Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That seems a good observation to me. They are consulted as absolute authorities. Dr. Carson seems to have been infected, so to speak, with this virus of egotism.

Physicians are usually absolute authorities on their medical specialties. But ask them about anything outside their specialty, and unless that subject is a hobby to which they dedicate much time (example: the composer Robert Simpson) they are often naifs.

In any event, one does not ask questions about accounting to attorneys or medicine to engineers. Someone who would never challenge Noam Chomsky on linguistics can have good cause to question his politics.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Hmmm... Forum ego Virii have resistance/susceptibility factors to consider.

The susceptibility risk factors for the ego virus are:
A. Male gender.
B. Sorries in advance. Generation = Boomer.
C. As per above, occupation.
D. Fat tail on the IQ test statistical curve. Both lower than average and higher than average are risk factors.
E. Very high income / asset owners. Cf. Trump.

That's a brilliant diagnosis. I would add having Mars in Leo on your Ascendant (Mr. Trump) Now, your talent in this field, Rags, should not go to your head

Originally Posted by TnT

Just a personal observation ... having worked with and around many physicians over the years ... the more egotistical of them have this curious perspective on their own mental abilities ... for some reason they become convinced that having prevailed in a challenging field like medicine, somehow makes them experts in EVERYTHING.

It kind of makes sense when one views their training, and their need to be able to deal with sometimes critical decision making, quickly, and with confidence. Some medical procedures, especially on-the-spot stuff like surgery, emergent pathology & radiology, emergency medicine, require a sort of god-like ego. One simply cannot be a person who deliberates for an hour or two!

As one who is also in recovery from alcohol for some time, I've seen how difficult it is for physicians to do what needs to be done to recover from alcohol or substance abuse. In my program, we think that the reduction of one's ego is paramount in getting to a place where one can deal with the demons that feed us and encourage us to believe that our drug of choice is under our control and that everything will be fine if people just leave us the fuck alone.

Docs often have a devil of a time getting off the sauce, or the Demerol, or whatever. I've known a few who ultimately lost everything, including their license to practice. It's the ego thing.

Originally Posted by TnT

Just a personal observation ... having worked with and around many physicians over the years ... the more egotistical of them have this curious perspective on their own mental abilities ... for some reason they become convinced that having prevailed in a challenging field like medicine, somehow makes them experts in EVERYTHING.

Every attorney knows that he can lose a case. At least one side will be dissatisfied with the result. Not counting plea bargains in criminal cases or arbitration in civil cases, both sides share a statistical 50% chance of losing. Maybe the fictional Perry Mason could prove that the accused was innocent and that the guilty person is a prosecution witness, with the prosecution eventually getting an even stronger case against the 'real killer' -- but that is fiction. Reality is that the 'real killer' typically gets no chance to forge evidence that implicates an innocent defendant.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Attorneys who lose too many cases (unless appointed to defend the indefensible or allotted too few resources, as in many cases involving the death penalty) need to leave the legal profession or find some other specialty within the legal profession.

Oh, by the way -- Dubya could not get admitted to law school; he illustrates why legal training is a good idea for high office. Dubya was objectively a horrible President, and the only pretext that anyone can have for claiming that Dubya is a better President than any other is that one more agrees with him on ideology than one agrees with some other President.

Most attorneys do not try cases. Obama is an example.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

But not popular enough to get enough people to vote against the gov. candidate who has promised to destroy it.

The rending of garments will begin in the near future. Pass the popcorn.

Carson may have reached the tipping point for his candidacy's unraveling -

Ben Carson just can’t quit lying: CNN can’t corroborate any of the key stories from his autobiography

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/05/ben_...omes_up_empty/

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...t-point-215598

Ben Carson: CNN reports on violent past "a bunch of lies"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-cars...bunch-of-lies/

Conservative Writer Calls Out Carson's 'Bald-Faced Lies' About Company

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/na...rson-mannatech

Trump is already pouncing -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...est-point-lie/

Trump pounces on Carson’s West Point ‘lie’

If Carson doesn't survive this, watch Ted Cruz and HuckinJesus try to slide in and try to pickup Iowa's 2nd Coming voters

Pass the popcorn.

If you want to take a break from the GOP clown show, remember that tonight Rachel Maddow on MSNBC has her "forum" with the three Dem candidates.

Note - it cannot be a "debate" because Wasserman said no more than 6 total debates. Maddow has to interview them separately in succession at a table. This will likely get into some depth on issues so it's probably best for non-Dem voters not to tune in and hurt their brains with over-stimulation.

Carson's team is fighting back and even those Rightee blogs that disowned him early on are rallying to his cause.

The counter? Why, of course, that this is just a Liberal media hit piece (Politico is liberal??? Really???).

The focus of the counter is that he never said he applied and was accepted to West Point; he just said Westmoreland personally offered him a West Point scholarship.

Now put aside that one doesn't get a West Point scholarship until one is accepted to West Point, and that Westmoreland wasn't in a position to offer such a scholarship. Here's the real problem for Carson -

“I felt so proud, my chest bursting with ribbons and braids of every kind. To make it more wonderful, we had important visitors that day. Two soldiers who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Viet Nam were present,” he wrote. “More exciting to me, General William Westmoreland (very prominent in the Viet Nam war) attended with an impressive entourage. Afterward, Sgt. Hunt” — his high school ROTC director — “introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”

But, according to records of Westmoreland’s schedule that were provided by the U.S. Army, the general did not visit Detroit around Memorial Day in 1969 or have dinner with Carson. In fact, the general’s records suggest he was in Washington that day and played tennis at 6:45 p.m.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...#ixzz3qkMVfzEg

Now if this was just any ordinary day, one might forgive Carson for forgetting what exact day it was. However, on a day that your chest is bursting with ribbons in a parade and you met two MoH winners but your favorite memory is meeting a 4-Star General who ran Nam, well, its a little incredulous.

This is really a test of how much Iowa's 2nd Coming voters are (a)morons, (b) sanctimonious hypocrites or (c) all of the above.

My money's on (c).

And, I need more popcorn!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Physicians are usually absolute authorities on their medical specialties. But ask them about anything outside their specialty, and unless that subject is a hobby to which they dedicate much time (example: the composer Robert Simpson) they are often naifs.

In any event, one does not ask questions about accounting to attorneys or medicine to engineers. Someone who would never challenge Noam Chomsky on linguistics can have good cause to question his politics.

Yep, this applies to a lot of people. Richard Dawkins is very knowledgeable about evolutionary biology and Neil Degrasse Tyson about Astrophysics, but both shoe their ignorance outside of their fields the moment they start talking about religion.

People can't be knowledgeable about everything, that is why trusting the experts in necessary even if they are not 100% right.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yep, this applies to a lot of people. Richard Dawkins is very knowledgeable about evolutionary biology and Neil Degrasse Tyson about Astrophysics, but both shoe their ignorance outside of their fields the moment they start talking about religion.

Agreed about Dawkins, but I'm not sure where you're getting that w/r/t Tyson. When asked whether he believed in God, he pretty much sidestepped the question, refusing to give a simple answer. I thought that showed pretty deep understanding. If he'd said yes, he'd have implied that he believed in some traditional theology or other, which probably he doesn't. If he'd said no, he'd have implied an equally simplistic belief in mechanistic materialism and rejection of spirituality a la Dawkins, which I gather is also not his view.

But I'm not familiar with everything Tyson has said or even close to it. Perhaps you could clarify this for us.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Agreed about Dawkins, but I'm not sure where you're getting that w/r/t Tyson. When asked whether he believed in God, he pretty much sidestepped the question, refusing to give a simple answer. I thought that showed pretty deep understanding. If he'd said yes, he'd have implied that he believed in some traditional theology or other, which probably he doesn't. If he'd said no, he'd have implied an equally simplistic belief in mechanistic materialism and rejection of spirituality a la Dawkins, which I gather is also not his view.

But I'm not familiar with everything Tyson has said or even close to it. Perhaps you could clarify this for us.

Whoops, you are right, he tries to avoid religion, though IIRC Tyson is one of those types who look down on philosophy as meaningless navel-gazing.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Carson may have reached the tipping point for his candidacy's unraveling -

Ben Carson just can’t quit lying: CNN can’t corroborate any of the key stories from his autobiography

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/05/ben_...omes_up_empty/

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...t-point-215598

Ben Carson: CNN reports on violent past "a bunch of lies"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-cars...bunch-of-lies/

Conservative Writer Calls Out Carson's 'Bald-Faced Lies' About Company

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/na...rson-mannatech

Trump is already pouncing -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...est-point-lie/

Trump pounces on Carson’s West Point ‘lie’

If Carson doesn't survive this, watch Ted Cruz and HuckinJesus try to slide in and try to pickup Iowa's 2nd Coming voters

Pass the popcorn.

Carson said that Westmoreland suggested he go to West Pont. Every application to West Point is a free scholarship. Snore.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Carson said that Westmoreland suggested he go to West Pont. Every application to West Point is a free scholarship. Snore.

Westmoreland was nowhere near Detroit at that time.

Originally Posted by annla899

Westmoreland was nowhere near Detroit at that time.

Actually, he was. Carson just got the exact day wrong.

And a free scholarship is part of the West Point pitch:

http://www.usma.edu/admissions/SitePages/Home.aspx

Originally Posted by Odin

Yep, this applies to a lot of people. Richard Dawkins is very knowledgeable about evolutionary biology and Neil Degrasse Tyson about Astrophysics, but both shoe their ignorance outside of their fields the moment they start talking about religion.

For the rest of us who have no extreme specialization in any academic field or discuss things outside our field, proof of our intellectual credibility all reduces to our ability to get credible knowledge and to apply logic. With religion there is no obvious authority except to say what the texts say and what renowned scholars in the field say. If astrophysics is not a free-for-all, religion is. Dispute what Albert Einstein proposed that has been proved true through experimental evidence and you are a crank. On the other side, the most authoritarian religious figures, the ones who tell us to obey them (and hence God by sending in checks or money orders to some post office drop box) lest they risk burning in Hell, have some of the most specious claims to authority. So don't tell me that evolution is a demonic hoax.

A slight change in either the binding energy or the periodic law of the elements would change the universe into something so strangely different that we could not exist as we are. Put the low point for binding energy at calcium, and iron becomes scarce enough that a planet the size of the Earth can have no magnetic field and hemoglobin is difficult to form. Put the low point at krypton, and planetary atmospheres get flooded with an irrespirable gas. Allow four instead of two electrons in the innermost shell of electrons, and rogue planets full of solid hydrogen and helium are everywhere.

Religious fundamentalists don't discuss this because in general they have no desire to discuss science when they can instead discuss homosexuality as an abomination before God. Besides, the Earth and the universe are roughly 6000 years old (so says the Bible) and evolution that takes more than that amount of time must be a diabolical lie.

People can't be knowledgeable about everything, that is why trusting the experts in necessary even if they are not 100% right.

Science is more reliable as an institution than just about anything because science takes personality out of truth. Showmanship (think of Carl Sagan) may be good for teaching, but teaching does not directly push the frontiers of knowledge. People who try to put their personalities into science on the assumption that their personalities are necessary to the advancement of science are cranks.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Actually, he was. Carson just got the exact day wrong.

And a free scholarship is part of the West Point pitch

Is this the counter-factual to the whole Obama birther thing? Does Carson get a free pass for being on the right side of the ledger?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Actually, he was. Carson just got the exact day wrong.

And a free scholarship is part of the West Point pitch:

http://www.usma.edu/admissions/SitePages/Home.aspx

You're in a Veterans Day parade, bursting with pride from medals on your chest and meeting two MoH winners, but your biggest honor was meeting a 4-star general - and you forget what day it was??? What other day of the year would that all happen???

You're top in your ROTC and you confuse military pay with a scholarship???

Are you really this gullible or is it just the usual wingnut hypocrisy???

What's really sweet about this is as his poll numbers among the true believers goes up, his chances in the general get creamed. There's no one in the GOP clown car that's much of a threat, but a Carson landslide lost in the general poses the risk that the GOP will misunderstand the lesson learn and have them thinking that they would have a chance in 2020 and beyond. Well, at least it might be then that the GOP produces as entertaining a clown car as this election cycle.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're in a Veterans Day parade, bursting with pride from medals on your chest and meeting two MoH winners, but your biggest honor was meeting a 4-star general - and you forget what day it was??? What other day of the year would that all happen???

You're top in your ROTC and you confuse military pay with a scholarship???

Are you really this gullible or is it just the usual wingnut hypocrisy???

What's really sweet about this is as his poll numbers among the true believers goes up, his chances in the general get creamed. There's no one in the GOP clown car that's much of a threat, but a Carson landslide lost in the general poses the risk that the GOP will misunderstand the lesson learn and have them thinking that they would have a chance in 2020 and beyond. Well, at least it might be then that the GOP produces as entertaining a clown car as this election cycle.

The GOP is no longer a party in the sense we understand it. The GOP has been superseded by a random collection of "The Opposition" - a rag tag collection of people with various chips on their shoulders regarding the "ruling" group. In the same manner that the Whigs went extinct, I reckon we will see the same outcome here. The void is likely to be filled either by a new party or by some sort of coalition of current minor parties.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're in a Veterans Day parade, bursting with pride from medals on your chest and meeting two MoH winners, but your biggest honor was meeting a 4-star general - and you forget what day it was??? What other day of the year would that all happen???

You're top in your ROTC and you confuse military pay with a scholarship???

Are you really this gullible or is it just the usual wingnut hypocrisy???

What's really sweet about this is as his poll numbers among the true believers goes up, his chances in the general get creamed. There's no one in the GOP clown car that's much of a threat, but a Carson landslide lost in the general poses the risk that the GOP will misunderstand the lesson learn and have them thinking that they would have a chance in 2020 and beyond. Well, at least it might be then that the GOP produces as entertaining a clown car as this election cycle.

And your memory is perfect? Ever conflate tow events?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

And your memory is perfect? Ever conflate tow events?

You missed the point on that one by a mile. Veteran's Day is on November 11th, every year.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You missed the point on that one by a mile. Veteran's Day is on November 11th, every year.

Regarding Carson, this past weekend, I had the occasion to spend a few minutes listening to a fellow Toastmaster hold forth on his views about Carson. This gentleman is a Disco wave Boomer, a white former Marine and currently a contractor. He also holds Tea Party views; believes that Obama is ineligible to be President, etc... He opined that Carson is being picked on because he is an African American conservative, a group that is unfairly picked on. I get the impression that this is a widely held view in certain circles.

Personally, I believe Carson is being picked on because he's (for the time being) a top tier candidate.

Oooh, the next creepy clown car debate is tomorrow Nov.10. with the two leading clowns at center stage. I can watch it on you tube or streaming at the http://foxbusiness.com website. So much fun!
Everything you need to know:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...-debate-215611
With the ones they demoted and eliminated, it looks like the stage is kinda all tilting even more to the right! Even Huckabee has spoken out eloquently for social security at past debates. So the Republicans demoted him!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Regarding Carson, this past weekend, I had the occasion to spend a few minutes listening to a fellow Toastmaster hold forth on his views about Carson. This gentleman is a Disco wave Boomer, a white former Marine and currently a contractor. He also holds Tea Party views; believes that Obama is ineligible to be President, etc... He opined that Carson is being picked on because he is an African American conservative, a group that is unfairly picked on. I get the impression that this is a widely held view in certain circles.

Personally, I believe Carson is being picked on because he's (for the time being) a top tier candidate.

... and a bit flaky to boot.

I missed the Ben Carson boom so far, but it's not due to astrology itself, but to the fact that I focused on his poor horoscope score, and not on another factor: the current transits to his horoscope. Actually, he is a Virgo, and Jupiter is in Virgo now! That's the reason I said Chris Christie might do better for a while, since he is a Virgo too. Christie won his second-tier debate yesterday, so a recovery is still possible for him, especially in Spring primaries. But Jupiter is going to turn stationary (that's powerful) right on Carson's Sun position in early January. I neglected to look closely at this until now, just as I was a bit late on Trump, because like most people I didn't take him seriously-- until I actually looked at his horoscope. Still, just before his rise to #1 status, I predicted correctly that Trump would do better than the pundits said, and remain a strong contender.

An astrologer, to be right, has to be diligent and check everything important! I really didn't give Carson any chance, and so I didn't look at this Jupiter factor.

So now I'm saying look for Carson to remain a top contender too, despite the scandal over his book going on now. This will hurt him in the long run though. Despite the strong good fortune of Jupiter being over his sun in a powerful way, his poor horoscope score does make it less likely that Carson will actually be elected. I can't say he won't be nominated now, though. If I predicted that before, I have to revise this. Because he may well win some early primaries (such as Iowa), and he could remain a strong candidate in the later ones.

Trump and Bush are still the most dangerous, if nominated, since they have the best chance of actually winning against Clinton or Sanders. I say this despite the current polls saying that Trump doesn't do well against the Democrats, and that Carson does. Carson's luck would not hold up in the Fall when Jupiter leaves his sun sign. So Carson will not win if nominated. I actually think that, among the Republican field, Trump has the best chance of walking away with the GOP nomination.

Ted Cruz is doing better now too. But I have no basis for predicting that he will either be nominated or elected. So look for him to peter out.

Marco Rubio is doing better now too, as I predicted. His luck will improve in the Fall too. So he is dangerous too. He is young and handsome, and people might not pay attention to his short, poor performance in the Senate. So he has a chance against Hillary Clinton; but if he is nominated, I now predict Clinton will win in a close election. I don't know his birth time though, so just how close it is might depend on factors determined by his birth time. If anything is likely to hurt him, it's that his aggressiveness might run away with him. A war monger or an audacious, reactionary firebrand might not be what the people want. But his magnetism can't be denied, and it's very clear from his chart. And Jupiter will largely benefit him in the Fall. So if he is nominated, it could be a craps shoot.

Carly Fiorina is another Virgo candidate who has benefited from the Jupiter transit. So she will remain a factor and will not drop out (unless a clear winner emerges), although I am not predicting she will be nominated. She would not win against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, even though she would make a pretty good run for it (she has a pretty good horoscope score).

John Kasich will benefit from the Jupiter transit in the early primaries, so he won't drop out until afterward. But he will not be nominated or elected. Much the same can be said for Rand Paul, though he would be a tougher candidate in the general.

So who will be next to drop out?

Maybe Gilmore; he didn't even make the stage in yesterday's debate.

Bobby Jindal has a similar chart to Rubio (born a week or two later); just not as good. So there's no Jupiter effect unless he is nominated; which won't happen. Rick Santorum may benefit from the Jupiter transit, though not as much as last time. But, it may boost his energy enough to stay in. Pataki does not, though he has a modestly-good horoscope score. Graham has neither factor going for him. Mike Huckabee is a Virgo, but Jupiter is well past him, so he's not going very far. So Gilmore and Graham are the most likely to be next to fold, followed by Pataki, and then Jindal and Huckabee. Which I guess is the conventional wisdom anyway.