"Can you hear me?" That's the recurring refrain in a radio promo for this weekend's "Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention," which-with an estimated crowd of 3,000-purports to be one of the largest rallies yet of so-called "Tea Party" sympathizers. The 60-second radio spot by keynote speaker Lou Dobbs features allegedly outraged Americans repeating that line, interspersed with un-attributed stats about how Americans supposedly oppose stimulus spending, health care, and other government spending policies "Maybe Washington can't hear us," Dobbs intones dramatically, "because they're just not listening."
Not listening to whom? For two years media obsession with the Tea Party has drowned out nearly every other voice in the public debate, a self-perpetuating feeding frenzy that has raised the volume on this population's views to a disproportionately deafening roar. Yet, as is shown all too clearly in Project Vote's recent poll report What Happened to Hope and Change? A Poll of 2008 Voters, these shouts for attention are coming from a segment of the population that is overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and older-and one that is out of touch with the needs and views of most Americans.
I just wanted to pull some of the more telling charts from Project Vote's report on their poll, starting with this one showing the actual composition of the American electorate:
At 32%, Obama's base of black, youth and low-income voters is 10% larger than the 29% of Tea Party supporters. Yet the amount of attention they get is far, far less. And they're never treated with a presumption of being "real Americans" who need to be listened to.
More on what folks have to say via a series of snapshot tables and snappy comments on the flip.
I'm not sure exactly when metamars jumped the shark, or even when he slipped over into troll territory many moons before that. I only know where he is now, involved with shark acrobatics, as in a recent quick hit:
Emeritus Professor of Physics, American Physical Society fellow, quits APS over "global warming scam" (metamars)
Link Another prominent physicist who is a skeptic of (human caused?) global warming is Nobel laureate Freeman Dyson. I personally don't think they are right, but I've also no doubt that the great amount of money involved is causing tremendous groupthink, and yes, fraud. It's possible to have groupthink and fraud, and still be essentially correct...
Where to begin? with that Obama-like last line? It's quite tempting given how much MM despises Obama. Professional jealousy much? That line does make me wonder. Well, first by explaining that the Quick Hit title & link do not refer to Freeman Dysaon, but to retiref physicist Harold Lewis, who, like Dyson, knows nothing in particular professionally about climate science.
Second, by explaining that citing "authorities" outside their fields of expertise is a long-recognized fallacy:
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
Third, by explaining that even if someone is an authority in a field, if they say something in public that they can't back up in the peer-reviewed literature, that's really no more valid than an Appeal to Authority.
Fourth, by explaining that (quoting from the link) Lewis is just blowing hot air. For example:
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
"[T]rillions of dollars" driving the "global warming scam"? From where? There most certainly were trillions of dollars driving the Cold War nuclear weapons scam that drove the careers of the most vociferous physicist deniers. But so far there's far more money on the fossil fuel "let's keep causing global warming" side than there is on the green jobs "let's stop global warming" side. Just check Opensecrets.org in case you have any doubt at all.
But this is where our troll has chosen to double down. In comments, I wrote:
In reality-land, ALL accusations of fraud re "climategate" have been dismissed.
There is a huge opportunity to create a late shift for the better in Democratic electoral fortunes because of the foreclosure fraud scandal. With the issue exploding, Democrats need to take advantage of the fact that it us who are doing the right thing on this issue, while Republicans are at best standing on the sidelines doing nothing, and at worst getting in the way of solving the problem. Democrats being on the side of homeowners getting screwed and being against bankers and lawyers who are committing fraud by sending people to foreclosure mills feeds perfectly into the overall theme progressives and some Democrats have been pushing that our government and economy can only be fixed by standing up to corporate predator special interests.
The foreclosure fraud issue has been brewing a long time now. Groups like SEIU, National Peoples Action, PICO, and other community organizations have been organizing on it for many months now, and have been doing the legal research needed to start nailing these foreclosure mills and fraudulent banks. With the issue now exploding, I think there is a real chance to shift the debate to a new level. While Democrats have been slow in understanding or picking up on this issue, the good news that they are still capable of standing up for working families on an issue like this. It is Democrats who have overwhelmingly been the ones to stand up to the banks on this issue- Obama with his veto, Pelosi and Reid and many other Democrats in Congress who have taken strong stands on the issue, and Democratic Attorneys General around the country who have taken on the banks on their fraud. The Republicans, with only a couple of exceptions have been overwhelmingly silent on the issue, and in some cases, like the MI AG, have come out against doing anything to help consumers (because he didn't want to "politicize" the issue). As Digby summarized it:
A lot of people are trying to say that all politicians are the same, that your vote doesn't matter. Well, let's look at the evidence. In the last month, here are some news stories about politicians.
Democrat Alan Grayson Calls for Foreclosure Moratorium
Democrat Ohio Secretary of State Attacks Foreclosure Fraud
President Obama Pocket Vetos Pro-Bank Bill That Would Increase Foreclosures
Democrat Harry Reid Calls for Foreclosure Moratorium
Democrat Nancy Pelosi, California Democrats Calls for Investigations of Foreclosure Fraud
Democrat John Conyers and Carolyn Kilpatrick Call for Foreclosure Freeze
Democrat Ohio Attorney General Attacks Foreclosure Fraud, Sues GMAC
Democrat Illinois Attorney General Asks for Foreclosure Halt in Illinois
Democrat Maxine Waters Calls for a Foreclosure Freeze
Democrats Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, and Corrine Brown Call for Fannie to Stop Working with Foreclosure 'Mills' Being Investigated for Fraud
Democrat Earl Blumenaur Asks for a Foreclosure Freeze in Oregon
Democrat Jeff Merkley Calls for a Special Investigator for Foreclosure Fraud
Democrats Luis Gutierrez and Dennis Moore Call for Investigations of Bailout Recipients Engaging in Foreclosure Fraud
Democrat Attorney General in California Asks for Foreclosure Halt
Democrat Attorney General in Massachusetts Asks for Foreclosure Halt
And on and on and on....
Notice a pattern here? If not, let me give you another hint.
Republican Richard Shelby Tries to Weaken Rules, Kicks Regulators
I wonder why banks and corporations are spending $5 billion on this election, nearly all of that for Republicans.
From what candidates on the ground are telling me, though, it is still the business reporters who have been covering the issue, not the political reporters, and Democrats are not necessarily getting the political credit they deserve. Reporters are still trying to put the who-done-it pieces together on the scandal rather than being focused on which politicians are standing up to the bankers on the issue. We need to make sure voters understand who is fighting to make sure the banks and foreclosure mills are held accountable.
Democrats should not let this opportunity slip away from us: if we embrace this issue politically, telling a story about how we are the ones rooting out corporate corruption, we are the ones standing up to the banks when they try to defraud consumers, this could be very powerful, and it could strongly feed that broader frame around Democrats taking on special interests on behalf of the middle class. With this issue now front and center, Democrats should seize the initiative, put Republicans on the spot for why they are doing nothing to stand up to the banks. This could be one of the election dynamic turning things that upends the Republicans' ability to make their closing argument about government being the root of all evil stick. The White House right now is sounding too wonky and even-handed on this issue: they need to make clear whose side they are on.
One other thought on all this: I think the foreign money being used by the Chamber thing adds to the dynamic: their ads are everywhere. I have always believed that when you are being outspent in a campaign, you have to turn the tables by targeting all the money being spent against you. If the foreclosure fraud crisis is in the front pages every day, reminding voters of corporate corruption issues, and we can be relentlessly raising questions about where does the money come from for all those attack ads by the Chamber- Wall Street, foreclosure mills, and foreign companies?- I think the anti-corporate special interest frame just keeps building. Where I hope we can get to is that every time people see those Chamber ads, or other ads from groups they have never heard of, they are thinking of money from Wall Street, foreclosure mills, and foreign companies.
We have all seen last month breaking news and/or new frames shift electoral dynamics. The collapse of health care in the fall of '94 drove Democratic base performance into the dirt, and turned a tough year into a route. The fundraising scandal that broke in Oct of '96 changed the dynamics just enough to keep us from retaking Congress. The focus on impeachment in the fall of '98, and our "it's time to move on and deal with the issues that really matter" pushback turned a likely Democratic slaughter into a good year for us. The Foley scandal in Oct of 2006 stopped a potential Republican comeback dead in its tracks, and turned a close call into us easily retaking Congress. I think this foreclosure fraud crisis could be the same kind of deal. It allows us to take anti-special interest frame we have all been building for a while, and bring it to a whole different level. But we need to seize the issue, and take the credit we deserve for doing the right thing in fighting for consumers against the power of the big bank fraud. If we are willing to wholeheartedly take this mantle on, the election dynamic has the real potential for a last minute shift.
It seems that Nazi re-enactor Rich Iott is not the only problematic character in the NRCC's "Young Gun" program ("Until last night, the GOP included the candidate, Rich Iott, on a list of promising potential members called Contenders -- a notch below their so-called Young Guns," TPM reported on Saturday . "Now he's gone, without a trace.") Contrary to the much-hyped "conservative year of the woman narrative, featuring the likes of Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, the "Young Guns" program is just as testosterone-drenched as its name might suggest, and that doesn't just mean a prepoderance of male candidates, it means a fair number who have problems with women and self-control as well. This is hardly a surprise when one looks at the gun-tottin' Tea Party movement without Versailles rose colored glasses and sees them for what they really are: a right-wing skewed, male-dominated, over-privileged collection of hotheads and whiners. But getting Versailles to second-guess its own cherished narratives is like trying to get between a dog and its bone.
Still, someone's got to do it. Which is why the DSCC has sent out an email highlighting some of the more troubled would-be Congress-critters just itching to shoot off their whatevers. (Thoughtfully archive here). It makes for sobering reading:
Young Guns Show Alarming Pattern of Contempt Towards Women
House Republican Leadership have recruited, endorsed, and promoted the campaigns of Young Guns candidates with a history of contempt, violence towards women, and wildly extreme policies towards women.
A recent report about NRCC Young Gun Tom Ganley (OH-13) being sued by a potential campaign volunteer for attempted rape and sexual assault comes on the heels of recent reports about other highly NRCC touted Young Guns and candidates including Jeff Perry (MA-10), Scott DesJarlais (TN-04), Brad Zaun (IA-03), Dan Benishek (MI-01), David Rivera (FL-25), Keith Fimian (VA-11), Dan Debicella (CT-04), Dan Webster (FL-08)
"It sends women across the country a chilling message when House Republican leadership promotes the campaigns of their Republican recruits with allegations of attempted rape, sexual assault, restraining orders, and other violent behavior towards women," said Jennifer Crider, DCCC spokesperson. "Our mothers, daughters, and sisters deserve better than Republican leadership that not only tolerates this contemptible behavior, but actively seeks out candidates like this and promotes them."
Republicans with Alarming Pattern
Tom Ganley (OH-13) Republicans thought they were handed a gift when well-known multi-millionaire Tom Ganley decided to run for Congress. But Republicans failed to look into how Ganley made millions of dollars by ripping off hardworking people in Ohio.
Ganley Sued for Attempted Rape and Sexual Assault. Last week we learned that a woman has filed a suit against Ganley for sexual assault. Ganley allegedly met with the woman, who was interested in volunteering for his U.S. Senate campaign and talking about her car payments, when he propositioned and sexually assaulted her in his private office. [Plain Dealer, 9/30/10]
Ganley received $18,500 from GOP Leadership. Ganley has received at least $18,500 in contributions from GOP leadership. [CQ Moneyline]
Jeff Perry (MA-10) The NRCC's decision to promote Jeff Perry speaks volumes about the reckless leadership they're offering voters this November. National Republicans have repeatedly rallied around Jeff Perry, who has come under fire for his role in illegal strip searches of two teenage girls, most recently by funding attack ads to prop up his campaign, and their endorsement of his past is nothing short of disturbing.
The NRCC has repeatedly propped up scandal plagued Jeff Perry's campaign. The NRCC has long supported Jeff Perry by touting his candidacy as a member of their "Young Guns" program and today launched television ads on his behalf. [NRCC YouTube Page, accessed 10/5/10; Cape Cod Times
As a Wareham police sergeant in the early 1990's, Jeff Perry had a role in two disturbing strip search scandals that involved teenage girls. According to the Boston Globe, "In one case, Perry was the supervisor at the scene when the officer stuck his hand in a 14-year-old girl's underwear, ostensibly searching for drugs. In the other, Perry accompanied the same officer to the house of a 16-year-old girl to tell her parents that she had voluntarily pulled down her pants to show she did not have any drugs." [Boston Globe, 5/15/10]
For quite some time I've been bothered by folks simply writing off Democrats as "corporate sellouts". It's not because I don't think there's some truth in the charge. I'm sure there is--and more than just "some truth" in the case of the worst and most powerful of the lot.
But there's other things going on as well, and the charge is both too simple and too polarizing to be as helpful to us as it ought to be. I unexpectedly came on another reason to feel this way while doing some research for a couple of unrelated posts on cognitive dissonance in economics. As I often do, I took a look at Wikipedia to see what leads I might get there in fleshing out the background, and in the entry on cognitive dissoncne I found a discussion of four different major paradigms, one of which is the "induced-compliance paradigm", which kicked off thus:
The Induced-Compliance Paradigm
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to spend an hour on boring and tedious tasks (e.g., turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. Once the subjects had done this, the experimenters asked some of them to do a simple favor. They were asked to talk to another subject (actually an actor) and persuade them that the tasks were interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 (inflation adjusted to 2010, this equates to $150) for this favor, another group was paid $1 (or $7.50 in "2010 dollars"), and a control group was not asked to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other "subject"), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, and thus experienced less dissonance.[9].
The implication here is quite straightforward: Rather than money changing people's votes in a straightforward "bought-and-paid-for" manner, there's clear evidence here that paying people less is a more effective way of actually changing their minds. Of course, the experiments represent a highly artificial setup, so one can't simply extrapolate from them to a situation where people's votes are being fought over. Still, they can form the basis for a more generalized understanding. Consider the next passage from the Wikipedia entry:
In 2008, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (VA) voted to give $700 billion of our taxpayer dollars to his financial contributors on Wall Street. He voted this way because he believed banks did not have to take responsibility for their own actions - actions that drove the entire economy into a ditch.
Two years later, this same senior Republican leader now opposes temporarily suspending bank foreclosures on the citizens whose taxpayer dollars bailed out the banks. That's right, in an interview over the weekend, Cantor justified his opposition to the foreclosure moratorium by saying that when it comes to the predatory loans those banks trapped citizens in, citizens - not banks - "have to take responsibility for themselves."
For years, Republicans criticized so-called Limousine Liberals - the epithet for those whose premise is "for me, not for thee." In such criticism, Republicans rhetorically pitted themselves against the kind of elitism that says what's good for the rich should not be afforded to The Rest of Us.
Cantor's declaration, of course, represents that very elitism, but arguably worse. Whereas Democrats denied the Limousine Liberal charge and went out of their way to (at least rhetorically) portray themselves as the opposite, the Republican Party is now on record publicly championing that very kind of "for me, not for thee" elitism. That is, they are going on national television to proudly brag that they believe their financial backers on Wall Street deserve a different standard - and preferential treatment - from government than that which is extended to the citizenry at large.
Certainly, Cantor and the Beltway Republicans he represents don't want us to connect the dots between the two standards. They don't want us, for instance, to remember that Cantor supported the bailout - just as CNBC Tea Party leader Rick Santelli didn't want us to note the hypocrisy of him railing on taxpayer bailouts from a trading floor that so handsomely benefited from taxpayer bailouts.
The voices of money rely on America being an Idiocracy and thus not noticing the double standard. And indeed, the Tea Party rank and file suggest that those political and media manipulators have reason to think they can get away with such deception. Only if we constantly point out the hypocrisy can we hope to break the cycle - and end the double standard.
Axelrod hopes GOP gains will bring cooperation
By Tom Cohen, CNN
October 10, 2010 3:48 p.m. EDT
Washington (CNN) -- White House senior adviser David Axelrod is looking for a silver lining in expected Democratic losses in November's congressional elections.
While saying he thought his party would retain its majority in both the House and Senate in the November 2 voting, Axelrod told the CBS program "Face The Nation" that that he hoped Republican gains would bring more cooperation.
He accused Republicans of deliberate obstruction as a political strategy since President Barack Obama took office last year with majorities in both the House and Senate.
"The posture of the Republican Party from the moment we got here has been basically to deprive the president of bipartisan support so they could accuse him of not being bipartisan," Axelrod said.
"So I'm hoping that with more seats, the Republicans will feel a greater sense of responsibility to work with us to solve some of these problems," he said.
This is sort of like saying, "2+2=4. But with a little, it will soon be 22!"
You literally cannot analyze shit like this, because it makes absolutely no sense at all. Consider a mathematical metaphor for the moment. In calculus & the theory behind it--analysis--a function is analytical if it's "well-behaved", that is, infinitely differentiable, in every neighborhood. One can think of these as functions without irrational discontinuities popping in whenever they like, thus making it possible to understand them in terms of consistent--albeit sometimes incredibly complex--patterns. But the way Axelrod is "thinking" here--much like Obama apparently always has and does--is the exact opposite of this. The apparent regularities are only for show at best, and to totally throw you off at worst. The very essence of his "thinking" is totally insane and contrary to any rational pattern.
Although, come to think of it, maybe that's the whole point. The DFHs are the only ones left who give a damn about trying to make sense of anything at all, so this would make perfect sense as a big Fuck You! to the last remnants of the reality-based community.
Either that, or Axelrod just has some really incredible drugs.
Must be hanging out with Rush Limbaugh again.
p.s. Just to be clear, when Susan Collins says the same sort of thingshe is stupid. Dumber than a rutaga, in fact. But for Axelrod to agree with her. Now that's insane.
["Harmless Fun", But don't forget, Halloween is Satanic!] Note: Due to computer problems, Jeff is unable to post "Left Ed" this weekend. He will return next Sunday. Meanwhile, this seems like a very education-relevant topic to take on.
Rich Iott, second from right, in a Nazi SS Waffen uniform is the GOP candidate for OH-9
"National Socialism was seen by many in Holland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and other eastern European and Balkan countries as the protector of personal freedom and their very way of life, despite the true underlying totalitarian (and quite twisted, in most cases) nature of the movement."
--SS Re-enactors website
Gosh, who does that remind you of???
It's hard to remember, but there once was a time when Nazis weren't liberals, they were Nazis! And the people who liked them were folks like
Patrick Buchanan. (Not to forget Bitburg!)
Hitler's protege, Spain's General Franco, was a long-standing hero of the American right, up to and including William Buckley and the National Review. And though he insists there was nothing political about it, Tea Party candidate Rich Iott fits right into that actual history of rightwing affiliation with Hitler & his minions.
An election year already notable for its menagerie of extreme and unusual candidates can add another one: Rich Iott, the Republican nominee for Congress from Ohio's 9th District, and a Tea Party favorite, who for years donned a German Waffen SS uniform and participated in Nazi re-enactments.
Iott, whose district lies in Northwest Ohio, was involved with a group that calls itself Wiking, whose members are devoted to re-enacting the exploits of an actual Nazi division, the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking, which fought mainly on the Eastern Front during World War II. Iott's participation in the Wiking group is not mentioned on his campaign's website, and his name and photographs were removed from the Wiking website.
That's Incredible!
When contacted by The Atlantic, Iott confirmed his involvement with the group over a number of years, but said his interest in Nazi Germany was historical and he does not subscribe to the tenets of Nazism. "No, absolutely not," he said. "In fact, there's a disclaimer on the [Wiking] website. And you'll find that on almost any reenactment website. It's purely historical interest in World War II."
Iott, a member of the Ohio Military Reserve, added, "I've always been fascinated by the fact that here was a relatively small country that from a strictly military point of view accomplished incredible things. I mean, they took over most of Europe and Russia, and it really took the combined effort of the free world to defeat them. From a purely historical military point of view, that's incredible."
What's a Little Historical Revisionism Among Friends?
