...since the Wingnut mentioned him. And by the way, you should know that he's not held in the universal esteem you cons think. But still. That actually links up with the issue of stem cell research, though not regarding his administration. Remember Nancy Reagan herself campaigning for stem cell research, because if it had existed in time Ronnie might not have suffered from Alzheimer's as he did?

But that's the real Reagans. You're more than happy to use them as totems, but you couldn't care less what the real Reagans might have said in the flesh if you asked them. Instead, the GOP simply dismissed her input.

So, what about that?

Kids taught science in Red states(or counties, I guess is the scale of it now) will be behind other kids on the subject. And thus less likely to get into college and less likely nto become scientists.

So if the GOP wants to reduce these states to simply producing football players and politicians, they're doing a great job, and giving an enormous advantage to the rest of the country. So keep going. We might be better off without scientists from Kansas, who knows.

You've proven that Republicans are all for science when they can make a buck from it or if it results in cool explosions. But nobody asked you that because we already know. Try actually addressing the question.

You didn't really address the examples in the questions even slightly. I could have read any mumber of party position papers that would have told me this.

Often this column reminds me of the Onion's "Ask A..." columns, in which a question will be answered(usually irrelevantly) by something that cannot stop talking about its own concerns. Such as "Ask A Bee" where all answers have to do with finding honey, no matter what the question.

This column is a waste of time, like your party. You think you're going to find converts, and have no interest in objectively explaining your party. We're not interested in your happy talk about the GOP. We're trying to understand what looks like complete and utter divorce from reality. But with this pamphlet of a column you merely illustrated it.

Maybe if the questions are phrased differently. How about this: why does the GOP oppose science whenever it conflicts with their politics? But you won't answer that, or you'll just say they don't without disproving any examples given, so why bother giving you any?

They did. That's what the most recent DVD release is, I think.

>>This takes you back to the old days when scifi movies didn't take themselves so seriously -- the lighthearted days of the original Star Wars and Star Trek Wrath of Khan, the original Superman movie. I'm tired of the dark, dank seriousness or heavy irony and this hit the spot...

While it might not be the kind of dark we know now, WOK is, among the Trek movies, pretty damn dark. I mean, it's a film about three things: hate, obsession, and friendship.