Wednesday Highlights

G’day

  1. Now there’s an amusing analogy.
  2. The scandalanche.
  3. Christianity.
  4. And the same as above, just very early.
  5. Stimulus not stimming.
  6. OK, then, but even if statistically sound, it won’t change anyone’s positions today.
  7. Where you go when you don’t have a sound argument.
  8. Or one of these.
  9. If one was racist, oddly enough … I’d think that the Democrat’s pet race/economic policies would be exactly what I’d support, e.g., aff action, pc speech suppression, and so on.
  10. Ages of famous men in a remarkable time.

 

12 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. Mark, you really need to get one of those things Mr. Hemingway said every writer needs. You know, a “shock-proof [excrement] detector.”

    “Scandalanche.” It’s based on Victor Davis Hanson’s stuff. Jerome Corsi was too busy? Jayson Blair unavailable?

    1. 400 missiles? Why would any consulate have 400 SAMs sitting around? Think really hard about that.

    2. Caroline Kennedy a know-nothing? You’ve not read her books, I take it. Neither has any other conservative — not reading the books is better than banning them or burning them; you can protect yourself from knowledge, and no one complains about just not reading them.

    3. Margaret Sanger said a lot of stuff we find offensive, now — but to cite a YouTube video that has so obviously been hacked up to make it appear she says something different from what she said? Really, Mark.

    What she really said was, ” . . . there should be no more babies in starving countries for the next ten years.”

    Fighting starvation is a lot different from saying “no more babies,” but then, that wouldn’t suit your predetermined political agenda, would it?

    Certainly it wouldn’t be radical enough to raise the ire of normal people. Birthing babies only to kill them is more offensive even than abortion.

    But by your endorsing the editing of Sanger’s message, aren’t you endorsing what she was fighting against, starving children to death? Are you really in favor of forcing women to have babies to watch them die?

    See, a Hemingway could have prevented your looking like such a monster, to me, and anyone else who can smell the stuff.

  2. Stimulus not stimming.

    Hmmmm

    In April 2013, Japan announced a QE program of $1.4 trillion,…

    This effort has been an abysmal failure. Japan’s second quarter GDP grew at just 0.6% …

    1. The only valid measure of QE failure would be pick up of inflation. Absent that you only have evidence of a lack of sufficient QE.

    2. Japan’s economy was contracting in Q2 last year so quarter over quarter you have contraction versus expansion today.

    3. Errr, April is the 1st month of Q2. Usually a QE program is when the central bank announces it will buy certain types of bonds at a certain price and will cap the program at $1.4T. That doesn’t mean the day the program is announced an immediate trade is booked buying $1.4T. Odds are the $1.4T program has only just begun accumulating purchases and if it was phased in over Q2 was phased in over the entire quarter meaning one wouldn’t expect to see much impact.

    OK, then, but even if statistically sound, it won’t change anyone’s positions today.

    This seems to be marred by counting ‘indirect abortion related deaths’ like suicide or substance abuse in the study. If you’re going to play statistics, you have to do so in a sound manner. By that measure you must count every woman who killed herself or died of substance abuse problems at any point after giving birth to a child as a ‘childbirth death’. It also ignores the direction of causality. A woman might have had an abortion because she was suicidally depressed, and later on she killed herself, for example rather than assuming a woman who killed herself after an abortion did so because of the abortion. Absent some sensible methology to actually link the two, it seems ‘indirectly related deaths’ should simply be ignored.

    I also think they aren’t counting all abortions, only surgerical ones. Yet pro-lifers are usually pretty clear about counting the ‘abortion pill’ and even some birth control pills and devices as abortificants. If so then that should be included in the denominator.

    The scandalanche.

    What’s amazing is the utter failure of any of the so-called scandals to really go anywhere. That’s because those embracing them don’t really care about the facts, just the ‘emotional release’ coming from being self-righteously anti-Obama. Back when Obama was first elected Mark made a big deal about the difference between rhetoric (the art of using argument to induce an emotional response in an audience) and logic (the art of using argument to arrive at valid conclusions), with the claim that Obama was bad because he emphasized the first rather than the second (although for a black politician Obama is actually remarkably not a very emotion rising speaker….in fact it wasn’t very long before the new criticism became not that he was a rabble rouser but that he was ‘cold’ and ‘disconnected’). Yet the scandalanch says nothing factual about the actual Obama administration, it’s purpose is not to uncover actual truth but to feed the emotions of a subset of the American political base.

  3. Actual scandal? Compare trials and convictions during Reagan’s years with Obama’s. Obama’s administration has been remarkably scandal free, really, and has done as he said he hoped, set high standards for ethics, even leaning to inaction where most others would have acted already (stamping out the blatantly racist vote stealing efforts of Republican state legislatures, for example).

    Scandalanche? Hanson’s a purveyor of fiction.

  4. Boonton,
    Regarding Japan, remind me not to get medical advice from you. Mr Boonton’s patient has cardiac surgery. After surgery, he informs patient that “your cardiac metrics, output and health, are completely unchanged. But … the operation was a success, you can tell that because have no signs of prostate cancer.

    Regarding abortion, … as I said if statistically sound it wouldn’t change anyone’s mind. Your remark doens’t comment on that. If it was sound, you would change your mind? Or not?

    Regarding scandals … “What’s amazing is the utter failure of any of the so-called scandals to really go anywhere” … which is more an expression of the power of the Democrat domination of the media and opinion than anything else. And no, the scandals are not emotion. They are actual scandals, or should be.

    Ed,

    Compare trials and convictions during Reagan’s years with Obama’s.

    I see. Trials and convictions, I see actions are all ethical if no trial or conviction arises. That’s a very low bar you set. Do you use the same criteria when judging those across the aisle. I doubt it.

    You’ve not read her books, I take it. Neither has any other conservative — not reading the books is better than banning them or burning them; you can protect yourself from knowledge, and no one complains about just not reading them.

    OK. Question, what conservative philsophy do you read? Have you read any Chantal Delsol for example? On what topic has Ms Kennedy written that you think I should of read? On what topics?

    What she really said was, ” . . . there should be no more babies in starving countries for the next ten years.”

    I’m unclear on how that can be construed as not a very horrible notion.

    How do I look like a monster. I’m missing the relevance of your allusion.

  5. power of the Democrat domination of the media and opinion than anything else

    Do they dominate the House of Representatives? Do Democrats dominate Fox News? Do they dominate the conservative punditry class which seems to have been allocated a 30-40% quota on every major newspaper’s editorial page? Do they dominate the Internet, which is still open to just about everyone and anyone and has multiple times challenged major news organizations with scoopes? The idea that all the scandals are valid but ‘the truth’ just can’t be uncovered because everyone is in on some grand conspiracy (and scratch a tea party type person enough and you almost always get this as the ultimate explanation…and the conspiracy includes not just liberals but even House Republicans, Chris Christie and more!) has been offered with no serious evidence. And as the late Christopher Hitchens very aptly observed, “that which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” I hereby dismiss your counter claim.

    Regarding Japan, remind me not to get medical advice from you….

    Not a very good analogy. Perhaps a better analogy would be someone wondering why cardiac surgery was any good when he can find no improvement in his metrics the day after the insurance company approved his operation but a week before he actually went under the knife.

    Regarding abortion, … as I said if statistically sound it wouldn’t change anyone’s mind.

    Not really, but should it? If it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the risks of childbirth were greater than abortion (and that makes a lot of sense since physically they are both the same thing, the woman’s body is removing something from it, which is a tramatic event in some respects…but childbirth is always about removing something which is many times larger than the typical abortion), I wouldn’t favor any law requiring pregnant women to have abortions.

    Not really following the Kennedy thing but:
    I’m unclear on how that can be construed as not a very horrible notion.

    Not for nothing but don’t conservatives jump for joy when Judge Judy types say things like “if you can’t afford to have children then don’t have them!” Taken to it’s logical conclusion if you were in a starving country and there was no way out of it, then you and your wife shouldn’t be trying to have children, no? If everyone in that country was as ethical as you then there would be no new babies….

    Of course another way to read ” no more babies in starving countries for the next ten years” would be to solve the problem of starving countries. If there were no starving countries a ten yr moritorium would be moot.

  6. Trials and convictions are good indications of real scandals, yes. Conservative icon administrations tend to be full of scandal, demonstrable violations of the law, as indicated by prosecutions and convictions.

    On the other hand we have howling claims of scandal from the right, pertaining to Obama, all of which evaporate into nothingness when it comes to serious investigation. Corsi is a known liar, and yet you cite him as if he were a serious scholar and not a serial hoaxster. Seriously, that you extol his claims without blushing is a concern to me, and it should be to you.

    Obama scandal? Can you explain how any of the supposed scandals are? Bush’s IRS people got stuck without enough staff, and an avalanche of applications for tax-free status. When Darrell Issa started poking around, he instructed the inspector general NOT to report on the total actions of the agency, but ONLY on Tea Party delays. You think that’s an Obama scandal? Issa could be the one doing time on that.

    Benghazi? Obama saved the town from Gadhafi, then his ace Middle East guy used it as a base for operations against Iran and al Queada both — al Quaeda struck back. Darrell Issa (hmmm. do we see a trend here?) had worked for years to make sure security in Benghazi was inadequate.

    Obama scandal? I don’t think you’re using the word correctly.

    In hard evidence, the Obama adminisitration is remarkably free of scandal. When things go awry, he fires people, makes changes, fixes things. Investigations by independent agencies find no wrongdoing, no illegalities.

    You’re free to disagree, of course. But you can’t put evidence to any claim of scandal in the Obama administration.

    Caroline Kennedy: If you didn’t read at least the reviews of Caroline Kennedy’s In Our Defense, your education on American rights and the Constitution is probably weak. It’s a good book, with lively, historical anecdote backing Constitutional freedom. I know that’s a topic foreign to most conservatives, but there you have it.

    Kennedy’s compendium of what American patriots ought to know is also very good, and a modest best-seller. Again, it’s stuff that is foreign to the 21st century American conservative movement and most especially the Tea Party.

    Kennedy’s two edited books of poetry are worthy, too. A Family of Poems: My Favorite Poems for Children combines two of the things American conservatives hate, good literature and reading to children. Few conservatives know for those reasons.

    I don’t know all of Kennedy’s bona fides, but I do know Japan prefers to have as ambassador there an American they know and respect, and someone they think has public clout in America. She’s a lot more in the Mike Mansfield mold than most of our ambassadors since him.

    Conservative philosophy? How is that even relevant?

    I think that you offering an edited statement from Ms. Sanger is dishonest. She said she thought women who lived in places where their children would starve to death, should not have children for a while, until the starvation can be stopped. Your source edited her statement to say “No more babies.”

    She didn’t say “no more babies.” You have misrepresented what she said. In Biblical terms, that’s what we call “false witness.” You’ve accused the woman, falsely.

    You women to have babies to watch them die horribly? No wonder you miss the “relevance of the notion.” If you’re going to make a new Modest Proposal, why not be up front about it and attribute to Swift his ideas? But then, he was writing parody. You’re not.

  7. Not that it deserves it, but let’s consider is Mark’s assertion that the scandals are valid but they just don’t seem so because of a Democratically controlled media machine makes it seem like they are not (Mark is actually putting forth a rather Marxist view of things, where culture is really dominated by the interests of those in power and the way things seem are shaped less by how they really are and more about how the powerful frame things).

    First, perusing the headline page of the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN today I see the lead headline is the NSA repeatedly broke privacy rules. Slate.com goes one up claiming the White House tried to rewrite an entire NSA interview. It would seem the major media is perfectly willing to provide coverage to stories that are critical of a Democratic President. Perhaps the explanation is that NSA privacy violations are the type of thing that appeals to left leaning types (even though it seems a major focus of Tea Party and Rand Paul criticism), so it’s really a matter of criticism from the left being permitted.

    But then it occurs to me, it was the NYT that broke the Elliot Spitzer escort story. There you had a progressive governor noted for his attacks on Wall Street finance firms being brought down by leaks from a Republican Justice Department to the NYT. That doesn’t seem very consistent with a Democratically dominated media machine. Perhaps it’s because it was a sensational sex story and sex is exciting enough to make people forget about their boring political alliegences.

    OK but then consider the Whitewater Investigation. Throughout the Clinton years we heard how this was a major issue. The NYT and Washington Post both harped on Bill Clinton and Hillary over it. Here you have perhaps the most boring type of story you could imagine, property deals, the billing records of law firms, etc. so it certainly wasn’t a case of a story that was so sexy the media had to cover it. Perhaps the facts were so damming it just couldn’t be ignored no matter how loyal one was to Democratic Presidents. Except we had tens of millions spent investigating it and then we had a Republican President elected who promised to ‘bring honor’ to the White House and yet not a single real conviction was even attempted from it. All that was produced was a handful of secondary convictions resulting from the investigation itself and ultimately the Monica fiasco which actually had nothing to do with the investigation but somehow the prosecutor ended up working on that case instead.

    Perhaps then a workable theory is that the media was not dominated by Democrats in the recent past but now is. Except that doesn’t seem to be very plausible as the media has been rapidly expanding and expanding in a way that older mainline sources are becomming less important and new ones are. There’s little evidence that new media is dominated in any way by Democrats and not much in way of plausible mechanisms to even think why that should be (Glenn Beck has his own cable station now, there seems no barrier to right wing outlets creating web properties like NewsMax).

    Here’s the fact. If I told you that I would reincarnate you as a Democratic President whose administration was full of serious scandals that were all legitimately real, but I would allow you to pick any time period at all to live that existence in, would you pick the present moment? The rational time period to have picked would have probably been either the 1960′s or possibly the late 30′s and early 40′s (Truman’s era was actually dominated by scandal mongering Republicans despite the massive twin victories in WWII and over the Depression).

    Another way of asking that would be which time periods do you think real, true scandals would have the least probability of remaining covered up or hidden? The answer is almost certainly centered in the digital age which means a huge slew of scandals that refuse to stick indicate not a massive domination of the media but a massive shortage of real scandals. The massive amount of failed ones indicate there’s plenty of people who really want to find something and will pounce on anything that seems like it is that something. The massive inability to find anything real indicates that it’s less likely that one is there.

  8. Ed,

    Conservative philosophy? How is that even relevant?

    Oh, sorry … Apparently you’re too busy too look her up, should I have added the adjective “political” to the word philosophy. But the larger point is that you chide me for not reading Ms Kennedy, a liberal writer. What good conservative thinkers/writers have you read. You think at knock on me that I have read a few political philosphers/writers on the liberal side. OK. But to ding me, you have to be able to defend yourself with your broader background. So again, what conservative political historians or philosophers have you read?

    Corsi is a known liar

    And so is Obama. So what?

    You have misrepresented what she said.

    You know in a post you cite me “quoting false witness” it does not serve you well to, uhm, serve false witness. My “no more babies” was quoting you quoting her (I cut and paste your defense of her remark from your telling … if I got it wrong, you are to blame). I’m unclear on how that is false witness. I did not say “no more babies” I said “I’m unclear on how that can be construed as not a very horrible notion.” You have not clarified how saying that parents are less qualified to decide when to have children than some ivory tower person thousands of miles away is a good idea. Let me know when you figure out why intellectual ivory tower people know what’s better for you than you do and why that is not a horrible idea.

    You’re not.

    No. I’m not writing parody. However, you are wanna be tyrant or worshipper of the same.

    Benghazi .. hmmm. How is that a scandal? Who long did the admin push “riots caused by a YouTube?” which they knew was false (and rediculous at that) from the get go. But hey, I forgot you discount liars. Like the Clintons and Obama? Apparently people on your side of the aisle are not subject to that criteria.

    Trials and convictions are good indications of real scandals, yes

    Mr Clinton then was quite a bummer for you, eh? He plead guilty to perjury and was convicted.

    Let me know when the Clinton 501(c) which she is using to start her run for office gets the same treatment. Let me know why a personal appointee of Obama funneling swing state organizations for special IRS treatment during an election year and micro-manages the investigation from Washington is not a scandal. If a Republican had abused the IRS in that way would that be a scandal?

  9. Boonton,
    Mr Spitzer, by your compatriot’s criteria, was not involved in scandal because he was not charged or convicted. Was that a scandal or not? However, by Mr Darrell’s criteria Whitewater was a major scandal. 15 people were convicted including the Arkansas governor. Look at the list.

    The WSJ had an essay within the last week defending the NSA.

    So, the bogeyman now is not “FOX” (being the only centrist news reports) is not the big balance of the media, now it’s the damn bloggers, small cable outlets, and talk radio to balance all virtually all the rest of the news stations and papers. Gotcha.

    Or perhaps you would have to consider what constitutes scandal in prior eras is not the same as today. Kennedy had lots of extra-marital flings and probably did the hooker thing like Spitzer (oh, wait that wasn’t a scandal … or was it?) … but that wasn’t a scandal then.

  10. Benghazi .. hmmm. How is that a scandal? Who long did the admin push “riots caused by a YouTube?” which they knew was false (and rediculous at that) from the get go.

    Despite being asked, you have not nor cannot produce a single statement by anyone in the administration consistent with the above.

    Mr Clinton then was quite a bummer for you, eh? He plead guilty to perjury and was convicted.

    Actually he was cited for civil contempt of court (perjury requires an actual criminal indictment, never produced). The only thing he agreed to was a 5 year suspension of his law license, which is again not a criminal or even civil penalty but an administrative one.

    Let me know why a personal appointee of Obama funneling swing state organizations …

    Who is this person? Cite the memo, document or testimony where he or she stated only swing state groups were involved?

    The WSJ had an essay within the last week defending the NSA.

    So what?

    So, the bogeyman now is not “FOX” (being the only centrist news reports) is not the big balance of the media, now it’s the damn bloggers, small cable outlets, and talk radio to balance all virtually all the rest of the news stations and papers. Gotcha.

    Never said any of these are ‘bogeyman’, you’re the one promoting the grand conspiracy of silence theory. Care to explain how such a diverse array of big and small players are being kept in such tight coordination?

    Or perhaps you would have to consider what constitutes scandal in prior eras is not the same as today. Kennedy had lots of extra-marital flings and probably did the hooker thing like Spitzer

    You seem to have gotten yourself caught up in silliness here. The question isn’t whether or not extra-marital flings are a scandal. You alleged the numerous failures of scandal accusations against Obama to catch are due to a vast media conspiracy in favor of Democrats. Your citation of the failure of JFK to be brought down by media scandal cuts against your point. Nearly two generations ago maybe you can say the media protected the Democratic candidate, yet today you have a Democratic candidate knocked off by what most assert is the most liberal of the liberal mainstream media. If you’re going to allege that Spitzer didn’t deserve it, well you’re just knocking the foundations out from from under your feet!

  11. Boonton,

    Despite being asked, you have not nor cannot produce a single statement by anyone in the administration consistent with the above.

    I see. The week you spent arguing with me that the riots were in fact relevant and the unlikely trigger was a YouTube video was something you made up?

    Cite the memo, document or testimony where he or she stated only swing state groups were involved?

    I see. You think Ohio was not a target but it was far wider. Probably not the point you’re trying to make. And do you realize I’m not part of the Congressional investigation team. Why don’t you know who this person is? Hmm? I’m not very good remembering names, Mr Wilkins?

    you’re the one promoting the grand conspiracy of silence theory

    Yes and your pet response to “mainstream” media is liberal claims is to point out FOX as a counter example to prove that media is not liberal.

    The question isn’t whether or not extra-marital flings are a scandal.

    So it is or isn’t?

    Your fellow commentator wouldn’t say Spitzer rises to the level of scandal, after all, no conviction, no scandal. That’s his criteria.

  12. I see. The week you spent arguing with me that the riots were in fact relevant and the unlikely trigger was a YouTube video was something you made up?

    The riots? You weren’t talking about riots…your statement:

    Benghazi .. hmmm. How is that a scandal?

    If you’re talking about Benghazi then you can’t produce a single quote. If you’re talking about the protests and eventual mob attack on the Egyptian embassy then you have a hard time saying there was no connection to the video since the crowd was chanting about it (as well as later on in other countries like Pakistan).

    And why are you talking about what I was arguing with you about for a week? Are you under the impression I have a job as a high level official with the administration?

    I see. You think Ohio was not a target but it was far wider. Probably not the point you’re trying to make.

    well if it was a general policy you can’t also argue it was a policy targetting swing states, can you?

    And do you realize I’m not part of the Congressional investigation team.

    You have what, 20 blogs on your blogroll? Mostly conservative ones. All this daily reading on Obama scandals and yet you’re unable to answer even the most basic questions about them or know where to quickly retrieve the info?

    Where else might one put so much effort into something day after day and yet get more and more ignorant about the subject matter? I can think of just an example: pornography. If I told you Bill spent the last ten years consuming hours of porn every day, you would probably think Bill is less knowledgeable about real life relationships with women…not more so. Such a habit would feed the emotional desires about female relationships Bill has but does not educate about what they are really like.

    So here we stumble upon the problem with the anti-Obama media. It’s not essentially about uncovering the truth but is essentially pornography, and porn is about the emotional satisfaction one gets from consuming an image, not the truth. The emotional satisfaction people like you get from reading rants about impeaching Obama over the IRS or Benghazi trumps the fact that you’re consuming images where all the wrinkles have been airbrushed over leaving you incapable of seriously addressing the argument.

    Yes and your pet response to “mainstream” media is liberal claims is to point out FOX as a counter example to prove that media is not liberal.

    Actually whether or not the media is liberal isn’t really relevant. I wasn’t citing Fox when I talked about Whitewater and Spitzer but the NYT and Washington Post which bring into question your assertion that legitimate scandals are being covered up by a press unwilling to go after them. The fact that a robust conservative press also exists both on the professional level (Fox) and varying amateur levels make your assertion implausible.

    Your fellow commentator wouldn’t say Spitzer rises to the level of scandal, after all, no conviction, no scandal.

    So if you accept that definition of scandal what do you have? Your have liberal media bringing down a progressive governor over a fake scandal! How does that help your assertion that liberal media wouldn’t embrace a real scandal if one should appear?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>