I'll spare the summary which you can find elsewhere but Shelia Jackson Lee, sitting member of congress and former member of the Science and Space Committee said some truly insane things in a recent eclipse related speech to grade school students. I don't care what side of the political fence you're on, none of us should support someone with cognitive ability this low having any input on what a scientist of any kind does. (I use cognitive ability rather than education as a point of departure since she is a YALE GRADUATE.)
I know some people will point out MGT or any nutjob on the right who spout religious beliefs. That's somehow less problematic since we all know those are...beliefs. This is not the first time Lee has made questionable comments, at one point implying that Armstrong placed a US Flag on Mars. I guess I'm just angry that no one seems to have a problem with this. It's just easier to nod along than for any public academic to call out the fact that a blithering moron who thinks the moon is made of gas and that some solar systems are smaller than the earth is in charge of science related policy in any way. I'm out to go take a walk in the sun, which Lee would remind us is a "mighty powerful heat."
Oh, hell, financeguy, at least she's not claiming the solar system is a social construct.
Quote from: dismalist on April 11, 2024, 02:15:01 PMOh, hell, financeguy, at least she's not claiming the solar system is a social construct.
YET
She is obviously ignorant about the topic and we should demand more of our politicians. But it seems like this is getting about the appropriate amount of media attention that we should be giving to a no-name house member saying something dumb.
And, since you brought it up, it isn't just MTG's religious beliefs, but her routine propagation of conspiracy theories that are equal parts idiotic and dangerous, combined with extreme thirst for media attention. If she was just a religious nut, then she'd be getting about as much attention as your average religious nut in congress - which is not much.
In the past, members of Congress who were flaky, or had flaky ideas on particular topics were usually sidelined by leadership. This week, a weak speaker has given his flakiest opponent more power despite the ability to sideline her. What is up?
As a scientist, I watch what the science committee is up to. The members are not uniformly to my taste. It is disappointing to have committee members who are ignorant about science. But it is much worse to have committee members who don't want science to happen at all.
I'm a bit less concerned that she's a "no name member of the house" than the fact that she's a Yale graduate and UVA law alum. At some point, credentials need to reflect some basic standards. We're already comfortable with people "earning" a high school diploma who are functionally illiterate and lacking in other very basic knowledge, but one of our best institutions?
There is nothing strange here.
To once upon a time get sidelined by leadership? Füherprinzip is not preferable.
We vote for people who are good at getting elected! As usual, the problem is us.
Quote from: financeguy on April 11, 2024, 11:45:08 AMI'll spare the summary which you can find elsewhere but Shelia Jackson Lee, sitting member of congress and former member of the Science and Space Committee said some truly insane things in a recent eclipse related speech to grade school students. I don't care what side of the political fence you're on, none of us should support someone with cognitive ability this low having any input on what a scientist of any kind does. (I use cognitive ability rather than education as a point of departure since she is a YALE GRADUATE.)
I know some people will point out MGT or any nutjob on the right who spout religious beliefs. That's somehow less problematic since we all know those are...beliefs. This is not the first time Lee has made questionable comments, at one point implying that Armstrong placed a US Flag on Mars. I guess I'm just angry that no one seems to have a problem with this. It's just easier to nod along than for any public academic to call out the fact that a blithering moron who thinks the moon is made of gas and that some solar systems are smaller than the earth is in charge of science related policy in any way. I'm out to go take a walk in the sun, which Lee would remind us is a "mighty powerful heat."
Quote from: financeguy on April 12, 2024, 01:22:32 PMI'm a bit less concerned that she's a "no name member of the house" than the fact that she's a Yale graduate and UVA law alum. At some point, credentials need to reflect some basic standards. We're already comfortable with people "earning" a high school diploma who are functionally illiterate and lacking in other very basic knowledge, but one of our best institutions?
You seem to be most concerned that this is not getting as much attention in the media as MTG or some other conspiracy moron on the right. From my perspective (1) both are bad, but one is much more dangerous for our society than the other and (2) we should marginalize dim wits and extremists on both sides, not let them dominate the news cycle.
To your second point, is it Yale's fault that one of their graduates is ignorant about space? Lots of well educated people are ignorant about lots of things. Her degree from Yale is in political science, not astronomy or geology or physics, and it was awarded more than 50 years ago, so I'm not buying this as a major indictment of the university or its instruction today.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 12, 2024, 01:58:56 PM[. . .]
To your second point, is it Yale's fault that one of their graduates is ignorant about space? Lots of well educated people are ignorant about lots of things.
[. . . ]
Given the words coming out of her mouth, she's not well-educated, she's just plain dumb. Or stupid. Or cognitively impaired. Whatever term you want to use. It's Yale's fault for admitting her, or, barring that, letting her graduate. Same for UVA Law.
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2024, 01:45:54 PMThere is nothing strange here.
To once upon a time get sidelined by leadership? Füherprinzip is not preferable.
We vote for people who are good at getting elected! As usual, the problem is us.
I just learned a new awesome German word.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 12, 2024, 07:13:27 PMQuote from: dismalist on April 12, 2024, 01:45:54 PMThere is nothing strange here.
To once upon a time get sidelined by leadership? Füherprinzip is not preferable.
We vote for people who are good at getting elected! As usual, the problem is us.
I just learned a new awesome German word.
Oh, shit, there's an r missing. Do you know where it goes? :-)
Quote from: spork on April 12, 2024, 04:56:12 PMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 12, 2024, 01:58:56 PM[. . .]
To your second point, is it Yale's fault that one of their graduates is ignorant about space? Lots of well educated people are ignorant about lots of things.
[. . . ]
Given the words coming out of her mouth, she's not well-educated, she's just plain dumb. Or stupid. Or cognitively impaired. Whatever term you want to use. It's Yale's fault for admitting her, or, barring that, letting her graduate. Same for UVA Law.
Eh, maybe she was a great student, writes well, argues well, studied hard at the topics that she specializes in. Someone can be very good at one set of things - good enough to graduate from a top school, while being utterly ignorant about some other things. I know quite a few professors like this, as I imagine we all do. She was a political science student at Yale - should the professors in her political science department have failed her over her command of physics or astronomy?
I'm not really wanting to defend this woman. I had never heard of her until yesterday - maybe she is really not bright. But people calling her cognitively impaired or functionally illiterate based on being ignorant about the composition of the moon might want to take a deep breath, as may folks indicting Yale for her having studied there in the 1970s.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 12, 2024, 10:12:04 PMQuote from: spork on April 12, 2024, 04:56:12 PMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 12, 2024, 01:58:56 PM[. . .]
To your second point, is it Yale's fault that one of their graduates is ignorant about space? Lots of well educated people are ignorant about lots of things.
[. . . ]
Given the words coming out of her mouth, she's not well-educated, she's just plain dumb. Or stupid. Or cognitively impaired. Whatever term you want to use. It's Yale's fault for admitting her, or, barring that, letting her graduate. Same for UVA Law.
Eh, maybe she was a great student, writes well, argues well, studied hard at the topics that she specializes in. Someone can be very good at one set of things - good enough to graduate from a top school, while being utterly ignorant about some other things. I know quite a few professors like this, as I imagine we all do. She was a political science student at Yale - should the professors in her political science department have failed her over her command of physics or astronomy?
I'm not really wanting to defend this woman. I had never heard of her until yesterday - maybe she is really not bright. But people calling her cognitively impaired or functionally illiterate based on being ignorant about the composition of the moon might want to take a deep breath, as may folks indicting Yale for her having studied there in the 1970s.
I'm not as old as she is, so maybe her elementary schooling was different from mine, but I did learn simple facts about the natural world like "the moon is made of rock," "the moon does not emit light," and "the moon is not a star" in 3rd grade. These are not advanced concepts in astronomy or physics that require Ph.D. level-study to understand. As for the fields of political science and law, they reputedly place a very high value on the ability to communicate effectively. She fails on that criteria also, given past public remarks.
If I had a student who expressed the same ignorance of the world with the same cadence, syntax, and vocabulary, I'd be asking if the student was illiterate or on drugs.
Perhaps this is further evidence that not all H-Y-P graduates, or law school graduates, are as smart as people assume they are. And as alluded to upthread, it's probably also an indicator of just how dumb many U.S. voters are.
Quote"A full moon is that complete rounded circle which is made up mostly of gases, and that's why the question is why or how could we as humans live on the moon?" she said. "Are the gases such that we could do that?"
***
"The sun is a mighty powerful heat, but it's almost impossible to go near the sun," Jackson Lee continued. "The moon is more manageable, and you will see in a moment—not a moment, you will see in a couple of years—that NASA is going back to the moon."
***
"We have yet to know whether you can live on the moon. But I don't know about you, I want to be first in line to know how to live and to be able to survive on the moon—that's another planet which we're going to see shortly."
She is about the right age for the onset of dementia, which this sounds like to me.
Quote from: dismalist on April 12, 2024, 08:24:11 PMQuote from: ciao_yall on April 12, 2024, 07:13:27 PMQuote from: dismalist on April 12, 2024, 01:45:54 PMThere is nothing strange here.
To once upon a time get sidelined by leadership? Führerprinzip is not preferable.
We vote for people who are good at getting elected! As usual, the problem is us.
I just learned a new awesome German word.
Oh, shit, there's an r missing. Do you know where it goes? :-)
Quote from: spork on April 13, 2024, 04:16:31 AMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 12, 2024, 10:12:04 PMQuote from: spork on April 12, 2024, 04:56:12 PMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 12, 2024, 01:58:56 PM[. . .]
To your second point, is it Yale's fault that one of their graduates is ignorant about space? Lots of well educated people are ignorant about lots of things.
[. . . ]
Given the words coming out of her mouth, she's not well-educated, she's just plain dumb. Or stupid. Or cognitively impaired. Whatever term you want to use. It's Yale's fault for admitting her, or, barring that, letting her graduate. Same for UVA Law.
Eh, maybe she was a great student, writes well, argues well, studied hard at the topics that she specializes in. Someone can be very good at one set of things - good enough to graduate from a top school, while being utterly ignorant about some other things. I know quite a few professors like this, as I imagine we all do. She was a political science student at Yale - should the professors in her political science department have failed her over her command of physics or astronomy?
I'm not really wanting to defend this woman. I had never heard of her until yesterday - maybe she is really not bright. But people calling her cognitively impaired or functionally illiterate based on being ignorant about the composition of the moon might want to take a deep breath, as may folks indicting Yale for her having studied there in the 1970s.
I'm not as old as she is, so maybe her elementary schooling was different from mine, but I did learn simple facts about the natural world like "the moon is made of rock," "the moon does not emit light," and "the moon is not a star" in 3rd grade. These are not advanced concepts in astronomy or physics that require Ph.D. level-study to understand. As for the fields of political science and law, they reputedly place a very high value on the ability to communicate effectively. She fails on that criteria also, given past public remarks.
If I had a student who expressed the same ignorance of the world with the same cadence, syntax, and vocabulary, I'd be asking if the student was illiterate or on drugs.
Perhaps this is further evidence that not all H-Y-P graduates, or law school graduates, are as smart as people assume they are. And as alluded to upthread, it's probably also an indicator of just how dumb many U.S. voters are.
The bolded is certainly true. But of course, attending and graduating from a top school is more about being good at studying, writing, presenting, etc., then it is about knowing facts. And a lot of folks forget specific things that they learned in school over 50 or 60 years.
And, more generally, a person can be ignorant about a certain topic, yet still quite capable and even brilliant in other areas (again, I'm not saying that this is the case of this woman, just making a general point). I know someone who is so brilliant in their particular area of study, yet their knowledge of basic concepts in some other areas are mind bogglingly poor. This person is far from functionally illiterate or cognitively impaired, they are just painfully ignorant about something that most of us would consider basic. And they are incredibly well educated on the main topics of importance to their professional life.
Quote from: spork on April 13, 2024, 04:16:31 AMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 12, 2024, 10:12:04 PMQuote from: spork on April 12, 2024, 04:56:12 PMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 12, 2024, 01:58:56 PM[. . .]
To your second point, is it Yale's fault that one of their graduates is ignorant about space? Lots of well educated people are ignorant about lots of things.
[. . . ]
Given the words coming out of her mouth, she's not well-educated, she's just plain dumb. Or stupid. Or cognitively impaired. Whatever term you want to use. It's Yale's fault for admitting her, or, barring that, letting her graduate. Same for UVA Law.
Eh, maybe she was a great student, writes well, argues well, studied hard at the topics that she specializes in. Someone can be very good at one set of things - good enough to graduate from a top school, while being utterly ignorant about some other things. I know quite a few professors like this, as I imagine we all do. She was a political science student at Yale - should the professors in her political science department have failed her over her command of physics or astronomy?
I'm not really wanting to defend this woman. I had never heard of her until yesterday - maybe she is really not bright. But people calling her cognitively impaired or functionally illiterate based on being ignorant about the composition of the moon might want to take a deep breath, as may folks indicting Yale for her having studied there in the 1970s.
I'm not as old as she is, so maybe her elementary schooling was different from mine, but I did learn simple facts about the natural world like "the moon is made of rock," "the moon does not emit light," and "the moon is not a star" in 3rd grade. These are not advanced concepts in astronomy or physics that require Ph.D. level-study to understand. As for the fields of political science and law, they reputedly place a very high value on the ability to communicate effectively. She fails on that criteria also, given past public remarks.
If I had a student who expressed the same ignorance of the world with the same cadence, syntax, and vocabulary, I'd be asking if the student was illiterate or on drugs.
Perhaps this is further evidence that not all H-Y-P graduates, or law school graduates, are as smart as people assume they are. And as alluded to upthread, it's probably also an indicator of just how dumb many U.S. voters are.
It's not that many voters are dumb, it's that all are rationally ignorant. The probability that any one vote can determine the outcome of an election is effectively zero. So why invest in studying the issues and getting informed? Political parties know this, so they appeal to emotions rather than analysis or arguments about substance. At the moment, appeal to tribe is the way to go! The person to be elected -- presidential candidates aside -- doesn't matter much.
I find it very hard to believe that Jackson thought the moon was a gaseous planet which produces heat. That's crazy, even for the most uneducated person. Her garbled syntax on top of this is a matter of cognitive difficulties, I am betting. She probably should not be in office.
Generalized comments on academics who seldom venture outside their discipline or the state of education, sure, they make sense, but I don't think they are applicable here.
So, apparently she claims that she meant the sun, not the moon. I tend to believe she isn't quite as stupid as the discussion thus far treats her. Mixing up "sun" and "moon" is akin to the many misspeaks we've heard from Biden and Trump. Perhaps the real story should be how ignorant our entire political system is - that I could go along with. But I think this focus on Sheila Jackson Lee's comments are cheap shots. People say things that are wrong and walk back all the time - why is nobody addressing her response to the ridicule?