TX-Gov: Abbott (R) Advisor Charles Murray, "No evidence that women are significant thinkers" 9APR14

IT'S during campaigns like Texas republican / tea-bagger greg abbott's that I really miss Molly Ivins'  quick wit and wonderful sense of humor. He is a fool, advised by fools like libertarian charles murray, and is the perfect candidate for the rich and powerful and all the corporate interest financing him because he has no qualms about taking their money for doing what he's told. Texas, are you seriously considering election this immoral, corrupt ass? Really???
poopdogcomedy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQh0bQ8_BR4
http://www.rawstory.com/...

An adviser to Greg Abbott, the Republican candidate for Texas governor, said this week that he had found no “evidence” to prove that any woman had been a “significant original thinker in any of the world’s great philosophical traditions.” In audio obtained by the Burnt Orange Report, American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray can be heard explaining to an audience at the University of Texas that his views on women had not changed since a 2005 paper, in which he asserted that one or “maybe” two women had played significant roles in the field of philosophy.
When a woman at the event on Tuesday asked Murray if he still believed what he wrote, Murray quipped, “Who do you have in mind?”
Murray argued that in “certain traditions” like literature, women had been at the “peak of accomplishment.” But he said that he could only recall one important female philosopher, “and she was not a significant thinker in the estimation of historians of philosophy.”
“So, yeah, I still stick with that,” he insisted. “Until somebody gives me evidence to the contrary, I’ll stick with that statement.” - Raw Story, 4/9/14

Murray really hasn't been good for Abbott's campaign: http://www.burntorangereport.com/...

Abbott hasn't exactly figured out how to deal with his women problems. He has so far avoided talking about the gender pay gap in his Attorney General's office and a video by the Wendy Davis Campaign suggests he abruptly canceled an April 7th press conference to avoid questions about his education plan in which Murray is cited. Abbott used Murray's work to present his plan for Texas to lead the country in education outcomes. Murray describes himself as "a libertarian, and libertarians don't do solutions. We're not good at them." Murray then proceeded to tell this room full of college students that a "mediocre" k- 12 education at "a mediocre school" was "not that bad."
Murray's AEI believes the pay gap is a "myth" and says making it a political issue will discourage the hiring of women. They also say the gap is a results of "many women prefer[ing] to stay home with their children," and that "women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market." Ultimately they say that, "once education, marital status and occupations are considered, the 'gender wage gap' all but disappears."
Of course the real conversation about equal pay has always been predicated on equal work, which AEI seems to imply women must not be doing.
The main topic of discussion though was Murray's new book "Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010." He said he only used white males between 30-49 as his data set to prove that class and not race was the main factor in America's cultural decline. He believes it started in the 60's of course, right about the time of the Civil Rights movement that was being celebrated just across campus at the LBJ Library.
Murray happened to be speaking on campus during the Civil Rights Summit, which is -- to say the least -- ironic. He has been identified as a "White Nationalist" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for his views on race and gender. He opened by saying that he "had a different view of equality" and that by the definition of some he was indeed a "racist and a sexist," and said probably "any other 'ist'" that is out there. - Burnt Orange Report, 4/9/14

So how has Abbott been dealing with Murray?  Running away from the press: http://www.politicususa.com/...

So the press arrived to an empty room in Dallas yesterday for a scheduled press conference with the Republican gubernatorial candidate, only to discover that Greg Abbott had suddenly canceled it, according to the Davis campaign. The Wendy Davis (D-TX) campaign caught it all on tape:

http://youtu.be/2qNtMo2IjRw

Had Mr. Abbott shown his face, he would have had to answer why he thought a guy who believes “mens brains are larger than women’s” was a good choice as inspiration for an education program.
Abbott would have had to explain why he thinks pre-K should only be for a select few. In case you missed that dog whistle, page 2 of his pre-K plan explains that destiny is predetermined by background (so American!): “Family background has the most decisive effect on student achievement, contributing to a large performance gap between children from economically disadvantaged families and those from middle-class homes.”
Yeah. Southern Poverty Law Center is not impressed, they say that Murray uses “racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor.” In case it’s not clear yet where this is going, DOG WHISTLE WELFARE STATE, “Murray advocates the total elimination of the welfare state, affirmative action and the Department of Education, arguing that public policy cannot overcome the innate deficiencies that cause unequal social and educational outcomes.” - Politicus USA, 4/8/14

Yeah, good call there Abbott.  But Abbott is resorting to tying Davis to Obama but Davis isn't going to be running away from him: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/...

“ObamaCare’s Three Musketeers – President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi – are convening at a swanky Houston fundraiser tonight; will Sen. Davis be joining her big government allies?” said Abbott campaign spokesman Matt Hirsch. “Last month Sen. Davis said she would welcome President Obama to Texas, so we assume she wouldn’t miss it.” Reid actually isn’t coming, though his name was on the original invite for a joint DSCC/DCCC fund-raiser. Pelosi arrived in Houston with Obama a little while ago.
As for Davis, the Democratic nominee for governor, her campaign tells us she isn’t ducking Obama at all. She’ll be at his speech Thursday at the LBJ library civil rights summit in Austin. - Dallas Morning News, 4/9/14

Davis will be at former President Bill Clinton’s speech and a dinner at the LBJ summit tonight.  Lets help Davis fight back against sexists and racists like Abbott and Murray.  Click here to get involved and donate to Davis' campaign:

http://www.wendydavistexas.com/

Originally posted to pdogcomedy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, TexKos-Messing with Texas with Nothing but Love for Texans, and Dallas Kossacks. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/10/1290863/-TX-Gov-Abbott-R-Advisor-Charles-Murray-No-evidence-that-women-are-significant-thinkers?detail=email 

10 Reasons Americans Should be Wary of Rand Paul's Libertarianism, Especially Young People 2APR14

SEN +rand paul r t-b KY wants to transform the US into a plutocracy. His immoral agenda of greed and lust for power is being spread by a propaganda campaign financed by his corporate masters, and it is deceiving and manipulating the very people it will hurt if any part of it becomes law. He may be good looking, he may be well spoken, but a closer look exposes a man with a cold and corrupt soul. This from AlterNet.....

Sen. Rand Paul is trying to attract millennials. Don't fall for it!

April 2, 2014  |  

 Republican Senator Rand Paul has been making a big play for millennials lately, most notably by taking his civil liberties pitch to colleges around the country. Paul has got the right idea when he says his party must “evolve, adapt or die” (although I think the first two are virtually the same thing). Katie Glueck of Politico wrote that “The Kentucky senator drew a largely friendly reception at the University of California-Berkeley as he skewered the intelligence community."

Sen. Paul spoke of “dystopian nightmares” and added that “your rights, especially your right to privacy, are under assault.” Paul also said he perceives “fear of an intelligence community that’s drunk with power, unrepentant and uninclined to relinquish power.” 

Virtually all of the other politicians taking that stand come from the left side of the political spectrum. They include figures like independent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. Rand Paul is not like these other defenders of civil liberties.

Rand Paul, like his father, prefers to package his fairly old-school brand of economic conservatism under the trendier name of “libertarianism.” That’s not just a labeling change. It also means Paul has paired his retrograde economic ideas with a very outspoken stance against militarism and the espionage state. It’s a mixture that Paul hopes can make inroads with groups that are not traditionally Republican voters.

Paul’s play for millennials was almost inevitable. As a recent Pew study reported, that generation’s disaffection with the two-party system appears to be at record levels. Fifty percent of millennials polled said that they do not associate themselves with either party, which is the highest percentage recorded thus far. It’s also a 10 point jump from their equivalent age group’s level of political affiliation only seven years ago.

But Rand Paul gravely misunderstands the nature of that political disaffection. Yes, millennials feel alienated toward political and other institutions. They have a right to feel that way. As Joshua Holland says, millennials didn’t abandon these institutions. The institutions abandoned them.

But Rand Paul and libertarianism are not the answer. His economic strategy can be summed up in a quota used for one of his bills: “remove the shackles of big government by reducing taxes, regulations, and burdensome union work requirements.”

In other words, more of the same conservative philosophy that got us in this mess in the first place. Here are 10 reasons why millennials should be extremely wary of the senator from Kentucky.

1. His philosophy of deregulation created your jobs problem.

Rand Paul loved to preach the gospel of deregulation. He went so far as to proclaim that Obama was putting his “boot heel” on the neck of—get this—British Petroleum. Why? Because BP was being asked to bear part of the cost for the oil spill it created.

That’s right. Rand Paul believes “regulation” is evil, even when it’s only asking a reckless private corporation to clean up its own messes.

Wall Street deregulation crashed the economy in 2008. As a result, the millennial generation is entering the job market at the worst time in modern history. Millennials are facing record levels of unemployment and under-employment. What’s Rand Paul’s solution? More of the same.

2. He doesn’t believe in jobs programs.

Those of us who are fighting for jobs programs and infrastructure investment—two things that would help the millennial generation significantly—have a fierce opponent in Rand Paul. Paul believes government spending is inherently bad, and tax cuts are inherently good. There are jobs proposals that target millennials for assistance. Rand Paul is against them.

3. He thinks “tax cuts” create jobs.

There’s a simple answer to that, once we remember that the wealthy and corporations are paying lower taxes than at any time in modern history.

So where are the jobs?

Rand Paul’s solution is to eliminate the income tax altogether. That would be a red letter day for billionaires, millionaires and corporations. It would spell the end of vital services for the rest of us, in everything from public health to military defense.

Create jobs? Not so much.

4. Those “burdensome union work requirements” gave us Saturdays and Sundays off.

Without unions we would still be working six or seven days a week with no overtime pay. The weekend as we know it wouldn’t exist if we lived in Rand’s world.

Neither would paid vacations, the minimum wage, health and disability benefits, and quite a few other things a lot of working people count on to help them get by. (Sen rand paul is against every one of these benefits listed in my post 36 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD THANK A UNION http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-union.html )

5. Civil rights for African Americans and other minorities wouldn’t exist.

Rand Paul believes businesses have the right to discriminate against minorities, or against pretty much anybody, because he thinks that’s part of their First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment, as most of you may know, reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

There’s nothing in there about “businesses that want to force women like Rosa Parks to stand at the back of the bus when there are empty seats in the front of the bus,” or “lunch counters that won’t serve black folks.”

No, the First Amendment doesn’t say that. But Rand Paul thinks it does. He also says he would’ve voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here’s a newsflash for Sen. Paul: Millennials come in all races, religions, genders and sexual orientations. They value their rights just as much as Americans of other generations do.

6. He wants to eliminate Social Security.

Because, you know, the “free market” has done so well in protecting Americans’ financial security when they’re disabled or elderly.

Many millennials are collecting Social Security survivor benefits, like Rand Paul compatriot Paul Ryan did. Or disability benefits. Or they have parents and grandparents who are collecting retirement benefits.

Most millennials will live to collect those benefits themselves—if Rand Paul doesn’t get to them first.

7. He wants to eliminate Medicare, Obamacare, and even the private insurance you get through your employer.

“The fundamental reason why Medicare is failing is why the Soviet Union failed,” said Sen. Paul. “Socialism doesn't work.”

Unfortunately for Paul, Medicare is not failing. It has lower overhead than private insurance, lower cost than private insurance, and a lower rate of inflation than private insurance. It is the most successful, and the most popular insurance program in the country.

But as flawed as it is, private health insurance is critical to a lot of people’s physical and financial health. Rand Paul’s so right wing he doesn’t even like that. “We need to get insurance out of the way and let the consumer interact with their doctor the way they did basically before World War II," said Paul. (A lot of people didn’t interact with doctors at all before World War II; the morbidity and mortality statistics show it.)

Speaking as an ophthalmologist, which he is, Paul also said this: “If you think you have the right to healthcare, you are saying basically that I am your slave.” Sen. Paul is not just a conservative, he someone with a poor grasp of concepts like slavery. Healthcare providers are in fact paid under all systems of public and private insurance. They are also free to change professions, take a day off, set their own schedules, and do any number of things that are not associated with the practice of slavery.

Millennials need to know that medical care will be available when they need it. That’s not just something they want. It’s a right.

8. He wants to eliminate Roe v. Wade and have a woman’s right to choose decided by politicians at the state level.

Said Paul, “I would introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states.”

Why? So that decisions about what a woman does with her body can be made by politicians like that guy in Virginia wanted mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds for any woman who wanted to terminate a pregnancy?

It may come as a surprise to Sen. Paul to learn that a great many millennials are, in fact, women.

The Supreme Court has established that a woman’s right to choose is constitutionally protected. Since then that right has been eroded in a thousand different ways at the state level. Rand Paul would remove this right forever, turning this fundamental principle of autonomy into a campaign issue to be decided by right-wing career politicians.

Way to go, “Mr. Civil Liberties.” And about that …

9. He’s not as strong and advocate for civil liberties as he seems.

At least Rand Paul is uncompromising in his defense of civil liberties, right? Well, not so much. Consider this quote:

“I'm not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they've been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they've been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn't be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after— they should be deported or put in prison.”

“It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic,” says Rand Paul. But it’s clear that he’s only talking about a certain kind of terrorism. A lot of Tea Party leaders have “threatened the violent overthrow of the government.” Does Rand Paul think “they should be deported or put in prison”? Or are his brand of civil liberties only for white conservatives?

10. He’s picked the wrong oppressor.

Rand Paul’s brand of libertarian believes that “liberty” is freedom from an oppressive government. But in a democracy the government is us. The real oppressors in today’s economic and political system are the corporations which increasingly dominate all aspects of our public and private lives.

Rand Paul doesn’t have much to say about that. We applaud his stand against drone murders by the US government, but where is his stand against the kind of espionage Amazon and other corporations could use through the use of unregulated drones in the United States? We admire his stand against the NSA, but where is an equally courageous stand against invasions of privacy by corporations like Google? (For more on that topic, see our interview with Yasha Levine.)

Rand Paul would have us turned against the “oppression” of the Democratic process, while turning us over to the real oppression of the Corporate State. That’s not fighting for liberty. It’s fighting for corporations.

Underneath all the freedom jargon, Rand Paul’s pushing the same kind of economic conservatism that has increasingly dominated our political discourse over the last 40 years. He’s resolutely opposed to all of the civil rights advances of the last 50 years, and to any of the government interventions that could make things better for millennials and other Americans now.

Rand Paul wants more of the same tax cuts we’ve already given to him billionaires and corporations. He wants more of the deregulation that ruined the economy in 2008 and has caused so much harm to the environment.

How’s that working out for you?

Feel free to admire Rand Paul’s stands on civil liberties and military action, as selective as those stands may be. Then look for politicians who represent the full spectrum of your moral and economic beliefs. Better yet, become those politicians. We need your talents and your energy, to make right what previous generations (in the Paul family and elsewhere) have gotten so tragically wrong.

RJ Eskow is a senior fellow with the Campaign for America's Future.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/10-reasons-americans-should-be-wary-rand-pauls-libertarianism-especially-young-people?paging=off&current_page=1 

You Know What Else is Un-American, Rand Paul? 21MAI10

Newly minted Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul apparently thinks that criticizing BP for the Gulf spill is "really un-American." Because, you know, "sometimes accidents happen."
You know what's un-American? British Petroleum. You know what else is un-American? Operating your drilling rig in US waters under flag of the Marshall Islands so you can skirt Coast Guard oversight.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Why Is BP Still In Charge of the Spill Site?

  It's not like they own the ocean.

• BP's Math Problem

• Rand Paul: Not Pro-Coal Enough?

How Christian (or religious) is Tea Party Libertarianism? from SOJO 27MAI10

This is a fascinating discussion on the tea party movement and libertarianism, comparing the philosophies of the movements to the teachings of Christianity, but it could be applied to almost every major religion in the world. It will be very interesting to see how the right wing of the Republican party and their Christian base reacts when they finally discover that Rand Paul's politics are pro choice and pro gay marriage, against the war on drugs and against immigration control as well as pro NRA and pro winner take all capitalism.

How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?

Get a free issue of Sojourners Donate to support Sojourners

The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one. Like the Democratic and Republican parties it seeks to challenge, it is a secular movement, not a Christian one. As with both major political parties, people who regard themselves as Christians may be involved in, or sympathetic to, the new Tea Party; but that doesn’t make it “Christian.” But like the philosophies and policies of the major political parties, the Tea Party can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles -- and it should be.
Since the Tea Party is getting such national attention, our God’s Politics blog is going to begin a dialogue on this question: Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement -- and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it? Let me start the dialogue here. And please join in.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme value and considers government the major obstacle. It tends to be liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal, economic, and foreign policy. This “just leave me alone and don’t spend my money” option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement. Libertarianism has been an undercurrent in the Republican Party for some time, and has been in the news lately due to the primary election win of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate for a Senate seat in Kentucky. Paul has spoken like a true Libertarian, as evidenced by some of his comments since that election last week.
He cited the Civil Rights Act as an example of government interference with the rights of private business. Paul told an interviewer that he would have tried to change the provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. He answered a specific question about desegregating lunch counters by countering, “Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?”
A few days later, he spoke about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Referring to the Obama administration’s criticisms of BP, Paul said, “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”
Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.
1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question “Are we our brother’s keeper?” is decidedly “Yes.” Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy. Both Christians on the Right and the Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most vulnerable -- whether that means unborn lives or the poor.
Just look at the biblical prophets in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and how they frequently follow those statements by requiring the king (the government) to act justly (a requirement that applied both to the kings of Israel and to foreign potentates). Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well" (Jeremiah 22:16). Amos instructs the courts (the government) to “Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts” (Amos 5:15). The prophets hold kings, rulers, judges, and employers accountable to the demands of justice and mercy.
2. An anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God’s plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes! Sorry, Tea Party. Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to “big” or “small” government.
Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se -- to see government as the central problem in society -- is simply not a biblical position.
3. The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market. When government regulation is the enemy, the market is set free to pursue its own self-interest without regard for public safety, the common good, and the protection of the environment -- which Christians regard as God’s creation. Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society; and if they don’t, it’s not government’s role to correct it.
But such theorizing ignores the practical issues that the public sector has to solve. Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids’ toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won’t serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in all human institutions, doesn’t a political process that provides both accountability and checks and balances make both theological and practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not because people are essentially good, but because they often are not. Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism – just as it is essential for the government. And God’s priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce.
4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. “Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money” is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage. And those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy. “As you have done to the least of these,” says Jesus, “You have done to me.” And “Blessed are those who are just left alone” has still not made the list of Beatitudes. To anticipate the Libertarian response, let me just say that private charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness or justice, let alone compassion. When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.
5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. Does that mean every member of the Tea Party is racist? Likely not. But is an undercurrent of white resentment part of the Tea Party ethos, and would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office? It’s time we had some honest answers to that question. And as far as I can tell, Libertarianism has never been much of a multi-cultural movement. Need I say that racism -- overt, implied, or even subtle -- is not a Christian virtue.
So that should get us started. Let’s have the dialogue about how Christian the Tea Party Movement and its Libertarian philosophy really are. Jump in!

http://go.sojo.net/ct/k74BQkn1drcV/