Oak Trees and Blue Bonnets wallpaper – Rand Paul (R-KY) and How The Conservative Cult Thinks

Oak Trees and Blue Bonnets wallpaper

Oak Trees and Blue Bonnets wallpaper


Straight to the sleazy serial liars and delusional fleabags, Rand Paul (R-KY) goes where few Republicans have gone: Howard University

Paul told the students he didn’t come to “preach” or “prescribe” a political point of view, but to ask each of them to write their own story in life and perhaps make conservatism a part of it. In other words: develop their own views of him, the Republican Party and their own political beliefs.

This is just another version of the Herman Cain and Dr. Ben Carson assertion that black Americans have been brain washed. If they would really “think” they’d vote for far Right ideologues. Nope, nothing insulting or wacky about that.

Few young minorities know the history of the Republican Party “chock full of emancipation and black history”. He talked about his passion for ending mandatory minimum federal sentencing for non-violent possession of drugs because they ruin the lives of kids who just make bad decisions. It was one of the most heavily tweeted and applauded lines of his speech.

How the two major political parties have changed since the 1860s can and has filled books. Rand probably has not read a history or political science book that does not regurgitate what he wants to believe his entire life – including his liberal college indoctrination. Rand Paul (R-KY) Must Think Blacks Have Amnesia

He left out the part that Republicans almost always leave out when they lament their lack of support from African Americans: the racial realignment that occurred during the 1960s, when Democratic politicians like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert F. Kennedy became champions for equal rights, and Republicans reinvented their party as a harbor for segregationists.

The simple truth is that the present-day Republican Party has virtually no resemblance to the Republican Party of, say, 1960, when Richard Nixon got 32 percent of the black vote in his race against John F. Kennedy. Four years later, the Republicans nominated right-wing Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who based his campaign on opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By 1968, Nixon had wholeheartedly accepted Goldwater’s advice to “go hunting where the ducks are” by adopting a so-called Southern strategy dedicated to wooing segregationists like Strom Thurmond.

They consolidated their approach in 1980 when Ronald Reagan delivered the first major speech of his campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s’ ugliest cases of racist violence. Reagan gave a ringing declaration of his support for “states’ rights” — code words for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southerners. Ever since then, the GOP has been the party of white privilege.

I did a current check on conservative racism in that Ben Carson post the other day. Another interesting thing to do is search for Obama images in Google, then trace the racist filth back to the conservative web sites that posted them. I still don’t think all Republicans are racist, though they seem to be in denial about their racism problem. It is common for political zealots to rewrite history. You don’t want people looking back at what actually happened and, to use Rand’s words, think for themselves. The radical Right has their noise machine fired up 24/7 because that is how much is noise required to keep the sheeple as true believers. And of course there is the morally reprehensible Conservative problem with being serial liars, At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded.

That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public.

Such a short speech and meaningless in terms of actual substance. Though Paul did get a chance to repeat some of the dogma of the conservative cult,

He said after the Great Depression and Civil Rights Act, blacks wanted “economic emancipation” and began voting Democrat because Democrats promised “unlimited federal assistance”. He added: Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible-the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets. After nearly 50 years of Democrat policies, Paul argued the evidence shows that big government is not a friend to African Americans. He pointed to persistent high unemployment among blacks, presently 13.3%, nearly twice the national average, blacks trapped in failing schools and their declining wealth.

Anyone want to guess what black unemployment would be now if the Civil Rights Act had not been passed. Rand believes, as conservatives dogmatists do, that the free market god will fix everything and anything if we all stand back and let it work it’s magic. Yet Rand supplied a example of a situation which proved that it does not work. It was about a hundred years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act. The all knowing perfect gods of the market had a hundred years to wave the magic wand and make everything work for everyone. Certainly a hundred years of laissez-faire discrimination was a fair trial. Rand reminds me of the few remaining communists who claim that it never had a chance to work either.

Let’s move on to the next nutbar with as much integrity as rat droppings, Top Republican Blasts Obama Budget As ‘Shocking Attack On Seniors’

Well Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) — who also happens to be chairman of the House GOP’s re-election committee — just showed how it’s done, saying Obama’s budget “lays out a shocking attack on seniors.”

“I’ll tell you when you’re going after seniors the way he’s already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you’re crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country,” he said on CNN Wednesday afternoon.

That used to be the $500 million lie. I guess with inflation it has grown. These wackos have been telling that lie about Obamacare and Medicare since 2009,

National Review’s Lowry: Obama Made “Meat-Axe Cuts” To Medicare. On Fox News’ Hannity, National Review editor Rich Lowry said that “$700 billion in cuts on current seniors” have been made to Medicare, adding, “These are meat-axe cuts that the president passed to fund another unaffordable entitlement right now.” [Fox News, Hannity, 8/14/12]

Fox’s Hannity: “There’s Only One Candidate In This Race That Gutted Medicare.” On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said, “There’s only one candidate in this race that gutted Medicare. Who is it?” Hannity later said, “There’s only one guy that cut Medicare, $741 billion, and that was Barack Obama.” [Fox News, Hannity, 8/14/12]

….FactCheck.org: Affordable Care Act “Stipulates That Guaranteed Medicare Benefits Won’t Be Reduced.” FactCheck.org noted that the Affordable Care Act “does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years”:

As we have written many times, the [Affordable Care Act] does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare. (MA plans have been paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.)

And it assumes they actually happen. There’s good reason to think that some of those reductions won’t be implemented. The law calls for cuts in the future growth of reimbursement payments to hospitals and other health care providers — that accounts for $219 billion of the Medicare savings in the law. But Congress has consistently overridden similar scheduled cuts in payments to doctors. [FactCheck.org, 6/28/12]
And Ryan Adopted The Exact Same Method Of Reducing Medicare Growth
Washington Post: “Paul Ryan’s Budget Keeps Obama’s Medicare Cuts. Full Stop.” In an August 14 post on The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, Ezra Klein noted, “Since the Romney campaign wants to run against President Obama’s cuts to Medicare, it’s something of a problem for them that Paul Ryan’s budget includes those very same cuts to Medicare.”

As far as Republicans who has previously demanded chained CPI and are now attacking the White House for offering it, well if the White House had checked with the people who voted for them first, we could have told you what to expect. You are not dealing with people who regard honor as a virtue, So the Obama budget is out, Social Security cuts and all. Why is this happening?

Well, it’s all about the positioning. Ezra Klein gets at what I hear from the WH too (and what’s obvious in any case):

Today’s budget is the White House’s effort to reach the bedrock of the fiscal debate. Half of its purpose is showing what they’re willing to do. They want a budget compromise, and this budget proves it. There are now liberals protesting on the White House lawn. But the other half is revealing what the GOP is — or, more to the point, isn’t — willing to do. Republicans don’t want a budget compromise, and this budget is likely to prove that, too.

The question is, to whom are these things being “proved”?

Since the beginning, the Obama administration has seemed eager to gain the approval of the grownups — the sensible people who will reward efforts to be Serious, and eventually turn on those nasty, intransigent Republicans as long as Obama and co. don’t cater too much to the hippies.This is the latest, biggest version of that strategy. Unfortunately, it will almost surely fail. Why? Because there are no grownups — only people who try to sound like grownups, but are actually every bit as childish as anyone else.

After all, if whoever it is that Obama is trying to appeal to here — I guess it’s the Washington Post editorial page and various other self-proclaimed “centrist” pundits — were willing to admit the fundamental asymmetry in our political debate, willing to admit that if DC is broken, it’s because of GOP radicalism, they would have done it long ago. It’s not as if this reality was hard to see.

But the truth is that the “centrists” aren’t sincere. Calls for centrism and bipartisanship aren’t actual demands for specific policies — they’re an act, a posture these people take to make themselves seem noble and superior.

If conservatives were adults I can see the centrist strategy making some kind of sense – in a bargain with zealots you end up with some of what you want, with some not completely reprehensible concessions. Only the White House seems unable or unwilling to accept the fact that they’re not dealing with people who care about most Americans. Conservatives are captives of the crony corporatists, the libertarian hucksters and fundamentalist quacks who have time traveled here from 1850.

Antique World Map 1587 – The Conservative National Association of Scholars Does a Smear Job on Bowdoin

Antique World Map 1587

Antique World Map 1587

1587 was the year  Queen Elizabeth I of England signs a death warrant for her very own cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary was implicated in a plot to murder Elizabeth, but how much trouble would it have been to banish her to some country castle under house arrest for life.

1587 was also the year the English colony in North America, of Roanoke Island of North Carolina was re-established. It was also the year the first Filipinos in North America landed in Morro Bay, near San Luis Obispo, California.

Radio set ownership by state in 1930

Radio set ownership by state in 1930. This theme map is courtesy the U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau. Sad that so much of the south and south-east was disconnected from the most powerful news and entertainment media of the era.

This editorial is awful. It lacks all the things that occupy the basis of it’s complaints, certain standards of intellectual honesty and fairness, using a well known radical Right organization’s “report” as the basis for what could only be categorized as an alternate version of reality, The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World. The tale of a teed-off philanthropist and the head of Bowdoin College, where identity politics runs wild.

It sounds like the setup for a bad joke: What did the Wall Street type say to the college president on the golf course? Well, we don’t know exactly—but it has launched a saga with weighty implications for American intellectual and civic life.

Here’s what we do know: One day in the summer of 2010, Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, a respected liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine, met investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein for a round of golf about an hour north of campus. College presidents spend many of their waking hours talking to potential donors. In this case, the two men spoke about college life—especially “diversity”—and the conversation made such an impression on President Mills that he cited it weeks later in his convocation address to Bowdoin’s freshman class. That’s where the dispute begins.

In his address, President Mills described the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer’s announcement: “I would never support Bowdoin—you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons,” said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills’s telling. During Mr. Mills’s next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin’s “misplaced and misguided diversity efforts.” At the end of the round, the college president told the students, “I walked off the course in despair.”

Word of the speech soon got to Mr. Klingenstein. Even though he hadn’t been named in the Mills account, Mr. Klingenstein took to the pages of the Claremont Review of Books to call it nonsense: “He didn’t like my views, so he turned me into a backswing interrupting, Bowdoin-hating boor who wants to return to the segregated days of Jim Crow.”

The campus of Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine

The real story, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, was that “I explained my disapproval of ‘diversity’ as it generally has been implemented on college campuses: too much celebration of racial and ethnic difference,” coupled with “not enough celebration of our common American identity.”

For this, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, Bowdoin’s president insinuated that he was a racist.

Whenever the Right kicks into nose high intellectual mode they try to sound like P. G. Wodehouse, but always end up sounding like the most boring speaker at a casket sales convention. The crack about ethnic diversity is well known code for racism. That conservatives keep framing inclusiveness as some kind of liberal plot instead of part of just plain American ideals is the key to cracking a not very clever code. So Thomas Klingenstein sets about to get revenge for being called out on his wacky world view. He signs up the  National Association of Scholars to do a “study” of Bowdoin College. Which is like having a arsonist do a study of fire fighters and fire prevention safety.

Perhaps so. But he’d have a stronger case if, for example, his colleague Marc Hetherington hadn’t written the same year in Bowdoin’s newspaper that liberal professors outnumber conservatives because conservatives don’t “place the same emphasis on the accumulation of knowledge that liberals do.”

In publishing these and other gems, Mr. Klingenstein and the National Association of Scholars hope to encourage alumni and trustees to push aggressively for reforms. They don’t call for the kind of conservative affirmative action seen at the University of Colorado, which recently created a visiting professorship exclusively for right-wingers. Rather, Mr. Klingenstein and the NAS want schools nationwide to stop “silent discrimination against conservatives.” Good luck.

In case you’re wondering, Bowdoin’s official statement on this week’s report amounted to little more than a shrug. A serious response would begin with inviting Mr. Klingenstein to campus for a public debate with President Mills.

For the ironically named “National Association of Scholars ” to find too many liberals in a college that is too liberal is like about as astonishing as finding dust under your bed. If your organization and mindset are about as far Right as Eva Braun then everyone seems like a liberal. This is from a report on the NAS from People for the American Way, Buying a Movement

Conservative University Programs and Academic Associations
In order to secure a lasting victory in the battle for America’s future, right-wing foundations are aware that they must not only control contemporary public debate, but also foster the next generation of conservative scholars, journalists, government employees, legislators and activists. To this end, Bradley, Olin, Scaife, Smith Richardson and others funnel millions of dollars into conservative university programs, university chairs, lecture circuits and right-wing student publications, and promote conservative research in the media to legitimize their positions. They have created and continue to support networks of conservative professors, such as the National Association of Scholars and the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, whose “Collegiate Network” links  conservative student papers. According to the founder of the Center for Campus Organizing, a clearinghouse of information for progressive students, roughly $20 million is pumped into the campus right on an annual basis; almost one fifth of this comes from a handful of right-wing foundations.

In the words of one journalist, these conservative foundations have, “by strategically leveraging their resources…engineered the rise of a right-wing intelligentsia that has come to wield enormous influence in national policy debates.”

The University of Chicago was authorized $3.7 million by the Bradley Foundation for its Bradley Fellows program between 1990-1992.

The Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, devoted to the study of
“the self-ordering market, free trade, free migration,”received $2 million from the Koch Family between 1986 and 1990.

Harvard University received more than $6.2 million from the Olin Foundation
between 1993 and 1997 to set up various conservative law, business, economics and
strategic studies programs.

The National Association of Scholars (N.A.S.), a network of conservative university professors dedicated to combating perceived “liberal bias” on college campuses, received $125,000 from Olin in 1994; Bradley granted $378,400 between 1990-92 and authorized a two-year, $150,000 grant in 1994; the Scaife foundations have contributed more than $400,000 in recent years; and the Adolph Coors, J.M. and Smith Richardson foundations are also regular contributors.

The Madison Center for Educational Affairs, formerly the Institute for Educational Affairs, founded by Irving Kristol and former Treasury Secretary William Simon (current president of the Olin Foundation) to finance right-wing research and conservative student publications, received $100,000 grants from the Olin, Scaife, J.M. and Smith Richardson foundations. Its “Collegiate Network” of conservative student newspapers was signed over to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), in 1996. Founded by William F. Buckley in 1953, ISI works, in its own words, to “battle the radicals and P.C. types on the campuses.” It receives regular funding from the Bradley, DeVos, Lilly, Olin, Murdock and Scaife foundations. In addition to funding conservative programs, particularly in the fields of business administration, economics, law and history, foundations also channel money into organizations that monitor academic output and propagate neoconservative and right-wing agendas in the academic community. In 1978, former Treasury Secretary William Simon and neoconservative ideologue Irving Kristol founded the Institute for Educational Affairs (I.E.A.). Its purpose is to seek out promising Ph.D. candidates and undergraduate leaders, help them to establish themselves through grants and fellowships and then help them get jobs with activist organizations, research projects, student publications, federal agencies, or leading periodicals. I.E.A. received start-up grants of $100,000 from the Olin, Scaife, J.M. and Smith Richardson foundations, as well as substantial contributions from Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, Ford Motor Co., General Electric, K-Mart, Mobil and Nestle corporations.

The NAS follows the conservative playbook, make it seem as though they are the ones who are the poor beleaguered victims of discrimination, outgunned, out spent facing the massive infrastructure of liberal indoctrination. It is also usually the case these radical far Right organizations are projecting and have the reality backwards. As the full report from PFTAW shows, liberal organizations might give as much as a tenth of what the very well organized far Right gives to advancing it’s agenda on college campuses. There is no progressive organization that controls student newspapers in the well coordinated and authoritative control with which the IEA controls conservative newspapers.  Campus conservatives probably think they’re getting the latest deep thoughts from their conservative college peers. Instead they are getting a very well organized campaign of the meme of the moment from some oak paned office a thousand miles away. It is true that most college professors lean moderate to liberal on cultural issues. There is no reason to  make excuses for a group of the nation’s smartest citizens being pro liberalism, the philosophy on which America was founded – Jefferson and Madison were liberal thinkers, not conservatives. Don’t take my word for it. Go over and look up the National Review editorials that hold  Edmund Burke as their intellectual champion – a man who argued that democracy might be fine for the new nation of the United States, but Europe should stick with the tried and true rule of despotic monarchs (see this classic essay:  What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It? ). Maybe Bowdoin is an outlier in terms of balance, but the college and university system overall is not all liberals all the time, Data Comes to the Culture Wars

A more appropriate title for this book might be Are Professors Liberal? The answer, Gross’s large-scale survey data tell us, is a little more than liberals would like to admit and a lot less than conservatives would have us believe. His survey research indicates that in simple terms of party affiliation, 51 percent of American professors identify as Democrats, versus 35 percent of the voting-age American public. A significant one-third of faculty identify as independents (though they are twice as likely to lean Democratic as they are to lean Republican). Unsurprisingly, political orientation is differentiated somewhat by disciplines, with those in the humanities and a number of the social sciences, including sociology and psychology, tracking more to the left, and those in disciplines such as economics, law, and engineering tracking more to the right. Despite the prominence of claims that the university is awash in tenured radicals, only 8 percent of the professoriate identifies as “radical.” The “gotcha” factor with such a number is mitigated by the fact that 8 percent of American faculty members are distinctly un-radical business professors, and business is currently the most popular major in American universities.

…One standard explanation for why parts of the academy skew moderately left appeals unsurprisingly to liberals. Smart people who are capable of sustained, rational analysis often chose to pursue this analysis for a living as professors; with the same tools they cut through the intellectual fog surrounding conservative political arguments and moral commitments. A different explanation—and one that has traction among critics on the right—is that higher education is awash in prejudice against conservative students and faculty, who either are deterred from or systematically chased out of the profession. Then there’s an argument that has traction on both sides: Liberal intellectuals, better educated than they are paid, jealously police their cultural capital within the academy in the absence of any tangible financial capital. While recognizing the intellectual coherence and historical plausibility of all three theories, Gross points to his survey and historical research suggesting that they are bedeviled by fuzzy causality and “explanatory overreach.”

Those on the center-left part of the political scale, in discussions around the water-cooler or in internet forums – should never ever apologize for most academics being liberal to moderate. These people as a group are very bright. They have done their homework and decided that America’s founding liberal traditions and ideals are the best course for the U.S. The radical Right disagrees and thinks America should be an authoritarian plutocracy with a strong weird fundamentalist bent. Why is it  fair to have more of the authoritarian American Taliban in our schools. Liberals are in no way obligated to be tolerate of right-wing intolerance and ant-intellectualism. As far as their poor little voices not being heard, the WSJ and the NAS must be delusional. I’m inundated with radical conservatism every day. It is on television all the time, on radio , on the net and they own innumerable newspapers like the WSJ.

This list of donors and Board of Advisors of the National Association of Scholars, is a veritable who’s who of radical plastic patriots,

Major Right Wing Donors:

Sarah Scaife Foundation
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc
Castle Rock Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation

NAS’s Board of Advisors:

John H. Bunzel, Hoover Institution
Edwin J. Delattre, American Enterprise Institute
Chester E. Finn, Fordham Foundation
Gertrude Himmelfarb, Independent Women’s Forum
Paul Hollander, National Review, Front Page Magazine
Harry V. Jaffa, Claremont Institute
Donald Kagan, Project for the New American Century
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, UN Ambassador under President Reagan, American Enterprise Institute
Irving Kristol, American Enterprise Institute
Richard D. Lamm, American Reform Party
Leslie Lenkowsky, National Review
Seymour Martin Lipset, Hoover Institution
Christina Hoff Sommers, Independent Women’s Forum
Shelby Steele, Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute
Stephan Thernstrom, Manhattan Institute
James Q. Wilson, Manhattan Institute

Remember a little thing called the invasion of Iraq that would be a cakewalk. It is no coincidence that these people were also part of the chorus of lies and disinformation that got hundreds of thousands of people killed and may ultimately cost the U.S. $6 trillion dollars. Organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, Claremont Institute and Hoover pushed the conservative economic and deregulation policies that lead to the Great recession of 2007.


High Speed Train II wallpaper – Conservatives and Dishonest Budget Negotiations

High Speed Train II wallpaper

High Speed Train II wallpaper

It was difficult to decide who to star with, the reasons for putting CPI and cuts to the safety net as a bargaining chip on the table again or Paul Krugman’s criticism. A coin toss decided to go with the administration’s reasoning first,  Obama Budget: Administration Explains Why It Started With A ‘Compromise Proposal’

President Barack Obama’s budget, which will be introduced on Wednesday, takes a political position that some of his base is bound to bemoan. Rather than present an outline of progressive priorities, the White House has chosen to stake claim to the middle ground, offering up a mix of modest tax hikes to go along with spending cuts and entitlement reforms that Democrats have long warned against.

The specifics are as follows:

The budget would reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion over ten years — $600 billion of this reduction would come from revenue raisers, and $1.2 trillion would come from spending reductions and entitlement reforms;
It would change the benefit structure of Social Security (chained-CPI);
It would means test additional programs in Medicare;
All told, it would include $400 billion in health care savings (or cuts);
It would cut $200 billion from other areas, identified by The New York Times as “farm subsidies, federal employee retirement programs, the Postal Services and the unemployment compensation system;”
It would pay for expanded access to pre-K (an Obama priority) by increasing the tobacco tax;
It would set limits on tax-preferred retirement accounts for the wealthy, prohibiting individuals from putting more than $3 million in IRAs and other tax-preferred retirement accounts;
And it would stop people from collecting full disability benefits and unemployment benefits that cover the same period of time.

Looked at piece-by-piece, nothing in the above is all that surprising. President Obama has proposed these policies in various offers in the past. Most recently, they’ve been discussed as part of replacement options for the sequester.

Adults know that in the real world you do not always get everything you ask for and in the art of negotiation starting out with some tolerable compromises is usually not an unreasonable starting point for negotiations. Though for the last five years conservatives have made it clear that any proposal about anything must start far Right of center and move further Right during the negotiation process. Knowing this the administration has once again – probably – made the mistake of starting off giving away too much. A spokesperson from the White House says,

While this is not the president’s ideal deficit-reduction plan, and there are particular proposals in this plan — like the CPI change — that were key Republican requests and not the president’s preferred approach. This is a compromise proposal built on common ground, and the president felt it was important to make it clear that the offer still stands. The president has made clear that he is willing to compromise and do tough things to reduce the deficit, but only in the context of a package like this one that has balance and includes revenues from the wealthiest Americans and that is designed to promote economic growth. That means that the things like CPI that Republican leaders have pushed hard for will only be accepted if congressional Republicans are willing to do more on revenues. This isn’t about political horsetrading; it’s about reducing the deficit in a balanced way that economists say is best for the economy and job creation. That’s why the president’s offer –- which will be reflected in his budget — isn’t a menu of options for them to choose from; it’s a cohesive package that reflects the kind of compromise we should be able to reach.

I’m aware and prominent liberal political commentators should be as well, that conservatives in the senate will us the filibuster to stop any budget that does not meet their every whim. Democrats are in the minority in the House. Just in political terms there is the awful business of facing that reality and still passing a  new budget – one that restores some of the spending from the sequester. And Krugman, Desperately Seeking “Serious” Approval

So what’s this about? The answer, I fear, is that Obama is still trying to win over the Serious People, by showing that he’s willing to do what they consider Serious — which just about always means sticking it to the poor and the middle class. The idea is that they will finally drop the false equivalence, and admit that he’s reasonable while the GOP is mean-spirited and crazy.

But it won’t happen. Watch the Washington Post editorial page over the next few days. I hereby predict that it will damn Obama with faint praise, saying that while it’s a small step in the right direction, of course it’s inadequate — and anyway, Obama is to blame for Republican intransigence, because he could make them accept a Grand Bargain that includes major revenue increases if only he would show Leadership (TM).

Oh, and wanna bet that Republicans soon start running ads saying that Obama wants to cut your Social Security?

The part that should drive everyone crazy – anyone who cares about seniors, the disabled and children anyway – is the implication that the deficit or the national debt is somehow connected to Social Security. No the administration does not say that, but by always including it as part of budget negotiations it is something many Americans believe. As Krugman and others note, we should be increasing benefits. Those benefits are not giveaways to lazy moochers. Because pensions and personal savings plans (IRAs) are not the great panacea that everyone thought they would be back in the early 90s, people need more to pay for basic living expenses. Society doesn’t loose anything. That money is not given to someone and it disappears into the Great Lazy Moocher Void. People pay rent and buy stuff with it. It goes back into the economy. Unlike Mitt Romney’s money and quite a few bankers, that money does not get hidden away in offshore tax havens – Offshore tax havens ($32 trillion hidden) rocked by bank account leaks $32 trillion (€25 trillion).

Dear Dr. Ben Carson, current darling of cultural conservatives, this is one of your comrades, Judge Who Sent Racist, Anti-Obama Email Will Retire From Bench

Last year, former Chief Judge Richard Cebull, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal district court in Montana, admitted to sending a racist email forward comparing President Obama’s conception to sex with a dog:

“A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the email joke reads. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

In the wake of this email, and the serious questions it raised about whether Judge Cebull is capable of handling politically charged cases or cases alleging racism with professionalism and neutrality, a judicial council overseeing Cebull opened a formal misconduct hearing into his actions at Cebull’s request. Late last year, Cebull announced that he would take senior status, a type of partial retirement for judges. Late last week, he upgraded this to a full retirement from the bench — effective May 3rd.


The Cognitive Dissonance of Conservative Ben Carson

Democratic Blue Darts wallpaper

Democratic Blue Darts wallpaper


Ben Carson Goes On The Offensive, Lashes Out At “Racist” Critics

The noted surgeon and Johns Hopkins University neurosurgery professor has been subject to harsh criticism, including from students and staff at Johns Hopkins Medical School, since he compared gays who support marriage equality to pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality during a March 27 interview on Fox News’ Hannity.

During that appearance, Carson said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition. So, it’s not something against gays. It’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.”

…But on Levin’s show, Carson went on the offensive, saying that the criticism he has received proves that he’s right that “political correctness is threatening to destroy our nation because it puts a muzzle over honest conversation.” He added that “the attacks against me have been so vicious because I represent an existential threat” to his critics, who he says “take my words, misinterpret them, and try to make it seem that I’m a bigot.”

Others have already covered the not just offensive analogy between gays and “pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality”, but pathologically suspect behavior. Carson is wrong about the political correctness. What he said was a gift. He let everyone know here he stands. Had he kept it a secret, lied about his beliefs and radical agenda, and then been elected to some position of authority where he could force his pathology down America’s throat, that would have been a venal farce perpetrated on the American public.

After Levin claimed that Carson has been “attacked also, in many respects, because of your race” because “a lot of white liberals” don’t like black conservatives, Carson replied, “Well, they’re the most racist people there are. Because you know, they put you in a little category, a little box, ‘you have to think this way, how could you dare come off the plantation?'”

Carson has been through college and medical school so I’m sure he has at least brushed up against the scientific method.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, “Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.” In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory.
I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

While that description pertains to the natural sciences, the social sciences – sociology, psychology, economics and political science have used those methods as well. One studies the evidence, collects data and publishes findings that is logical and verifiable. Where is Carson’s evidence that while liberals hate black conservatives just for being black. I have made it very clear on this blog over the course of eight years that conservatism is a malevolent political movement, that allowed to fulfill its agenda would destroy both democracy and capitalism. With every post I demonstrate how that is true in one way or another. I would be happy to look at the fact sheet, the data, the psychological experiment, the sociological experiment that shows conclusively that while liberals have put him or any conservative, black or white on anything resembling a plantation. That all probably sounds like snark, but it is the best I can do in taking Carson seriously. Listening to him is the same as listening to his mindless brethren;  Limbaugh, Hannity, Mitch McConnell, Michelle Malkin and the hundreds of unhinged conservative bloggers. Carson fits in with the conservative movement perfectly. He lives in a mental bubble that is impermeable to the truth. Unlike Carson and other conservatives I read their side. I read more about what conservatives have to say than liberals, progressives or centrist Democrats. The NYT’s far Right columnist Ross Douthat wrote a column just after the first of the year encouraging both sides to read more of what the other side has to say. It was unintentionally hilarious. If conservatives started reading facts, studies, real history, not the history revisionism industry that has become a major source of wing-nut welfare, conservatism would cease to exist as a political movement. We’d have two parties – centrist conservative Democrats like Obama, and liberals. One of the reasons Carson and before him, Herman Cain are such ridiculous figures is the almost daily exhibitions of racism and misogyny from conservatives. Ross might have encouraged some critical reading of conservatives by conservatives. These are just a few examples, out of hundreds, of conservative racism from TPro,

Caucasian Student In Texas Starts Group To Advance White ‘Beliefs And Objectives’
… racism and discrimination on campus” and help…
Published on March 28, 2013
‘Veronica Mars’ Television Club: Race, Class, Sexism And The Outsiders

… in their lives, that questions of racism, sexism, and class…
Published on March 22, 2013
CPAC Participant Defends Slavery At Minority Outreach Panel: It Gave ‘Food And Shelter’ To Blacks  ( Carson spoke at CPAC. He must have put his ear muffs on when others were speaking)

… the racism on display at this event. CPAC is the marquee…
Published on March 15, 2013
Why Scalia’s ‘Racial Entitlement’ Quote Is Even Scarier Than You Think

… that simply gave Congress free reign to engage in racism…
Published on February 28, 2013
Why We Still Need The Voting Rights Act: Perspectives From Supreme Court Spectators

…. As long as we have racism and bigotry in our country… [in racism at the ballot box], but at the same time…
Right-Wing Columnist Implies Colin Powell Is Anti-Semitic After Defending Hagel

… of racism, or b) he should retract and apologize for his…

O’Reilly: Black Voters Don’t Believe In ‘Self Reliance’ Or ‘American Exceptionalism’

… is latent racism. But in his rebuttal, O’Reilly…

Racist Hate Group To Conduct Nighttime Patrols On College Campus

… “Commander” HeimbachA racist hate group at Towson University…

South Carolina Republican Suggests GOP Opposes Medicaid Expansion Because Obama Is Black

…, and responding positively to, racist emails in support…

Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’

… lawmakers are too afraid to be tarred as racists. His…
RNC Delegate Offended By Presence of ‘Mexican’ At Disney’s Epcot Center

… racist comments. County Commissioner Malcolm Derk told… by racist incidents this week; on Tuesday, two delegates…

GOP Congressional Candidate Accuses His African-American Opponent Of Pretending To Be Black

… of making a racist comment. He then levied an unusual…

And just a few from MM,

20 Inflammatory Comments From State Of The Union Invitee Ted Nugent
February 11, 2013 4:17 PM EST

Rush: Cubans Aren’t “Popular In The Overall Hispanic Group” Because They’re Not “As Dark” And Are “Oriented Toward Work”

Hannity, Carlson Desperately Attempt To Manufacture “Racially Charged Rhetoric” From Obama Video
October 3, 2012 12:38 AM EDT

“Right On”: Conservative Media Applaud, Defend Romney For Birther Comment
August 24, 2012 4:38 PM EDT

Conservative Radio CEO Defends Anti-Asian Comments By Blaming “Political Left”
July 9, 2012 5:47 PM EDT

Huckabee: Hate-Crime Laws Are “A Form Of Reverse Racism Or Reverse Sexism”
April 23, 2012 4:00 PM EDT

Hannity’s Latest Attempt At Race-Baiting: “There’s A Picture” Of Obama With The New Black Panthers
April 10, 2012 12:14 AM EDT

Excuse me for putting anyone in a box, but black conservatives – Cain, Carson, West, Swann, Steele – do all seem to have one thing in common, the remarkable ability not to see and hear the profound and disturbing racism of their movement.

Growing membership in hate groups blame Obama, economy