Why Do Democrats Always Want Us to Ignore Science?

Curt Schilling the Science Guy

From climate change to restrooms, Democrats are increasingly the anti-science party.


By William McGurn

April 25, 2016 6:42 p.m. ET

Let us stipulate that ESPN, as a private institution, was entirely within its rights to have sacked Curt Schilling for his combative Facebook post on the continuing national saga that is North Carolina restrooms. Let’s stipulate too that the way the former Red Sox pitcher advanced his case—sharing a meme featuring a grotesque fat man in a blonde wig pretending to be a woman—was not the line of argument that, say, William F. Buckley would have chosen.

But let us also note the irony. Mr. Schilling’s main contention—“a man is a man no matter what they call themselves”—is supported by DNA and those pesky X and Y chromosomes. In short, in this fight between science and authority, Mr. Schilling is in the amusing position of being the Galileo, with ESPN filling in for the Holy Office.

Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, puts it this way: “Curt Schilling is of course correct with the science in saying that claiming to be a woman when you have the chromosomal and anatomical structures of a man does not make you such. You’re still a man no matter what you think or how you dress.”

It’s an interesting detail that has gone largely unaddressed since Mr. Schilling delivered his knuckleball. Nor is it hard to see why. For it contradicts the dominant narrative in which Democrats take their positions from a clear-eyed look at the science while Republicans are blinded by their religious, social and economic orthodoxies.

This was the trope Barack Obama invoked in his maiden inaugural address, when he promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” Well, the American people have now had almost eight years of it. Turns out that restoring-science-to-its-rightful-place comes with its own set of dogmas and orthodoxies.

It’s not just letting men into women’s restrooms, either. On a host of issues, upholding the progressive catechism these days apparently requires seeking out and punishing heretics too.

Start with climate change. It may well be, as Barack Obama declared in Paris in December, when he committed the U.S. to the global war on temperature, that “99.5 percent of scientists and experts” believe man-made climate change a fact and that “we have to do something about it.” His eventual presidential successor, he suggested, must never question this consensus.

Is there anything more inimical to the spirit of science than the idea of squelching further inquiry, freezing our existing understanding in place and silencing opposition? Because this is precisely what such phrases as “settled science” or “scientific consensus” are designed to do.

Indeed, in this climate (pun intended), we now have moves to criminalize scientific dissent. Only last month, a collection of state attorneys general met with activists to discuss ways to go after Exxon for its alleged heterodoxy on global warming.

Which hints at the real game, which is less about the earth’s warming than the hope that green enthusiasms can be used to push through a progressive economic and regulatory agenda with few questions asked. As Ottmar Edenhofer, the then co-chairman of Working Group III of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, put it a few years back: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Or take abortion. In progressive dogma, the right to abort a fetus is not only settled science but settled law, which means you’re not only not allowed to question it, you must not stray from the approved vocabulary.

For example, if a couple is happy about a pregnancy, the two are perfectly free to share sonograms with friends and relatives and celebrate the pending arrival of their unborn child. But if this child is to be aborted, any talk of “person” or “child” becomes verboten, lest folks get too accurate an idea of what is happening.

Alas, even the truest believers slip up. So it was earlier this month on NBC’s “Meet the Press” when Hillary Clinton—who has in this election dumped the word “rare” from the earlier “safe, legal, and rare” Clinton formula on abortion—referred to the “unborn person” as having no constitutional rights.

Pro-lifers condemned her, as expected. As perhaps unexpected, she was also attacked by her pro-choice allies for uttering the words “unborn person.” Whatever position one takes on abortion, to say that the fetus is a person if the mother wants it and it’s not if she doesn’t is not science. It’s spin.

Each election season, the American people are treated to Republican candidates who fumble badly when challenged on, say, evolution or abortion. Fair enough. But the president and his allies also have orthodoxies that limit their openness to free inquiry and objective reality. The difference is these go largely unchallenged outside the conservative press.

Wouldn’t it be entertaining if someone would ask President Obama if Curt Schilling is right or wrong about the science?

I really wish we could punish these liberals someday, when the game is finally over and they have lost.

Alas, I fear it is they who will win and us who will be in jail.

Next steps?

LMAO

I really wish we could punish these liberals someday, when the game is finally over and they have lost.

Alas, I fear it is they who will win and us who will be in jail.

Next steps? Originally Posted by DSK

as truth is not a liberal value, science isn't either

the nature of man has never derailed them in their no borders, socialistic day dreams or the dream of the new soviet man

they turn greed on its head accusing producers of such while clamoring for more from their government jobs, more pensions, more days off, more of everything, counting and re-counting their paid sick leave days they will have at retirement at the age of 45, voting in bloc for more for themselves, while wondering how conservatives can vote "against their own interests"

their rich, instead of any personal response, use government largesse as a sop and firewall, using it to protect themselves from the masses

re-education camps, banned words and phrases, gulags, thought police, and reporting of neighbors, and economic destruction if not jail for dissenters, all required for liberal control

but you are wrong when you say punish them when we win, except the freedom and liberty of others may be their punishment

for them to win an ever increasing police state is required

I really wish we could punish these liberals someday, when the game is finally over and they have lost.

Alas, I fear it is they who will win and us who will be in jail.

Next steps? Originally Posted by DSK

Don't drop the soap, JL!

Don't drop the soap, JL! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

pigs don't use soap. that's why you stink, after wallowing in your own poop day after day.
you stink, pig.

take a shower, and this time use soap.

pigs don't use soap. that's why you stink, after wallowing in your own poop day after day.
you stink, pig.

take a shower, and this time use soap.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Pigs never worry about how they smell, come to think of it, they never worry about anything. Because they are pigs. Pigs are stupid, lazy, smelly, and dirty. They are simply, PIGS.

Wooo pig sooie!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._politics.html

http://content.time.com/time/health/...968042,00.html

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/0...e-democrats-or

Depending on the issue it is about 50 50.

Pigs never worry about how they smell, come to think of it, they never worry about anything. Because they are pigs. Pigs are stupid, lazy, smelly, and dirty. They are simply, PIGS.

Wooo pig sooie! Originally Posted by bambino

a simple life for a simpleton. why am i not surprised?

must be nice to be so dumb that one cannot comprehend the death of humanity.

assup you dumb pig,. enjoy your stupidity while the rest of us ponder humanity's fate. must be nice to be so stupid as to not see what's coming.

So HOW does it FEEL, witnessing the END of an ERA?

Pigs never worry about how they smell, come to think of it, they never worry about anything. Because they are pigs. Pigs are stupid, lazy, smelly, and dirty. They are simply, PIGS.

Wooo pig sooie! Originally Posted by bambino

pigs are closer humans than any other animal, google it

pig hearts are used in humans

pigs are closer humans than any other animal, google it

pig hearts are used in humans Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

then one wonders why they stink so bad? you'd think if they were smarter than dolphins, they'd know what soap on a rope is?




don't bend over in the shower, libtards!

yes i will hijack this thread to promote my agenda .. anyone got a problem with that?



watch this. it will edumacate you .. bitches!!

pigs are closer humans than any other animal, google it

pig hearts are used in humans Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

This is why I oppose comparing Assup to a pig. Pigs are useful creatures. It's highly insulting to compare Assup to a pig. To the pig. Pigs have feelings. Quit insulting them.

This is why I oppose comparing Assup to a pig. Pigs are useful creatures. It's highly insulting to compare Assup to a pig. To the pig. Pigs have feelings. Quit insulting them. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

He is Asswipe Ziffle, dumb, lazy brother of Arnold Ziffle. The smart successful pig. Pigs are like people, some are just fuckups. Like Asswipe Ziffle. A fuckup.