I stand by my claim that Disney didn’t really know what they were doing. Sure, there were probably right-leaning individuals involved in approving and overseeing this project. But as I said before, they’re mostly going to be marketing-type people, who are so focused on scamming others that they don’t notice when they’re getting scammed. Because that’s apparently one of the easiest ways to get ahead in life. And it best explains why Disney got totally snowed on this project.
And so they were conned into thinking they were getting a fair and honest program, and didn’t have the knowledge or inclination to learn otherwise. I’m sure they knew it would be at least somewhat right-leaning, but they had no idea how right that goes. To them, producing such a movie would have been either left-leaning or right-leaning, and they decided to pick the one with the least amount of power and which has a better reputation for paying lip service to 9/11. Again, these people really don’t understand the issues. They don’t read blogs. And it’s terribly unlikely they read the 9/11 Commission report. I mean, I never read the damn thing and I do understand the issues and read blogs. They were told it was mostly based on the 9/11 Commission report and had no reason to believe otherwise.
So these dopes thought they had a keen idea and must have put out at least a few feelers to know that the GOP, as official purveyors of 9/11, would approve of this project. And sure, they must have known of some risk that they might offend people with their depiction of that dreadful day. But they received assurance after assurance from the filmmakers that this would be well researched and honest and they refused to question further. People who already have the answer they want rarely keep asking questions.
And even the filmmakers themselves may have believed the pap they produced. Almost all rightwingers are pulling a con job on us at some level, but underneath it all, they really are believers. They really do believe that Clinton was responsible for 9/11, and are willing to acknowledge that perhaps there were a few things during Bush’s very brief time in office that he could have done differently. Like, say, not have vacationed the entire month before the attack. Or not ignored reports that said such an attack was imminent while on that month-long vacation. And some may even criticize Bush’s post-9/11 actions, like the fact that he screwed up everything and did nothing right.
But that’s just nitpicking. Both presidents are shown to be at fault, with almost all of the blame resting entirely on Clinton. But don’t worry. Even the Bushies will find something to complain about. They always do.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Opportunistic Failures
Speaking of Disney’s 9/11 docufantasy, I just read this from rightwing conman Joe Scarborough:
But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?
This is the kind of contradiction I just don’t understand from the right. They insist that Clinton was an opportunist jerkface who consistently used foreign policy to distract from his personal failings. Wag the dog, and all that? Right? Right?
And yet, what is this diehard insistence that Clinton had several opportunities to easily capture or kill Bin Laden but was too afraid to do it? Wouldn’t the death of Bin Laden have been a nice little treat for Clinton? Even before 9/11, Osama was an infamous enemy, the death of whom would have certainly benefited Clinton politically. So how can they explain why he wouldn’t have opportunistically taken advantage of the situation, if it were real?
I just can’t fathom this. Not that they’d have such contradictory attacks against Clinton, but that they’d be so oblivious to it for so long, and yet still consider themselves to be honest and principled. And the last straw is that they continue to insist that they didn’t viscerally hate Clinton, while insisting that we’re the irrational haters. It’s enough to make my blood boil, if I still used blood. But I guess if there weren’t conservatives out there, I’d have far fewer people to feel superior to; so I guess I can’t totally begrudge them their place in society.
But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?
This is the kind of contradiction I just don’t understand from the right. They insist that Clinton was an opportunist jerkface who consistently used foreign policy to distract from his personal failings. Wag the dog, and all that? Right? Right?
And yet, what is this diehard insistence that Clinton had several opportunities to easily capture or kill Bin Laden but was too afraid to do it? Wouldn’t the death of Bin Laden have been a nice little treat for Clinton? Even before 9/11, Osama was an infamous enemy, the death of whom would have certainly benefited Clinton politically. So how can they explain why he wouldn’t have opportunistically taken advantage of the situation, if it were real?
I just can’t fathom this. Not that they’d have such contradictory attacks against Clinton, but that they’d be so oblivious to it for so long, and yet still consider themselves to be honest and principled. And the last straw is that they continue to insist that they didn’t viscerally hate Clinton, while insisting that we’re the irrational haters. It’s enough to make my blood boil, if I still used blood. But I guess if there weren’t conservatives out there, I’d have far fewer people to feel superior to; so I guess I can’t totally begrudge them their place in society.
Trashing Disney II
Oh, and as a follow-up to my last post. How totally likely is it that the ABC execs are so damn dumb that they wouldn’t have recognized factual errors or bias in their 9/11 movie? From my knowledge of the type of people who become successful in these types of corporations, I’d say it was highly likely. Heck, they probably believe the stuff themselves. Not that they’re partisan or ideologues. But because they’re just so damn dumb to not have read the 9/11 Commission Report or just about anything else on the subject. And when they saw it in the movie, they assumed it must be true.
These are marketing people, not terrorism scholars. They were sold a bill of goods by guys who were clearly trying to con them into believing this was an honest movie, and went to work marketing the movie they had. Sure, the creators had conservative backgrounds. But would you suggest that a liberal would automatically have made such a phony leftwing movie? Of course not. And the rightwingers would have howled in protest at the film, just as we’re howling.
And these corporate dopes don’t have the mental capability to understand that rightwingers just aren’t like that. They have to lie and bash Clinton. That’s just how they do things. And these ABC execs are probably much too worried about their own success to bother focusing on people who are trying to deceive them. Marketing people are the most gullible people in the world, and those are the types who are most to blame for bringing this atrocity to the air. I’m not necessarily suggesting that these guys aren’t Republican. I’m just saying that they’re only as Republican as they need to be. And had they had any inkling of the shitfest that they were stirring up, they would have left well enough alone.
And now they’re totally screwed. Again, as I said in my last post, it’s possible that they really are in on the fix and are openly shilling for the right. But I just don’t see it. I think they got conned and are just now figuring it out.
These are marketing people, not terrorism scholars. They were sold a bill of goods by guys who were clearly trying to con them into believing this was an honest movie, and went to work marketing the movie they had. Sure, the creators had conservative backgrounds. But would you suggest that a liberal would automatically have made such a phony leftwing movie? Of course not. And the rightwingers would have howled in protest at the film, just as we’re howling.
And these corporate dopes don’t have the mental capability to understand that rightwingers just aren’t like that. They have to lie and bash Clinton. That’s just how they do things. And these ABC execs are probably much too worried about their own success to bother focusing on people who are trying to deceive them. Marketing people are the most gullible people in the world, and those are the types who are most to blame for bringing this atrocity to the air. I’m not necessarily suggesting that these guys aren’t Republican. I’m just saying that they’re only as Republican as they need to be. And had they had any inkling of the shitfest that they were stirring up, they would have left well enough alone.
And now they’re totally screwed. Again, as I said in my last post, it’s possible that they really are in on the fix and are openly shilling for the right. But I just don’t see it. I think they got conned and are just now figuring it out.
Trashing Disney
One thing I’d like to know regarding this whole Disney 9/11 docufiction, Hugh Hewitt recently wrote about how the Disney execs were totally surprised by this assault on their rightwing propaganda film, because they were “dyed in the wool liberals and huge supporters of Clinton and the Democratic Party”. Did those execs agree with that? Because it really seems like a fairly backstabby thing for Hewitt to have done to his new buddies. I mean, here they are bending over backwards to provide anti-Dem claptrap weeks before the election, yet Hewitt turns around and calls them one of the harshest insults imaginable; at least as far as Hewitt’s audience is concerned. And it would completely undermine ABC’s efforts to woe rightwing viewers; which was the whole purpose of this silly movie.
The only possibility I can think is that this isn’t a marketing gimmick to persuade conservatives that ABC is the Fox News of television networks, but rather that they’re really in on some big conspiracy. Because they’d have to know that if ABC became the equivalent of Fox News that their credibility would go down the crapper and that it would just spoil the whole “They’re Out To Get Us” mantra that the conservatives have. So instead, we could see this as a “good cop, bad cop” scenario where ABC pretends to be liberal while secretly shilling for the right.
I have a hard time believing that. But I also have a hard time seeing why they’d ever trust Hugh Hewitt again, after he dished out his strongest insult on them repeatedly. Nor can I see why a relatively smart guy like Hewitt would make this mistake. I’ve always assumed that he wasn’t nearly loony as he pretends to be, but it seems like he’s making a big mistake by biting the hand that feeds him.
But then again, I really think that they’ve bungled this whole thing; largely thanks to ABC’s open desire to woe conservatives. And their big mistake was going so far as to give rightwingers exactly what they always demand; which is the last thing they actually want. They don’t want an unbiased media or even a rightwing media. Because who would they blame their problems on then? No, rightwingers want a leftwing media, which is the only way they can understand why their lives aren’t working out better. Rightwingers want to be victims so they can justify their desire to victimize people, and they want partisan conspiracies to justify their desire to use partisan conspiracies. And so no level of backbending and kowtowing will ever convince rightwingers that ABC is their network. And I suspect that the execs at Disney are going to be internalizing this message pretty damn quickly.
Unless, of course, this really is some sort of silly conspiracy on their part, but I have a hard time believing that. I don’t see corporate execs being the ideologues they’d need to be for this to happen. I just think they were total dopes who got blinded by dollar signs into thinking that they could pimp rightwing propaganda without being punished for it. And to have Hewitt openly trash ABC to his readers should certainly be an education to them all.
The only possibility I can think is that this isn’t a marketing gimmick to persuade conservatives that ABC is the Fox News of television networks, but rather that they’re really in on some big conspiracy. Because they’d have to know that if ABC became the equivalent of Fox News that their credibility would go down the crapper and that it would just spoil the whole “They’re Out To Get Us” mantra that the conservatives have. So instead, we could see this as a “good cop, bad cop” scenario where ABC pretends to be liberal while secretly shilling for the right.
I have a hard time believing that. But I also have a hard time seeing why they’d ever trust Hugh Hewitt again, after he dished out his strongest insult on them repeatedly. Nor can I see why a relatively smart guy like Hewitt would make this mistake. I’ve always assumed that he wasn’t nearly loony as he pretends to be, but it seems like he’s making a big mistake by biting the hand that feeds him.
But then again, I really think that they’ve bungled this whole thing; largely thanks to ABC’s open desire to woe conservatives. And their big mistake was going so far as to give rightwingers exactly what they always demand; which is the last thing they actually want. They don’t want an unbiased media or even a rightwing media. Because who would they blame their problems on then? No, rightwingers want a leftwing media, which is the only way they can understand why their lives aren’t working out better. Rightwingers want to be victims so they can justify their desire to victimize people, and they want partisan conspiracies to justify their desire to use partisan conspiracies. And so no level of backbending and kowtowing will ever convince rightwingers that ABC is their network. And I suspect that the execs at Disney are going to be internalizing this message pretty damn quickly.
Unless, of course, this really is some sort of silly conspiracy on their part, but I have a hard time believing that. I don’t see corporate execs being the ideologues they’d need to be for this to happen. I just think they were total dopes who got blinded by dollar signs into thinking that they could pimp rightwing propaganda without being punished for it. And to have Hewitt openly trash ABC to his readers should certainly be an education to them all.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Piling It On, with Jonah Goldberg
When Jonah Goldberg said “Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already." What the fuck was he thinking? Because he sure sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Not that he did, mind you. But if you didn’t know any better, or who Jonah Goldberg was, or why he has his head up his ass, you might actually put some credence to those words.
“Much of the Washington cocktail circuit” he assured us. And that sounds pretty straight forward. Hell, it almost sounds as if Jonah himself might be a part of this cocktail circuit, and as if perhaps he himself may have known her true identity. Who knows? Jonah sounds somewhat coy about this, like that maybe he has friends in Washington who are privy to secrets; as opposed to the reality of him getting all his scoops from the RNC faxsheets in the NRO breakroom.
And none of the Freepers even thought to question Jonah’s wisdom. Sure, Jonah Goldberg may be widely known around the world as a simpering yutz, but, he’s their simpering yutz. And they’ll take what they can get.
Dropping in Rank
Jonah also said “I'm all in favor of firing whoever did the leaking, if he or she did as the reports suggest. But it sounds like the leaker is dropping in rank and importance as is the transgression.”
You tell Lewis Libby he was of low rank and importance! Tell Lewis Libby he was of low rank and importance! Tell Karl Rove he was of low rank and importance. Tell Richard Armitage he was of low rank and importance. There were many high ranking administration officials who leaked Plame’s identity. And it denigrates a leak to say the leaker was of low rank and importance. And don’t forgot to mention to them that Jonah Goldberg wants them fired. I’m certain they’ll take it under consideration.
And sure, Jonah didn’t know the truth of what happened. But what the hell did he know? From the looks of things, not a whole hell of a lot. And if I had to guess, I’d suggest that the “dropping in rank and importance” was a matter solely of the rightwing echo-chamber talking down the facts. Like a game of eternal telephone, each wingnut continues to slightly embellish the “facts” until it comes back to the original nut as fresh confirmation of all they feared; and on it continues indefinitely.
Everyone Knew
And it’s amazing to watch how quickly they all incorporate each new “fact” into their belief system, no matter how tenuous. Here’s a wingnut named Callahan struggling to combine a sensible argument made by Josh Marshall with the bullshit Goldberg had bestowed upon them:
Marshall thinks that proves the Pflame is a "covert" operative. How does that square with info about her floating around the cocktail party circuit? I think it's likely that Wilson's wife was at one time a covert operative, but is now a analyst/consultant.
Or…not.
But even the facts at the time didn’t warrant Callahan’s hypothesis. On the one hand, we have a Department of Justice investigation which most surely would have at least a preliminary idea of whether a crime could have been committed before they’d decide to open an investigation. And on the other hand, we have an unconfirmed factoid by Jonah Goldberg. Hmm. I wonder. Let’s just say Jonah’s factoid wins and call it even.
Everyone Knew
Here’s another Freeper embellishing Jonah’s factoid just a little further. A non-Freeper had suggested that perhaps Goldberg was being a hack. Yes, shocking, I know. Freeper Mattdono replies saying “Well, Jonah isn't the person that is saying this is a well-known fact.” Thus exposing to the world that Mattdono is a little unclear on the concept of the word “hack”, as he’s unaware that hacks frequently repeat untruths that they’re told. That’s what makes them such a damn nuisance.
He then goes on with his own speculation saying (emphasis added):
Apparently, everyone in the Washinton D.C. metroplex knew who Mr. Wilson's wife was and where she worked. Adding: Mr. Wilson's position of ambassador entails him attending many cocktail parties and other gala-type events. He has introduced his wife on countless occassions and in the course of conversation either she or he noted that she was an analyst for the CIA.
Or perhaps she lies to them and tells them she works for an energy company…which, in fact, was exactly what she did, up until the time that the Bush Admin outed her to the media. Fake identities are a standard thing that even children know that spies use, and yet somehow, this obvious possibility entirely alludes poor Mattdono.
Later on in the thread, he makes a woeful attempt at using Occam’s Razor and concludes that:
She is a CIA ANALYST, not an undercover agent.
She parades around the Washington D.C. cocktail circuit and is known to be an ANALYST with the CIA.
Mr. Wilson, when pressed, calls his wife an ANALYST with the CIA.
Determination: She is an ANALYST with the CIA.
Result: No law was broken, period! End of story!
Wow, all that from some Jonah Goldberg gossip that turned out to be totally false. Plato would be proud.
I really like the “she parades around” and the “Mr. Wilson, when pressed” lines. They are certainly embellishments of his own invention, and yet he imagines himself as a philosophical clinician; having separated the truth from the chaff with his precious razor which always proves him correct. And that’s not to mention how he seems to skip over the beginning and middle parts of his argument, and seems to start with his conclusion. Funny how that works out.
How Facts Evolve
But do you see how that works? It went from Jonah’s “much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew” to “everyone in the Washington D.C. metroplex knew”, before concluding that “no law was broken”. All in the first section of a long messageboard. The last message on the page is from StriperSniper who actually has the Wilsons busting rocks in Alaska to pay back the cost of the investigation. And that’s not to mention the people who believed this was a Hilary Clinton conspiracy to take the heat off of the non-story involving a political contributor of hers who supposedly had ties to Hamas. Yikes!
Now, I’m not suggesting that any of this was Jonah’s intent, and believe that he was just doing his best to relay what he was told and add some initial thoughts of his own regarding what this information meant and how it was good for his side. He had heard some breathless speculation regarding a factoid convenient to his beliefs, and he passed it on to his readers, perhaps with a tad bit of his own embellishment. Not that he was trying to change the story, mind you. It was just creative license, solely designed to make his gossip sound more interesting. To clean it up a bit. That’s how it’s done. And the next thing you know, someone else spins it just a little bit further, and a little bit further, and the next thing you know, a new fact is born.
And that’s probably where this started. Not with Jonah, but with a couple of eager Republicans, slobbering for a truth that helps their side, and seeing too many that just don’t help at all. And so they start speculating aloud, about what type of truth they’d like to see. What they think is probably the case. And how this is all going to turn out in the end. And the next thing you know, they’ve got a valid sounding theory. And they talk with other people, who agree with what they hear, and then at some point in those fevered minds, they begin to believe that their theories are already proven.
They hit a critical mass of conservative minds melding onto the same facts, and they literally wish them into existence. And it works all the better when the Whitehouse has a crack team of taxpayer-financed hackmen, working overtime to create a more Bush-friendly universe.
Piles of Speculation
And on and on it goes. The meme passes from one conservative to another: There was no crime. She was just a desk jockey. This is just another liberal trick. How about them Clintons? Not that they had any evidence to back this up, but they didn’t need any. They already know it’s true. And so it must be that she was just a desk jockey that everyone “knew” was a CIA person.
And sure, the evidence leaned against that possibility. The idea that Joe Wilson would go publicly with a story that would be so easily disproven and embarrassing doesn’t make sense. Nor that the DOJ would start an investigation were she merely an analyst. But that wasn’t what they wanted to hear and I strongly suspect that many of them still won’t hear it.
But it wasn’t a complete loss for them. They didn’t like the story and their intellectual dishonesty allowed them to ride out the storm until the media focused on something else for fifteen seconds. They didn’t need a good defense or a rational set of facts. They just needed something. Any port in a storm. It’s not that they’re too stupid or lazy to get the facts. They just don’t want them. And why should they? Their speculation works so much better.
P.S. I apologize for repeatedly referring to Valerie Wilson as Valerie Plame. But Plame is the name most people use, so I’m continuing with that convention solely for the basis of clarity; despite the fact that it’s not her name.
“Much of the Washington cocktail circuit” he assured us. And that sounds pretty straight forward. Hell, it almost sounds as if Jonah himself might be a part of this cocktail circuit, and as if perhaps he himself may have known her true identity. Who knows? Jonah sounds somewhat coy about this, like that maybe he has friends in Washington who are privy to secrets; as opposed to the reality of him getting all his scoops from the RNC faxsheets in the NRO breakroom.
And none of the Freepers even thought to question Jonah’s wisdom. Sure, Jonah Goldberg may be widely known around the world as a simpering yutz, but, he’s their simpering yutz. And they’ll take what they can get.
Dropping in Rank
Jonah also said “I'm all in favor of firing whoever did the leaking, if he or she did as the reports suggest. But it sounds like the leaker is dropping in rank and importance as is the transgression.”
You tell Lewis Libby he was of low rank and importance! Tell Lewis Libby he was of low rank and importance! Tell Karl Rove he was of low rank and importance. Tell Richard Armitage he was of low rank and importance. There were many high ranking administration officials who leaked Plame’s identity. And it denigrates a leak to say the leaker was of low rank and importance. And don’t forgot to mention to them that Jonah Goldberg wants them fired. I’m certain they’ll take it under consideration.
And sure, Jonah didn’t know the truth of what happened. But what the hell did he know? From the looks of things, not a whole hell of a lot. And if I had to guess, I’d suggest that the “dropping in rank and importance” was a matter solely of the rightwing echo-chamber talking down the facts. Like a game of eternal telephone, each wingnut continues to slightly embellish the “facts” until it comes back to the original nut as fresh confirmation of all they feared; and on it continues indefinitely.
Everyone Knew
And it’s amazing to watch how quickly they all incorporate each new “fact” into their belief system, no matter how tenuous. Here’s a wingnut named Callahan struggling to combine a sensible argument made by Josh Marshall with the bullshit Goldberg had bestowed upon them:
Marshall thinks that proves the Pflame is a "covert" operative. How does that square with info about her floating around the cocktail party circuit? I think it's likely that Wilson's wife was at one time a covert operative, but is now a analyst/consultant.
Or…not.
But even the facts at the time didn’t warrant Callahan’s hypothesis. On the one hand, we have a Department of Justice investigation which most surely would have at least a preliminary idea of whether a crime could have been committed before they’d decide to open an investigation. And on the other hand, we have an unconfirmed factoid by Jonah Goldberg. Hmm. I wonder. Let’s just say Jonah’s factoid wins and call it even.
Everyone Knew
Here’s another Freeper embellishing Jonah’s factoid just a little further. A non-Freeper had suggested that perhaps Goldberg was being a hack. Yes, shocking, I know. Freeper Mattdono replies saying “Well, Jonah isn't the person that is saying this is a well-known fact.” Thus exposing to the world that Mattdono is a little unclear on the concept of the word “hack”, as he’s unaware that hacks frequently repeat untruths that they’re told. That’s what makes them such a damn nuisance.
He then goes on with his own speculation saying (emphasis added):
Apparently, everyone in the Washinton D.C. metroplex knew who Mr. Wilson's wife was and where she worked. Adding: Mr. Wilson's position of ambassador entails him attending many cocktail parties and other gala-type events. He has introduced his wife on countless occassions and in the course of conversation either she or he noted that she was an analyst for the CIA.
Or perhaps she lies to them and tells them she works for an energy company…which, in fact, was exactly what she did, up until the time that the Bush Admin outed her to the media. Fake identities are a standard thing that even children know that spies use, and yet somehow, this obvious possibility entirely alludes poor Mattdono.
Later on in the thread, he makes a woeful attempt at using Occam’s Razor and concludes that:
She is a CIA ANALYST, not an undercover agent.
She parades around the Washington D.C. cocktail circuit and is known to be an ANALYST with the CIA.
Mr. Wilson, when pressed, calls his wife an ANALYST with the CIA.
Determination: She is an ANALYST with the CIA.
Result: No law was broken, period! End of story!
Wow, all that from some Jonah Goldberg gossip that turned out to be totally false. Plato would be proud.
I really like the “she parades around” and the “Mr. Wilson, when pressed” lines. They are certainly embellishments of his own invention, and yet he imagines himself as a philosophical clinician; having separated the truth from the chaff with his precious razor which always proves him correct. And that’s not to mention how he seems to skip over the beginning and middle parts of his argument, and seems to start with his conclusion. Funny how that works out.
How Facts Evolve
But do you see how that works? It went from Jonah’s “much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew” to “everyone in the Washington D.C. metroplex knew”, before concluding that “no law was broken”. All in the first section of a long messageboard. The last message on the page is from StriperSniper who actually has the Wilsons busting rocks in Alaska to pay back the cost of the investigation. And that’s not to mention the people who believed this was a Hilary Clinton conspiracy to take the heat off of the non-story involving a political contributor of hers who supposedly had ties to Hamas. Yikes!
Now, I’m not suggesting that any of this was Jonah’s intent, and believe that he was just doing his best to relay what he was told and add some initial thoughts of his own regarding what this information meant and how it was good for his side. He had heard some breathless speculation regarding a factoid convenient to his beliefs, and he passed it on to his readers, perhaps with a tad bit of his own embellishment. Not that he was trying to change the story, mind you. It was just creative license, solely designed to make his gossip sound more interesting. To clean it up a bit. That’s how it’s done. And the next thing you know, someone else spins it just a little bit further, and a little bit further, and the next thing you know, a new fact is born.
And that’s probably where this started. Not with Jonah, but with a couple of eager Republicans, slobbering for a truth that helps their side, and seeing too many that just don’t help at all. And so they start speculating aloud, about what type of truth they’d like to see. What they think is probably the case. And how this is all going to turn out in the end. And the next thing you know, they’ve got a valid sounding theory. And they talk with other people, who agree with what they hear, and then at some point in those fevered minds, they begin to believe that their theories are already proven.
They hit a critical mass of conservative minds melding onto the same facts, and they literally wish them into existence. And it works all the better when the Whitehouse has a crack team of taxpayer-financed hackmen, working overtime to create a more Bush-friendly universe.
Piles of Speculation
And on and on it goes. The meme passes from one conservative to another: There was no crime. She was just a desk jockey. This is just another liberal trick. How about them Clintons? Not that they had any evidence to back this up, but they didn’t need any. They already know it’s true. And so it must be that she was just a desk jockey that everyone “knew” was a CIA person.
And sure, the evidence leaned against that possibility. The idea that Joe Wilson would go publicly with a story that would be so easily disproven and embarrassing doesn’t make sense. Nor that the DOJ would start an investigation were she merely an analyst. But that wasn’t what they wanted to hear and I strongly suspect that many of them still won’t hear it.
But it wasn’t a complete loss for them. They didn’t like the story and their intellectual dishonesty allowed them to ride out the storm until the media focused on something else for fifteen seconds. They didn’t need a good defense or a rational set of facts. They just needed something. Any port in a storm. It’s not that they’re too stupid or lazy to get the facts. They just don’t want them. And why should they? Their speculation works so much better.
P.S. I apologize for repeatedly referring to Valerie Wilson as Valerie Plame. But Plame is the name most people use, so I’m continuing with that convention solely for the basis of clarity; despite the fact that it’s not her name.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Smarter than Siegel
I just thought I should mention that I recently hired an outside firm to run a statistical analysis of my blog writing compared with the work of the writer formerly known as TNR’s Lee Siegel, and they confirmed that I am, in fact, wittier than Mr. Siegel. Additionally, I am also braver and more brilliant. And while my PQ or Puerility Quotient is out the roof compared with the ever-staid Mr. Siegel, this is more than compensated for with his perfect score on the SGI or Stupid Git Index.
You can make of this analysis what you will, I just thought I should put this out there to help further the discussion regarding my ability to intellectually crush Lee Siegel, the dope who played with himself and got burned.
You can make of this analysis what you will, I just thought I should put this out there to help further the discussion regarding my ability to intellectually crush Lee Siegel, the dope who played with himself and got burned.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Jobs Report: What a Crock!
Guest Post by Doctor Snedley, Doctor Biobrain’s Personal Assistant
Well it looks like Atrios’ voodoo curse on the unemployed didn’t work this month. For those unable to stomach the filthy and virulent pus-mongering that Atrios peddles on a regular basis, I’ll explain.
Each month, some governmental-type bureaucrats release a report ostensibly called The Employment Situation, which they presume is some kind of indicator of how the job markets are performing. Naturally, this is a crock of turds, as government bureaucrats are the absolute last people to even understand what the concept of work entails, and would surely fail in cataloging how workers are succeeding under Bush. Why else would they have to resort to make-work jobs with the government instead of putting their economics degrees to better use in the private sector?
And just to show you how utterly absurd this report is, if it were to be taken seriously, one would have to somehow believe that job growth under Bill Clinton’s disastrous presidency was somehow better than under George W. Bush’s glorious reign. Yes, it’s true. Now, this is clearly an absurdity that can’t be easily dismissed as coincidental. I mean, come on! Perhaps these rubes believe we were born yesterday, but I was alive during the 90’s and remember the time spent under Billary’s boot-heel as being one of the most onerous and hate-filled periods in modern history. Things got so bad he was impeached, for christ’s sake, and I can’t imagine why historians haven’t already agreed to strike that period from our memories. I know I have. Perhaps they’re in on the fix too! I shudder to think what the world will come to if we lose the historians, which is why I’ve taken the precaution of hiring my own.
And so it’s obvious that this jobs report is nothing short of the biggest sham ever pulled on the American people. Yes, even worse than Algore’s attempt at stealing the 2000 election from the true Americans who actually deserve to elect their leaders. The only real surprise in all this is that the Bush Administration hasn’t been more successful in squashing this dangerous report which clearly aides and abets America’s enemies. But I guess that just goes to show us how truly dangerous and irrational the enemy within is and why we need to not listen to a word they say while we drag them into the streets and avenge ourselves upon them in America’s honor. It’s the least we can do for Lady Liberty.
Dragging Down the Economy
And as a sign of how totally desperate and dangerous the liberal-extremist freaks like Atrios are, it’s not enough for them that this communistic report is created in the first place. Oh no. Sure, libs sic their bigdog bureaucrats to totally muck-up the job picture, but that’s still not enough. No. They have to cast their voodoo curse upon it, in a futile attempt to drag down the economy and get us one step closer to the “worker’s paradise” they imagine would best serve their Islamofascist gay overlords and their plans to annihilate the world’s populations to appease their bitter and impotent god, Allah. Looks like someone could use a god who can actually smite his own enemies.
And so each month, Atrios deigns to wish down these meaningless numbers further by insisting that the job report will show fewer jobs than had been estimated by people whose sole job it is to undercut the employment figures by giving such poor estimates in the first place. And it works. Rather than showing the massive growth in employment due to Bush’s magnificent taxcuts and other economic stimulus programs (like the Iraq war), which liberals are all too happy to take advantage of; these reports show anemic growth.
Were they to ask for my estimates, I’d certainly put each month in the 500k range, at least. I mean, how could it be otherwise? Republicans have been in charge of Washington for over five years now, and their policies have surely paid off. I myself have seen a huge jump in business to my pawnshops, and have become inundated with volunteers for my medical experiments. What can I say, life is good.
But none of that is reflected in these so-called “job” reports. Instead, they blather on about “nonfarm payrolls” and unemployed persons. And sure, if you keep prattling about the unemployed, you’ll freak people out enough that they’ll fire all their employees and move their operations to one of those utopian factory islands in the Philippines, where all the natives dress in their traditional loincloths while happily sewing together my shoes. Or so I would imagine, as my recent trip to one of these idyllic islands was cancelled after my good friend Jack Abramoff decided to confront his critics regarding his awesome lobbying prowess. That’s an American hero we’re talking about, and I’m sure he’ll end-up having clearly bested his foes. Go Jack!
The True Numbers
But back to that jobs report. What a crock! As I said, the economy has been bustling at a blinding clip for five years now, yet these make-work crackers in Washington would have us believe that a mere 128,000 jobs were created last month. And sure, that’s 128,000 more jobs than any liberal has ever created (excepting that indentured servitude they obliquely refer to as the “Public Sector”), but I have few doubts that the true number isn’t five or six times that amount. And while they undeniably demonstrate that Bush’s economic miracle is continuing unabated, they’re still not reflecting the true picture. If only there was some way to actually calculate these numbers…
And let’s face-it, while these numbers could have been worse, it’s obvious that Atrios has achieved some success. How else to explain how paltry they are? Perhaps Atrios might argue that he can’t actually influence these numbers because they were determined by the prior month’s activities, and had already been finalized long before his prediction was made; but he can just save it. Despite all of his protestations that he’s just a stupid blogger that has as much influence on the economy as a flea has on a dog, I’m just not having it. Because why else would he do it? He’s going to waste his precious fifteen minutes of fame in order to have no influence? That makes no sense. It’s obvious that he’s working his damnedest to bring down these numbers each month, and it’s equally obvious that he’s succeeding. Again, why else would he bother?
So we can take it as a given that Atrios is sabotaging these numbers, which has got to be good for at least 60,000 jobs or so. And if we factor-out the effects of the doom-mongering estimators who could only peg their naysaying at a lowly 125k without making it too obvious of what they were doing; then it’s clear that the true numbers are higher. Much much higher, I imagine. According to my back-of-the-napkin calculations, the actual job growth in August was 782,983. And that’s just the private sector. With the recent spate of unannounced terrorist catching Bush has been up to, I’d say that overall job growth, adjusted for seasonal employment, is at a cool million.
That’s right. You heard it here first. And when historians go back and recalculate all of these numbers, they’ll certainly bear out what I’m saying. I mean, Bush’s awesomeness alone is easily worth 250,000 jobs a month, and with Cheney constantly adding to his super-top-secret shadow government, I’d say the Whitehouse is directly responsible for almost half a million jobs a month. That’s just common sense. And while the biased perceptions of today’s heated political scene make it absolutely impossible to comprehend all of the intricacies of what’s actually going on around us, I’m confident that future history books will confirm everything I’ve said.
SABOTAGE!
And one last facet of this tepid (though still awesome) job growth is how much direct influence the evil liberal minority has over all of this. I’m not just talking about evil-doers like Atrios who strive to influence these numbers in a futile bid to convince his Islamofascist overlords that he belongs in the caves with them, and not toiling away in the Great Satan which continues, despite his best efforts, to pull at the spot where his heart used to be. No, I’m talking about liberals who intentionally sabotage our awesome economic growth by quitting their jobs at the coffeeshops and bookstores in order to injure our economic well-being.
According to Table A-8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, 13.6% of the unemployed people are unemployed because they quit their jobs. Now, anyone paying attention will surely notice that 13.6% is almost the exact number of liberal scumbags currently residing in our country. The implications are obvious. This works out to 935,000 people. And what would happen if these 935,000 people hadn’t left their jobs? Rather than a measly 128,000 jobs added, we’d have seen that number at over one million. One million jobs. The exact amount, I might add, that I had just predicted we’d find for job growth in August. Simply amazing.
And with that piece of the puzzle in place, it’s obvious to see what’s really going on here. This isn’t a sign of economic distress. This is sabotage. Economic sabotage by angry, irrational people who would rather suck at the government’s teat than to work harder at making George Bush look like the success that we all really know he is.
It’s the same thing with Bush’s “low” approval ratings. Sure, they’re low, on a historical comparison. But how much of that number is merely liberals expressing their displeasure at living in the greatest country in the world? And then there are the me-too people, who are simply pretending to be upset with Bush because they see it as the trendy thing to do. And so when you factor out the traitors who want to ruin America and other mindless miscreants, we’d clearly see Bush’s approval ratings in the high 90’s. Possibly higher.
So rather than these numbers being indicators of trouble for Bush, commonsense tells us that they just demonstrate how terribly desperate liberals are; that they waste all their energies trying to defeat Bush, and the best they can do is alter a few meaningless numbers that they invented. These are clearly the last throes of a desperate enemy.
God’s Plan
So isn’t it obvious what this is about? Of course. Libs don’t care about our successes. How else to explain why they never see it? For them, life since Bush took over has been an ever-spiraling descent into oblivion, and this is just another futile attempt at bringing the rest of us down with them. That’s why they’re always so obsessed with “unemployment figures” and “median wages”, when all the important numbers are positive. GDP growth is gangbusters. Productivity is better than it’s ever been in history. And the double-secret stock portfolio of my Bimini-based mutual fund business is just bursting with success; or so I’ve been told by the conch fisherman who agreed to “own” it.
Yet for all this, liberals incessantly whine about how bad things are doing for the “common” man. Hogwash. If a college-educated super-genius from an affluent family like me can succeed, what’s stopping anyone else? This isn’t an issue of equality, but of perspective. Where others decry lowering standards of living and deepening hardships, I see opportunity. Sure, not everyone can just start-up their own interest-only loan business, but that makes it all the better for those of us who can. After all, had God not wanted some people to fail, he would never have invented Supply & Demand.
And so what if the losers fail? That’s what losers are supposed to do; hence the word “loser”. And if we could all be winners, it would really detract from all the times that I won; which is all the time. I’m a clear beneficiary of Bush’s economic plan, and I get very angry when people try to knock my success by suggesting that my business model is “immoral”, as if there’s something inherently wrong with coercing desperate people into usurious contracts which are intentionally designed to suck as much money from them as possible, while denying them the ability to actually pay-off the original debt. Hey, if I didn’t think it was a good way to make money, I wouldn’t do it.
Zero-Sum Game
And so that’s what this is all about. Atrios doesn’t give a flip about jobs. Hell, he’d have to have had one first for this to be of any concern to him. No, this is about revenge. Revenge against Bush and revenge against America. These people are all self-haters who would rather destroy everything good in the world than to try to take advantage of it. Who see exploitation where we see opportunity. And who would rather lament the poor fortunes of the common-man than to lift a finger to show him the way to the Day Laborers site where I get my volunteers.
Shame on you, Atrios. And shame on your infamous legions. They may hate America with all their souls, but they’re really only hating themselves. And for all the time they waste whining about poor conditions for the “working man” as an attempt to harm America, they could be taking advantage of these grand opportunities. Just try hiring a manservant during periods of high employment. Impossible. But these days, they’re a dime a dozen. Literally. You just have to visit the right countries.
And so it’s no wonder that ignoramuses like Atrios are so angry and rude. Life must be pretty tough when you have to wash your own ballsack. They say that economics is a “zero-sum game”, which can be roughly translated as meaning that libs are trying to screw me over. And the longer the angry Atrios’ of the world continue to spew-out their obscene traitorisms about low job growth and depressed wages, one thing will be certain: I’ll be doing good.
And in the end, isn’t that what it’s really all about? Libs can rely on their meaninglessly subjective reports if they want to, but I think I’ll just stick with my gut. And right now, my gut is full.
Well it looks like Atrios’ voodoo curse on the unemployed didn’t work this month. For those unable to stomach the filthy and virulent pus-mongering that Atrios peddles on a regular basis, I’ll explain.
Each month, some governmental-type bureaucrats release a report ostensibly called The Employment Situation, which they presume is some kind of indicator of how the job markets are performing. Naturally, this is a crock of turds, as government bureaucrats are the absolute last people to even understand what the concept of work entails, and would surely fail in cataloging how workers are succeeding under Bush. Why else would they have to resort to make-work jobs with the government instead of putting their economics degrees to better use in the private sector?
And just to show you how utterly absurd this report is, if it were to be taken seriously, one would have to somehow believe that job growth under Bill Clinton’s disastrous presidency was somehow better than under George W. Bush’s glorious reign. Yes, it’s true. Now, this is clearly an absurdity that can’t be easily dismissed as coincidental. I mean, come on! Perhaps these rubes believe we were born yesterday, but I was alive during the 90’s and remember the time spent under Billary’s boot-heel as being one of the most onerous and hate-filled periods in modern history. Things got so bad he was impeached, for christ’s sake, and I can’t imagine why historians haven’t already agreed to strike that period from our memories. I know I have. Perhaps they’re in on the fix too! I shudder to think what the world will come to if we lose the historians, which is why I’ve taken the precaution of hiring my own.
And so it’s obvious that this jobs report is nothing short of the biggest sham ever pulled on the American people. Yes, even worse than Algore’s attempt at stealing the 2000 election from the true Americans who actually deserve to elect their leaders. The only real surprise in all this is that the Bush Administration hasn’t been more successful in squashing this dangerous report which clearly aides and abets America’s enemies. But I guess that just goes to show us how truly dangerous and irrational the enemy within is and why we need to not listen to a word they say while we drag them into the streets and avenge ourselves upon them in America’s honor. It’s the least we can do for Lady Liberty.
Dragging Down the Economy
And as a sign of how totally desperate and dangerous the liberal-extremist freaks like Atrios are, it’s not enough for them that this communistic report is created in the first place. Oh no. Sure, libs sic their bigdog bureaucrats to totally muck-up the job picture, but that’s still not enough. No. They have to cast their voodoo curse upon it, in a futile attempt to drag down the economy and get us one step closer to the “worker’s paradise” they imagine would best serve their Islamofascist gay overlords and their plans to annihilate the world’s populations to appease their bitter and impotent god, Allah. Looks like someone could use a god who can actually smite his own enemies.
And so each month, Atrios deigns to wish down these meaningless numbers further by insisting that the job report will show fewer jobs than had been estimated by people whose sole job it is to undercut the employment figures by giving such poor estimates in the first place. And it works. Rather than showing the massive growth in employment due to Bush’s magnificent taxcuts and other economic stimulus programs (like the Iraq war), which liberals are all too happy to take advantage of; these reports show anemic growth.
Were they to ask for my estimates, I’d certainly put each month in the 500k range, at least. I mean, how could it be otherwise? Republicans have been in charge of Washington for over five years now, and their policies have surely paid off. I myself have seen a huge jump in business to my pawnshops, and have become inundated with volunteers for my medical experiments. What can I say, life is good.
But none of that is reflected in these so-called “job” reports. Instead, they blather on about “nonfarm payrolls” and unemployed persons. And sure, if you keep prattling about the unemployed, you’ll freak people out enough that they’ll fire all their employees and move their operations to one of those utopian factory islands in the Philippines, where all the natives dress in their traditional loincloths while happily sewing together my shoes. Or so I would imagine, as my recent trip to one of these idyllic islands was cancelled after my good friend Jack Abramoff decided to confront his critics regarding his awesome lobbying prowess. That’s an American hero we’re talking about, and I’m sure he’ll end-up having clearly bested his foes. Go Jack!
The True Numbers
But back to that jobs report. What a crock! As I said, the economy has been bustling at a blinding clip for five years now, yet these make-work crackers in Washington would have us believe that a mere 128,000 jobs were created last month. And sure, that’s 128,000 more jobs than any liberal has ever created (excepting that indentured servitude they obliquely refer to as the “Public Sector”), but I have few doubts that the true number isn’t five or six times that amount. And while they undeniably demonstrate that Bush’s economic miracle is continuing unabated, they’re still not reflecting the true picture. If only there was some way to actually calculate these numbers…
And let’s face-it, while these numbers could have been worse, it’s obvious that Atrios has achieved some success. How else to explain how paltry they are? Perhaps Atrios might argue that he can’t actually influence these numbers because they were determined by the prior month’s activities, and had already been finalized long before his prediction was made; but he can just save it. Despite all of his protestations that he’s just a stupid blogger that has as much influence on the economy as a flea has on a dog, I’m just not having it. Because why else would he do it? He’s going to waste his precious fifteen minutes of fame in order to have no influence? That makes no sense. It’s obvious that he’s working his damnedest to bring down these numbers each month, and it’s equally obvious that he’s succeeding. Again, why else would he bother?
So we can take it as a given that Atrios is sabotaging these numbers, which has got to be good for at least 60,000 jobs or so. And if we factor-out the effects of the doom-mongering estimators who could only peg their naysaying at a lowly 125k without making it too obvious of what they were doing; then it’s clear that the true numbers are higher. Much much higher, I imagine. According to my back-of-the-napkin calculations, the actual job growth in August was 782,983. And that’s just the private sector. With the recent spate of unannounced terrorist catching Bush has been up to, I’d say that overall job growth, adjusted for seasonal employment, is at a cool million.
That’s right. You heard it here first. And when historians go back and recalculate all of these numbers, they’ll certainly bear out what I’m saying. I mean, Bush’s awesomeness alone is easily worth 250,000 jobs a month, and with Cheney constantly adding to his super-top-secret shadow government, I’d say the Whitehouse is directly responsible for almost half a million jobs a month. That’s just common sense. And while the biased perceptions of today’s heated political scene make it absolutely impossible to comprehend all of the intricacies of what’s actually going on around us, I’m confident that future history books will confirm everything I’ve said.
SABOTAGE!
And one last facet of this tepid (though still awesome) job growth is how much direct influence the evil liberal minority has over all of this. I’m not just talking about evil-doers like Atrios who strive to influence these numbers in a futile bid to convince his Islamofascist overlords that he belongs in the caves with them, and not toiling away in the Great Satan which continues, despite his best efforts, to pull at the spot where his heart used to be. No, I’m talking about liberals who intentionally sabotage our awesome economic growth by quitting their jobs at the coffeeshops and bookstores in order to injure our economic well-being.
According to Table A-8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, 13.6% of the unemployed people are unemployed because they quit their jobs. Now, anyone paying attention will surely notice that 13.6% is almost the exact number of liberal scumbags currently residing in our country. The implications are obvious. This works out to 935,000 people. And what would happen if these 935,000 people hadn’t left their jobs? Rather than a measly 128,000 jobs added, we’d have seen that number at over one million. One million jobs. The exact amount, I might add, that I had just predicted we’d find for job growth in August. Simply amazing.
And with that piece of the puzzle in place, it’s obvious to see what’s really going on here. This isn’t a sign of economic distress. This is sabotage. Economic sabotage by angry, irrational people who would rather suck at the government’s teat than to work harder at making George Bush look like the success that we all really know he is.
It’s the same thing with Bush’s “low” approval ratings. Sure, they’re low, on a historical comparison. But how much of that number is merely liberals expressing their displeasure at living in the greatest country in the world? And then there are the me-too people, who are simply pretending to be upset with Bush because they see it as the trendy thing to do. And so when you factor out the traitors who want to ruin America and other mindless miscreants, we’d clearly see Bush’s approval ratings in the high 90’s. Possibly higher.
So rather than these numbers being indicators of trouble for Bush, commonsense tells us that they just demonstrate how terribly desperate liberals are; that they waste all their energies trying to defeat Bush, and the best they can do is alter a few meaningless numbers that they invented. These are clearly the last throes of a desperate enemy.
God’s Plan
So isn’t it obvious what this is about? Of course. Libs don’t care about our successes. How else to explain why they never see it? For them, life since Bush took over has been an ever-spiraling descent into oblivion, and this is just another futile attempt at bringing the rest of us down with them. That’s why they’re always so obsessed with “unemployment figures” and “median wages”, when all the important numbers are positive. GDP growth is gangbusters. Productivity is better than it’s ever been in history. And the double-secret stock portfolio of my Bimini-based mutual fund business is just bursting with success; or so I’ve been told by the conch fisherman who agreed to “own” it.
Yet for all this, liberals incessantly whine about how bad things are doing for the “common” man. Hogwash. If a college-educated super-genius from an affluent family like me can succeed, what’s stopping anyone else? This isn’t an issue of equality, but of perspective. Where others decry lowering standards of living and deepening hardships, I see opportunity. Sure, not everyone can just start-up their own interest-only loan business, but that makes it all the better for those of us who can. After all, had God not wanted some people to fail, he would never have invented Supply & Demand.
And so what if the losers fail? That’s what losers are supposed to do; hence the word “loser”. And if we could all be winners, it would really detract from all the times that I won; which is all the time. I’m a clear beneficiary of Bush’s economic plan, and I get very angry when people try to knock my success by suggesting that my business model is “immoral”, as if there’s something inherently wrong with coercing desperate people into usurious contracts which are intentionally designed to suck as much money from them as possible, while denying them the ability to actually pay-off the original debt. Hey, if I didn’t think it was a good way to make money, I wouldn’t do it.
Zero-Sum Game
And so that’s what this is all about. Atrios doesn’t give a flip about jobs. Hell, he’d have to have had one first for this to be of any concern to him. No, this is about revenge. Revenge against Bush and revenge against America. These people are all self-haters who would rather destroy everything good in the world than to try to take advantage of it. Who see exploitation where we see opportunity. And who would rather lament the poor fortunes of the common-man than to lift a finger to show him the way to the Day Laborers site where I get my volunteers.
Shame on you, Atrios. And shame on your infamous legions. They may hate America with all their souls, but they’re really only hating themselves. And for all the time they waste whining about poor conditions for the “working man” as an attempt to harm America, they could be taking advantage of these grand opportunities. Just try hiring a manservant during periods of high employment. Impossible. But these days, they’re a dime a dozen. Literally. You just have to visit the right countries.
And so it’s no wonder that ignoramuses like Atrios are so angry and rude. Life must be pretty tough when you have to wash your own ballsack. They say that economics is a “zero-sum game”, which can be roughly translated as meaning that libs are trying to screw me over. And the longer the angry Atrios’ of the world continue to spew-out their obscene traitorisms about low job growth and depressed wages, one thing will be certain: I’ll be doing good.
And in the end, isn’t that what it’s really all about? Libs can rely on their meaninglessly subjective reports if they want to, but I think I’ll just stick with my gut. And right now, my gut is full.
Bestowing Thanks
Here’s a belated congratulations to myself for once again winning the Carnival of the Liberals on Wednesday. I had given it a rest for the past several competitions to allow other people the opportunity to finally win something for once in their lives, but now I’m back. And while my entry wasn’t listed on the top of the list, it’s quite obvious that I was clearly the top selection of the group. How could it be otherwise?
I’d also like to make note of Whig of Cannablog (which I believe is some sort of blog for cannibals) who wisely choose me as Blog of the Day. I personally think that my blog is always the blog of the day, but I thank Whig for making this more explicit. It may seem as if I would tire of all the honor and praise bestowed upon me on a daily basis, but I remain stoic about it and understand why so many people desire to worship at my feet. I would too, if I weren’t already standing on them; which is probably the greatest honor that I can give.
And for all you people out there who read my posts and enjoy what you see, you’re welcome.
I’d also like to make note of Whig of Cannablog (which I believe is some sort of blog for cannibals) who wisely choose me as Blog of the Day. I personally think that my blog is always the blog of the day, but I thank Whig for making this more explicit. It may seem as if I would tire of all the honor and praise bestowed upon me on a daily basis, but I remain stoic about it and understand why so many people desire to worship at my feet. I would too, if I weren’t already standing on them; which is probably the greatest honor that I can give.
And for all you people out there who read my posts and enjoy what you see, you’re welcome.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Dumb Robots
Per the AP:
Republicans in House races copied their party's talking points and included parts of the answers as their own for an AARP survey. The answers related to Medicare, Social Security, insurance plans and retirement.
Candidates in Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, South Carolina and Texas all submitted the sometimes word-for-word responses, which originated with the National Republican Congressional Committee.
That’s right. When asked to explain their positions on the issues, at least seven Republicans preferred to plagiarize the Cliff Note’s version. And this isn’t the first time. The article says that at least five Republicans did it in the last election cycle too.
The article also said that some of the candidates are trying to pretend as if this was a good thing, that they couldn’t write their own responses.
"Ralph has his own ideas, but we are lucky to have the NRCC's help during this campaign because it's more evidence that Ralph has what it takes to bring change to South Carolina and Washington," said Rob Godfrey, communications director for Republican Ralph Norman's campaign
Relying on his party to tell him what he thinks is what South Carolina and Washington need?? I guess the fact that these talking points came from Washington, and in fact, the very people in charge of Washington for the past few years, is a little lost on them. Or is Godfrey perhaps suggesting that Ralph’s plagiarizing showcases his efficiency and ability to delegate to others? Much like how Bush has delegated all of his writing and thinking tasks to his “subordinates”.
Another campaign tried a different tact: To act as if this indicates the candidate’s high level of expertise on the issues.
Van Taylor's campaign in Texas said the language helps the candidate understand the issues.
"It's only natural when we were running for Congress, he wanted to become as knowledgeable as he could on the issues," said Casey Phillips, Taylor's campaign manager.
Wow, this guy is such an expert that he can rely on talking points to present his positions…the same talking points that several other candidates relied on. I’m sure of all the material ready to be plagiarized, Van Taylor used his expertise to determine which one was the best. Sure, some people might think it odd that a “knowledgeable” candidate would have to rely on talking points just a few months before the election; but those people obviously haven’t figured out that the most knowledgeable thing you can do is to copy your work from someone even more knowledgeable. That’s why everyone always steals my material.
Zombie Answers
All joking aside, it’s obvious that Republicans really don’t want knowledgeable candidates. And what Taylor’s campaign manager meant in that last quote is that he wanted his candidate to appear as knowledgeable as he could on the issues. That’s why you’d steal answers. But stealing answers certainly wouldn’t make you more knowledgeable, and would indicate the exact opposite.
And when you get down to it, that appearance is about the most the typical Republican wants from their politicians anyway. And while they might not like to hear that their candidates are so clearly taking notes from the national party, that really is what they expect. The GOP has crafted a very vague and easily agreeable platform for their peeps, and Republicans from various backgrounds and ideologies can hear the same words and imagine that it was tailored just for them. Because they only hear what they expected to hear and the message is so totally meaningless that it always works.
And the truth is that these candidates probably don’t have a significantly different positions than the one they cribbed for the AARP. So it’s probably for the best that they’re so obvious about the fact. Because that’s just not who most Republicans want. They want someone to fill seats that Democrats might take and to vote as they’re told. They want these guys to live-up to Rush Limbaugh’s fantasy candidate.
And for all the talk of the few Republican “mavericks,” they’re generally older generation guys from before this current crop of zombies came about; and even the mavericks have done a good job toeing the line. It’s only the appearance of maverickness that they’re really after. Always striving for the moderate-edges on a few key issues, which they can use to show their wild side; before falling back in line when it comes to the final vote. And it all comes down to accepting that GOP money and being spoken well of by the others.
But the truth is that Republicans don’t want hundreds of different politicians coming up with their own ideas, policies, and platforms. They want hundreds of dopes who can look good while reciting the proper script. They don’t want political leaders. They want the Borg. That’s why they always talk about independence and freedom and all that other good stuff; because that’s all they really require. Actions speak louder than words and these people have very very sensitive ears.
Republicans in House races copied their party's talking points and included parts of the answers as their own for an AARP survey. The answers related to Medicare, Social Security, insurance plans and retirement.
Candidates in Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, South Carolina and Texas all submitted the sometimes word-for-word responses, which originated with the National Republican Congressional Committee.
That’s right. When asked to explain their positions on the issues, at least seven Republicans preferred to plagiarize the Cliff Note’s version. And this isn’t the first time. The article says that at least five Republicans did it in the last election cycle too.
The article also said that some of the candidates are trying to pretend as if this was a good thing, that they couldn’t write their own responses.
"Ralph has his own ideas, but we are lucky to have the NRCC's help during this campaign because it's more evidence that Ralph has what it takes to bring change to South Carolina and Washington," said Rob Godfrey, communications director for Republican Ralph Norman's campaign
Relying on his party to tell him what he thinks is what South Carolina and Washington need?? I guess the fact that these talking points came from Washington, and in fact, the very people in charge of Washington for the past few years, is a little lost on them. Or is Godfrey perhaps suggesting that Ralph’s plagiarizing showcases his efficiency and ability to delegate to others? Much like how Bush has delegated all of his writing and thinking tasks to his “subordinates”.
Another campaign tried a different tact: To act as if this indicates the candidate’s high level of expertise on the issues.
Van Taylor's campaign in Texas said the language helps the candidate understand the issues.
"It's only natural when we were running for Congress, he wanted to become as knowledgeable as he could on the issues," said Casey Phillips, Taylor's campaign manager.
Wow, this guy is such an expert that he can rely on talking points to present his positions…the same talking points that several other candidates relied on. I’m sure of all the material ready to be plagiarized, Van Taylor used his expertise to determine which one was the best. Sure, some people might think it odd that a “knowledgeable” candidate would have to rely on talking points just a few months before the election; but those people obviously haven’t figured out that the most knowledgeable thing you can do is to copy your work from someone even more knowledgeable. That’s why everyone always steals my material.
Zombie Answers
All joking aside, it’s obvious that Republicans really don’t want knowledgeable candidates. And what Taylor’s campaign manager meant in that last quote is that he wanted his candidate to appear as knowledgeable as he could on the issues. That’s why you’d steal answers. But stealing answers certainly wouldn’t make you more knowledgeable, and would indicate the exact opposite.
And when you get down to it, that appearance is about the most the typical Republican wants from their politicians anyway. And while they might not like to hear that their candidates are so clearly taking notes from the national party, that really is what they expect. The GOP has crafted a very vague and easily agreeable platform for their peeps, and Republicans from various backgrounds and ideologies can hear the same words and imagine that it was tailored just for them. Because they only hear what they expected to hear and the message is so totally meaningless that it always works.
And the truth is that these candidates probably don’t have a significantly different positions than the one they cribbed for the AARP. So it’s probably for the best that they’re so obvious about the fact. Because that’s just not who most Republicans want. They want someone to fill seats that Democrats might take and to vote as they’re told. They want these guys to live-up to Rush Limbaugh’s fantasy candidate.
And for all the talk of the few Republican “mavericks,” they’re generally older generation guys from before this current crop of zombies came about; and even the mavericks have done a good job toeing the line. It’s only the appearance of maverickness that they’re really after. Always striving for the moderate-edges on a few key issues, which they can use to show their wild side; before falling back in line when it comes to the final vote. And it all comes down to accepting that GOP money and being spoken well of by the others.
But the truth is that Republicans don’t want hundreds of different politicians coming up with their own ideas, policies, and platforms. They want hundreds of dopes who can look good while reciting the proper script. They don’t want political leaders. They want the Borg. That’s why they always talk about independence and freedom and all that other good stuff; because that’s all they really require. Actions speak louder than words and these people have very very sensitive ears.
Rule of Partisans
Partisanship allows politicians to violate election laws?? Have all Republican politicians lost their mind?
Per the AP:
Acting on a complaint filed by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the election board said Green, who decided to give up his U.S. House seat after eight years to run for governor, cannot spend money received from political action committees, or PACs, not registered in Wisconsin. The board also argued he was $156,140 over the state limit of $485,000 in PAC donations.
But Green's campaign manager said the money was already spent and would not have to be returned.
….
The board's 5-2 vote resulted in cries of unfairness from Republicans, who noted that all four Democratic appointees on the board voted for it.
"This was an orchestrated campaign move by the Democrats to try to give advantage to Jim Doyle and it truly, truly was a very embarrassing move," said Mark Graul, Green's campaign manager.
Now, I’m not an expert on Wisconsin election laws, which puts me in a great position for commenting on it, and I’ve got to say that these guys are pretty damn ballsy. I mean, laws are laws, yet these guys are using partisanship as an argument against them. And again, I don’t know the particulars, but it would seem that one Republican supported the decision and two dissented. That doesn’t sound particularly strong. And if the law is the law, then what the hell were those two Republicans thinking? It’s as if you only have to follow the law if your own party forces you to.
Oh, and I really like the “we already spent it” defense. I wonder if they think that works for other crimes too. As if a quickie spending spree after each crime allows criminals to keep their goods.
Per the AP:
Acting on a complaint filed by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the election board said Green, who decided to give up his U.S. House seat after eight years to run for governor, cannot spend money received from political action committees, or PACs, not registered in Wisconsin. The board also argued he was $156,140 over the state limit of $485,000 in PAC donations.
But Green's campaign manager said the money was already spent and would not have to be returned.
….
The board's 5-2 vote resulted in cries of unfairness from Republicans, who noted that all four Democratic appointees on the board voted for it.
"This was an orchestrated campaign move by the Democrats to try to give advantage to Jim Doyle and it truly, truly was a very embarrassing move," said Mark Graul, Green's campaign manager.
Now, I’m not an expert on Wisconsin election laws, which puts me in a great position for commenting on it, and I’ve got to say that these guys are pretty damn ballsy. I mean, laws are laws, yet these guys are using partisanship as an argument against them. And again, I don’t know the particulars, but it would seem that one Republican supported the decision and two dissented. That doesn’t sound particularly strong. And if the law is the law, then what the hell were those two Republicans thinking? It’s as if you only have to follow the law if your own party forces you to.
Oh, and I really like the “we already spent it” defense. I wonder if they think that works for other crimes too. As if a quickie spending spree after each crime allows criminals to keep their goods.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The McFly Doctrine
I hate to do this to you people, but I just read Rumsfeld’s speech regarding quitters and I’m convinced. We’ve got to stay in Iraq. After all, if we quit Iraq, then we’ll be quitters. And I’d rather continue to stoke anti-American hatred worldwide and risk sabotaging the War on Terror than to become a quitter. They can bomb our allies. They can kill our soldiers. They can even force us to drain our precious resources to wage an ever-esclating war that they have been desiring for years, which will eventually leave our once great nation brittle and spent. But they will NOT call us chicken.
The Eternal Victory Lap
One of the more annoying facets of critiquing conservative blogs is the enormous bluster-to-information ratio. They spend so much time patting themselves on the back every time they can find a correlation between their beliefs and reality that they often seem to leave out the actual proof. And considering that these guys don’t base their theories on any particular facts, that kind of makes sense. For them, evidence is a luxury they usually can’t afford. It’s nice if you can get it, but there’s no point in going crazy. And so it usually falls by the wayside while they busily proclaim yet another victory that only they can understand.
Take this recent post by UK blogger Tim Worstall at TCS Daily entitled America: More Like Sweden Than You Thought, which can best be summarized as a 1200-word victory lap by a writer who forgot to run the race. His post is a simple enough one: To criticize the newest installment of a biennial report from the Economic Policy Institute titled The State of Working America, which will be released on Labor Day.
Tim was admittedly excited about the early release of Chapter 8: International Comparisons (PDF), a teaser released a month early which showcases how America’s numbers stack-up to our foreign competitors. And his excitement paid-off. For you see, in that one chapter, Tim found a graph that he could agree with. That’s right. Tim Worstall, a conservative, saw a graph in a totally socialist loon report that he could agree with. Not the whole graph, mind you. But one aspect of the graph. And based on that one outrageous discovery, Tim crows that he’s found yet another of “those reports that really don't tell us what the authors think they are telling us.”
I fail to understand how that works exactly, that he can mock a group because one of their graphs didn’t undermine his worldview. To me, I’d kind of expect to see every graph confirming my view, and not just one. But I guess when you’re not accustomed to reality confirming your theories, you take what you can get.
One Graph
Here’s exactly what Tim says he was doing: “For there is the great joy of seeing that what they think they're telling us isn't, in fact, quite what they are telling us.”
That’s a worthy enough goal, I guess. But can he do it? Of course not. As I already said, he reads a thirty-six page chapter of the report, and the best he can do is point out ONE graph that he thinks supports his position. ONE. He blusters on for over 1200 words, to highlight one graph. And if you can believe it, he only spends one paragraph actually telling us how the graph didn’t undermine his point. And he spends the rest of the time high-fiving himself. How pathetic.
But surely he’s caught something big, right? He’s exposed them for having lied about what that graph said? Or ignoring a crucial aspect? Well, not really. In fact, I read the chapter and the graph fits right in with what they were saying. They were suggesting that the inequality in median income between the richest and the poorest people is much higher in America than in other countries, even adjusted for purchasing power. And that’s exactly what the graph shows. It’s on page twenty-five of the report if you don’t believe me.
And Tim admits all that. He acts smug when he points out the parts in the report which show that America is the richest nation, as if there is any disagreement on that, and agrees with them when they say that the evidence shows a big income inequality in America. He just doesn’t think that’s a problem. So to him, he’s already done away with the bulk of the work with an implicit criticism; ie, that the Economic Policy Institute is a bunch of weenieheads who don’t understand the real world. Not that he was cool enough to use the word “weenieheads,” but the point was fairly obvious.
The Power of Snark
As he says:
“Now if the equality of income distribution is something you worry about this is of course a troubling fact.” A few paragraphs later, he adds: “Shown this undoubted fact we are therefore to don sackcloth and ashes, promise to do better and tax the heck out of everybody to rectify this appalling situation.”
And that’s it. Income inequality is the major theme of the report and Tim just comes along and dismisses this eternal problem with a bit of snark and moves on. Mission accomplished. But hell, he didn’t even need the report to dispute that. He’s clearly put forth a blanket statement of contempt towards the entire issue of income inequality and sees no need to discuss anything further. To him, the fact that America is the most prosperous nation is enough evidence to prove that we’ve got the right policies regarding poverty.
As he says, “Things are actually looking pretty good for the US economy, then -- wealthier to start with, getting richer faster and productivity growth is also highest in the USA, meaning that this trend is only likely to continue. Looking at all of that it's really rather difficult to see that there's anything wrong with the way things are being managed (or not).”
That’s right. As long as America prospers, there’s nothing wrong for nobody. And I guess hardwork, ingenuity, luck, and natural resources don’t count for anything anymore. Apparently, a good policy can overcome anything. If only those dumb Swedes would learn.
Dispelling the Miracle
So what is his beef? We’re almost 900 words into his post (as well as my own) and we still haven’t been told what he’s discovered. So here it is, I hope you’re seated. For you see, Tim discovered the awful truth of the Swedish Miracle: Despite horrendous taxes and atrocious government intervention, poor Swedes have the same low level of income as poor Americans. That’s right. I’m sure that hurt your socialist ears, but I had to say it.
Specifically, Tim touts the fact that the graph shows that the poorest 10% of Americans make the same percentage of median income as the poorest 10% in Sweden, adjusted for purchasing power. In other words, the poorest 10% have the same purchasing power in both countries; which is about 38% of median income. Those bastard Swedes!
Sure, their unemployment rate is higher than ours, and they don’t nearly have the same resources as us; but their poor can only buy the same trash that our poor buy. And sure, the top 10% of Swedes only make 110% of the median income, while the top 10% in America make a whopping 210%; which was the whole point of the graph. But screw that! Income equality’s for weenies. The important thing is that the purchasing power of the poor is the same, even in semi-socialist nations.
Blessed Egalitarianism
Here is the extent of his actual criticism:
But hang on a minute, that's not quite what is being shown. In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It's not worth quibbling over 1% so let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden). Which is really a rather revealing number don't you think? All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing.
It took him almost 900 words to do it, but he got there. He finally made his point. And it’s totally stupid. See, here’s the problem: Tim seems to think that Sweden’s high taxes are supposed to boost their economy; but he sees that their economy sucks, so he knows that’s not happening. So he thinks he’s scored a point.
And then he goes in for the kill when he notes that Sweden’s high taxes aren’t making their poor people significantly richer than our own. But is that what the high taxes are for? Of course not. While I’m assuming that the Swedes also have a straight-up welfare system which provides some direct cash to poor people, the primary benefit is not more money. It’s more services. And while government services won’t necessarily help your purchasing power, they can certainly increase your standard of living.
And the report makes that clear. As Tim must know, the report says “However, it is worth noting that PPPs do not account for the cost of non-market social goods, such as education, health care, or childcare, which are much cheaper or completely covered by public spending in many European countries relative to the United States.”
That sounds pretty clear. And yet Tim makes no mention of this at all. Just as he makes no mention of any services before declaring that the Swedish system does not change the living standards of the poor. Sure, America is significantly wealthier than Sweden and should therefore be expected to have richer poor people; but to Tim, the fact that these are the same proves that these programs have no effect.
Standard of Living
Here’s a brief summary of the Swedish welfare system, per Wikipedia:
The state provides for tax-funded childcare, parental leave, a ceiling on health care costs, tax-funded education (all levels up to, and including university), retirement pensions, tax-funded dental care up to 20 years of age and sick leave (partly paid by the employer).
Wow. As someone who has spent a small fortune on daycare, education, and dirty teeth, that sounds good to me. Not just for the poor, but the middle-class too. And lest you believe that our own tax credit system for daycare and college tuition covers the cost, they don’t. And these aren’t just perks, but rather have direct benefits to society.
And here’s the line that gives it away:
“…let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden).”
Let’s not and say we didn’t. Because that graph didn’t say anything about standard of living. It said the same purchasing power, ie, the ability to buy stuff with your income. And if you don’t have to purchase daycare, excessive healthcare, college education, or your kid’s dental care; you’ve got a lot more extra money from that same level of income. And so their standard of living would not be the same. And even if it was, that wasn’t what the graph said. And as I said, the report makes that fairly clear.
And none of this is to even mention that the child and elderly poverty rates are astonishingly higher in America than Sweden and other countries; which is also what the report says with Table 8.17 (page 28). And that would also indicate that the Swedes have their problem better under control. For example, the child poverty rate in Sweden is a mere 4.2% compared with 21.9% here in America.
And believe it or not, but Sweden also spends a significantly larger percentage of their GDP than America on social expenditures. Figure 8H on page 30 shows Sweden’s spending at 14% of GDP, compared with 2% for America. And in case you were wondering, that graph shows that the countries who spend more on social expenditures also have the lowest child poverty rate. That’s not to suggest that America should spend 14% of it’s GDP on welfare programs, but there is certainly a clear correlation between spending and poverty.
But all that eludes poor Tim. He’s apparently some kind of bigtime conservative blogger who has even edited a book which features “the very best writing from the rising stars of online journalism,” and yet he blows through 1200 words and totally misses his mark. But does that faze Tim? Of course not. He’s too busy celebrating.
Problem Solved
The funniest part is his conclusion where he pays lip service to the idea that he cares about a “social safety net,” before he dismisses the idea that we have any problem. And he actually uses this one graph as part of his evidence. As he says:
The standard of living of the poor in a redistributionist paradise like Finland (or Sweden) seems a fair enough number to use and the USA provides exactly that. Good, the problem's solved.
And the fact that Sweden’s poor also get much needed services which are denied to us is apparently besides the point. In fact, Tim doesn’t once even mention what these services are. He continues to rail against Sweden’s “redistribution of wealth” and fails to even recognize how this works. It’s as if he hasn’t been told there are any services at all; just pure theft. And surely he knows better, so why won’t he talk about the services Sweden provides for those tax dollars? Because it undermines his entire argument which is best summed-up by Taxes=Bad.
He’s trying to show that Sweden’s system is no better than our own, while simultaneously undermining the credibility of this report, but he can’t even tell us what the Swedish system is and obfuscates all the other charts and graphs in that report which show that America’s system is not comparable to the Swede’s. He found his one fact and he’s sticking to it, even if it doesn’t say what he thinks it says. And he insists repeatedly that this proves something against the authors of the report.
Now, along with Tim, I too know very little about the Swedish system, and perhaps it’s not the answer. But we’d never know that from reading Tim’s post, because he’s not interested in providing answers. He thinks he’s already got them and expects his readers to already know too. So there was no real need for him to detail his actual point, because it was already more than apparent to everyone involved. And even if you disprove his actual point, which is easily done, he’ll still insist that his point was still correct overall; even if he can’t dispute the facts that prove him wrong…which are all of them.
And it’s due to that low level of intellectual honesty that he can declare victory while having gotten almost everything wrong. Thus, our modern conservative.
Take this recent post by UK blogger Tim Worstall at TCS Daily entitled America: More Like Sweden Than You Thought, which can best be summarized as a 1200-word victory lap by a writer who forgot to run the race. His post is a simple enough one: To criticize the newest installment of a biennial report from the Economic Policy Institute titled The State of Working America, which will be released on Labor Day.
Tim was admittedly excited about the early release of Chapter 8: International Comparisons (PDF), a teaser released a month early which showcases how America’s numbers stack-up to our foreign competitors. And his excitement paid-off. For you see, in that one chapter, Tim found a graph that he could agree with. That’s right. Tim Worstall, a conservative, saw a graph in a totally socialist loon report that he could agree with. Not the whole graph, mind you. But one aspect of the graph. And based on that one outrageous discovery, Tim crows that he’s found yet another of “those reports that really don't tell us what the authors think they are telling us.”
I fail to understand how that works exactly, that he can mock a group because one of their graphs didn’t undermine his worldview. To me, I’d kind of expect to see every graph confirming my view, and not just one. But I guess when you’re not accustomed to reality confirming your theories, you take what you can get.
One Graph
Here’s exactly what Tim says he was doing: “For there is the great joy of seeing that what they think they're telling us isn't, in fact, quite what they are telling us.”
That’s a worthy enough goal, I guess. But can he do it? Of course not. As I already said, he reads a thirty-six page chapter of the report, and the best he can do is point out ONE graph that he thinks supports his position. ONE. He blusters on for over 1200 words, to highlight one graph. And if you can believe it, he only spends one paragraph actually telling us how the graph didn’t undermine his point. And he spends the rest of the time high-fiving himself. How pathetic.
But surely he’s caught something big, right? He’s exposed them for having lied about what that graph said? Or ignoring a crucial aspect? Well, not really. In fact, I read the chapter and the graph fits right in with what they were saying. They were suggesting that the inequality in median income between the richest and the poorest people is much higher in America than in other countries, even adjusted for purchasing power. And that’s exactly what the graph shows. It’s on page twenty-five of the report if you don’t believe me.
And Tim admits all that. He acts smug when he points out the parts in the report which show that America is the richest nation, as if there is any disagreement on that, and agrees with them when they say that the evidence shows a big income inequality in America. He just doesn’t think that’s a problem. So to him, he’s already done away with the bulk of the work with an implicit criticism; ie, that the Economic Policy Institute is a bunch of weenieheads who don’t understand the real world. Not that he was cool enough to use the word “weenieheads,” but the point was fairly obvious.
The Power of Snark
As he says:
“Now if the equality of income distribution is something you worry about this is of course a troubling fact.” A few paragraphs later, he adds: “Shown this undoubted fact we are therefore to don sackcloth and ashes, promise to do better and tax the heck out of everybody to rectify this appalling situation.”
And that’s it. Income inequality is the major theme of the report and Tim just comes along and dismisses this eternal problem with a bit of snark and moves on. Mission accomplished. But hell, he didn’t even need the report to dispute that. He’s clearly put forth a blanket statement of contempt towards the entire issue of income inequality and sees no need to discuss anything further. To him, the fact that America is the most prosperous nation is enough evidence to prove that we’ve got the right policies regarding poverty.
As he says, “Things are actually looking pretty good for the US economy, then -- wealthier to start with, getting richer faster and productivity growth is also highest in the USA, meaning that this trend is only likely to continue. Looking at all of that it's really rather difficult to see that there's anything wrong with the way things are being managed (or not).”
That’s right. As long as America prospers, there’s nothing wrong for nobody. And I guess hardwork, ingenuity, luck, and natural resources don’t count for anything anymore. Apparently, a good policy can overcome anything. If only those dumb Swedes would learn.
Dispelling the Miracle
So what is his beef? We’re almost 900 words into his post (as well as my own) and we still haven’t been told what he’s discovered. So here it is, I hope you’re seated. For you see, Tim discovered the awful truth of the Swedish Miracle: Despite horrendous taxes and atrocious government intervention, poor Swedes have the same low level of income as poor Americans. That’s right. I’m sure that hurt your socialist ears, but I had to say it.
Specifically, Tim touts the fact that the graph shows that the poorest 10% of Americans make the same percentage of median income as the poorest 10% in Sweden, adjusted for purchasing power. In other words, the poorest 10% have the same purchasing power in both countries; which is about 38% of median income. Those bastard Swedes!
Sure, their unemployment rate is higher than ours, and they don’t nearly have the same resources as us; but their poor can only buy the same trash that our poor buy. And sure, the top 10% of Swedes only make 110% of the median income, while the top 10% in America make a whopping 210%; which was the whole point of the graph. But screw that! Income equality’s for weenies. The important thing is that the purchasing power of the poor is the same, even in semi-socialist nations.
Blessed Egalitarianism
Here is the extent of his actual criticism:
But hang on a minute, that's not quite what is being shown. In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It's not worth quibbling over 1% so let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden). Which is really a rather revealing number don't you think? All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing.
It took him almost 900 words to do it, but he got there. He finally made his point. And it’s totally stupid. See, here’s the problem: Tim seems to think that Sweden’s high taxes are supposed to boost their economy; but he sees that their economy sucks, so he knows that’s not happening. So he thinks he’s scored a point.
And then he goes in for the kill when he notes that Sweden’s high taxes aren’t making their poor people significantly richer than our own. But is that what the high taxes are for? Of course not. While I’m assuming that the Swedes also have a straight-up welfare system which provides some direct cash to poor people, the primary benefit is not more money. It’s more services. And while government services won’t necessarily help your purchasing power, they can certainly increase your standard of living.
And the report makes that clear. As Tim must know, the report says “However, it is worth noting that PPPs do not account for the cost of non-market social goods, such as education, health care, or childcare, which are much cheaper or completely covered by public spending in many European countries relative to the United States.”
That sounds pretty clear. And yet Tim makes no mention of this at all. Just as he makes no mention of any services before declaring that the Swedish system does not change the living standards of the poor. Sure, America is significantly wealthier than Sweden and should therefore be expected to have richer poor people; but to Tim, the fact that these are the same proves that these programs have no effect.
Standard of Living
Here’s a brief summary of the Swedish welfare system, per Wikipedia:
The state provides for tax-funded childcare, parental leave, a ceiling on health care costs, tax-funded education (all levels up to, and including university), retirement pensions, tax-funded dental care up to 20 years of age and sick leave (partly paid by the employer).
Wow. As someone who has spent a small fortune on daycare, education, and dirty teeth, that sounds good to me. Not just for the poor, but the middle-class too. And lest you believe that our own tax credit system for daycare and college tuition covers the cost, they don’t. And these aren’t just perks, but rather have direct benefits to society.
And here’s the line that gives it away:
“…let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden).”
Let’s not and say we didn’t. Because that graph didn’t say anything about standard of living. It said the same purchasing power, ie, the ability to buy stuff with your income. And if you don’t have to purchase daycare, excessive healthcare, college education, or your kid’s dental care; you’ve got a lot more extra money from that same level of income. And so their standard of living would not be the same. And even if it was, that wasn’t what the graph said. And as I said, the report makes that fairly clear.
And none of this is to even mention that the child and elderly poverty rates are astonishingly higher in America than Sweden and other countries; which is also what the report says with Table 8.17 (page 28). And that would also indicate that the Swedes have their problem better under control. For example, the child poverty rate in Sweden is a mere 4.2% compared with 21.9% here in America.
And believe it or not, but Sweden also spends a significantly larger percentage of their GDP than America on social expenditures. Figure 8H on page 30 shows Sweden’s spending at 14% of GDP, compared with 2% for America. And in case you were wondering, that graph shows that the countries who spend more on social expenditures also have the lowest child poverty rate. That’s not to suggest that America should spend 14% of it’s GDP on welfare programs, but there is certainly a clear correlation between spending and poverty.
But all that eludes poor Tim. He’s apparently some kind of bigtime conservative blogger who has even edited a book which features “the very best writing from the rising stars of online journalism,” and yet he blows through 1200 words and totally misses his mark. But does that faze Tim? Of course not. He’s too busy celebrating.
Problem Solved
The funniest part is his conclusion where he pays lip service to the idea that he cares about a “social safety net,” before he dismisses the idea that we have any problem. And he actually uses this one graph as part of his evidence. As he says:
The standard of living of the poor in a redistributionist paradise like Finland (or Sweden) seems a fair enough number to use and the USA provides exactly that. Good, the problem's solved.
And the fact that Sweden’s poor also get much needed services which are denied to us is apparently besides the point. In fact, Tim doesn’t once even mention what these services are. He continues to rail against Sweden’s “redistribution of wealth” and fails to even recognize how this works. It’s as if he hasn’t been told there are any services at all; just pure theft. And surely he knows better, so why won’t he talk about the services Sweden provides for those tax dollars? Because it undermines his entire argument which is best summed-up by Taxes=Bad.
He’s trying to show that Sweden’s system is no better than our own, while simultaneously undermining the credibility of this report, but he can’t even tell us what the Swedish system is and obfuscates all the other charts and graphs in that report which show that America’s system is not comparable to the Swede’s. He found his one fact and he’s sticking to it, even if it doesn’t say what he thinks it says. And he insists repeatedly that this proves something against the authors of the report.
Now, along with Tim, I too know very little about the Swedish system, and perhaps it’s not the answer. But we’d never know that from reading Tim’s post, because he’s not interested in providing answers. He thinks he’s already got them and expects his readers to already know too. So there was no real need for him to detail his actual point, because it was already more than apparent to everyone involved. And even if you disprove his actual point, which is easily done, he’ll still insist that his point was still correct overall; even if he can’t dispute the facts that prove him wrong…which are all of them.
And it’s due to that low level of intellectual honesty that he can declare victory while having gotten almost everything wrong. Thus, our modern conservative.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Stuck in the Middle
Something that keeps bugging me: Why do people insist that I have to choose sides on everything? Why can’t we just admit that sometimes there is no “good guy” in a particular situation? Why can’t we just admit that both sides of an issue can be acting badly and in bad faith? Or for that matter, why can’t we admit that sometimes both sides have a valid position? That perhaps both sides deserve to win?
And why does each side insist on attacking anyone who isn’t actively on their side? Because I just don’t want to. Particularly as what being on “their” side means is that I support their actions and plans, while refusing to say and do things that they don’t want me to do. Like criticize them in any way. And if I don’t follow their lead, then I’m inexplicably put on the other side. It’s like being an only child in a divorce that won’t end. After a while, you don’t care who you end up with. You just want a little peace.
Like with Vietnam. I’m certainly not a supporter of the Vietcong side or anything, but I also know that the American side acted badly too. And in fact, the actions that the Americans took, going back into the 1950’s, clearly made things much worse than if we had just befriended them and bought a bunch of rice. Nothing beats communism better than prosperity, but some people just seem to prefer war. And so we screwed it up repeatedly. And now, because I’m willing to acknowledge that fact, I’m somehow picking sides. I’m “anti-American” because I refuse to believe lies. Of course.
The same goes for our current “War on Terror”. I certainly don’t approve of Bin Laden or any terrorist group, but it’s obvious that Bush’s “solution” has only made things worse. And yet as in most situations, the players involved want to insist that I’m on a particular side. If I criticize Bush’s actions, then I’m a terrorist supporter. And yet it’s quite obvious that Bin Laden wouldn’t see me as being on his side in a million years. Not if he got to see what I do on the weekends. Heck, Bush has far more in common with Bin Laden than I do; particularly with that whole messianic thing they keep working on for themselves. Looks like somebody hasn’t been explained the difference between famous and infamous.
And so I’m considered to be kind of stuck. And yet I’m not. It’s just the extremists on both sides who insist that I pick a side. And on both sides, they’ve explicitly stated that if I don’t support them, then I’m against them. And so I’m inexplicably stuck as the enemy of both sides, while preferring to not be on any side at all. I just want a peace.
And so the only way that I’m really “stuck” is that I’m stuck between two sides who are both trying to make other alternatives impossible. Neither Bush nor Bin Laden want to allow us to properly resolve this situation without them, so they intentionally sabotage the middle-roads; thus forcing me to pick sides. Because they’re not after peace or solutions. They want victory, and they think that they’re the solution..
That’s not to suggest a moral equivalence between them, but when it comes to alienating non-supporters, both of these guys have really outdone themselves.
The Defense Thing
And the same goes with the Palestinian-Israel issue. Why do I have to pick a side? I certainly don’t approve of what the Palestinians did or are doing, but I also don’t see how Israel is acting in good faith either. Particularly with the whole illegal settlements issue, which really makes the “national defense” claim look more like a cheap rationalization than a necessary policy.
On both sides, I see powerful players who act in bad faith in order to retain and expand their power. Just as many Palestinian’s object to Israel’s right to exist, there are certainly many Israeli’s who also question the Palestinian’s right to have a country. And it all just comes down to the land and old grudges being egged-on by numerous dastardly fellows on the side. It’s like a bad western that just doesn’t know when to quit.
So why do I have to pick sides? Why can’t I just say that both sides are acting poorly and that someone really needs to step in and settle this fight? There are enough powerful players who don’t want this settled outside of complete victory for their side, so how can we expect this to work itself out? And please spare me the argument of which side you think is working more in bad faith, because it’s entirely irrelevant. If you can’t trust either side, it doesn’t really matter much which side you trust less. Particularly as there are far more victims on both sides than there are bad actors, and both sides could do a whole lot more to correct the situation.
And there can be no doubt that there are also those on both sides who want no resolution. They only retain power as long as this battle continues and they have no interest in seeing any kind of conclusion at all. And let’s not forget that there are many Americans and other third-party players who would also prefer no resolution. As long as Israel remains a thorn to the Muslim nations in the middle-east, these guys stay happy. It’s a fact that war and conflict are quite good for some industries, and they certainly don’t want anything to change about that. (Dick Cheney, I’m looking at you.) And then there are the other regimes in the middle-east which certainly enjoy using Israel as a convenient excuse for screwing their citizenry.
Overall, there are too many people who want no resolution, and unfortunately, they’re often some of the most powerful players on the scene. And that means that it’s not always advisable to react violently to every deed these people do; because that’s exactly what they want. Perhaps there is some wisdom in ending a cease-fire when a whackjob extremist on the other side attacks, but I just can’t see what that would be. Because it just encourages the whackjobs to attack more, and gives them the results they want: More violence and the end to cease-fires. And yet that’s exactly what they get.
A Little Annihilation
And so why do I have to pick a side? Why do I have to support Israel’s right to blow-up everyone that looks at them funny? To support the right to kill thousands of civilians based upon a very limited attack on Israel, as we saw in Lebanon? And while they keep building on land that they certainly shouldn’t be building on.
But I most certainly can’t support the terrorists in their efforts either. And I don’t. I don’t want to pick either side. They both suck. They are both to blame. They both have victims and they have both been wronged. I don’t care. I don’t want to win. I just want it to end. And I think that the sooner people stop trying to defend “their” side and “their” solution, things will get much closer to a real solution.
And that solution? That Israel and Palestine will learn to be good neighbors who stop trying to take each other’s land. Yes, I know it’s a little more complicated than that, but this post is already too long for a better explanation. And in a few decades, everyone will consider this strife to be a piddling joke, next to the “real” problems they’ll be facing. Just as the Chicken Little neo-cons now consider the Islamofascist threat to totally dwarf that of the good ole’ days of the Cold War; back when the only thing we had to worry about were trifling things like the complete annihilation of humanity and how we wanted our martinis stirred.
And there can be little doubt that, no matter what the conflict is or how dangerous the players involved are, both sides will insist that I have no other option than to follow their command. And they’ll work as much as possible to make that true; often working harder to limit our options than in ensuring our victory. Moderates are the common enemy of extremists everywhere, and they will continue to make me pick sides. And I have no other choice than to resist these efforts and continue to work for a better solution. But they’ll try, damn them. And they might just radicalize me yet: The Pissed-Off Moderate.
And why does each side insist on attacking anyone who isn’t actively on their side? Because I just don’t want to. Particularly as what being on “their” side means is that I support their actions and plans, while refusing to say and do things that they don’t want me to do. Like criticize them in any way. And if I don’t follow their lead, then I’m inexplicably put on the other side. It’s like being an only child in a divorce that won’t end. After a while, you don’t care who you end up with. You just want a little peace.
Like with Vietnam. I’m certainly not a supporter of the Vietcong side or anything, but I also know that the American side acted badly too. And in fact, the actions that the Americans took, going back into the 1950’s, clearly made things much worse than if we had just befriended them and bought a bunch of rice. Nothing beats communism better than prosperity, but some people just seem to prefer war. And so we screwed it up repeatedly. And now, because I’m willing to acknowledge that fact, I’m somehow picking sides. I’m “anti-American” because I refuse to believe lies. Of course.
The same goes for our current “War on Terror”. I certainly don’t approve of Bin Laden or any terrorist group, but it’s obvious that Bush’s “solution” has only made things worse. And yet as in most situations, the players involved want to insist that I’m on a particular side. If I criticize Bush’s actions, then I’m a terrorist supporter. And yet it’s quite obvious that Bin Laden wouldn’t see me as being on his side in a million years. Not if he got to see what I do on the weekends. Heck, Bush has far more in common with Bin Laden than I do; particularly with that whole messianic thing they keep working on for themselves. Looks like somebody hasn’t been explained the difference between famous and infamous.
And so I’m considered to be kind of stuck. And yet I’m not. It’s just the extremists on both sides who insist that I pick a side. And on both sides, they’ve explicitly stated that if I don’t support them, then I’m against them. And so I’m inexplicably stuck as the enemy of both sides, while preferring to not be on any side at all. I just want a peace.
And so the only way that I’m really “stuck” is that I’m stuck between two sides who are both trying to make other alternatives impossible. Neither Bush nor Bin Laden want to allow us to properly resolve this situation without them, so they intentionally sabotage the middle-roads; thus forcing me to pick sides. Because they’re not after peace or solutions. They want victory, and they think that they’re the solution..
That’s not to suggest a moral equivalence between them, but when it comes to alienating non-supporters, both of these guys have really outdone themselves.
The Defense Thing
And the same goes with the Palestinian-Israel issue. Why do I have to pick a side? I certainly don’t approve of what the Palestinians did or are doing, but I also don’t see how Israel is acting in good faith either. Particularly with the whole illegal settlements issue, which really makes the “national defense” claim look more like a cheap rationalization than a necessary policy.
On both sides, I see powerful players who act in bad faith in order to retain and expand their power. Just as many Palestinian’s object to Israel’s right to exist, there are certainly many Israeli’s who also question the Palestinian’s right to have a country. And it all just comes down to the land and old grudges being egged-on by numerous dastardly fellows on the side. It’s like a bad western that just doesn’t know when to quit.
So why do I have to pick sides? Why can’t I just say that both sides are acting poorly and that someone really needs to step in and settle this fight? There are enough powerful players who don’t want this settled outside of complete victory for their side, so how can we expect this to work itself out? And please spare me the argument of which side you think is working more in bad faith, because it’s entirely irrelevant. If you can’t trust either side, it doesn’t really matter much which side you trust less. Particularly as there are far more victims on both sides than there are bad actors, and both sides could do a whole lot more to correct the situation.
And there can be no doubt that there are also those on both sides who want no resolution. They only retain power as long as this battle continues and they have no interest in seeing any kind of conclusion at all. And let’s not forget that there are many Americans and other third-party players who would also prefer no resolution. As long as Israel remains a thorn to the Muslim nations in the middle-east, these guys stay happy. It’s a fact that war and conflict are quite good for some industries, and they certainly don’t want anything to change about that. (Dick Cheney, I’m looking at you.) And then there are the other regimes in the middle-east which certainly enjoy using Israel as a convenient excuse for screwing their citizenry.
Overall, there are too many people who want no resolution, and unfortunately, they’re often some of the most powerful players on the scene. And that means that it’s not always advisable to react violently to every deed these people do; because that’s exactly what they want. Perhaps there is some wisdom in ending a cease-fire when a whackjob extremist on the other side attacks, but I just can’t see what that would be. Because it just encourages the whackjobs to attack more, and gives them the results they want: More violence and the end to cease-fires. And yet that’s exactly what they get.
A Little Annihilation
And so why do I have to pick a side? Why do I have to support Israel’s right to blow-up everyone that looks at them funny? To support the right to kill thousands of civilians based upon a very limited attack on Israel, as we saw in Lebanon? And while they keep building on land that they certainly shouldn’t be building on.
But I most certainly can’t support the terrorists in their efforts either. And I don’t. I don’t want to pick either side. They both suck. They are both to blame. They both have victims and they have both been wronged. I don’t care. I don’t want to win. I just want it to end. And I think that the sooner people stop trying to defend “their” side and “their” solution, things will get much closer to a real solution.
And that solution? That Israel and Palestine will learn to be good neighbors who stop trying to take each other’s land. Yes, I know it’s a little more complicated than that, but this post is already too long for a better explanation. And in a few decades, everyone will consider this strife to be a piddling joke, next to the “real” problems they’ll be facing. Just as the Chicken Little neo-cons now consider the Islamofascist threat to totally dwarf that of the good ole’ days of the Cold War; back when the only thing we had to worry about were trifling things like the complete annihilation of humanity and how we wanted our martinis stirred.
And there can be little doubt that, no matter what the conflict is or how dangerous the players involved are, both sides will insist that I have no other option than to follow their command. And they’ll work as much as possible to make that true; often working harder to limit our options than in ensuring our victory. Moderates are the common enemy of extremists everywhere, and they will continue to make me pick sides. And I have no other choice than to resist these efforts and continue to work for a better solution. But they’ll try, damn them. And they might just radicalize me yet: The Pissed-Off Moderate.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Clarifying Katherine
What the heck is wrong with the media? Why do they insist on making every story fit a certain storyline? Like the one about the contrite politician who didn’t mean the offensive things they said. A politician says something stupid, and the follow-up headlines will insist that the politician either clarified or apologized for their statement, whether or not the article actually reflects such an action on the part of the politician.
Like with the recent flap regarding Congresswoman Katherine Harris’ recent comments she made in an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness regarding her position on the separation of church and state. Namely, that she’s confident that there shouldn’t be one. And as was to be expected, a tepid correction has been issued, which will surely be followed by an apology and possible token act of contrition, if this initial “correction” doesn’t stop the matter. I’m sure there’s a playbook you can buy which details the exact timing of how all this will play-out.
But as is usually the case, these apologies and corrections are often not nearly as apologetic or corrective as the headlines would have us believe. The headline of this article is titled: Harris clarifies comments on religion, but as is too often the case, the clarification aspect of all this is a bit on the light side, to say the least.
The Clarification
Here are the only two lines of this “clarification”, which don’t get mentioned until the second half of the article:
Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."
The comments reflected "her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values," the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust.
Well that clarifies everything! Harris had said that the separation of church and state is a lie, that God wanted Christian laws and chooses our rulers, and that “if you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”
That sounded pretty straight forward, while this “clarification” sounds less so. I’m not sure if that first paragraph is an explanation that she was just pandering to a Christians, or if they’re just trying to deceive us regarding what Harris said. Because there is a huge difference between telling Christians they can be involved in government, a concept that no one has denied, and the idea that God picks our rulers and that it’s sinful to elect non-Christians.
And really, there are only two ways that this first paragraph counts as a clarification. Either she’s admitting that she was just pandering to Christian voters, or she’s admitting that we weren’t supposed to hear what she said. And it’s probably both. She was pandering to Christian voters and she didn’t want the other voters to know about it. I’m not sure why Republicans keep thinking that their message is only going to their target audience, but it might have something to do with Bush’s ability to do so.
But the only way that this is an honest clarification is if we’re assuming that Harris was just pandering. Because it’s not an excuse just because we weren’t supposed to hear it. That just emphasizes the problem and suggests that Harris is a liar, as well as a religious bigot. And while that might be the case, I have a hard time imagining that this is the message she’s trying to say.
So we’re really left with the extent of this clarification being that she’s admitting that she was purely pandering. Either saying these things to impress her Christian audience, or perhaps explaining why Christians need to vote for her. I’m not sure if Harris’ opponent is non-Christian, but I kind of doubt it. But still, I could imagine that this was purely a marketing decision. But if that’s the case, we really need some more clarification. It’s the only good justification she has, and yet it’s one that I’m sure she’s not willing to make.
Screwing the Jews
And then there’s the second paragraph. That’s perhaps even flakier. Because that “if you’re not electing Christians” line seems pretty straight-forward. And yet the implications of dismissing the separation of church and state would be pretty damaging to non-Christian religions. Perhaps Harris hasn’t thought this through all the way, but if Christians are expected to enact laws according to their religious beliefs, the Jews are going to get screwed. As will just about any other religious minority. That’s just an undeniable fact, no matter how often you support Israel or recognize the Holocaust.
Equally bad is the idea that the Christian god is picking our rulers; an absurd idea which most obviously isn’t happening. Because if it was, none of this would even be an issue. Because God would be picking the rulers. Sure, perhaps Harris is of the opinion that the Christian god loves the Jews too, and wouldn’t screw them over (unless he needed to). But I’m not so sure that all Jewish people would be particularly soothed by that.
And of course, that doesn’t cover any of us atheist-types at all. Apparently, Katherine doesn’t think too highly of my ability to self-govern or my right to government representation. As if our Creator hadn’t bestowed us with as many inalienable rights as our Founding Fathers had imagined. And needless to say, the idea that God is picking our rulers pretty much does away with the whole concept of freewill, which is usually the only reason cited for why evil exists in the world.
What She Said
Now perhaps Harris really did more clarifying than we were told in the article. Perhaps she really didn’t mean what she said. I can’t imagine how that could be, as her words sounded pretty straight forward. But maybe it’s possible. But even if it is, that’s not reflected in the article. So the headline shouldn’t insist that she clarified anything unless she really did. Which she didn’t. Again, her only real defense could be that she was purely pandering to her audience. And were she to admit that, it would be a clarification.
But all we got instead is an insult to our intelligence. It’s again that blanket concept that the politician didn’t say anything offensive and that any comment should automatically be construed in the “good” way. That’s a common joke I make, to rudely insult someone and then insist immediately afterward that I meant it in the “good” way. But it is just a joke, just like Katherine Harris’ clarification.
But for those multitudes who get their main news based on headlines, all of that would be lost. This was just as good as if she really did have some good explanation for her wacky statements, and that goes to explain why so many bad politicians can get away with bad things. Because journalists and editors are too busy trying to fit each story into a storyline, rather than just reporting what they see.
And even those folks who actually read the article are likely to be influenced by that headline to putting her words into a different context. Because she didn’t really clarify anything. It was really more of a defense of what she said. And that would be the better context to read her words in.
Of course, I myself am having a hard time figuring out what the proper headline should have been. Would “Harris defends comments on religion” sound too wrong? That’s the closet I could come up with, and would be the least misleading. And rather than believe that something had been murky about her initial comments which had now been clarified, readers would have realized that she had stood behind her words, which she just hadn’t meant for us to read. It’d be the truth. But somehow, that just doesn’t fit into the news story we were supposed to read.
Like with the recent flap regarding Congresswoman Katherine Harris’ recent comments she made in an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness regarding her position on the separation of church and state. Namely, that she’s confident that there shouldn’t be one. And as was to be expected, a tepid correction has been issued, which will surely be followed by an apology and possible token act of contrition, if this initial “correction” doesn’t stop the matter. I’m sure there’s a playbook you can buy which details the exact timing of how all this will play-out.
But as is usually the case, these apologies and corrections are often not nearly as apologetic or corrective as the headlines would have us believe. The headline of this article is titled: Harris clarifies comments on religion, but as is too often the case, the clarification aspect of all this is a bit on the light side, to say the least.
The Clarification
Here are the only two lines of this “clarification”, which don’t get mentioned until the second half of the article:
Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."
The comments reflected "her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values," the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust.
Well that clarifies everything! Harris had said that the separation of church and state is a lie, that God wanted Christian laws and chooses our rulers, and that “if you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”
That sounded pretty straight forward, while this “clarification” sounds less so. I’m not sure if that first paragraph is an explanation that she was just pandering to a Christians, or if they’re just trying to deceive us regarding what Harris said. Because there is a huge difference between telling Christians they can be involved in government, a concept that no one has denied, and the idea that God picks our rulers and that it’s sinful to elect non-Christians.
And really, there are only two ways that this first paragraph counts as a clarification. Either she’s admitting that she was just pandering to Christian voters, or she’s admitting that we weren’t supposed to hear what she said. And it’s probably both. She was pandering to Christian voters and she didn’t want the other voters to know about it. I’m not sure why Republicans keep thinking that their message is only going to their target audience, but it might have something to do with Bush’s ability to do so.
But the only way that this is an honest clarification is if we’re assuming that Harris was just pandering. Because it’s not an excuse just because we weren’t supposed to hear it. That just emphasizes the problem and suggests that Harris is a liar, as well as a religious bigot. And while that might be the case, I have a hard time imagining that this is the message she’s trying to say.
So we’re really left with the extent of this clarification being that she’s admitting that she was purely pandering. Either saying these things to impress her Christian audience, or perhaps explaining why Christians need to vote for her. I’m not sure if Harris’ opponent is non-Christian, but I kind of doubt it. But still, I could imagine that this was purely a marketing decision. But if that’s the case, we really need some more clarification. It’s the only good justification she has, and yet it’s one that I’m sure she’s not willing to make.
Screwing the Jews
And then there’s the second paragraph. That’s perhaps even flakier. Because that “if you’re not electing Christians” line seems pretty straight-forward. And yet the implications of dismissing the separation of church and state would be pretty damaging to non-Christian religions. Perhaps Harris hasn’t thought this through all the way, but if Christians are expected to enact laws according to their religious beliefs, the Jews are going to get screwed. As will just about any other religious minority. That’s just an undeniable fact, no matter how often you support Israel or recognize the Holocaust.
Equally bad is the idea that the Christian god is picking our rulers; an absurd idea which most obviously isn’t happening. Because if it was, none of this would even be an issue. Because God would be picking the rulers. Sure, perhaps Harris is of the opinion that the Christian god loves the Jews too, and wouldn’t screw them over (unless he needed to). But I’m not so sure that all Jewish people would be particularly soothed by that.
And of course, that doesn’t cover any of us atheist-types at all. Apparently, Katherine doesn’t think too highly of my ability to self-govern or my right to government representation. As if our Creator hadn’t bestowed us with as many inalienable rights as our Founding Fathers had imagined. And needless to say, the idea that God is picking our rulers pretty much does away with the whole concept of freewill, which is usually the only reason cited for why evil exists in the world.
What She Said
Now perhaps Harris really did more clarifying than we were told in the article. Perhaps she really didn’t mean what she said. I can’t imagine how that could be, as her words sounded pretty straight forward. But maybe it’s possible. But even if it is, that’s not reflected in the article. So the headline shouldn’t insist that she clarified anything unless she really did. Which she didn’t. Again, her only real defense could be that she was purely pandering to her audience. And were she to admit that, it would be a clarification.
But all we got instead is an insult to our intelligence. It’s again that blanket concept that the politician didn’t say anything offensive and that any comment should automatically be construed in the “good” way. That’s a common joke I make, to rudely insult someone and then insist immediately afterward that I meant it in the “good” way. But it is just a joke, just like Katherine Harris’ clarification.
But for those multitudes who get their main news based on headlines, all of that would be lost. This was just as good as if she really did have some good explanation for her wacky statements, and that goes to explain why so many bad politicians can get away with bad things. Because journalists and editors are too busy trying to fit each story into a storyline, rather than just reporting what they see.
And even those folks who actually read the article are likely to be influenced by that headline to putting her words into a different context. Because she didn’t really clarify anything. It was really more of a defense of what she said. And that would be the better context to read her words in.
Of course, I myself am having a hard time figuring out what the proper headline should have been. Would “Harris defends comments on religion” sound too wrong? That’s the closet I could come up with, and would be the least misleading. And rather than believe that something had been murky about her initial comments which had now been clarified, readers would have realized that she had stood behind her words, which she just hadn’t meant for us to read. It’d be the truth. But somehow, that just doesn’t fit into the news story we were supposed to read.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Dick Did It
I’m no legal expert and have no inside information on the DOJ, which is why I’m the exact person to speculate on why the government didn’t present a better case in the recent wiretap decision. In between assaults on the judge’s integrity, brains, and skin color, many conservatives came up with several different arguments for why these wiretaps were legal. But as Glenn Greenwald pointed out, the government failed to make any of these arguments, and by doing so, forced the court to accept the ACLU’s undisputed arguments as fact. But why’d they do that? From the way Greenwald talks, this should have been a standard thing, and my very limited knowledge of courtroom proceedings (based almost entirely on People’s Court reruns) confirms that. So what was up with that?
Here’s my theory: Cheney and his guys didn’t want to provide any of these arguments, and he convinced the others of the same. Because they don’t think they have to prove anything. They think they already have these powers and don’t need a court to tell them they do. They just need to get the court to agree that the courtroom is no place to decide if the president’s super-secret stuff is ok. And when you’re one of Cheney’s guys, everything is super-secret.
Interestingly, I was already thinking about this while reading the conservatives’ outrage over the decision. Because I actually thought it was odd that the Bush Admin would be making such arguments; for the exact reason I just stated. And sure enough, it turns out that they weren’t making those arguments. Because this isn’t just about wiretaps or terrorism. This is the whole kit and caboodle. They want the power to do whatever they want, and they want the Judicial Branch to admit that they’ve got it. They want an admission that some secrets are too secret for the courtroom, and they’re willing to lose this case if that’s what it takes. And they’ll appeal this, and take it to the Supreme Court, and they’ll probably lose it there. But they had to take the chance.
Besides, I really don’t think they had a case otherwise. You can cite other arguments in support of the wiretaps, but the law is pretty clear and the Bush Admin was going to lose. So rather than go down quietly, they’re betting everything on the long shot. They believe that State Secrets is their ticket to freedom and don’t want to waste time with anything else. They’ve been thinking that since before Nixon told us that he wasn’t a crook, and now they’re ready to push forward with making this official. They were hoping that a court wouldn’t even force them to take it this far, but they’re willing to go all the way. Again, this isn’t about wiretaps. This is the fate of our country at stake, and my very limited understanding of the legal issues tell me that everything’s going to come out ok.
Here’s my theory: Cheney and his guys didn’t want to provide any of these arguments, and he convinced the others of the same. Because they don’t think they have to prove anything. They think they already have these powers and don’t need a court to tell them they do. They just need to get the court to agree that the courtroom is no place to decide if the president’s super-secret stuff is ok. And when you’re one of Cheney’s guys, everything is super-secret.
Interestingly, I was already thinking about this while reading the conservatives’ outrage over the decision. Because I actually thought it was odd that the Bush Admin would be making such arguments; for the exact reason I just stated. And sure enough, it turns out that they weren’t making those arguments. Because this isn’t just about wiretaps or terrorism. This is the whole kit and caboodle. They want the power to do whatever they want, and they want the Judicial Branch to admit that they’ve got it. They want an admission that some secrets are too secret for the courtroom, and they’re willing to lose this case if that’s what it takes. And they’ll appeal this, and take it to the Supreme Court, and they’ll probably lose it there. But they had to take the chance.
Besides, I really don’t think they had a case otherwise. You can cite other arguments in support of the wiretaps, but the law is pretty clear and the Bush Admin was going to lose. So rather than go down quietly, they’re betting everything on the long shot. They believe that State Secrets is their ticket to freedom and don’t want to waste time with anything else. They’ve been thinking that since before Nixon told us that he wasn’t a crook, and now they’re ready to push forward with making this official. They were hoping that a court wouldn’t even force them to take it this far, but they’re willing to go all the way. Again, this isn’t about wiretaps. This is the fate of our country at stake, and my very limited understanding of the legal issues tell me that everything’s going to come out ok.
Mission Accomplished: Pluto Style
I did it folks! My campaign to have Pluto stripped of its status as a planet was a total success; thus completing the first step in my War on Pluto. Of course, I couldn’t have done it without you little people. All the emails, phone calls, and protests really added-up, and I got to say that some of those death threats were just brilliant. Those pansy-assed science freaks didn’t know what hit them. As I’ve said before, the only thing these people understand is brute force…well, and celestial physics. But I really couldn’t figure out how I could use that against them. So brute force had to do…and it did.
And for the future, I don’t want to give too much of my plans away, but my next step will be to get some really embarrassing pictures of Pluto with its “moon” Charon in various compromising positions, even if it means I have to Photoshop them. And after that, total annihilation. I never liked the way Pluto looked, with its eccentric orbit and 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune. Just bad news all the way. And now with the newfound power I’m receiving from this blog (which is growing exponentially in popularity every day), whole new worlds of possibility have opened up for me.
Who knows, maybe once I’m done with Pluto, I can focus my energies on the Sun. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the Sun and love what it does for people’s skin (especially on hot chicks). But damn if someone could perhaps think about turning it down just a little bit, at least during the summertime. I don’t know about where you are, but it’s hot as hell here where I am and I don’t think I can take this for much longer. And why so bright? I mean, I like to have as much fun as the next guy, but burning corneas out is not cool. But that’s just on the backburner right now, as we need to keep our focus on that jackoff dwarf planet Pluto. We’ve won the first round, but I’ve got a crazy feeling like we may have just angered it and will certainly need to redouble our efforts if we’re finally to remove our solar system of that damnable rock. Keep the faith, people! We will prevail!
And for the future, I don’t want to give too much of my plans away, but my next step will be to get some really embarrassing pictures of Pluto with its “moon” Charon in various compromising positions, even if it means I have to Photoshop them. And after that, total annihilation. I never liked the way Pluto looked, with its eccentric orbit and 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune. Just bad news all the way. And now with the newfound power I’m receiving from this blog (which is growing exponentially in popularity every day), whole new worlds of possibility have opened up for me.
Who knows, maybe once I’m done with Pluto, I can focus my energies on the Sun. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the Sun and love what it does for people’s skin (especially on hot chicks). But damn if someone could perhaps think about turning it down just a little bit, at least during the summertime. I don’t know about where you are, but it’s hot as hell here where I am and I don’t think I can take this for much longer. And why so bright? I mean, I like to have as much fun as the next guy, but burning corneas out is not cool. But that’s just on the backburner right now, as we need to keep our focus on that jackoff dwarf planet Pluto. We’ve won the first round, but I’ve got a crazy feeling like we may have just angered it and will certainly need to redouble our efforts if we’re finally to remove our solar system of that damnable rock. Keep the faith, people! We will prevail!
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Judicial Projectionism
Why are conservatives so god damned blind when it comes to their own personalities? In this case, I’m specifically talking about the attacks against “activist” judges who supposedly base their court decisions on predetermined outcomes of what they think should happen. And as I mention at the end of this post, this isn’t even what Judicial Activism means.
Sure, what conservatives describe is a problem, but it’s a problem that they themselves fall victim to repeatedly. They’re the ones who mask their personal opinions behind fake rationales and refuse to even consider any fact that doesn’t fit into the picture that they expected to see. For them, the ends justify the means to such an extent that they insist that only historians will be able to properly judge what’s going on right now. For them, predetermined outcomes trump everything else, including what they see with their own eyes. They know they’re always winning because they know they’re going to win, and any short-term loss must be for a greater good. And they know they have to keep thinking and saying this to make it true.
Apparently, this is because conservatives were all born with a special oracle-like gut which can foresee events and make decisions that seem utterly stupid to people who are stuck relying on their brains to make decisions. And they know this is true because their guts have been right on a few occasions (Rathergate), and because guts have poor memories for the times when they weren’t so right (almost every other occasion). After all, anyone can be right when everyone is right; but it takes true genius to be right when everyone else is wrong. And so it’s just better to take the longshot every time than to bother with the safe bet. And if that means you’ve got to lose a few times, so be it. Because they know it’s just a matter of time before they’re right again and get the big payoff.
No Good Arguments
Here’s the self-parody Ann Althouse arguing in the NY Times Op/Ed against the recent wiretapping decision (emphasis added):
For those who approve of the outcome , the judge’s opinion is counterproductive. It will be harder to defend upon appeal than a more careful decision. It suggests that there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush. It helps those who have been arguing for years about result-oriented, activist judges.
Can anyone say, “predetermined outcome”? Because that’s exactly what she’s got here. Now, I’m not a legal mind, but Publius at Legal Fiction raised some decent points that the decision might not have been reached through proper judicial procedures. Glenn Greenwald disagrees in that fairly persuasive fashion of his, but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant that perhaps Ann and Publius are correct. And Ann says that this judge didn’t even bother wrapping up her opinion in legalese, as she claims the dreaded activist judges usually do. And again, that’s about what Publius was saying too.
So if true, what should that suggest? If anything, it suggests Judge Taylor was a dummy. I don’t know that myself. It sounded like a good decision to me, but again, I’m no lawyer and really haven’t bothered reading many arguments about this. So maybe the judge is a dummy. That’s Ann’s opinion. And so based upon that, Ann would be safe in saying that the judge was a dummy who reached her opinion incorrectly and that we’ll need to wait for further court decisions to see where this is going. That’s about as far as any fair analysis could take this, and approximates Publius’ argument.
But not for Ann. Instead, she has to take things much further, to actually suggest that this bad decision proves there are no legal arguments against the program? WTF?? That’s just stupid. Perhaps there aren’t any good legal arguments against Bush’s program, but if you think the judge is dumber than the typical dumb judge, then it would be a touch premature to use that as any kind of evidence that there are no good legal arguments. Hell, why do we even need brilliant lawyers, if dumb people’s opinions are considered to be the extent of legal arguments? I’ve got a few dumb opinions of my own. Is Althouse really suggesting that this is the extent of intellectual thoughts on these subjects?
Had Ann expressed faith in this judge’s intelligence and considered her to be the cream of the crop, it might make sense to reach her conclusion. But she somehow believes that a judge she considers to be stupid reflects the extent of the liberal position. And I think that Ann knows that, which is why she never directly insults the judge’s intelligence. But it’s that very omission which suggests that she knows this is true. The dumber she thinks this judge is, the less we can determine about how all this is going to end up.
So how is it that Ann overreached the facts to arrive at this nonserious opinion? Because that’s the exact outcome she needs to believe in. I’m sure she concluded that Bush’s program was entirely within his constitutional powers long before she even heard about it. Remember, conservatives believe this program is so constitutional and proper that they were outraged that we were even told about it, and most certainly were upset about this legal challenge. And it’s fairly obvious that Ann hadn’t really been following the case when she first started attacking Judge Taylor for having a bad opinion. So it’s no wonder that Ann views this opinion as invalid, because she’s doing the exact thing she’s accusing the judge of. There’s irony for you.
Activists
And speaking of irony, there’s her whole attack on “predetermined outcomes” and “activist” judges. Ann claims that most activist judges use “carefully composed legal opinion” to mask the real determining factor in their decision; ie, their personal opinions. But if these judges use legal pretexts to mask this, then how does Ann know that they’re activist judges? Couldn’t this just as easily be that the judge has a different opinion? Couldn’t it even be that conservatives, I dare say, were wrong?
Of course. Because what “activist judge” really means is any judge who disagrees with conservatives. That’s the definition. And that’s the ultimate in predetermined outcomes. Because conservatives don’t even need for individual court decisions to be wrong before they disagree with them. They’ve already issued a blanket statement which says that any judge who doesn’t agree with them is a bad judge who is behaving unconstitutionally. And they know that because they already know the truth about everything and already reached the right decision, including cases which haven’t even come up yet. Again, they’d never say that, and somehow assume that we’re all too stupid to understand that this is exactly what they’re doing.
And if she’s insisting that activist judges usually wrap their personal opinions in legalese, it is nothing but an admission that she doesn’t even accept legal sounding decisions. Because she doesn’t think an honest judge could disagree with her. How else could she possibly know that these legal sounding decisions are bogus charades? So why should we take her argument against this judge seriously? She denounces Judge Taylor for not using the proper legal procedures, but already stated that she also disapproves of judges who use the proper procedures to arrive at conclusions she disagrees with.
Again, Ann would insist that this isn’t what she’s saying, and would take offense that I characterized her opinion as such. Somehow, we’re not allowed to put her words into a bigger picture. She can determine that Bush’s wiretap program must be legal because a stupid judge didn’t do a better job of proving otherwise; yet we’re not allowed to consider the natural meaning of the words she’s using. Because she knows that she’s right, even if she’s not using the right words to say it. And the only person who can determine the true meaning of her words is herself, even if the words indicate something else. And she can do that because she knows that she’s always right, despite all evidence to the contrary, including her own words. So if her words point to the wrong argument, then it’s your misinterpretation of her words that is to blame, not her. Because she can’t be wrong.
Similarly, my five-year-old daughter will sometimes lie to me about something that I obviously know she did. And while she thinks she’s being clever and persists in trying to trick me, I’m seeing through it the whole time. She’s a smart little girl, but really can’t comprehend the level of a grown-up’s intelligence.
And that’s exactly how I feel with Althouse. She thinks she’s this super-clever person who’s pulling the wool over our eyes, and is entirely outraged when we keep insisting that we’re seeing everything. And she thinks that this must be proof of our anti-conservative bigotry, because she can’t grasp how totally obvious she is about everything. And this just goes into the idea I’ve said before that people aren’t nearly as smart as they believe, and that others aren’t as dumb as we think. And in Ann’s case, she’s forced to think that we’re mighty dumb to get the results she needs.
P.S. While proofreading this post (yes, I actually do proofread this crap), I happened to read my Lord & Savior Glenn Greenwald mentioning how absurd Althouse’s attacks of Judicial Activism were, since Judge Taylor was upholding a democratically enacted law, rather than overriding it; which is the correct definition of Judicial Activism (ie, judges who use their powers to effectively write new laws).
But I guess Greenwald missed her explanation of what she thinks the word means. Along with most conservatives, Ann believes it refers to judges who mask their bias behind legalese; which again, is a sure indication that she’s simply referring to judges who disagree with her. That’s exactly what she said, and goes to show how entirely ignorant the woman is. She doesn’t even understand the very nature of her strongest attacks.
Sure, what conservatives describe is a problem, but it’s a problem that they themselves fall victim to repeatedly. They’re the ones who mask their personal opinions behind fake rationales and refuse to even consider any fact that doesn’t fit into the picture that they expected to see. For them, the ends justify the means to such an extent that they insist that only historians will be able to properly judge what’s going on right now. For them, predetermined outcomes trump everything else, including what they see with their own eyes. They know they’re always winning because they know they’re going to win, and any short-term loss must be for a greater good. And they know they have to keep thinking and saying this to make it true.
Apparently, this is because conservatives were all born with a special oracle-like gut which can foresee events and make decisions that seem utterly stupid to people who are stuck relying on their brains to make decisions. And they know this is true because their guts have been right on a few occasions (Rathergate), and because guts have poor memories for the times when they weren’t so right (almost every other occasion). After all, anyone can be right when everyone is right; but it takes true genius to be right when everyone else is wrong. And so it’s just better to take the longshot every time than to bother with the safe bet. And if that means you’ve got to lose a few times, so be it. Because they know it’s just a matter of time before they’re right again and get the big payoff.
No Good Arguments
Here’s the self-parody Ann Althouse arguing in the NY Times Op/Ed against the recent wiretapping decision (emphasis added):
For those who approve of the outcome , the judge’s opinion is counterproductive. It will be harder to defend upon appeal than a more careful decision. It suggests that there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush. It helps those who have been arguing for years about result-oriented, activist judges.
Can anyone say, “predetermined outcome”? Because that’s exactly what she’s got here. Now, I’m not a legal mind, but Publius at Legal Fiction raised some decent points that the decision might not have been reached through proper judicial procedures. Glenn Greenwald disagrees in that fairly persuasive fashion of his, but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant that perhaps Ann and Publius are correct. And Ann says that this judge didn’t even bother wrapping up her opinion in legalese, as she claims the dreaded activist judges usually do. And again, that’s about what Publius was saying too.
So if true, what should that suggest? If anything, it suggests Judge Taylor was a dummy. I don’t know that myself. It sounded like a good decision to me, but again, I’m no lawyer and really haven’t bothered reading many arguments about this. So maybe the judge is a dummy. That’s Ann’s opinion. And so based upon that, Ann would be safe in saying that the judge was a dummy who reached her opinion incorrectly and that we’ll need to wait for further court decisions to see where this is going. That’s about as far as any fair analysis could take this, and approximates Publius’ argument.
But not for Ann. Instead, she has to take things much further, to actually suggest that this bad decision proves there are no legal arguments against the program? WTF?? That’s just stupid. Perhaps there aren’t any good legal arguments against Bush’s program, but if you think the judge is dumber than the typical dumb judge, then it would be a touch premature to use that as any kind of evidence that there are no good legal arguments. Hell, why do we even need brilliant lawyers, if dumb people’s opinions are considered to be the extent of legal arguments? I’ve got a few dumb opinions of my own. Is Althouse really suggesting that this is the extent of intellectual thoughts on these subjects?
Had Ann expressed faith in this judge’s intelligence and considered her to be the cream of the crop, it might make sense to reach her conclusion. But she somehow believes that a judge she considers to be stupid reflects the extent of the liberal position. And I think that Ann knows that, which is why she never directly insults the judge’s intelligence. But it’s that very omission which suggests that she knows this is true. The dumber she thinks this judge is, the less we can determine about how all this is going to end up.
So how is it that Ann overreached the facts to arrive at this nonserious opinion? Because that’s the exact outcome she needs to believe in. I’m sure she concluded that Bush’s program was entirely within his constitutional powers long before she even heard about it. Remember, conservatives believe this program is so constitutional and proper that they were outraged that we were even told about it, and most certainly were upset about this legal challenge. And it’s fairly obvious that Ann hadn’t really been following the case when she first started attacking Judge Taylor for having a bad opinion. So it’s no wonder that Ann views this opinion as invalid, because she’s doing the exact thing she’s accusing the judge of. There’s irony for you.
Activists
And speaking of irony, there’s her whole attack on “predetermined outcomes” and “activist” judges. Ann claims that most activist judges use “carefully composed legal opinion” to mask the real determining factor in their decision; ie, their personal opinions. But if these judges use legal pretexts to mask this, then how does Ann know that they’re activist judges? Couldn’t this just as easily be that the judge has a different opinion? Couldn’t it even be that conservatives, I dare say, were wrong?
Of course. Because what “activist judge” really means is any judge who disagrees with conservatives. That’s the definition. And that’s the ultimate in predetermined outcomes. Because conservatives don’t even need for individual court decisions to be wrong before they disagree with them. They’ve already issued a blanket statement which says that any judge who doesn’t agree with them is a bad judge who is behaving unconstitutionally. And they know that because they already know the truth about everything and already reached the right decision, including cases which haven’t even come up yet. Again, they’d never say that, and somehow assume that we’re all too stupid to understand that this is exactly what they’re doing.
And if she’s insisting that activist judges usually wrap their personal opinions in legalese, it is nothing but an admission that she doesn’t even accept legal sounding decisions. Because she doesn’t think an honest judge could disagree with her. How else could she possibly know that these legal sounding decisions are bogus charades? So why should we take her argument against this judge seriously? She denounces Judge Taylor for not using the proper legal procedures, but already stated that she also disapproves of judges who use the proper procedures to arrive at conclusions she disagrees with.
Again, Ann would insist that this isn’t what she’s saying, and would take offense that I characterized her opinion as such. Somehow, we’re not allowed to put her words into a bigger picture. She can determine that Bush’s wiretap program must be legal because a stupid judge didn’t do a better job of proving otherwise; yet we’re not allowed to consider the natural meaning of the words she’s using. Because she knows that she’s right, even if she’s not using the right words to say it. And the only person who can determine the true meaning of her words is herself, even if the words indicate something else. And she can do that because she knows that she’s always right, despite all evidence to the contrary, including her own words. So if her words point to the wrong argument, then it’s your misinterpretation of her words that is to blame, not her. Because she can’t be wrong.
Similarly, my five-year-old daughter will sometimes lie to me about something that I obviously know she did. And while she thinks she’s being clever and persists in trying to trick me, I’m seeing through it the whole time. She’s a smart little girl, but really can’t comprehend the level of a grown-up’s intelligence.
And that’s exactly how I feel with Althouse. She thinks she’s this super-clever person who’s pulling the wool over our eyes, and is entirely outraged when we keep insisting that we’re seeing everything. And she thinks that this must be proof of our anti-conservative bigotry, because she can’t grasp how totally obvious she is about everything. And this just goes into the idea I’ve said before that people aren’t nearly as smart as they believe, and that others aren’t as dumb as we think. And in Ann’s case, she’s forced to think that we’re mighty dumb to get the results she needs.
P.S. While proofreading this post (yes, I actually do proofread this crap), I happened to read my Lord & Savior Glenn Greenwald mentioning how absurd Althouse’s attacks of Judicial Activism were, since Judge Taylor was upholding a democratically enacted law, rather than overriding it; which is the correct definition of Judicial Activism (ie, judges who use their powers to effectively write new laws).
But I guess Greenwald missed her explanation of what she thinks the word means. Along with most conservatives, Ann believes it refers to judges who mask their bias behind legalese; which again, is a sure indication that she’s simply referring to judges who disagree with her. That’s exactly what she said, and goes to show how entirely ignorant the woman is. She doesn’t even understand the very nature of her strongest attacks.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Global War on Skin
In a post about conservatives offending American Muslims, the Carpetbagger quotes this from the WSJ blog:
New York gubernatorial candidate John Faso also has supported profiling, saying, “If a 25-year-old Muslim man who has been traveling frequently to Yemen or Pakistan tries to board a plane, then not only statistical analysis but also common sense tells us that he is more of a potential threat than the grandmother from Queens.”
Call me crazy, but I suggest that we pull aside anyone who has been traveling frequently to Yemen or Pakistan; especially old grandmothers from Queens. That’s your common sense for you. As I’ve said before, one of the big problems with racial profiling is that we really don’t know who the next terrorist might be, and if we’re focusing solely on young male Muslims, we will certainly be too lax with other people. Not only are not all Muslims identifiable as being Muslim, but not all terrorists are Muslim. And the more we target one group, the more they’ll look for someone who isn’t in that group.
And everyone knows that. But somehow, conservatives convince themselves that all terrorists can be identified by skin color and religious affiliation. So we’re going to let another Timothy McVeigh on to planes while alienating moderate Muslims and showing them that we really do have something against their religion and race?? Is that really their idea of common sense? It’s almost as if they see these white terrorists as being on their team
Overall, this has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with racism. These people have been trained to believe that non-whites are dangerous and this is just an excuse to target them. As the Carpetbagger quoted from TNR’s Spencer Ackerman “Last week in the Weekly Standard, the apparent inventor of the phrase, Stephen Schwartz, dismissed those who'd be offended by "Islamofascism" as "primitive Muslims."
New York gubernatorial candidate John Faso also has supported profiling, saying, “If a 25-year-old Muslim man who has been traveling frequently to Yemen or Pakistan tries to board a plane, then not only statistical analysis but also common sense tells us that he is more of a potential threat than the grandmother from Queens.”
Call me crazy, but I suggest that we pull aside anyone who has been traveling frequently to Yemen or Pakistan; especially old grandmothers from Queens. That’s your common sense for you. As I’ve said before, one of the big problems with racial profiling is that we really don’t know who the next terrorist might be, and if we’re focusing solely on young male Muslims, we will certainly be too lax with other people. Not only are not all Muslims identifiable as being Muslim, but not all terrorists are Muslim. And the more we target one group, the more they’ll look for someone who isn’t in that group.
And everyone knows that. But somehow, conservatives convince themselves that all terrorists can be identified by skin color and religious affiliation. So we’re going to let another Timothy McVeigh on to planes while alienating moderate Muslims and showing them that we really do have something against their religion and race?? Is that really their idea of common sense? It’s almost as if they see these white terrorists as being on their team
Overall, this has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with racism. These people have been trained to believe that non-whites are dangerous and this is just an excuse to target them. As the Carpetbagger quoted from TNR’s Spencer Ackerman “Last week in the Weekly Standard, the apparent inventor of the phrase, Stephen Schwartz, dismissed those who'd be offended by "Islamofascism" as "primitive Muslims."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
