View Full Version : FACT CHECK: Bachmann Bomblets Raising Eyebrows
Life in the limelight - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
FACT CHECK: Bachmann Bomblets Raising Eyebrows
FiscalTimes, 28 Jun 2011
Michele Bachmann's claim that she has "never gotten a penny" from a family farm that's been subsidized by the government is at odds with her financial disclosure statements. They show tens of thousands in personal income from the operation.
And, on a less substantive note, she flubbed her hometown history when declaring "John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa," and "that's the kind of spirit that I have, too," in running for president.
The actor was born nearly 150 miles away. It was the serial killer John Wayne Gacy Jr. who lived, for a time, in Waterloo.
Those were among the latest examples of how the Minnesota congresswoman has become one to watch — for inaccuracies as well as rising support — in the Republican presidential race.
Bachmann's wildly off-base assertion last month that a NATO airstrike might have killed as many as 30,000 Libyan civilians, her misrepresentations of the health care law, misfires on other aspects of President Barack Obama's record and historical inaccuracies have saddled her with a reputation for uttering populist jibes that don't hold up.
She announced her candidacy Monday in Iowa with a speech typical for someone joining the campaign. It laid out the broad themes of her candidacy and mostly avoided the Bachmann bomblets that have grabbed attention — and often fizzled under scrutiny — in the long lead-up.
The more the political season heats up, the more that exaggerations and sound-bite oversimplifications emanate from the Republicans going after Obama — and from the Democrats playing defense. Still, Bachmann's record on this score is distinct.
Examining 24 of her statements, Politifact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking service of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, found just one to be fully true and 17 to be false (seven of them "pants on fire" false). No other Republican candidate whose statements have been vigorously vetted matched that record of inaccuracy.
A look at some of her recent statements and how they compare with the facts:
BACHMANN: "The farm is my father-in-law's farm. It's not my husband and my farm. It's my father-in-law's farm. And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm." — On "Fox News Sunday."
THE FACTS: In personal financial disclosure reports required annually from members of Congress, Bachmann reported that she holds an interest in a family farm in Independence, Wis., with her share worth between $100,000 and $250,000.
The farm, which was owned by her father-in-law, produced income for Bachmann of at least $32,500 and as much as $105,000 from 2006 through 2009, according to the reports she filed for that period. The farm also received federal crop and disaster subsidies, according to a database maintained by the Environmental Working Group. From 1995 through 2010, the farm got $259,332 in federal payments.
When asked about the subsidies and her income from the farm late last year, a spokesman for Bachmann said only that she wasn't involved in decisions about the running of the farm.
Bachmann told The Associated Press on Monday that her husband became a trustee of the farm because his father had dementia before he died two years ago, and "oversees the legal entity."
"Everything we do with those forms is in an abundance of caution," she said, insisting she and her husband receive no farm income despite the forms reporting it.
___
BACHMANN: "Well what I want them to know is, just like John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa, that's the kind of spirit that I have, too." — Speaking to Fox News on Sunday.
Wayne was born in Winterset, Iowa, nearly three hours away, and moved to California in his childhood. John Wayne Gacy, convicted of killing 33 men and boys, was born in Chicago, moved to Waterloo to work in his father-in-law's chicken restaurants and first ran afoul of the law there, sentenced to 10 years for sodomy. He began his killing spree after his release, and his return to Illinois.
Bachmann told CNN on Tuesday her comments "were just misspeaking" and that her main intent was to show she identified with Wayne's patriotism.
___
BACHMANN: "Overnight we are hearing that potentially 10 to 30,000 people could have been killed in the strike." — Criticizing Obama in May for the "foolish" U.S. intervention in Libya, and citing what she said were reports of a civilian death toll from a NATO strike as high as 30,000.
THE FACTS: The U.S. ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, said in late April that U.S. officials have seen reports that 10,000 to 30,000 people may have died in Moammar Gadhafi's crackdown on protesters and the fighting between rebels and pro-government forces, but it is hard to know if that is true. He was speaking about all casualties of the conflict; no one has attributed such a death toll to NATO bombing alone, much less to a single strike.
___
BACHMANN: "It's ironic and sad that the president released all of the oil from the strategic oil reserve. ... There's only a limited amount of oil that we have in the strategic oil reserve. It's there for emergencies." — On CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
THE FACTS: Obama did not empty all the oil from the strategic reserve, as Bachmann said. He approved the release of 30 million barrels, about 4 percent of the 727 million barrels stored in salt caverns along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. It's true that the U.S. normally taps the reserve for more dire emergencies than exist today, and that exposes Obama to criticism that he acted for political gain. But the reserve has never been fuller; it held 707 million barrels when last tapped, after 2008 hurricanes.
__
BACHMANN: "One. That's the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office." — Comment to a conservative conference in Iowa in March.
THE FACTS: The Obama administration issued more than 200 new drilling permits before the Gulf oil spill alone. Over the past year, since new safety standards were imposed, the administration has issued more than 60 shallow-water drilling permits. Since the deep water moratorium was lifted in October, nine new wells have been approved.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/28/AP-FACT-CHECK-Bachmann-bomblets-raising-eyebrows.aspx
Here we go... :rolleyes:
There's not enough bandwidth on the net to enumerate Dem gaffes, lies, crimes and distortions, but all you hear from media.communist is digs on Conservative hiccups.
Come on, January 2013.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
Worthwhile bookmark for those interested in politics.
http://www.politifact.com/
Richard :munchin
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
Worthwhile bookmark for those interested in politics.
http://www.politifact.com/
Richard :munchin
St. Petersburg, eh? Good stuff!
Not exactly mainstream media...
I'm waiting for her to claim there are 57 states and see what the MSM does with that.
St. Petersburg, eh? Good stuff!
Not exactly mainstream media...
Huh??? :confused:
http://www.newsmaxlinks.com/us_newspapers_top_100.cfm
Richard :munchin
I'm waiting for her to claim there are 57 states and see what the MSM does with that.
BHO with a skirt??
The Rural Community Organizer??
:D
Huh??? :confused:
http://www.newsmaxlinks.com/us_newspapers_top_100.cfm
Richard :munchin
Yep, the St. Pete Times is in the top 100 rags.
Utah Bob
07-07-2011, 09:19
ST. Pete Times has some excellent investigative reporters.
You don't want them on your case if you have skeletons under the rose bushes.
ST. Pete Times has some excellent investigative reporters.
You don't want them on your case if you have skeletons under the rose bushes.
What I'd love to see is the same expertise and zeal applied to the current administration and broadcast over the most-watched non-Fox news networks.
greenberetTFS
07-07-2011, 10:18
What I'd love to see is the same expertise and zeal applied to the current administration and broadcast over the most-watched non-Fox news networks.
I think Dusty has a good point here...........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
The St. Petersburg Times is well known and respected in some circles <<LINK (http://www.pulitzer.org/faceted_search/results/petersburg+st+times+content_type%3Aaa_citation)>>.
IMO, Ms. Bachmann's ongoing case of hoofinmouthis is an entirely different issue of how the media, mainstream and otherwise, cover it.
It is not the MSM's fault that Ms. Bachmann has endorsed a policy preference that embraces the following "logic". (Source attached, as the FAMiLY LEADER is in CYA mode.)Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.If politicians--especially those conservatives who recall fondly the good ole days--are going to base their policy preferences in American history, they need to hit the stacks. Else, their credibility (intellectual, political, and moral) will remain vulnerable to any motivated American with a library card.
Or, if politicians don't want to invest the time so that they can know what they're talking about, they could at least ask themselves "Does this statement help or hurt me politically with the intended audience?"
craigepo
07-11-2011, 20:55
It is not the MSM's fault that Ms. Bachmann has endorsed a policy preference that embraces the following "logic". (Source attached, as the FAMiLY LEADER is in CYA mode.)If politicians--especially those conservatives who recall fondly the good ole days--are going to base their policy preferences in American history, they need to hit the stacks. Else, their credibility (intellectual, political, and moral) will remain vulnerable to any motivated American with a library card.
Or, if politicians don't want to invest the time so that they can know what they're talking about, they could at least ask themselves "Does this statement help or hurt me politically with the intended audience?"
There is an old saying, "A text, without a context, is a pretext."
I guess I am politically incorrect, but having read the pledge in it's entirety, I didn't find anything objectionable. Not that I agreed with everything in the pledge, but I didn't see anything overtly offensive.
Interestingly, on my way home from the gym tonight, I was listening to a speaker on a radio station. He was lamenting that, in America, "political correctness" is often a sword used by the left to combat facts they don't like.
So, I guess my question is, are the facts stated in the two-sentence quote incorrect, or is the problem that the wording of the quote was too strong? What would be a better way to express the ideas contained therein, assuming the facts were true. Also, the next paragraph discussed the Moynihan Report. Did the same people who are presently harpooning Bachmann make similar complaints against the now-deceased Democrat Moynihan?
Her 'world-view' may present some electability problems when it comes to a national level election.
Bachmann's Unrivaled Extremism
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
TrapLine
07-12-2011, 06:54
It seems to me that the left and their media stooges have found it effective/easier to attack the messenger than deal with the issues or address the existing problems. Maybe it is better for some that those problems don't go away. If things are going to get better, we will have to set aside all the PC BS and face the issues. Sadly, I do not see it happening anytime soon. MOO, I could be wrong.
219seminole
07-12-2011, 08:30
Last night on O'Reilly she responded to a question with "Me and the people of Iowa..."
Being on the national stage she needs to brush up on the proper use of the personal pronoun, which is a fairly low threshold.
Last night on O'Reilly she responded to a question with "Me and the people of Iowa..."
Being on the national stage she needs to brush up on the proper use of the personal pronoun, which is a fairly low threshold.
Please. :rolleyes:
Last hard class
07-12-2011, 09:29
Bachmann lost my wife's vote when she pledged to ban porn. :D
LHC
Team Sergeant
07-12-2011, 09:39
Bachmann lost my wife's vote when she pledged to ban porn. :D
LHC
Doh!!!!!!
Lets just hope that the people being hired to follow the R's around full time with a camera don't get them burping or breaking wind.
Imagine the press coverage that would get on the national propaganda shows - sometimes called the evening news.
Lets just hope that the people being hired to follow the R's around full time with a camera don't get them burping or breaking wind.
Imagine the press coverage that would get on the national propaganda shows - sometimes called the evening news.
That's the big scoop, Bro. That's what they're dying to expose.
So, I guess my question is, are the facts stated in the two-sentence quote incorrect, or is the problem that the wording of the quote was too strong? Sir-- IMO, the statement in question has three fatal defects.
First, it downplays the most likely outcome for a child born into slave "household" regardless of the number of parents present -- that child would have been born a slave in a society in which millions of Americans actively conspired to deprive her of her inalienable rights.
Second, it suggests that there's a comparison to be drawn between the challenges facing African American families today with those that slave families faced in antebellum America. This comparison conveys a staggering, willful, ignorance not only of slavery, but also of every aspect of what we now know about America in 1860. (How many women in any two parent family in 1860 had the right to vote for politicians that represented their interests as mothers?)
Third, the statement is patronizing to those African Americans who support public policy preferences of the Democratic Party. (Within the framework of African American political and cultural discourse, the overt message is that blacks who vote for Democrats are, among other things, Toms.) In fact, few cohorts have done a better job at identifying and pursuing successfully their political objectives than black Americans. While I aver that those objectives can best be reached within the framework of the GOP's core beliefs, it is, IMO, a politically self-defeating act to argue implicitly that blacks are taking a step backwards towards antebellum America by supporting the current president.
What would be a better way to express the ideas contained therein, assuming the facts were true.MOO, a better way to go would have not to have made any reference to slavery.
Here's why. After decades of evasion, denial, deception, and, in some cases, deliberate self-censorship, historians of all stripes who focus on American slavery (including its long term consequences) are of the growing realization that any serious discussion of any aspect of American slavery needs to be situated in an understanding of the interplay of the peculiar institution with other historical factors (not the least of which is the relationship between white supremacist ideology and gendered identity). Equally necessary is an understanding of the historiographical contexts of previous interpretations. This is to say that understanding the history of American slavery requires an increasingly complex set of analytical tools and a trajectory of inquiry that requires one to reexamine questions that some had thought answered and to form entirely new sets of questions.
Now, hypothetically, if the writers insisted on making an argument connecting the present to the past, and if they had asked me how to do so (and had they paid my consulting fee)*, I would have suggested something along the lines of the following:
We believe that one of the bulwarks of American freedom is the family--in particular the two-parent family, but especially the two-parent African American family.
Without the strength of the African American family, it is likely that the practice of slavery in America would had a greater catastrophic impact on world history than it did and that there would be less freedom in the world as a result.
We believe our vow will lead to policies that empower more African-Americans to have two-parent families and, consequently, strengthen the foundation of freedom not only in America but also in the world.
Also, the next paragraph discussed the Moynihan Report. Did the same people who are presently harpooning Bachmann make similar complaints against the now-deceased Democrat Moynihan?The answer to your final question is "yes, depending upon where you look." AFAIK, the most ardent critics of the Moynihan report were far left of center historians who spent much of the next three decades producing solid works that--among other things--thrashed the sensibilities that drove the Moynihan report. (FWIW, the closest I've come to hearing historian professors say to graduate students "This is fucking bullshit" is when diplomatic historians address the conspiracy theories surrounding FDR and the attack on Pearl Harbor, and scholars of nineteenth century America talk about the logic of the Moynihan report.)
__________________________________________________ _____
* In this case, the fee would have been two venti white chocolate mochas from Starbucks.:p
Hm, a child born a slave in 1860 and a child born in the inner city in 2011.
Who stood/stands a better chance of making it into the middle class? Lower middle class if you want.
Would a two parent sharecropper family of 1880 be considered lower middle class? Would a one parent family of today with nobody working a job except getting government benifits be considered lower middle class? Car, A/C a home with a roof over their heads and food in the frig?
Hm, a child born a slave in 1860 and a child born in the inner city in 2011.
Who stood/stands a better chance of making it into the middle class? Lower middle class if you want.QP Pete--
IMO, picking 1860 as the year for this hypothetical is problematic for at least two reasons. First, through the advantage of hind sight, we know what happened next. However, at that time, not only was there no guarantee that slavery would end anytime soon, there were many indications that it could continue indefinitely. Second, while the American Civil War and Reconstruction resulted in the end of slavery, those events did not deter permanently those Americans committed to a social, political, legal, cultural, and economic order centering around white supremacy. This commitment resulted in a cascading dynamic of political oppression, economic exclusion, cultural demonetization, and paramilitary violence. In combination with the lack of political will among politicians in Washington, D.C., and the indifference of rank and file Americans eager to "move on," Jim Crow proved a terribly ferocious and effective impediment to freedmen.* In combination, 1860 may well have represented one of the most desperate years in African American history.
In any case, Booker T. Washington addressed your question in 1895. Before a mostly white audience, at the Cotton States and International Exposition, in Atlanta, Georgia, he urged blacks not only to forgo the quest for full equality, but also to eschew the goals, aspirations, and ambitions of the middle classes in favor of the stability as members of the working classes as well as that cohorts' more modest vision of upward mobility.
He said of the African American community: Our greatest danger is that in the great leap from slavery to freedom we may overlook the fact that the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands, and fail to keep in mind that we shall prosper in proportion as we learn to dignify and glorify common labor, and put brains and skill into the common occupations of life; shall prosper in proportion as we learn to draw the line between the superficial and the substantial, the ornamental gewgaws of life and the useful. No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities.**Many of his contemporaries, most notably W.E.B. Du Bois, questioned (to put it politely--the shouting hasn't stopped) the sustainability of Washington's vision.
For their part, hundreds of thousands of African Americans let be known their opinion of Washington's vision during the First Great Migration as they fled the terror of the south in the hopes of finding greater opportunity in northern cities. Many of these Americans would find Jim Crow waiting when they arrived. (Not for nothing has "the long nineteenth century" gained traction as a time period for historians studying both sides of the Atlantic.)
As for the present-day hypothetical, what ever options a kid born today may or may not have as she grows into adult hood in the 2030s, she will know she's free. Free to decide what kind of life she wants to live. If she's properly motivated and she has more good luck than bad, she will be able to find resources and people who will help her reach her goals.
That is, until the zombies show up in 2036.
My $0.02.
__________________________________________________ __________
* No one asked me, but I believed that Rumsfeld would have been better off looking closer to home than at Western Europe when he was making his forecasts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
** Source is here (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39/).
craigepo
07-12-2011, 22:17
Sigaba,
I wholly appreciate your posts and your logic. However, I just cannot find the same implications and inferences in the text that you discuss.
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."
I don't find any political accusations against the present President, nor that present African-Americans voting one way or another are "Toms". It does not minimize the effects slavery had upon African-Americans. There is nothing about white supremacy, nor any justification of slavery.
Understandably, discussing slavery in the US makes anyone with a hint of a soul pause. However, this one sentence statement is factually correct. It was written to illustrate a fact that is distressing to those who believe that a traditional, nuclear family is of value to society. Moreover, when read in context with the rest of the document/statement, it is clear that the sentence adds to the argument regarding the degradation of this nuclear family across the entirety of American culture, all races included.
I read today that a Republican Presidential candidate disagreed with Bachmann's signing of the document, not because of any perceived inaccuracy, but because he believed that Republicans needed to avoid issues that forced the government to meddle in people's personal affairs. I would submit that this would be a better argument against the statement, taken as a whole, than the factually-correct sentence discussed above.
incarcerated
07-12-2011, 23:10
Lets just hope that the people being hired to follow the R's around full time with a camera don't get them burping or breaking wind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/us/politics/09trackers.html?_r=2&hp
Trailing G.O.P. With Cameras, Seeking Gaffes
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Published: July 8, 2011
AMHERST, N.H. — Aaron Fielding quietly stalks his prey — Republicans — with his video camera, patiently waiting for a political moment worthy of YouTube.
At 27, he is a full-time “tracker” for American Bridge 21st Century, a new Democratic organization that aims to record every handshake, every utterance by Republican candidates in 2011 and 2012, looking for gotcha moments that could derail political ambitions or provide fodder for television advertisements by liberal groups next year.
The organization has hired a dozen professional trackers like Mr. Fielding, outfitted them with the latest high-tech cameras and computers and positioned them in key states where Republican candidates are busy chattering away to voters. If all works as planned, incriminating moments captured by American Bridge will quickly become part of the political bloodstream.
Combined with a team of 20 researchers in a Washington “war room” that has a large rack of computer servers, the effort is part of a push by Democratic groups to bolster their opposition research. Republicans also have trackers, but so far have not assembled the kind of centralized video archive of political caught-on-tape moments that their rivals envision....
While the Democratic National Committee and Democratic candidates also have trackers, federal campaign laws prohibit the outside organizations from coordinating closely enough to use their videotapes in their advertising efforts.
American Bridge is the creation of David Brock, the founder of Media Matters for America, which critiques conservative media outlets, particularly Fox News....
Susan McCue, who heads Majority PAC, a group that will support Democratic Senate candidates, said of Mr. Brock and American Bridge: “We talk all the time. The relationships are in place to avoid any strategic conflict.” Mr. Brock declined to comment for this article.
By tapping into his network of Media Matters donors, American Bridge officials say they have raised several million dollars and hope to bring in $15 million to make the group part of a new liberal infrastructure that will last far beyond the 2012 cycle.
On the Republican side, which has no exact counterpart to American Bridge, strategists say they are not worried....
Entire post.An irony of this New York Times article is that it essentially celebrates a key dynamic--people turning to new media for news--that is destroying the Grey Lady and other broadsheets.
Sigaba,
I wholly appreciate your posts and your logic. However, I just cannot find the same implications and inferences in the text that you discuss.
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."
I don't find any political accusations against the present President, nor that present African-Americans voting one way or another are "Toms". It does not minimize the effects slavery had upon African-Americans. There is nothing about white supremacy, nor any justification of slavery.
Understandably, discussing slavery in the US makes anyone with a hint of a soul pause. However, this one sentence statement is factually correct. It was written to illustrate a fact that is distressing to those who believe that a traditional, nuclear family is of value to society. Moreover, when read in context with the rest of the document/statement, it is clear that the sentence adds to the argument regarding the degradation of this nuclear family across the entirety of American culture, all races included.
I read today that a Republican Presidential candidate disagreed with Bachmann's signing of the document, not because of any perceived inaccuracy, but because he believed that Republicans needed to avoid issues that forced the government to meddle in people's personal affairs. I would submit that this would be a better argument against the statement, taken as a whole, than the factually-correct sentence discussed above.Sir--
I appreciate the time you take to read and to reply to my posts on this topic.
A question I might have addressed earlier is this: Is the statement under discussion factually correct? The FAMiLY LEADER's pledge references one document to support its claim. That study, "The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review" (2005), available here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanvalues.org%2Fpdfs%2Fc onsequences_of_marriage.pdf&rct=j&q=american%20values%20consequences%20of%20marriage %20african%20american%20pdf&ei=Ke0dTpfKNoe8sQO-m7CaDA&usg=AFQjCNFJbskfWwg_nQPEF6jhfqQvgYExCw&cad=rja), does not offer any data that support the claim. The study visits the nineteenth century to discuss the marriage rate among African Americans in Philadelphia in 1880 and 1890, and the comparison of that rate to the antebellum period applies to that same location (page 8, fn 11 [one should note that the one of the works referenced in this discussion is not listed in the bibliography]).
Moreover, the 1860 U.S. Census, available here (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1860.html), does not contain data on African American marriage rates nor figures on the composition of the slave "household." Such data are not in the U.S. Census Bureau's Historical Statistics of the United States, 1789-1945 (1949), nor in the Bicentennial edition (1975) of that publication (both are available here (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html)).
The Millennial edition of Historical Statistics of the United States, published by Cambridge University Press in 2006, does have tables dealing with family and household composition in volume 1, and a section dealing with the slave population in volume 2. The tables in volume 1 suffer somewhat from a definition of "household" that has shifted (pages 1-653 to 1-655).
The tables that provide numbers on households--including those that detail the presence of the parents--exclude the slave population for the 1850 and 1860 censuses.
The data for tables on marital status of mothers with children by race were not collected until 1880.
The tables centering around marital status provides data on whites and non whites, but the latter category is not further broken down.
The tables on the slave population do not have data on the marital status or family composition of slaves.
Returning to the study, it reports on page 10. The discussion about marriage in the African American community has undoubtedly advanced our knowledge. It has pointed out that marriage and marriage rates have some serious implications for the well-being of African Americans. It has also underscored the importance of understanding African American family formation within the context of the African American historical experience.
Surprisingly, the discussion has not been anchored by a comprehensive understanding of the consequences of marriage for Black Americans. To our knowledge, no academic work has systematically investigated this issue.*According to the report, one of the challenges to such a systematic examination is the fact that discussions of the African American family do not center around a single definition of what defines that social unit. Another challenge is understanding how marriage impacts positively different aspects of different family members' lives compared to other types of families.
In short, it seems that the authors of the FAMiLY LEADER pledge either misunderstood or misread the report, which, despite its authors' belief that marriage strengthens African American families, offered a much more limited and provisional discussion of the African American experience in the last half of the eighteenth century.
IMO our differing views on this matter center around the question: Does the comparison of one metric in 1860 to that same metric in 2011 fatally compromise the efficacy of the FAMiLY LEADER's broader argument about the American family?
MOO, the answer is yes. If we are going to frame contemporaneous policy preferences in anything within a historical context (a practice of which I'm skeptical), it is incumbent upon one to do one's "due diligence." This need is especially pressing on Republicans during this election cycle. This is not to say that the historical phrasing has to reflect in depth knowledge of the cutting edge of scholarly inquiry. Yet, at the very least, we should offer arguments that the gas bags of the Fourth Estate can easily dismiss.
My $0.02.
__________________________________________________ _____
* The authors of the report made four mistakes in designing their study. They took a "data set" approach to selecting the publications they discussed, they restricted their search to publications produced in 1990 or later, they relied too heavily on on-line resources. All of these mistakes could have been avoided had they consulted a historian.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bachmann-attacks-20110712,0,6737611.story
Michele Bachmann is the gift that keeps on giving. Mitt has got to be so happy that she is out soaking up all the damage right now, plus setting the stage to make him look like a reasonable candidate.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=326585
A lawsuit seeking in excess of $50 million has been prepared against MSNBC and its talk-show entertainer Rachel Maddow over statements she made about a Minnesota-based ministry.
Word of the development comes in an announcement from officials with the YouCanRunButYouCannotHideInternational ministry run by former rock artist Bradlee Dean.
The attorney handling the case is Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now of Freedom Watch, who said money is not the issue.
"This case is filed as a matter of principle," he said. "We need more Bradlee Deans in the world and hateful left wing television commentators must be made to respect not only his mission but the law."
How low can the media go? Meet 'The Anti-Journalists.' Not only do they refuse to report the truth – they attack you if you do
The team announced a news conference tomorrow at the Midtown Executive Club in New York to respond to reporters' questions about the dispute.
Dean, a renowned hard metal rocker who came to Christ after suffering a hard life as a young boy, has dedicated his life to his ministry's mission, officials said.
He once made a statement on the radio criticizing his fellow Christians for not taking a stronger stand about the "gay" rights lobby promoting homosexuality in the schools. According to the ministry announcement, he made a strong reference to Muslims taking the issue more seriously in the context of Shariah law, but did not condone their practices. It was Bradlee's intent to focus attention on the issue, not to advocate harm to anyone.
Despite the very clear disclaimer by Dean on his ministries website and elsewhere regarding the false accusation that he was calling for the execution of homosexuals, according to the announcement, "MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and others seized on and accused Dean on her show of supporting the killing of homosexuals, as is the practice in some radical Islamic countries. This seriously has harmed Dean and the ministry, who pride themselves on respect and love for all people."
The ministry announcement said, "In an interview earlier this year, MSNBC's president Phil Griffin admitted that the network, to boost its ratings, caters to the so-called 'progressive left.' This explains the malicious attacks on Bradlee Dean and his ministry, which are being used to harm the presidential campaign of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who is a conservative Christian."
The organization explained in the past, Dean and his ministry have been complemented by presidential candidate Michele Bachmann for their work in promoting values for the nation's youth.
"The left wing media's effort to defame Dean is an obvious way to try to harm Bachmann's presidential prospects," the group said.
An earlier report from the ministry said it was Maddow who featured on her program a quote from Dean, "The Muslims are calling for the execution of homosexuals in America. This was just released yesterday and it shows you that they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God. But they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality's an abomination. If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that."
But that was an edited version of Dean's original message, which was a benign warning to the homosexual community that the Bible calls the behavior a sin and there are consequences for sin, so they should "flee" from that. Dean explains he was only trying to guilt the Christian community to take the radical leftist homosexual agenda more seriously.
According to Dean's ministry, his actual statement was:
Muslims are calling for the execution for homosexuals in America, this was just released yesterday and it shows you that they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible, the Judeo Christian God. They seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do. Because these people are livid about enforcing their laws, they know homosexuality is an abomination. And I continually reach out to the homosexual communities on this radio show, and I warn them, which ones love? Here you have Obama condemning it behind the backs of the homosexuals but to their faces he's promoting it. I say this to my gay friends out there the ones that continuously nitpick everything I say. Hollywood is promoting immorality and the God of the Heavens in Jesus names is warning you to flee from the wrath to come, yet you have Muslims calling for your execution. If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that's what you're seeing in America today. Read Leviticus 26 America.
Klayman told WND that the original misapplication of the comments came through writer Andy Birkey of the Minnesota Independent, where he headlined a story "GOP-linked punk rock ministry says executing gays is 'moral'."
The ministry wrote to the newspaper to correct the impression and Birkey noted Dean's statement that, "We have specifically rejected, as all Christians do, the Islamic doctrine, and actual practice, of executing homosexuals. But some have claimed, in effect, that by merely mentioning the execution of homosexuals (as a criminal practice of Islam), on our radio broadcast, we have suggested it for consideration. Obviously this is absurd. The whole point was to contrast the Islamic position with the Christian position. This may not have been as clear as we would have otherwise planned it to be. Live radio is not scripted. But everyone who knows us knows that this is our position because we have stated it consistently for years…"
But since the original statement, the Independent report, and its followup, Klayman noted, the original accusation has spread. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune explained Dean's comments were "read as advocating executions for gay people," KARE Television commented on his "controversial statements about gay persons," and on the City Pages said Dean "has praised religious extremists who execute suspected homosexuals."
ABC jumped into the fray with the blog comment that Dean "has suggested homosexuals be executed."
Activist sites from as Rightwingwatch took it even further, saying that Dean statements include "that Muslim nations that execute gays are more moral than American Christians."
State Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party Rep. Karen Clark accused Dean of saying that "extremists who call for the execution of American gays are morally justified."
A WND request to Maddow's program for a comment did not generate a response.
You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International was founded by Dean, and it has reached more than 500,000 young people with a message of truth and hope across the country. His message focuses on basic constitutional issues. He's also spoken at churches, festivals, prisons, detention centers and on radio and television programs.
Dean also is drummer for Junkyard Prophet, which has sold over 40,000 albums in the Minneapolis area alone. Bradlee is endorsed by world-class companies such as Sonor, Buttkickers, Beatnik (including his own signature drum pad), Hornet Drumsticks (including his own signature sticks), and Soultone Cymbals.
The antagonism against Dean heated up again in just the last few weeks after he, by invitation, delivered a prayer to open the House session at the Minnesota Legislature.
The Associated Press accused Dean of making "derogatory remarks about gay people," though Dean’s prayer made no reference to homosexuality.
The AP explained how the House in Minnesota instructs ministers on the content of their prayers, saying they must be "ecumenical" as well as "interfaith."
Dean acknowledged that his prayer was not on behalf of any denomination, but instead was on behalf of Christians. "The head of the denomination is Jesus as every president up until 2008 has acknowledged," he said.
Finally Dean concluded by stating he believes he is being unfairly used as a scapegoat by elements of the radical leftist gay community, such as Rachel Maddow, to harm the presidential campaign of Michele Bachmann.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more: Rachel Maddow, MSNBC sued for defamation http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=326585#ixzz1TJQ8mxms
She is nothing but a wanna be celebrity Media Whore. She is not suited to use a crapper in the White House let alone serve the Oval Office. If you really think people like her and Palin are suited to lead this Country. IMO, you need to really take a look at yourself.
She is nothing but a wanna be celebrity Media Whore. She is not suited to use a crapper in the White House let alone serve the Oval Office. If you really think people like her and Palin are suited to lead this Country. IMO, you need to really take a look at yourself.
And your perfect candidate with clean hands and white shoes is....................
And your perfect candidate with clean hands and white shoes is....................
None. But they are on the top of that none list.
And your perfect candidate with clean hands and white shoes is....................
I see where he's coming from. No way Bachmann could get a BJ in the Oval Office. :D
I see where he's coming from. No way Bachmann could get a BJ in the Oval Office. :D
I think her Husband is Gay. He is so far in the closet. He had to start trying to cure Faggetry in his Clinic:D
I would bet money. When her political ambitions fail. There will be some kind of TV deal, Fox News or a reality show.
I think her Husband is Gay. He is so far in the closet. He had to start trying to cure Faggetry in his Clinic:D
I would bet money. When her political ambitions fail. There will be some kind of TV deal, Fox News or a reality show.
I personally prefer Perry, but I'd take Bachmann over the status quo.
Or any other Repub over any other Dem, incidentally.
Gay hub or straight. :D
Henry G. GutmanDoes Professor Sowell's citation say "Henry" or does it say "Herbert"?
More pressing questions.
Does Dr. Sowell address the profound political and philosophical differences between his work and Professor Gutman's overall?
Does Dr. Sowell address the heated debate between Professor Gutman and Robert Fogel over the utility of studying slavery and African American history from an economists' view point?
Does he point out that Professor Gutman's landmark study--which has held up pretty well overall during the years--was taken to task for offering very broad generalizations based upon a relatively small sample of slave families?
The point of these questions is this. If one uses examples from studies of one of the most intensely studied aspects of American history without regard to the historiographical contexts of those works, you may be doing more to undermine the efficacy of your argument than to advance it.
My $0.02.
...............The point of these questions is this. If one uses examples from studies of one of the most intensely studied aspects of American history without regard to the historiographical contexts of those works, you may be doing more to undermine the efficacy of your argument than to advance it.
My $0.02.
We got into splitting these hairs on another thread. So without splitting too many hairs would you sat the average black child today has a better family life than they did in the 1950's?
Plenty of studies floating around on marriage statistics, out of wedlock birth rates, two parent family rates vs one parent - yes I know, there are a lot of white single parent families. There is even studies on how kids do coming from single parent families based on income turn out.
They all point to a pretty grim picture for the average black inner city child.
Our state is sinking millions into the "More at 4" program to help those kids but now studies are showing any advantage these kids had coming into Kindergarden evaporates within a few more years.
So it's not the kids - it's the culture. The question now becomes a culture of what?
We got into splitting these hairs on another thread. So without splitting too many hairs would you sat the average black child today has a better family life than they did in the 1950's?
Plenty of studies floating around on marriage statistics, out of wedlock birth rates, two parent family rates vs one parent - yes I know, there are a lot of white single parent families. There is even studies on how kids do coming from single parent families based on income turn out.
They all point to a pretty grim picture for the average black inner city child.
Our state is sinking millions into the "More at 4" program to help those kids but now studies are showing any advantage these kids had coming into Kindergarden evaporates within a few more years.
So it's not the kids - it's the culture. The question now becomes a culture of what?QP Pete--
IMO, answers to the question "Did you have a good [or happy] family life as a child?" are too subjective to allow generalizations about the "average." To quote Tolstoy (via Constance Garnett), "Happy families are all alike. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
This caveat aside, IMO, an African American kid is better off being born today than in the 1950s. This view is based upon data for life expectancy, mortality rates, and educational attainment. Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, many African American children born in the 1950s faced two challenges. The first was the legacy of Jim Crow--the memory of him cast a shadow on many a heart. The second challenge was the Great Blizzard of the 1980s. (Which, in some areas, began in the late 1970s and ensorcelled guys born in the 1940s. Or so I heard.)