Skip to main content

The New York Times shines light on the Koch Brothers vs. the Sun, Ross Douthat doesn't believe bears know how to go in the woods, David Leonhardt looks into the mailbox to see if Harvard is calling...

But first, strike up the steel guitar as we yodel three verses of the Saga of Cliven Bundy and the Case of Conservative Contradictions.

Dana Milbank plucks the common thread between those wrongly called militia and those rightly called racists.

Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy knows how to start a stampede.

After Bundy, who became a right-wing hero for his refusal to acknowledge the authority of the federal government, wondered aloud about whether “Negro” people were “better off as slaves,” conservative figures who had celebrated his cause rushed to distance themselves from him.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who had condemned the federal government’s attempt to enforce court orders against Bundy: “Offensive.”

Why should Rand be offended? There are plenty of worse statements in poppa Ron Paul's newsletters. In fact, Bundy and Paul really seem cut from the same cloth.
Bundy boosters are right to be appalled, but they should not be shocked.

The anti-government strain of thought that Bundy advanced has been intertwined with racist and anti-Semitic views over several decades. Not all people who resist the authority of the federal government are motivated by race, of course, and not all racists are anti-government. But there is a long symbiosis between the two. ...

In general terms, Bundy’s notion of state supremacy — “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing” — is a variant of states’-rights claims that go back to the Civil War and were revived in the segregationists’ opposition to civil rights laws. Because the federal government has been the protector of minority rights, states’ rights have long been used to justify discrimination.

States rights is the dog-whistle that racists have been tooting ever since the Civil War. All Bundy did was sing the words instead of just humming the tune.

Maureen Dowd also goes out on the range with Republicans for Bundy.

When a cranky anarchist in a cowboy hat starts a sentence saying “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” you can be dang sure it’s going downhill from there.

The unsettling thing about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s ugly rant on the Virgin River on Saturday, The Times’s Adam Nagourney told me, was that there was no negative reaction from the semicircle of gun-toting and conspiracy-minded supporters who had gathered round to hear it. The oblivious 67-year-old Bundy, who has refused for 20 years to pay for his cattle to graze on our land, offered a nostalgic ode to slavery.

Once again, see the years of silence that followed publications of Ron Paul's racist newsletters. Only when he was putting his face on signs with the word "for president" did other Republicans deign to notice that Ron Paul was cracking jokes about Black riots only being quelled by welfare checks.

And hey, see the entire Ronald Wilson Reagan campaign, much of which was predicated on building disdain for blacks.

The man hailed as a “savior” and “folk hero” by Fox News doubled down Thursday, declaring: “Cliven Bundy’s a-wondering” if the black community was happier during slave days when “they was in the South in front of their homes with their chickens and their gardens and their children around them and their men having something to do.” ...

Conservatives saw no hypocrisy in rallying around Bundy for breaking the law, refusing to pay between $1 and $2 a month per cow to graze on federal land, while they refuse to consider amnesty for illegal immigrants committing Acts of Love.

Republicans believe in segregation... of past from present. Reminding them of anything said before the latest press conference is a violation of their right to pretend they've always been consistent.

Kathleen Parker pulls out cleaning supplies for the rest of the GOP.

...One day, Bundy was the new face for conservative opposition to federal expansionism, 2014’s Joe the Plumber, a human metaphor for the last man armed and standing for freedom against the superior forces of federal agents.

Then, cue funeral dirge, Bundy wandered off-script and spoke his fevered mind. The tall, Stetson-topped Bundy wondered whether African Americans weren’t better off as slaves picking cotton than living on the plantation of government subsidy. The hook, the hook! Where’s that dadgum hook?! ...

Obviously, there was no defending Bundy’s remarks. Pundits and politicians, including most notably Sean Hannity, Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, quickly distanced themselves from the Bundy comments, though not, curiously, from his objections to the government’s authority over grazing lands.

Well, of course they would disavow racist remarks. But they also never should have aligned themselves with someone who not only flouts the law but also has armed himself against government agents, indicating his willingness to protest through violence.

Unfortunately for Bundy’s defenders, Bundy wasn’t Ben Cartwright and his boys defending the Ponderosa. He was the nameless half-wit who staggers out of the saloon, shooting up stars to stop the railroaders long after the train has left the station. ...

What were these conservative defenders thinking?

Thinking? Errr... since when is that a requirement? Bring it home for your fellow Republicans, Kathleen.
The GOP does not deserve to be indicted along with Bundy, but for too long the party has sown the wind by tolerating some of its less ennobled colleagues.

Cliven Bundy is their whirlwind.

Come on in. Let's see what else is up this morning.

The New York Times looks into the Koch brothers war on sunshine.

At long last, the Koch brothers and their conservative allies in state government have found a new tax they can support. Naturally it’s a tax on something the country needs: solar energy panels.

For the last few months, the Kochs and other big polluters have been spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy, which have been adopted by most states. They particularly dislike state laws that allow homeowners with solar panels to sell power they don’t need back to electric utilities. So they’ve been pushing legislatures to impose a surtax on this increasingly popular practice, hoping to make installing solar panels on houses less attractive.

But wait, conservatives have maintained that taxes are super-evil. What could possibly make this tax acceptable?
The coal producers’ motivation is clear: They see solar and wind energy as a long-term threat to their businesses. That might seem distant at the moment, when nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electricity is still generated by coal, and when less than 1 percent of power customers have solar arrays. (It is slightly higher in California and Hawaii.) But given new regulations on power-plant emissions of mercury and other pollutants, and the urgent need to reduce global warming emissions, the future clearly lies with renewable energy. In 2013, 29 percent of newly installed generation capacity came from solar, compared with 10 percent in 2012.
Ah, I see. The tax is okay because it supports the central tenant of the modern conservative movement: hypocrisy is good.

Ross Douthat wants to send the Pope to Catholic school.

...there may be trouble ahead.

... an alleged papal phone call, reported on somewhat confusedly last week, to an Argentine woman who was seeking permission to take communion despite being married to a divorced man, a situation the church considers adultery unless the man’s original marriage were annulled.

According to the husband, who wrote about the phone call on Facebook, Pope Francis gave permission for the woman to do so.

So, the Pope... Just to be clear here, that would be the Pope, gave a woman married to a divorced man permission to take communion. Sounds like a nice move.  But in Douthat land, it's another example of the Pope being insufficiently Catholic. Douthat examines several possibilities, and determines that in the worst case... the Pope might forgive even more people!
There is also a third perilous scenario, even if my own assumptions about the nature of the church tend to rule it out. Francis could actually be considering a truly major shift on remarriage and communion, in which the annulment requirement is dispensed with and (perhaps) a temporary penance is substituted.

Such a shift wouldn’t just provoke conservative grumbling; it would threaten outright schism. The church has famous martyrs to the indissolubility of Christian marriage, and its teaching on divorce and adultery is grounded not just in tradition or natural law, but in the explicit words of Jesus of Nazareth.

Explicit words that, like the Pope's, were spoken to a single woman — a woman who was herself divorced and remarried multiple times under a system that no longer exists. These days, with nearly half of marriages ending in divorce (and many fewer people getting married in the first place) it might seem like time to reexamine a policy that distances millions from the church. But hey, Douthat always seems ready to lead the charge of People Against Forgiveness. Just don't be surprised if it's a very small charge.

David Leonhardt looks why fewer fat envelopes from the Ivy League are landing in kid's mailboxes this spring.

Ask just about any high school senior or junior — or their parents — and they’ll tell you that getting into a selective college is harder than it used to be. They’re right about that. But the reasons for the new found difficulty are not well understood.

Population growth plays a role, but the number of teenagers is not too much higher than it was 30 years ago, when the youngest baby boomers were still applying to college. And while many more Americans attend college than in the past, most of the growth has occurred at colleges with relatively few resources and high dropout rates, which bear little resemblance to the elites.

So what else is going on? One overlooked factor is that top colleges are admitting fewer American students than they did a generation ago. Colleges have globalized over that time, deliberately increasing the share of their student bodies that come from overseas and leaving fewer slots for applicants from the United States.

For American teenagers, it really is harder to get into Harvard — or Yale, Stanford, Brown, Boston College or many other elite colleges — than it was when today’s 40-year-olds or 50-year-olds were applying.

So, they're going overseas and bringing in disadvantaged kids? Ehhh... not so much.
...the rise in foreign students has complicated the colleges’ stated efforts to make their classes more economically diverse. Foreign students often receive scant financial aid and tend to be from well-off families. For another thing, the country’s most selective colleges have effectively shrunk as far as American students are concerned, during the same span that many students and their parents are spending more time obsessing over getting into one.
Well, so long as the legacy students still get in, no one is complaining. No one who counts.

Liza Mundy looks into the media, and finds it still an old boys club.

They were, to a man, men. All were white; all in their 40s or thereabouts... It was the mid-1990s, and I was interviewing at The Washington Post for the job of managing editor of the Sunday magazine. A morning of intimidating meetings with newsroom officials had given way to lunch with the magazine’s editors and elite staff writers.

... It’s been 20 years, but things haven’t changed as much as we might expect. A new report by the Women’s Media Center found that male reporters still accounted for 63 percent of bylines in the nation’s top 10 papers and about the same proportion of newsroom staff. All but one of the individual winners of Pulitzer Prizes in journalism this year were male.

That last is a fairly astounding statistic. It shows not just how men outnumber women in the media, but how much more likely they are to receive big assignments.
Men’s dominance in the field tends to be highest in prestige or “hard” topics like politics, crime, business, technology and world affairs; women put up better numbers in “soft” subjects like education, lifestyle, culture and health. Male opinion columnists outnumber women by more than two to one at The Wall Street Journal, more than three to one at The Washington Post, and five to one at The New York Times.
That's another jaw-droppingly awful fact. Sure, I complain about Maureen Dowd. How about we fix that by adding another female writer on the NYT opinion page. Hell, go crazy. Make it two.

ScienceDaily has one of those stories I always like to read.

New research published in Diabetologia (the journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes) shows that increasing coffee consumption by on average one and half cups per day (approx 360ml) over a four-year period reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes by 11%. The research is led by Dr Frank Hu and Dr Shilpa Bhupathiraju, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA, and colleagues.
My possibly biased view of diet research over the last five years: meat bad, wheat bad, milk bad... dark chocolate and coffee good.

But this study may not be as good as it sounds on the surface. As it turns out, it's the change in coffee consumption that seems to make a difference. Increasing it helps... but cutting back on coffee increases the risk. Coffee: once you've started, you don't dare stop.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nice Diary! (14+ / 0-)

    Nicely put together to show collectively the areas of impact these agendas are reaching!

    I do wonder how in the world, what power does ol' Cliven the self assigned superior have that, allowed him to decide he will not pay the common fee on the peoples land for his cattle, not sharing with other local ranchers, but acting as if it is his land alone, for 20 years?

    Who or what agency will tell us they had no idea this was happening? Or what will the spin be on this, should anyone venture the question.

    Thanks again!

    Work In Progress...Laser Focus on Concepts of Evolving, Expanding Awareness.

    by Skyye on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:15:13 AM PDT

    •  He's been in court for years, losing every time. (24+ / 0-)

      Think "death penalty appeals".  20 years is small change once you're in the legal loop.  Then remember Ruby Ridge and Waco, beloved of conspiracy theorists and core to the narrative of ebil gubmint overreach.  BLM will out wait the loons and move on Bundy when he's no longer the shiny object du jour.

      I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

      by I love OCD on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:27:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm far less sanguine (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skyye, gffish, ohiolibrarian

        The have already won a small victory as seen from the far right, which is what this is about after all.  The Bundy tempest, the thing itself, is not particularly important outside of that area of Nevada.  But far right branded Republicans all across our nation, including many poised to run for President, are telling us by their actions that it is important to them and their supporters in a larger political context.

        Bundy and his defenders will wait out the 2014 elections and the Obama Administration, in the hopes that this November, and 2016 will advantage them by bringing in more people like Dean Heller and, the likes of Rick Perry, to positions of political power.  I believe they expect to prevail by changes in who enforces the law, and in the law itself.  Perry for example, called Bundy & Co. "sovereign citizens" the other morning on Good Morning America.  That is not the first or only implicit endorsement of the revolution the far right promises.

        The Bundy insurrectionists aren't going to win in the courts, nor would they win in an actual shootout, but the insurrection of which they are but a small part seems to be making significant strides in what is fundamentally a political contest.  By the way, Bundy is far from the only millionaire or billionaire feeding at the public trough in violation of our laws and rules, who depend on the outcome of a political struggle to legitimize their theft yet again.  We ordinary citizens have significant interests at stake in that larger contest too.  I hope that the Republicans are wrong, that their expectations are another example of participants in the right wing echo chamber believing their own lies (along the lines illustrated in the unskewing of polls debacle).  I am reasonably sure I am not alone in that hope.

        We all know what sort of plan hope is, and a strategy with associated planning to bring it about is clearly needed.  What are the Democrats, the representatives of the interests of the vast majority in this case, planning to do against an organized insurgency spanning most of the far right (which is today's Republican Party) whose strategy, if this were a poker game would be stacking the deck and changing the rules?  

        •  I understand what you're saying, I don't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude, salmo

          agree.  The Obama administration knows just how dangerous these wackos are, and that a victory is propaganda manna from heaven.  Bundy will end up in jail for fraud or child porn or something that makes him radioactive as a hero.  So will many of his militia.  I'm betting on child support issues, dodgy tax filings, or a shoot out in a bar.  They'll gradually turn into a lesson on why to not draw attention to yourself if you're not a model citizen.  

          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

          by I love OCD on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:35:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You suggest a tactical response to a strategic (0+ / 0-)

            problem.  Bundy's tempest is a skirmish in a larger war.  One thing we should be able to agree on is that BLM retreat (wise as I think it was) is your right wing propaganda manna, right there.  I appreciate MSNBC's crowing about Republicans stumbling because they did not see Bundy's unsuitability for the role of media darling long before they lined up behind him, but the Obama Administration should also have been able to see the stand off this has become long before Bundy assembled his gunmen.  Wiser BLM leadership would have planned for an armed resistance contingency, headed it off, and not allowed the picture of US law enforcement agents retreating from "sovereign citizens" amidst a media circus.  You think wiser direction is in the offing.  I would love to see the plan unfold.  

            Here's the basis of my doubt.  Obama's team have been masterful campaigners, and indifferent administrators.  When it comes to recognizing and heading off the rise of right wing crazies as part of routine administration, and moving our society towards a better future for the middle and working classes, the record is spotty.  Indifference towards the broader implications of their strategy in this case is a much bigger problem for progressives than incompetence would have been, and I think that's what we're facing.  It's also much harder to fix.  

            •  The bigger picture doesn't agree with (0+ / 0-)

              your perceptions.  The RW owns the media and they've still lost control of the national narrative.  I live in Texas, I'm watching Wendy Davis attract a lot of followers.  I'm reading diaries here about Moral Monday, and pushing back at conservative trolling, not being nice.  I'm reading about the Millenials being completely turned off by Republicans.  I don't give a shit about Ross Douhat or Charles Krauthammer because no one I know gives a shit what they think, we read and research and and think for ourselves.  Clinton didn't make a dent in the conservative machine, Obama's breaking it by being smart, civil, pointed, and not a bully.  You don't have to wave your dick to prove you're a real man.  Bundy is toast, his followers are so brave they put women and children between themselves and the guns.  None of this is playing well outside of Fox and the usual RW hangouts.  

              I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

              by I love OCD on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:14:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  OCD, brilliant comment, I'm betting on the global (0+ / 0-)

            support for those like yourself. Unlike the hype on Ukraine, those with a modicum of sanity still hope for a solution that will stop the violence.

    •  The BLM has known about it (8+ / 0-)

      since he stopped paying his grazing fees in 1993. After various methods to convince him, the federal government sued Bundy and several other ranchers in court:

      In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the land.

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:16:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The GOP do deserve to be indicted; he is them & (18+ / 0-)

    they are him.

    They created & encouraged evil men like Bundy to flourish. We are all worse off for their actions. I hate republicons, all of them.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:22:14 AM PDT

  •  One point: Clive Bundy is not an extremist. (27+ / 0-)

    Back in 1959 when the John Birch Society was formed, Bundy would have been an extremist. The Supreme Court had not yet handed down its desegregation rulings and Plessy v. Ferguson separation of the races in the South pretty much remained intact.

    The Birchers, funded largely by Fred Koch, formed clubs in the major cities. They established extremist alliances with the KKK, White Citizens Councils, Salt Lake City LDS, and other White supremacy groups.

    Clive Bundy would have fit right in with them 1959-1974 and they were indeed extremists.

    Today the Birchers control regional tracts of the Republican Party. They can muster 92 votes in the House to keep the Federal government shut down no matter what. They run candidates in every state, most elections. They might be crazy, but they are only one step to the right of middle-of-the-road for Republican Party office holders.

    Bundy's ideas on Blacks match exactly to what Paul Ryan says. Ryan's "Ayn Rand Jesus" offers less mercy, less charity if anything, compared with Bundy. On a balance scale with Bundy, Ryan is the extremist.

    Here is the proof. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) story about food assistance programs as an ineffective liberal patch for the problem of child poverty -- offering a "full stomach and an empty soul" -- is covered here:

    Jon Stewart with Paul Ryan on videotape

    And yeah, it happened. Despite that at least 143 corporatist outlets claim this CPAC extremism is a fake. "Didn't happen."

    "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

    by waterstreet2013 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:28:58 AM PDT

    •  A cute twist: (19+ / 0-)

      -- Right Wing media report it that Ryan never made such a statement.

      -- Everybody else reports that Ryan lied. Ryan got his lie from Eloise Anderson, another elected GOPer from Wisconsin. No kid ever told anyone that he didn't want a government lunch.

      Indeed these RW extremist talking points came out of Ryans mouth. The origin of the lie astonishes. This is misstated, twisted plagiarism:

      "Eloise Anderson, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, ... had lifted it from the book An Invisible Thread by Laura Schroff...."

      Here's the original Ryan quote, courtesy of WaPo:

      “The left is making a big mistake here. What they’re offering people is a full stomach and an empty soul. The American people want more than that. This reminds me of a story I heard from Eloise Anderson. She serves in the cabinet of my buddy, Governor Scott Walker. She once met a young boy from a very poor family, and every day at school, he would get a free lunch from a government program. He told Eloise he didn’t want a free lunch. He wanted his own lunch, one in a brown-paper bag just like the other kids. He wanted one, he said, because he knew a kid with a brown-paper bag had someone who cared for him. This is what the left does not understand.”

      Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Conservative Political Action Conference, March 6, 2014

      But the original event had nothing to do with the government or any free lunch program. Schroff’s story resembles the Anderson/Ryan tale, but concerns an 11-year-old homeless boy "Maurice" who bargained for a brown paper bag when a offered food:
      (Miss Laura, the donor, speaking:) “Look, Maurice, I don’t want you out there hungry on the nights I don’t see you, so this is what we can do. I can either give you some money for the week–and you’ll have to be really careful about how you spend it–or when you come over on Monday night we can go to the supermarket and I can buy all the things you like to eat and make you lunch for the week. I’ll leave it with the doormen, and you can pick it up on the way to school.”

      Maurice looked at me and asked me a question.

      “If you make me lunch,” he said, “will you put it in a brown paper bag?”

      I didn’t really understand the question. “Do you want it in a brown paper bag?” I asked. “Or how would you prefer it?”

      “Miss Laura,” he said, “I don’t want your money. I want my lunch in a brown paper bag.”

      “Okay, sure. But why do you want it in a bag?”

      “Because when I see kids come to school with their lunch in a paper bag, that means someone cares about them. Miss Laura, can I please have my lunch in a paper bag?”

      Anderson saw this boy, "Maurice," on television. Never met him. Same for Ryan: never met him. Building up a faked Bircher attack on government and the Left is typical Republican extremism.

      Apparently there is no limit to the moral depths that today's elected Republicans will go to conjure lies. And if it works to generate an emotional response in the instant, they do not care about tomorrow.

      Ryan & Co. can keep on lying for ever.

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

      by waterstreet2013 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:01:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Follow the bread crumbs. (16+ / 0-)

      Federal integration moves focused the minds of people with a racist bent and the white heat of the blatant racist. Then came the GOP's Southern Strategy and all the old Dixiecrats and their newly sensitized fellow travelers became Republicans. That attracted those of like mind whether in Seattle, Cincinnati or Buffalo or anywhere else.

      Wave that Confederate flag, "states rights" and you start attracting a few of those in which race is perhaps less a motivator than other anti national, anti modern factors —down to the true libertarian "free citizen only under GOD nut job—throwing in ole time religion bible thumpers full of ole testament viciousness for anyone "different" (particularly in those sex things) and you begin getting today's TP/GOP.

      Add that as a rich money making scheme as well as an army of gullible, slogan swallowing folks to do the 1% errands and you have the TP/GOP.

      As for that money scam thing. I've long noted personally the susceptibility of the fundamentalist "believers" to get into strange financial schemes, down to blatant Ponzi schemes by other names. Distant relatives and acquaintances from old days of that persuasion seemed to be "investing" and losing their shirts in one dubious thing after another. They laughed at those African American radio preachers selling prayer cloth scraps, but there was always some crazy scheme for them within their network of "believers"—a condition I began to understand as their precise weak point. They were not skeptical even in money things.

      So, right in line is "Tea party PACs reap money for midterms, but spend little on candidates" with:

      So far, its super PAC has mustered just $56,000 worth of mailers in Kentucky on Bevin’s behalf — less than half the amount it has paid Martin in consulting fees since July.

      The Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, which blew through nearly $2 million on expenses such as fundraising, polling and consultants in the first three months of this year, is not alone in its meager spending on candidates.

      Get that figure below, I make it 19% bang for the buck.
      Out of the $37.5 million spent so far by the PACs of six major tea party organizations, less than $7 million has been devoted to directly helping candidates, according to the analysis, which was based on campaign finance data provided by the Sunlight Foundation.
      Bless their shriveled little hearts!

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:02:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All these pundits and the best of all lines is... (41+ / 0-)

    ...not from them, but the diarist:

    Republicans believe in segregation... of past from present. Reminding them of anything said before the latest press conference is a violation of their right to pretend they've always been consistent.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:31:16 AM PDT

  •  Douthat clearly wrong, Biblically (surprise!) (10+ / 0-)

    Jesus spoke of divorce being allowed due to the hardness of mens' hearts.  (MT 19-3-12).  The question Jesus was asked was is it OK to divorce your wife for any and every reason?  This  was allowed in the Old Testament due to the hardness of mens hearts who would discard their wives for younger women.

    This is a pretty good breakdown of Jesus Biblical view of divorce--

    http://christianity.about.com/...

    People can still get divorces due to:

    --in the case of consistent, unrepentent immorality; or

    --if an unbelieving spouse leaves the relationship.

    In Douthat's article, it is clear he has no idea why the Pope would reinstate the woman to take communion (and why doesn't Douthat question the divorced husband?).  Yet, annulment is a Catholic thing and that may be Douthat's hangup.   And maybe what is bothering Douthat is the Pope is following the intent of the Scripture and not legalism.

    •  Observation on Catholic pundits and failed (9+ / 0-)

      POTUS candidates: it seems most of them have no idea what the Bible really says and, even if they do as literalists, they have no idea of what it means.  Just read an interesting article on King David's genealogy and some folks arguments that he could not be king because he was descended from an Ammonite woman.  This is the reason the Book of Ruth was included in the OT canon because it established, by God's dispensation, that an Ammonite woman could marry an Israelite and have her children viewed as legitimate so long as she converted.

      This was fascinating to me as Ruth is one of the problematical books to be included in the Bible

    •  Bible according to Republicans (12+ / 0-)

      Douthat has staked out his position quite clearly. He's a "good Catholic" as long as the Church supports the religious right planks of the Republican party.

      The teachings of St. Ronnie are far more important to Douthat than the words of the current Pope.

    •  Well the "conservative" bible says it is wrong and (4+ / 0-)

      some are busy trying again to make it legally difficult. From "Conservatives aren’t just fighting same-sex marriage. They’re also trying to stop divorce":

      In cooperation with the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, socially conservative politicians have been quietly trying to make it harder for couples to get divorced. In recent years, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced bills imposing longer waiting periods before a divorce is granted, mandating counseling courses or limiting the reasons a couple can formally split. States such as Arizona, Louisiana and Utah have already passed such laws, while others such as Oklahoma and Alabama are moving to do so.
      Proving schizophrenia is not problem:
      The push to restrict divorce is a form of paternalism — expanding government in pursuit of socially conservative ends. Marriage is a conservative institution, the thinking goes, and married straight couples provide a backstop against the creep of government. Any public policy that encourages the creation and persistence of married straight couples therefore merits support; any policy that deviates, including same-sex marriage or no-fault divorce, is hostile to the institution.

      The Family Research Council sees no contradiction in the state playing an active role in such private decisions. “As the grantor of both marriage licenses and divorce decrees, the state has already established the right to regulate the disbursement of each,” argues Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the council.

      Yeah, "keep your gubbimint out of my bidness!" and in your bedroom!

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:20:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They tried to pass something called (8+ / 0-)

        "covenant marriage" here in Kansas several years ago, and Republicans (most were called right wingers back then, now they're"moderates") ran away as fast as they could.
        Republicans like divorce if the man wants to leave his wife and kids for another woman, but if she wants to leave because he's an abuser, or a drunk or a drug addict, that's wrong.

        According to Bowers, in 95 percent of failed marriages, the reason the husband ran off is not because he is a despicable human being incapable of honoring his commitment to his wife. No, in Bowers world, the reason the husband ran off to the arms of another woman is because his wife loves the children more than she loves him. He refers to that love of one’s children as “an abominable idolatry.”
        “Do you get me, ladies? It is an abominable idolatry to love your children more than you love your husband,” Bowers continued, digging himself into a deep hole of unelectability. “And it will ruin your marriage. And yet you blame him because he ran off with some other woman.”
        Republican Senate Candidate Says Women Cause Divorce Because They Love Their Children

        This guy is running against Lindsey Graham in South Carolina.

        Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

        by skohayes on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:41:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, (5+ / 0-)

          control of marriage is another way to have control over people, mostly women.  Conservatives just can't stand to have women be free to make their own decisions about anything.  Conservatives are members of Sociopaths For Power Over All.

          Everyone! Arms akimbo! 68351

          by tobendaro on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:52:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Remind you of someone? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes, Calamity Jean

          Many in those circles love to call them "rag heads" because they are unwashed, blatantly ignorant tribal people.

          Give'm a bath, put'm in western dress and keep the ignorant religious book thumping and you have the American Taliban, aka TP/GOP hard core base.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:06:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Note the figures in the article on "covenant" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes

          success rate. Louisiana:

          Between 2000 and 2010, there were 3,964 covenant marriages in Louisiana — roughly 1 percent of the 373,068 marriages performed in the state. The rates were even lower in Arizona and Arkansas.
          Want to bet how many of those 1% were of women taught and pressured by a religious clan into subservience to man and god? How many might be not far from the types that are brainwashed into living in a cult?

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:12:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's the evangelical Protestant take (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      offgrid, Calamity Jean

      But is it really the "Jesus Biblical" take?

      Note that the verse Douthat cites runs like this:

      Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
      Notice how it says nothing about a woman who divorces her husband and marries another man?

      That's because, under rabinnical law at the time, a man could divorce his wife simply by writing a letter of divorce.  Women had no such option. The prophets exhorted against divorce, urging men to "return to the wife of thy youth."  It could easily be argued that what Jesus was inveighing against was the injustice of the casual casting aside of a wife for a younger trophy wife, regardless of the wishes of the first spouse.

      There was no model in that society for the mutually agreed dissolution of a marriage. We have no record whatsoever of what Jesus would have thought of it.

  •  is there a "this week in racism" diary? (9+ / 0-)

    or a "this week on the war on minorities"
    really creepy that it is needed.

    some wars seem to never end and the depths humanity goes to keep them going never ceases to astound me.

  •  Cliven Bundy should have used code words... (10+ / 0-)

    like the modern racists of today do. Exchange "Cadillac Baby" for "Negro". Exchange "Medicaid" for "Plantation" and all would be forgiven.

  •  Maybe I'll have something clever to say Bundy-wise (10+ / 0-)

    ...after I've taken my first diabetes prevention treatment of the morning.

    I certainly have nothing to say prior to that worth trying to post via iPad autocorrect while half awake...

    "So, am I right or what?"

    by itzik shpitzik on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:42:41 AM PDT

  •  According to an Esquire article, his views went (13+ / 0-)

    even further to where he claimed that God told him to tell every county sheriff to disarm all federal agents within an hour of his telling them.  He said he waited but that he was disappointed and got on his bulldozer to push the BLM off his spread but got bogged down in the mud.

    Here are a few quotes:
    "The message I gave to you all was a revelation that I received. And yet not one of you can seem to even quote it.”

    "The records of our bible — how long have they been kept? Thousands of years. They’ve been turned over generation after generation, buried, and all kinds of things happen to ‘em. And yet, here, something I felt was inspired [by God] and yet we haven’t even carried it forth for even a couple of days. Shame on us.”

    “It come to my mind real plain — the good Lord said, ‘Bundy, it’s not your job, it’s THEIR job.’ So we come back over here and heard that they had brought some cattle back. So I want you to understand.  This is not my job, it’s YOUR job."

    "This morning, I said a prayer, and this is what I received. I heard a voice say, 'Sheriff Gillespie, your work is not done. Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.’”

    Any guy who claims to have a direct line to God, and that God is telling him to overthrow the federal government gives me pause  

  •  The most bothersome thing (18+ / 0-)

    about the Bundy bullshit is Fox News. Sure, we point and laugh at Hannity and the morning couch people, and love on Jon Stewart for putting the absurdity on display. But the humor is starting to become rather dark when a major news organization is sowing the seeds of violence against the government. They were probably relieved when the crazy racist rants came out of Bundy's mouth - gave them a chance to back off the promotion of armed nutcases threatening the BLM.

  •  The Koch's strike again (5+ / 0-)

    The Kochs are at it again. Trying to buy politicians to make themselves even more bribe $ at the cost of society (and in the case of climate change, to the detriment of the earth).
    They seem to think this is exercising their 1st amendment rights (well their partially paid for Supremes told them bribery is part of that right). But just like Cliven Bundy, somehow they think that utilizing the 1st amendment doesn't allow for anyone else to do the same and to respond with any criticism.
    F'ing idiot hypocrites.  

    "One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, sourpusses." ― Pope Francis

    by GoodGod on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:04:02 AM PDT

  •  coffee (5+ / 0-)

    I had 2 cups when I was 20 years old, I on a trip from Boston to Miami, I left Boston @ 7:00pm, I was in South Carolina around 7:00 am & wanted to see if it would wake me up. I never had a drop again !

    Thanks for APR Mark

    Hope everyone has a decent day.

  •  M.D." you can be dang sure" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marykk, skohayes

    So the cowboy well Roux the day?

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:09:44 AM PDT

  •  Rarely will I rec something already on the FP, (20+ / 0-)

    but when I read

    All Bundy did was sing the words instead of just humming the tune.
    I guess my finger just slipped.  Bravo, sir.

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:17:27 AM PDT

  •  I wish people would stop (7+ / 0-)

    calling Bundy an Anarchist. He is not an anarchist. :/ He's just a greedy, racist asshat.

    ~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

    by Kristina40 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:21:03 AM PDT

  •  It's Fox not Clive (9+ / 0-)

    If it had not been for the folks at Fox and friends, Clive would have been nothing but a dead-beat, tax dodging racist.  Fox lionized him and his fight against a government that Fox et al sees as not working for their interests and the interests of the Republican party.  They ginned up the conflict hoping for another WACO.  For days, they put out the Clive call and before you knew it, another bunch of gun pointing racists joined him defying the Feds to come and get them.  

    For awhile,  they got away with pointing their tiny little guns at federal agents, even asking the local sheriff to disarm them.  

    But instead of another Ruby Ridge or WACO,  Clive blew himself up by opening his mouth.  Instead of guns blazing and a rising body count brought on by those government black helicopters, Fox got a bigot longing for the good old days of the plantation south.

    It's not about Clive it is about a dangerous trend on FOX that added fuel to the fire but the fire burned itself out.

  •  States Don't Have Rights nt (0+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:42:59 AM PDT

  •  Riding the Tiger (13+ / 0-)

    When Kathleen Parker writes the below statement, it indicates to me that she has yet to accept the truth.

    ["The GOP does not deserve to be indicted along with Bundy, but for too long the party has sown the wind by tolerating some of its less ennobled colleagues"]

    No, Ms. Parker, the GOP does not merely tolerate Racists and bigots, it actively cultivates them. The GOP depends on such odious people, because they can't otherwise win a fair election without them. Why can't the GOP otherwise win a fair election? Because their true constituency is the wealthy 1%, whose overriding motivations are greed and power. The key problem for the wealthy on the right is that there simply aren't enough of them to win a fair democratic election.

    The GOP needed to somehow get a large enough segment among the great unwashed masses of working class Americans to vote against their economic self-interest. The answer to this seemingly vexing problem was/is to cultivate and stoke cultural resentments among the working class. The left often wonders why the GOP base votes against it's obvious economic self-interest? The answer seems simple, they are voting FOR, what they perceive as, their cultural self-interest. For the GOP base, perceived cultural interest overrides economic interest. Racism, sexism, religious bigotry, gay bashing, the GOP long ago decided to ride this tiger - which has begun to eat them.

    So, no, Kathleen Parker, the GOP fully deserves to be indicted along with Cliven Bundy. The GOP is more culpable than is Bundy, because they know what they do is cynical and toxic, it's planned to be that. Where as, Cliven Bundy, while also an ignorant crack-pot racist, is among the group whose cultural resentments have long been cynically cultivated and stoked by GOP leadership and elites.

    •  bundy would not have said what he said (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, BlueKS, tb mare

      if there was no place where overt racism is accepted in public discourse. The Republican Party and especially its media mouthpieces have created and advertised that place for racists.
      They let untrained dogs in, and stupidly expected none of them to drop a turd on the rug? This dog thought for sure that's what was expected of him, after all the petting and treats he'd received. No wonder he's still wagging his tail, hoping Vannity will favor him again.

      Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

      by kamarvt on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:34:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  divorce (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    I seem to remember the Kennedy family remarrying with Church back many years ago.  Powerful people often trump religious doctrine.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:48:30 AM PDT

    •  Ted got an annulment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wintergreen8694, skohayes

      over the objections of his first wife Joan, who pointed out the hypocrisy of retroactively negating -- voiding as if it had never happened -- a marriage that went for many years and produced several children.

      The annulment machinery is widely believed to depend on which diocese you're in, and who you know within that diocese, and which lawyer & priest do the asking on your behalf. In other words, yes, it's not an equal playing field.

      But technically they were complying with religious doctrine as the Church has worked it out over the centuries.

      •  actually (0+ / 0-)

        Technically, the divorce never should have been granted--so to claim this was complying--as did the diocese--is to accept the underlying hypocrisy.  

        Actions speak louder than petitions.

        by melvynny on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:45:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have a friend (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb mare

        who is trying to get an annulment from her first marriage (30 some years ago). It's been about 6 years. And there's a 30 page questionnaire you have to fill out.
        Some person from the diocese called me to ask me questions about this friend right after she filed, and actually asked me point blank if I knew whether she'd ever had an abortion or not.
        I hung up on them.

        Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

        by skohayes on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:47:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "The annulment machinery..." (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean
        The annulment machinery is widely believed to depend on which diocese you're in, and who you know within that diocese, and which lawyer & priest do the asking on your behalf.
        And how much green-ink grease you happen to slip across those right lawyers' and priests' and bishops' palms, often.

        The last time the Republicans were this radical, they were working to elect former slaves to Congress. What a difference a century and a half makes!

        by jayjaybear on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:43:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I love The Princess Bride (8+ / 0-)

    and especially that quote.

    There are so many words that we need to take back:

    Liberal
    Freedom (which should always be paired with responsibility)
    Socialism
    Taker/Maker (I think the labels are misapplied)
    Patriot
    Death panels (we should apply it to the medicaid refusing governors and those trying to repeal Obamacare)

    Perhaps there are words and labels we should apply to some of the Rs and their ways.  The 1% was inspired and has made such a difference.

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:52:25 AM PDT

    •  Republicans bear the brunt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skillet, Stude Dude

      of people not getting insurance because of all their lies:

      “The controversy about Obamacare does seem to have interfered with people’s ability to sort out the value of the marketplace for getting health insurance for themselves,” said Dr. James B. Becker, associate professor of the Marshall University School of Medicine and medical director of the state’s Medicaid program.

      Other problems stymied the introduction of the law, notably the initially dysfunctional federal website. But the political polarization “complicates our efforts to enroll people and to educate people about the Affordable Care Act, there’s no question,” said Perry Bryant, head of the advocacy group West Virginians for Affordable Health Care, based in Charleston, the capital.

      “Literally, people thought there would be chips embedded in their bodies if they signed up for Obamacare,” Mr. Bryant said.

      Far to the east, at a branch of the Shenandoah Valley Medical System in Martinsburg, Sara R. Koontz, a social worker, said she had heard people express fears about chip implants as well as “death panels” as she sought to enroll uninsured residents. Some told her that they would rather pay a penalty than sign up for insurance, she said, and even people who did enroll paused in their excitement to ask, “Wait — this isn’t that Obamacare, is it?”

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:49:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At the extreme (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chloris creator, Stude Dude

      The entrepreneurs are the makers, and the scientists, engineers, technicians, software developers and other specialists who work for them are just highly-paid takers to be discarded when the juice has been extracted.

      Perhaps there is something wrong with this picture?

    •  Freedom and responsibility. (3+ / 0-)
      Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility.

      -Eleanor Roosevelt

      I think this has been largely forgotten by many, especially the right.  We cannot exercise our rights and neglect the responsibility inherent in them.  Doing so takes away from the freedoms of others.

      "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

      by Apost8 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:10:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In the 1950's Masses started being said in English (3+ / 0-)

    instead of Latin. I was in early puberty trying to not think of a woman's breast between confession on Saturday afternoon and receiving the body and blood (and as the nuns would admonish "the host does not symbolize the body and blood of Christ, it is literally his body and blood so DO NOT bite into it!") of Christ the next morning, alas a task I could not succeed at and which motivated my drift from the Holy See. A particularly reactionary cousin some years older than I was incredibly offended that the Mass was no longer in Latin which seemed strange as he did not know Latin...years later he was a big Reagan guy and right winger who claimed the only salvation for the country was to drastically cut entitlements on which of course he parents were living at the time....

    Where was I ? Oh yeah so it seems that Ross Dowhat may have been in a time capsule planted in Mobile Alabama in the 1950's during some sort of state fair or whatever and when they opened it at the 50  year mark he and a bunch of salamanders and slugs and so forth slithered out...

    Now as for the racist rancher and the racist b-ball team owner I am wondering if their philosophies are some synergistic in that the owner sees his team's players, coaches and lady friend as some sort of modern staff of slaves bought to amuse him and given some of the content of the stuff he said to the lady, perhaps it is time to toss out some of those old issues of the Penthouse Forum magazines he has hidden in the sock drawer which in a way brings me back to the sacrilege of putting your teeth in the host and burning in Hell for eternity....a fair outcome for the Ranchero, the shriveled b-ball team owner, Ross and Ms. Parker....  

  •  Let's not forget the Donald Sterling mess either (8+ / 0-)

    These last few days have been a bonanza for addled old racist assholes running their mouths.

    Sterling is, if anything, more mind-boggling than Bundy. Bundy at least is an old cattle-man from rural Nevada who probably isn't too familar with "the Negro," unless you count that weirdo who said he'd "take a bullet" for him (I'm picturing they have a "DeCaprio/Jackson from Django Unchained" relationship of sorts). But Sterling is in L.A. and owns a franchise in a sport that African-Americans utterly dominate. And he says this crap. And has been doing stuff like this for years (Elgin Baylor's claim that he'd bring women into the Clippers' locker room and show off "those beautiful black bodies" was jaw-dropping).

    And most flabbergasting of all, he says this stuff regarding Magic Johnson, for the love of God. It's like he wants the population of L.A. to come after him Frankenstein-style with pitchforks and torches. (It's probably also not a wise idea to insult the Lakers' most beloved son when you rent their arena.)

    •  "They're subhuman but I can make good money" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wintergreen8694, skohayes, DRo

      really is the voice of the slave-owner. I don't think getting him to shut up is the answer. I don't know what kind of contracts his players have, but one would hope the African-American players would band together and boycott playing for this guy, and African-American (and allies) fans would boycott buying tickets.

    •  it's unbelievably disgusting. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude

      His girlfriend is half African-American. (and clearly less than half his age, but that's another story)

      The NBA is mostly African-American.

      Magic Johnson is a huge superstar, esp in LA..

      what is going on in that man's mind?

      players should refuse to play for him.

      I used to kind of like the Clippers, the underdog thing ... but jeez ....

      It's like he's off his meds.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:30:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Him having a minority girlfriend is not unusual (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DRo, doroma, mightymouse, Stude Dude

        Sterling seems to have a slave owner-style mentality (that locker room behavior I mentioned above, along with his wish to have a "a white coach and poor Southern blacks" for a lineup) and we all know how many slave owners saw their female slaves as for their personal use. Many considered raping their slave as a requisit of ownership, like branding, saying "this is my slave and no one else can touch her."

        It's been a hallmark of bigots since. I've heard one of the favorite tactics of the FBI back in the civl rights days on scaring KKK members into becoming informants was to ambush them when they were with the black girlfriends they kept on the side.

  •  A SUPERB "Abbreviated Pundit Round-up" Today (n/t) (7+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  It took a lot of courage for Fox Nooz to refudiate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, FlamingoGrrl

    Bundy......well.....maybe not courage....n/t

  •  federal taxes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, Stude Dude, Calamity Jean

    The question no one seems to be asking, and the one I can't find an answer to: does this guy pay his income taxes? If he does, then his argument that he doesn't recognize the U.S. government is bogus. And if he doesn't then the IRS should be nailing this guy big time

  •  SCOTUS: Ages and actuarial projections. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    This came up in a diary on Hillary.

    "prettymeadow" listed SCOTUS ages, indicating for one that four justices are in their 70s and 80s. Edited:

    Elena Kagan -D-  age 54

    John Roberts -R-  age 59  

    Sonia Sotomayor- D-  age 59

    Samuel Alito Jr. -R-  age  64

    Clarence Thomas -R-  age 65

    Stephen Breyer -R-  age 75

    Anthony Kennedy -R- swing vote - age 77

    Antonin Scalia -R-  age 78

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg -D- age 81

    Ginsburg, as far as I know, is the only one who is ill.  The rest could be there for another decade or more.

    Which gets us to Life Tables for elderly Americans.
    Age -- 1-year risk -- Life Expectancy
    54F -- 0.004296 -- 29.48 years

    59M -- 0.010354 -- 22.04 years

    59F -- 0.006136 -- 25.15 years

    64M -- 0.014885 -- 18.24 years

    65M -- 0.016182 -- 17.51 years

    75M -- 0.038217 -- 10.87 years

    77M -- 0.046261 -- 9.71 years

    78M -- 0.050826 -- 9.16 years

    81F -- 0.048807 -- 7.60 years

    Adding up these numbers, you would expect Obama to have had much better than 50:50 odds on replacing one or more of the conservative justices, based on death in office.

    A justice starting out at age 70 for an 8 year stretch, for example, would have a 1/4th chance of dying in that period. And all of the conservatives are male. If they had average health care.

    But overall actuarial odds are not a tight fit to SCOTUS.

    For one, justices at SCOTUS receive excellent health care. They are not generally afflicted with severe or even moderate forms of the common chronic care illnesses that you see with older Americans.

    Not a whole lot of rotten teeth in that bunch, either. Oral infections kill one helluva lot of old people.

    Their overall life expectancy is likely close to 90. Maybe on the high side.

    Mental capacity, not so much. After 70, expect them to be dependent on their clerks. Lifetime appointment is now dysfunctional -- the brains lose high functions starting a couple decades before their bodies finally fail.

    "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

    by waterstreet2013 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 06:45:55 AM PDT

  •  The problem with Douthat's position is that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Sumner

    annulment is a farce. Instead of telling the woman it was all right to marry the divorced man, the Pope could simply have imagined some way to manufacture a non-marriage between the man and his former wife and give them an annulment - that would have been the traditional route - but instead, he was honest about it. If the priest likes you, or you have paid whatever dues he requires, you get your official annulment. They will manage to come up with some finagled or concocted reason to justify the non-existence of a marriage. Otherwise, you're stuck.

  •  Image is perfect (0+ / 0-)

    Shared that on Facebook. Wow, just awesome. Whoever did that, well done.

    Voting straight party D 'til there's no GOP...
    Oh and the name is Jim, not Tim, the user name is a typo

    by jusjtim35 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:24:46 AM PDT

  •  Coffee consumption and diabetes (0+ / 0-)

    When will people stop referring to observational, epidemiological studies as "research"?  It is the weakest kind of evidence and hardly worth getting excited about, let alone interested it.  It's about a small notch above anecdotal evidence.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:14:59 AM PDT

  •  "Tenants"are not "tenets." (0+ / 0-)

    Landlords have tenants.

    Making a generous assumption: a gang of racist yahoos with guns have tenets.

    Of course, having tenants and tenets are not mutually exclusive, but they are different.

    Marx was an optimist.

    by psnyder on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 09:21:36 AM PDT

  •  Twisted logic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    The right wing twists and turns every law and rule to make them look as if they are the ones who are being abused by the govt. But they are the biggest takers,criminals,traitors of the U.S.  As they pick and choose the Bible they do the same with the Constitution.  They read and rearrange it to their beliefs no matter how crazy or radical they are.  If they had brains and actually could prove their rants but they use force and fear instead.  Big bully's who are ignorant. Bundy is a man with a very base knowledge,of life,the Constitution,and is now empowered by his ignorance.  He is nothing but a law breaking,thief and welfare Queen.  The others are like him too.  All for me and none for thee.  

  •  Small Gov't GOPers? Fuggedaboutit! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    Let's face it, GOPers -- even of the cowboy hat variety -- are only 'small government' when the opposition is in power.  The moment they get the keys to the place, hold on to your hats: there's no civil liberty they aren't prepared to impinge.

  •  Why are we even arguing? (0+ / 0-)

    We are living in the Dim Ages. We need a new Age of Reason.

    As from above: "violation of their right to pretend they've always been consistent.", it is not just that we disagree, it is that their thinking is irrational and unreasonable.

    Why is it even given the time of day?

    Maybe when someone denies global warming, we should laugh. And when they insist it is because of greedy scientists or Al Gore, we laugh louder.

    James Madison:
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

    "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site