Pew Poll: 6% of Scientists are Republicans

[JohnStOnge]

what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or to act like they are
2) actively trying to subvert it.”

Perhaps they DO recognize what the Establishment Clause actually says and are expressing their opposition to the way it's when "interpreted" by the Judiciary. Here is what it actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Violation of the Establishment Clause would involve the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establishment of Religion. Nothing the Texas legislature has done or even can do violates that clause. Now, I realize that the Judiciary "interpreted" the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow extend that restriction to State Legislatures, but such an interpretation is laughable. There is no way those who ratified the 14th Amendment understood that to be the case when they did so. What we have here is a classic case of the Judiciary making things up. Maybe some people don't like that.

What we have is the argument that the 1st Amendment saying that the Congress of the United States will make no law respecting estabishment of Religion combined with the 14th Amendment saying "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that a State legislature can't make a law requiring some kind of religous context in education. That's ridiculous. It really is.

Also, one really has to question the broad manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted "establishment of religion" because the Congress, shortly after the 1st Amendment was ratified, did such things as start holding Christian church services in the House chamber.

People really, really need to learn to start making the distinction between what the Constitution actually says and how its language was generally understood by those involved in ratifying any particular portion of it and what the Federal Judiciary "interprets" it to say. They are two completely different things. There is no way...none...that the overwhelming majority of those involved in ratifying the 1st Amendment construed it as the Judiciary has distorted it over the years.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Now back to the original subject and, again, not having attempted to read the large number of posts in this thread:

I have been involved in the world of applied science for 26 years now. I've been involved a little in the world of research science too. One thing I think I've noticed is that the overwhelming majority of those around me have environmentalist leanings. I like to call it a "Gaian" outlook.

For instance: When I was a biologist involved in coastal and fisheries management issues back in the 1980s, the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) issue was prevalent. My opinion is that there never was reliable information on the number of turtles killed in shrimp nets but, beyond that, my philosophical outlook was that if it came down to a question of human beings retaining their livelihood and certain sea turtle species going extinct, it should be "too bad" for the sea turtles.

One time I was talking to another biologist. I talked about how I think the estimates of sea turtle mortality due to shrimping were unreliable and also how there's no way we could know whether or not making shrimpers use TEDs would make a difference in whether or not certain sea turtle species went extinct. But finally I asked her: If it came down between thousands of people losing their livelihoods and a sea turtle species becoming extinct, which would she choose? I added the caveat that we assume (and it's probably a pretty good assumption) that sea turtles going extinct would represent no threat to our own species.

Of course, she chose thousands of people losing their livelihoods.

On another occasion I was talking to another biologist about an instance in which a rancher shot a Grizzly bear. The Grizzly bear was threatening his livestock so he shot some rounds into the air. The bear charged him so he shot and killed it. He was then fined by Federal authorities. Of course, I thought that was ridiculous.

But the other biologist's attitude was, "That Grizzly bear had just as much a right to be there as the rancher did." He was fine with a human being being fined for first trying to save his livestock from a bear attack then acting to save his own life when charged by the bear.

Such attitudes are not the result of being smarter and/or more educated. They are the result of philosophy. I don't know why the world of science tends to be disproportionately populated with people I consider to be characterized by egalitarian, environmentalist, etc. philosophy. But it does not mean that such philosophies are superior or that one would necessarily adopt such philosophies if one were only "smart" or "informed" enough.

Believe me. It doesn't matter how smart and/or informed I was. No way would I ever think that preventing a species from becoming extinct trumps everything else nor is there any way I'd ever thing the Federal government is justified in fining a rancher for trying to defend his livestock from a Grizzly bear.

Our species, by the way, would do just fine if both Grizzly bears and sea turtles joined the >99% of other species that have existed on this planet then became extinct.

 

[rdean]

what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or to act like they are
2) actively trying to subvert it.”

Perhaps they DO recognize what the Establishment Clause actually says and are expressing their opposition to the way it's when "interpreted" by the Judiciary. Here is what it actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Violation of the Establishment Clause would involve the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establishment of Religion. Nothing the Texas legislature has done or even can do violates that clause. Now, I realize that the Judiciary "interpreted" the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow extend that restriction to State Legislatures, but such an interpretation is laughable. There is no way those who ratified the 14th Amendment understood that to be the case when they did so. What we have here is a classic case of the Judiciary making things up. Maybe some people don't like that.

What we have is the argument that the 1st Amendment saying that the Congress of the United States will make no law respecting estabishment of Religion combined with the 14th Amendment saying "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that a State legislature can't make a law requiring some kind of religous context in education. That's ridiculous. It really is.

Also, one really has to question the broad manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted "establishment of religion" because the Congress, shortly after the 1st Amendment was ratified, did such things as start holding Christian church services in the House chamber.

People really, really need to learn to start making the distinction between what the Constitution actually says and how its language was generally understood by those involved in ratifying any particular portion of it and what the Federal Judiciary "interprets" it to say. They are two completely different things. There is no way...none...that the overwhelming majority of those involved in ratifying the 1st Amendment construed it as the Judiciary has distorted it over the years.

Are you saying we should be more like Iran?

Funny how the world of science seems to be populated with inventors, and doctors and engineers who build stuff like microwave ovens and big screen TV's and do transplants. The religious use these things and then trash the people that make them. While I'm not saying you personally, I'm saying in general, the religious do that.

 

[JohnStOnge]

[
Are you saying we should be more like Iran?
.

No, with respect to the post to which you were responding, I'm saying we should understand that what the Constitution actually says is a completely different thing than what the Judiciary has "interpreted" it to say over the years. There is no way that the doctorine of "Separation of Church and State" established as of today due to Supreme Court "interpretation" over the years is consistent with what the Establishment Clause actually says or with how it was understood by the people who ratified it.

Objectively, the language of the establishment clause does not prohibit what the Texas legislature did. And neither does the language of the 14th Amendment.

Again, the Establishment Clause imposes a limit on the Congress of the United States. And it's a real stretch....a stretch that's really too long to even be seriously considered...to say that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment imposes that limit on State legislatures.

One of these days, hopefully, people will realize that we're not really governed by a Constitution anymore. We are governed by a gaggle of unelected, unaccountable Federal judges who routinely make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say.

If the People of the United States choose to institute a Separation of Church and State such as that the Judiciary has imposed; fine. But it should be the People who do it. It shouldn't be a situation where unelected and unaccountable Federal Judges impose it by inventing something that isn't really in the Constitution.

 

[rdean]

""""Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?""""

And that's what's so cool about science. We can figure out and learn about those other things. Bible fables do nothing for me that a good Marvel Comic can't do.

Not directed at anyone in particular, but I don't understand how Republicans can be proud that less than 6% of scientists are Republican. Seems to me, that would be an extreme embarrassment.

 

[Chris]

6% of Scientists are Republicans.

How unsurprising

YouTube - 6% Of Scientist Are Republicans

Further stats:

55% Democrat
6% Republican
39% Independent

52% Liberal
14% Very Liberal
9% Conservative

Republicans are bothered by things like "facts" and "science."

 

[DiveCon]

6% of Scientists are Republicans.

How unsurprising

YouTube - 6% Of Scientist Are Republicans

Further stats:

55% Democrat
6% Republican
39% Independent

52% Liberal
14% Very Liberal
9% Conservative

Republicans are bothered by things like "facts" and "science."

no, thats you
but you are clearly projecting again

 

[Chris]

This is so funny I can't stop laughing. I am not going to try to guess, but I have to believe the vast majority of scientists polled earn their living off of grants and public money. Climate change, stem cell research, research for diseases, we can go on and on and on; many scientists get their funding through some type of grant, and guess which party is likely to dole out more money in grants, especially the ones on things like fruit fly research in France?

Now, I won't say all of that public spending is wasteful but come on, if your livelihood was dependent upon federal money, wouldn't you support the party that was most likely to keep you working?

No, you would support the party that is best for America.

Which is what they do.

 

[rdean]

This is so funny I can't stop laughing. I am not going to try to guess, but I have to believe the vast majority of scientists polled earn their living off of grants and public money. Climate change, stem cell research, research for diseases, we can go on and on and on; many scientists get their funding through some type of grant, and guess which party is likely to dole out more money in grants, especially the ones on things like fruit fly research in France?

Now, I won't say all of that public spending is wasteful but come on, if your livelihood was dependent upon federal money, wouldn't you support the party that was most likely to keep you working?

-----------I love this. Here, the following is a different quote:

cientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have shown that a protein called neurexin is required for..nerve cell connections to form and function correctly.

The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism.

--------Wait, wait, wait. This quote is even better:

While identifying this gene array is significant in its own right, the successful use of fruit flies in this kind of study is a revelation to the researchers who view it as an efficient model for the initial testing of "rescue" therapies to try to prevent birth defects. Scientists can study the effect of the drug on the genes of as many as three generations of fruit flies in a month using readily available scientific tools, speeding up study times while keeping costs low.

"It also adds to the growing list of roles fruit flies can take," says Walker. Fruit flies are already used as models for aging, neural disease and cancer.


---------Every time a Republican opens their mouth about "science", they have to talk around their foot. It's why they are difficult to understand.

 

[Cecilie1200]

what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or to act like they are
2) actively trying to subvert it.”

Perhaps they DO recognize what the Establishment Clause actually says and are expressing their opposition to the way it's when "interpreted" by the Judiciary. Here is what it actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Violation of the Establishment Clause would involve the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establishment of Religion. Nothing the Texas legislature has done or even can do violates that clause. Now, I realize that the Judiciary "interpreted" the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow extend that restriction to State Legislatures, but such an interpretation is laughable. There is no way those who ratified the 14th Amendment understood that to be the case when they did so. What we have here is a classic case of the Judiciary making things up. Maybe some people don't like that.

What we have is the argument that the 1st Amendment saying that the Congress of the United States will make no law respecting estabishment of Religion combined with the 14th Amendment saying "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that a State legislature can't make a law requiring some kind of religous context in education. That's ridiculous. It really is.

Also, one really has to question the broad manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted "establishment of religion" because the Congress, shortly after the 1st Amendment was ratified, did such things as start holding Christian church services in the House chamber.

People really, really need to learn to start making the distinction between what the Constitution actually says and how its language was generally understood by those involved in ratifying any particular portion of it and what the Federal Judiciary "interprets" it to say. They are two completely different things. There is no way...none...that the overwhelming majority of those involved in ratifying the 1st Amendment construed it as the Judiciary has distorted it over the years.

Are you saying we should be more like Iran?

Funny how the world of science seems to be populated with inventors, and doctors and engineers who build stuff like microwave ovens and big screen TV's and do transplants. The religious use these things and then trash the people that make them. While I'm not saying you personally, I'm saying in general, the religious do that.

Really? Please demonstrate for us that "the religious" trash doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, rather than reserving our scorn specifically for theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science.

 

[Chris]

Perhaps they DO recognize what the Establishment Clause actually says and are expressing their opposition to the way it's when "interpreted" by the Judiciary. Here is what it actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Violation of the Establishment Clause would involve the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establishment of Religion. Nothing the Texas legislature has done or even can do violates that clause. Now, I realize that the Judiciary "interpreted" the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow extend that restriction to State Legislatures, but such an interpretation is laughable. There is no way those who ratified the 14th Amendment understood that to be the case when they did so. What we have here is a classic case of the Judiciary making things up. Maybe some people don't like that.

What we have is the argument that the 1st Amendment saying that the Congress of the United States will make no law respecting estabishment of Religion combined with the 14th Amendment saying "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that a State legislature can't make a law requiring some kind of religous context in education. That's ridiculous. It really is.

Also, one really has to question the broad manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted "establishment of religion" because the Congress, shortly after the 1st Amendment was ratified, did such things as start holding Christian church services in the House chamber.

People really, really need to learn to start making the distinction between what the Constitution actually says and how its language was generally understood by those involved in ratifying any particular portion of it and what the Federal Judiciary "interprets" it to say. They are two completely different things. There is no way...none...that the overwhelming majority of those involved in ratifying the 1st Amendment construed it as the Judiciary has distorted it over the years.

Are you saying we should be more like Iran?

Funny how the world of science seems to be populated with inventors, and doctors and engineers who build stuff like microwave ovens and big screen TV's and do transplants. The religious use these things and then trash the people that make them. While I'm not saying you personally, I'm saying in general, the religious do that.

Really? Please demonstrate for us that "the religious" trash doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, rather than reserving our scorn specifically for theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science.

You just described the Republican Party.

 

[rdean]

Perhaps they DO recognize what the Establishment Clause actually says and are expressing their opposition to the way it's when "interpreted" by the Judiciary. Here is what it actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Violation of the Establishment Clause would involve the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establishment of Religion. Nothing the Texas legislature has done or even can do violates that clause. Now, I realize that the Judiciary "interpreted" the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow extend that restriction to State Legislatures, but such an interpretation is laughable. There is no way those who ratified the 14th Amendment understood that to be the case when they did so. What we have here is a classic case of the Judiciary making things up. Maybe some people don't like that.

What we have is the argument that the 1st Amendment saying that the Congress of the United States will make no law respecting estabishment of Religion combined with the 14th Amendment saying "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that a State legislature can't make a law requiring some kind of religous context in education. That's ridiculous. It really is.

Also, one really has to question the broad manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted "establishment of religion" because the Congress, shortly after the 1st Amendment was ratified, did such things as start holding Christian church services in the House chamber.

People really, really need to learn to start making the distinction between what the Constitution actually says and how its language was generally understood by those involved in ratifying any particular portion of it and what the Federal Judiciary "interprets" it to say. They are two completely different things. There is no way...none...that the overwhelming majority of those involved in ratifying the 1st Amendment construed it as the Judiciary has distorted it over the years.

Are you saying we should be more like Iran?

Funny how the world of science seems to be populated with inventors, and doctors and engineers who build stuff like microwave ovens and big screen TV's and do transplants. The religious use these things and then trash the people that make them. While I'm not saying you personally, I'm saying in general, the religious do that.

Really? Please demonstrate for us that "the religious" trash doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, rather than reserving our scorn specifically for theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science.

Because the religious call doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, wait, how did you put it? "Theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science." From that "theoretical egghead nonsense" comes things such as "microwaves and TVs."

Leave it to people without a clue to judge.

ABS

 

[JakeStarkey]

what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or to act like they are
2) actively trying to subvert it.”

Perhaps they DO recognize what the Establishment Clause actually says and are expressing their opposition to the way it's when "interpreted" by the Judiciary. Here is what it actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Violation of the Establishment Clause would involve the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establishment of Religion. Nothing the Texas legislature has done or even can do violates that clause. Now, I realize that the Judiciary "interpreted" the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow extend that restriction to State Legislatures, but such an interpretation is laughable. There is no way those who ratified the 14th Amendment understood that to be the case when they did so. What we have here is a classic case of the Judiciary making things up. Maybe some people don't like that.

What we have is the argument that the 1st Amendment saying that the Congress of the United States will make no law respecting estabishment of Religion combined with the 14th Amendment saying "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that a State legislature can't make a law requiring some kind of religous context in education. That's ridiculous. It really is.

Also, one really has to question the broad manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted "establishment of religion" because the Congress, shortly after the 1st Amendment was ratified, did such things as start holding Christian church services in the House chamber.

People really, really need to learn to start making the distinction between what the Constitution actually says and how its language was generally understood by those involved in ratifying any particular portion of it and what the Federal Judiciary "interprets" it to say. They are two completely different things. There is no way...none...that the overwhelming majority of those involved in ratifying the 1st Amendment construed it as the Judiciary has distorted it over the years.

Are you saying we should be more like Iran?

Funny how the world of science seems to be populated with inventors, and doctors and engineers who build stuff like microwave ovens and big screen TV's and do transplants. The religious use these things and then trash the people that make them. While I'm not saying you personally, I'm saying in general, the religious do that.

And nobody construes slavery as acceptable under our federal law.

Times change, people change, interpretation of the Constitution changes.

Have troube with that concept (?), then move to Iran and let the mullahs decide things for you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well that serves reason... And it explains how Science has become so politicized... and how such has suffered such gaps in credibility... particularly with regards to climate "Science"... and the long discredited farce of 'anthropologic global warming.'

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you saying we should be more like Iran?

Funny how the world of science seems to be populated with inventors, and doctors and engineers who build stuff like microwave ovens and big screen TV's and do transplants. The religious use these things and then trash the people that make them. While I'm not saying you personally, I'm saying in general, the religious do that.

Really? Please demonstrate for us that "the religious" trash doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, rather than reserving our scorn specifically for theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science.

Because the religious call doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, wait, how did you put it? "Theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science." From that "theoretical egghead nonsense" comes things such as "microwaves and TVs."

Leave it to people without a clue to judge.

ABS

No, dumbass, clearly "the religious" differentiate between doctors, engineers, and inventors and theoretical eggheads staring at their belly buttons, since I just did so in my previous post. It's actually not hard to tell the difference, since the first group actually accomplishes something real, and the second group has nothing to show for its efforts but a long list of hoaxes and the pithy debate technique of "Well, you're just stupid, so nyah nyah!"

I realize this whole "reading for comprehension" thing is tough for you, but could you do us the courtesy of at least TRYING?

 

[rdean]

Really? Please demonstrate for us that "the religious" trash doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, rather than reserving our scorn specifically for theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science.

Because the religious call doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, wait, how did you put it? "Theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science." From that "theoretical egghead nonsense" comes things such as "microwaves and TVs."

Leave it to people without a clue to judge.

ABS

No, dumbass, clearly "the religious" differentiate between doctors, engineers, and inventors and theoretical eggheads staring at their belly buttons, since I just did so in my previous post. It's actually not hard to tell the difference, since the first group actually accomplishes something real, and the second group has nothing to show for its efforts but a long list of hoaxes and the pithy debate technique of "Well, you're just stupid, so nyah nyah!"

I realize this whole "reading for comprehension" thing is tough for you, but could you do us the courtesy of at least TRYING?

Doctors, engineers, and inventors are called "Democrats" or as 94% say, "Not Republicans". Thank you, thank you, thank you for your continued "support" for our "Democratic" scientists.

Where do we find "Republican Scientists"? It has to be "damp".

Scientist is the third most respected profession in the United States. The top two are "military and teacher". Two areas scientists support with their weapons and knowledge.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because the religious call doctors and engineers and inventors of microwaves and TVs, wait, how did you put it? "Theoretical eggheads and wannabes who do nothing more productive than peddling half-baked idealogical obsessions around as though it were real science." From that "theoretical egghead nonsense" comes things such as "microwaves and TVs."

Leave it to people without a clue to judge.

ABS

No, dumbass, clearly "the religious" differentiate between doctors, engineers, and inventors and theoretical eggheads staring at their belly buttons, since I just did so in my previous post. It's actually not hard to tell the difference, since the first group actually accomplishes something real, and the second group has nothing to show for its efforts but a long list of hoaxes and the pithy debate technique of "Well, you're just stupid, so nyah nyah!"

I realize this whole "reading for comprehension" thing is tough for you, but could you do us the courtesy of at least TRYING?

Doctors, engineers, and inventors are called "Democrats" or as 94% say, "Not Republicans". Thank you, thank you, thank you for your continued "support" for our "Democratic" scientists.

Where do we find "Republican Scientists"? It has to be "damp".

Scientist is the third most respected profession in the United States. The top two are "military and teacher". Two areas scientists support with their weapons and knowledge.

Somehow, I remember you ducking and dodging the question of how we were defining "scientists" for this poll, rather than establishing that it covered all practicing doctors, engineers, and inventors, so I will thank you not to assume you can now pretend that that's a settled fact. That only works on leftist droolers with five-minute memories.

Establish the facts, THEN declare them. Any REAL scientist would know that.

 

[rdean]

No, dumbass, clearly "the religious" differentiate between doctors, engineers, and inventors and theoretical eggheads staring at their belly buttons, since I just did so in my previous post. It's actually not hard to tell the difference, since the first group actually accomplishes something real, and the second group has nothing to show for its efforts but a long list of hoaxes and the pithy debate technique of "Well, you're just stupid, so nyah nyah!"

I realize this whole "reading for comprehension" thing is tough for you, but could you do us the courtesy of at least TRYING?

Doctors, engineers, and inventors are called "Democrats" or as 94% say, "Not Republicans". Thank you, thank you, thank you for your continued "support" for our "Democratic" scientists.

Where do we find "Republican Scientists"? It has to be "damp".

Scientist is the third most respected profession in the United States. The top two are "military and teacher". Two areas scientists support with their weapons and knowledge.

Somehow, I remember you ducking and dodging the question of how we were defining "scientists" for this poll, rather than establishing that it covered all practicing doctors, engineers, and inventors, so I will thank you not to assume you can now pretend that that's a settled fact. That only works on leftist droolers with five-minute memories.

Establish the facts, THEN declare them. Any REAL scientist would know that.

You wouldn't know a real scientist if he bit you on your evolved....

 

[MasterMeerkat]

Texas's mandatory Bible Class
Texas_and_the_Bible_in_school (mastermeerkat:cant post links yet)

.....

i know its texas, but still, that can't be for real!

 

[rdean]

Texas's mandatory Bible Class
Texas_and_the_Bible_in_school (mastermeerkat:cant post links yet)

.....

i know its texas, but still, that can't be for real!

Oh, it's for real all right.