First off, let me just say that I don’t understand this Ben Carson thing. Word on the street is that in a few polls, Ben Carson is actually beating Donald Trump. Yes, in Iowa, of all places. According to reports, BenCarson’s lead in Iowa is due in large part to his support among white evangelical women.
- More -
From Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:
The Republican presidential candidates are apparently ready to revolt against the presidential debates. Several of their campaigns are meeting in Washington on Sunday to plan changes. In what's likely an effort to regain control, the Republican National Committee -- which is excluded from Sunday's meeting -- today suspended the February debate on NBC because of complaints about CNBC's handling of the one earlier this week.
- More -
From PZ Myers at Pharyngula:
The NY Times has put together a lovely illustrated story about data collection on Greenland. The story is prettily terrifying, though. The ice is melting, and forming lakes of liquid water on the surface of the ice cap, which then drains away in fast-running rivers that cut deeper into the ice and then drain into holes that run even deeper into the glacier — it’s a dangerous place, and if you fall in, you’ll be swept away and instantly dumped into a pit. It also means the ice sheet is porous and riddled with rot already.
- More -
From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara at Principled Perspectives:
Robin Hood is often invoked by statists to defend forced income redistribution. For example, in a New Jersey Star-Ledger letter titled Christie's reverse-Robin Hood act continues on Social Security, the correspondent wrote, in part,
- More -
From Michael John Scott at MadMikesAmerica:
The tragic crash of a speeding car driven by Adacia Chambers, 25, when Chambers crashed into a parade crowd at the Oklahoma State University’s homecoming celebration, killed four people, and left scores of folks injured. To add insult to the tragic injury, the evil and infamous Westboro Baptist Church is promising on Twitter to picket the funerals of the OSU victims, as reported by Heavy.
- More -
From The Moderate Voice:
Using Nazi analogies is typically a loser’s game. Comparing someone or something to Hitler or the Third Reich stifles debate, almost always is in bad taste and triggers inevitable side debates about whether calling someone a Nazi is as bad as calling them a “kike” or “nigger.” Then there is Godwin’s Law, which states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches inevitability.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have broken what for me has been a cardinal rule about not using Nazi analogies. This is when I written about the Bush administration’s embrace of torture techniques right out of the Nazi playbook, as well as the deafening lack of response from most Americans to this and other outrages not unlike the Germans who failed to speak out against the excesses of the Third Reich. My first such reference was in 2007, and I feel even more strongly now that these analogies were apt given the circumstances.
All of which brings us to present circumstances and Dr. Ben Carson, who is an especially nasty example of how really smart people can be profoundly ignorant.
- More -
From Tim McGaha at Tim's Thoughtful Spot:
One of the problems with the early series of spy satellites was simply this: Every photo frame counts. And many of the photographic frames returned by the early CORONA satellites were of cloud-covered sites. It was accepted as a risk that the weather wouldn't always cooperate. The automatic control worked well enough that pictures were only taken during daylight, but whether the actual meteorological conditions would allow collection of useful intelligence was something that would only be known once the film capsules were recovered and developed.
What they really needed was a way to determine -- in real time -- if a target's lighting and cloud cover would allow a useful picture to be taken.
- More -
Conservative James Wigderson has found a liberal piece on gun control authored by a college professor. The piece to which Wigderson reacts is so amateurish he does not believe it came from that professor or from any liberal. He suggests some conservative played a dirty trick on the paper.
The professor's thesis is that President Obama let America down by not unilaterally banning all guns from America, presumably by some sort of executive order. The alleged author happens to be from my alma mater and the newspaper in question is one I once read every day. I can only attest to the existence of the professor, having looked it up, and the idiocy of the professor's article, having read it. I appreciate Wigderson's generosity, but it looks like the drivel is genuine.
Green Eagle remembers Martin Shkreli, who bought a pharma corporation for the sole purpose of cornering the market on a low cost drug lots of people need to survive and jacking up the price to more than many mortgage payments. It seems market forces may have dealt a blow to at least this bad guy. Oh well, on to the next Romney-type project.
Conservatives could have presented Barack Obama as proof of conservative values.
Why did they sacrifice those values? How did they lose what could have been the most compelling conservative argument in a century?
to get episodes automatically downloaded.
From Associated Press:
HONOLULU (AP) — The Honolulu Police Department opened an internal investigation Wednesday into allegations that an officer wrongfully arrested a vacationing lesbian couple after seeing them kissing in a grocery store.
Courtney Wilson and Taylor Guerrero, who were visiting Hawaii from Los Angeles in March, said in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday that they were harassed and arrested because the officer didn't like their public displays of affection in a Foodland store on Oahu's North Shore.
- More -
Mitch McConnell gave most Senate Republicans exactly what they wanted: His bipartisan budget compromise effectively eliminates shutdown and default threats through the 2016 elections, makes modest entitlement reforms and beefs up national security.
And boy, are most Senate Republicans mad about it.
In interviews with more than 20 Senate Republicans on Wednesday, a broad swath of the caucus either said they were outright opposed to the accord or ticked off concerns — rather than benefits — about the deal...
- More -
From U.S. News & World Report:
Even before Jeb Bush's uninspiring debate performance Wednesday night, his sputtering presidential campaign was working to prevent defections.
Bush's top lieutenants convened with donors in sopping wet Houston on Monday to calm their fears and retrench for the unforgiving haul ahead.
After the confab, Bush's team distributed a 45-page PowerPoint presentation to select reporters, summarizing an optimistic view of the race, touting the Republican candidate's cash and organization, and assuring supporters that early polls are rarely indicative of ultimate success.
But in that leak to select media, the campaign purposely left out more than half of what was furnished behind closed doors.
- More -
From The Progressive Paradigm:
Many people are aware of the simple definition of consciousness, but even the most intelligent among us fail to understand how and why we are conscious beings.
Scientists have now made strides regarding the composition of consciousness, which aims to explain exactly how and why we are conscious.
- More -
Our friend T. Paine recounts one of the earliest published speeches of young Mr. Lincoln.
From T. Paine at Saving Common Sense:
In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American People, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era.--We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us.
- More -
to get episodes automatically downloaded.
At the beginning of the last century, on October 16, 1901, the country found itself in an uproar. President Theodore Roosevelt had invited an African American to dinner with him and his family. The reaction of Senator James K. Vardaman of Mississippi exemplified conservatism as it existed in those days. He complained of a White House "so saturated with the odor" ...and here he used the "N" word ... "that the rats had taken refuge in the stable."
Sadly, that reaction finds its echo in the reflexive core of much of today's conservatism. It also represents a remarkable loss of conservative opportunity.
Booker T. Washington's autobiography, Up From Slavery, was intended as a walking guide to success, not only for individuals, but for an entire oppressed people. The recipe included learning a trade, hard work, getting an education, and developing relationships with white people, even the most hostile of white people. The model was Booker T. Washington's own life.
He was a child when emancipation reached him. He taught himself to read, attended school, met and made friends with white benefactors, went to an institution of higher learning, and became the head of a teacher's college, Tuskegee Institute in Alabama.
In 1895, he made the speech that pretty much defined him and the movement he led. He urged what became known as the Atlanta Compromise.
He told his audience that white people had a responsibility. They should guarantee due process of law and should allow at least some limited training for black people.
Black people, he said, should stop agitating for equal rights, the ability to vote in fair and free elections, integration, or anti-discrimination laws. They should accept limitations on their education, staying with vocational training, and acquiring the ability to teach. Prohibitions against liberal arts, science, literature should not be challenged. Above all, black people should submit to white rule in the South. There should never be resistance or even objection to racist behavior.
In time, he felt, the descendants of slaves would earn the respect of southern whites. Equality would come in increments if black people would stay in their place, the place in society assigned to them by white conservatives.
It is difficult for those of us living today to imagine the degree of hardship endured in those days. At the time of Booker T. Washington's 1895 speech, the practice of lynching was at an all time high. Slavery had been replaced with random kidnappings, legal authorities pulling people off the streets or from gathering places, charging them with breaking laws that were often unwritten and unknown, made up on the spot. Those taken were then rented out to businesses or plantations who would pay. Outright ownership of slaves was replaced by the leasing of human prisoners. The practice was widespread and has been documented through to the beginning of the Second World War.
Booker T. Washington was concerned about the reaction of black people then living in the south. Active resistance was pretty much always fatal. Those looking for a viable alternative found it in a vast migration to the cities of the north. Washington thought of the migration as a form of collective abdication.
In his Atlanta speech, he told a parable about a ship adrift, helpless in the Atlantic, its passengers dying of thirst, surrounded by undrinkable saltwater. They were rescued by a signal from another ship, instructing them to cast their buckets where they were. Finally, following the advice, they discovered that they had drifted into the outflow of the Amazon River. The water was fresh, drinkable. And they were saved.
The lesson Booker T. Washington preached was to "Cast down your bucket where you are." Freed slaves in the South and their descendants should stay where they were, accommodate, develop slowly, earn the friendship and respect of the white people around them.
There were those who rejected the Booker T. Washington approach of serving meekly and waiting patiently for the long arc of the moral universe to bend toward justice. Those who wanted a more activist approach toward equal rights, were considered in their day as black militants. W.E.B. Du Bois and Monroe Trotter took the radical step of becoming civil rights advocates.
Booker T. Washington died in 1915, but his influence continued through generations. White politicians pointed to him as a dual example. Black people were happy, contented to live without rights, including the right to vote. And, if Booker T. Washington could become successful in Alabama, any black person could become successful without all the bother of rights.
Successful black people have often been used as an argument against social change. The phrase "Be more like Booker T. Washington" became a cliche, used by white people who lectured black people on living successfully. Others joined him in the pantheon of icons, successful people who proved that anyone could succeed.
President Obama is an odd case. It would be easy to understand conservatives seeing him as a mixed blessing. We do get some of that logic from time to time. Racism is ended. A black President is proof.
Hatred of policies and viewpoints is understandable from those who disagree. But the hatred exhibited toward the Obama family by conservatives frequently goes beyond policy. The challenge goes to personhood itself, to personal legitimacy. He is not one of us, not truly American. He is alien from the American experience.
The personal opposition that goes so far past policy is hard to explain rationally.
He is the example conservatives have professed to crave. He is a son abandoned by his father, raised by a single mother, who devoted himself to community, putting himself through college, shining brightly in the academic world, earning the leadership of a prestigious law journal. He is a devoted father, a steadfast husband, who eventually rose to become the head of the free world.
When he was first elected, I pictured a conservative friend pointing to President Obama. "I completely disagree with his philosophy and his policies," I could imagine my friend saying. "But he is proof that anyone can make it in this country."
It is a remarkable story that fits neatly into the "Be like Booker T." narrative of conservatives. And that story, the story of Booker T. Washington, has not been entirely in the province of racial conservatives. When I was young, parents were still holding him, and others, as an inspiration to youngsters to work hard to succeed.
Denzel Washington, Michael Jordan, Frederick Douglass, and now Barack Obama have had their turns as icons. They are exceptional. They have served as examples offered by generations of parents. Parents want to think of their children as potentially beyond exceptional, and always hope that it will be true.
It has been that way with me. The lecture is one with which I am familiar. The words have been mine. You can be frozen by an unfair playing field, or you can devise a strategy of winning on an unfair field of play, working harder and smarter, overcoming. What is unfair does not need to be unstoppable.
It is often a seesaw argument, used as an example to inspire and as an excuse to deny solutions for historic wrongs.
Becoming exceptional should be an aspiration, not a requirement for fair treatment. Exceptional achievement, especially against great adversity, should be an inspiration, something to be admired, not yet another obstacle, another argument against fairness.
Even in that regard, even as a new Booker T. example, conservatives have missed their latest, best, opportunity.
This President of the United States is the very model of conservative standards - hard working, talented, purposeful, resolute, and ultimately successful. He is the example conservatives can embrace as a reason to to hold off on what the rest of us see as social progress. Instead, many conservatives, perhaps most, treat him with denigration, treat his accomplishments with derision.
History may forgive them as they argue against themselves. They know not that they have sacrificed the best moral case they could ever have wished to make.
From Green Eagle:
Benghazi is over? Not likely. The Republicans cannot leave it at this point, with Hillary having stomped them into the ground and made them look like the dishonest demagogues they are, on national TV for eleven hours. They were reeling a bit after the end of the hearings, but they have to begin the task of rewriting history to blot out this colossal humiliation.
And remember something I have said before: the number of people who saw any part of these hearings, or any other political event, is very small compared to the number that will be told by the right wing media what happened. In the end, their constituency will jump at any chance to believe the worst about Hillary; obviously, without that being true, the Benghazi frenzy could have never existed at all.
So, on the day after the hearings, here's how things stand:
- More -
From The Moderate Voice:
Most of the polls, verdicts, analyses, post-mortems, etc. on the GOP Select Inquisition on Benghazi are in, and the overwhelming majority calls it a shameful loss for the Trey Gowdy-led gang of prosecutors and a definitive win for the outnumbered, yet gallant and effective Elijah Cummings-led let’s-have-some-sanity team.
But he biggest winner was, without a doubt, the target of the inquisition, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Below are excerpts from two analyses.
- More -
From Mock Paper Scissors:
Peggy Noonan was deep in a conversation with the life-sized cardboard cut out of Ronald Wilson Reagan, the greatest president of the last century, maybe the greatest president ever, which she kept behind the wet bar at the Aviary 2, her lofty new penthouse high above Manhattan, so chic, so expansive.
- More -
A libertarian presents the conservative case against anti-discrimination laws.
From Michael A. LaFerrara at Principled Perspectives:
Last spring’s controversy over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act , which was intended to protect Christian businessmen’s right to act on their religious convictions but was widely seen as a legalization of discrimination against gay couples, raised important questions about what kind of country our Founding Fathers tried to create.
- More -