Salon has a lovely article this morning updating us on Rand Paul’s current position on his board certification for opthalmology. You remember how he started his own certification board because he thought having to pay money to that other board was wasted, and he didn’t want to have to spend his time getting training or continuing education or taking tests when he could just jump in there and start operating, the free market at work.
His own certification board has no website and apparently no paper documentation. It is nothing but a PO Box in Bowling Green, KY. He did recently claim to be certified by that “other” board, which is nothing but a lie.
He’d like to get rid of government programs. But he thinks doctors are different. They should be guaranteed a comfortable standard of living by the government.
Does he inform his patients when examining them that his “board certification” is by himself, so they can make those “informed decisions” that lead to success or failure at the hands of the free market?
I wouldn’t want a doctor who had no need of certification and was unwilling to discuss his qualifications cutting open my eyes. Would you?
The guy is a liar, a creep, a fake, and a douchebag. Medicare ought to stop paying for surgery he does.
So he canceled on his Meet The Press appearance this Sunday, only the third scheduled guest to do so in 62 years.
Maybe he is thinking that he needs to work on his message with his handlers. If this is what he’s doing, it means he thinks his message is not ready for prime time. He needs to work on his sound bites to take back control of the interview from real journalists. You can never tell when a journalist will ask an inconvenient question, and he’s just had a rude awakening about what a real interview is after all the fawning softball questions he was fielding.
He’s probably not thinking about the big gaps in libertarianism that might make it unworkable as a political system, the ones he might not want to be associated with even though he may fully agree.
Paul is new to politics and really naive. He previously had said very little about his opinions. Most people simply do not know what classic hard line libertarianism stands for, and Maddow was the first member of the press to ask him hard questions. He was under the impression that after hearing what he had said while campaigning, most people understood his positions and agreed. Like many who associate themselves with the Tea Party, he thought mistakenly that his personal beliefs and positions are some sort of a consensus in this country and that the polls are wrong.
If he was more politically sophisticated he would probably have had an answer practiced for the question she asked him, but for him that would have necessitated dealing with a campaign manager who believes in research.
Many people agree with a few of the positions of libertarians. Hardly anyone thinks that we should go back to an era where segregation was legal, and he wouldn’t take a stand against it.
The idea that someone who is running for public office has the right to keep their opinions to themselves and not tell us what they believe in is absurd. If he can’t stand the heat of honest inquiry, he shouldn’t be running at all. Right now it looks like he won that primary on his name and his pretty face.
Last night Rachel Maddow spoke with Rand Paul, and he was evasive, to say the least.
I have read numerous blog posts about her interview, and I think there is a basic misunderstanding of his position on “rights”.
I think his difficulty (impossibility?) with answering the question “should a business owner be able to refuse to serve customers based on race?” is more than just evading that question itself.
It is a matter of trying to keep his philosophy out of sight. For all intents and purposes he seems to have succeeded in maintaining control of the issue. It doesn’t look good for him right now, but they aren’t asking him the questions he really, really doesn’t want anybody to hear.
Years ago I accidentally bought a hardcore libertarian book by mail, and I was absolutely shocked what I read. I had no idea. I was young, but not quite so naive after reading that.
The “rights” they perceive are very different from the ones we would think of as “human rights”.
He feels that it is a basic human right to discriminate against anyone you wish to discriminate against for whatever reason you may have. It is infringing on that right for the government step in and say you can’t.
It goes far beyond the question of a restaurant owner discriminating against black people. It extends to hiring practices, housing, pretty much all are considered “business dealings” that the government should keep out of.
The potential hiree and the business owner have the “right” to negotiate their terms of employment. The government should not interfere with such things as labor laws, safety regulations, etc. It is up to the potential employee to either work out a deal to his satisfaction, go somewhere else, or buy a factory and refuse to hire the guy who discriminated against him.
There is no recognition of the idea that the unequal power in such a situation means that there can be no fair negotiation.
Environmental issues? They were not a consideration when this philosophy was carved in stone. Many people at the time thought that they would take care of themselves, or at least they would only happen in the poor part of town. It would be interesting to get his take on the BP disaster right now.
I’d guess he favors the Alan Greenspan notion that people will make reasoned decisions based on full disclosure when deciding who to take their business to, rather than the fact that given a completely unregulated situation, those with no ethics will steal everyone else blind.
Taxes? Please, rich people shouldn’t have to pay taxes at all. Let investor groups build roads and bridges and erect toll plazas to pay for maintenance.
The libertarian philosophy is the direct ancestor of the “culture of greed” that we see touted so often, even among those who are being repressed by it.
Libertarianism is basically anarchist at heart, but at least anarchists are realists about the violence that would exist. In the libertarian utopia, there is no need for enforcement, as money does all the talking that counts. If you need to protect your property, you can hire a goon squad security company to deal with the issues.
What sort of issues? Well, when they get rid of public education and illiteracy soars, some of those unemployable people might decide to exercise their Second Amendment rights to buy guns and then take back their country.
Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Pls see my Facebook page.
She has also posted a most amazing map of the US to show which states are being targeted by her eponymous political action committee in the upcoming elections. And wouldn’t you know, she has used rifle sights to point them out to us.
Like, hmm. Love that gun imagery. Yup, guns are the solution to all our problems, especially the problem of losing a fair election, losing the majority in Congress, and then being unable to coerce the majority to let you make all the decisions.
Advocating violence against whoever you disagree with… If push comes to shove, is she going to claim that illiteracy kept her from knowing what her underlings were posting on her sites?
I am only asking the question. Why hasn’t she responded?
Remember when Pat Robertson declared that Hurricane Katrina was God punishing New Orleans for being sinful? Remember when he said that the great tsunami was God punishing Thailand, Indonesia, etc, killing millions of people because they weren’t born Christian? Remember after the Haiti earthquake he announced on television that God was punishing Haitians for their ancestors having made a “pact with the devil” to free them from slavery, a combination of good old right wing historical revisionism, racism, and Christianizing?
Well, it’s clear to me. The winter storm of the century has hit Washington DC, and God is punishing Congress for listening to lobbyists and the assholes on C Street and failing to pass meaningful health care and economic reform.
Now I wouldn’t have guessed this from looking at my own Congressmen, but probably I’m prejudiced against my state’s Senators, who are Republicans and seem to spend all their time sucking up to lobbyists while pretending to be moderates, while the Democrats actually seem to work for me no matter what gender they be.
…shows that they are more effective than male politicians. They are better leaders because they get more of the stuff they’re supposed to get done done.
The study corrected for gender-seniority, since women politicians often have shorter careers in politics, and minority status. But dang, they were just more effective at serving their constituents.
How could that be?
Well maybe, just maybe they were spending their time doing the jobs they were elected to do instead of letting power go to their heads and spending their time in gamesmanship and the quest for ever-increasing personal wealth. Maybe they were feeling responsible to their constituents instead of lobbyists.
But very interestingly, a diary in Daily Kos, that tried to show that it was sexist to even run such a study. The original writer has trouble with the scientific method, not understanding what a hypothesis is and how one might be tested. He thinks that studies are set up not to test, but to prove a point or advance an agenda.
It’s hard to imagine what kind of committee would be appropriate for pre-screening research projects to decide which ones might come up with inappropriate new knowledge, so we can avoid such research in the first place.
Now he wouldn’t be upset if the study had found that males made better pols than females.
And his claim that the only logical conclusion would be legally-enforced female supremacy – laws preventing males from running for office – is beyond absurd.
There is no question now as to the citizenship of Barack Obama. Not only has he admitted it himself that he was born on Krypton, but now we have documentation, that “certificate of live birth” that Oily Teats was telling us any person can create for any child with no corroboration.
She’s going to sue everybody who photoshopped her pictures after she whined that her wingnut talk show host supporter ended up on one. Especially the one who put two heads on her body.
The woman has always had issues with the concept of “truth”. Her story changes as often as she needs it to, and she expects us to accept her version with deference. It is disrespectful to question Sarah dearest, or to check the facts. Most often, she does not seem to be aware that people are capable of checking what she says to see if it is reality-based or non-reality-based.
To speculate on Sarah dearest, her shadowy past, her present, her future, her work ethic, her motives, etc., is illegal, or it ought to be. Sarah dearest is the law. There will be no other laws above her. Oops, does that sound like a Commandment?
According to a commenter to the story in the Anchorage Daily News,
Question_Assumptions wrote on 07/05/2009 08:58:12 AM:
If a rumor-monger only writes about and forwards negative rumors and doesn’t make an attempt to prove or disprove their veracity, that should be sufficient to prove “malice”. Slander and libel are not free speech and never have been.
My goodness. It looks like they’d have to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and eliminate hate radio to satisfy that condition.
Too bad she’s incapable of taking advice, or she might have learned some skills years ago that would help her cope with criticism, which is part of being a public figure—which, by the way, she intends to continue being. Sarah dearest is the gift that will keep on giving and giving…
She might also have attempted to learn some facts about, oh, everything. Knowledge does not seem to be her strong point. And while she was at it, she could have picked up some creative writing skills. That speech Friday was atrociously badly written. She has a degree in journalism? Her alma mater should rescind her degree.
So sue me.
Somethingawful.com has offered a non-apology for making Sarah dearest resign. Warning! Offensive!
The folks at Media Matters, challenged by media suckups like Andrew Klavan of the LA Times to find a single bad thing that Limbaugh ever said, have been listening diligently to his broadcasts so we don’t have to!
But first, let’s look at the Limbaugh List, so you can see the background on some of the things he is documented to have said.
The LIMBAUGH LIST:
1. I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
2. You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
3. Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
4. Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.
5. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.
6. The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.
7. They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?
8. Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller).
9. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.
10. Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’ Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for black a man who many Americans are supporting for president.
Finally let me add that during the 2006 election, Limbaugh thought that Sherrod Brown was African American based on his name and he accused the Democrats in Ohio of being behind his candidacy because he was black. To this day, not a single reporter ever confronted Limbaugh about this.
There we go. Now for the latest.
Limbaugh: Gordon Brown, I told you that—you know, yesterday, this is Fox—no, take it back, it was PMSNBC. They were doing a story, an advance story on the G-20. And, uh, this was before they started running stories on the countdown to Air Force One’s touchdown at Stanstead in England.
Air Force One to touch down soon! (pants like an excited little puppy dog)
Barack Obama to deplane soon! (pants like an excited little puppy dog)
Prior to doing those reports, they actually were having a discussion, and they had the uh chyron uh headline at the bottom of the screen “Can Obama save the world economy?”
“Can Obama save the world economy?” Here’s Gordon Brown, finally got his joint press conference with Obama, and a portion of his opening remarks:
“I want to thank you for your leadership, your vision, and your courage, which you’ve already shown in your Presidency, and congratulate you on the dynamism, the energy, and indeed, the achievements that you have been responsible for. Your first 70 days in office have changed America, and you’ve changed America’s relationship with the world.”
So here, here is a full-fledged committed global socialist praising the President of the United States for all of his achievements in the first 70 days. A global socialist happy with the changes Obama has made. And uh you have uh changed America’s relationship with the world, which is why all of the losers that are make up the bank protesters are breaking bank windows. (wheezes) But the slobbering—the slobber—this guy, folks, I’m telling you, he, if he keeps this up throughout the G-20, Gordon Brown will come down with anal poisoning and may die from it.
Limbaugh should know. If somebody pulls the plug out of his ass, his brains will fall out.
I hang out on Yahoo Answers, which is a great place for people who tend to become addicted to things like competitive speed-answering.
The Politics & Government categories are full of right wingnut trolls, many of whose questions are patently foolish and merely intended to waste the time of real people trying helpfully to point out to someone the error of their ways.
Hanging out on a site like that has fine-tuned my BS meter. But anyway, I sometimes put so much effort into answering a question that I think I should repost it here. So here goes:
Why Do Republicans Voters think the Rich need Handouts(aka Tax Cuts)?
They have fallen for what I would call The Great Republican Lie of Income Redistribution”, which is, “Rich people work hard for their money, and people who work hard for their money deserve to keep it.” This lie is based on false premises and leads people to internally inconsistent conclusions. Here are the arguments, as you can read in the thread.
1. “Rich people work hard for their money”
Implied: How hard a person works can be shown by their income, so a person who makes $20,000 a year is working 2x as hard as someone who is making $10,000 a year, and the person making $10 million a year is working 1000x as hard.
False conclusion that the listener is supposed to draw: “People who don’t make much money aren’t actually working hard and are lazy, but I work hard for my money, too, so I am like a rich person.”
Truth rating: False. Most rich people do not work any harder for their money than anyone who works a job and does it well. The hardest, dirtiest, and most dangerous work out there is some of the worst-paying.
Not only that, but most rich people started higher on the ladder than poor people. They had someone to pay for their education at a pricey school where students hobnob with the wealthy and well-connected, and their connections that enabled them to get a job that a person born poor could never hope for his children to achieve, even if he borrowed enough money to pay for their college. Or like many rich people, they were already born rich.
2. “People who work hard for their money deserve to keep it.”
False conclusion: We should lower taxes for people like the rich who work hard. I work hard, so therefore I will get a tax cut, too.
Inconvenient fact: Historically, Republican “tax cuts” have resulted in huge tax cuts to the wealthy and much smaller if any tax cuts to the rest.
Hidden inconvenient fact #1: Lowering taxes disproportionally for one group of people means increasing the tax burden for all other groups. During the past generation the tax burden in real dollars on the working poor and middle class has risen while their incomes have fallen.
False conclusion: We can just lower taxes, and nothing will be affected, or the government will cut programs to those who don’t deserve it. (Remember, we have defined “undeserving” above as “not making as much money as a rich person”.).
Fact: Money invested in speculation rather than production of goods and services does not result in the creation of new wealth, but rather in a bubble effect.
Fact: Government policy over the past generation has encouraged the abandonment of our manufacturing base and funneling of money into high-risk investments and fraud schemes based only on the ability of the designers to get away with what any other citizen would be charged with a crime for doing.
Fact: Following this path has brought the country to its knees. Continuing to do more of the same will destroy us.
Conclusion: The Republican establishment has been manipulating their voters to vote against their own self-interest for a generation. Without not only the support of these voters but their complicity in attacking their fellow workers, government would have long ago had to answer for their crimes.