's the bill o' rights):
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/text/IART01.html
It deals very clearly with religion in the first few articles; however, the first article makes Texas subject to the US Constitution.
So she's clueless about science AND history. *Great* :(
Posted by: Josh
|
July 6, 2009 5:57 PM
Um, excuse me?
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 5:59 PM
@tsg
Wow, who is taking this too personally now? I was being sarcastic when I said you were making me feel special. Obviously that was lost on you. By the way, since we're not here to coddle each other, I find people like you incredibly annoying. Your ten-paragraph-long comments, with the holier than thou attitude get really old. I'm not even sure I'm worthy of continuing an open and honest discussion with someone as important as you. Again, sarcasm (in case you weren't sure).
Posted by: Dianne | July 6, 2009 6:09 PM
Um, excuse me?
During the MTA strike all the oh so liberal NYers spent their time whining about how unfair it was of the MTA workers to go on strike. Never mind that they were doing a dirty, dangerous job with no recent raises and had had gradual erosion of their benefits, it was inconveniencing yuppies and we couldn't have that, could we? Wimps. Being a Texan by upbringing I just biked to work and supported the stikers by every means I could think of. (Didn't work, but southerners in general like lost causes, so what the heck.)
All this defense of Texas aside, though, honesty compels me to point out that I left Texas nearly 20 years ago and haven't been back since the early 1990s because I couldn't stand the yahoos any longer.
Posted by: Noodles | July 6, 2009 6:13 PM
Apologize!
Apologize!
I demand that you apologize for insinuating that all Texans are...
She forgot to demand an apology.
Step 1: Purposefully misinterpret or twist what he actually said.
Step 2: Act personally offended and state that your feelings are hurt.
Step 3: Demand an apology.
I believe this game is about establishing Dominance by getting someone to kowtow for a slight he didn't actually commit.
Posted by: Blue-eyed Videot | July 6, 2009 6:16 PM
Honestly, Texas Governor Rick Perry is the male equivalent of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. They're two peas in the same pod of idiocy.
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 6:23 PM
@Noodles
As mentioned in a previous comment by @tsg, you are required to call people out directly if you want to make complaints about them. I'll let it slide this time.
Just in case you happened to be referring to me, I'll go ahead and preemptively respond. I didn't purposefully misinterpret or twist his words. I genuinely thought all this hate has been directed towards Texas as a whole. I didn't start seeing this "majority of Texans" qualification to people's comments until just recently (after I said something). I'm not sure what kicks I would've gotten out of purposefully misinterpreting something, but I assure you - no pleasure has come to me because of it. I'm not looking for an apology. So it looks like I hit upon Step 2 and missed Steps 1 and 3 entirely. Bummer.
Posted by: Janet Marcum | July 6, 2009 6:27 PM
@Noodles
As mentioned in a previous comment by @tsg, you are required to call people out directly if you want to make complaints about them. I'll let it slide this time.
Just in case you happened to be referring to me, I'll go ahead and preemptively respond. I didn't purposefully misinterpret or twist his words. I genuinely thought all this hate has been directed towards Texas as a whole. I didn't start seeing this "majority of Texans" qualification to people's comments until just recently (after I said something). I'm not sure what kicks I would've gotten out of purposefully misinterpreting something, but I assure you - no pleasure has come to me because of it. I'm not looking for an apology. So it looks like I hit upon Step 2 and missed Steps 1 and 3 entirely. Bummer.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 6, 2009 6:48 PM
blah blah blah "no true texan" blah blah blah.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 6, 2009 7:02 PM
Oh, I just love that Ratliffe letter.
curmudgeon (according to Ratliffe) : “Our conclusion is that Ratliff is a closeted creationist, but one who has slick relationships with the state legislature.”
ratliffe: "I do not believe the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old, but in fact millions and millions of years old.
I do believe that God created all things, but I don’t want a school teacher talking to my kids about theology in science class."
So - he's an "Old Earth Creationist" (and no, I don't accept that 'millions and millions = ~4.7 billion) and although he says he doesn't want any theology in science class, he doesn't say anything about creationism and IDiocy (which are not theology).
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 6, 2009 7:22 PM
There are liberals in Texas and they're hard core unlike the wimpy northeastern types.
Hey now! Just 'cause New York had a Dem majority in both houses and a Democratic gov (after 30+ years of the state senate being controlled by Repubs) and they lost it after only 5 months doesn't make them wimps!
... Oh, wait. Maybe it does.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 6, 2009 7:28 PM
There are liberals in Texas and they're hard core unlike the wimpy northeastern types
I'm a liberal who grew up in the northeast and still has family there. As such, I heartily agree with and endorse this comment.
I currently live in Minnesota, where the liberals are almost, but not quite, as ineffectual.
Posted by: Inti | July 6, 2009 7:41 PM
Can't they just fast-forward 10 years and abolish education altogether?
Posted by: abb3w | July 6, 2009 7:42 PM
DRK I believe the Democrats do plan to challenge her next election
Judy Jennings is trying to get their nod. (Link goes to way to throw money at her.)
Posted by: Alan J | July 6, 2009 7:45 PM
Oh no Texas.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 6, 2009 8:02 PM
I currently live in Minnesota, where the liberals are almost, but not quite, as ineffectual.
Just curious, given that the Republicans control both houses of the legislature, the governor's office, both senate seats, and 20 of the 32 house seats, what precisely have these "effective hard core liberals" in Texas actually accomplished?
Posted by: Peter McKellar | July 6, 2009 8:18 PM
I can't help interpreting this as a symptom of a deeper problem brought about by a first-past-the-post voting system. This form of voting always favours minority views with a solid, unwavering base. When a complex issue draws candidates with slightly differing approaches but a common goal the vote can be split (eg conservative wins with 30% yet the 5 liberals all lose with 10%-15% each).
A preferential voting system is far more likely to deliver a candidate that is more representative of the desires of the electorate. The current US system can actually deliver a seat to a minority wingnut.
Splitting a candidate's voter base is a common tactic, even in party dominated political systems with preferential voting. Independents and party defectors are a major cause and without preferences from these non-winning candidates being distributed to a 2nd or 3rd preference the voter effectively becomes disenfranchised - the vote is just thrown away. Diversity is penalised and single-issue voting blocks can dominate.
With a preferential system, by the time the votes have been distributed through many rounds and eliminations it should come down to just two candidates, and one of them will have more than 50% or the votes (of course a winner is declared, regardless of remaining candidates, once one candidate crosses the 50% line).
I understand that calling for the USA to change its voting system is purely fantasy, but it would make a significant difference to voter satisfaction. The only option at present is to run a single liberal candidate and all liberal voters support them - which doesn't allow much chance for different flavours to be expressed and is likely to alienate many liberals that don't support key components of the candidate's stance.
Preferential voting allows your favoured candidate to make a serious run for the seat, but if unsuccessful, your vote will be transferred to your 2nd (3rd,...nth) choice. Your vote may not eventually end up on the winning side, but it will never be used for the bad guy and never used to dig a hole for other allied candidates. You may not get the candidate you chose, but you get the best acceptable - or were beaten by more than half the voters.
The system isn't complex (I would even say easy, but takes longer to count). When introducing "democracy" to other countries, the UN-pushed first-past-the-post does a disservice to those new nations and installs a flawed and archaic model from the start - one that will prove very difficult to remove later. Even illiterate people can understand preferential voting once it is explained to them. Anyone that has played musical chairs can figure it out.
Posted by: Don't Panic | July 6, 2009 8:25 PM
Hey! I resemble that remark. Oh, noes, I'm offended.Okay, I voted for Blogo but only because he seemed to be the least bad of the crummy lot (which is what the political machine around here seems to regularly cough up). And I didn't vote for the previous crooks. But, yes, it does seem to be a bit of a trend.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 6, 2009 9:23 PM
I just saw this, and to be honest her name was the first I thought of when McElroy was ousted. If I remember correctly, though, she is up for reelection and there are a lot of people who want to run. Given her extreme whackjob remarks that had even many Republicans feeling a bit awkward, she might be out of a job soon. At least, we can hope so.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 6, 2009 9:24 PM
I'm a Texan, lived here most of my life, East, South and Central--and 99% of the state is a fucking hellhole. Not even Austin is immune. Remember: it's packed with all those Republican politicians and lobbyists running that freak show called the Texas government these days. And that's not counting the local populace, which has huge pockets of fucking moronic. There's lots of stupid in Austin.
Know why the government is so stupid? Because most of the people here are fucking morons. Even the ones who move here from other states prove they are stupider than dirt, because they try to out-Texan the natives--and only pick up our very worst traits.
The state is teeming with racism--a significant reason for the stupid. The abominable lack of social services is 100% because people don't want to give money to brown people--not even for education.
And then there's religion, the rotting, pestilent foundation of it all. You cannot escape it here. It's everywhere. It is where the power is cultivated and groomed. Belonging to the "right" church can make or break you in most business endeavors. As we see here, religion is also the reason for our abysmal education system. Someone mentioned Leininger upthread--Do not--I repeat DO NOT--underestimate this man's influence on the deplorable conditions in Texas. He depends on having lots of poor ignorant (and desperate) people to keep him and his "bidness" buddies rich. And it just so happens that religion wins if Leininger wins.
Religion and robber baron capitalists are in bed together as radical conservatives because they need the same things to succeed: Poor, desperate, ignorant people shaking from fear of the "other" and too busy fighting amongst themselves (black vs. white, theist vs. atheist, etc.) to recognize the real enemy. Desperate, paranoid people will take any job to eat. Desperate, paranoid people will be more likely to sit in a pew where they're offered hope, even a false one, to feel that life isn't completely hopeless, that someday their suffering will be rewarded. Somehow. The rich and religious need the populace terrified of gays, atheists, feminists, Muslims, brown people, etc . They need abortion to be illegal, because it would create even more people to compete over the same small piece of the pie, and hence more desperation to exploit.
Until more Texans understand how they're being manipulated for such cynical purposes, the state will continue to be a sewer.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 6, 2009 9:42 PM
Wowee Sister Aquaria,
Texas sounds just like I imagine heaven to be! Floyd and I are mountin' our hogs and headin' your way.
Smoggy
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 6, 2009 9:44 PM
Peter @ 122,
Problem is, Perry wasn't the wing-nut candidate, he was the sitting governor running for reelection. In '06 there were four major candidates,
Perry(R) : 39% of the vote
Bell (D) : 30% of the vote
Strayhorn (I) : 18% of the vote
Friedman (I) : 12% of the vote
The two independent candidates were actually, based on their stance on issues and their previous candidacy or stated positions, a Republican (Strayhorn) and a Democrat (Friedman), so if you assume they took the votes from their respective affiliated opponents you still have:
57% for the Republican or "conservative" candidates
42% for the Democrat or "liberal" candidates
In 2002 Perry won the office with 57% of the vote, his Democratic opponent had 40% of the vote, so really what you had in this election was a pair of independent candidates, one right, one left, who balanced each other out, rather than upsetting the status quo, they reinforced it.
Posted by: speedwell | July 6, 2009 9:48 PM
Peter McKellar @ #122: Condorcet voting, I think you mean. Anyone here who is interested should Google the Condorcet method; it took me some time to figure out what, exactly, you meant by "preferential" voting (all voting is expressing a "preference," necessarily).
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 6, 2009 10:27 PM
lol at the state rivalry. It seems you're all competing for who is the least worst, and that's pretty sad on a lot of levels.
I like that in Australia all rivalries are judged on the basis of beer, sports teams, and that they aren't Queensland or Tasmania.
Posted by: Dr. P | July 6, 2009 10:59 PM
Damn, a redneck Peyton Place.Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 6, 2009 11:33 PM
#29
Next time someone says that, ask them where in the Constitution does it CLEARLY say that parents can raise their kids in any religion they choose; or refuse them medical care? Nowhere, of course.But these rights fall out of basic rights in the Constitution (and are generally defined in other federal or state laws....)
"Freedom of religion" gets DEFINED as the right to raise your children in the religion you choose - but the Contitution does not state that.
Posted by: Tom M | July 6, 2009 11:35 PM
Coolness Houston? In July? Not a chance, either way you mean the word.
If it weren't for air conditioning, 75% of Texans would be living in Rust Belt states whence they originated. Friedman's book purports to be global but the title clearly meant Texas Hot, Flat and (in some spots) Crowded"
My brother has lived in Texas for almost 50 years now. It fits him perfectly and I'm very happy knowing he's 1500 miles away. At that distance we get along great.
I'm sure he's one of those Texans.
Posted by: Colin | July 7, 2009 12:55 AM
Hey Smoggy,
It does indeed sound like heaven. And if Janet Marcum's posts are anything to go by, the place flows with fine whine.
Posted by: Tobin | July 7, 2009 1:26 AM
And people ask me why I moved away from Texas....
There's sumptin' in the water down thar that's makin' them stupider and stupider.
In the good old days the Republican Party was represented by intellectuals like Goldwater, Rockefeller and William F Buckley. They've fallen to the anti-intellectualism of Bush, Palin and Limbaugh. How much farther can they fall? I guess we can let Rick Perry show us.
Posted by: tsg | July 7, 2009 1:32 AM
Your choice is noted. The door is that way ---------------------->
Posted by: Tobin | July 7, 2009 1:46 AM
On the Separation of Church & State. (The First Amendment)
The concept of the Separation of Church and State was clearly the intent of the founding fathers and was coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was also used in a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1878.
To deny the concept of separating Govt. from religion requires rationalization bordering on delusion. You cannot read The Federalist Papers and come away with any other conclusion.
Posted by: Dianne | July 7, 2009 8:24 AM
given that the Republicans control both houses of the legislature, the governor's office, both senate seats, and 20 of the 32 house seats,
The government in Texas is a joke. Literally. This was entirely intentional and the Texas constitution was written to make sure that no one in Texas could ever govern effectively. Let the Repugs have it. Taking over the Texas Railroad Commission, now that would be a worthwhile use of resources. But the elected government is completely ineffective.
what precisely have these "effective hard core liberals" in Texas actually accomplished?
Overturning the sodomy laws comes to mind.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 7, 2009 8:30 AM
How wrong can one human be? (Even given that she's aright-wing republican.) She's obviously never read the constitution.
What the constitution actually says:
Article VI:
Amendment I:
Public education is the most successful social institution ever invented. What a moron. Keep the kids ignorant. Yeah, baby, that's who we want in charge of public education.
Typical Rethuglican: Just lie your ass off and keep repeating the lies. Eventually the media will pick it up and people will start to believe it. You know: Faith.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 7, 2009 8:49 AM
Should have been:
Amendment I:
Public education is the most successful social institution ever invented. What a moron. Keep the kids ignorant. Yeah, baby, that's who we want in charge of public education.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 7, 2009 8:59 AM
Nevermind, it's not giving me a gap between those two blockquotes ... (The 1st Amendment and Ms. Dunbar;'s nonsense.)
Posted by: Christopher Heard | July 7, 2009 10:10 AM
I was born and raised in Texas, and graduated from a Texas public high school … but right now, I'm glad I live in California (as wacky as the left coast can be sometimes).
Posted by: Slugsie | July 7, 2009 10:22 AM
How is someone with such obviously bonkers ideas allowed out the door, never mind into public office?
Posted by: SC, OM | July 7, 2009 10:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buoztHLk9JQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoF_fa9TMDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZb4vwMV8lY
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | July 7, 2009 12:04 PM
This particular part of Texas (south east corner) usually voted Demo. The infamous DeLay gerrymander split it horizontally in three strips joined to conservative Houston suburbs.