Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Why Conservatives Are Always Wrong


"Why Conservatives are Always wrong," subtitled, "Keeping perspective for perplexed progressives," by Jeff Smith at Badrepublicans.com is a lengthy article delineating one of the main problem with Conservatives: besides they're fake philosophy causing untold misery in the form of theft, extortion, and murder, to name a few results of their continual efforts to benefit the 2 percent to the detriment of the 98 percent, they're always wrong:

"Suppose you had a friend you had known for many years, one who was very opinionated, who always seemed absolutely certain about everything, and yet who was always turning out to be wrong. He got you to buy stock in Enron and swore it would just keep on rising. He bet on the Yankees to sweep the Red Sox in ’04. He said mobile phones were just a fad, and before long people would give them up and go back to sending telegrams.

"Would you trust this person’s powers of analysis? Would you continue putting any faith in his predictions?


'Conservatives,' or those who call themselves this nowadays, have an equally good and much longer record of faulty analysis and wrong prediction. In order to exist as a viable movement, they depend on everyone forgetting that they’re basically always wrong.

"Unfortunately, progressives and liberals have obliged. They seem to have forgotten who they’re actually dealing with. I’m not the first to point out that conservatives are always wrong – on any longer view, it’s hard to miss – but after years of observing the dispirited moderate left and the hapless, helpless leadership of the Democratic Party, I thought it was about time for a few reminders. If we step back from the issues that preoccupy us at the moment, it’s easier both to see that conservatism has consistently been failing and to examine the deeper reasons why. There are flaws in conservative positions that eventually cause them to collapse, and those same flaws are at work today. It’s true that one side in America’s great political debates is playing a very weak hand. Fortunately, that side isn’t ours.

"If they recognized this, if they remembered how reliably the conservative cause has come to grief in the past, I think my fellow progressives would be in much better spirits. I hope the analysis I’m offering here will not only brighten their mood, but suggest some specific arguments and approaches they might find useful once they figure out that they’re already winning – and have been for a very long time.



"How are they always wrong?

"Conservatives’ terrible track record 

"Conservatives depend on everyone forgetting their past positions because those positions consistently come to look worse as time goes on. We find this happening in every generation and every century. Whatever the issue, a new consensus on it eventually develops around some view that conservatives once opposed, and the old conservative ideas are so discredited that even conservatives themselves no longer try to defend them.

"In a few cases the conservative error was so clownish that it passed into legend and therefore hasn’t been forgotten. The old belief that the sun and everything else in the universe went around the earth, for instance, wasn’t merely what people assumed when they looked at the sky; it was a carefully structured system of doctrine with a great deal of ancient authority behind it, including Aristotle, the Bible, and an elaborate theology that put human beings and human history at the center of the cosmos.

"By the 16th and early 17th centuries, though, evidence was mounting rapidly that this doctrine was wrong. It didn’t fully explain the movements of the planets or the things people saw when they began looking through telescopes. So scientists like Galileo looked for new explanations. Based on the data, they said, it seemed that the earth actually goes around the sun.

"Ideas like this were a giant step toward modern science. They cleared the way for a whole new picture of the universe as governed by a common set of physical laws that could be understood through calculation and experiment. Galileo and his like-minded colleagues plainly weren’t conservatives; their goal was not to save the orthodoxies of the past. The conservatives in this dispute were the theologians and churchmen who tried to defend the old religiously-based theories. And while they did have the power to stage a heresy trial and force Galileo to recant, today we know who really got the worst of that confrontation. As Galileo said, eppure si muove: For their efforts, the conservatives have gone down in history looking both vicious and idiotic.



"Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileo’s, it’s easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made people’s lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance. If we scratch the historical surface just a bit, we can see how wretched a record conservatism has actually been compiling since the dawn of modern times:
"In the 16th century, medical pioneers set out to chart the workings of the human body. Where the old doctrines relied on sacred symbols and mystical 'spirits' and 'humours,' the new science mapped internal organs, watched blood circulate and began to uncover the physical causes of disease. These first steps toward modern medicine filled conservatives with horror, and they tried hard to bring the whole enterprise to a stop. They opposed the use of autopsies to learn how the body worked. They insisted that disease was caused by Satan’s influence, epidemics by collective sin, and mental illness by demonic possession. And even as the scientific facts were becoming known, later conservatives kept up the fight against further new developments, like vaccines and anesthetics – which, they said, violated 'nature' and usurped God’s right to decide who should suffer and die.
"In the 17th century, while Galileo was fighting his battles, other debates were getting underway over the sources of government power – whether it lay within families and was rightly conferred by birth, or whether it rose from the people and should rest on the consent of the governed. Against proposals for electing rulers and other novel 'democratical' ideas, conservative opinion came down firmly on the side of aristocratic privilege and the so-called divine right of kings.
"In the 18th century, movements developed with the aim of reforming the system of criminal justice. Liberal thinkers argued for speedy and public trials, rejected the “cruel and unusual” in favor of penalties that fit the crimes, and supported modest efforts to see that even prisoners were treated humanely. Why did these arguments need to be made? Because at a time when dozens of minor offenses carried the death sentence, when political and religious dissent was criminalized and when legal penalties included literally cutting people to bits, conservatives thought the laws were, if anything, too soft.
"In the 19th century, women were still unable to vote, own property or practice professions. When reformers called for giving them these rights, conservatives invoked both nature and the Bible to prove that women were created subservient to men, belonged in the home, and didn’t need to participate in public decision-making because men knew their interests better than women themselves did.
"In the 20th century, another movement declared that people should be treated equally regardless of race. Progressive reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. called on America to live up to its founding promise, and to honor Scripture’s true meaning, by guaranteeing civil rights for all. Conservatives – including some still alive today – replied that King was distorting both the Constitution, which left it up to each state to decide how racist to be, and the Bible, which licensed white supremacy based on some tale of an ancient curse. Defiantly standing in the schoolhouse door (literally and figuratively), conservatives darkly warned that 'unnatural' mixing of the races would lead to all manner of social evils.

"In these and innumerable other history-shaping debates the conservative position was discredited, sometimes quite soon thereafter, and the godless, un-biblical, unnatural, liberal / progressive position came to be all but taken for granted. Today it’s not controversial that the earth goes around the sun, and that, in any case, priests shouldn’t be prosecuting scientists for heresy. Today it’s universally agreed that people should be able to elect and un-elect their leaders, that women should be able to vote, and that a person’s skin color shouldn’t determine what school she can go to or where she can sit on a bus. But the reason these matters aren’t controversial is that in each case, the conservative side lost.



"Precisely because they lose, however, it’s forgotten that conservatives have repeatedly taken positions that no one but a crank would even try to defend today. Conservatism perversely benefits from its own failures: Because its past arguments were beaten back and its fierce resistance overcome, we don’t hear those arguments anymore. They’ve faded into history, and we have to study history even to know they were once made.



"This is crucial to the conservatism of today. If the public recognized the American conservative movement as the latest growth of the same tangled weeds that previously tried to choke off science, democracy and civil rights, today’s conservatives would have a much tougher time. Like the friend who’s always wrong, they’d be asked to explain why the rest of us should put any stock in the typical conservative arguments of today – arguments like:
"The Bible is the best guide to the natural history of life on earth. Evidence indicating that human beings evolved like any other species will prove to be some kind of illusion or huge mistake, and even though science eventually displaced biblical doctrine in astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, meteorology, historiography, and even linguistics, in this one case the Bible (or one interpretation of it) will at last be vindicated, and a whole, worldwide scientific enterprise proved wrong. Also wrong and contrary to nature, meanwhile, is research on cloning and stem cells, which should be subordinated to theology even if this delays discoveries that could cure diseases and save lives.
"Huge inequalities of wealth and power, and the persistence of these from one generation to the next – the various means by which privilege is routinely passed on from parents to children – are just the way things are. Any serious attempt to reform these arrangements will lead to either anarchy or totalitarian oppression.
"Due process is fine – except for criminals, and especially “terrorists,” for whom some of the old methods need to be revived (and have been). OK, maybe the death penalty is wrong for children under, say, 14. (Or maybe not.) But life sentences aren’t. And while we grudgingly accept a penal system that treats even the worst offenders somewhat humanely, we nonetheless want those people killed, in substantial numbers, and the sooner the better.
"America is a uniquely virtuous nation; its decisions in world affairs are best for people everywhere, even when those people themselves don’t see this. It’s ludicrous to think that anyone else, even in the democratic West, might have equally good ideas about how the world should be organized.
"Same-sex relations are sinful and should never stand on an equal footing with the natural, God-given, heterosexual order of things. The fact that America lags most other advanced societies, which have rejected this view and are rapidly liberalizing their policies in this area, isn’t a sign of where the world is headed; it’s merely further proof of America’s unique virtue (see previous point).

"Looked at in historical perspective, all these arguments rest on one big claim: that conservatism is finally getting it right. OK, conservatives are in effect saying, maybe conservative positions of the past look foolish to us now. Maybe, time and again, conservatism has subverted reform, perpetuated injustice and slowed changes which, in retrospect, we can all see were needed. But never mind all that. The issues today are different, and if you don’t agree with us now then you’re the fool or subversive. The positions we conservatives are taking today, unlike conservative positions of the past, won’t be found lying on history’s trash heap in thirty, fifty or a hundred years, after we’ve lost these arguments too and the world has once again moved on.



"Needless to say, contemporary conservatives would deny that this is their message and reject the parallels I’ve been drawing. If we remind them of their sorry track record, they’ll swear it isn’t theirs at all: They can’t be blamed for the mistakes and limited vision of those benighted conservatives of old. They weren’t even around when Galileo was on trial or when women were demanding suffrage. If they had been (they no doubt imagine), they would have taken the forward-looking side in those disputes. They, unlike their forebears, would not have been loudly insisting that progressive proposals were wrong-headed, impossible, and a threat to everything good. No, they merely insist that today’s progressive proposals are wrong-headed, impossible and a threat to everything good.



"Why do they keep getting it wrong?

"Conservatism’s faulty assumptions

"Comparisons with the past would provoke other objections from conservatives too (which is ironic, since conservatives often claim to revere the past). We’ll get to those a bit later. But to the big objection just stated, there’s one big answer. Think again about the friend who’s always wrong. If that friend insists that no, this time he’s right, that the idea he’s urging on you now is different from any he’s had before, wouldn’t the obvious question be: But is it based on different principles than those other, failed ideas? Are you making different assumptions or following some new line of reasoning? Or are you asking me to believe that the same way of thinking that steered you wrong before is now, improbably, steering you right?

"In waving away past mistakes, conservatives are in essence making just that claim. They’re asking us not to notice the basic, structural similarities between their current views and the discredited ideas of yore. Because if we do examine today’s conservative positions closely, we find they’re just as deeply rooted as yesterday’s were in a few basic attitudes and axioms."
There is more - much more - and to see the rest of the article, click here --> (http://www.badrepublicans.com/conservatives-always-wrong.html)




One of the more interesting bullet points of the article delineated some historical points of Conservatism at its worst.  We've all seen 'toons showing the benefits of Democratic legislative victories and Supreme Court decisions that benefit the nation, but we've yet to see a compilation of GOP legislation and bad decision-making by Conservative-run Supreme Courts that have led us down the path to ruin for the People...and one of these days, we'll post something summarizing the Conservatives' political and judicial excesses.

As the author noted, "If the public recognized the American conservative movement as the latest growth of the same tangled weeds that previously tried to choke off science, democracy and civil rights, today’s conservatives would have a much tougher time," and now is the time to summarize the excesses over the last century that led us to our present state that is driving us closer to the New American Century of Feudalism.

The vast right-wing criminal conspiracy can be easily proven with a historical summary of the depredations by Conservatives in Congress and in the Court, together with the ongoing menace of their actions in Washington and the States' legislative excesses.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a simple philosophy: Fill what's empty.  Empty what's full.  Scratch where it itches.

Alice Roosevelt Longworth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, June 17, 2013

Why Conservatives Hate Reading History


Conservatives hate "facts," they only get in the way of their ideology, and Addictinginfo.org has a wonderful piece by Stephen D. Foster Jr., "20 Historical Facts That Republicans Distort Or Just Get Plain Wrong," that  proves that even in the area of American History, which is also the story of democracy, they get it flat-out wrong:

"We all know at least one person that doesn’t know much about history. And we all know that there have been people who have tried to distort history. The Republican Party, however, does both. Over these last two years, Republicans have a made a real effort to distort history as much as possible, to the point where they are now seeking to rewrite school textbooks. The Republican Party has bent over backwards to present their own twisted version of history and it’s starting to look like that one requirement to be a Republican is to be ignorant of historical facts and events. Below is a list of the many historical facts that Republicans have either distorted or have just gotten plain wrong along with corrections of their errors.



"1. Did Paul Revere Ride To Warn The British? Sarah Palin made the dubious claim that Paul Revere actually warned the British instead of the American colonists. Her supporters even made attempts to edit the Paul Revere Wikipedia entry to make her claims sound correct. If she had taken the time to read Longfellow’s poem, Paul Revere’s Ride, she would not have made this error, as the great majority of school children know that Revere made his midnight ride to warn Americans, not the enemy.

"2. Was The Shot Heard ‘Round The World Fired In New Hampshire? Did you know that Lexington and Concord are located in New Hampshire? I didn’t. And the people in New Hampshire and Massachusetts didn’t either. When Michele Bachmann exclaimed to a New Hampshire crowd that “the shot heard ’round the world” occurred in their state, I’m sure that Massachusetts let out a roar of laughter. The sad but hilarious thing is that most American children know that the first shot of the American Revolution occurred in the state of Massachusetts.

"3. Was John Quincy Adams A Founding Father? Michele Bachmann must have failed American History in school. Because she has absolutely no knowledge of early American history. She once claimed that John Quincy Adams is a Founding Father of America when in fact, JQA was just a child when the Revolution began. He was born in 1767 and was just 14 when the war ended. And like Palin’s supporters, Bachmann fans proceeded to edit the Wikipedia page of John Quincy Adams in an attempt to make her claim viable.

"4. Did The Founding Fathers End Slavery? Michelle Bachmann isn’t through yet. During a speaking event she once claimed that the Founding Fathers were the ones who ended slavery. That’s a surprise to me since George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all owned slaves. In fact, 12 of the first 16 American Presidents owned slaves. But Bachmann’s attempt to paint the Founding Fathers as saints is also a denial of past Republican Party history since early Republicans rose to prominence by fighting against slavery and the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, ended slavery altogether.



"5. Was America Founded As A Christian State? Ever heard of David Barton? He’s the guy that Glenn Beck goes to when he wants to distort history. David Barton claims that the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a Christian state. Many Republicans have since picked up on this claim and have been shamelessly using it to court the Christian right-wing, and as a reason to end the separation of church and state that has been part of this country since its founding. His claim can be trounced with one question. If the Founding Fathers wanted America to be a Christian state why did they not say so in the Constitution? Instead, the Founders placed this in the document.

“'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
~First Amendment, Bill of Rights of the Constitution'

"In other words, there is to be absolutely NO state religion.

"6. Did Benjamin Franklin Reject Evolution? We continue with the lack of knowledge of the Founding Fathers among the right-wing. Many Republicans have been making the claim that Benjamin Franklin rejected evolution. There are two problems with this claim. First, the theory of evolution wasn’t around until Charles Darwin published the theory in 1859, nearly 70 years AFTER Franklin died in 1790. And secondly, Franklin was a man of science above all else. It is unlikely that he would have rejected a scientific theory in favor of creationism. Franklin in fact, rejected the dogma and divinity of Christianity.

"7. Was The American Revolution Fought To End Slavery? Yet another claim that David Barton makes in an attempt to present the founding generation as perfect, is that the American Revolution was waged to end slavery. Once again, Barton makes a claim that is completely false. The American Revolution was fought to win American independence from Great Britain. And as I recall, the slaves were certainly not freed before, during, or after the war. They remained as slaves and would be slaves until the Civil War.

"8. Was The Civil War Fought Over State’s Rights? Republicans claim that it was all about state’s rights and not about slavery. The truth is, state’s rights only played a small role. The South feared that President Lincoln would end slavery, so they took preemptive measures by seceding from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter without any provocation. Slavery was, without a doubt, the main cause of the war between the states. Without slavery, white plantation owners would have to pick their own cotton, or, pay people to do it for them. They also believed Africans to be inferior and would not tolerate their freedom. We should all keep that in mind as the South/Republican home base continues to make claims that they aren’t racist.

"9. Do States Have The Right To Secede? After President Obama took office, many Republican legislators and governors, particularly in the South, began threatening secession. They say secession is a right but is it really? The answer is absolutely not. Not only did the Civil War settle this dispute, James Madison and Andrew Jackson (both Southerners) also rejected this claim. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the right to secede. The Constitution was created by the people “in order to form a more perfect union” and by seceding, a state breaks up the nation, thus breaking a legally binding contract. And Andrew Jackson once threatened to march an army to South Carolina after that state threatened to secede. In fact, Jackson felt that secession was treason. The Supreme Court has also weighed in on this issue. In Texas v White, the court held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.

Fighting to protect us from Obamacare over 60 years before its enactment


"10. Was D-Day All About Health Care? Republicans have been very vocal about the Affordable Care Act and Rick Santorum is no exception. He has made the claim that Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy on D-Day because they opposed Obamacare. He said, “Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom … Those Americans risked everything so they could make [their own] decision on their health care plan.”

"This is absurd. The men that stormed the Omaha and Utah beaches were fighting to liberate Europe from Nazi rule. They weren’t thinking about health care 67 years into the future. They were thinking of their families and whether they’d ever see them again. Santorum also fails to realize that military personnel and their dependents have government-run health care. And the soldiers aren’t complaining about it either. And as a matter of fact, many World War II veterans and their families also have Medicare which is also run by the federal government. That blows Santorum’s claim out of the water.

"11. Did Ronald Reagan Only Lower Taxes? Worshiping Ronald Reagan means you also have to believe that Reagan never raised taxes during his Presidency, but this constant right-wing claim is false. While he did cut taxes in 1981 and again in 1988, Reagan actually raised taxes every year from 1981 to 1987 including The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 which, at the time, had been the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, a higher gasoline levy, a higher payroll tax, and a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history.

"12. Was Joseph McCarthy A Hero? Another idol of the Republican Party is Joseph McCarthy. Republicans are now rewriting school books to present McCarthy as a hero who did no wrong. In reality, where the rest of us live, Joseph McCarthy was nothing more than a witch hunter who accused innocent Americans of being communists. He had no real evidence that people were communists and he should have recognized that people have the right to be part of any political party they choose. He violated the Constitution and ignored the values of freedom that we hold dear.
Just like Republicans today.

"13. Was Martin Luther King Jr. A Republican? Republicans claim that Martin Luther King was a Republican. So they can explain this part of a speech by King, right? In one speech, he stated that “something is wrong with capitalism” and claimed, “There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” So, by claiming King as one of their own, I’m assuming Republicans are also adopting his philosophy.

"14. Who Signed The Smoot-Hawley Act? Many Republicans still have anti–New Deal views. Michele Bachmann blamed FDR for turning a recession into a depression by passing the “Hoot-Smalley Tariff”. Except that FDR didn’t pass it. Hoover did, three years before FDR took the oath of office. Oh, and it’s Smoot-Hawley, NOT “Hoot-Smalley”.

And 911 never happened...


"15. Did 9/11 Happen On George Bush’s Watch? How many times have we heard a Republican or right-wing talking head on Fox say that no terrorist attacks happened when George W. Bush was President? In July, Fox News host Eric Bolling said “we were certainly safe between 2000 and 2008 — I don’t remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time.” Other Republicans such as Rudy Guiliani and Dana Perino also “misremember” that period of time. I seem to recall sitting in a 20th Century History course at my high school on September 11, 2001 when terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City. And as I also recall, George W. Bush was President at the time.

"16. What Did The Founding Fathers Think About Corporations? Corporations are people according to Republicans. They even believe the Founding Fathers loved corporations. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth. The truth is that the Founding generations distrusted corporations with a passion. That’s why corporations were regulated rather harshly compared to the pampering Republicans give them today. Corporations were limited to an existence of 20-30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. If the Founding Fathers were still alive and reinstated these regulations, Republicans would be accusing George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of the founders of being evil, un-American socialists.

"17. What Is The Constitutionality Of Federally Mandated Health Care? Is federally mandated health care unconstitutional? According to Republicans it is. But that’s not what the Founding Fathers thought. Congress passed and John Adams signed, a mandatory health care insurance law back in 1791. The mandate required sailors to pay a tax and in the event they needed care, they could get medical care from the government. If it was unconstitutional as Republicans claim, why didn’t Thomas Jefferson or James Madison repeal it? The fact is, they didn’t, and I’d say James Madison knew more about the Constitution than any Republican does, considering he’s the primary author of that sacred document.

"18. Is Social Security A ‘Ponzi Scheme’? When Rick Perry called Social Security a “ponzi scheme” in the first GOP Debate, he not only made a political mistake of epic proportions, he was also dead wrong. Social Security was created to keep senior citizens out of poverty and it has done a wonderful job of doing just that. When people put money into a ponzi scheme, they don’t get it back. Social Security, however, gives the money back plus more to every person who puts money into the system. It’s far from being a ponzi scheme. The real ponzi scheme is the private health insurance business which takes money from you and then drops you when you need medical care.

"19. Did The Founding Fathers Support A Strong Federal Government Or A Weak One? This is an easy one. Republicans are dead wrong when they claim that the Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government. And that is simple to prove. Before we had the Constitution, America was a loose alliance of states under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was weak. So weak in fact that it didn’t have the power to levy taxes, could not regulate commerce, and relied on the states to provide money for defense. The states had all the power and the federal government had virtually none. This was a chaotic system that threatened to tear apart the new nation. So the Founders wrote the Constitution which created a strong central government capable of levying taxes, regulating commerce, printing money, and forming a military. Most importantly, under the Constitution, the federal government was given the power to provide for the general welfare and the states were given far less power. Republicans will often cite the Tenth Amendment as proof of state supremacy but they’re wrong about that too. After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add an amendment limiting the federal government to powers “expressly” delegated, which would have denied implied powers. However, the word “expressly” ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause. In other words, the federal government has the power to make laws about things that are not found in the Constitution such as health care.



"20. Were The Founding Fathers A Group Of Right Wingers? Republicans have been crisscrossing the country trying to convince Americans that the Founding Fathers were conservatives. But were they really? The answer to this question is absolutely not. If the Founding Fathers were conservatives they would never have revolted against England. One can hardly call breaking away from the most powerful nation on Earth at the time a conservative act. Plus, the Founding Fathers supported a strong federal government, believed in civil rights, supported separation of church and state, despised corporations, and believed the government had the power to provide health care and levy taxes. This is why the Supreme Court throughout American history has rarely ruled laws unconstitutional using the Tenth Amendment.

"Republicans and Americans in general need to get a firm grasp of history. The Republicans understand that the lack of education is the key to controlling the electorate. All they need to do is distort and re-write history in their favor to win the votes of the ignorant. We must learn our past history so that we do not go down the backwards road that Republicans are leading us down.

“'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
~George Santayana"

Now we see what Galileo had to contend with.



When you start with a false philosophy, you have to juggle everything around you by lying or distorting any facts that rebut your philosophy.  In Palin's case, it's stupidity; in Barton's, it's the deliberate distortion of the truth to increase the Sheeplets' level of stupid; and in all cases, it's a matter of Conservative conspiratorial strategy at work.

Sex education, evolution, climate change -- they deliberately set out to eliminate truths opposed to their sick way of thinking...and even History is not immune from their attacks on the truth.  And when we put all of the lies above, see how they sound:  "Paul Revere rode to warn the British after the shot heard ‘Round The World Was Fired In New Hampshire.  When Founding Father John Quincy Adams helped found our Christian State and Benjamin Franklin rejected Evolution and helped end slavery, and...," well, you get the idea.

We all know that Conservatives "get it wrong," but many don't realize how they lie to "prove" their lame social values-- lies, distortions, and fuzzy logic are the hallmarks of an underlying desire for a New American Age of Feudalism that defies all common sense.

When Conservatism is outlawed and re-education camps are established to bring the Sheeplets back to a semblance of rational thinking, History and Science will have to be re-taught to them; their blind odedience to their false prophets has made them incapable of everyday discourse with their peers, and only a massive program of re-education can hope to correct their knowledge of everyday facts and principles of common logic -- and maybe a little assistance with their spelling and grammatical skills.  We can only hope and pray that neurological and other scientific discoveries may help drive the stupid away...driving the meanness away might take a little longer.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no
one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to continually be part of
unanimity."

Christopher Morley

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Salon.com: "From Fox News To Rush: Secrets of The Right's Lie Machine"

"From Fox News to Rush: Secrets of the right’s lie machineConservative media plays by its rules, and bends truth to back whatever argument they’ve decided to make that day," a great piece by two giants in journalism, John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney, Excerpted from “Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America,”  showing us how the Conservatives captured our once-publicly owned airwaves:

Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh(Credit: AP/Dr. Scott M. Lieberman/Reuters/Chris Keane/Micah Walter)

"One key factor that has altered campaign coverage comes from the corporate right in the form of 'conservative' media. If there has been a vacuum created by the downsizing of newsrooms, conservative media have filled it with an insistent partisanship unseen in commercial news media for nearly a century. The conservative media program has been a cornerstone of the Dollarocracy’s — the big money and corporate media election complex — political program since at least Lewis Powell’s 1971 memo. Initially, the work was largely about criticizing the news media for being unfair to conservative Republicans and having a liberal Democratic bias. Although the actual research to support these claims was, to be generous, thin—one major book edited by Brent Bozell actually claimed corporations such as General Electric were 'liberal' companies with an interest in anti-business journalism because they had made small donations to groups like the NAACP and the Audubon Society—the point was not to win academic arguments. The point of bashing the 'liberal media,' as Republican National Committee chairman Rich Bond conceded in 1992, was to 'work the refs' like a basketball coach does so that 'maybe the ref will cut you a little slack' on the next play.



(An analysis and link to the Lewis Powell memo, "Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy," should be read by everyone --> (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/) -- Joyce, Jnr.)

"The ultimate aim of Dollarocracy was, as James Brian McPherson put it, 'to destroy the professionalism that has defined journalism since the mid-twentieth century.' The core problem was that professional journalism, to the extent it allowed editors and reporters some autonomy from the political and commercial values of owners, opened space for the legitimate presentation of news and perspectives beyond the range preferred by conservatives. That professional journalism basically conveyed the debates and consensus of official sources and remained steadfastly within the ideological range of the leadership of the two main political parties—it never was sympathetic to the political left—was of no concern. It still gave coverage to policy positions on issues such as unions, public education, civil rights, progressive taxation, social security, and the environment that were thoroughly mainstream but anathema to the right. Key to moving the political center of gravity to the right was getting the news media on the train, and that meant getting them to have a worldview more decidedly sympathetic to the needs of society’s owners. Newt Gingrich was blunt when he told media owners in 1995 that they needed to crack the whip on their newsrooms and have the news support the corporation’s politics. 'Get your children to behave,' he demanded in a private meeting with media CEOs.
"The first decisive move came with AM talk radio."
"In the late 1980s, conservatives moved from criticism to participation with the aggressive creation of right-wing partisan media. The first decisive move came with AM talk radio. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine (which required that a broadcaster provide two sides to controversial political issues) and the relaxation of ownership rules such that a handful of companies established vast empires opened the door to a tidal wave of hard-core right-wing talk-show hosts. By the first decade of the century, the 257 talk stations owned by the five largest companies were airing over 2,500 hours of political talk weekly and well over 90 percent was decidedly right wing.



"This isn’t your grandfather’s conservatism either. Although some conservative hosts, such as Michael Medved, can be quite thoughtful, just as conservative writers such as William Kristol will sometimes acknowledge when the movement has gone off the rails, the realists are in the minority. For a huge portion of contemporary conservative media, the broadcast begins and ends with the fear card, and it is often played in extraordinarily incendiary ways. Sure, some of the radio ranting comes from lightweights who are only trying to fill the three hours on the all-talk affiliate in St. Louis or Minneapolis. But the most effective purveyors of the venom are gifted and charismatic figures, such as Glenn Beck and Michael Levin, whose fire-and-brimstone moralizing is matched only by their willingness to bend the truth to support whatever argument they’ve decided to make that day. Across large swatches of America, and most rural areas where little journalism remains, right-wing talk radio is arguably the leading source of political information.



"The undisputed heavyweight champion was and is Rush Limbaugh, who emerged as a national radio force by 1990 and who by 1993 was already recognized by the bible of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review magazine, as an unmatched political power in Republican circles; the Review dubbed him the 'Leader of the Opposition.' Limbaugh and his cohorts have the power to make or break Republican politicians, and all who wish successful national careers have to pray at his far-right altar or suffer the consequences. As Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Cappella put it, in many respects Limbaugh came to play the role party leaders had played in earlier times.



"In the late 1990s, Rupert Murdoch launched the Fox News cable channel, and because television is such a ubiquitous and powerful medium, that put right-wing news media in the center of the mainstream. Michael Wolff characterized Fox News as 'the ultimate Murdoch product,' because it brought tabloid journalism to American television. What has been missed in the analysis of Fox News is the business model of tabloid journalism: dispense with actual reporting, which costs a lot of money to do well, and replace it with far less expensive pontificating that will attract audiences. For a tabloid news channel, that means the value added is a colorful partisan take on the news; otherwise the channel has no reason to attract viewers. Former CNN head Rick Kaplan told the story of how he was confronted by Time Warner executives in 1999 or 2000 who were dissatisfied with CNN’s profits despite what had been record revenues and a solid return. 'But Fox News made just as much profit,' Kaplan was informed, 'and did so with just half the revenues of CNN, because it does not carry so many reporters on its staff.' The message to Kaplan was clear: close bureaus and fire reporters, lots of them. In short, Fox News is the logical business product for an era where corporations deem journalism an unprofitable undertaking.



"Fox News and the conservative media sector (including the conservative blogosphere) provide a 'self-protective enclave' for conservatives to cocoon themselves. Research demonstrates that the more a person consumes conservative media, the more likely she is to dismiss any news or arguments that contradict the conservative position as liberal propaganda and lies. Tom Frank argued that the point of conservative media is to facilitate a 'deliberate cognitive withdrawal from the shared world' by their adherents. Conservative media also, to a remarkable extent, stay on message, and the message is largely that of the Republican Party; these media, at least Fox News and Limbaugh, seem to march in lockstep with the same talking points, the same issues, and even the same terminology deployed across the board. They apply the core principles of advertising and propaganda.

"Being a partisan player in the world of professional journalism has provided the right with considerable power to set the news agenda. Traditional journalists get their cues about what to cover from official sources and can dismiss some as ludicrous if they fail to meet an evidentiary standard and are opposed by other official sources. Fox and the conservative media, on the other hand, can reduce complex issues to one-word battle cries—'ACORN!' 'Solyndra!' 'Benghazi!'—which Republican politicians gleefully echo. Then those same politicians and right-wing media “watchdogs” badger traditional media for having a “liberal bias” if they do not cover the stories as well. By the time a hyperpartisan congressman like House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, is gaveling hearings into session, the Washington press corps is not about to say, 'Hold it! This is ridiculous.' So it is that the nonstories that come to dominate news cycles invariably benefit the right.

"But the right is never satisfied. Because they believe they are in an uphill battle with liberal propagandists, conservative media can have an unabashed and breathtaking double standard: they have very different evidentiary standards for stories that support, rather than damage, their politics. If facts prove inconvenient for the preferred narrative, ignore them. Republican officials are treated entirely differently from Democrats, even when the facts of a story are virtually identical. It is this opportunistic and unprincipled nature of conservative 'journalism' that draws widespread analysis and consternation from outside the political right and from those remaining thoughtful conservatives willing to brave the wrath of Limbaugh.



"Between the cocoon effect and the shameless disregard for consistency and intellectual honesty, it is not surprising that professional surveys tend to find regular viewers of Fox News to be more ignorant about what is actually happening in the world compared to those who watch other networks. In November 2011, Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind Poll examined how New Jerseyans watched television news, and the poll concluded that 'some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.'  In some surveys, to be accurate, Fox News does not rank at rock bottom in terms of audience knowledge. But on balance, it is the clown dunce of TV news. No other network ever comes close to getting the sort of assessment Fox News received from World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, in 2010. As one reporter summarized it, PIPA conducted a 'survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation. So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false.' As Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson concluded in their study of the Tea Party, 'Fox News makes viewers both more conservative and less informed.' What may be most revealing is that there is no evidence that this finding bothers the management of Fox News in the least.



"In private moments, conservatives concede they have won the battle to control the news, though to justify their modus operandi, they have to maintain and ceaselessly hype the shtick of being the abused outsiders battling entrenched liberal dominance. The mainstream of journalism has indeed moved to the right, in part because it has followed official sources to the right. Also the corporate news media owners, as Newt Gingrich understood, were certainly open to the idea of more probusiness journalism. The news media have made concerted efforts to appear welcoming to the right, unlike any similar welcome to the left. As Jeff Cohen, who has spent time in all the major cable TV newsrooms, observed, the greatest fear of working journalists is to be accused of being a liberal. 'Nearly all of the Clinton scandals,' McPherson noted, 'were set in motion by right-wing groups, floated through conservative media organs.' Rick Kaplan acknowledged as much and said he sometimes covered stories at CNN for fear of right-wing attack, not because they were legitimate stories. If professional journalism was resolute in splitting the difference between the two parties, there has been a greater price to pay for antagonizing Republicans in recent years.

"The unraveling of media over the past two decades has driven many liberals, not to mention those to their left, to the brink of madness. Many are frustrated that traditional journalism has proven so incapable of resisting the right. With the success of Keith Olbermann’s on-air commentaries condemning the Bush-Cheney administration, MSNBC began to recognize that a lucrative market for low-expense, high-revenue programming was being underserved; it gradually put a few explicitly liberal programs on its schedule, which now includes boundary-breaking shows hosted by Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Hayes, and Ed Schultz.

"Some have equated these programs with Fox News in style, imagining MSNBC as just a left-wing variant on Rupert Murdoch’s network, but the comparison fails upon inspection. Although these programs are expressly liberal, they are more independent of the Democratic Party than Fox has been of the Republican—as was amply evident when MSNBC hosts were quick to decry Obama’s weak performance in the first of 2012’s three presidential debates. They also have a commitment to factual accuracy and intellectual consistency that is rare on the right. At the same time, as Olbermann and Cenk Uygur learned as they were shown the door, the corporate management has little sympathy with the politics of these shows if it veers too often outside the mainstream Democratic Party, even when the shows are profitable. There is an implicit pressure to rein in the politics.

"Most striking is this: the explicitly liberal programs tend to spend considerable time fact-checking, debunking, and ridiculing the material on Fox and conservative talk radio. Right-wing media seem far less interested in what the liberals are saying. Why should they be? In the overall calculus, they are still calling the shots, and the liberals spend inordinate amounts of their time responding to the right. This call and response is a logical commercial manifestation of the post-journalism moment.



Neither Fox News nor MSNBC has its own teams of reporters to send out to break news stories. Slogans like 'We Report, You Decide' are rooted in fantasy. Cable channels have program hosts, producers, and guest bookers. They look at what others are reporting, and then they invite people to talk about the politics of the day. At their best, they invite interesting and diverse guests who might even disagree with one another—as happened on Ed Schultz’s MSNBC show during the debate about whether to include a public option in the Affordable Care Act. At their worst, they feature Sean Hannity and Karl Rove abandoning all the touchstones of realism and engaging in extended preelection discussions about how all the polls are wrong and Mitt Romney will win by a landslide.

"VOTE THIS WAY" and the rest of the story are here --> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/from_fox_news_to_rush_secrets_of_the_rights_lie_machine/.

"Excerpted with permission from “Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America” by John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney. Available from Nation Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2013.


"MORE JOHN NICHOLS.

"MORE ROBERT W. MCCHESNEY."

We can't overly-recommend Nichols' and McChesney's book.  A history of our capitulation to the Conservative propagandists is not as quite as far-reaching as the German experience, and Limbaugh and Fox News haven't been as quite as effective as Goebels in creating a totalitarian government on the level of Hitler's (yet) and our history is only second best in the history of partisan propaganda overwhelming a nation -- with the nation's permission.

Until these right-wing vermin, propagandists for murder, theft, fascism, and other crimes from Conservative-sponsored causes, are wiped from the face of the earth or imprisoned, nothing will stop the right-wing extremists and their wealthy sponsors and fellow-travelers in their quest for a new American Feudal government.  We've lost too many rounds not to go for a knockout before it's too late.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Anonymous


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Even After 2012, The Conservatives STILL Haven't Learned


"Three Signs Republicans Haven't Learned Any Lessons From 2012, "'Immigrants Are More Fertile,' Jeb Bush Says In Reform Speech," and "Census Benchmark for White Americans: More Deaths Than Births," three stories as a prelude to the coming elections in the U.S?

In a story in the National Journal, "Three Signs Republicans Haven't Learned Any Lessons From 2012," by Josh Kraushaa, we learn that the more things change, the more they stay the same:

"To much acclaim, the Republican National Committee released its road map for reform in March, emphasizing that the path to success called for moderating the party's position on immigration, courting a more diverse set of officeholders, and building the GOP around pragmatic governors rather than polarizing members of Congress.

"Three months later, those recommendations seem to have already been forgotten. Party leaders in Washington anonymously rebuked New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for his self-interested scheduling of a Senate special election, treating a rare blue-state conservative governor like a pariah. As the debate on immigration heats up in Congress, the majority of House Republicans cast a symbolic vote rejecting President Obama's executive order to end deportations of young people brought to this country illegally as children. In Massachusetts, the party nominated a Hispanic military veteran who is within striking distance of winning a Senate seat, but few major donors are giving money to his campaign.



"This is the world's longest psychotherapy session. Everyone's trying to talk their way through what happened in 2012. The more they talk, the more they enjoy the therapy session,' said Republican strategist Brad Todd, who is working for Gabriel Gomez, the GOP nominee in the Bay State.

"The composite is a party stuck in the status quo despite its leaders' public hand-wringing. Much of the desire for change is coming from the top, while the more-populist conservative grassroots—skeptical of wide-ranging legislation and disdainful of pragmatic problem-solvers—are pulling in another direction.

"The disconnect is on full display in this month's Massachusetts special election, which features Gomez, a former Navy SEAL pitching himself as a new kind of Republican who is moderate on gun control, immigration, and the environment. He's just the type of nominee the Republican leadership is looking for—especially in a deeply Democratic state—and public polls show he has a chance against Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, a 37-year Capitol Hill veteran. Yet Gomez hasn't won the enthusiasm of the donor class or received much assistance from any outside Republican groups, including the establishment-centered American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "The moderate donors want to be certain their investment is going to pay off. The conservative donors want to make sure the candidate won't do something they disagree with," Todd said. "Add all that up, what it comes down to: People are scared to engage."

"Another big election in 2013 is in New Jersey, where Gov. Christie is well positioned to win a second term despite running in a solidly Democratic state. But among Republican officials in Washington over the past week, he's being branded a traitor because of his scheduling of a special election to fill the seat of the late Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg. Christie picked a date in October, ensuring that the race won't interfere with his own November election—but also alienating Republicans who hoped to make an aggressive push for the Senate seat. In the interim, Christie appointed state Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa, who is not running for the seat. With the election just four months away, Republicans didn't have enough time to recruit a competitive candidate. (Steve Lonegan, a conservative who unsuccessfully challenged Christie in the 2009 gubernatorial primary, is expected to be the party's standard-bearer for the Senate.)

"Christie's allies say the carping overlooks the fact that the governor faced few good choices. He could boost Democratic turnout by scheduling the special election in November or likely lose a messy court battle if he tried to engage in a partisan fight over delaying it until 2014. Neither would burnish his standing as one of the rare center-right Republicans who's as popular with independents and Democrats as he is within his own party.



"Christie's broad appeal could make him a potentially potent force in the 2016 presidential election—the straight-talking, blue-state conservative governor who has built politically savvy relationships with Democrats, including President Obama (on hurricane recovery), Newark Mayor Cory Booker (on education reform), and several state legislative leaders (to pass his landmark pension reforms). It's those very relationships, particularly his working partnership with Obama, that have soured his relationship with the base, however. And it's his desire to protect his standing in New Jersey that has burned bridges with party chiefs in Washington. But there's no denying Christie has made himself a widely popular Republican, the type that's in short supply these days within the party.

"There's a cognitive disconnect between what we need and what we have right here in front of us in New Jersey. They're missing the connection," one Christie ally said. "When they say 'pragmatic,' it sounds great on paper, but not in reality. Conservatives can't stand the fact he had a productive relationship with President Obama in the wake of Sandy."

"Meanwhile, the most significant gap between the RNC's recommendations and the GOP reality remains on the issue of immigration. The dissonance is less about individual lawmakers' positions on the comprehensive immigration reform being debated in the Senate than the tonal insensitivity the party often conveys to Hispanic voters.

"Case in point: Last week, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, an immigration hard-liner, cosponsored an amendment to defund the program Obama initiated that allowed children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. King's rhetoric on immigration was considered so politically toxic that Senate Republican strategists urged him to stay out of Iowa's Senate race, fearing he could cost them a battleground seat. But all but six House Republicans voted for his legislation, including most members in swing districts.



"'It reinforces a tone of insensitivity that is just beyond baffling,'" said one senior Republican official.

"The party's own political and policy recommendations are falling on deaf ears. The establishment isn't fully getting behind a compelling blue-state Senate candidate out of fear that its money could go to waste. The grassroots are driving even pragmatic conservative representatives well to the right of public opinion on immigration. And both are rebuking their most popular governor even though he boasts conservative credentials. Welcome to the GOP, circa 2013."

In the meantime, Bill Chappelle writes at Npr.org, "'Immigrants Are More Fertile,' Jeb Bush Says In Reform Speech."



"Jeb Bush has created a stir with remarks he made during a speech on immigration, in which he said that women who immigrate to America are more fertile than women who are born in the country.

"'Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans, over the last 20 years,' Bush said. 'Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families, and they have more intact families, and they bring a younger population. Immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity.'

"A flurry of interest — and attempts at humor — broke out on Twitter, where Bush's name rose on its 
'Trending' chart Friday.

"In one of the better examples, New York magazine tweeted, 'Give us your tired, your poor, your "more fertile" immigrants.'

"Bush was speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition's 'Road to Majority' conference in Washington, D.C., where he laid out a case for immigration reform. Calling the system broken, he said that allowing more people to move to the U.S. in order to create more opportunities and economic growth is 'a conservative idea.'

(The Conservative who supposedly came up with this "Conservative idea" still can't be found -- Joyce, Jrn.)

"Bush has been discussed as a potential presidential candidate for the 2016 race. NPR's Brakkton Booker, who filed a report for our Newscast unit, says that in his speech, Bush "points to the decline in fertility rates in the country and says immigrant populations could help rebuild what he called the 'demographic pyramid.'"

"Bush's statement about fertility rates led several writers, including Peter Grier of The Christian Science Monitor, to parse his point. Noting that fertile 'means "capable of reproduction,'" Grier says, 'what Bush was saying was immigrants are more physically able to have children. That's not true.'



"But as Grier says, what is true is that women who were born outside the United States have a higher birth rate than women born in the U.S.

"'The 2010 birth rate for foreign-born women (87.8) was nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for U.S.-born women (58.9),' according to a Pew Research analysis of Census and NCHS statistics, released last November.

"As our colleagues at the Shots blog noted back in February, U.S. fertility rates have been falling for decades. And in recent years, women who immigrated to the U.S. have joined that trend.

"'There were 63.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 2011 (the lowest on record),' NPR's Scott Hensley wrote, 'compared with 64.1 in 2010 and 66.2 in 2009.'

"The U.S. birth rate's fall from the recent high of 69.3 in 2007 has been led by immigrant women, according to federal statistics.

"Using that data, the Pew Research study found that while women who hadn't been born in the U.S. had a higher birth rate in recent years than did U.S.-born women, foreign-born women experienced a sharper decline, dropping well below 100 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2010.

"'From 2007 to 2010, the overall number of births declined 7 percent, pulled down by a 13 percent drop in births to immigrants and a relatively modest 5 percent decline in births to U.S.-born women,' according to the Pew analysis.
And while Conservatives still bury themselves in truth-telling, we find in a piece from Sam Roberts at The New York Times, "Census Benchmark for White Americans: More Deaths Than Births, a piece designed to panic Conservatives from all walks of life:



"Deaths exceeded births among non-Hispanic white Americans for the first time in at least a century, according to new census data, a benchmark that heralds profound demographic change.
"The disparity was tiny — only about 12,000 — and was more than made up by a gain of 188,000 as a result of immigration from abroad. But the decrease for the year ending July 1, 2012, coupled with the fact that a majority of births in the United States are now to Hispanic, black and Asian mothers, is further evidence that white Americans will become a minority nationwide within about three decades.

"Over all, the number of non-Hispanic white Americans is expected to begin declining by the end of this decade.

'These new census estimates are an early signal alerting us to the impending decline in the white population that will characterize most of the 21st century,' said William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution.



"The transition will mean that 'today’s racial and ethnic minorities will no longer be dependent on older whites for their economic well-being,' Dr. Frey said. In fact, the situation may be reversed. 'It makes more vivid than ever the fact that we will be reliant on younger minorities and immigrants for our future demographic and economic growth,' he said.

"'The viability of programs like Social Security and Medicare,' Dr. Frey said, 'will be reliant on the success of waves of young Hispanics, Asians and blacks who will become the bulwark of our labor force.' The issues of minorities, he added, 'will hold greater sway than ever before.'

"In 2010, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, more non-Hispanic whites died than were born in 11 states, including California, Florida and Pennsylvania. White deaths exceeded births in a majority of counties, including Los Angeles, the most populous.

"The disparity between deaths and births in the year that ended last July surprised experts. They expected that the aging white population would eventually shrink, as it has done in many European countries, but not for another decade or so.



"Nationally,' said Kenneth M. Johnson, the senior demographer at the Carsey Institute, a research center based at the University of New Hampshire, 'the onset of natural decrease between 2011 and 2012 was not anticipated.' He attributed the precipitous shift in part to the recession, adding that 'the growing number of older non-Hispanic whites, which will accelerate rapidly as the baby boom ages, guarantees that non-Hispanic white natural decrease will be a significant part of the nation’s demographic future.'

"Professor Johnson said there were 320,000 more births than deaths among non-Hispanic whites in the year beginning July 2006, just before the recession. From 2010 to 2011, the natural increase among non-Hispanic whites had shrunk to 29,000.

"Census Bureau estimates indicate that there were 1.9 million non-Hispanic white births in the year ending July 1, 2012, compared with 2.3 million from July 2006 to 2007 during the economic boom, a 13.3 percent decline. Non-Hispanic white deaths increased only modestly during the same period, by 1.6 percent.

"The census population estimates released Thursday also affirmed that Asians were the fastest-growing major ethnic or racial group. Their ranks grew by 2.9 percent, or 530,000, with immigration from overseas accounting for 60 percent of that growth.



"The Hispanic population grew by 2.2 percent, or more than 1.1 million, the most of any group, with 76 percent resulting from natural increase.

"The non-Hispanic white population expanded by only 175,000, or 0.09 percent, and blacks by 559,000, or 1.3 percent.

"The median age rose to 37.5 from 37.3, but the median declined in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, North Dakota and Oklahoma. It ranged from 64.8 in Sumter, Fla., to 23 in Madison, Idaho.

"The number of centenarians nationally neared 62,000."
Keep these stories in mind for awhile, "Three Signs Republicans Haven't Learned Any Lessons From 2012, "'Immigrants Are More Fertile,' Jeb Bush Says In Reform Speech," and "Census Benchmark for White Americans: More Deaths Than Births," you'll be hailed as the next Nostradamus as the Conservatives are looking at a bleak future indeed.



The inmates (Tea Partiers) are still running the asylum (GOP), the leadership is branding one of their sitting governors, a front runner for the 2016 Election, as a traitor (Christie), another front runner is babbling racist rhetoric (Jeb Bush), and Conservatives aren't birthing enough babies (low libido?).

And what can they do about it?  First: lie, instead of the lame strategy in the last few years of truth-telling about their aims for the 98 percent of the rest of us, and two: fix the vote -- that's what they do best.  The GOP can take heart in the new Gallup poll showing Dubya with a 49-46 percent favorable/non-favorable rating this week, and the Big Lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie) can outshine a lot of the demographics.

These strategies will be led by the consultants and other Conservative propagandists, and the Sheeplets will follow.  The only problem is that there won't be anyone else following them.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better."

Ralph Waldo Emerson


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, June 14, 2013

Americans Lose Even More Confidence In Congress: New Record


Gallup's new poll has been released in an article there by Elizabeth Mendes and Joy Wilke , "Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record," subtitiled, "Congress ranks last on list of 16 institutions; military earns top spot again," showing that "Americans' confidence in Congress is not only at its lowest point on record, but also is the worst Gallup has ever found for any institution it has measured since 1973."

From the Gallup piece:
"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' confidence in Congress as an institution is down to 10%, ranking the legislative body last on a list of 16 societal institutions for the fourth straight year. This is the lowest level of confidence Gallup has found, not only for Congress, but for any institution on record. Americans remain most confident in the military, at 76%.


"Small business and the police also continue to rank highly, with 65% and 57% of Americans, respectively, expressing 'a great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in these institutions. Joining Congress at the bottom of the list are Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and organized labor. Congress' low position is further underscored when one looks at the percentage of Americans who have little or no confidence in each institution. The slight majority of Americans, 52%, have this level of confidence in Congress, compared with 31% for HMOs.

"Americans' confidence in several institutions measured in the June 1-4 Gallup poll has shifted since last year. Americans have become more confident in banks, organized religion, and public schools, and less confident in the U.S. medical system, the Supreme Court, and Congress.

"Confidence in Congress Falls to Record Low

"The percentage of Americans expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress is the lowest for a trend that dates back to 1973. The high point for Congress, 42%, came in that year.

"Confidence in Congress has been at its lowest points for several years, while it was higher in the mid-1980s and in the early 2000s.




(Note who the Democratic-controlled Congress was battling during those years -- Joyce, Jnr.)

"In Contrast to Past, Republicans, Democrats Hold Congress in Equally Low Regard

"Democrats, independents, and Republicans are about equally likely to express low confidence in Congress. This is a change from the past and likely reflects the split control of Congress.

"Historically, members of each major party expressed greater confidence in Congress when their party held control of both houses. During most years of the Republican-controlled House and Senate in the early to mid-2000s, Republicans were at least slightly more likely than Democrats to express confidence in Congress. After the Democratic Party took over both houses in 2007, however, Democrats began reporting more confidence than Republicans in the institution.

"Between 2009 and 2012, a period that saw Congress come under split control, these partisan differences gradually diminished, and this year, Democrats are a mere two percentage points more likely than Republicans to report having a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.




"Bottom Line

"Americans' confidence in Congress is not only at its lowest point on record, but also is the worst Gallup has ever found for any institution it has measured since 1973. This low level of confidence is in line with Americans'low job approval of Congress, which has also been stuck below 30% for years.

"The divided Congress, with Democrats controlling the Senate and Republicans the House, is likely part of the reason for the low levels of confidence rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans express, and is tied to Americans' frustrations with Congress' inability to get much done.

(A typical hedge from Gallup, laying the blame equally between the two Parties, instead of where it belongs: with the Conservatives. -- Joyce, Jnr.)



"Gallup will explore the long-term trends in Americans' confidence in other key institutions in future stories.

"Survey Methods

"Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 1-4, 2013, with a random sample of 1,529 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

"For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

"Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cellphone numbers are selected using random digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

"Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, cellphone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

"In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

"View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

"For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com."



Note the alarming statistic for Labor: 20 percent, a success for Big Business and their propagandists...that will have to be corrected if unions are going to try to increase their membership anytime soon.  And the fact that, "Americans have become more confident in banks, organized religion, and public schools, and less confident in the U.S. medical system," gives us pause too.

Also, we note some companion polls that have some importance:

"Gridlock Is Top Reason Americans Are Critical of Congress -- Nearly four in five Americans in June disapprove of job Congress is doing," a piece by Lydia Saad at Gallup.

AND

"Americans Down on Congress, OK With Own Representative
Congressional approval at 16% in May
," by Elizabeth Mendes, also at Gallup.com.

We can only hope that memories will last long enough to last until the 2014 Election, although their's plenty room for doubt:



When dealing with short memories, the American voter has no peer; when falling for Conservative propaganda, the American voter has no superior.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use in reading
it at all."

Oscar Wilde


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------