NADA - New American Dark Ages

Surprise, Surprise from Grover Norquist

Grover Norquist is among the worst of the old time Radical Wrong. He’s famous for an anti-federal viewpoint so extreme that he has said he wants to starve the federal government (no taxes) until it is weak enough to drown in a bathtub. Charming. At lease he didn’t say he wants to shoot the federal government in the head or lynch it and drag it behind a truck (as other anti-feds have). Even though I’ve lived long enough to see Republicans move so far beyond the conservative that Tricky Dick is too liberal, I’m still amazed when the old demons sound sensible compared to the new ones.

ThinkProgress » Norquist: The Right Has To ‘Marginalize’ Islamophobia, ‘There’s No Place For That’ In The GOP

Referring to Gingrich’s anti-Muslim fervor, ThinkProgress asked whether there is a place for Islamophobia in the GOP 2012 presidential primaries. “I don’t think there is,” Norquist replied:

TP: This sort of fearmongering about Islam. I don’t think Gingrich has gone as far as Gaffney has but he’s kind of right there. He’s near that edge and I’m wondering do you think there’s room for that on the presidential campaign.

NORQUIST: I don’t think there is. I don’t think you’ll see it because the people who support you is broader. … . I don’t think that it will work because it doesn’t work. I think it will go away because it doesn’t work. I would like it to go away because it’s the wrong thing to do. But I’ll take it doesn’t work.

Also during the interview, Norquist praised Democrats for their ability to be an inclusive party. “Democrats have doing it with the mosque in Iowa forever. They just have this natural understanding of, ‘Oh there’s a mosque? Let’s go!’ … You know there’s an incredible understanding of diversity [within the Party].”

ThinkProgress » Norquist: The Right Has To ‘Marginalize’ Islamophobia, ‘There’s No Place For That’ In The GOP

What makes Norquist so … progressive (throwing up now): Could it be the fact that his wife is Muslim?

ID

Evolution for Dummies: “Intelligent” “Design”

Frankly, the liberal use of the word scientific in this new anti-science bill would probably preclude teaching “Intelligent Design” (insert dripping sneer ending in puking noise), which  hasn’t the slightest scientific basis. As America falls behind the rest of the world in every way, let’s hand out degrees in stupidity.

Measure clears way for teaching of ‘intelligent design’ – The Santa Fe New Mexican

Rep. Tom Anderson, R-Albuquerque, said Tuesday that his House Bill 302 is not intended to promote intelligent design or creationism. … Anderson said, "I’m just trying to protect teachers. … I’m trying to prevent another Galileo," a reference to the father of modern physics, who was tried during the Inquisition as a heretic. [mjh: Such nobility!]

The bill says the state "shall not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic. A teacher who chooses to provide such information shall be protected from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so."

The bill lists several protected "controversial scientific topics" including "biological origins, biological evolution, causes of climate change, human cloning and other scientific topics that are often viewed by society as controversial."

Measure clears way for teaching of ‘intelligent design’ – The Santa Fe New Mexican

I’d like to see a science teacher use this bill to shut up a parent who objects to teaching anthropogenic climate change – hey, it’s “controversial” (with the same idiots evolution is).

[hat tip to dangerousmeta]

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." — Sam Adams