Home » Carson the knife

Comments

Carson the knife — 49 Comments

  1. His mother could not read. She had eleven children. Detroit. Slum. Every night she sat down in an arm chair, turned on the lamp, put a book on her lap – and every now and then turned a page. She did that for her children.

  2. Dr. Carson is a man that is difficult to dislike. Highly intelligent, controlled, and with great principles, unlike other candidates he exudes honesty and trust. Dr. Carson is the ultimate non-politician who could save the day.

  3. Your writing here, Neo, almost sounds like Eric Flint’s style.

    Caron suffered a lot from the “I’m expert in one field, so I must be right in various others” that elites and specialists like him tend to fall into.

    What’s surprising is that he figured out how to correctly transfer his experience to other fields, instead of merely assuming that awards in Field A contributes 100% to expertise and skill in Field Z.

    Many doctors fall prey to this pit of stupidity and never get out of it.

    If Carson uses his surgical knowledge and applies it to learning the other fields he is ignorant on, he may transfer as much as 50% of his original experience and skill to the new field. This is different from an expert assuming he knows everything because of his overly specialized skill sets.

  4. I listened to the Conversations with Bill Kristol episode (via Weekly Standard) yesterday. Newt Gingrich was the guest, and he was talking about Carson’s revolutionary ideas expressed in a very soft manner. I agree that Carson’s positions seem based on a lifetime of testing and questioning.

    Gingritch also has some interesting ideas about Obama.

  5. Carson has the classic pediatric specialist manner. You cannot fake it. My daughter had a congenital heart defect and her first cardiologist was somewhat older than Carson but you could watch all the stress and anxiety in the room vanish when he entered. He surgeon on the other hand was cordial but hyper confident. He told us that for her all day surgery he mentally mapped out each action and contingency the night before. Ben Carson seems to have both manners wrapped into one. As someone who has to learn public politics (I’m sure he mastered institutional politics) quickly he will not suffer from the “that’s the way its always been done syndrome”). Could do a lot worse in a President as we can see today.

  6. Dr Carson, gifted, charming, intelligent man.
    Way too sensible for the atmosphere we find ourselves in….. but then perhaps his steady intensity can gain some traction !

  7. Neo, this morning I heard an interesting programme on my satellite radio. The guest host was interviewing a physicist and cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State, about some comments recently attributed to Dr. Carson.

    Apparently, Carson ridiculed the Big Bang theory, as well as other scientific ideas about the origin of the universe and the earth. Krauss virtually tore Carson’s scientific credentials to shreds, while acknowledging the latter’s skill as a surgeon. In the end, Krauss questioned Carson’s fitness as a presidential candidate.

    Now, I don’t have a dog in this fight, as I’m a Canuck. Krauss may simply dislike Carson because they’re members of opposing political parties. Nevertheless, by the end of the interview, I felt very sorry for Carson.

    I don’t know whether the content of the interview has made it to the MSM yet. However, I thought it worth mentioning, as, until now, I’ve heard very little criticism of Dr. Carson and his views.

  8. Carson has also stated that marine fossils found high in the Andes disprove evolution. This was only one of several willfully unscientific statements he made in a speech to fellow Adventists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPqq6fr2CF4)

    Yes, this troubles me. It makes me question his judgement. But would I vote for him if he becomes the nominee? Of course.

  9. Cornflour: what exactly troubles you?

    I am also curious why you think Carson was being willful.

    Why do you believe that? Or is that what troubles you?

  10. Evolution the [chaotic] physical process? That has been conveniently mischaracterized as a progressive process (i.e. monotonic change).

    Evolutionary creationism, the “secular” testament on circumstance, correlation, inference, and uniformity? That enables the willful conflation of logical domains.

    The anthropomorphic Theory of Evolution that maps human characteristics to construct congruences?

    Evolution of life from conception that is denied by the pro-choice/abortion cult in the resumption of sacrificial rites? An unprecedented genocide (harvesting and trafficking), albeit voluntary, of over one million [wholly innocent] human lives annually in America alone.

    Science is distinguished as a method and process that is notably constrained to limited frames of reference, with accuracy inversely proportional to the product of time and space offsets from an established reference.

  11. When people with conflicting opinions like Ymarsakar and I can agree on someone, that person is indeed a healer. Dr. Carson is such a refreshing antidote to the business as usual politics and two-faced politicians we are so sick of. I also believe you are right Neo, that he has inner strength and an iron will. Because of these qualities and his integrity, I’m willing to compromise my own beliefs and vote for him.

  12. “Tonawanda Says:
    October 3rd, 2015 at 4:56 pm
    Cornflour: what exactly troubles you?
    I am also curious why you think Carson was being willful.
    Why do you believe that? Or is that what troubles you?”

    Tonawanda:

    1. It troubles me that Carson made several statements that were contrary to well-established science.

    2. Given Carson’s education and intelligence, this requires a willful rejection of facts known to him. In other words, he can’t use ignorance as an excuse.

    3. If that thought process doesn’t trouble you, it should.

  13. Evolution is a pretty weak theory. I think people ascribe to it too much scientific credential, on par with the Theory of Relativity, say.

    To put it into perspective, the speed of light has been measured physically and reproduced in the Theory of Relativity and its derived formulas such as E=m c^2

    Yet, biologists and chemists cannot recreate life, that is why they pay Planned Profit so much for stem cells (that’s why Bush II was against the legalized research of such things, since he did the research on where it had to be procured).

    It would be like Einstein telling us his theory works and describes models of the universe, but could not prove what the speed of light is nor conduct an experiment that could reproduce light at all, in any phase, wave or particle.

    The Primordial Soup is a complete mystery to people. All they “know” is that it had life in it, it had water, but that is about it.

    So there are two fundamental break points in any kind of evolutionary theory or explanation based model.

    1. They cannot recreate the conditions to start life.

    2. They cannot use mutations to create new species, only breed different variations of current species or non viable versions of the same species which cannot reproduce into a new branch.

    Until the “mythical god in the sky” people worship called Science, breaks through either 1 or 2, the “Theory of Evolution” isn’t even a theory. It’s a hypothesis with no proof. Like the Hypothesis of Peak Oil, that oil runs out in 2015 or the Mayan Apocalypse calendar.

    Carson doesn’t need X to disprove the theory of evolution a to z. Theory of Evolution A to Z already disproves itself.

  14. 1. It troubles me that Carson made several statements that were contrary to well-established science.

    Which well established science? Since science has destroyed the atomic model more than 3 times already, after it was established science.

    The point is, established science means nothing. It means it is wrong more times than not.

  15. Ymarskar:

    Religious faith and science are not incompatible, but evidence and reason can’t be wished away.

    You are either insane or a complete buffoon. Whichever it is, I won’t be replying to your incoherence.

    People like you are shameless in their need to suck up the time and energy of everybody they meet — even if it’s just online.

    Can you stop? I doubt it.

  16. Hugh Says:
    October 3rd, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    Neo, this morning I heard an interesting programme on my satellite radio. The guest host was interviewing a physicist and cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State, about some comments recently attributed to Dr. Carson.

    %%%

    Krauss is an atheistic Jew who is a hyper Leftist political activist.

    I don’t know what’s more important to him, his atheism is loudly proclaimed as he dismisses Moses, Christ, and the Bible with venom.

    That he’s a hyper anti-Creationist needs no further elaboration. Given have a chance, he’s sprinting to the microphone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veU6hK3jMH4

    Here he is propounding on the flatness of the Universe. Which is an extremely poor choice of words. What he REALLY means is that the laws of physics are most consistent with an orthogonal space-time mathematics.

    In point of fact, he is wrong. How and why he is wrong is at the cutting edge of theoretical physics which I’m not willing or able to post here. Think about it.

    Suffice it to say that the deviation from perfect orthogonality is required to explain experimental results.

    Preserving theoretical perfection is driving physicists batty.

    Krauss is destined to be up-ended by further knowledge.

  17. Cornflour Says:
    October 3rd, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Carson has also stated that marine fossils found high in the Andes disprove evolution

    %%%

    That’s mighty unsettling.

    It really harms his role at the head of a national ticket.

    Again, I can’t see him at the head of a winning ticket.

    Such statements cement my case.

  18. Cornflour:

    The amazing aspect of evolution is how irrelevant it is, other than serving as a relentless political attack.

    Countless ongoing articles allege evolutionary this or thats. What they never do (in my experience) is ever allege logical, objective connections.

    Have you ever noticed in any contentious discussion of evolution the principal argument of the evolutionist is an attack on religion?

    No evolutionist has a clue how speciation takes place, or how inorganic becomes organic.

    No evolutionist offers a mathematical hypothesis attempting to validate how trillions upon trillions of supposed evolutionary changes are possible within ten billion years, especially considering the fossil record which refutes any relentless march of evolution.

    Stephen Gould’s attempt to propose a theoretical explanation for the fossil contradiction to evolution was met with the usual hysterical, political condemnation: shut up or else. He shut up, preferring to be a revered Harvard sybarite.

    (The actual answer to the question is we don’t know).

    Given the irrelevancy of “evolution” except as a modern condescending cudgel, it is a wonder why any civilized person brings it up.

    Just personally, Carson’s public recognition of the emporer’s nakedness makes me admire him.

  19. Religious faith and science are not incompatible, but evidence and reason can’t be wished away.

    What evidence, you didn’t give any.

    You are either insane or a complete buffoon. Whichever it is, I won’t be replying to your incoherence.

    That’d be interesting if you could manage that for even one year.

    You must be scientifically illiterate, Corn, relying on those non existence scientific authorities as evidence.

    It must have hurt your fragile psyche greatly to hear an above average intellectual pov.

    Can you stop? I doubt it.

    Who’s going to make me, you and your authorities Corn? How long would this planet have to spin before you get enough evidence for that heh.

  20. That’s mighty unsettling.

    It really harms his role at the head of a national ticket.

    That depends on if it is even true or not, that the video contains it. So far, it doesn’t. That would make it a fabrication by people who want to sabotage the science of verifying evolutionary theory. They aren’t really unbiased on that matter, it’s like the scientists that think they are doing “science” by modifying the research data to match their purported conclusions.

  21. Given the irrelevancy of “evolution” except as a modern condescending cudgel, it is a wonder why any civilized person brings it up.

    Evolution is their religion.

    It’s obvious if you check Corn’s reaction to me. He acts like I insulted his religion. Which I did by rejecting it in plain terms. Corn also distorted Carson’s answer in the Q and A at the end of the vid is where the Anders mountain fossils are mentioned. That was an answer to the question of why people should believe in either evolution or creation. Carson said that the global flood explains where the fossils are, better than evolution explains the fossil records found. So given the same physical evidence, but no undeniable proofs for either side, I would say that Carson is correct in claiming that evolution requires faith just as much as religion does, making it a religion.

    And it’s that remark which unsettles Corn, probably more than anything else from Carson.

    People who talk about science like to pretend to the rest of the world that they are basing their thoughts on reason and rationality. To me, most of the time they are reacting in an emotional fashion, and only later use reason and rationalization to rationalize and justify their emotional reaction.

  22. Where are Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan when you need them?

    As to Carson’s lame reference to fossils in the Andes, he needs to study basic geology and reconcile it with his Creationist mumbo jumbo. I still intend to vote for him but in no way buy into his religion. As will ALL religions, you either accept the whole thing on faith or you are an apostate. I choose to believe that Dr. Carson finds such profound good in Christianity that he is willing to deny reason and science if necessary. He obviously believes that there is a guiding hand at work. His own near miracle achievements in medicine would tend to support such a belief. Who are we to deny or ridicule the personal beliefs of such a gifted individual?

  23. Dr Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, thus his beliefs. The media will attack this like they did Mitt’s Mormon faith.
    I don’t know if you can be too nice, but I’m afraid DC will chew him up and spit him out.

  24. KL Smith:

    But the people who will hate Carson for his 7th Day Adventist beliefs would never have voted for him anyway. And those same beliefs could get the evangelicals to turn out in droves. So it could cut either way.

  25. This rumor that Carson does not subscribe to the theory of evolution – let’s hope it’s just a misunderstanding. If it is true let’s hope it does not get spread around.

    In any case whether Carson is a true believer in evolution or not if he heads the Republican ticket I will vote for him.

    I’m sure that evolutionists will be allowed to practice, preach, and teach evolution unhindered by a President Carson, while I’m even more sure that the likely head of the ticket on the other side should they become president will mean a continuation of the persecution of anyone who does not agree with the secular humanist catechism.

  26. It’s odd but I believe true that although the Left says they believe in evolution certain basic tenets in their belief system are incompatible with basic acceptance of evolution theory. This is true even for many prof types who teach it in universities.

    Conservatives typically aspire to equal opportunity but not equality of outcomes. The Left believes that we’re all blank slates and unequal outcomes are conclusive evidence that somebody cheated to get ahead.

    Amerca’s standing in the world is because our ancestors and us today continue to exploit others in the world. That’s one reason Obama and those who share his worldview are OK with America letting in illegals. And this idea underpins their being OK with redistribution of wealth.

    If you want to get a liberal upset try suggesting that the differences between male/female behavior have some genetic basis.

    Evolution is genetic change over time. One way that change occurs is through natural selection acting on the variability in the gene pool or variability among individuals. The Left for decades denied physical boundaries among races – it’s only a social construct after all. It was only a matter of time until we got to the point of their denying the same for gender.

  27. Neo: true. But I’m not thinking hate so much as the mockery, ridicule, and marginalizing. The tactics the left is so good at and effective with. But then again, they will do that with all of the Republicans.

  28. As far as I’m concerned, evolutionary THEORY has always been a divide between the Left, which adheres to the insane notion of the (evolutionary) perfectability of man, and the Right, which knows that mankind’s behavioral flaws will always be with us. Original sin, if you like.

    Thus, if one opposes evolutionary theory, one is inherently anti-Leftist. It is a Leftist litmus test, thus all the Leftist baying that Carson doesn’t believe in evolution.

    Evolution has no useful place in the modern practice of medicine, so it is irrelevant re Carson except as a political Leftist litmus test.

    The same applies to the Big Bang issue. Leftists again baying at the moon. As far as I’m concerned, God is the First Cause; Big Bang comes from Him.

    It is important to me that Carson has the humility and reverence to acknowledge a First Cause, a God that surpasseth all understanding. Where is the Left on this? We all know where.

  29. It’s odd but I believe true that although the Left says they believe in evolution certain basic tenets in their belief system are incompatible with basic acceptance of evolution theory.

    It makes more sense if you can look at it as a religion rather than a rational field of study.

    If the religious head says so, then it must be so, can explain much of the Left’s inconsistencies. The Left complains vociferously that Christianity is a bunch of hypocritical consistencies. If one analyzes the Left’s religion, one will find just as many so called inconsistencies, if not more so.

  30. Evolution is genetic change over time.

    DNA changes over time due to the environment activating certain precursors in inherited DNA, which changes the DNA that is then passed down from that point on.

    Thus it is an internal evolution that is not explained or covered by the Left’s Theory of Evolution, which is a very different sub set of beliefs.

    The Russian snow fox experiments are merely a prelude to this kind of internal species DNA self change.

    For DNA to change from species to species, the ability to create species must first be demonstrated as even possible given current models, otherwise there is no way for DNA to pass from one species to another, except through environmental factors like infection, mutation, disease, and internal evolution designs.

  31. The critical and required foundation needed to consider scientific theories on par with other theories and hypothesis, requires a certain framework and larger pov.

    http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

    This is not provided to most people, since it is not necessary for a society educating slaves, serfs, or creating livestock.

    But for those that don’t know, that is the list of scientific breakthroughs which were derided as insane or crazy or impossible by the scientific consensus, authority, and “established” sorts back in the day.

    Nothing has changed in the present, except ordinary laymen with little scientific field work, think they know more about mysterious forces.

    For most people, when they hear about scientific theories, they have to take it on faith or some kind of authority, because to them, it’s merely a cargo cult. They do not truly understand how any of it works, let alone all of it.

  32. I agree that the Left media will be pursuing Carson on this evolution comment he made.

    I’m comfortable with evolution theory but don’t think it will be an issue on the table when President Carson is deciding what to do about 1st, 2nd, or whatever amendment rights, or what the proper tax rates should be on capital gains. So I’m fine with voting for Carson.

    The point I think that we all let slip in communicating with people of the Left persuasion is that they are somehow more science friendly. The basic Leftist worldview is not compatible with evolution.

    Anyway, if you’re comfortable with God first and then the Big Bang I’m not sure what would be a problem with God first and then evolution.

  33. Not too cool to learn from Posters here that Carson is so un sophisticated re science. Can it be because he is so
    *loyal* to the SDA Church ??
    Surely Romney could not have subscribed to those
    odd Mormon beliefs (one comes to mind, that God had an actual physical relationship with Mary of Nazareth &
    Jesus is the result) or that dis embodied *spirit children* are floating around waiting for couples to come up with a body for them to inhabit ! Yikes body snatchers in reverse lol !
    I do remember the media making much of Mormon underwear & did he actually wear it ? Of course Obama really looked cool when they put that turban & rest of that Indonesian Muslim ensemble on him, but that’s the *precious one* so he s above being mocked.
    As a Catholic *we* have a tradition of spiritual reminders in the form of scapular medals & other medals dedicated to Saints &/or Mary. Even that whole concept of *relics* of saints, too.
    So every religion has its oddities to non believers
    however just totally denying all ready existing scientific proof is peculiar ! Gosh the sea fossils in the mountains just means that one time in was the sea floor, knowing plate tectonics where is the stretch there ? The bible is not a science book nor an historical text, what s hard about understanding that ?

  34. Many people here seem to think that scientists “believe” in evolution. That is incorrect. NO scientist believes in evolution. Doing so would be contrary to every principle undergirding science.

    Scientists who study and use evolutionary biology will say that they understand and accept the current basic concepts of the field, but they will never say they “believe” in it.

    Krauss is a theoretical physicist:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss
    He has only limited knowledge of evolutionary biology. He has associated with some of the “Darwinists” in arguing against intelligent design theories. His main interest is in origins of the universe.

    Evolutionary biology is nothing like what Darwin and his successors through the 1970s. Essentially none of Darwin’s theory is accepted today. It is not entirely his fault as most of evolutionary biology was unknown at his time, and really only has been uncovered in the last 40 or so years. But he did rely heavily on the theology of the Reverend Thomas Malthus, which turns out to have been a serious mistake. Malthus’s ideas are essentially all wrong: Most species do not compete with each other but cooperate. Most species do not try to reproduce as much as possible, but reproduce as little as possible.

    Even the “tree of life” is now considered of minimal utility, due to the over-riding importance of horizontal gene transfer (where genes are transfer from one living organism to another, rather than by inheritance from parents). One recent research paper estimates that 8% of the human genome was transferred to humans by viruses (though this needs more work to be confirmed!). We have what the prominent evolutionary biologist Ford Doolittle calls the Web of Life:
    http://epicofevolution.com/tree-of-life/other-trees

    There is much more about evolutionary biology that is dramatically different from (perhaps better: opposite to) the ideas of Darwin and his followers, such as the major role of epigenetics in all aspects of life.

    Dr Carson is a prominent scientist, with many peer-reviewed research papers to his credit. The National Institutes of Health’s PubMed database finds 113 papers in a search on “Carson BS” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=carson+bs though the last half-dozen are by a different person. He has often used evolutionary biology in his research, teaching and work as a surgeon. But he would never say that he “believes” in evolutionary biology. He knows and understands the field and has used it often in his work.

    Regardless of what one thinks about Dr Carson, it is remarkable that a prominent research scientist is running for President of the United States.

  35. RFHirsch Says:
    October 4th, 2015 at 8:13 pm
    “He [Carson] has often used evolutionary biology in his research, teaching and work as a surgeon. But he would never say that he “believes” in evolutionary biology. He knows and understands the field and has used it often in his work.”

    RFHirsch:

    I just browsed through the PubMed abstracts, because I was curious about your statement that Carson has often used evolutionary biology in his research. Can you clarify what you meant? By the way, I don’t think that anyone has denied that Carson is aware of the principles of evolutionary biology, but awareness does not mean acceptance. That’s why I’d be interested to read a research paper in which Carson “used evolutionary biology.”

    Unfortunately, none of the PubMed abstracts explicitly note evolutionary biology or a closely allied field. Do you see his research as generally grounded in that subject? Or??? What am I missing?

    Serious question here. Am not attacking your position. Just don’t understand it.

  36. Thank you for you well-stated comment and question!

    As as I know, he has not done any research in evolutionary biology. But its concepts underlie a variety of components of his field of pediatric neurosurgery.

    One of the important aspects of evolutionary biology that applies to the very invasive surgery he has done is evolution of infectious bacteria, particularly evolution of antibiotic resistance.

    Another is selection of appropriate animal models for testing new approaches to the surgery. Some of the papers refer to experiments in model animals and these would I think have been selected because of their relevance to human brain properties, as defined through evolutionary biology.

    I agree that his papers are not about evolutionary biology, but knowledge of the field would be important for designing experiments and surgical plans.

  37. RFHirsch:

    Thanks for the quick reply.

    I’d hoped that a better understanding of Carson’s research might help me resolve my problems with some things he said during his speech to fellow Adventists.

    I understand that some people might think this is much ado about nothing, or maybe trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But, for me, this is a basic issue in understanding Carson’s thought process and judgement.

    As I’ve said, I’d vote for him if he were the nominee, but I’d prefer someone else.

  38. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not conterfactual premises, of which there are a lot on this thread.

    Fact: Carson is an SDA and only too happy to grab a mic and expound on SDA tenets. Opinion: I think he is deluded or ignorant. Fact: though in general religion is not in conflict with science, science eliminates a lot of fairy tales. SDA is in serious conflict with science. Opinion: science wins, no contest. Fact: if Carson is the nominee, I will vote for him anyway.

  39. Science doesn’t exist. It’s merely a bunch of humans that think they are right. Like a religion exists, in that sense.

  40. NO scientist believes in evolution. Doing so would be contrary to every principle undergirding science.

    1. Which is why the belief is in a religion, it’s faith based.

    The belief that the universe exploded to form X, Y, Z through Mysterious Process B through A.1 A.2 A.3, requires faithful, same as the Bible in Revealed Truth. There is evidence for one theory and there is evidence for the Bible too, but not enough to justify full belief, that is what faith is furl.

    2. Which is why they aren’t scientists and scientific consensus doesn’t exist.

    If it does, it’s wrong.

    I’m not sure what would be a problem with God first and then evolution.

    As mentioned before, there’s insufficient proof. By insufficient I mean not enough to justify a theory compared to a hypothesis.

    One of the important aspects of evolutionary biology that applies to the very invasive surgery he has done is evolution of infectious bacteria, particularly evolution of antibiotic resistance.

    Which isn’t what people are talking about here when they speak of evolution as a layman’s religion. That evolution has to do with the creation of life and the creation of new species, not merely the explanation for internal species development and DNA reactions over time to adaptations to stimuli/changes.

  41. THANK you for a fine essay about Carson’s character!

    To my mind, between Trump, Carson, Carly, Cruz and Rubio, we have the largest, most interesting and appealing group of leading candidates for president on the Pubbie side in my half-century long life.

    Carson seems to be growing in his strengths of late, by more successfully projecting himself of late and displaying more political saavy. This is very important, since he’s not a debater. He’s different and, currently, still the leading anti-Trump candidate, while nonetheless advancing my (and I tink our agendas.

    In Carly news, Drudge Report linked to a newsstory on Sunday about the Koch’s money and other mega-donors turning to back her, since her top debate-slot triumph. I thought I’d summarize it and toss in my few personal interest connections, if only because the public news of the upper crust lives off gossip about these rather private people.

    The Kochs had picked Gov. Scott Walker, who has since dropped out of the race. The Koch’s lead a group of large donors on the right, with an up to $1 billion dollar war chest. Afterwords, where would this backing go?

    Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens and venture capitalist Tom Perkins, who served on Carly’s HP board of directors, are fundraising and giving to her campaign.

    Carly holds second place in polls in the key early primary state of New Hampshire, trailing Trump by only 5% in one. And she has “already garnered about $2 million in support from the likes of reclusive hedge fund baron Robert Mercer and former Univision CEO Jerrold Perenchio.”

    “We think she’s pretty viable,” said broadcasting billionaire Stanley Hubbard, a member of the Koch brothers’ network of conservative advocacy groups who donates heavily to political candidates.

    The Kochs have been keeping a close eye on Fiorina ever since she announced in May, the Koch sources said. They extended an invite to her to speak at their exclusive summit of rich donors at an oceanfront luxury resort in August along with Rubio, Bush, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

    Fiorina, the lowest polling candidate at the gathering, impressed the big money attendees with her mastery of policy detail and heavyweight stage presence. “She’s good in the room,” said one participant at the event, who declined to be named….

    I grew up with Stan Hubbard’s family as a somewhat distant neighbor of mine. And through a mutual public high school friend, I dated his oldest daughter at our state’s flagship public university.

    This third generation family media empire (Hubbard Broadcasting) is hardworking, amitious, with an upper middle-class lifestyle – only more and larger. How’s that? More boats, larger homes, and more travel, for example.

    I’ve only met one of the Koch’s sons, at a seminar they’d sponsored. He was sober and serious when called for, but could sport a laugh in the right place, too.

    In more recent years, as more of my friends have benefited from Koch connected funding for academics on the right, the best story I have is from a book tour done a few years ago by climatologist Pat Michaels, who’s still at the Koch supported CATO Institute in Washington, DC.

    The publicity from global warming alarmists painting skeptical critics as sinister agents of the rich – especially of the Kochs 0 was at high dudgen, then. And Dr Michaels was patronizingly painted as a mere ventriolquist for their financial empire.

    So, Michaels mocked the stereotype, saying “Of course when I wake up in the morning, I answer Charles Koch’s call” first, getting my marching orders for the day, he lampooned! Reductio ad rediculum, because these sort and the media saps simply echo their pablum.

    Back to Carly, since she has run a campaign on a shoestring for months, the prosect of financial “support from the Kochs would change her operation overnight.”

    They supported her during her California Senate run against Democrat Barbara Boxer, which was also during a ballot proposition to rein in absurd state anti-warming (Carbon Dioxide gas emissions) regulations. Both Carly and the Kochs lost, however, and the measure failed to pass.

    Finally, past Carly contibutors are considering doubling their bets on her campaign.

    For instance, “Dallas philanthropist Elloine Clark has so far written one $100,000 check to the Super PAC supporting Fiorina. She says she may give more. ‘I think she’s unflappable,’ said Clark. ‘And she doesn’t react like an adolescent.’ ”

    Carson raked in $28 million over the summer, if I recall correctly.

    Now, if money is the mother’s milk of politics, then it’s now flowing stongly Carly’s way.

    MORE here
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/koch-brothers-other-2016-mega-donors-warm-carly-171903604–finance.html

  42. Perhaps “Ben the Knife” would be more acoustically evocative? I prefer the Sting version (from “Lost in the Stars”) lyrics:
    “See the shark has
    teeth like razors.
    All can read his
    open face.
    Dr. Ben has
    got a knife, but,
    Not in such an
    obvious place.”
    (I actually doubt that Dr. Ben has any such knives for his enemies, tho there’s a small part of me that wishes he would have.)

    I hope he begins turning any questions about evolution back against the questioner:
    “Those who believe in evolution, believe in genetic changes. I fully agree that each generation of humans has slightly different, and unique, genes than the parents. Different genes from conception. It’s a shame so many evolutionists refuse to admit that every abortion kills a human life whose unique genes will never be duplicated — abortion ending evolution in a very unnatural selection.”

    I’ve been supporting Carly because … she fights! But I’m liking Dr Ben more now, too.

  43. It’s a mystery to me why anyone would question evolution. I have yet to come across any evidence contrary and the concept itself is very useful in interpreting the world I see.

    As far as God and religion I have yet to see evidence supporting any religion that is convincing to me.

    However, I don’t see that it matters as long as religious people don’t try to stop people writing, researching, and teaching about evolution. I have absolutely no desire to stop people from practicing whatever religion they want. There are always going to conflicts at the boundaries. And some people on either side sometimes try to push too far.

    Carson does not seem the type to become president and start issuing executive orders undermining or stopping people from holding contrary views on evolution so I don’t see why it would be an issue – at least for me.

    If the Democrats try to embarrass him about this he should point out Fiorina style that they don’t follow evolution to its logical conclusions within their own belief system.

    After almost eight years of Obama’s leadership we’ve been taken to within sight of where he wants us all to go and it isn’t pretty. I don’t believe he and his allies believe in the coexistence with any belief system that does not conform to their worldview. So even though he and I may nominally agree on evolution he scares me where Carson does not.

  44. KBK said
    “… Fact: Carson is an SDA and only too happy to grab a mic and expound on SDA tenets. Opinion: I think he is deluded or ignorant. Fact: though in general religion is not in conflict with science, science eliminates a lot of fairy tales. SDA is in serious conflict with science. Opinion: science wins, no contest. Fact: if Carson is the nominee, I will vote for him anyway.”

    I am puzzled by this! Dr Carson had a noteworthy scientific career, with many peer-reviewed research papers, and is Professor Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, one of the top medical schools in the world. How could he be “deluded and ignorant” and yet have a prominent career in science, using advanced knowledge of biology, chemistry, physics, etc.?

  45. How could he be “deluded and ignorant” and yet have a prominent career in science…
    It’s called compartmentalization.

  46. I have yet to come across any evidence contrary and the concept itself is very useful in interpreting the world I see.

    As far as God and religion I have yet to see evidence supporting any religion that is convincing to me.

    There’s a sort of problem that comes about from expecting proof for a theory and then immediately saying another theory lacks proof against it.

    To be exact, evolution as a hypothesis, needs as much proof against it as the theory of a god created universe needs proof that somebody else created the universe.

    Hypothesis and theories are never about trying to get falsifiable evidence. For them, it is always innocent until proven guilty.

  47. Molly NH,

    A few points on Mormon doctrine: The bit about Mary is specifically from anti-Mormon propaganda. We accept the KJV Holy Bible as gospel and its record of the events.

    “Spirit children” is merely the belief that we are all children of God, and that we have a pre-mortal existence. It’s the flipside of the spirit-body separation that comes with death; the spirit persists (and preexisted), the physical body is just part of this slice of existence we call mortality. Certainly if you don’t believe in a soul or spirit separate from the body, it’s an odd thought, but then, it’s no stranger than the others that come with belief in spirits.

    The underwear is also little different from some specifically religious Jewish clothing or a minister’s vestments. It’s a private symbol of devotion. It’s easy to mock, however, for those who have an inclination against religion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>