New U.S. President

[cheesehead]

"The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw

A neurologist explains why you shouldn't believe in political candidates that sound too sure of themselves."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-certainty-bias

Originally Posted by Jonah Lehrer

Robert Burton is the former chief of neurology at the University of California at San Francisco-Mt. Zion hospital. He recently wrote a book, On Being Certain, that explored the neuroscience behind the feeling of certainty, or why we are so convinced we’re right even when we’re wrong. He and Jonah Lehrer, the editor of Mind Matters, discussed the science of certainty.

LEHRER: What first got you interested in studying the mental state of certainty?

BURTON: A personal confession: I have always been puzzled by those who seem utterly confident in their knowledge. Perhaps this is a constitutional defect on my part, but I seldom have the sense of knowing unequivocally that I am right. Consequently I have looked upon those who ooze self-confidence and certainty with a combination of envy and suspicion. At a professional level, I have long wondered why so many physicians will recommend unproven, even risky therapies simply because they "know" that these treatments work.

It is easy to be cynical and suspect the worst of motives, from greed to ignorance, but I have known many first-rate, highly concerned and seemingly well motivated physicians who, nevertheless, operate based upon gut feelings and personal beliefs even in the face of contrary scientific evidence. After years of rumination, it gradually dawned on me that there may be an underlying biological component to such behavior.

. . .

LEHRER: To what extent do these mechanisms come into play during a presidential election? It seems like we all turn into such partisan hacks every four years, completely certain that our side is right.

BURTON: The present presidential debates and associated media commentary feel like laboratory confirmation that the involuntary feeling of certainty plays a greater role in decision-making than conscious contemplation and reason.

I suspect that retreat into absolute ideologies is accentuated during periods of confusion, lack of governmental direction, economic chaos and information overload. At bottom, we are pattern recognizers who seek escape from ambiguity and indecision. If a major brain function is to maintain mental homeostasis, it is understandable how stances of certainty can counteract anxiety and apprehension. Even though I know better, I find myself somewhat reassured (albeit temporarily) by absolute comments such as, "the stock market always recovers," even when I realize that this may be only wishful thinking.

Sadly, my cynical side also suspects that political advisors use this knowledge of the biology of certainty to actively manipulate public opinion. Nuance is abandoned in favor of absolutes.

. . .

LEHRER: How can people avoid the certainty bias?

BURTON: I don't believe that we can avoid certainty bias, but we can mitigate its effect by becoming aware of how our mind assesses itself. As you may know from my book, I've taken strong exception to the popular notion that we can rely upon hunches and gut feelings as though they reflect the accuracy of a thought.

My hope is the converse; we need to recognize that the feelings of certainty and conviction are involuntary mental sensations, not logical conclusions. Intuitions, gut feelings and hunches are neither right nor wrong but tentative ideas that must then be submitted to empirical testing. If such testing isn't possible (such as in deciding whether or not to pull out of Iraq), then we must accept that any absolute stance is merely a personal vision, not a statement of fact.

. . .

In short, please run, do not walk, to the nearest exit when you hear so-called leaders being certain of any particular policy. Only in the absence of certainty can we have open-mindedness, mental flexibility and willingness to contemplate alternative ideas.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

$3 million, as already quoted above

Depends on your definition of "afford" and "don't have".

We have to set priorities for government spending, and means of government income to pay for it, of course. I contend that this (single, you'll notice) precision scientific instrument is well worth $3 million. Note that the last one lasted 40 years and has educated millions of people.

The device costs close to $10 million. There are private fund raising efforts for the other $7 million. The feds are not buying the whole thing.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

Oh, I see--I thought this was just an ordinary overhead presentation projector, not a big planetarium-sized one.

With that in mind, though, this begs the question: how much does this new one cost? Can the government really afford to purchase it on money that they don't have?

Can the government really afford a $2 Trillion-dollar-plus bailout of Wall Street and underwater mortgage debtors using money they don't have?

Cheesehead, that incident you recount about JFK's assassination is extremely disturbing. Especially for someone in a position of authority to so egregiously abuse said authority in order to espouse their own hateful views - did anyone report the teacher in question?

To those who are lauding McCain for muting one of his rabid supporters at an event last week, please consider that it's the repugnant, hate-inciting campaign tactics of McCain and Palin which are causing the vitriol to begin with. And I haven't heard of Palin making any serious attempt to rein in the shouters of "kill him" and racial epithets at her own campaign rallies. Frank Rich's latest Op-Ed in the NYT puts it nicely:

Frank Rich: The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama

The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama

By FRANK RICH
Published: October 11, 2008

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.

To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.

But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Cheesehead, that incident you recount about JFK's assassination is extremely disturbing. Especially for someone in a position of authority to so egregiously abuse said authority in order to espouse their own hateful views - did anyone report the teacher in question?

It was a single sentence, muttered in a low voice without emphasis, never repeated. I seriously doubt that anyone reported it. In those days, it wouldn't have been considered as significant by school authorities as it would be now.

Also, my fellow students and I were quite accustomed to hearing various extreme conservative and fundamentalist expressions of thought throughout our lives growing up in Tulsa, which leaned pretty heavily to the right in those days. (When I went back to visit in 1992, I was rather shocked to see, at a couple of major intersections, some ... businesses with big public signs that never would have been allowed in the old days. It's definitely loosened up since the 1950s when Reader's Digest declared Tulsa "America's Cleanest City", which I thought then was because they washed the downtown sidewalks every evening.)

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

This is irrelevant to my point. The bill was birthed by Democrats. That some republicans supported it is irrelevant to the fact that it was ratified due to the democrats. Furthermore, a *majority* of Republicans congressmen voted against it. Furthermore, a *majority* of Republican voters were against the bill, and will oust those few Republicans who voted for it.

But you left out the fact that if our Republican president had vetoed it, he would have had enough support in Congress to sustain the veto!!!.

Of course. Are you trying to *blame* the people who could have stopped its initial passage? Are you blaming their constitutency, which was rabidly against the bill?

No, I'm trying to alert you to the nature of, then persuade you to stop repeating, some skillfully-crafted GOP propaganda that is not supported by facts.

Third, while I admit the president has liability, my argument isn't about his lack of liability

... exactly as Reagan did, to distract the public from the role his own vetoes played in the budget process!

I wasn't arguing that _you_ are President. I was pointing out that the logic of your argument is the same as the logic Reagan used: Disclaim presidential responsibility connected to his veto power.

but that the Democratically controlled congress and senate have a larger liability for passing the bill in the first place! You can't blame it all (or even a majority of it) on the president for not vetoing.

Reagan vetoed bills over 500 times, until Democrats in Congress agreed to change the bills to what he wanted!!!!!!!!!

Bush has _exactly_ the same veto power, should he decide to use it. Look at how many Republican legislators voted against the bill -- wasn't it more than 1/3 of each house? So

Democrats are not entirely responsible. They are, however, primarilyresponsible for doubling the current deficit, thereby adding about 1 trillion to the debt.

The quotation to which this was your reply concerned the actions of Republicans since 1980. Notice the presence of text strings "since 1980" and "for almost three decades now" in what you quoted from me immediately preceding your reply. It was not about the recent financial crisis bill.

No, no, no, no, no. Congress and the Senate did those things. While the Presidents have complicity, it is the legislative branch which bears the brunt of the blame.

You seem still not to understand the power of the presidential veto.

Even a Congress of majority Democrats has to keep in mind, when crafting legislation, that if the (Republican) president is sufficiently opposed to it, they will have to muster a 2/3+1 majority, in each house, to get it passed. This consideration stops a lot of stuff from ever getting into the bills Congress votes on. Reagan made that point by issuing 500 vetoes, an all-time record!

Senators and representatives don't want to waste lots of time passing bills they know are going to be vetoed but for which they do not have 2/3+1 support. So the president's wishes are a powerful force hanging over legislators. This is what the GOP has carefully been not-mentioning for 28 years.

Why do you think it is the _president_ who sends the annual budget (request) to Congress? It's because the administrative branch is the prime architect of the budget, and Congress generally goes along with most of it unless they can muster 2/3+1 votes.

Second, the actions of the presidents in these regards goes *against* the will of the constituency.

As I point out in the other thread, I am referring to _actual historical events_, not voters' wishes for the future.

We WANT lower spending. We are supposed to be the party of lower spending. Our leaders have lied to us, so they've lost our support, and especially in the coming months more will be outed.

Oh? So why have you lower-spending, leader-ousting, Republicans repeatedly been outvoted the past 28 years? (Answer is below.)

That's exactly what I've tried to do. Unfortunately, radical anti-mormons in Iowa voted for Huckabee, thereby crushing the most qualified economist from being my candidate (even if I disagreed with him on lots of other matters, such as the war, rights of POW's, etc...).

... and that's exactly the game that GOP leaders have been playing for 28 years:

1) Proclaim that they are in favor of lower spending and balanced budgets.

2) Cut taxes on the heavily-Republican wealthy enough to make balanced budgets impossible to achieve. Always, always, always, always, always describe any attempt to roll back such cuts as "raising taxes" rather than "restoring previous (financially-responsible) levels of taxation" or (Heaven forbid) "cancelling the transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the wealthy" even though that's the effect.

3) Remember (but never, ever mention): The more the federal government has to borrow, the more current income goes to the wealthy Republicans holding Treasury bonds, and the more future federal revenues will have to be raised from the middle and lower classes. (Note: reprimand Richard Cheney for publicly saying that deficits didn't matter any more.)

4) Loudly proclaim the evils of "liberal" spending, while characterizing "conservative" spending as absolutely essential, national-security-God-and-motherhood issues which can't possibly be connected to deficits or debt.

5) Portray their party's presidents as helpless to control spending in the face of an opposing-party-controlled Congress, even when the partisan margins there are nowhere near to being enough to override a veto. Never mention their party's presidents' responsibility connected to veto power, except carefully-worded appeals to #1, #2 and #4.

6) Just before each election, raise up all the hot-button emotional issues that will cause conservative voters to re-elect Republicans who have not been, or will not be, fiscally conservative, because GOP leaders know that these emotional issues will always trump voter dissatisfaction with high-spending Republican legislators.

7) Never, ever, breathe a word that might remind voters to examine the actual fiscal figures to see that Republicans have primary responsibility for our current large national debt and the largest deficits that have built it ever since their 1980 turnaround to implement the think-tank strategies and tactics developed after the 1964 Goldwater defeat and 1974 Nixon disgrace.

- - -

Because my argument is about fiscal propaganda and policies that are being continued from the past 28 years, and not about the current financial-crisis bill(s), my future replies will be in the "New President" thread.

[Zeta-Flux]

cheesehead,

It is clear you cannot understand me. It is irrelevant to my point that the President has veto power. Of course he has veto power. Of course many bills wouldn't get anywhere if the POTUS threatened to veto them. Yes, the President is to blame. Yes, Republicans are at fault. Yes, they lie. Yes they cheat. etc... etc... But they SHARE the blame. Those POTUSs share the blame, which *primarily* lies with the legislative branch, whose responsibility it is to come up with and pass the bills.

For example, in the present context, it was President Bush who *suggested* the bailout in the first place! Of course he shares blame for the huge deficit increase. But just like when congress and senate voted to send troops to Iraq, he only SHARES the blame, which primarily rests in the lap of that branch of government whose duty it is.

I repeat my question. What are you going to do about those representatives you have in congress and the senate who voted for the bill? Or are you doing exactly what you accuse Republicans of doing--electing representatives who continue deficit spending? Can you not see beyond your hatred of Republican presidents past and present that you miss the horrible job our legislative branch (past and present) is doing, and how they are the primary contributers to the deficit and debt?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

What are you going to do about those representatives you have in congress and the senate who voted for the bill?

Representative Sensenbrenner (R) voted against it. Senator Feingold (D) voted against it. Senator Kohl (D) voted for it. None of them surprised me, in light of their past records.

Neither senator is up for election this year. Sensenbrenner is unopposed. When Kohl runs for re-election, I'll weigh this vote in with others of his that are important to me. Senator Kohl has generally disappointed me since he first gained office, and I hope a better candidate challenges him.

Or are you doing exactly what you accuse Republicans of doing

No, I never have.

--electing representatives who continue deficit spending?

My congressional district is so heavily Republican, and Sensenbrenner has so much seniority, that in all the time I've lived here, Sensenbrenner has never had a close election, and often (such as this year) has no Democratic opponent at all. His primary victory this year versus a RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only) guaranteed his reelection.

Can you not see beyond your hatred of Republican presidents past and present that you miss

Will you explicitly acknowledge the truth of my factual statement that the president plus 1/3 + 1 of either chamber can defeat any legislation approved by all other legislators? I invite you to switch your answer on this particular matter to the "New President" thread, and I will switch my followup president-related questions and discussions there.

the horrible job our legislative branch (past and present) is doing,

I prefer not to make such a blanket statement about the legislative branch. If you instead ask about specific-enough issues, I might agree with you, or not, on those.

and how they are the primary contributers to the deficit and debt?

The primary responsibility for the general upturn in deficit and debt since 1980 lies with conservative policymakers who have given politicians, primarily but not solely Republicans, new campaign strategies and tactics that allow them to dodge accountability to voters for large portions of the deficits and debt. These new policies cynically "mortgage our future" to obtain current political power by taking (unfair) advantage of certain aspects of economic ignorance, human psychology and voter behavior.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

See? That's what McCain wants you to think about his deliberate mischaracterization, that it's wasteful federal spending.

In other words, he deliberately distorted the facts about this item in order to portray it as something it's not.

That's L Y I N G.

$3 million, as already quoted above

Depends on your definition of "afford" and "don't have".

We have to set priorities for government spending, and means of government income to pay for it, of course. I contend that this (single, you'll notice) precision scientific instrument is well worth $3 million. Note that the last one lasted 40 years and has educated millions of people.

Could the government afford to spend about (ultimately, considering rebuilding expense and treating veterans' medical ills) $2 trillion to invade and destroy a country which not only was not a threat to us, but also served as a useful bulwark against theocratic-and-soon-to-be-nuclear-weapon-equipped Iran's expansionist ambitions in the Middle East? with money it borrowed from China, among other entities? China currently receives tens of millions of U.S. dollars each year as income from the U.S. Treasury bonds it owns.

Here's an idea: (1) Spend $3 million the government _does_ have to buy the projector for one of this country's greatest educational institutions (and U.S. National Historic Landmark). (2) Cancel spending $6 million to subsidize moving jobs overseas. (3) Cancel borrowing $3 million to cover the net effect of #1 and #2. (4) Cancel all government-sponsored faith-based abstinence-only sex education (which has been clearly shown to be ineffective in reducing either unwanted pregnancies or STD transmissions) programs, saving further millions of dollars.

What I mean by money the government doesn't have is that we are too far in debt to be throwing out 3 million dollar earmarks for various projects, even if they're somewhat worthy ones. That's how our country got so far in debt--by handing out earmarked money to every institution and its proverbial brother.

Now mind you, I'm not saying that the government should give no grants at all to organizations--just that in times like this, they have to be extremely careful about what they give their money out for. I'm sure the planetarium can come up with another 3 million somewhere--after all, if they can come up with 7 million, surely there's some corporate donor out there that would be more than happy to cough up 3 million to get their name on the thing? They may have to wait a few months or a year longer before they get all the money necessary to build the thing, yes--but, hey, so do the rest of us when we purchase big things (assuming there is no unwise pulling of rabbits out of subprime hats involved).

I must admit that this wasn't a great example of frivolous earmarking for McCain to pick on--I'm sure there's plenty of other, much, much more laughable Democrat earmarks that would have made his point much better. Such as the earmark a year or two ago, supported by Hillary, that gave a wad of dough to--you may want to put down your beverage here--a Woodstock memorial museum, of all things! (I know it's not an Obama earmark per se, but I'm sure there's similar useful cannon fodder on his side of the matter.)

Max

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Will you explicitly acknowledge the truth of my factual statement that the president plus 1/3 + 1 of either chamber can defeat any legislation approved by all other legislators? I invite you to switch your answer on this particular matter to the "New President" thread, and I will switch my followup president-related questions and discussions there.

Switch my answer? I've never denied this. Will you similarly explicitly acknowledge that while one of the purposes of the President and 1/3+1 of either chamber is to attempt to defeat some legislation, it is the legislative branch whose role it is to discuss and pass/not-pass legislation while the President's veto power is a stop-gap?

The primary responsibility for the general upturn in deficit and debt since 1980 lies with conservative policymakers who have given politicians, primarily but not solely Republicans, new campaign strategies and tactics that allow them to dodge accountability to voters for large portions of the deficits and debt. These new policies cynically "mortgage our future" to obtain current political power by taking (unfair) advantage of certain aspects of economic ignorance, human psychology and voter behavior.

No. The primary responsibility is not with conservative policymakers. We will simply have to disagree on this issue. The primary responsibility is on the legislative branch, and specifically those who have voted for deficit spending. There are side issues (such as: a lack of a line-item veto [restricted to budget matters, it you like], lack of vetos from Presidents, etc...) but I take issue with your blanket assertion that the fault lies with conservative policymakers. I think you'd be surprised at how often democratic/liberal policymakers are the ones primarily (but not unilaterally) responsible; such as with the recent $1 trillion in debt/deficit increase.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

It was a single sentence, muttered in a low voice without emphasis, never repeated. I seriously doubt that anyone reported it. In those days, it wouldn't have been considered as significant by school authorities as it would be now.

Also, my fellow students and I were quite accustomed to hearing various extreme conservative and fundamentalist expressions of thought throughout our lives growing up in Tulsa, which leaned pretty heavily to the right in those days. (When I went back to visit in 1992, I was rather shocked to see, at a couple of major intersections, some ... businesses with big public signs that never would have been allowed in the old days. It's definitely loosened up since the 1950s when Reader's Digest declared Tulsa "America's Cleanest City", which I thought then was because they washed the downtown sidewalks every evening.)

When I was in the 3rd grade in Houston Texas, the school was constantly
complaining to my parents that I was a 'discipline problem'. I got sent
to the principal's office often. My crime, as told directly to my parents:
"He disrupts the classroom with questions. He does things differently
from the way the teacher tells him. We don't like smartass Yankee
Jews to interrupt the class with questions or to disagree with the teacher"

I would say that this attitude is still prevalent in red states today.

BTW, this was 1962. I was in class in Nov. 1963 and when the principal
announced on the PA system that Kennedy had been shot there was actual
*cheering*.

It seems that the Arab "kill the infidel" attitude that Americans disparage
is prevalent in Red States towards anyone who is disliked.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Unfortunately, radical anti-mormons in Iowa voted for Huckabee, thereby crushing the most qualified economist from being my candidate

How did the RAMs voting for the Huckster hurt Ron Paul's chances? I'm not following the logic here. ;)