Why The AR-15 Owner's Arguments Are Fallaciious

Our AR-15 Owner writes:

First off, comparing MA with Fla or any other large state is a smokescreen to obscure the real facts. MA has a population of 6,811,779 compared to Fla’s population of 20,612,439!


Actually, it is precisely the use of comparative ratios (e.g. incidents per 100,100 or similar) that makes comparing events in two or more states legitimate. You take every 100,000 people in FL and every 100,000 in MA and compare the respective incidents per that block.  Then since the frequencies are set to  a defined baseline (e.g. per 100,000) this  corrects for any disparity in scale  say for population size  Once one does that,  one is effectively comparing "apples to applies" in terms of event frequency. So it is not a "smokescreen" at all.

Secondly, although he may be correct in the “gun death rate” comparisons, he fails to cite the cause of those gun deaths. Well, maybe I can help him out here....

The cause of said gun deaths is subsumed in the statistics for "gun deaths", i.e. whether for homicide, by accident or suicide. Since there can only be three possible  causes, then the incidence per 100,000 for gun deaths  (i.e. covering all) already takes these 3 causes into account.  Whether there are 2 suicides to every homicide and 1 accidental shooting to every 100 suicides is immaterial once we are talking about "gun deaths" in toto.   I suspect he may be placing overt emphasis on "intent" - say for homicides- but let us agree suicides and accidents (say a 4 -year old accidentally discharging a loaded weapon at his mom in a Walmart as happened in Colo. three yrs. ago) are just as tragic.  This is why the role of guns in whatever scenario must be weighed and factored in.

If he says “yes,” then I would ask him to explain how the states that have rolled back gun regulations and have a low number of laws on the books have also seen declines in gun homicide rates

This is a false interpretation which has been circulated in right wing media, e.g. The National Review, but doesn't hold ballast. A  study from 2013, led by the Boston University School of Public Health found that homicides that didn't involve guns didn't significantly increase as gun ownership did. In other words, more guns meant more homicides, particularly gun homicides.: After controlling for multiple variables, the study found that a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level.  That is about as close to a perfect Pearson product -moment correlation coefficient as one can get. This also  holds up around the world.


States with low gun-homicide rates also tend to rank high in other quality-of-life rankings, like per-capita income and educational attainment, while states with the most gun homicides, like Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, also rank near the bottom in such measures


This is actually a perfect example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy first highlighted by Antony Flew in his book, Thinking About Thinking.  Flew's No True Scotsman  Suppose A says, "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge." B replies, "But my uncle Angus puts sugar in his porridge." A then responds, "Then your Uncle Angus is no true Scotsman!" In other words, the artificial stipulation is made that to be a genuine Scotsman (person of Scottish descent) one must conform to the rubric of  "no sugar in the porridge".

Now we frame his answer in similar terms:  "No True Gun-using Murderer Lives In A High Life  Quality state."   But, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama etc. are low life quality states and have the most gun homicides.  Conclusion: You cannot compare the former to the latter in terms of incidence, because the only "true" gun homicides, i.e. worth measuring from the stipulated basis,   occur in low life quality states.   Of course, as Flew would point out, this doesn't wash. He is in fact resorting to  a stipulative definition that artificially discriminates between states with high and low homicide rates   In this way he's able to argue one is disallowed from comparing the two gun homicide rates for differing life quality index states.   But as  Flew would argue 'Not so fast!' - if that was true than no strict gun regulations would ever be able to be enacted in such states  because their low quality of life prohibits it.

This is a red herring because he introduces an irrelevant topic in an argument to divert readers’ attention from the original issue – which is new gun control laws as well as the AR-15’s.

Not so!  Since the Journal Of Health Affairs study bears directly on the incidence of gun homicides in different nations, it is totally relevant, i.e it provides a crucial glimpse on how our nation is handling these homicides compared to other rich nations.   The original issue then is not strictly gun control per se, but in the context of how the prevalence of guns in the U.S. compared to other wealthy nations impacts health statistics.   So it is not intended to divert at all, only to force gun aficionados to reckon in these health factors into gun ownership and hence control

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the rate of violent crime dropped from 79.8 to 18.6 victims per 1,000 people age 12 and older from 1993 to 2015.

These statistics do not support the opinion that more guns lead to more crimes!

But this is a non sequitur .  The purported decrease in violent crimes overall does not show that more guns do not lead to more homicides..  When we isolate homicide from the constellation of violent crimes we see nearly a 1: 1 correlation, Refer to the Boston University study cited earlier. Also, these sort of stats disregard science, namely the CDC finding from the early 90s that there are three times more homicides in families that own  guns than those that don't.Such stats have been suppressed since the N.R.A.-backed Dickey Amendment, was passed in 1996- named for the man who sponsored it, former Representative Jay Dickey, an Arkansas Republican. It reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”. In other words, actual research is to be suppressed in the interest of the NRA gun lobby and culture.  Reinforcing this, reporter Sam Roberts wrote last year in The Times, that the legislation “stripped $2.6 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the precise amount budgeted for a study of the health effects of shootings.”

How is this being honest in the gun debate? How is it respecting either actual statistics or science?

The more concerning issue is that Massachusetts is one of the worst states for submitting the names of people deemed mentally insufficient by the state into the NICS database. While MA legislators seek more and more gun control, they don’t follow the laws already in place; laws that all law-abiding, safety-conscious gun owners believe should be followed.

 As I already pointed out (in my original post) the MA law subsumes the mental health issues-problems  by the fact so many formidable barriers are incorporated into the law, e.g. having to pass a state approved  gun safety course, getting licensed and fingerprinted. These would arguably be obstacles too insurmountable for a mentally deranged or debilitated person, but not for a healthy, law abiding John  Q.  Citisen.  My point is that since the barriers to mental cases owning are so formidable in MA it doesn't really matter if they don't cross every t and dot every i in submit all the names of mental cases. Those mental cases would not likely get through to gun  ownership anyway!

Further research shows that since the assault weapons ban ended in 2004, violent crime has actually decreased by 16.6 percent from 2004 to 2016, according to FBI statistics

Ahhhh...but NOT the mass shootings using assault weapons, including school shootings - which have only inreased.

Rifles accounted for only 1.9 percent of all murders in 2015. You were more than twice as likely to be killed from someone kicking or punching you to death than to be shot by a rifle.

Maybe! But I'd rather take my chances against someone coming at me with fist, "flying"  feet  or knife than with an AR-15. Just sayin'.

Judging by these numbers, rifles are not the problem the left make it out to be.

But assault rifles ARE the problem in all the mass shootings. I guarandamn- tee you if Islamic extremists  were doing these mass shootings you'd see action taken fast enough to control access to these weapons.
.

Well, yes I do. Why? Because it reeks of Nazism! 

Please, this is pure hyperbole and false analogy, Nazism was a specific political ideology predicated on National Socialism, which consciously incorporates racial eugenics and anti-Semitism linking it to a one party, militarized state. This is absolutely NOT the state of Massachusetts  whose laws - like other state laws - are still based on our U.S. Constitution. Since the latter disallows Nazism, the state laws - including gun laws of whatever form -must as well.

My friend, you are an educated man, so you must concede that the Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil.The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Commies and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

Politifact checked similar claims when Ben Carson made them during the 2016 campaign. It turns out that as the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, it inherited a 1928 gun registration law that had replaced a total ban on gun ownership imposed on a defeated Germany after World War I. The 1928 law created a permit system to own and sell firearms and ammunition. According to Dagmar Ellerbrock, an expert on German gun policies at the Dresden Technical University.:


"This order was followed quite rarely, so that largely, only newly bought weapons became registered.  At that time, most men, and many women, still owned the weapons they acquired before or during the first World War."


When the Nazis did come to power, they used whatever gun records they had to seize weapons from their enemies, but Ellerbock  has noted the files included very few of the firearms in circulation. According to him:

"In my records, I found many Jews who well into the late 1930s possessed guns,"


This was confirmed by three former Wehrmacht troops I had occasion to speak with about the war and the Hitler era, when I traveled to Bielefeld with Janice in 1985.  Hans Borchers, the oldest of the former German troops,  affirmed he "knew many Jews who possessed rifles and pistols long after Hitler attained the Chancellorship in 1933".

The Nazis DID adopt a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways:

1) It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition.

2) It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (i.e. You didn’t need to be hunting.)

3) It extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.

The regulations to implement this law, rather than the law itself, did impose new limits on one group: Jews.

On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued the Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons. Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."   In addition to these restrictions, confiscation was also present, thus the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons. But according to Ellerbrock, also confirmed by Dieter - another Wehrmacht soldier I met in 1985:

"The gun policy of the Nazis can hardly be compared to the democratic procedures of gun regulations by law.  It was a kind of special administrative practice (Sonderrecht), which treated people in different ways according to their political opinion or according to ‘racial identity’ in Nazi terms."

In short, Nazi-era Germany imposed greater gun restrictions for Jews (and other perceived enemies) at the same time it loosened gun restrictions for other groups.  German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized. But for most German citizens, the Nazi period was one in which gun regulations were loosened, not tightened.

Second, a lack of guns was not the issue. If the majority of Germans had wanted to use these guns to fight the Nazis, they could have. But they didn’t. Carson  (and our AR-15 owner) ignored the fact  that the Nazis enjoyed significant popular support, or at least, broad acquiescence.  Given that popular support they had no reason at all to fear a popular revolt or uprising.  As for the Jews, the ones that had the most weapons and most likely would have fought, had all left by  Nov. 11, 1938 when the most severe  weapons regulations were enacted.

Now, what would I change if I could.....

I actually agree with all of your proposed changes. I also acknowledge they would not be a "panacea".  We  don't seek a panacea per se just some movement on curbing access to powerful assault weapons from those   criminals and psychos  - who might inflict the most harm.

Lastly, as for you stating that I should “hear the cry” of Parkland student “Sarah”... I’d like to hear what other “gun control” laws that she has in mind to “prevent it from happening again.”

Interesting you mention that! There is now a movement, begun in Parkland, to march into the FLA legislature in  Tallahassee tomorrow  to demand legislative changes including: 1) firmer control on all assault- type weapons,  including licensing and fingerprinting, 2) allowing  individual communities (like Parkland)  to impose their own regulations such as for age of purchase, and limiting magazines and the sale of ammunition.  These kids are also dispatching a retinue to meet Trump on  Feb. 24th and demand federal gun law changes.

Yet, now…they do a complete 360 and blame the prez and the NRA, etc. And, btw, I challenge my friend here – or anyone – to show me where any member of the NRA has committed any of these atrocities!

This is a true strawman argument given no one is asserting the NRA committed any atrocities. What we are saying is that the NRA was responsible for altering the original 2nd amendment interpretation  i.e. as a collective right (acknowledged by the Supreme Court in 1934)  then pushing ever more aggressive gun ownership memes and laws, state by state  - until we have the situation today when 1.5 million assault rifles are sold each year.

Again, the proof is in the pudding. Australia had problems with mass shootings until the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 .  The sheer magnitude of this tragedy spurred laws whereby Aussie assault weapon owners had to turn them in. and strict licensing - registry applies..   There have been NO mass shootings since,

I know you won’t agree with me here, friend – but as I said, we can agree to disagree.

Well, let me say I can agree with a number of your suggestions on how things might be changed for the better. I definitely disagree on a number of other aspects which were discussed above.


And may I respectfully suggest that the left stop politicizing these incidents and exploiting the victims for their own political purposes.


Sorry, I don't see the 'left" doing that at all. The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas are  organizing mass student marches and gun control activism all on their own - there are no lefties sneaking into their rallies and whispering in their ears on what  to do. If anyone is guilty of politicizing the latest incident it is Trump - tying it to the Russia probe - and blaming the FBI for 'wasting too much time on it'.  (see my next post).

Meanwhile, the kids at Stoneman Douglas - who have been most affected-  are the ones who plan to head off to Tallahassee and demand change from lawmakers, they are the ones organizing a national student march, and THEY are the ones who plan to meet with Trump and demand change  One of their reps  Emma Gonzalez - is also organizing parents, many others and students in a number of states to vote out all NRA backed lackeys and yes men. Granted, she and her group may not succeed  but it won't be for lack of trying!  Let me also hasten to point out there is no constitutional right to own an AR-15 or any other assault style rifle, e.g.


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/miles-mogulescu/77940/gun-control-legislation-is-constitutional



From The Washington Post lead story yesterday:

Students at the Florida school where 17 people died last week said Sunday they will organize nationwide marches for gun control next month and try to create a “badge of shame” for politicians who take money from the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.
“We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around,” Cameron Kasky said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” 

Kasky, a junior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., has been part of an outpouring of anger from students who survived the shooting, many of whom have publicly blamed President Trump and NRA-supported politicians for creating the conditions that led to the shooting.

No! Donald J. Trump Will Not Be My President

I would no more accept Trump as President than I'd accept Hitler as Chancellor if I were a German living in Heidelberg in 1933.

"I am not with President -Elect Trump and I am not here to help him in any way. In fact, when his policies border on the unconstitutional, the criminal and the morally unjust, I am here to oppose him in every possible and legal way." -- George Polisner, former Oracle Executive.

Technically, of course, the matter of who is one's President is defined at a specific time and place, via a presumably fair election. Then, definitionally, that person who has most electoral votes - however obtained - becomes President putatively for all Americans.  That is by way of operational, political definition.

On the other side is the matter of active investment and support of whatever presidency manifests. As a matter of record, virtually no white Republicans supported Obama after his 2008 election, and the congressional Republicans sought to block him at every turn. This was based on orders from Sen. Mitch McConnell to reject everything Obama offered,  any Obama-Dem policy.. The current president -elect, Trump, actually sought - via the birther movement - to delegitimize Obama on the basis of the specious claim he was not born an American.

So it is all kind of choice now to behold the political and media Right squawking like recently fucked hens and yelping that we need to "get over it", "get behind our President" and "cease trying to delegitimize him". My answer? Fuck no!  The guy is as illegitimate as they come all on his own, as bad as Hitler when he ascended to the German Chancellory  in 1933. I could recount a hundred reasons, but those who want specifics can check out any of my recent posts.

Let's turn events upside down and envision the situation if Hillary Clinton had won the electoral vote, and Trump the popular vote by the same 2.9 million difference. Does anyone seriously believe that Trump and the Repuke contingent would now be all nice and comfy with that setting and prepared  to "get over it". Hell no! They'd be fighting like rabid ferrets, filing lawsuit after lawsuit and pursuing recounts in every state.  Trump would also be on Twitter nonstop, expelling infantile blabber and bollocks,  trying desperately to mock and delegitimize HRC.  There'd be no end to it and further, all the "deplorables" who voted Trump would also be solidly behind rejecting HRC as their President.

Taking that tack I adopt the exact same position as George Polisner, who offered the quote at the top of this post on his way out at Oracle. Well, his response to Trump as President-Elect is exactly the same as mine - when he assumes power. That is, to oppose him in every possible moral and legal way when his policies veer into the unconstitutional, the criminal  and morally unjust.

And let's not bandy words, we know in advance this will occur because of Trump's very personality traits and who he's surrounded himself with. In terms of the first, I already described the man's premoral character and the narcissism and authoritarianism derived from it. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/10/narcissism-pre-moral-mind-and-donald-j.html


That his actions are already on record, and hence can predict future actions, has been noted in a Sunday Review NY Times piece, e.g.:

"Trump has encouraged violence among supporters; pledged to prosecute Hillary Clinton; threatened legal action against unfriendly media; and suggested that he might not accept the election results.This anti-democratic behavior has continued since the election. With the false claim that he lost the popular vote because of “millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump openly challenged the legitimacy of the electoral process."

Past is prologue, and Trump's previous actions are the prologue to how he will lead. Hence it is kind of incredible to read the words of the delirious Joe Klein in his recent TIME magazine column (Dec. 26, p. 34),  babbling:

"Trump hasn't actually done anything yet, and his opponents are acting as if the sky has fallen. ...what if this turns out to be a popular presidency"

After which this Neolib hack goes on to regale us with an assortment of beneficial, imagined Trump policies and actions which clearly have been fermenting as fantasies in his wishful- thinking brain. These include "cleaning out the cobwebs at departments and agencies like Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and the EPA".    Is he serious? With the likes of Ben Carson at HHS, and Betsy DeVos at Education - committed to destroying public education. What has Klein been smoking anyway?  Or is it some new kind of drug that implants preposterous ideations when confronted with a guy every bit as regressive as Mussolini or Hitler? But most puzzling is how Klein could write this refuse after 4 paragraphs earlier noting Trump "is without question the most expert news manipulator in American history".  Well, evidently Joey boy is not immune to his manipulations, besides having a memory of 4 minutes duration.

Truth be told, Klein ought to be ashamed for even writing such doggerel which, let us acknowledge, will be part of an ongoing media effort to normalize Trump and his minions. The purpose will be to get as much of the country to get behind this fool as possible under the banner of "unity", which will also translate into calls for "bipartisanship". The Dems will be pressured to act like little sycophants as opposed to a real opposition, and this we cannot allow.

Cancelling out Klein's nonsense, the same TIME issue, 20 pages earlier, gets down to reality with the short article 'How Trump is Restocking the Washington Swamp'.   The piece reminded people how Trump bragged at his rallies (e.g. in Akron, OH in August)  that he planned to "drain the swamp" in DC.   Trump, in his Ohio performance, denounced career politicians and lobbyists that help run the nation's capital.  His pledge to drain the swamp was also "slapped onto bumper stickers and hashtagged on tweets"  As the article observed "it helped lift the swaggering outsider to his upset victory".

But what did we find post-election in the transition of team Trump? Well, all those fine words went by the backboards. As author Zeke J. Miller puts it:

"The President-Elect is stocking his Cabinet and senior staff with the same sort of connected insiders that he railed against on the campaign trail."

Or as one comic correctly put it, "He ain't draining the swamp he's stocking it with crocs and alligators!"

Miller added:

"He's tapped four billionaires for his administration not to mention three former and current financiers from Goldman Sachs"

For those with short memories, Goldman Sachs was one of the few investment banks that made out like bandits after the credit and housing crash in 2008. This is because they used credit default swaps to bet ON mortgage failures not against them. Go figure! Maybe the Trumpie voters can't or won't, or they just don't care.

Most worrisome, and a primary reason I wouldn't back this ambuulatory bag of snot if he was the last president ever:

"Meanwhile, the Washington influence machine has kicked into overdrive. Scores of lobbyists and political consultants are brokering meetings between their clients and members of the Trump transition team . The President -Elect and his advisors are also holding fundraisers where they will collect checks of up to $1 million each - including from corporations."

And:

"While some supporters may balk, Trump's decision to embrace those who have wallowed in the Washington muck has spread a sense of relief among those in the capital's political class."

Well, of course it would spread a sense of relief! It shows all his campaign bloviations which suckered his voters, were bullshit and crappola.  Contrary to the bill of goods he sold all those stooges, as one insider put it, he "will govern like a normal Washington insider".

So much for draining the swamp. The swamp that really needs to be drained is Trump's if and when we finally manage to remove this walking, talking turd - if we ever do! In the meantime, no, I don't support turds as President, even turds with orange hair. Neither do many millions of others and one emblematic display has the Trumpies in a lather, that is - the design of the pin worn by the Rebel heroes in the new Star Wars flick, Rogue One.   One beholds an image of the Rebel insignia with a safety pin through it, a reference to the symbol of solidarity with persecuted minorities that has gained currency in the U.S. following the election. 

Given most Trumpies are racists they can't handle this display of covert free speech and are now calling for boycott of the film (which we saw yesterday). Well, good luck!  But you better get used to it because you're gonna see a lot more!

Other Trumpists (as a recent letter writer to the NY Times) have taken those of us to task for "threatening democracy" if we hashtag "Not My President".  The specious claim being circulated - with tons of chutzpah and irony (as if they wouldn't do the same if HRC was elected) is that by not accepting the results of a democratic election we are sowing the "seedbeds of violence". But we are under no such obligation if the person "elected" managed that trick by recourse to preventing people from voting (using the voter ID ruse) or refusing to count provisional ballots.

Also, we are under no obligation to get behind a leader who appoints slime for key positions. Riff raff and vermin why are dedicated to destroying the very agencies of government to which they've been appointed. No, in such instance it is WE who defy and resist who are the true patriots and defenders of democracy.  Just as we will be when we must take on Trump and his hired hit men if they try to destroy what remains of our nation.   As for "seedbeds" of violence, that totally depends on those who try to infringe on first amendment rights of the defenders. Bear in mind our own Declaration of Independence clearly sets out the option to remove a government if it fails to meet the adherence to the Constitution and principles of liberty, e.g.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/jack-lessenberry/70380/fascism-with-yellow-hair

And:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/19660/trump-inauguration-sick-out-general-strike

And:

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/25/no-middle-class-no-republic-gop-plans-to-destroy-americas-safety-net-will-also-kill-democracy_partner/

Gary Johnson Passes The Moronic Wannabe Leader Test

It was startling to see a major third party candidate on live television instantly converted into a clueless  moron. In this case, Gary Johnson - the Libertarian candidate- yesterday  on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe', got this question from Mike Barnacle: "What would you do, if elected President, about Aleppo?"

Johnson suddenly appeared pop-eyed and asked: "What's Aleppo?"

To which Barnacle replied:  "Are you serious?"

Because every sentient being with a consciousness somewhat higher than a kindergartner's knows Aleppo is a besieged city in Syria  and the epicenter of a humanitarian crisis. Indeed, tens of thousands have been killed there after five years of the Syrian Civil War.  Yet Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, and the Libertarians' presidential hopeful - didn't know that.

On the dooofus scale for presidential disqualification, Johnson's answer puts him on a par with Ben Carson, who in one forum (in 2015) suggested the Baltic states (Croatia, Slovenia etc.) were not part of NATO.  His faux pas also rivals that of Rick Perry who - in a 2012 debate, failed to recall the DOE (Dept. of Energy)  as one  of the main federal agencies.

Let us agree then, that for any given forum - whether formal presidential debate, or even informal appearance on cable TV, there are certain "deal breakers" in terms of  candidate's fitness for office. One of these is failing to exhibit knowledge of basic current events especially in relation to existing world problems, crises or global policies. On this score, Johnson failed the leadership test just as Carson and Perry did earlier.

Johnson attempted to explain his reaction by later saying he "understood the significance of Aleppo but blanked out".  Now, let's process this, please. He is claiming that in an informal setting, on an early morning cable TV  show - usually watched by fewer than 1 million - he lost command of his brain for the duration and reverted to a default zombie condition..

One is then led to ask, assuming Johnson were to actually become President, what we might expect if he had a face off with Vladimir Putin at a high powered meeting on one crisis or other. And let's say Putin asked him point blank what he and his administration intended to do about the Chechen terrorists? Would Johnson "blank out" just then and ask "What's a Chechen?"  Subsequently correcting himself and saying "I know the significance of Chechnya but I blanked out?"  What do you suppose Mr. Putin would think? (Apart from wondering how Americans could be so stupid as to elect this guy to be President.)

Or, suddenly the nation is under nuclear threat from China and the Joint Chiefs advise going to Defcon 2. Will Johnson then blank out and ask: "What's Defcon 2?"  Then, after it's too late blurt out "I REALLY did understand the significance of defcon 2  but blanked out!"

You see where I am going with this? The excuse of blanking out is no excuse at all, period, because anyone in the position of commander -in -chief simply can't afford to do that. You are no longer an average Joe Citizen allowed the luxury of blanking out, forgetting key information, or falling asleep on the job.  You are now responsible directly for the nation's security as that commander -in -chief so can no longer have the luxury of lapses that might be afforded anyone else.

Johnson's spin is not satisfactory, therefore, and that means while he passes the "moron wannabe leader test' he fails the real leader test.  This comes at a time when Johnson has been trying to raise his profile and meet the 15 percent poll threshold (based on 5 national polls) to secure a spot with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the debates. Currently, he is hovering at nine percent. One certainly is left to argue  that Johnson's blanking out was perhaps a "mercy killing" for his debate chances. This is given how he'd look blanking out in front of tens of millions if asked, say by Martha Raddatz: "Mr. Johnson, how would you propose to resolve the Spratly Islands dispute with China?"

Even Johnson has acknowledged how he brought himself to such a precarious position. In a different interview yesterday he acknowledged the consequences for a candidate seeming to lack a basic understanding of a major foreign policy issue. He actually  said:

"For those who believe this is a disqualifier, so be it."

Of course, the blatant missteps and interview blunders of one Libertarian presidential candidate will hardly dissuade the high IQ members of Mensa and Intertel from continuing to glamorize Libertarianism as the choice of the brilliant cognoscenti (i.e. that they fancy themselves to be.)  They fetishize this misbegotten ideology because they are anti-statist at the core, and use it as a convenient economic vehicle to denounce everything from taxes for support of social insurance, to climate change. (Not wanting taxes to support gov't research, or have any carbon taxes or rationing.)

But bright though they are, these same high IQ Libbies can't seem to see the paradox of their positions in terms of national governance.  To wit, their entire premise is opposed to any rational and practical governance.  Recall the Libertarian Party Principles state:

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

This has been further amplified via Charles Murray's statement in What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 6):

“It is wrong for me to use force against you, because it violates your right to control of your person....I may have the purest motive in the world. I may even have the best idea in the world. But even these give me no right to make you do something just because I think it's a good idea. This truth translates into the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”

But if one considers the context,  such a “libertarian principle of governance" emerges as an oxymoron! Governance presumes and demands the non-passive act of governing, which means the projection of force for enforcement of laws including for national security.  Someone is invariably and actively setting standards of expected action, and also providing the means to uphold the standards. In other words, force inevitably backs up governance. Why do you think cities maintain police forces, and the nation a large volunteer standing army - along with assorted weapons to control crowds?  It is to sustain coherent and FORCE-ful governance. The libertarians, then, espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force.

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever the hell they want!  Set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible.

All of this shows that the high IQ Libertarians inhabit a sheltered world of their own with no practical touch points to reality.  In this sense Johnson's blank out breakdown ought to have been a wake up call, but more than likely will just elicit more rationalizations - just as those they've used to defend Ayn Rand.

Thankfully, the chances of Gary Johnson becoming the first Libertarian president are about the same as his forlorn party ever becoming competitive in national politics.

Unhinged Rhetoric Does This Nation No Good - Now James Woolsey Wants to Execute Snowden?

Former CIA head James Woolsey said the 'blood of French citizens is on Edward Snowden's hands'. No,  the blood of those citizens is on ISIS' hands, you fool!

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America. And we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.” - Sen. Frank Church, referencing the NSA in 1975.

Let us admit in a time of hyped terror, with robed lunatics barking threats on almost every TV screen in a 24/7 medium, it takes courage for a citizen not to become petrified and hide under his or her bed. It also takes courage and character, as well as confidence in one's own positions, not to surrender to hysteria and especially political fear-mongering, to give these slime what they want, which is to change who and what we are as a nation,

So it's been disconcerting to hear the recent insane rhetoric coming out of assorted yapping mouths lately, mostly those who we knew were already detached from reality.

Such as Donald Trump now calling for a database to track all Muslims, and Ben Carson comparing the Syrian refugees (mainly women and children) trying to escape their war torn country to rabid dogs. Then there was former CIA head James Woolsey who actually said "the blood of French citizens is on Edward Snowden's hands" in a debased pop off that rivals those of even Trump and Carson.

What is this lunatic thinking? Where does he pull this from? Is he even remotely aware that the end-to-end encrypted devices and apps (like 'Whats App') used by the ISIS bugs weren't even around when Snowden made his revelations in 2013? (On November 18, 2014, Open Whisper Systems announced a partnership with WhatsApp to provide end-to-end encryption by incorporating the encryption protocol used in their TextSecure application into each WhatsApp client platform. Prior to this there were numerous security holes and issues). Of course, it's all insanity ratcheted up and made to sound rational. It isn't. It's nutso talk. (Especially as it is the Tech companies which are now most adamant about not removing encryption for their apps because they believe it will degrade the devices' usefulness.)

Snowden then was absolutely correct to expose the violations of our 4th amendment rights which even a subsequent   300-page report  by a commission (appointed by Obama himself)  found to be infringing on our civil liberties with dragnet collection of our personal information and data. What are we even worth as a country and a people if we succumb to so much fear that we're prepared to sacrifice our principles and liberties which is precisely what these fucktard terrorists want?

But given that the CIA also believed JFK was guilty of "treason" - and so had him terminated in an executive action- the words out of Woolsey's mouth perhaps aren't surprising.  In JFK's case, he earned the company's wrath by refusing to support their ill-conceived Bay of Pigs invasion with air power, and then fired Allen Dulles as CIA Director in the aftermath. Worse, he commenced a year's long secret rapprochement with Fidel Castro - certainly which would be viewed as a stab in the back, just like Snowden's revelations are now by Woolsey.

Thankfully more of the background details of this will be brought out in David Talbot's new work, “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government,”  which extends out from JFK’s murder to investigate the rise of the whole shadowy network that Talbot holds ultimately responsible for the president’s assassination, and which metastasized in its wake. This is a work long since needed, and particularly how Dulles kept his little operations going on sub rosa even after JFK ditched him. (Dulles was later appointed to be on the Warren Commission by LBJ. Two real traitors working in league with each other to cover their foul tracks.)

As for the Reepo presidential candidate clowns popping off with their own whacked out rhetoric on the refugees, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson had this to say on Chris Hayes' All In last night:

"It doesn't surprise me coming from the right wing blather of the Republican Party. It's the kind of talk that surrounded the internment of the Japanese who were loyal to a fault. But we put them in concentration camps. It's the kind of talk that's extremely dangerous. It's the kind of talk that plays right into the hands of Al Baghdadi and Al Zawarahi, Al Musra and so forth.

Because that's what they want...they want us to act to bring about our own suicide".

That suicide, of course, also extends to killing our own constitutional principles in the interest of trying to get absolute security. But as Benjamin Franklin put it: "Those who would sacrifice liberty to gain a temporary security deserve neither liberty or security."

He didn't mince words. And why should he have? Liberties once lost, as Woolsey would have wanted us to do, are difficult if not impossible to win back. Once you give them up - say in the midst of combating these asshole terrorists (the latest attack was in Mali last night) you surrender to them, without even firing a shot.

Most citizens, indeed, aren't even aware our liberties (including the right to own guns) hang on a metaphorical knife edge. This concerns Reagan’s Executive Order 12656, issued in 1988, which has remained in effect since and was actually activated after 9/11. The order stated that Continuity of Government procedures were called for in the event of "any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."

According to the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 326; cf. p. 38), "Contingency plans for the continuity of government" were implemented on September 11, 2001.  Later mutations of COG under the Bushites  equated political dissent with treason. In regard to the last, the definition of "terrorist" was expanded to "domestic terrorist" by congress in 2001, to include:

"“…activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"

 According to the ACLU, “this definition is broad enough to encompass the activities of…prominent activists, campaigns and organizations.”  That includes past protest movements like Occupy Wall Street and anyone who currently protests the Keystone XL pipeline, chemical toxins in water or fracking. (No surprise this meme is still lurking - ready to spread- as we learned in the Denver Post (Nov. 18) that certain citizens of Thornton, CO had their names and home locations placed in red on a city council map as "opponents to fracking". )

How much did Snowden reveal or confirm that we didn't know or realize before - bordering on coming this [[ close to a totalitarian state? investigative reporter Christopher Ketcham disclosed the extent of the spying :

"The following information seemed to be fair game for collection without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on credit cards. All of this information is archived on government supercomputers and, according to sources, also fed into the Main Core database.

There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” He and other sources note the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.”

Are Americans really ok with all that indiscriminate snooping in a terror war? If so, they merit neither liberty or security. They are prepared instead to surrender their most precious rights to the ISIS or other rats at the drop of a hat. Blaming the French deaths on Snowden also shows Woolsey has his head where the Sun doesn't shine, just like the CIA's earlier mutations (e.g. Allen Dulles) who orchestrated Kennedy's executive action then blamed it on a patsy they set up.)

Former NSA code breaker Bill Binney  delivered the sane view after the Snowden disclosures emerged and those like James Clapper and Keith Alexander were making noises about the need for mass warrant, dragnet searches.

"First of all I don’t understand this being bamboozled into thinking that you have to do this to find bad guys. That’s false. There’s very simple principles you can use to find out who is the bad guy and who isn’t and you can do this without violating anybody’s privacy”.

Americans need to keep things in perspective as this current terror epoch continues and not surrender their brains and balls to the hysterical, unhinged voices spouting off on the tube. Better yet turn the tube off - as well as other media access- and reclaim your gray matter by doing some serious reading.  As author Harold Bloom put it:

"If we fail to read conscientiously and seriously we risk becoming lost in the visual media"

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/walter-brasch/64867/the-republicans-rhetoric-of-hate-and-fear


Excerpt:

"In the history of the United States, just the members of the white-hooded Protestant-professing fire-and-brimstone Klan killed and maimed more Americans than all the murders by non-Christian terrorists—and that includes 9/11. Add in the number of serial killers, the racists who killed children in churches, the zealots who killed health care personnel because they performed legal abortions, and the people like the Oklahoma City bombers and the Unabomber, and the number of pretend-Christians killing Americans rises to hundreds of times greater than any Muslim attack."

GOP Candidates Talk Tough But They Have NO Serious Plan Superior To Obama's On Eradicating ISIS

In his book, Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free , political and cultural critic Charles Pierce exposes at multiple levels:  including politics, economics and religion-  how too many Americans have become hostages to stupidity. This is mainly because they were never taught logic or critical thinking in the first place.Mostly, they are only good at regurgitating the insane, idiotic blather of their "heroes" - whether El Rushbo on talk radio, or "The Donna" Trump (aka "little Hitler") out on the hustings.

Evidence is pouring in that current events confirm Pierce's take, including new polls that show 53 percent of Americans want no Syrian refugees entering the country  - even women and children - despite the fact this nation has one of the most rigorous systems in place to screen newcomers. A screening far more intense and all -encompassing than allowed for the nation's gun buyers.

Additionally, 11 percent demand only Christian Syrians be permitted entry. They clearly demand ultra safety in this terror age redux. The question that arises is let's even say their demands are met (again mostly echoed and recycled from the GOP poppet parade) how are they going to protect kith and kin when the next AMERICAN mass shooter opens up on them at a cinema or a church, given the NRA won't even allow the sale of smart guns or universal background checks? 

The key aspect these ninnies don't get is that so long as we have loose gun laws no one is going to be safe from slaughter. Why can't they process that rigorously regulating the guns in this country is more important than regulating the entry of Syrian refugees already subject to intense screening - much more powerful than anything the NRA allows?

As Connecticut governor Dannell  Malloy put it in an "All In" interview Monday night, referring to this nonsense:

"From 2004 through 2014 according to the GAO report, we sold 2,042 guns to people who are on the terrorism watch list. Why? Because the NRA  has refused to allow people who are on the watch list as ineligible to buy guns in the United States. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

Got that? The NRA has disallowed those on terror watch lists being ineligible  to purchase high powered weapons. Looks like the real terrorists these 53% and 11% ought to be fretting about are the NRA, because as I observed in yesterday's post:

"I'd just add that the loss of future lives in these United States is much more likely to come from unregulated guns in the hands of the wrong people,  as opposed to Syrian refugee babies strapped with IEDs as the GOOPrs fear."

But the caterwauling hasn't stopped, because like any political opportunists, these shameful assholes - including "The Donna", The Cisco Kid (Rubio) and Canuck Cruz have all been increasing their bombast to try to prove how rough and tough they'd be with ISIS and how they'd solve the problem with "ground forces" (despite no 'Muricans in any poll are for that, given the cost in lives and treasure) or with bombing 'em into oblivion like The Donna wants.

They also haven't held back on the nutso rhetoric including "shutting down all mosques in the country" and yapping:

"Obama was primarily angry at the Republicans rather than the terrorists who did this!" (The Donna)

And he also blabbed:

"We can't take a chance that some of these people coming in are ISIS"

Er, ok, how about a lone wolf American - totally off the watch list and screening grid, but radicalized by ISIS videos - how you gonna protect yourself from him making a soda can bomb (such as depicted on the ISIS rag 'Dabiq') and setting it off in a theater or restaurant? OR - buying a Kalashnikov at a gun show and spraying rounds into a crowd? You can't put cops everywhere!

It shows how stupid this blather is.

Then there's this choice remark from Cruz:

"I would encourage you, Mr. President, come back and insult me to my face".

Really? This from the putz who barely 12 months ago put up a campaign video on a website with him prancing around in women's wear? What, are you going to wave your panties at Obama?

Earlier on the same "All In" Monday night, Charles Pierce skewered all these idiots and showed using statistics and attention to logic and critical thinking that NONE of these dopes would really do anything other than Obama is doing if actually in office.

As Pierce put it, you can say anything you want as a candidate because there's no accountability. You can even claim you will defeat the bad guys with a super weapon or special strategy hitherto untried, and you can bet there will be enough dumb Americans to believe it.

Pierce also put a lot of the blame, as I do, on a corporate media that has failed itself to hold this cavalcade of yahoos to account in asking the tough questions when they pop off.  You see it every time they have a debate, such as the last one on the FOX business channel, and you see it in all the assorted spot interviews. They let each of them, whether Cruz, Trump or Rubio pop off without bounds, but then don't push back with critiques or hard questions - as Cronkite would have done back in the 60s.

Rubio did get one thing  partially right when he said:

"ISIS can only be defeated by a ground force  the bulk of which is made up of Sunnis themselves who reject their (ISIS) ideology and defeat them militarily"

 However, as I already noted, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-ground-war-only-way-to-crush-isis-bugs.html

this still wouldn't be enough - an adequate ground force would have to include well trained troops from the two recent victim nations: France and Russia.

Finally, to confirm Ben Carson and his campaign are part of Idiot America check out his erroneous map of the U.S. here as appended to the 'We're Saying No' area - on who is rejecting Syrian refugees:

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2015/11/ben-carson-states-wrong-map/

How Did Ben Carson Ever Manage To Become A Brain Surgeon?

Hey, Bo! I ain't no dummy and I ain't deluded 'bout ma past!"

When even Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger draws attention to a candidate's  cognitive deficiencies (Nov. 5, 'Ben Carson's Problem')  you pretty well know that candidate is under close scrutiny and whatever he blabs will be under the media microscope.  How did Uncle Ben come under Mr. Henninger's  lens?

Recall the first Republican debate with FOX News moderators when Megyn Kelly put him in her sights, with the cameras catching him in 'deer in the head lights' mode.  Megyn recounted previous basic mistakes Carson made in various forums, including:

-   Suggesting the Baltic states (Croatia, Slovenia etc.) are not part of NATO, 

- Not knowing the main political parties in Israel

-  Believing Alan Greenspan had been Treasury Secretary instead of former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. 

All of these fall under the rubric of basic education for high political office wannabes - especially aspiring to the Presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth. Failure to correctly peg any one ought to be an automatic disqualifier as much as Rick Perry's political capital collapsed  (in 2012) after failing to recall the DOE (Dept. of Energy)  as one  of the main federal agencies.

Megyn  justifiably asked Carson  if all his drops weren't "basic mistakes"  and "raise legitimate questions on whether you're ready to be president?" Carson merely sidestepped the question and waffled about "answering them more fully at a later point".

This debate fall down and Carson's collective basic flubs would have brought him into Henninger's sights (and for the record  let's note he is pro-GOP and conservative as are the Op-ed pages of the WSJ).  Henninger in his piece observed Ben:  "has been preparing for a presidential run since 2013", then adding:

"One would think that during the two years of preparing for his presidential run, Mr. Carson might have absorbed more knowledge about the details of public issues than he has shown in these debates"

The imputation being that Carson - even with advanced prep - couldn't get basic political and geo-political facts straight, all pointing to a dummy,  At least a political dummy.

But maybe there was never the political I.Q. or aptitude to absorb such knowledge in the first place. This would indicate Ben needs to stick to basic surgery, or perhaps set off on a career as a Seventh Day Adventist preacher. His preachy, somnolent delivery is sure to earn him lots of plaudits. Besides, he seems to know much more about the fables described in the Bible (like "Joseph" building the pyramids, sic)  than about U.S. politics.

Thus,  we can grant at some early stage of his life Carson had the brains to become a brain surgeon - at Hopkins. But that elicits the question as to what happened after his retirement.  How did he manage to fall down on so many BASIC questions that even a rank political neophyte ought to have been able to satisfactorily answer with 2 years advance preparation? Did he get early onset Alzheimer's? We certainly don't want such a guy in the White House as much as we may sympathize with his brain farts and multiple stumbles.

Thus, one has to wonder if Alzheimer's has been wreaking havoc on his brain and mental processes  - creating these misfires.

How else account for some of the other ignorant, wacked out statements emanating from Carson’s mouth lately?  Such as his daft blather on Nazi gun control and Obamacare is worse than slavery.   Then there was his more recent brain fart that women who get abortions are like "slave owners who believe they can do anything". Only a total mental fuck-up would utter such crap, and this guy was a former Hopkins neurosurgeon. So again, either he was mentally deficient while at Hopkins - in which case his patients were at risk - OR he is so now, with Alzheimer's or some other early onset dementia.

Other. examples which must lead the politically aware citizen to question his competence for high office:

In March, Carson ridiculously argued that “a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re gay,” and was forced to retract his statement, only to feign ignorance on the matter of sexual orientation all together then later admitted
.
“I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation,”

Then STFU about it, bozo!

Then in an interview with “Marketplace” last month,  Kai Ryssdal asked Carson if he would raise the debt limit or allow the U.S. to default on its debt. Carson’s non-answer made it painfully clear that he was confused about what the debt ceiling even is, as evident from this transcript:

Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.

Ryssdal: To be clear, it’s increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You’d let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit?

Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, “Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we’re not raising any spending limits, period.” 

Ryssdal: I’m gonna try one more time, sir. This is debt that’s already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred? 

Carson: What I’m saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt. I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops. You’re always gonna ask the same question every year. And we’re just gonna keep going down that pathway. That’s one of the things I think that the people are tired of.

Carson never answered the question and  clearly couldn't since he didn't even know the difference between the debt ceiling and the budget. He further didn't grasp that raising the debt ceiling is an obligation given the money has already been spent - and hence created that debt.

Do we really want some bozo at the helm who doesn't know the difference between the budget and the debt limit?  Well, let's put it this way: Do we want someone at the helm who doesn't know what the "football" is or how it is used?

Other brain farts, muffs:


Earth’s age :

This one falls under the rubric of basic scientific literacy and is a fundamental litmus test for whether one can even be called a scientist. Alas, Carson - like Jason Lisle - failed it. Recall here that Carson scrambled to backtrack on it, telling the Daily Mail before the CNBC debate that he was "no longer sure that God created the Earth in six days."

How can anyone who professes to be trained in science of any kind not be sure? Carson went on to say:

"I believe that God created the Earth. I don’t know how old the Earth is. The Bible says ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,’ and then there’s a period there. So we don’t know how long that period of time lasted,”

However, using radio-carbon dating, real scientists agree that the earth is 4.4 billion years old.

Hurricanes:

Last month the brewing storm Joaquin was projected to be the largest hurricane to make landfall in history, But Ben Carson said he had no clue how he would handle the natural disaster. The storm made landfall in Mexico but eventually brought torrential rainfall along the Southern United States. ABC News asked Carson on the campiagn trail last month:

“If you were in the White House what would you be doing right now with tropical storm Joaquin? What would be your first step?”

A stunned Carson simply replied, “Uh, I don’t know."

And so-called serious people really back this fucking moron as President to the extent of giving him dominant poll numbers? If so, these pro-Carson Americans are even more stupid than most Europeans believe. As one Czech national blurted out when we were in Prague: "Your country is exceptional all right. Exceptional in stupidity and ignorance."

But let's not stop there, here's another policy issue flubbed:  This week, Carson, a registered Florida voter, seemed to brag about not caring about policies that impact local politics where he votes. During an interview with the Miami Herald, Carson was unable to articulate answers to questions about U.S.-Cuba policies:  Carson appeared stumped by questions about the so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy (which allows Cubans who reach U.S. soil to remain here) , and about the Cuban Adjustment Act, which allows Cubans who arrive in the U.S. to apply for legal residency after 366 days.

When asked about the first policy, Bennie responded:

“You’re going to have to explain to me exactly what you mean by that wet-foot, dry-foot. I have to admit that I don’t know a great deal about that, and I don’t really like to comment until I’ve had a chance to study the issue from both sides.”

Ah, but you want to be President of the U.S. when you may well have to make a decision on one or both policies. Or  do you propose to simply delegate the decisions to secondary actors?

On the Cuban Adjustment Act, he gave a similar response:

“Again, I’ve not been briefed fully on what that is."

Even before these fuck ups, Carson was exposed as an ignorant tool based on an earlier 1998 remark in which he claimed the Egyptian pyramids were used to "store grain". As opposed to bearing the bodies of Pharaohs.  It never occurred to him why anyone would store grain in a mammoth tetrahedral structure for which access is difficult, as opposed to a regular box-shaped structure for which the volume-capacity wouldn't be limited the higher the grain is stacked.

But this is Ben Carson we're talking about who bends reality to his beliefs, as opposed to testing the latter against reality.

Right now, aside from combined voter insanity and stupidity, there is no earthly reason for this clown to be polling at even 2 percent, far less 22 percent. And if he really does have Alzheimer's and isn't just an ignorant fool, I apologize - but then he ought to still bow out because his disease will be exposed sooner or later. The Presidency, alas, is not the office for Alzheimer's folks.

Oh, one more thing: Anyone, any American, inclined to vote for him because of his "soft tone and measured cadence" is also an idiot. They're as bad or worse than those who voted for George W. Bush (aka "Junior")  because "we felt we could have a beer with him".

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/64707/the-world-according-to-ben

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/64705/ben-carson-please-believe-me-when-i-say-i-m-psycho

The Clash in Colorado - Only ONE Serious Candidate Stood Out In This Debate: John Kasich

"Damn, Cruz! Them questions was damn hard!"


When I read the Denver Post pre-debate story yesterday morning, concerning Ohio Guv John Kasich sending shivers down Democratic spines (if he emerged as the R-nominee, which let us admit is doubtful), I had to see for myself. I had to watch at least some of this latest clown cavalcade on CNBC to see who, if anyone, stood out as possessing presidential timbre. Well, they all failed to meet the standard except for Kasich.

The stand up moment came right at the outset when candidates were asked to give their primary weakness in 30 seconds or less. Kasich led off by not really addressing the question but instead pointing out the severe weaknesses of the others in terms of being realistic, especially with their tax-economic policies.

At that point, then again at a later interlude when he had to respond to Trump's misrepresentations about being in charge at Lehman Bros. in 2008, Kasich asserted:

"Folks, we gotta wake up! We cannot elect someone who doesn’t know how to do the job.”

He then torpedoed both the Trump and Carson tax plans as "delusional" - and even moderator John Harwood pointed out to the ever feisty Trump that his tax plan would only create even more mammoth deficits. As for Carson, his "tithing" tax plan was ridiculed as well, including by Kasich, though no one pulled Uncle Ben up on his ignorant remark about "taxing 15 percent of GDP" when in fact, he's proposing a flat tax on individuals. Doesn't he know the difference?

Marco Rubio, aka "the Cisco Kid" -   who the corporo-media touted as the "clear winner"-  was also exposed this morning by Steve Rattner on 'Morning Joe' as having an unworkable tax plan. To get a $2.4 trillion reduction in deficits, Rubio would have to spend $2.4 trillion. Hell, that's a worse balance than the "energy in vs. energy out" for fracking!  Rubio's only "win" came by showing he was a superior debater to the lethargic and out of tune Jeb - which we knew already. (Jeb needs to pack up his Bush bag and go home to mommy.)

Say one thing say the next, at least there was  a bit more illumination than in previous debates (though noise still dominated) as candidates were held accountable over what many economists have viewed as extreme tax and spending policies as well as conflicting promises on Social Security. (A favorite target of the extremist Right since the Social Security Law was passed in 1935, despite the fact most GOP voters depend on it to get by - especially in the South.)

Incredibly, Carson also later received supportive boos from the crowd after he was questioned on his links to a disgraced pharmaceutical company, then concluded his appearance by thanking fellow panelists “for not falling for the traps”.

Why anyone would boo the moderators on Carson's dumb behalf  for conflict of interest issues is beyond me. The guy is a moron, his tax plan was clearly exposed as airy fairy bull pockey - by two of the moderators as well as Kasich. And the gathered Reeptards ought to have been booing HIM when the links to the disgraced PhRMA company were brought out. The question as asked by Carl Quintanilla was:

This is a company called Mannatech, a maker of nutritional supplements, with which you had a 10-year relationship. They offered claims that they could cure autism, cancer, they paid $7 million to settle a deceptive marketing lawsuit in Texas, and yet your involvement continued. Why?

The little douchebag ought to have answered it because it was a deadly serious probe into the little fuck's background.  (Highlighting his support for quackery and mumbo jumbo if it earns him an extra buck).. But all he did was bristle and babble in the aftermath and the peanut-brained audience booed. Aren't you supposed to have at least an I.Q. of 100 to gain entry to a debate?

 But it only showed how out of touch with reality both the peanut gallery and their goofy "heroes" really are. As one Boulder construction worker put it - quoted in today's Denver Post, 'What a bunch of g**damned clowns!" Out of the mouths of real American workers! (Incredibly, students quoted in the same piece often gave the Reeptards a pass. One CU freshman actually said he "respected Carson for his political and scientific understanding". This kid's college admission needs to be rescinded and he ought to go back to kindergarten!)

But see, in this alternative universe of conservative bullshit,  reality has no place and truth is the first casualty. You can see it as a running thread in these idiotic Reepo debates, and even Paul Ryan - new House Speaker- conceded yesterday "Our party has lost its vision".  Yeah, and they did so in dispensing with reality and embracing a schizoid's vision. A vision wherein regulations are meaningless, women are the "enemy" of their "unborn babies" and you can spend as much as you want - especially on defense-  and still cut deficits.

The brainwashed crowds who vote and clamor for these useless clowns will look away from anything substantial  unless it's going after Obama.... or their primary foe that they call "Killary" - because they're terrified she will kill them next year in the general election - which she will . The only one who rose at all above this nonsense was Kasich. But given reality is not an attribute of the extremist Right, don't look for any of their bunch to see it.

The most hilarious aspect of last night's circus was how the tough questioning from CNBC moderators prompted Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ben Carson and others to unite against the television network, attacking them for bias. (Presumably that was based on the fact the network was not FOX  - which only the previous night featured a 23 min. "technical" delay for the first World Series game)

Teeing off on this "blame the refs" meme was Canuck Clown Ted Cruz's attack on the media when he blurted out:

“The questions that have been asked so far on this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,”

Then there was Mr. Chris "Crisco"  Christie bellyaching about a question concerning government regulation of Fantasy Football while ISIS was running loose.  Intimating the poor GOOPs got comic questions only.

But minutes after the debate ended, Carson complained about the "difficulty" of the questions while Democrats got "softball questions". So which is it? Maybe all the Reeps' perceptions are totally distorted so none of them can even agree on what they experience.

Cruz's  comment brought some of the biggest cheers of the night from the Colorado crowd. But again let us recall - as I noted in the last blog post- this was a cherry picked crowd where Reince Priebus literally had to comb Boulder for enough real conserrvos to balance the politico elites and media in the audience. Had the audience been truly representative Cruz, as well as Trump, Carson and most of the others would have been hooted off the stage.

The true fact is that the CNBC moderators dared ask challenging questions. These pretenders to the presidency weren’t mad because CNBC failed to do journalism correctly. They were mad because they apparently expected canned propaganda questions and did not get them.

All except Joh Kasich who at least presented sober solutions and had a moderate appeal. Again vindicating the DPost's take that he gave Dems the willies.

But see, the Reeptard extremists hate him because according to the WSJ piece yesterday (p. A4):

"He is a center Right Republican who is willing to defy conservative orthodoxy, use all levers of executive power and stick to his guns in the face of criticism - even from his own party."

In other words, the only realist on the GOP stage who might be a genuine contender and be able to defeat "Killary".   As the WSJ piece goes on:

"This has made some Democrats see him as a potentially strong general election candidate."

The takeaway from the night, delivered this morning by CNBC, after all the candidates carped about the moderators' questions:

"People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions"

And that means questions beyond which those these Bozos were already prepared for, i.e. to give "canned" answers. If there was any fault with the CNBC moderators, it was the same as all the others thus far including on the FOX debate: No one is holding any of these guys to account in their wild, invalid claims or outright stupid remarks - such as Carson's against regulation ("I dunno why they got to regulate everything, I mean it's into everything"- well, maybe so your grand daughters don't get salmonella from ingesting 'Blue Bell' ice cream, dope!) Also, no questions were brought up regarding Carson's foolish statements comparing women who get abortions to slave holders (see previous post).

Anyway  the takeaway from this fiasco for me is that only one (at most)  of the ten showed the capacity to be a President : John Kasich. If this guy worries Demos, maybe the Reepos and their primary voters ought to take note!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/64543/the-gop-debates-and-the-ghost-of-tom-joad

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/29/the_inane_spectacle_of_the_gop_debate_cruz_the_showboating_creep_rubio_the_slick_operator_bush_the_desperate_flop/

Will CNBC's Moderators Expose Ben Carson's Imbecility Tonight?

"Yes, Missy! I say if ya abort a baby then ya is like a slave owner!"

The 3rd Reepo debate is tonight in 'the People's Republic of Boulder' - the most liberal bastion in Colorado, and as one commenter observed in the Sunday Denver Post Perspective section, it's a damned good thing the powers-that-be had the foresight to only allow in 100 students from the University of Colorado - where it will be held.  The reason? Many more students would have hooted all ten yahoos off the stage as bozos, but especially Ben Carson - who has now edged out "the Donna" in the polls.

The debate cognoscenti and organizers are also "wisely" limiting access to primarily the outside (e.g. Beltway) political class, the PR spinners, big $$ donors and media. They know liberals outnumber conservos in Boulder by 2 to 1 and things could get ugly if the audience really got into it. As the DPost writer pointed out, they'd screech and howl if at any time supply side economics was interjected, knowing that '2 + 2' doesn't equal 5. Which most of the Reep brainiacs don't understand. They'd especially howl if the topic of climate change was ignored, as it likely will be.

But the biggest howls would be directed at Ben Carson, the latest nut whack in the GOP pantheon, grabbing a lead in the polls.

A recent headline showing the basis for a mental disqualification of Carson to serve as anything but dog catcher appeared thus:

Ben Carson opposes abortion for rape victims while comparing them to ‘slave owners’

"Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said on Sunday that believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that women should not be allowed to have abortions even in the case of rape or incest. 

“The mother should not believe that the baby is her enemy and should not be looking to terminate the baby,” Carson opined to NBC host Chuck Todd. “We’ve allowed purveyors of division to think that baby is their enemy and they have a right to kill it. Can you see how perverted that line of thinking is?” 

When it came to the rights of women, Carson insisted that they should not have the legal choice to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

“Think about this. During slavery — and I know that one of those words you’re not supposed to say — but I’m saying it,” Carson said. “During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery, I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do.’ Where would we be?”

One blogger rightly observed Carson and the other Reeps inhabit  a "Twilight Zone" of an alternative reality.

And he is correct.  Another  smirkingchimp.com blogger added:

"I mean, my GOD! WTF is Ben even talking about? There is so much cray-cray packed into the 4 little sentences I can excerpt under Fair Use."

He's right. The reason is that almost whenever Carson bloviates he misfires both logically and coherently. Also, when he speaks the sheer density of idiocy and ignorance inevitably reaches mental 'black hole' proportions with the potential to usher in a naked singularity.

 Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that no sane person in his or her right mind can possibly regard a "zygote" as a person, or a fetus as an "unborn child".  Or that a "baby" is an unborn child. Newsflash, Uncle Ben, a baby has already BEEN BORN - it is not UNBORN! DUHHH!

There is simply no standard by which that passes even elemental laws or tests of logic, or science.  Neither can a child be "unborn" because by definition it is already born!  Thus, we send the 'child' to school, get him to do his homework, to take his medicine, cross streets safely, respect his elders and so on. If unborn, it's a fetus, not a "child"  so all those activities are preposterous. They also show the entity is not a person. Doesn't this so-called Hopkins neurosurgeon know any better? I don't know but I sure wouldn't want him trying to fix an ingrown toenail, far less operate on my brain.

As for slavery, doesn't Ben know it was a vicious chattel system whereby full human persons were seized and placed in subhuman bondage?  Fully developed and conscious humans forced to submit to the Slave master's whims, including dancing to banjo music in the wee hours of the morning, working 14 hours a day picking cotton, or submitting to rape is NOT the same thing as a proto-human entity with no independent personhood or will being removed from a woman's womb .

 A person, a human person, must have at least minimal capacity for basic cognition and rudimentary choice. It must possess a brain, at the very least, which evinces definite brain waves. Anything that doesn't is a proto-human entity, but clearly not a person. The logical error made is called the "genetic fallacy" as first described by Antony Flew ('Thinking About Thinking'). That is, arguing that because a thing is going to become something, it IS something. It would be like me picking up an acorn and claiming it's an oak tree. Nope. No way. Only an insane person would assert that!

Women undergoing or choosing abortion do not "regard babies as the enemy" nor are they like "slave owners who believe they can do anything they want" .  They are fully developed, conscious human beings making a life decision for themselves. They are operating under the principle and belief their bodies are their own and not the property of the government.

But see, in Uncle Ben's world the concept of "limited government" only exists in certain selected spheres, like disallowing "entitlements". Thus, all women would be repatriated to a vast gov't plantation, forced to undergo painful births and even nursing the products of rape or incest for months or years - to satisfy a cockeyed morality.  One which affords more gravitas and rights to an unformed, parasitic entity than to fully formed humans. One which exalts the unborn over the already born, which latter they disdain to the point they don't even offer free child care for indigent women.

Then they babble and wonder why abortion remains a choice for women faced with an unsympathetic nation that values money over care of the already born.

Will CNBC's moderators bring some of these issues up for Ben's consideration? Let's hope so! The rest of us, i.e. the sane world, are sick and tired of seeing this Jacobin being paraded around and idiots hanging on his every word like he's some Black version of Yoda.