Comments on: Michele Bachmann’s Dumbfounding Wisdumb

By: MacTurk

MacTurk — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:58:16 +0000

I am sorry your prediction turned out to be wrong. For voters of the 6th congressional district of Minnesota, a song called “How Sweet to be An Idiot”;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYXcy8FgVFY&feature=related

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:20:02 +0000

“….what does that say about the voters of the 6th congressional district of Minnesota? ”

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/11/the_battle_for_bachmanns_seat.php

By: Dunc

Dunc — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:34:23 +0000

And I don't think it's really stupidity that makes Bachman and her ilk unable to perceive these not-even-so-subtle differences, it's more of an intellectual sloth brought about by authoritarian beliefs

I've often wondered what role literacy plays in this sort of thing... Not that I'm saying Bachmann's illiterate, but poor literacy seems naturally related to a difficulty in grasping complex topics and subtle distinctions. (Also Biblical Literalism - I don't think you can be both highly literate and a Biblical Literalist, as highly literate people realise that reading is itself an unavoidably interpretative process.)

By: MacTurk

MacTurk — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:58:51 +0000

Okay, so she is deeply stupid. A deeply stuuuuupid U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 6th congressional district.

Unfortunately,if we take this further….what does that say about the voters of the 6th congressional district of Minnesota?

By: Jim Cliborn

Jim Cliborn — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:30:14 +0000

Fortunately you have already gotten a lot of good responses which is good because I am laughing too hard: so much to tell her I don’t know where to start. Maybe with some Dilbert cartoons?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:40:07 +0000

When a relative of hers learned about anthropogenic global warming from your truly in a lecture class at The U, she responded with legislation to restrict what professors at the U could say about global warming.

I don’t care what she knows and does not know. I care what she does and does not do.

By: Calli Arcale

Calli Arcale — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:43:38 +0000

I feel certain she must know that CO2 is not something you want to be breathing a lot of, and that what she means is that there’s no evidence CO2 is harmful to the environment. Still not true, but slightly less insane. The main problem, as I see it, is the sloppy language and the fact that the vast majority of Americans not only excuse dangerously sloppy language but frequently don’t even notice it. Politicians smarter than Bachmann exploit this routinely; it’s how they managed to answer difficult questions without actually taking a position and while causing most of the audience to nod sagely at how good the answer was, despite a near-complete lack of content.

As bad as the state of our science education is, it distresses me that we’ve obviously let our *English* education slip as well. It’s bad enough that we can’t recognize things that violate basic science; pretty soon we won’t even be able to talk to one another in any meaningful way anymore. Precise language is mandatory for expressing complex ideas; that’s what’s going to kill us as a world competitor, I suspect.

By: george.w

george.w — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:36:45 +0000

She’s confusing toxicity and thermodynamics. I must admit to being unable to decide if anyone could really be that dumb and still hold public office. But if she really isn’t that dumb, then she really is that evil and I have a hard time grasping that as well. I guess it’s hard for people in different world views to understand each other, yet I have the nagging feeling that unless I could understand, it will be hard to effectively counter whatever’s going on with Cons.

By: gwen

gwen — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:20:35 +0000

Ban dihydrogen monoxide! It kills thousands EVERY YEAR!!

By: Phillip IV

Phillip IV — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:16:02 +0000

scidog @ # 5:

i’m sure she knows thats total b.s.

I don’t think so, actually – I think what’s happening is more of a process of faulty reception/shoddy reproduction of information, happening repeatedly as some piece of information travels through wingnuttia.

For Bachman, there simply is no difference in meaning between “there is no study conclusively linking atmospheric concentration of CO2 to global warming” (which is wrong, anyway, but probably what she was told to spread) and “there is no study showing that CO2 is a harmful gas”. Likewise, there is no difference for her between “the precise words ‘separation of Church and State’ do not appear in the Constitution” and “there is no ‘separation of Church and State’ in the Constitution”.

And I don’t think it’s really stupidity that makes Bachman and her ilk unable to perceive these not-even-so-subtle differences, it’s more of an intellectual sloth brought about by authoritarian beliefs – after all, if you already now what the ‘right’ conclusion is from authority, why would you bother to think deeply about the steps leading there?