Really? Ask his Hopkins Colleagues!

If the headline "Carson Surges to Second" doesn't bother you, then you probably shouldn't leave the house unaccompanied. That is the recent headline on a web news service reporting the results of a recent candidate preference poll among those identifying as Republican. If you consider, even for a second that Dr. Ben Carson is even remotely capable in the political realm I fear for you. It is true that he is  Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University. It is true that he is a recognized expert in neurosurgery,  having pioneered the use of hemispheric separation, in the brain to treat severe seizure disorders. It is true, as well that he is a self made man, having risen through determination to join the ranks of celebrity doctors.

       Unfortunately, he is abysmally ignorant in  areas that actually matter to persons without brain disorders. For starters, he actually believes the earth is somewhere around 4800 years old! His extreme  fundamentalist views on some topics make Pat Robertson seem liberal by comparison. He has so little knowledge of the way economies function that he believes stiff tariffs are a solution to trade imbalance. This of course is diametrically wrong, as other nations would follow suit, and we no longer are self sufficient in natural resources, especially rare earths, the stuff of which high end electronics are made.

        Carson's positions are ignorant in some cases and simply retrograde in others. His stances on important topics include:

On Economics:

     In January, 2014 he said this: "If you let the economy work the way it's supposed to in a free market environment, there'll be plenty of jobs and people determine their own value by what they know and what they are capable of doing."

 This is Carson in favor of laissez faire economics, and somewhere, J.D. Rockefeller is smiling.  Of course 7 days earlier he had touted the need for Government regulation to avoid meltdowns like 2008. Can't seem to decide, huh Ben?

Civil Rights:

On Sean Hannity's show he said. "My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition,"

Apparently Carson believes gay persons practice  bestiality and pedophilia (in the face of overwhelming proof of the opposite)!? He later apologized, probably when someone pointed out that gay people vote.He also, of course is opposed to gay marriage, citing  Biblical grounds. (which of course assumes everyone thinks the Bible is a legal document)

Again on economics (sort of):

"In the Bible, God instituted a system of tithing, 

which meant giving 10% of one's profits back to God. Since God is all powerful and owns everything, he certainly does not need any percentage of our profits. So why did he institute tithing? Could it be that he understood that all human beings are subject to greed and that by requiring them to give away 10% of their profits they might learn a valuable lesson about not hoarding and about voluntarily sharing with others?"

Ed. note: While Bill gates and Warren Buffett routinely give away a lot, neither does it on religious grounds. Wouldn't it be cool to know if Trump  and the Koch brothers "tithe"?

Remember, Mitt Romney said it "Corporations are people, my friend!"

On (public) Education:

"I think having charter schools, having school vouchers, things of that nature are extremely good because unless you are competing for those students, it's very likely you're going to become complacent. So we need to put the appropriate stimulation there to increase the competitive nature of education." 

This in spite of the numerous charter school failures, and never mind that those not able to get into charter schools would be consigned to public schools stripped of their brightest and best (and their funding.)  Educational choice nationwide could well produce the same school inequalities we saw in the south during segregation!   

On Energy:

"After the 9/11 crisis, if the president had seized the moment and declared that we would become petroleum independent within the next 10 years, business, industry, academia, and everyone else would have been foursquare behind him, and we would have been much further ahead in the fight against terrorism than we are today.

The moderate Arab states would have been terrified about losing their economic base and would most probably have turned over Osama bin Laden.

An enormous number of jobs would likely have been created in the process of switching over to a new energy source, and Wall Street would have been booming.

The environmentalists would have been ecstatic.

Most importantly, the terrorists would have been deprived of much-needed funding, which would have gradually strangled their efforts."

More muddled than this is hard to be. First, Saudis bow low to their ultra conservative Wahabi sect, in return for being allowed to remain a monarchy. The moment  a Saudi had proposed turning over Bin Laden, a Saudi, by the way, they would have faced massive Islamic fundamentalist backlash.   

In like manner, stating that environmentalists would have favored more drilling is ludicrous, requiring no explanation.

 The "terrorists" gain their funding through heroin trade, not petroleum.

 When the current President, also a Harvard grad, but light years brighter, proposed alternate energy source funding, conservatives responded with "drill, baby drill" led by the cheerleader from Wasilla (and wouldn't  Carson/Palin be a great ticket?) Dumb and Dumber III!

On poverty in America:

"Growing up, I heard many complaints from those around me about poverty, but visiting such places as India, Egypt, and Africa has provided me with perspective on what poverty really is. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in the world live on less than $2 a day. Many of those living in poverty in this country, in fact, would be considered quite wealthy by poor people in other countries. Also, here in the US, there is no caste system to determine one's social status, (really, Ben?) so there are many opportunities for people to escape poverty without resorting to a life of crime. You are much more likely to be judged in this nation by your knowledge and the way you express yourself than you are by your pedigree. I'm not sure we realize how good we have it on this point."

While it would certainly be nice if our society really was at this point, reality is far different.  Apparently, a Carson government would simply let people starve until we get there (and we aren't close!) 

 On health care:

" I have to tell you, ObamaCare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way."  

This statement simply defies both belief and description, especially in the light of the following:  

 "Our 1st child, Murray, was born in Australia. The health-care system in Australia provides substantial benefits for its citizens, and when a baby is born, the family receives a "baby bonus." Although it was a two-tiered system, I did not witness much resentment by those receiving their basic care free of charge against those who could afford private insurance. There may be some substantial lessons that we can learn from such a system."

OK Ben, which is it? either Government involvement in healthcare  insurance sucks or it doesn't. Oh, wait, maybe it  sucks in America but not in Australia. Or maybe you're an idiot.

If you thought that was bad, look at this:

 "Today, insurance companies call the shots on what they want to pay, to whom, and when. Consequently, even busy doctors operate with a very slim profit of margin. This is an ideal place for the intervention of government regulators who, with the help of medical professionals, could establish fair and consistent remuneration. To accomplish this, essentially all of the insurance companies would have to become non-profit service organizations with standardized, regulated profit margins." 

This from the man who advocates free market economics with minimal regulation?  Of course, this also means he doesn't understand that insurance companies are regulated at the state level and that in competitive markets actuaries already recommend rates which keep their companies competitive - the essence of Adam Smith's market theories at work.

On Politics:  

"There is also the rise of the Tea Party. The very fact that so many people are joining the Tea Party or becoming politically Independent suggests that people are less willing to be spoon-fed by a largely biased media and are thinking for themselves again."

 Good lord, this man is ignorant! Rarely has any political group in America been  fed more directly or more exclusively by a biased media than the Tea  Partiers. I think Carson mistakenly was referring to normal media outlets, but these people get the ultimate in biased reporting - Faux News, all propaganda,, all the time.  

Carson also, of course rejects many scientific initiatives related to energy and climate, since God will take care of it, as he did when, in a dream, he helped Carson pass freshman Chemistry (yeah, really).

In summary, I'm quite sure Dr. Carson is a nice man and a good doctor. I'm equally sure he is a political naïf, who doesn't even really suspect much about economics, religions other than his own and numerous other issues a candidate ought to be at least passing  familiar with.  While he has distanced himself from the Westboro Baptists, , he cites the Bible as authority just as they do.  It worries me. Ask former Hopkins colleagues how good a choice for public office Ben Carson would be. The answer might surprise you (but not me).