Skip to main content

View Diary: Study Finds Unfettered Free Market Beliefs are Linked to Denial of Basic Scientific Facts (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Add to the self-interest considerable laziness. (27+ / 0-)

    Nicely put shark.  I'd add that it helps the leaders of the right wing that, frankly, critical thinking (the other national deficit) is just plain hard work,understanding science is even harder, and most of the Republican constituency seems to be just too lazy to do either.  One irony is that many of the wealthy who benefit from current policies also have benefited from the results of science (e.g. the pharmaceutical industry, electronics, etc.).  A second irony is that increasingly the cutting edge research is being done abroad and eventually that will come back to haunt even the US wealthy.

    Any Jackass can kick down a barn. It takes a carpenter to build one. - Sam Rayburn

    by Old Gray Dog on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 04:47:47 AM PDT

    •  They're definitely in a state of denial over this. (8+ / 0-)
      A second irony is that increasingly the cutting edge research is being done abroad and eventually that will come back to haunt even the US wealthy.
      They act as though there is only today. No yesterday to learn from and no future to aspire to.

      "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone" - John Maynard Keynes

      by markthshark on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 04:58:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh definitely. Most of the plutocrats aren't (6+ / 0-)

      at all opposed to science, only if it would lead to interfering with profits.  They aren't interested in science as a pursuit of truth or good, unless it leads to making money.

      I'm not sure about your second irony though.  Most are invested in a global market and if the U.S. does fail big, they have the resources to relocate.  If it partly fails so that
      the labor and expenses of business are so low that they can clean up more here, they can stay.

      At least with the direction that I see the country moving unless there is a sharp reversal of some sort.  Of course, that scenario may fail, especially as some of the unpredictabilities of climate change become severe.

      “April is the cruellest month, breeding/ Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing/ Memory and desire, stirring/ Dull roots with spring rain." T.S. Eliot

      by blueoasis on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 05:12:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most of the truely wealthy are stateless now; (7+ / 0-)

      They're international actors upon the world stage. The U.S. is just another entity to be siphoned of it's wealth.

      The question is, what happens when they drag the U.S. so low that it's currency is no longer the standard? They've been sucking wealth out of this country for so long now, through tax shelters and by shipping corporations and jobs over seas, while still claiming to be U.S. companies, that they don't know anything different. Will the U.S. reach the point where it is a dried up husk of it's former self before Global Warming does us in, or will Global Warming simply accelerate the process?

      The road we're on will end when it all collapses, unless we can get someone in charge to change course. Based on what I've seen of politics in this country for the last forty years, we won't be changing course anytime soon. It's the road to Hell, and nobody in charge (Someone with the true power to change it) seems to really give a shit.

      Regulated capital serves the people, unregulated capital serves itself.

      by Alumbrados on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 09:27:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That almost happened in 2011 over the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        thrice-damned 'debt limit' debacle (losing US dollar as the Intern'l standard).

        Which, per the linked relevant portion of the US Constitution, appears to be nonsense, as it cannot be Constitutional so long as the 4th Section of the 14th Amendment remains the Law of the Land.

        US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 4:

        The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
        [emphasis added to highlight relevant portion; the remainder of the Section applies to special cases not so subject. ]

        Why such a public brouhaha was allowed to develop over the "debt limit", considering this information, is beyond me.

        Much in the same way the Obama campaign never correctly (to date) addressed the nonsense of the birthers intent on proving Barack Obama was born somewhere other than on US soil.

        Article II, Section I of the US Constitution says:

        No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
        The Constitution does not further define "natural born citizen" anywhere in the document. But this November 14, 2011 Congressional Research Service report (.pdf link) stated:
        The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.
        The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation.
        The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.”

        A quite long-winded way of saying: Since Anne Dunham was a natural born American citizen, having been born in Wichita, Kansas in 1942; then Barack Obama, as her natural-born child, regardless of the physical location of his birth, is legally entitled to "natural born US citizenship".

        "His mother was eligible to be elected US President, and so was he - no matter where he was born" should have been the early and repeated response to birther nonsense.

        "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

        by Angie in WA State on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 02:18:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site