Is this why they won't talk about climate change?

[Scuba]

[theHandpuppet]

1. Damn, I wish he would run for office

I wonder if Tyson would even consider it.

[randome]

3. That would be like Spock at a Superbowl party.

He wouldn't last five minutes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[brush]

63. Why do you think that? The man is brilliant.

Last edited Thu Feb 20, 2014, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm betting that he would be able to access situations well enough to get the right people around and behind him to get elected — sorta like our current president did. He's already got plenty of fans enthralled by listening to him who I think would rush to vote for him

I mean you don't have to be a rocket scientist — and he kinda is btw — to go against these these teabaggers nowadays (the ones who seem to make a backwards remark about women every time they open their mouths).

And about Spock, maybe you've forgotten that Spock had super-human strength — or should I say Vulcan strength — that could render mere humans helpless in seconds, and no emotion, just rational thought. IMO, he'd do okay at a Superbowl Party, hell, even in the Superbowl — maybe strong safety ala Ronnie Lott or Jack Tatum.

[Loaded Liberal Dem]

64. His brilliance would be his downfall

Remember, we actually elected George W. Bush

[brush]

65. And we elected B. Obama, also a smart man. nt

[randome]

67. I think we would all prefer more Tysons in Congress.

But rational thought doesn't often fare well against virulent fundamentalists. Every answer to a Tyson proposal would be: "GOD! BIBLE! BENGHAZI!"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[brush]

68. "GOD! BIBLE! BENGHAZI!" You have a point there

But even that crappola can be worked around to a degree. Obama after all, has accomplished some things despite the unprecedented obstructionism from the GOP/Teabaggers.

[marble falls]

23. A profile of who's in Congress:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS22555.pdf

Interesting stuff.

[geardaddy]

34. Thanks for that.

[Pterodactyl]

53. Thanks! More scientists, doctors, pilots and astronauts than I would have thought!

[ashling]

60. Except for the skeletons in the closet . . .

after all,


[font size = 5]he killed Pluto![/font size = 5]






.




We report . . . you decide!

[DeeDeeNY]

62. +1

Good one!

[randome]

66. But he apologized for that.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[hatrack]

2. Thank you!

Right on target.

[The2ndWheel]

4. Specialization

Division of labor.

Plus, the scientists and engineers are the people that came up with the means and technology that have given us the ability to exploit the resources of the planet, and push the rest of life out of our way, which is a fairly large reason for our environmental issues.

[Scootaloo]

7. Unfortunately, this particular brand of "specialization"...

Gives us people who believe money is the most important thing in the world and that ethics are secondary to personal legal interpretations.

It also makes a farce of the idea of a "government of the people" since it reduces "the people" to a small handful of hte wealthiest men in two fields.

[The2ndWheel]

9. Plus they barely read the legislation they end up agreeing to

It's all contracts and lawyerspeak. That's why we all elect a person to represent large groups of people. It's their job. They're career politicians.

Scientists and engineers dedicate many years of their lives getting good at their own careers. They don't have the time to also run the government, because we need them doing all their science and engineering stuff. Normal everyday people can't run the government either, which is why elect people to represent us, even though I can't imagine that any single person can represent the interests of an average of hundreds of thousands or millions of people, depending on which office they run for.

[CBGLuthier]

13. Science Bad!!!!

[The2ndWheel]

17. It has played a role, both good and bad

[defacto7]

58. Sounds like a quote from Frankenstein.

Jar brains.

[malthaussen]

16. Specialization is for insects.

But I agree, Mr Tyson wouldn't last five minutes. He's not mean-spirited enough.

-- Mal

[Exultant Democracy]

57. Specialized for running for office not running a government. Lawyers don't learn public policy

and it is a big problem.

[Adrahil]

5. No one else can afford to run! NT

[Blue_Tires]

43. +1

[madokie]

6. Pretty much it

We really need to start paying attention the people we vote for cause the crop of pols we have now are not serving us very well. When I say us I mean those of us in the 99% club

[saidsimplesimon]

15. madokie, agree with you and love the Will Roger's quote.

[Dustlawyer]

40. That is because they do not represent us, they represent the ones who regularly give them

campaign cash, trips abroad, and jobs for their friends and relatives. They also give them insider trading information which Congress made legal for themselves to do, again. Another trick they do is to have one corporation sell them valuable land cheap, they hold it for a little while and then sell it to another corporation for more than its worth. That is how career politicians become rich in public service.
This is why we need CCFR, Complete Campaign Finance Reform and Publicly Funded Elections. We need to take out the lobbyists and the money and we would see a return of true Representative Government. This would solve most of our current problems. Decisions would be made based on how we, the 99%, felt about it instead of who gave them the most money for their re-election and other "perks!" That is how oil companies get subsidies from us instead of paying taxes.

[truebluegreen]

8. Money, money, money, money,

brain-dead, money, money, money....


I know, there should be more brain-deads in there.

[BrotherIvan]

41. Get out of my brain!

Exactly what I thought. Except there was a "pig" in there.

[truebluegreen]

56. +1

[2pooped2pop]

10. they don't talk climate change for one reason

They don't want to stop getting the money from the big corps that want to continue to pollute freely. Oh and it would take money to make changes and you don't think the 1% should have to pay that money do ya? So lets tax the cigs and bbq of the poor. See if that makes a difference.

[freedom fighter jh]

11. Tyson is not a typical scientist.

He comes across as extraverted and expressive.

Most scientists speak a language that others don't understand -- and that's not only because it's rocket science; it's also because they kind of naturally understate things, whether because that is the language of their profession or because of their personalities. The latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report says the temperature is going up and that's almost certainly because of human influence. That means the trend will continue and lead to all kinds of hell breaking loose. That should be alarming, but many of us fail to be alarmed.

Consider this one fact: James Hansen, perhaps the most highly respected climate scientist, gave up science to be a climate activist, because he understands the stakes.

[CrispyQ]

20. "Chasing Ice."

People need to see that movie. It's chilling visual evidence that our planet is warming. I'm sick of dumb shits saying because it's cold climate change is not happening.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2012/dec/12/chasing-ice-iceberg-greenland-video


So James Balog was a scientist who did not believe on global climate change, but something changed his mind & he decided to get visual evidence. (It's been a few months since I saw the film, I'm a little fuzzy on the deatils.) Anyway, he puts cameras all over the arctic & they send images to a satellite & it's fascinating.

At the link above, you will see an incredible calving event of a scope that is hard to fathom, but it is the size of Manhattan. Balog had a feeling about that section & had two of his crew camp out there for weeks. IIRC, it was three weeks! Their patience was rewarded. The clip is just under 4 minutes, but the event actually took about 75 minutes to complete.

Watch it.

[JDPriestly]

12. Scientists and engineers tend to be introverts. Not all are, but a great percentage of them

are. A lot of lawyers are too, but those lawyers do not run for office and win.

You have to have the right kind of personality, and if you have that in science, you probably teach. How many former teachers are there in Congress?

I can't seem to find a number on the former teachers in Congress.

[AndyTiedye]

52. The Few Engineers Who Do Have Social Skills Usually Become Managers or Entrepeneurs

Many of us were drawn to science and engineering because it makes so much more sense than people do.

Engineers with people skills tend to get sucked into management, or they go off and start their own companies.

The ones that go into management suffer brain rot that quickly makes them unable to do engineering anymore,
and often turns them into Republicans. Some of these do run for office, but they almost always lose.

The entrepreneurs are usually far to engaged in what they are doing to have any interest in running for office.

[JDPriestly]

59. Agreed, except I would say "Managers, entrepreneurs" or patent lawyers.

[valerief]

14. Scientists running the country? What a wonderful concept! Never happen. nt

[mopinko]

18. moms. we need more moms

we have some, and they are among our best.

[Borchkins]

22. I'm a mom and a lawyer and believe in science.

B

[WinkyDink]

19. I'd go with more Liberal Arts grads.

[marble falls]

24. I go for more hippies, because after all......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x285487

[reformist2]

21. Maybe our candidates should be chosen at random from the phone book after all.

[fasttense]

27. I agree

I think there should be a lottery and people should be picked at random to represent us in all levels of government.

I don't see how this random selection would be any worse than what we have now. As long as there is no cheating on who gets selected, money would NOT buy influence from the random selected like it does from those voted in.

[PowerToThePeople]

28. Random lottery sounds good to me

Once every 6 months lottery for 1/4 of the districts. Two year term. This would be for House of Reps.

[awoke_in_2003]

32. "Johnson, Navin R...

sounds like a typical bastard"

[certainot]

25. rw radio blowhards are an army of political correctness cops working for the oil industry

republicans and much of media don't talk climate change because they're afraid of limbaugh and sons.

media and republicans are afraid of and are enabled by the screaming dittoheaded teabaggers calling their offices/producers, and their owners are pleased to be enabled that way.

[liberal N proud]

26. Congress does not make their own decisions

They listen to the lobbyist who pays them the most!

[Laelth]

29. It makes sense for lawyers to become lawmakers.

They are, in fact, related fields. Believe it or not, the percentage of our politicians who used to be lawyers has dropped dramatically over the past 40 years. Just take a look at all the Republican non-lawyers who hold positions of power, and it will make you pine for the days when lawyers made laws.

-Laelth

[4lbs]

30. Congress has what a 9% approval rating, and yet the people still keep re-electing them.

The only job I know of where your "bosses" only like 9% of what you do, and yet you get to keep your job.

[Leith]

46. Unfortunately

It doesn't matter one little bit what people's opinions of Congress are. The only thing that matters is one's opinion of their own senator or representative is. That's how brainless wonders like Bachmann and Cruz keep getting reelected.

And there ARE scientists of sorts in Congress: there are several medical doctors. Ron Paul is a gynecologist, for example. Joe Barton was an industrial engineer (for all the good that did considering his stance on Climate Change and the BP oil spill). Once they start begging for corporate cash, everything else goes out the window.

[raouldukelives]

31. The only "scientists" corporations would allow to win are ones we don't want.

As long as they are friendly with JP Morgan & Chevron then start those campaign engines.

[PasadenaTrudy]

33. Where are the artists, poets, writers, etc?

Yes, I'm atheist and pro-science, too

[KurtNYC]

35. Wrong. It's more like "don't admit the ship is sinking until you monopolize the lifeboats"

Climate change will drive huge shifts in commodities and real estate. THEY have models showing what will spike and what areas of the country will become worthless. Any discussion of how "we" as a group should adapt to climate change will not take place until they have a "solution" to sell us. They will make as many moves as possible before showing any of the little people the plan.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. Climate change deniers support oil company profits. Their mantra: "No Carbon Tax!" . nt

[eShirl]

37. I love that man! Can't wait for the new COSMOS series.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2014/0130-neil-degrass-tysons-cosmos-has-a-new-trailer.html

[kmlisle]

42. Is it rally going to air on Fox?

[kristopher]

38. Who is "they"?

With the exception of a few Blue Dogs, the Dems are itching for action on climate change and they aren't shy about making their desires known.

What the hell is going on with the constant drumbeat of false equivalency where it is "Congress" that's the problem instead of the Pukes that are the problem. It isn't as if you need to stretch the truth to assign them the blame.

[DirtyDawg]

39. There are...

...a few 'doctors' - like Broun and Gingrey - for what it's worth. It's the damned money, dammit. Every one of these guys - doctors, lawyers Indian chiefs - are bought and paid for by the corporatists that are only in it for 'their' money. Public financing of elections/campaigns - and absolutely no campaign contributions or spending by PACs or any other billionaire bastards - is the only way out of this. And if the Supreme Court won't go along, then we'll have to get rid of them too - even if it means a wholesale Pelican Brief strategy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. that is part of it

[tecelote]

45. K & R

However, we're the ones that vote them in to office.

[Cleita]

47. I always questioned that as well. It seems we need our House of Representatives needs to reflect

those groups instead of a region. We already have senators for that. We could just make the Senate reflect population like the House instead of just two senators per state. We should also insist on equal gender representation 50/50. It would better reflect what our country is and make it more difficult for special interests and lobbyists to buy politicians.

[Scuba]

48. We should draw names at random. I'll guarantee you the quality of House members would improve.

[Cleita]

49. I agree, and that would be true democracy, but I've been told that it wouldn't

work. The wrong people might get selected.

*horrors!*

[Scuba]

50. The "wrong people"? Congress has an approval rating lower than herpes. Could it be more wrong?

[Cleita]

51. Wrong people meaning working class and the poor.

I have heard this from so called liberals.

[Egalitarian Thug]

61. Exactamundo!

Can't have any of you smelly working class animals roaming the halls of power. You wouldn't know what to do with it if you had it anyway. It's all just so much easier when you know your place and also know to stay in it, quietly.

And just one more thing, when we're done with you, could you please just die quickly? It's bad enough that we have to pay to have you fertilize our fairway, but this hanging on for years after you're of no use is just impolite.

[greatlaurel]

54. That is very interesting point.

Very many business people and attorneys are very limited in understanding the big picture. It is really stunning that supposed smart people really have an inability to comprehend science facts like climate change. IMO it is a sort of learning disability. Others are simply greedy. It reminds me that some definitions of gifted children include a high level of empathy for the world around them. There are children who develop this at a very young age. Unfortunately, there are a great many people who never develop empathy or the ability to comprehend the bigger picture at all. An awful lot of those types end up in the law or business.

Great post. Thanks!

[neverforget]

55. If we could get the money out of politics,

then maybe things will start to change for the better.