Attacking educators: GOP's newest strategy: keep our voters ignorant

 Attacking educators is GOP's newest strategy: keep our voters ignorant. The comments by Mike Pompeo, former secretary of state, calling the head of the teachers' union, Randi Weingarten, the most dangerous person in America, was not only an over-the-top jaw-dropper but it also signifies a dramatic shift in party affiliation demographics. No, Pompeo, the greatest danger to America is ignorance unfiltered by reason, respect, and knowledge of facts and history. There is no "been there done that" wisdom to temper irrational behavior and blind devotion to conspiracy theories.

Pompeo's reasoning appears to be fed by the political opportunism of one who is a highly educated person when he knows better, appealing to the least educated person: attacking teaching "wokeness" (i.e. history based on fact and not white nationalist racism) as dangerous to the country. This is verbal manipulation that caters to the change in the demographics of his political party. Pompeo is not the only one. Texas Senator Ted Cruz is another highly educated political leader who knows better but has made a successful political career of taking advantage of those less educated. It is sheer intellectual dishonesty. and demagoguery.

Since the beginning of this century, the affiliation of the GOP by education level shifted from those with higher education levels to the lower, less educated. The GOP is now the party of the more ignorant of history and a perspective of looking at facts and evidence without critical thinking

What is "critical thinking"? Here is my definition: taking a thought, looking at various sources of facts evidence, considering pros and cons, how something like that resulted before, and then drawing conclusions. That is deductive That takes literacy and education and consideration of proof and facts. .

There is another "critical thinking" process that starts with a theory Sometimes treating as fact conspiracy theories that sound right and plausible results in their eventually being debunked. Their advocates are believing the theory is correct first and and then theysearch for evidence to prove it., Even then they just disregad facts and evidence to the contrary, developing more theories to explain away emerging facts. (best example: Arizona Cyber Ninja Audits of the 2020 vote that found no fraud and gained Biden 360 votes) In spite of that, those still say the 2020 election was stolen. Inconvenient truth is sometimes too bitter a pill to swallow.

Pompeo says head of teacher’s union is the ‘most dangerous person in the world’ | The Hill

Opinion | Never Forget What Ted Cruz Did - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Blaming Uvalde on lack of mental health services is a deflection needing serious correction

As expected, most in the GOP, but not all,  and Abbott in the thrall of the NRA and anti sensible gun law fanatics, blamed the lack of mental health care for Uvalde. The two Texas Senators, however, differed. Cruz rails against gun regulation while Cornyn leads GOP in negotiations | The Texas Tribune  Gov. Abbott had just cut $211 million in funding for mental health in Texas before the mass shooting, as well. What a two-faced pol he is.  Blaming the lack of mental health services and cutting funding for such services is standard practice for those politicians in denial of their responsibilities, a ruse, a tactic, a ploy, a tool,  to deflect any consideration from sensible gun laws. It is like wallpapering over a stained rotten wall. It makes it look better but does little to fix the real problem.  Better mental health services is always a good thing, but it is not an honest answer in this case.  Here is why. Excerpts  from my prior postings:  Also see a prior post:https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2022/05/i-am-sick-and-tired-of-gun-lobby.html

May 25, 2022 Better mental health services mean little without red flag laws and even then,  it is iffy. Over the past years, I have written columns after Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings.  That professionals can spot a future mass killer assumes the killer even had visited a mental health professional, but when they do, there is a 50-50 chance even a trained pro can predict the patient will act out.  Even then,  what motivates a mass killer may not be an identified diagnosis.  That 18-year-olds have a record of prior violence or a visit to a psychologist is rare.  Uncontrolled anger is technically not a mental health disease, so red flag laws need to be broader than just a diagnosis of paranoia or some other formal diagnosis of a recognized illness.  Those of us who have had to raise teenagers also know that even after 18 years old, few can control themselves and avoid risky behavior.. Their brains, especially young males, have not matured yet to be wired to be rational. The assumption needs to be all under 21 are a potential risk.  At the minimum, if there is no ban of assault-type weapons of war, the age should be raised to 21.  Some states have done that, but a neighboring state may not which is why the approach needs to be federal.  If such laws had been in effect in Texas, chances are Uvalde would not have happened since the shooter was just 18, no red flags, and no record of a personality out of control that we know of so far.  

In a 2012 posting:

in the wake of the Aurora Colorado theatre shooting, the shooter had been under the care of a psychiatrist who did flag him, but restrictions kept anyone from acting. My psychologist friends (I am a supporter of mental health system improvements and access to counseling through a faith-based organization) tell me even then they have only a 50-50 chance of predicting which of their patients will carry out mass shootings or kill someone. Mental health is a factor, but in courts of law, the insanity plea is rarely successful. Should we improve our mental health services? Yes. Every little bit will help, but it is not a panacea or even a major deterrent. Without red flag laws permitting reporting of people may be a threat and without universal background checks, improved mental health access still hamstrings the ability for mental health professionals to prevent mass killings.

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

Abbott blames 'mental health' for Uvalde shooting after cutting $211 million from mental health agency | Texas News | San Antonio | San Antonio Current (sacurrent.com)

"https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/anger-isnt-a-mental-illness-but-we-should-still-treat-it.html
Is mental health the cause of mass killings? The writer of this post gives us some important food for thought. From this psychologist'.s viewpoint, the motivation is uncontrolled anger ...rarely an underlying mental illness. This supports an argument of why we need red flag laws and background checks as part of sensible gun legislation. However, the solution she suggests goes far beyond any legislation discussed today...it is teaching young people anger management and the tools are there...even in Colorado, which she holds up as one model.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/05/red-flag-gun-laws-trump-colorado/

Cruz's tax proposals fall flat in the year of income inequality issues

If there is one driving characteristic of this chaotic primary season common to both the GOP and Democrats, it is a revolt by those left behind in our slow, steady, but uneven economic recovery from the Great Recession.  .  Growing and persistent income inequality is  a concern of every candidate surviving the primaries and caucuses except one: Ted Cruz, whose flat tax plank would not only perpetuate income inequality, but could make it worse. In fact, Cruz is out of step with the hottest domestic issue of this campaign year.

There are differences between the camps regarding who is to blame for rising income inequality. Both Trump and Sanders have made hay by pointing fingers at trade agreements ,while  supporting protectionism or “fair trade” .Trump wants to slap a 45% import tariff on goods unfairly traded and on all Chinese imports, meaning the price from electronics to clothes we buy now would rise considerably.   Sanders places protection of jobs in the US above any other consideration except raising the minimum wage. Hillary Clinton and Sanders have sparred over not if but how much the raise should be., Clinton fears raising import fees because of resulting  trade wars.   Eleven million US workers in industries engaged in trade could be impacted if our trading partners retaliated by raising tariffs on US goods.

All of these may be factors contributing to income inequality, but GOP tax policies deserve the greatest share of the blame:  Keeping taxes low on investors in the economy  has been the priority  of the GOP and the  dominating tax policies for many years.  Even President Obama   had to agree to keep Bush tax cuts on upper income brackets in any proposals he made and to avoid going over the fiscal cliff.

Statistics and data show that during this period the rich have only gotten richer and the rising tide of economic recovery did not lift all boats or trickle down to the rest of us as the GOP had promised. Even former  GOP Congressman and host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe,  Joe Scarborough, has called “thirty years of trickle down economics,  B___ S___”.

Sanders’ solution is to raise taxes on everyone, but more so on the rich, to pay for free public college education and  Medicare for All .  Like her current platform, Clinton’s senate record reveals her consistent support of  progressive taxes and middle class tax cuts, while opposing Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy. Donald Trump  wants to eliminate tax breaks for the rich, raise taxes on the wealthy, and lower CEO pay.

Ted Cruz’s non solution is a tax proposal that is more likely to increase income inequality ,not decrease it. He wants to trash the graduated income tax and replace it with the flat tax.. A flat tax would impose  the same percentage, 16% or so,  on all across the board, with some variations and exemptions, followed by eliminating the IRS .  Cruz throws out glowing  estimates of unleashed  economic growth and post card size tax returns.  Critics of the flat tax have argued that growth would  not generate  enough revenue to avoid massive cuts to federal programs  and that flat taxes mostly  benefit the already wealthy. 

Cruz's new plan re: domestic Muslims.

So Ted Cruz wants law enforcement to patrol Muslim neighborhoods in the US before they get radicalized. I assume it is like we patroled Sunni Arabs in Iraq before they became ISIS followers.

For more on Cruz's policy; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/22/where-ted-cruz-might-mean-when-he-says-he-wants-to-secure-muslim-neighborhoods/

Add photos

Tag people

Add what you're doing or how you're feeling

Tag a location

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-defense-idUSKBN0TR1KY20151210

So we want Muslim phobic guys like these to be the leader of the free world?

The primrose path to homeland security advocated by Donald Trump and fellow travelers is simple: keep out Muslims, all of them, or even carpet bomb them. Fear is like a blindfold on a runner.  It keeps those driven by fear from seeing the ruts and roots that will trip them up.

 Here are some of the obstacles on the path to greater security. Key to reaching the goal of greater homeland security is to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Nearly all  of both political parties agree to succeed  we need  to form a coalition of regional Arabs, Turks, and Shia Iraqis to do the ground fighting in Syria and to bring along our European allies in a support role. The president we elect must also be the leader in creating that coalition, already difficult when those we want to join have conflicting goals. Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and his ilk have made coalition building a mission impossible. So we want Muslim phobic guys like these to be the leader of the free world to fight ISIS?

Trump has already alienated the allies he professes he needs to lead in a coalition. He would be a leader with few followers.  Ted Cruz’s proposal “ bomb ISIS to oblivion” and the resulting death to civilians would lead to world- wide outrage . Imagine what that would look like on CNN.

To put together that kind of coalition requires strong leadership from the US and Trump has become a persona non grata to those we need most to form a coalition. His anti- Muslim rhetoric has already made him unwelcome in Israel and Jordan and he had to cancel both trips to those countries.  His ban also received negative reactions from China to our Middle East allies to Europe. His proposal to keep Muslims out of the US created such a backlash in Britain, half a million Brits in a few days signed a petition to ban him from setting foot on the United Kingdom.

Religious tests for admission to the US  to determine who is not a Muslim would  dim the lights of the shining city on the hill that that makes us exceptional and admired for our secular laws protecting  civil rights, regardless of race or religion. It would require verification of non- Muslim identity that by necessity is based on someone’s word to the immigration officer.  Chiming in were other candidates, even reasonable Jeb Bush, who wanted to admit only Christian Syrians, making it necessary to subject them to the same religious tests.

Those are public relations nightmares that would  increase anger on the Muslim streets and their leaders veritying  that the US is officially  against the billions of Muslims around the world when only a fraction of Muslims world-wide subscribe to that death cult of violent jihadism. It would destroy the trust and credibility of the US when diplomacy and coalition building are key to our national security.

For more on who are Muslim  jihadists and who are not, see the post March 11,2015, Why a World View Matters. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-defense-idUSKBN0TR1KY20151210

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/12/10/trumps-upcoming-israel-visit-puts-netanyahu-in-a-bind

Also, see post on 2/23/15 New winds blowing in the Middle East in our fight against ISIS

The GOP has one thing right..state run government works better than federally administered programs . Where they went wrong with Obamacare was not letting their states run it.

The GOP has one thing right..state run government works better than federally administered programs .  Where they went wrong with Obamacare was not letting their states run it.  While Obamacare has not even begun its full implementation, the GOP is first to cackle it is dead already. Hardly. The heart of Obamacare is beating right where it was supposed to, in  state run exchanges. That success was in spite of  the GOP that mightily strived to kill it off .

While Obamacare permitted and funded states to  set up their own marketplace exchanges, or to develop their own web sign up systems, 36 mostly  Republican dominated state houses chose to  leave  implementation  up to the federal government and they  dumped their citizens into its flawed internet system.  Fifteen mostly Democratic dominated states created and now  run  their own marketplaces.

Twenty six  states, mostly GOP controlled, also   refused to  take free money from the federal government to expand Medicaid . Eight GOP governors did expand Medicaid or found alternatives,  and others are considering it because they saw advantages to their own state budgets.

 There is  fall out  from those not expanding Medicaid.  Eight million (of which 1.4 to 1.7 million are in Texas) of the 14 million  near poor uninsured in the US  who earn  too much for traditional Medicaid and too little to participate in the marketplace exchanges fall into the gap and  must continue to seek charity  care in hospitals, shifting   health care costs to state government budgets and to the insured who will pay higher premiums.

  Obamacare allows states to provide their own alternative to Medicaid.  Arkansas used the federal money to develop their own plan to serve the near poor and others are considering it  ,but Texas, with the highest rate of uninsured, has not offered any solution whatsoever. They refused  set up their own exchanges, failed to expand Medicaid,  closed their high risk pool, and sent insurance applicants to the federal site.  The loudest voices  in favor of these denial policies are their governor and their Teaparty Senator Ted Cruz  while their constituents  most in need of the program have become their collateral damage.
Fourteen states have enacted "navigator suppression laws", restricting the ability of trained helpers to assist signups. The state of Missouri is being sued over such action. Oklahoma banned them and Florida does not let navigators in certain social services agencies.
 State exchanges with one or two exceptions showed the rest of the US how Obamacare was supposed to function…state managed and state run. .   About  three-quarters of all October ObamaCare enrollees signed up via state exchanges and numbers are snow balling, often surpassing predictions.

 The Los Angeles  Times,11/18/2013  reported  California already hit enrollment targets for 2014 because they  had enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month and nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of November. Connecticut and Kentucky exceeded their enrollment estimates. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half. Washington state is also on track to  exceed its October  figures.   Officials at ConnectforhealthColorado (www.connectforhealthco.com)  reported during the month of October, more than 37,000 Coloradans have signed up or been approved for health coverage that takes effect January 1, 2014.