Speaking of Cloned Food
Would you eat cloned plants ?
People in Glass Houses
Former Secretary of Education William Bennett rights of Gerald Ford "If he felt so strongly about his words having a derogatory affect, how about telling Woodward not to run the interview until after Bush & Cheney are out of office?" Former Secretary Bennett is an expert on the old frowny face, but I think he meant "derogatory effect," and I used to think he was literate to.
He concludes "This is not courage, this is not decent." Well he has shown courage and decency by attacking a recently deceased man for daring to criticize the President in public (his three courageous decent alternatives do not include criticizing Bush in public unless Bush agrees to a public debate and pigs fly but do include keeping the whole disagreement secret forever). However, Former Secretary Dr Bennett is having a bit of trouble with grammer. "This is not courage, this is not decency" is English,
"This is not courageous this is not decent" is English, "This is not courage, this is not decent," is not courageous, decent or English.
And yes, the title reflects my amusement at finding myself correcting someone else's English usage.
Stephen Kinsella has left a new comment on your post "12/29/2006 12:07:00 AM":
De Nada on the link, actually I'm quite the fan of your blog. Have a happy New Year!
Steve
Thanks Steve here is the link
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "12/29/2006 12:07:00 AM":
My dear Pot, let me introduce you to Kettle.
you wrote: "Former Secretary of Education William Bennett rights ... " as well as "I used to think he was literate to."
Yet you have the nerve to blame him for writing affect rather than effect?
No doubt you will respond that your mistakes were typos, but his was something else. I think not (and so saying, disappear)!
update: Who is irony deprived ?
In fact I respond by pointing out that my use of "right" for "write" and "to" for "too" were too deliberate errors. It was a feeble attempt at humor (or Humor as the case may be). Thus the final sentence of my post.
Indeed I could have entitled it "the pot calling the kettle black" and have concluded "by the way I, of course, am the pot in question." Sad to say, however, I find "the pot calling the kettle black" to be politically incorrect and use "the snow calling the sand white" instead.
This, I fear would have caused still more confusion.
I keep re-reading anonymous's comment (or is it anonymous' comment ?) assuming I am missing the joke
Former Secretary of Education William Bennett rights of Gerald Ford "If he felt so strongly about his words having a derogatory affect, how about telling Woodward not to run the interview until after Bush & Cheney are out of office?" Former Secretary Bennett is an expert on the old frowny face, but I think he meant "derogatory effect," and I used to think he was literate to.
He concludes "This is not courage, this is not decent." Well he has shown courage and decency by attacking a recently deceased man for daring to criticize the President in public (his three courageous decent alternatives do not include criticizing Bush in public unless Bush agrees to a public debate and pigs fly but do include keeping the whole disagreement secret forever). However, Former Secretary Dr Bennett is having a bit of trouble with grammer. "This is not courage, this is not decency" is English,
"This is not courageous this is not decent" is English, "This is not courage, this is not decent," is not courageous, decent or English.
And yes, the title reflects my amusement at finding myself correcting someone else's English usage.
Stephen Kinsella has left a new comment on your post "12/29/2006 12:07:00 AM":
De Nada on the link, actually I'm quite the fan of your blog. Have a happy New Year!
Steve
Thanks Steve here is the link
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "12/29/2006 12:07:00 AM":
My dear Pot, let me introduce you to Kettle.
you wrote: "Former Secretary of Education William Bennett rights ... " as well as "I used to think he was literate to."
Yet you have the nerve to blame him for writing affect rather than effect?
No doubt you will respond that your mistakes were typos, but his was something else. I think not (and so saying, disappear)!
update: Who is irony deprived ?
In fact I respond by pointing out that my use of "right" for "write" and "to" for "too" were too deliberate errors. It was a feeble attempt at humor (or Humor as the case may be). Thus the final sentence of my post.
Indeed I could have entitled it "the pot calling the kettle black" and have concluded "by the way I, of course, am the pot in question." Sad to say, however, I find "the pot calling the kettle black" to be politically incorrect and use "the snow calling the sand white" instead.
This, I fear would have caused still more confusion.
I keep re-reading anonymous's comment (or is it anonymous' comment ?) assuming I am missing the joke
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Burying the Lede
The New York Times reports "U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks"
Down in paragraphs 16 and 17 SABRINA TAVERNISE finally gets around to explaining where the Iranians were nabbed and what baddy they were conspiring with. Turns out to be the guy Bush just bet all of his chips on.
No surprise that "US" doesn't say that Bush's latest guy in Iraq can be linked with attacks on coalition forces too. Hard to hammer the Iranians too hard for consorting with dangerous Islamoloonies who met with President Bush three weeks ago.
Now arresting Bush for treason for "cleaving to the enemy in time of war" now that would make some sense.
I am upset with TAVERNISE and the Times for allowing the Bush administration to acuse the Iranians for being linked with someone in Iraq without mentioning with whom. I would report "incomplete reports of arrests in Baghdad. Coalition forces refused to explain why they had arrested people. It is speculated that this is because they have obtained proof that an Iraqi organisation whose head met with Bush 3 weeks ago has been killing US soldiers." but then that's why I'm just a blogger.
The New York Times reports "U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks"
Down in paragraphs 16 and 17 SABRINA TAVERNISE finally gets around to explaining where the Iranians were nabbed and what baddy they were conspiring with. Turns out to be the guy Bush just bet all of his chips on.
But the more significant raid occurred before dawn the next morning, when American forces raided a second location, the general said. The military described it as “a site in Baghdad,” but declined to release further details about the location.
Iraqi leaders said last week that the site was the compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite political leaders, who met with President Bush in Washington three weeks ago.
No surprise that "US" doesn't say that Bush's latest guy in Iraq can be linked with attacks on coalition forces too. Hard to hammer the Iranians too hard for consorting with dangerous Islamoloonies who met with President Bush three weeks ago.
Now arresting Bush for treason for "cleaving to the enemy in time of war" now that would make some sense.
I am upset with TAVERNISE and the Times for allowing the Bush administration to acuse the Iranians for being linked with someone in Iraq without mentioning with whom. I would report "incomplete reports of arrests in Baghdad. Coalition forces refused to explain why they had arrested people. It is speculated that this is because they have obtained proof that an Iraqi organisation whose head met with Bush 3 weeks ago has been killing US soldiers." but then that's why I'm just a blogger.
What's with Paramus ?
The city with more parking places than people.
Brad writes about it and I get a visit from it
from sitemeter.
24
Ireland Dublin
25
United States
26
Italy Rome, Lazio
27
United States
28
United States Englewood, Colorado
29
United States Paramus, New Jersey
The city with more parking places than people.
Brad writes about it and I get a visit from it
from sitemeter.
24
Ireland Dublin
25
United States
26
Italy Rome, Lazio
27
United States
28
United States Englewood, Colorado
29
United States Paramus, New Jersey
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Tweety Blew It
Watching MSNBC Tweety is interviewing Edwards. Edwards is doing very well demonstrating that he knows the name of the head of government (or state) of Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Germany and Italy and, much more important, that UCLA is second in the ap college basketball poll (he mblew Mbeki too and didn't know Harper's first name or party).
Tweety however is embarrassing himself. He brought up Bush's failure to name heads of government in 2000 but said (I am quoting from memory) "they were some pretty obscure countries, Pakistan, Cecenia, South Korea ... I forget the other one [Taiwan ndrjw]. Bush only got one, but that wasn't hard. Guessing Lee is president of South Korea you don't risk much." OOOOOOOOOOOOOPS
Tweety risked more than he thought. Lee is[n't update] (and [but] was then) the president of Taiwan. The president of South Korea (then and now) is named Roh. Lee is a rare name in Korea. When in doubt about Korea guess Kim, not Lee, Kim.
update: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSS
I blew it too. Lee was president of Taiwan but has long since been replace by Chen Shui-Bian who has been elected then re-elected in spite of being almost assassinated as he began to campaign for re-election.
update II: Elisabeth Edwards came on stage with John. Matthews asked Sen Edwards about Kerry's joke about not studying and going to Iraq. J Edwards said "he made a mistek" E Edwards broke in to criticize. Matthews asked her IIRC "when he comes home do you bite his balls off like that ?" She pointed out that her children were watching. Tweety asked "what happened to the Stepford wives". the booooo in North Carolina (Chapel Hill yes but still in North Carolina) was very reassuring.
Why is that man on TV ?
Watching MSNBC Tweety is interviewing Edwards. Edwards is doing very well demonstrating that he knows the name of the head of government (or state) of Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Germany and Italy and, much more important, that UCLA is second in the ap college basketball poll (he mblew Mbeki too and didn't know Harper's first name or party).
Tweety however is embarrassing himself. He brought up Bush's failure to name heads of government in 2000 but said (I am quoting from memory) "they were some pretty obscure countries, Pakistan, Cecenia, South Korea ... I forget the other one [Taiwan ndrjw]. Bush only got one, but that wasn't hard. Guessing Lee is president of South Korea you don't risk much." OOOOOOOOOOOOOPS
Tweety risked more than he thought. Lee is[n't update] (and [but] was then) the president of Taiwan. The president of South Korea (then and now) is named Roh. Lee is a rare name in Korea. When in doubt about Korea guess Kim, not Lee, Kim.
update: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSS
I blew it too. Lee was president of Taiwan but has long since been replace by Chen Shui-Bian who has been elected then re-elected in spite of being almost assassinated as he began to campaign for re-election.
update II: Elisabeth Edwards came on stage with John. Matthews asked Sen Edwards about Kerry's joke about not studying and going to Iraq. J Edwards said "he made a mistek" E Edwards broke in to criticize. Matthews asked her IIRC "when he comes home do you bite his balls off like that ?" She pointed out that her children were watching. Tweety asked "what happened to the Stepford wives". the booooo in North Carolina (Chapel Hill yes but still in North Carolina) was very reassuring.
Why is that man on TV ?
Monday, December 25, 2006
More Portmantomes
Tender is the Night of the Living Dead
(by Elisabetta Addis)
Tropic of Cancer Ward
Babe the Gallant Pygmalion the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Portrait of a Lady Sings the Blues
My Fair Lady in the Lake
(and combinations)
Far from the Madding Crowds and Power
The Power and the Glory of Positive Thinking
A Midsummer's Night's Dream Play
Similar to earlier
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man for All Seasons
Borges Specials
The Garden of the Forking Paths of Glory
I Never Promised you a Rose Garden of Forking Paths
The Modesty of History of O
Same Author
Arms and the Man and Superman
The Sailor who Fell from Grace With the Sea of Fertility
More Mishima
The Decay of the Angels in America
Spring Snows of Killimujaro
Tender is the Night of the Living Dead
(by Elisabetta Addis)
Tropic of Cancer Ward
Babe the Gallant Pygmalion the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Portrait of a Lady Sings the Blues
My Fair Lady in the Lake
(and combinations)
Far from the Madding Crowds and Power
The Power and the Glory of Positive Thinking
A Midsummer's Night's Dream Play
Similar to earlier
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man for All Seasons
Borges Specials
The Garden of the Forking Paths of Glory
I Never Promised you a Rose Garden of Forking Paths
The Modesty of History of O
Same Author
Arms and the Man and Superman
The Sailor who Fell from Grace With the Sea of Fertility
More Mishima
The Decay of the Angels in America
Spring Snows of Killimujaro
Blast from the Past
I have been reading Jonathan Chait op eds. Generally very good, but the man is shameless about the monster error of his youth writing
The really shocking aspect is Chait's obvious confidence that this astounding confession of irresponsible thoughtlessness and total ignorance of history will not damage his reputation as a serious thinker. I'm sure he is right. The collective national idiocy was so widespread that premature thoughtfulness is a liability.
Actually the really really shocking aspect is that Atrios denounced this editorial by Chait but did not remark on the paragraph I quoted.
I have been reading Jonathan Chait op eds. Generally very good, but the man is shameless about the monster error of his youth writing
At the outset of the war [in Iraq], I had no high hopes for Iraqi democracy, but I paid no attention to the possibility that the Iraqis would end up with a worse government than the one they had. It turns out, however, that there is something more awful than totalitarianism, and that is endless chaos and civil war.
The really shocking aspect is Chait's obvious confidence that this astounding confession of irresponsible thoughtlessness and total ignorance of history will not damage his reputation as a serious thinker. I'm sure he is right. The collective national idiocy was so widespread that premature thoughtfulness is a liability.
Actually the really really shocking aspect is that Atrios denounced this editorial by Chait but did not remark on the paragraph I quoted.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Taking Advantage of Medicare
One of the appalling features of the Republican prescription drug benefit plan is that the US pays private companies more than it pays the medicare administration to manage insurance. The idea is supposed to be that the private sector is more efficient. However, in fact, the private sector is less efficient (economies of scale and all that). I have no idea what mix of ideological blindness and corruption was involved, but the Republicans definitely knew that private insurers could not compete with the medicare administration without a subsidy, so they subsidized them in the name of the free market.
This apparently cost the medicare administration 5.2 Billion dollars last year
Ouch
Now a lot of people complain about the absurdly high compensation of Big Business CEOs. Let's compare
Yep that one Republiscam cost about as much as the total compensation of all 500 S&P 500 CEOs put together.
yeah $ 200 million more, but the 5.2 billion Medicare Advantage disadvantage is mostly pure waste due to inefficiency and not a transfer.
This is (barely) in the news only because former speaker Dennis Hastert grossly abused the legislative progress to send more of the money to a firm based in his state
This act is a total violation of the barest sham of democratic procedures in the US congress. I hope the Republican party spends Aons in opposition as the US people learn about their corruption.
One of the appalling features of the Republican prescription drug benefit plan is that the US pays private companies more than it pays the medicare administration to manage insurance. The idea is supposed to be that the private sector is more efficient. However, in fact, the private sector is less efficient (economies of scale and all that). I have no idea what mix of ideological blindness and corruption was involved, but the Republicans definitely knew that private insurers could not compete with the medicare administration without a subsidy, so they subsidized them in the name of the free market.
This apparently cost the medicare administration 5.2 Billion dollars last year
Private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans were paid an average 12.4% more per enrollee in 2005 compared with what the same enrollees would have cost in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program, according to a new report from The Commonwealth Fund.
In the report, Brian Biles of George Washington University and colleagues estimate that extra payments to MA plans amounted to $922 over fee-for-service costs for each of about 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, for a total of more than $5.2 billion.
Ouch
Now a lot of people complain about the absurdly high compensation of Big Business CEOs. Let's compare
$5.4 billion: The amount CEO’s from America’s 500 biggest companies earned last year, a 6 percent raise from the previous year. See who the Top 25 earners were here.
Yep that one Republiscam cost about as much as the total compensation of all 500 S&P 500 CEOs put together.
yeah $ 200 million more, but the 5.2 billion Medicare Advantage disadvantage is mostly pure waste due to inefficiency and not a transfer.
This is (barely) in the news only because former speaker Dennis Hastert grossly abused the legislative progress to send more of the money to a firm based in his state
By slipping four sentences into a big bill passed last week, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert secured a major change in Medicare policy avidly sought by a few health insurers, in particular a multinational company with headquarters in his home state, Illinois
[snip]
Mr. Hastert’s provision showed up mysteriously after House and Senate negotiators had finished writing the bill. The provision was added by the House Rules Committee, just a few hours before the bill went to the House floor last week.
Congressional aides, Medicare officials and insurance lobbyists said the main proponent of the measure was the Aon Corporation and its subsidiary, Sterling Life Insurance Company. Aon, a Fortune 500 company, is based in Chicago and does business in more than 120 countries.
This act is a total violation of the barest sham of democratic procedures in the US congress. I hope the Republican party spends Aons in opposition as the US people learn about their corruption.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
Pop Quiz from PB via MY
In the wake of Stein-gate, I've been trying to think of other questions we should ask politicians. Peter Beinart has suggestions:
Whenever government officials show up on television, interviewers should throw in a Stein question or two. For instance, who is the supreme leader of Iran?
M. Khameini
Who was Mohammed Mossadeq? Prime minister of Iran & leader of the national front. Nationalised oil wells. Said Shah's role as commander in chief was symbolic. Overthrown in coup led by Shah supported by CIA. W Churchill by not a Eden in favor of coup.
What is Bashar Assad's religion?
Moslem and, in particular, Alawite. This is a small sect. A source of stability for B Assad and dad is that Alawite's hold positions near power and all know they must hang together or they will hang separately.
Which European country colonized Lebanon?
France I think.
Can you name an Iraqi ethnic group besides Arabs and Kurds?
There are also Turkomen. Also a few Jews.
For most politicos, passing up an appearance on "Meet the Press" or "Larry King" is inconceivable, and so they'll do what Reyes is hopefully doing now: study.
Please grade me in comments.
OK now I have read MY's answers. I did better than he did. He named ex pres M Khameni as supreme leader. However, I wrote M. not A. as first initial of supreme religious guide Ali Khameini. I did not guess that his first name was Melvin.
In the wake of Stein-gate, I've been trying to think of other questions we should ask politicians. Peter Beinart has suggestions:
Whenever government officials show up on television, interviewers should throw in a Stein question or two. For instance, who is the supreme leader of Iran?
M. Khameini
Who was Mohammed Mossadeq? Prime minister of Iran & leader of the national front. Nationalised oil wells. Said Shah's role as commander in chief was symbolic. Overthrown in coup led by Shah supported by CIA. W Churchill by not a Eden in favor of coup.
What is Bashar Assad's religion?
Moslem and, in particular, Alawite. This is a small sect. A source of stability for B Assad and dad is that Alawite's hold positions near power and all know they must hang together or they will hang separately.
Which European country colonized Lebanon?
France I think.
Can you name an Iraqi ethnic group besides Arabs and Kurds?
There are also Turkomen. Also a few Jews.
For most politicos, passing up an appearance on "Meet the Press" or "Larry King" is inconceivable, and so they'll do what Reyes is hopefully doing now: study.
Please grade me in comments.
OK now I have read MY's answers. I did better than he did. He named ex pres M Khameni as supreme leader. However, I wrote M. not A. as first initial of supreme religious guide Ali Khameini. I did not guess that his first name was Melvin.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Impressions of the Boston Globe
I used to read the Boston Globe to find out what happened long long ago. I read it before I read the New York Times, because it arrived at the 7/11 in Central square Cambride earlier (5:00 AM not 6 am) and went to bed later than the out of town edition of the Times (midnight not 10 pm). This was before I surfed the web (we are talking late 1980s).
back in the Boston Met area, I am fairly surprised to find huge stories on local news on page A1 and very little international news. I think the Globe has moved into a local news, crime and sports niche due to cable news and maybe the web.
I am not thrilled.
Over in the blogosphere, I read a lot of convincing attacks on the WAPO the NY Times and TV news. I didn't realize how little else there is out there.
Hans has left a new comment on your post "12/14/2006 03:05:00 AM":
Had the same impression in April. But what surprised me even more was the complete absence of the war in Iraq in daily life.
I used to read the Boston Globe to find out what happened long long ago. I read it before I read the New York Times, because it arrived at the 7/11 in Central square Cambride earlier (5:00 AM not 6 am) and went to bed later than the out of town edition of the Times (midnight not 10 pm). This was before I surfed the web (we are talking late 1980s).
back in the Boston Met area, I am fairly surprised to find huge stories on local news on page A1 and very little international news. I think the Globe has moved into a local news, crime and sports niche due to cable news and maybe the web.
I am not thrilled.
Over in the blogosphere, I read a lot of convincing attacks on the WAPO the NY Times and TV news. I didn't realize how little else there is out there.
Hans has left a new comment on your post "12/14/2006 03:05:00 AM":
Had the same impression in April. But what surprised me even more was the complete absence of the war in Iraq in daily life.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Senator Joe Biden displays impressive ignorance "Badr Brigade, which is the Iranian-trained outfit that works for the -- that's the Shia outfit with the Dawa (inaudible) party." The Badr brigade is, of course, with the supreme council for Islamic revolution in Iraq, not Dawa (the call).
Not quite like claiming that al Qaida is Shi'ite but very impressive. My favorite coment on Joe "not bright" Biden cam way back in the time of Iran Contra. Someone said the scandal hurt Biden's chances in 88 because it made it less fashionable to be dumb.
We all remember how Senator "not bright" got that nickname ? Has to do with Dukakis having a spot of bother about "tirare il Sasso e nascondere la mano." Anyone curious can ask in comments.
Not quite like claiming that al Qaida is Shi'ite but very impressive. My favorite coment on Joe "not bright" Biden cam way back in the time of Iran Contra. Someone said the scandal hurt Biden's chances in 88 because it made it less fashionable to be dumb.
We all remember how Senator "not bright" got that nickname ? Has to do with Dukakis having a spot of bother about "tirare il Sasso e nascondere la mano." Anyone curious can ask in comments.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Portmantomes
Following Mark Kleiman
Careful readers of this space will remember Portmantomes, a great literary innovation designed to economize on reading time by combining two books into one, the more disparate the better. The concept was pioneered by Chronogram, whose readers came up with such not-to-be missed volumes as:
No Exit Voice and Loyalty
Valley of the Doll's House
Invisible Man for All Seasons
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Superman
The Little Prince and the Pauper
Long Day's Journey Into Night Flight
Long Day's Journey Into Night of the Living Dead
Jules and Lord Jim
A Streetcar Named Desire Under the Elms
Eat's, Shoots, and Leaves of Grass
The Curious incident of the Dog in the Night Time and the River
Guerillas in the Mist
A Book of Common Prayer for Owen Meany
L'Histoire d'O Henry
The Divine Commedy in Three Acts
The Confessions of Felix Krull, Confidence Man for all Seasons
Pilgrims Progress Coexistance and Intellectual Freedom
Emma Bovary
The Return of the King of Hearts
The Martian Chronicles of Narnia
The Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
The Stranger in a Strange Land
A Doll's House on the Prarie
The Black Swan's Lake
Following Mark Kleiman
Careful readers of this space will remember Portmantomes, a great literary innovation designed to economize on reading time by combining two books into one, the more disparate the better. The concept was pioneered by Chronogram, whose readers came up with such not-to-be missed volumes as:
No Exit Voice and Loyalty
Valley of the Doll's House
Invisible Man for All Seasons
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Superman
The Little Prince and the Pauper
Long Day's Journey Into Night Flight
Long Day's Journey Into Night of the Living Dead
Jules and Lord Jim
A Streetcar Named Desire Under the Elms
Eat's, Shoots, and Leaves of Grass
The Curious incident of the Dog in the Night Time and the River
Guerillas in the Mist
A Book of Common Prayer for Owen Meany
L'Histoire d'O Henry
The Divine Commedy in Three Acts
The Confessions of Felix Krull, Confidence Man for all Seasons
Pilgrims Progress Coexistance and Intellectual Freedom
Emma Bovary
The Return of the King of Hearts
The Martian Chronicles of Narnia
The Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
The Stranger in a Strange Land
A Doll's House on the Prarie
The Black Swan's Lake
Brad DeLong is waaaaaaay to kind to Daniel Glover
quoting only "Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does."
Matt Stoller [attn Mr Glover Matt Stoller not Jerome Armstrong -- they are different people] has a fuller quote showing either that Glover is illiterate or that he thinks you are so he can get away with the most feeble attempt at deception that I can recall.
Brad's question (as quoted)"Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe *billed themselves as* revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?"
his rude dishonest idiotic non answer
"Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does. I never said or implied that any of them [note absence of "billed themselves as" or equivalent] disdained to work for candidates. That's obviously not the case because all of them DID work for candidates."
If this man honestly thinks that he can find a (a second ?) person stupid enough to believe his assertion that DeLong claimed that he claimed that they honestly non hypocritically did in fact disdain to work for candidates, then he is just too dumb to be a reporter, or a hack or a hack reporter.
The guy needs help finding a job he can do (from his argument I think he might need help in distinguishing his humerus and his gluteus maximus).
Oh wait now I understand. He interpreted "billing" as in "billable hours" not "top billing" and is trying to figure out what it has to do with a "duck's bill."
Looking around the web, all I can say is that Danny Glover better be glad that snark is not a lethal weapon.
quoting only "Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does."
Matt Stoller [attn Mr Glover Matt Stoller not Jerome Armstrong -- they are different people] has a fuller quote showing either that Glover is illiterate or that he thinks you are so he can get away with the most feeble attempt at deception that I can recall.
Brad's question (as quoted)"Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe *billed themselves as* revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?"
his rude dishonest idiotic non answer
"Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does. I never said or implied that any of them [note absence of "billed themselves as" or equivalent] disdained to work for candidates. That's obviously not the case because all of them DID work for candidates."
If this man honestly thinks that he can find a (a second ?) person stupid enough to believe his assertion that DeLong claimed that he claimed that they honestly non hypocritically did in fact disdain to work for candidates, then he is just too dumb to be a reporter, or a hack or a hack reporter.
The guy needs help finding a job he can do (from his argument I think he might need help in distinguishing his humerus and his gluteus maximus).
Oh wait now I understand. He interpreted "billing" as in "billable hours" not "top billing" and is trying to figure out what it has to do with a "duck's bill."
Looking around the web, all I can say is that Danny Glover better be glad that snark is not a lethal weapon.
Cyber parlor game via Atrios
Which revolutionary are you ?
The game is to fill in answers trying to lead to a guessable name then see if you guessed right.
I tried 2,2,2,2,1 and guessed John Calvin (close).
3,4,2,3,3, and guessed Che Guevera and the evil site blew it and gave me Spartacus.
3,4,2,4,3is Che Guevera (favorite passtime is ruling a country not mortal combat).
The site is wrong wrong wrong. Spartacus was a slave trained to be forced to fight mortal combat for public entertainment. He didn't like it. He didn't like it at all. To avoid mortal combat he revolted and tried to get out of the Roman empire so he could rule an independent bit of barbaria and got mortal combat anyway.
Che Guevera, in contrast, was close to power in Cuba and decided to go off to Bolivia for some combat. His actions in Bolivia and Congo (to be Zaire) only make sense if one recognises that, for some reason, he was determined to be martyred. That was someone who chose mortal combat over ruling a country. He got a firing squad in spite of the efforts of a CIA agent to save him. Regis Debray in contrast squealed like a pig so how did he manage to show his face in public again (not to mention in the Elysee palace).
Anyway, I had fun.
Which revolutionary are you ?
The game is to fill in answers trying to lead to a guessable name then see if you guessed right.
I tried 2,2,2,2,1 and guessed John Calvin (close).
3,4,2,3,3, and guessed Che Guevera and the evil site blew it and gave me Spartacus.
3,4,2,4,3is Che Guevera (favorite passtime is ruling a country not mortal combat).
The site is wrong wrong wrong. Spartacus was a slave trained to be forced to fight mortal combat for public entertainment. He didn't like it. He didn't like it at all. To avoid mortal combat he revolted and tried to get out of the Roman empire so he could rule an independent bit of barbaria and got mortal combat anyway.
Che Guevera, in contrast, was close to power in Cuba and decided to go off to Bolivia for some combat. His actions in Bolivia and Congo (to be Zaire) only make sense if one recognises that, for some reason, he was determined to be martyred. That was someone who chose mortal combat over ruling a country. He got a firing squad in spite of the efforts of a CIA agent to save him. Regis Debray in contrast squealed like a pig so how did he manage to show his face in public again (not to mention in the Elysee palace).
Anyway, I had fun.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Matthew Yglesias notes that he scored 96% on the "Do You Want the Terrorists to Win" Quiz and boasts that he outscored even Jim Henley.
Yeglesias speculates "probably because as a liberal rather than a libertarian I have positive views about the United Nations."
I, however, scored a perfect 100%, because I prayed to Allah (the just the merciful) for guidance and arch rival Allah (may his name be praised) was distracted and didn't smite me.
Richard Pan has left a new comment on your post "12/04/2006 04:55:00 PM":
Bob, Hi! Special greetings from an old, old friend in Cambridge, Massachusetts! ---Richard c Pan, I owe you special apologies and may be finishing a PhD sometime! [snip]@gmail.com, 617 [snip]
I have no idea why Richard thinks he owes me an apology.
Yeglesias speculates "probably because as a liberal rather than a libertarian I have positive views about the United Nations."
I, however, scored a perfect 100%, because I prayed to Allah (the just the merciful) for guidance and arch rival Allah (may his name be praised) was distracted and didn't smite me.
Richard Pan has left a new comment on your post "12/04/2006 04:55:00 PM":
Bob, Hi! Special greetings from an old, old friend in Cambridge, Massachusetts! ---Richard c Pan, I owe you special apologies and may be finishing a PhD sometime! [snip]@gmail.com, 617 [snip]
I have no idea why Richard thinks he owes me an apology.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Zbigniew Brzezinski rewrites history
Until de Gaulle came to power, the government was getting all the time the same kind of advice we now are hearing about the situation in Iraq. It may get better. Yes, three years have been wasted, but maybe we can go on for another three years. And we’re going to do better; we’re going to control Algiers.
[snip]
And then a man came along, de Gaulle, who instead of listening to the same degree of timid consensus — “Gee, we are stuck, but we don’t know what to do, so let’s continue being stuck and maybe we’ll win” — he realized that this is a wrong war.
Brzezinski, is right about Iraq, but his history is seriously twisted. His version of France and Algeria is exactly like writing "Until Nixon came to power, the government was getting all the time the same kind of advice we now are hearing about the situation in Iraq. It may get better. [snip].
And then a man came along, Nixon, who instead of listening to the same degree of timid consensus — “Gee, we are stuck, but we don’t know what to do, so let’s continue being stuck and maybe we’ll win” — he realized that this is a wrong war.
Like Nixon, de Gaulle was in power for about half of the war. He came to power (in a rather less regular way which was not his fault*) at a time when most other politicians were much more nearly convinced that it was time to leave. In the end, he came around too (really has a way of getting real on you).
From the old Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Gaulle#1958.E2.80.941962:_Founding_of_the_Fifth_Republic
" In December, de Gaulle was elected President by the parliament with 78% of the vote, and inaugurated in January 1959.
[huge snip]
In March 1962 de Gaulle arranged a cease-fire in Algeria and a referendum supported independence, finally accomplished on 3 July 1962."
Brzezinski's "then this man came along" ignores over three (3) years of war and death under de Gaulle (hmmm do I read three years in Brzezinski's bit). He is rewriting history. Interestingly, there is no possible advantage gained by his distortion. de Gaulle is hardly popular among those Americans who have to be convinced we should leave Iraq.
I assume he is simply honestly ignorant (no surprise).
*The odd way de Gaulle came to power is that a prime minister was elected who wanted to get out of Algeria. Various generals attempted a coup. Extremely powerful executive President de Gaulle was a compromise between following the constitution and a military dictatorship.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "11/21/2006 11:57:00 PM":
Hi people
I do not know what to give for Christmas of the to friends, advise something ....
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "11/21/2006 11:57:00 PM":
De Gaulle seized power in a popular coup engineered by the French of Algeria to whom he had promised (via General Massu, who was later retired just as he was contemplating a coup) he would put up a real fight Algeria, and he did for a while, torturing and killing hundreds of thousands to show his good will, then he threw the towel in, and was forever considered a traitor by the French of Algeria, as well as by types like Le Pen...
Anonymous doesn't know what to get people for Christmas but he (or she) seems to dislike De Gaulle even more than I do. Has bad taste in music though
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "11/21/2006 11:57:00 PM":
Hello. Good day
Who listens to what music?
I Love songs Justin Timberlake and Paris Hilton
Until de Gaulle came to power, the government was getting all the time the same kind of advice we now are hearing about the situation in Iraq. It may get better. Yes, three years have been wasted, but maybe we can go on for another three years. And we’re going to do better; we’re going to control Algiers.
[snip]
And then a man came along, de Gaulle, who instead of listening to the same degree of timid consensus — “Gee, we are stuck, but we don’t know what to do, so let’s continue being stuck and maybe we’ll win” — he realized that this is a wrong war.
Brzezinski, is right about Iraq, but his history is seriously twisted. His version of France and Algeria is exactly like writing "Until Nixon came to power, the government was getting all the time the same kind of advice we now are hearing about the situation in Iraq. It may get better. [snip].
And then a man came along, Nixon, who instead of listening to the same degree of timid consensus — “Gee, we are stuck, but we don’t know what to do, so let’s continue being stuck and maybe we’ll win” — he realized that this is a wrong war.
Like Nixon, de Gaulle was in power for about half of the war. He came to power (in a rather less regular way which was not his fault*) at a time when most other politicians were much more nearly convinced that it was time to leave. In the end, he came around too (really has a way of getting real on you).
From the old Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Gaulle#1958.E2.80.941962:_Founding_of_the_Fifth_Republic
" In December, de Gaulle was elected President by the parliament with 78% of the vote, and inaugurated in January 1959.
[huge snip]
In March 1962 de Gaulle arranged a cease-fire in Algeria and a referendum supported independence, finally accomplished on 3 July 1962."
Brzezinski's "then this man came along" ignores over three (3) years of war and death under de Gaulle (hmmm do I read three years in Brzezinski's bit). He is rewriting history. Interestingly, there is no possible advantage gained by his distortion. de Gaulle is hardly popular among those Americans who have to be convinced we should leave Iraq.
I assume he is simply honestly ignorant (no surprise).
*The odd way de Gaulle came to power is that a prime minister was elected who wanted to get out of Algeria. Various generals attempted a coup. Extremely powerful executive President de Gaulle was a compromise between following the constitution and a military dictatorship.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "11/21/2006 11:57:00 PM":
Hi people
I do not know what to give for Christmas of the to friends, advise something ....
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "11/21/2006 11:57:00 PM":
De Gaulle seized power in a popular coup engineered by the French of Algeria to whom he had promised (via General Massu, who was later retired just as he was contemplating a coup) he would put up a real fight Algeria, and he did for a while, torturing and killing hundreds of thousands to show his good will, then he threw the towel in, and was forever considered a traitor by the French of Algeria, as well as by types like Le Pen...
Anonymous doesn't know what to get people for Christmas but he (or she) seems to dislike De Gaulle even more than I do. Has bad taste in music though
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "11/21/2006 11:57:00 PM":
Hello. Good day
Who listens to what music?
I Love songs Justin Timberlake and Paris Hilton
Past Time for a Primary Challenge
Look I too think Duke Cunningham does not belong on the floor of the house, but there is no reason Democrats have to put up with someone like Jim Moran in Northern Northern Virginia.
Via David Kurtz but why is some guy in Missouri writing about a congressman elected from (partly) inside the beltway ?
Look I too think Duke Cunningham does not belong on the floor of the house, but there is no reason Democrats have to put up with someone like Jim Moran in Northern Northern Virginia.
Via David Kurtz but why is some guy in Missouri writing about a congressman elected from (partly) inside the beltway ?
Professor Barnett coronates himself Dean of the "Leave No Congressman Behind education plan".
McJoan is very pleased that Dean Barnett recognises that Kos is an asset to the Democratic party.
I am very amused by the Dean's interesting approach to the English Language.
I'd say the dye that was cast last week was indigo.
Now I hope that it is the height of absurdity for me, Robert Waldmann,to comment on the Dean's spelllin in a post which announces his crownation as Dean of the Leave No Congressman Behind education program. As loyal reader of this blog knows, I think our purpose is to reach the nadir of idiocy, and my commenting on someone elses speling is as close as I have gotten.
I am honestly impressed that someone who thinks very highly of Newt Gingrich recognises that gridlock will be an improvement over the Republican assault on the US treasury.
McJoan is very pleased that Dean Barnett recognises that Kos is an asset to the Democratic party.
I am very amused by the Dean's interesting approach to the English Language.
FAQ - Republican Congressional Leadership
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 4:23 PM
[snip]
5) Back on topic – how disastrous were the Republican leadership choices?
Eh. It would have been nice to have seen a new Newt Gingrich coronated, but I’m not sure there’s such a being in the Republican caucus. Besides, the congressional leadership just won’t be all that important over the next couple of years.
6) Now you tell me, after I waste a week of my life on conference calls with these guys who seem to think “book larnin’” is beneath them. Why’s that?
[snip]
7) But how about legislation? Won’t the lack of leadership hurt us there?
Well, we’ll probably cut-and-run on the minimum wage, but other than that I don’t see any Democratic boondoggles that will pass with a veto-proof majority. So all in all, it should be two years of stasis in Congress, which incidentally will beat the hell out of the last four years. (See “prescription drug benefits” for more details.)
[snip]
9) What’s been the reaction in the blogosphere about the same Republican congressional leaders being re-signed for the 110th congress?
The reactions that I’ve read and that have come in my inbox have ranged from panic to outrage to outraged panic. Doesn’t seem like anyone is very happy today.
10) And yet you’re not on the verge of despair?
Not at all. Despair was last week with the election results, the shameful timing of the Rumsfeld firing and the Gates naming. The dye was cast then. There’s nothing that could have happened in the Republican leadership conference that could have put lipstick on this pig of a month.
Besides, I’m very excited about my Leave No Congressman Behind education plan.
I'd say the dye that was cast last week was indigo.
Now I hope that it is the height of absurdity for me, Robert Waldmann,to comment on the Dean's spelllin in a post which announces his crownation as Dean of the Leave No Congressman Behind education program. As loyal reader of this blog knows, I think our purpose is to reach the nadir of idiocy, and my commenting on someone elses speling is as close as I have gotten.
I am honestly impressed that someone who thinks very highly of Newt Gingrich recognises that gridlock will be an improvement over the Republican assault on the US treasury.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Billmon is Optimistic. We're screwed.
I don't know. But if Jim Webb and I are now on the roughly same side on the big issues of the day -- the war, globalization, corporate power, economic fairness, social justice -- it tells you something has fundamentally changed in American politics. It may not be a realignment (a political system this polluted and decrepit may not be capable of such a thing) but when Senators from Virginia start talking like Walter Reuther, it sure the hell isn't business as usual.
This is the guy who generally gives US Democracy a 50/50 chance of surviving the year.
As Billmon writes this has "left me with a profound case of political vertigo."
I don't know. But if Jim Webb and I are now on the roughly same side on the big issues of the day -- the war, globalization, corporate power, economic fairness, social justice -- it tells you something has fundamentally changed in American politics. It may not be a realignment (a political system this polluted and decrepit may not be capable of such a thing) but when Senators from Virginia start talking like Walter Reuther, it sure the hell isn't business as usual.
This is the guy who generally gives US Democracy a 50/50 chance of surviving the year.
As Billmon writes this has "left me with a profound case of political vertigo."
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Milton Friedman an Encominium
I never understood why Friedman considered the quantity theory of money to be the belly button of the universe. I agree with Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong (who tend to know what they are talking about) that monetarism was actually a very minor aspect of Friedman's contribution to economics.
He was brilliant (it is strange and painful to use the past tense). His contributions include the accelerationist critque of the Phillips curve (independently made by Phelps who just won a nobel prize for that), the permanent income hypothesis, the description of what a "peso problem" is, the serious observation of the need to look at prices which are actually paid not list prices etc etc etc.
He was often brilliant. He obtained his god-like status for some economist (and demonic mystique to the others) because he bet his reputation on a hotly contested prediction again and again and again and won each time. Might have been a long long string of luck, but, personally I doubt it.
Friedman was three things, an economist who was strangely brilliant (or maybe he sold his soul to the devil), a monetarist fanatic with a fetish for MV=pY, and a libertarian pro-market extremist out there with Hayek and Rand. I see these three Friedman's as separate (I want to admire the first and ignore the other two).
Friedman saw a connection. The only one I see is that he reliably opposed a Keynsian consensus which I don't even remember. He is so influential that, in the UK, "monetarist" is used to mean "pro-market" or maybe "indifferent to the needs of the poor."
In many fields, it is difficult (to put it mildly) to find intelligent thoughtful intellectually serious conservatives. Economics is not one of those fields. Many brilliant thoughtful economists are free market fanatics. However, even with such competitors for the crown of the profession's leading opponent of state intervention in the market, Friedman clearly stood head and shoulders above the others.
He was a genius and (perhaps because) he could explain all of his thoughts to ordinary people.
update: I get a link from a libertarian site (didn't you guys notice that I wanted to ignore Friedman's free market fanatacism).
I never understood why Friedman considered the quantity theory of money to be the belly button of the universe. I agree with Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong (who tend to know what they are talking about) that monetarism was actually a very minor aspect of Friedman's contribution to economics.
He was brilliant (it is strange and painful to use the past tense). His contributions include the accelerationist critque of the Phillips curve (independently made by Phelps who just won a nobel prize for that), the permanent income hypothesis, the description of what a "peso problem" is, the serious observation of the need to look at prices which are actually paid not list prices etc etc etc.
He was often brilliant. He obtained his god-like status for some economist (and demonic mystique to the others) because he bet his reputation on a hotly contested prediction again and again and again and won each time. Might have been a long long string of luck, but, personally I doubt it.
Friedman was three things, an economist who was strangely brilliant (or maybe he sold his soul to the devil), a monetarist fanatic with a fetish for MV=pY, and a libertarian pro-market extremist out there with Hayek and Rand. I see these three Friedman's as separate (I want to admire the first and ignore the other two).
Friedman saw a connection. The only one I see is that he reliably opposed a Keynsian consensus which I don't even remember. He is so influential that, in the UK, "monetarist" is used to mean "pro-market" or maybe "indifferent to the needs of the poor."
In many fields, it is difficult (to put it mildly) to find intelligent thoughtful intellectually serious conservatives. Economics is not one of those fields. Many brilliant thoughtful economists are free market fanatics. However, even with such competitors for the crown of the profession's leading opponent of state intervention in the market, Friedman clearly stood head and shoulders above the others.
He was a genius and (perhaps because) he could explain all of his thoughts to ordinary people.
update: I get a link from a libertarian site (didn't you guys notice that I wanted to ignore Friedman's free market fanatacism).
Chickenhawk George Bush finally in Vietnam
I doubt he noticed that the flags don't look quite like the on they posted at www.whitehouse.gov
I doubt he noticed that the flags don't look quite like the on they posted at www.whitehouse.gov
Friday, November 17, 2006
This comment is too good to bury with the post.
Kynn has left a new comment on your post "11/10/2006 10:13:00 AM":
Wowwwww. noww i am in a week posishun to komment on sumwun ho laiks to judge others' English ability and has purr speling skils beins such a one myself. But, I mean like wowwwwwwwww that is one awesome catch Kynn.
Now as to the state of Arizona, it seems that "Must not be a convicted felony, unless your civil rights have been restored" is not only ungrammatic but also misleading (perhaps deliberately so) if it is SOP to restore civil rights to felons who have done their time.
Kynn has left a new comment on your post "11/10/2006 10:13:00 AM":
Not a typo -- Russ Dove has very poor spelling skills, which is ironic for someone who claims to judge others' English ability.
As for voting, Arizona allows convicted felons to vote again once they have served their time. Dove told me that he voted in the election, and he had an "i voted!" sticker, so it seems that he probably did vote.
Wowwwww. noww i am in a week posishun to komment on sumwun ho laiks to judge others' English ability and has purr speling skils beins such a one myself. But, I mean like wowwwwwwwww that is one awesome catch Kynn.
Now as to the state of Arizona, it seems that "Must not be a convicted felony, unless your civil rights have been restored" is not only ungrammatic but also misleading (perhaps deliberately so) if it is SOP to restore civil rights to felons who have done their time.
Time for some culture
Reading this reference to Shakespeare "Once More Into the Breach!
The “breach” being the President’s ass, his head being what’s going in “once more.”"
(via Brad) I recalled an English translation of the last line of the 21st canto of the Divine Commedy "and he made a bugle of his breach." and thought it was time to consider the strange link between war, warriors, the heart of darkness and the place where the sun doesn't shine.
Hence Culture Time
History
What do Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, Frederick the Great and Ernst Rohm have in common ?
Literature
A guy asks much younger guys for something
"Once more into the breach dear friends"
Henry V by William Shakespeare (not Mark Foley)
God's plan is explained
ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Io vidi già cavalier muover campo,
e cominciare stormo e far lor mostra,
e talvolta partir per loro scampo;
corridor vidi per la terra vostra,
o Aretini, e vidi gir gualdane,
fedir torneamenti e correr giostra;
quando con trombe, e quando con campane,
con tamburi e con cenni di castella,
e con cose nostrali e con istrane;
né già con sì diversa cennamella
cavalier vidi muover né pedoni,
né nave a segno di terra o di stella.
L'inferno Cantos 21 and 22 by Dante Alighieri
(not Ted Hagard).
The English translation of the first line of the quote (last line of canto 21) which was clearly an embarassed effort to Bowdlerize Dante (the correct tranlsation of "culo" is "ass" as confirmed by a laureata of the scuola normale superiore).
The unfortunate translater may have had good reason to believe that he knew better than Dante what was and was not appropriate, but he should have remembered his Shakespeare.
Finally the supreme expression of this literature, the telos towards which Dante and Shakespeare were drawn is, of course, Keyboard Kommando Komics
I assure the alarmed reader that I am absolutely not homophobic and I even have an open ... mind about S&M. I just wish those guys would work out their fantasies with consenting adults.
update: The poor man explains (with a further kultural reference)
I laugh out loud. My 9 year old daughter asked why I laughed. I said because I just read something funny written by Andrew Northrup. She asks if that is anyone important. I reply, very important and run to the hamper to put on my order of the Shrill t-shirt, which is slighly smelly but remains my most prized possession.
Reading this reference to Shakespeare "Once More Into the Breach!
The “breach” being the President’s ass, his head being what’s going in “once more.”"
(via Brad) I recalled an English translation of the last line of the 21st canto of the Divine Commedy "and he made a bugle of his breach." and thought it was time to consider the strange link between war, warriors, the heart of darkness and the place where the sun doesn't shine.
Hence Culture Time
History
What do Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, Frederick the Great and Ernst Rohm have in common ?
Literature
A guy asks much younger guys for something
"Once more into the breach dear friends"
Henry V by William Shakespeare (not Mark Foley)
God's plan is explained
ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Io vidi già cavalier muover campo,
e cominciare stormo e far lor mostra,
e talvolta partir per loro scampo;
corridor vidi per la terra vostra,
o Aretini, e vidi gir gualdane,
fedir torneamenti e correr giostra;
quando con trombe, e quando con campane,
con tamburi e con cenni di castella,
e con cose nostrali e con istrane;
né già con sì diversa cennamella
cavalier vidi muover né pedoni,
né nave a segno di terra o di stella.
L'inferno Cantos 21 and 22 by Dante Alighieri
(not Ted Hagard).
The English translation of the first line of the quote (last line of canto 21) which was clearly an embarassed effort to Bowdlerize Dante (the correct tranlsation of "culo" is "ass" as confirmed by a laureata of the scuola normale superiore).
The unfortunate translater may have had good reason to believe that he knew better than Dante what was and was not appropriate, but he should have remembered his Shakespeare.
Finally the supreme expression of this literature, the telos towards which Dante and Shakespeare were drawn is, of course, Keyboard Kommando Komics
I assure the alarmed reader that I am absolutely not homophobic and I even have an open ... mind about S&M. I just wish those guys would work out their fantasies with consenting adults.
update: The poor man explains (with a further kultural reference)
Basically, this is why when people whine about “civility,” I photoshop talking assholes on their foreheads. I’m trying to drag down the level of political discourse in this country - I’m really, really trying - but it’s like farting in the Augean stables.
I laugh out loud. My 9 year old daughter asked why I laughed. I said because I just read something funny written by Andrew Northrup. She asks if that is anyone important. I reply, very important and run to the hamper to put on my order of the Shrill t-shirt, which is slighly smelly but remains my most prized possession.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Robert's Stochastic Thoughts Reader DWS writes
> Quoting Robert Waldmann:
>
> > .... but they don't even keep track of the ratio of hot low cap
> > stock tips to penis enlargement advertisements
I got one spam item not long ago with the
all-purpose subject line "watch it grow !"
(think that one was a stock tip, actually)...
- Hide quoted text -
DWS
Robert adds
Look like some spammer just figured out how to trick the gmail spam filter. I trust google will figure out how to block them (it) tomorrow. La lotta continua.
> Quoting Robert Waldmann
>
> > .... but they don't even keep track of the ratio of hot low cap
> > stock tips to penis enlargement advertisements
I got one spam item not long ago with the
all-purpose subject line "watch it grow !"
(think that one was a stock tip, actually)...
- Hide quoted text -
DWS
Robert adds
Look like some spammer just figured out how to trick the gmail spam filter. I trust google will figure out how to block them (it) tomorrow. La lotta continua.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
To me, the desire to be President of the United States in itself means you're a psychopath who should never be President of the United States. Unfortunately, of course, this desire is a job requirement. You have to be Catholic to be Pope, and you have to be dangerous and sick to be president.
Via Glenn Greenwald
Jonathan Schwarz is going on my hotlist (even though he is a Yalie).
and how about this
Via Glenn Greenwald
Jonathan Schwarz is going on my hotlist (even though he is a Yalie).
and how about this
Will our efforts be Mayagüez sized? Or bigger, like Grenada? Given all the humiliation America's foreign policy cadre will (believe themselves to) experience, it's quite possible it will be larger still. Watch out, Mars.
That's Nice
I like the result, but the really wonderful part is the fact that the Republican's calculate that they lost by 3 more votes than the Democrats and 5 more than the town clerks. This shows that there are still honest Republicans (at least in New England).
HARTFORD, Conn. - Democrat Joe Courtney's victory over Republican Rep. Rob Simmons in their U.S. House contest was confirmed Tuesday [snip]
Recounts showed that Courtney won by 91 votes instead of the 167-vote margin counted on election night, according to results tabulated by town clerks and reported to The Associated Press. Nearly 250,000 votes were cast.
Both parties monitored the recount and confirmed that Courtney had the final edge, although their figures differed. Republicans said their count showed Courtney winning by 96 votes, while Democrats had the margin at 93.
I like the result, but the really wonderful part is the fact that the Republican's calculate that they lost by 3 more votes than the Democrats and 5 more than the town clerks. This shows that there are still honest Republicans (at least in New England).
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Beyond 1984
Emanuele Millemaci explained to me that lo stato Italiano is following me.
Big Brother only watched Winston Smith when he was at home. Now they can follow you if you have your cell phone on.
Modern cellular technology would have ruined the book. Since there would have been no hope of hiding, Smith and Julia* would never have tried anything.
don't try to call me. I'm keeping my cell phone off.
*thanks Arwen
Emanuele Millemaci explained to me that lo stato Italiano is following me.
Big Brother only watched Winston Smith when he was at home. Now they can follow you if you have your cell phone on.
Modern cellular technology would have ruined the book. Since there would have been no hope of hiding, Smith and Julia* would never have tried anything.
don't try to call me. I'm keeping my cell phone off.
*thanks Arwen
Below I Praise an Article in the Washington Post
but this is ridiculous.
Caught in the Web
More People Say Heavy Internet Use Is Disrupting Their Lives, and Medical Experts Are Paying Attention
by January W. Payne
Sure I surf a lot, but I'm not addicted. I can quit any time I want to.
I just don't want to.
Hey who are you to snear. You are addicted to "the real world" whatever that is (can't find it with google must not exist).
but this is ridiculous.
Caught in the Web
More People Say Heavy Internet Use Is Disrupting Their Lives, and Medical Experts Are Paying Attention
by January W. Payne
Sure I surf a lot, but I'm not addicted. I can quit any time I want to.
I just don't want to.
Hey who are you to snear. You are addicted to "the real world" whatever that is (can't find it with google must not exist).
A Very Good Article in the Washington Post Written by John Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute.
Wonders will never cease. The article notes that the principle intra party shift due to the November 7 election is that there is now only one Republican reprentative representing New England and that New York is so dominated by the Democrats that "After Tuesday, if you get into a car in Manhattan and drive north out of the city, you would have to go nearly 200 miles until you reached territory represented by Republicans."
Fortier looks at districts by Presidential vote "Before Tuesday's elections there were eighteen House Republicans who represented districts that John Kerry had won in 2004. Ten of those eighteen lost." and looks at ideology "Among the House seats that changed hands, nine out of the twenty most liberal House Republicans lost, using the rankings of political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal (voteview.com). And nineteen seats that changed hands had been held by Republicans in the more liberal half of their caucus."
The article is substantive and to the point. It shows the utter idiocy of the more recent of these two magazine covers. The center is definitely not the place to be.
All in all, this one article in the Washington Post reaches the level one would expect of a much more serious news source such as www.washingtonmonthly.com
To me, the amazing thing is that I am amazed. I really think that the article by John Fortier is the exception that proves the rule. I really honestly don't know why there are so few articles like this one in daily newspapers. It is by no means too technical for Washington Post readers and contains much more information than, say, an average weeks worth of op eds. Also, since the claims are supported by data (indeed they simply summarize data) they are, for what they are worth, definitely true. Most analyses of the elections do not come close to this standard.
Why not ? What is the problem ?
And as for Joe Klein, why doesn't he stick to fiction ... uhm let me rephrase that, why is his fiction published in a news magazine ?
update: Real Clear Politics jumps the shark
via Kos
Jay Cost writes "This is the Democrats' major limitation this year. They just have relatively few Republican-held districts, about 15, where Kerry beat Bush in 2004."
recall "Before Tuesday's elections there were eighteen House Republicans who represented districts that John Kerry had won in 2004." Now 18 is, indeed, about 15, but why couldn't Cost have done the calculation ? Too much work ? It would take me a while, but he should know where to get the info in a minute.
update 2: My mistake. It would take me about a minute too.
Here is presidential vote by district
via Wikipedia via my very first google search (also first link on which I clicked after googling).
Elapsed time around one minute.
Maybe the problem is the Cost (polidata wants money). Also the House makes me look up members by district clicking on states one by one. Sooo much work maybe it would be quicker to google and it would certainly be quicker to just pull a number out of my hat.
Wonders will never cease. The article notes that the principle intra party shift due to the November 7 election is that there is now only one Republican reprentative representing New England and that New York is so dominated by the Democrats that "After Tuesday, if you get into a car in Manhattan and drive north out of the city, you would have to go nearly 200 miles until you reached territory represented by Republicans."
Fortier looks at districts by Presidential vote "Before Tuesday's elections there were eighteen House Republicans who represented districts that John Kerry had won in 2004. Ten of those eighteen lost." and looks at ideology "Among the House seats that changed hands, nine out of the twenty most liberal House Republicans lost, using the rankings of political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal (voteview.com). And nineteen seats that changed hands had been held by Republicans in the more liberal half of their caucus."
The article is substantive and to the point. It shows the utter idiocy of the more recent of these two magazine covers. The center is definitely not the place to be.
All in all, this one article in the Washington Post reaches the level one would expect of a much more serious news source such as www.washingtonmonthly.com
To me, the amazing thing is that I am amazed. I really think that the article by John Fortier is the exception that proves the rule. I really honestly don't know why there are so few articles like this one in daily newspapers. It is by no means too technical for Washington Post readers and contains much more information than, say, an average weeks worth of op eds. Also, since the claims are supported by data (indeed they simply summarize data) they are, for what they are worth, definitely true. Most analyses of the elections do not come close to this standard.
Why not ? What is the problem ?
And as for Joe Klein, why doesn't he stick to fiction ... uhm let me rephrase that, why is his fiction published in a news magazine ?
update: Real Clear Politics jumps the shark
via Kos
Jay Cost writes "This is the Democrats' major limitation this year. They just have relatively few Republican-held districts, about 15, where Kerry beat Bush in 2004."
recall "Before Tuesday's elections there were eighteen House Republicans who represented districts that John Kerry had won in 2004." Now 18 is, indeed, about 15, but why couldn't Cost have done the calculation ? Too much work ? It would take me a while, but he should know where to get the info in a minute.
update 2: My mistake. It would take me about a minute too.
Here is presidential vote by district
via Wikipedia via my very first google search (also first link on which I clicked after googling).
Elapsed time around one minute.
Maybe the problem is the Cost (polidata wants money). Also the House makes me look up members by district clicking on states one by one. Sooo much work maybe it would be quicker to google and it would certainly be quicker to just pull a number out of my hat.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Well beyond Parody
Over at Daily Kos Kynn Bartlett describes voter intimidation in Tucson Arizona.
He followed up a MALDEF press release
Russ Dove's idea is that voters are required to speak English because the ability to speak English is required for naturalization. Mr Dove is apparently not aware that there are US born US citizens who do not speak English. I guess he has heard of Puerto Rico, but I don't know if he doesn't know that the principle language used in Puerto Rico s Spanish or if he doesn't know that Puerto Ricans are US citizens who are perfectly free to move to the mainland and vote whenever they want to. Also there are US born US citizens on the mainland who speak only Spanish. Only an idiot could honestly believe that all US citizens speak English. Also English fluency is not always required for naturalization as explained by Kynn in his post.
The part I like best (which could easily be a Kynn typo) is this
Russ Dove also wrote "No speak English - No Vote! ".
I for wun am reel gladd he didn't say "can't spel kant voute" cause I wuld be in truble tooo.
Since Dove is a convicted felon, he can't vote in Arizona so he is probably jelous of non English speaking US citizens who can.
I quote the web page of the Arizona Secretary of State
Wholly fuc we need some more immigrants, so that there will be some people in the USA who can write English korektly.
Roy Warden has left a new comment on your post "11/10/2006 10:13:00 AM":
I am sooo scared Roy. By the way, how did you know that I spent 3 hours in Tijujana in 1975 ?
update:
Kynn has left a new comment on your post "11/10/2006 10:13:00 AM":
Wowwwww. noww i am in a week posishun to komment on sumwun ho laiks to judge others' English ability and has purr speling skils beins such a one myself. But, I mean like wowwwwwwwww that is one awesome catch Kynn.
Now as to the state of Arizona, it seems that "Must not be a convicted felony, unless your civil rights have been restored" is not only ungrammatic but also misleading (perhaps deliberately so) if it is SOP to restore civil rights to felons who have done their time.
Over at Daily Kos Kynn Bartlett describes voter intimidation in Tucson Arizona.
He followed up a MALDEF press release
In the morning on voting day, two men -- anti-immigrant crusader Russ Dove and his cameraman -- showed up at precinct 49 in Tucson, at the Iglesia Bautista church, 4502 S. 12th St. Their plan: To harass and intimidate Spanish-speaking voters by using an "English-only" petition to screen for "illegal immigrants" trying to vote, videotape them, and post their likenesses on the Internet. Roy Warden also came, armed with a gun -- as he usually does -- and the trio started approaching a small number of people. MALDEF monitors were there, to observe the effect of Arizona's new requirement for ID to vote, and observed the attempted intimidation tactics.
Russ Dove's idea is that voters are required to speak English because the ability to speak English is required for naturalization. Mr Dove is apparently not aware that there are US born US citizens who do not speak English. I guess he has heard of Puerto Rico, but I don't know if he doesn't know that the principle language used in Puerto Rico s Spanish or if he doesn't know that Puerto Ricans are US citizens who are perfectly free to move to the mainland and vote whenever they want to. Also there are US born US citizens on the mainland who speak only Spanish. Only an idiot could honestly believe that all US citizens speak English. Also English fluency is not always required for naturalization as explained by Kynn in his post.
The part I like best (which could easily be a Kynn typo) is this
But back to Russ Dove's plan.
He asked for people who agree with him to fill out an online application form to watch the polling places:
1) FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS
1-A) I WILL CONTACT YOU TO DISCUSS PRECINCT ASSIAGNMENT
2) PRINT OUT 2(TWO) COPIES OF YOUR PRECINCT ASSIAGNMENT
Russ Dove also wrote "No speak English - No Vote! ".
I for wun am reel gladd he didn't say "can't spel kant voute" cause I wuld be in truble tooo.
Since Dove is a convicted felon, he can't vote in Arizona so he is probably jelous of non English speaking US citizens who can.
I quote the web page of the Arizona Secretary of State
Q: What are the qualifications to register to vote?
Answer:
* Must be a Citizen of the United States of America
* Must be a resident of Arizona
* Must be 18 years of age or more on or before the day of the next regular
General Election
* Must not be a convicted felony, unless
your civil rights have been restored
* Must not been adjudicated incompetent
Wholly fuc we need some more immigrants, so that there will be some people in the USA who can write English korektly.
Roy Warden has left a new comment on your post "11/10/2006 10:13:00 AM":
Listen up, Pendejos and the Left Wing.
Your days in the sun and a "free ride" are over. The Gringos who are watching me Burn Mexican Flags and listening to my speech are waking up.
If you are illegal, sometime en la noche I will find you. I will turn you in to La Migra and you will be gone, "poof!", just like that.
Beware Cinco Cosas: La Noche, La Chupacabra, La Migra, The American Rule of Law, and Warden, the Notorious Mexican Flag Burner.
Illegal aliens, eschuame. Beware la noche. We are coming for you and you are going back to Mexico.
http://www.wardenburnsmexicanflags.com
I am sooo scared Roy. By the way, how did you know that I spent 3 hours in Tijujana in 1975 ?
update:
Kynn has left a new comment on your post "11/10/2006 10:13:00 AM":
Not a typo -- Russ Dove has very poor spelling skills, which is ironic for someone who claims to judge others' English ability.
As for voting, Arizona allows convicted felons to vote again once they have served their time. Dove told me that he voted in the election, and he had an "i voted!" sticker, so it seems that he probably did vote.
Wowwwww. noww i am in a week posishun to komment on sumwun ho laiks to judge others' English ability and has purr speling skils beins such a one myself. But, I mean like wowwwwwwwww that is one awesome catch Kynn.
Now as to the state of Arizona, it seems that "Must not be a convicted felony, unless your civil rights have been restored" is not only ungrammatic but also misleading (perhaps deliberately so) if it is SOP to restore civil rights to felons who have done their time.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
District the Thirteenth Part II
You have got to be kidding me. The race to replace the dread Rep. Katharine Harris (you know the one who stole the 2000 election for Bush) is in a recount.
that's hundreds of votes (with an h) just like old times.
No more pregnant chads of course, they used touch screen voting machines, but confused voters complain that the butterfly ballot has made it into the digital age
Needless to say, Sarasota County is a Democratic strong hold. If the 18,000 missing votes had split the way counted votes did, Jennings would have won.
You have got to be kidding me. The race to replace the dread Rep. Katharine Harris (you know the one who stole the 2000 election for Bush) is in a recount.
Democrat Christine Jennings lost to Republican Vern Buchanan by 368 votes
that's hundreds of votes (with an h) just like old times.
No more pregnant chads of course, they used touch screen voting machines, but confused voters complain that the butterfly ballot has made it into the digital age
A review of Sarasota County voting results shows that
[snip]
More than 18,000 voters who showed up at the polls voted in other races but not the Buchanan-Jennings race.
many voters say the unusual undervote was caused by badly designed touch-screen ballots, which they say hid the race or made it hard to verify if they had cast their vote.
More than 120 Sarasota County voters contacted the Herald-Tribune to report such problems, almost all regarding the Jennings-Buchanan race.
Needless to say, Sarasota County is a Democratic strong hold. If the 18,000 missing votes had split the way counted votes did, Jennings would have won.
Ewing *owns* Dallas. Not J.R. but Darlene
Dallas County still calls its historic courthouse Old Red, but on Tuesday it went "blue."
[snip] Democrats retook the courthouse in a similar, surprising sweep.
"We didn't expect it, but it's fun," Democratic Party Chair Darlene Ewing
Dallas County still calls its historic courthouse Old Red, but on Tuesday it went "blue."
[snip] Democrats retook the courthouse in a similar, surprising sweep.
"We didn't expect it, but it's fun," Democratic Party Chair Darlene Ewing
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The world's most august deliberative body has no Talent at all.
as the Jackie Gleason (whose talent I am not questioning said) "how sweet it is".
as the Jackie Gleason (whose talent I am not questioning said) "how sweet it is".
Licenced to Thrill
It is currently Webb by 0.07% which is now my most favorite fairly small number in the whole world (or at least Italy and Virginia).
Also the WAPO has McCaskill ahead which would ... result in a hypothetical possibility which depends on many precincts in Missouri, absentee ballots and lots and lots of lawyers.
Got to take 90 minute breaks from looking at election results more often.
It is currently Webb by 0.07% which is now my most favorite fairly small number in the whole world (or at least Italy and Virginia).
Also the WAPO has McCaskill ahead which would ... result in a hypothetical possibility which depends on many precincts in Missouri, absentee ballots and lots and lots of lawyers.
Got to take 90 minute breaks from looking at election results more often.
I am obsessively following the official unofficial numbers for the Virginia senate race
(Makaka vs Webb).
At the moment, with 97.42% of precincts reporting it is *still* too close to call.
Allen is ahead by 4,722 votes but the remaining few precincts to report include precincts in Richmond City (way for Webb), one in Arlington county (so way for Webb tht one precinct can be worth net hundreds of votes) and, mostly, Prince William county, which really ought to be more for Webb since it is in Northern Virginia and I have actually set foot in it.
Update: midnight EST Allen's lead is now 3,163 or 0.14 % of votes cast (recall the Italian center left won by 0.07% and don't mentione 2000). The new reports are mostly Prince William county and some from Richmond. Assuming that non reporting precincts have vote proportions equal to those alaready counted, I calculate Allen by 700, way back when he was ahead by 4,722 I calculated Allen by 600, so things are (sadly) on course.
update 2: Blogged too soon. Results coming in. at 12:05 Allen was ahead by good old 0.07% at 12:10 by 0.08% = 1,868. My rough calculation implies Allen by 100 (that would be 0.005 %). Do *not* mention 2000 to me.
Update 3: Well that was a pause that refreshed. Note a calculation under silly assumptions is not a prediction. Note also that with 100% of precincts reporting that Webb has 2,726 more votes than Allen.
Absentee ballots, especially overseas absentee ballots like mine, might reelect Allen. The numbers are horribly similar to numbers I saw in 2000 (and more pleasantly similar to percentages I saw in 2006).
Wowwwwww. Got to try this disconnect from the internet approach to election watching more often.
update 4 unofficially officially 0.37 % of precincts haven't reported and Webb is only 0.33% ahead so it is possible that Allen could be ahead when all precincts report (rotflmao).
Update 3 stands corrected.
(Makaka vs Webb).
At the moment, with 97.42% of precincts reporting it is *still* too close to call.
Allen is ahead by 4,722 votes but the remaining few precincts to report include precincts in Richmond City (way for Webb), one in Arlington county (so way for Webb tht one precinct can be worth net hundreds of votes) and, mostly, Prince William county, which really ought to be more for Webb since it is in Northern Virginia and I have actually set foot in it.
Update: midnight EST Allen's lead is now 3,163 or 0.14 % of votes cast (recall the Italian center left won by 0.07% and don't mentione 2000). The new reports are mostly Prince William county and some from Richmond. Assuming that non reporting precincts have vote proportions equal to those alaready counted, I calculate Allen by 700, way back when he was ahead by 4,722 I calculated Allen by 600, so things are (sadly) on course.
update 2: Blogged too soon. Results coming in. at 12:05 Allen was ahead by good old 0.07% at 12:10 by 0.08% = 1,868. My rough calculation implies Allen by 100 (that would be 0.005 %). Do *not* mention 2000 to me.
Update 3: Well that was a pause that refreshed. Note a calculation under silly assumptions is not a prediction. Note also that with 100% of precincts reporting that Webb has 2,726 more votes than Allen.
Absentee ballots, especially overseas absentee ballots like mine, might reelect Allen. The numbers are horribly similar to numbers I saw in 2000 (and more pleasantly similar to percentages I saw in 2006).
Wowwwwww. Got to try this disconnect from the internet approach to election watching more often.
update 4 unofficially officially 0.37 % of precincts haven't reported and Webb is only 0.33% ahead so it is possible that Allen could be ahead when all precincts report (rotflmao).
Update 3 stands corrected.
CNN Early Exit Polls
via In the Details
VIRGINIA
D: 52
R: 47
RHODE ISLAND
D: 53
R: 46
PENNSYLVANIA
D: 57
R: 42
OHIO
D: 57
R: 43
NEW JERSEY
D: 52
R: 45
MONTANA
D: 53
R: 46
MISSOURI
D: 50
R: 48
MARYLAND
D: 53
R: 46
TENNESSEE
D: 48
R: 51
ARIZONA
D: 46
R: 50
via In the Details
VIRGINIA
D: 52
R: 47
RHODE ISLAND
D: 53
R: 46
PENNSYLVANIA
D: 57
R: 42
OHIO
D: 57
R: 43
NEW JERSEY
D: 52
R: 45
MONTANA
D: 53
R: 46
MISSOURI
D: 50
R: 48
MARYLAND
D: 53
R: 46
TENNESSEE
D: 48
R: 51
ARIZONA
D: 46
R: 50
Tradesports offers me the graph of the price of a contract which 100 if the Republicans keep control of the senate (so is the percent probability as perceived by the marginal tradesports bettors)
alt="Price for Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control at TradeSports.com"
title="Price for Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control at TradeSports.com" border="0">
you can see a drop in the prob Repubs keep senate around 6:00 pm EST roughly the time of the first leaked exit polls at political wire (I can't get on the site it is flooded).
This is the long view showing responses to polls.
alt="Price for Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control at TradeSports.com"
title="Price for Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control at TradeSports.com" border="0">
alt="Price for Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control at TradeSports.com"title="Price for Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control at TradeSports.com" border="0">
you can see a drop in the prob Repubs keep senate around 6:00 pm EST roughly the time of the first leaked exit polls at political wire (I can't get on the site it is flooded).
This is the long view showing responses to polls.
alt="Price for Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control at TradeSports.com"title="Price for Republican Party 2006 Mid Term Election Control at TradeSports.com" border="0">
Early Exit Polls From Taegen Goddard's Political Wire
Via Americablog
be warned they were misleading in 2004. I am ignoring my own warning and celebrating.
Via Americablog
be warned they were misleading in 2004. I am ignoring my own warning and celebrating.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Looks like lots of people are looking for leaked exit polls.
Too bad I don't know anything you don't know. However, this is the first time
I have ever managed to trick google.
I guess you have already read what Kevin Drum has to say.
The interesting bit is that www.gop.com is claiming exit polls are unreliable.
I just hope they will be the ones complaining about Deibold machines when the night is over.
Too bad I don't know anything you don't know. However, this is the first time
I have ever managed to trick google.
I guess you have already read what Kevin Drum has to say.
The interesting bit is that www.gop.com is claiming exit polls are unreliable.
I just hope they will be the ones complaining about Deibold machines when the night is over.
Bet On It
For those like me who can't wait for exit polls, you can look at betting odds.
go to the iowa market or www.tradesports.com (registration required)
I got this from Mark Kleiman and Glenn Greenwald
also betfair (registration required) has only Senate prob and House prob and they are down anyway.
For those like me who can't wait for exit polls, you can look at betting odds.
go to the iowa market or www.tradesports.com (registration required)
I got this from Mark Kleiman and Glenn Greenwald
also betfair (registration required) has only Senate prob and House prob and they are down anyway.
CNN reports on roboscam 2006 Crooks and liars has video
yep that's Josh Marshall's image being broadcast world wide. Maybe there is some justice after all. I don't know if Marshall just saved the Republic, but that's mainly because I don't know if the Republic is currently saved or doomed all the same.
I do know that Josh Marshall is what every journalist should try to be, which is what every active citizen should try to be, which is what every ... well in any case very good.
yep that's Josh Marshall's image being broadcast world wide. Maybe there is some justice after all. I don't know if Marshall just saved the Republic, but that's mainly because I don't know if the Republic is currently saved or doomed all the same.
I do know that Josh Marshall is what every journalist should try to be, which is what every active citizen should try to be, which is what every ... well in any case very good.
Is This on the Air or just on ABC's blog ?
Wish I knew.
update: Now it is on the air. Note the deceptive subtitle which accuses Democrats too even though the article reports on a Republican dirty trick.
Wish I knew.
update: Now it is on the air. Note the deceptive subtitle which accuses Democrats too even though the article reports on a Republican dirty trick.
Monday, November 06, 2006
What I Learned from my Ballot
I have voted my 2006 general election Massachusetts absentee ballot. There are no nail biters in Massachusetts this year, but it was fun to vote for an African American candidate for governor. Also I wasn't sure that an amendment to ban gay marriage hadn't gotten on the ballot by citizens initiative some how (I know I would have heard of it but just to be sure). I learned there was no such ballot question although there were three. John Kerry advised me to vote yes on question 3 the day after I mailed the ballot back (with yes on 3 marked).
I had a choice in my vote for congressman. Michael Capuano has a competitor nominated by the socialist workers party. I voted for Capuano. In the past I have been amused to have a choice between Michael Capuano.
Oh yes and I also discovered that Kennedy is running for re-election this year. I have been following the campaign obsessively and have found no mention of him, no articles, no polls, nothing.
I marked and mailed my absentee ballot with plenty of time to spare. We Massachusetts voters now get 10 days grace just like Floridians. In 2000 it was due by 5:00 PM election day,that is, before polls closed. This made me rather irritated about Republicans talking about the right of absentee voters whose votes arrived within 10 days of election day to have their votes counted (the result of judicial activism since no such provision was in Florida electoral law) and simultaneously that all votes had to be counted 3 days before the last valid vote arrived and ... can't get started on that again (thank god I didn't have a blog in 2000).
update: There have been polls on the Massachusetts Senate race. Note the plural, there have been three.
I have voted my 2006 general election Massachusetts absentee ballot. There are no nail biters in Massachusetts this year, but it was fun to vote for an African American candidate for governor. Also I wasn't sure that an amendment to ban gay marriage hadn't gotten on the ballot by citizens initiative some how (I know I would have heard of it but just to be sure). I learned there was no such ballot question although there were three. John Kerry advised me to vote yes on question 3 the day after I mailed the ballot back (with yes on 3 marked).
I had a choice in my vote for congressman. Michael Capuano has a competitor nominated by the socialist workers party. I voted for Capuano. In the past I have been amused to have a choice between Michael Capuano.
Oh yes and I also discovered that Kennedy is running for re-election this year. I have been following the campaign obsessively and have found no mention of him, no articles, no polls, nothing.
I marked and mailed my absentee ballot with plenty of time to spare. We Massachusetts voters now get 10 days grace just like Floridians. In 2000 it was due by 5:00 PM election day,that is, before polls closed. This made me rather irritated about Republicans talking about the right of absentee voters whose votes arrived within 10 days of election day to have their votes counted (the result of judicial activism since no such provision was in Florida electoral law) and simultaneously that all votes had to be counted 3 days before the last valid vote arrived and ... can't get started on that again (thank god I didn't have a blog in 2000).
update: There have been polls on the Massachusetts Senate race. Note the plural, there have been three.
Nailed to the Wall by Do Not Call
music to my ears. $ 5,000 a pop.
And it's not just New Hampshire. Getting chilly for the RNC in Bismark
Note RNC not NRCC. Only 2,000 a pop but still very very nice. I love the bit about hwo the Attorney General is a Republican.
Ooooops not just for Republicans.
I say throw American Family Voices to the wolves even if they are just normally evil telemarketers and not deliberately irritating deceptive telemarketers.
Indiana is the state of a test case. Free eats better find some way to eat for free.
links from flying hampster.
This is out of date but promising.
Maybe someone understands this. I don't see the "political exemption" in the description of Federal law, so I don't know what to make of it. Still you can check your state for a political exemption.
update: The federal law is very clear on one point and the RNCC broke the law.
That is from a letter to the AG, the head of the FCC and the head of the FEC by John Conyers ranking member of the justice committee and John Dingell ranking member of the energy and commerce committee.
Very good John and John. Publicity will make this scam backfire. Other Johns like say John Kerry should denounce the calls as should a couple of Clintons
Martha Child, an independent who generally votes for Democrats, said she received five calls from the National Republican Congressional Committee in two days despite having her number listed on a federal "Do-Not-Call" list. Under state law, delivering pre-recorded political messages to numbers on any federal do-not-call list is a violation, punishable by a fine of $5,000 per call.
But a spokesman for the NRCC said the group did not violate the law.
"Because we're not a state entity, that law does not apply," said Alex Burgos.
Jim Kennedy, an election law attorney in the Attorney General's civil bureau, said it doesn't matter where a group is located or who is making the calls -- if they are being made to New Hampshire citizens, they are illegal.
music to my ears. $ 5,000 a pop.
And it's not just New Hampshire. Getting chilly for the RNC in Bismark
BISMARCK, N.D. - Recorded calls recently made from the Republican National Committee to the homes of GOP supporters were illegal, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said. An RNC lawyer disagreed with the Republican attorney general, but said the calls would stop.
Stenehjem's Democratic opponent, Mayville attorney William Brudvik, demanded a formal investigation and said the RNC should be fined $2,000 for each call, which featured the recorded voice of the party's chairman, Ken Mehlman
Note RNC not NRCC. Only 2,000 a pop but still very very nice. I love the bit about hwo the Attorney General is a Republican.
Ooooops not just for Republicans.
INDIANAPOLIS -- Attorney General Steve Carter filed a lawsuit in Harrison County yesterday against American Family Voices for making automated, recorded telephone calls to voters that he said violate state law.
Carter also is seeking a preliminary injunction to force the group, which has ties to Democrats, from making future calls.
I say throw American Family Voices to the wolves even if they are just normally evil telemarketers and not deliberately irritating deceptive telemarketers.
Indiana is the state of a test case. Free eats better find some way to eat for free.
links from flying hampster.
This is out of date but promising.
Maybe someone understands this. I don't see the "political exemption" in the description of Federal law, so I don't know what to make of it. Still you can check your state for a political exemption.
update: The federal law is very clear on one point and the RNCC broke the law.
47 CFR 1200 (b)(1) provides that prerecorded telephone messages must “[a]t the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call.”
That is from a letter to the AG, the head of the FCC and the head of the FEC by John Conyers ranking member of the justice committee and John Dingell ranking member of the energy and commerce committee.
Very good John and John. Publicity will make this scam backfire. Other Johns like say John Kerry should denounce the calls as should a couple of Clintons
$ 1,000,000,000 fine (in my dreams).
I note a little math booboo over at DailyKos
Republic not Empire writes
Actually no. $ 5,000 x 200,000 = 1,000 million = one Billion with a B.
OK OK a typo is more likely than a math error and not everyone is on the do not call list. Still looks like the NRCC might be bankrupt this time next year.
I was trying to calm my racing heart by telling myself that they will just appeal up to the supreme court which will do the dirty deed (again) for the good of the REPUBLICan party. Then I read this
Oh myyyyy that is nice. I don't think even the current 9 would be willing to overturn a precedent so quickly.
What to do ? Get "gotvoice" and nail them. Someone calls you at 6:00 AM and you really would like them to pay a $ 5,000 fine ? Get GotVoice. It's not just New Hampshire either.
Looking forward to dirty tricks from the ARCC (American Republican Congressional Campaign Commmittee) after the NRCC ceases to exist.
Come on let me dream.
update: Not a typo a math boo boo. The potential possible conceivable fine is $1,000,000,000
says the ap.
Among other things, fines of "up to $1,000,000,000" could get a lot of attention. The scam will backfire if it is publicized. Got to get the news to TV viewers.
Update: Some confusion it seems about total calls and calls in New Hampshire. I mean either that or serious trouble with the place value number system. Current estimate 2,000 calls not 200,000 so dream of $ 10,000,000 not $ 1,000,000,000.
State statue allows for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each call. The NRCC allegedly made more than 2,000 calls.
Or, on the other hand, 200,000 > 2,000 so the reports are consistent.
I note a little math booboo over at DailyKos
Republic not Empire writes
Well, there is a big difference here. The NRCC was calling Granite Staters on the Do-Not-Call list, which is a violation of state law, carrying a penalty of $5,000 per violation. To date, the NRCC admitted to 200,000 robocalls.
That means the NRCC is potentially facing a $100 million dollar penalty.
Actually no. $ 5,000 x 200,000 = 1,000 million = one Billion with a B.
OK OK a typo is more likely than a math error and not everyone is on the do not call list. Still looks like the NRCC might be bankrupt this time next year.
I was trying to calm my racing heart by telling myself that they will just appeal up to the supreme court which will do the dirty deed (again) for the good of the REPUBLICan party. Then I read this
The Supreme Court, by not hearing an appeal, upheld a North Dakota law banning robocalls by telemarketers — and others, such as political advocacy groups.
Oh myyyyy that is nice. I don't think even the current 9 would be willing to overturn a precedent so quickly.
What to do ? Get "gotvoice" and nail them. Someone calls you at 6:00 AM and you really would like them to pay a $ 5,000 fine ? Get GotVoice. It's not just New Hampshire either.
Looking forward to dirty tricks from the ARCC (American Republican Congressional Campaign Commmittee) after the NRCC ceases to exist.
Come on let me dream.
update: Not a typo a math boo boo. The potential possible conceivable fine is $1,000,000,000
says the ap.
Under state law, delivering prerecorded political messages to numbers on any federal do-not-call list is punishable by a fine of $5,000 per call.
Jim Kennedy, an election law attorney in the attorney general's office, said it doesn't matter where a group is located or who is making the calls if they are being made to New Hampshire residents, they are illegal.
It is estimated that more than 200,000 of the calls were made.
Among other things, fines of "up to $1,000,000,000" could get a lot of attention. The scam will backfire if it is publicized. Got to get the news to TV viewers.
Update: Some confusion it seems about total calls and calls in New Hampshire. I mean either that or serious trouble with the place value number system. Current estimate 2,000 calls not 200,000 so dream of $ 10,000,000 not $ 1,000,000,000.
State statue allows for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each call. The NRCC allegedly made more than 2,000 calls.
Or, on the other hand, 200,000 > 2,000 so the reports are consistent.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Michael Ledeen (suspected Iranian agent) has staked out a solid position as the craziest of the crazies. He has also managed the most absurd invasion of privacy in the defence of extremist idiocy.
Evidently, he is convinced, based on one book she wrote years ago, that Lynn Cheney is lesbian (and cuckholded too)
Michael Ledeen (the most powerful people in the White House are "women who are in love with the president")
Evidently, he is convinced, based on one book she wrote years ago, that Lynn Cheney is lesbian (and cuckholded too)
Michael Ledeen (the most powerful people in the White House are "women who are in love with the president")
This Wasn't Important the First Time,
but I am pulling it out of the archive Because there is a new comment which does not appear to be spam. The comment on an 18 month old post (in the blogosphere that is imortality) !
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "5/21/2005 06:26:00 PM":
Yours is a great blog. "
The Post
Rejecting the Alternative II
Elementary Statistics on the Front Page of the New York Times again.
Rejecting the alternative hypothesis is an elementary error in statistics. In the Neyman Person framework (hypothesis testing) the null hypothesis can be rejected against an alternative. A failure to reject the null is not evidence against the alternative. I have mentioned this error before here.
Todays case is very blatant.
Benedict Carey writes
But in the only rigorously controlled trial so far in depressed patients, the stimulator was no more effective than surgery in which it was implanted but not turned on.
and
In the study, doctors implanted the device in 235 severely depressed people. The stimulator sends timed pulses of electricity to the vagus nerve, which has wide connections throughout the brain.
Half of the patients then had their stimulators turned on. The investigators did not know which of their patients had their stimulators on.
After three months, researchers "unblinded" the study and compared levels of depression in the two groups based on standard measures of disease severity, the F.D.A. documents show. They found that 17 of the 111 patients who had implants turned on and completed the trial showed significant improvement. But 11 of 110 who had no stimulation and completed the trial also felt significantly better. The difference between the two groups was small enough to be attributable to chance.
It appears that Mr Carey is unaware of the subtle mathematical point that 17/111 is greater than 11/110. The arithmetic error is made worse by the fact that the false claim that the two proportions are the same is made before the jump and the actual numbers which are not the same only appears after the jump.
Now the difference does not reject the null that the two rates are the same, that is, that the treatment is ineffective. The probability that 17 or more of 28 positive responses are in the treatment group is (roughly using a normal approximation to the binomial) 13 %. To be careful people tend to use a two tailed test, that is, ask what is the chance that 17 or more of postive responses are in the treated group plus the chance that 17 or more are in the control group. That would reject the null at the (very roughly) 26% level. This is far above conventional significance levels.
It is, indeed, very strange that the FDA is considering approval of a treatment supported by such weak evidence. Like various experts quoted in the article, I would have expected that FDA advisory panel to tell Cyberonics Inc., the Houston company that makes the stimulator that the device would only be approved after they performed a larger study and then only if the pooled results were significant. If the point estimate of the benefit were exact (roughly a 50 50 chance) the study would need to be quadrupled, so the new sample would have to be about 330 patients half treated and half controls. If the device happened to be almost exactly as effective as (weakly) suggested by current data, this would have a 50 50 chance of resolving the question.
At the cost of $ 15,000 per patient mentioned in the article it would cost about 5 million (rounding up a bit for the cost of keeping FDA quality records). I suspect that Cyberonics claimed that they couldn't afford such a study.
It seems to me that it might be reasonable to give the FDA some money to finance studies of promising but unproven treatments. The current approach of having firms pay all of the cost of testing seems to me to be a false economy, since firms can choose not to release negative data.
Still my basic point stands 17/111 > 10/110, weak evidence in favor of the alternative is not proof that the alternative is false, don't reject the alternative that a treatment is better than nothing unless there is significant evidence that it is worse than nothing. If you can't know, don't write nonsense like 17/111 = 10/110.
posted by Robert permalink and comments6:26 PM
Comments:
Dear Robert,
The blog is a joy, but I really did not find this article confusing or poorly written. Quite the opposite :)
Anne
# posted by Anonymous : 1:19 AM
I repeatedly use the New York Times as a writing model, and this at "our" school :)
Anne
# posted by Anonymous : 1:21 AM
I agree that the article, taken as a whole, was clear and interesting.
However, the journalist interpreted insignificant evidence that the treatment worked as evidence that it did not work. Also note the text I quoted. The journalist said that 17/111 is less than or equal to 10/110 which is simply false, not unclear, false.
This post was second in a series about how insignificant evidence that a treament works is treated as evidence tht it does not work. This is a very common practice. It is also an elementary error.
In each case the NYT did not draw a false conclusion, but they did not explain what hypothesis testing is and isn't.
Rejecting the alternative is a major pet peeve of mine. Pointing out this error is one of the things I do for a living.
Thanks for your comments. You are very very kind. In fact, one of the things that convinced me I wanted to blog was a comment which you wrote on Brad's blog about his post about a coyote.
(just checked it was you or at least someone named Anne who is very kind)
# posted by Robert : 4:01 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "5/21/2005 06:26:00 PM":
Yours is a great blog.
but I am pulling it out of the archive Because there is a new comment which does not appear to be spam. The comment on an 18 month old post (in the blogosphere that is imortality) !
"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "5/21/2005 06:26:00 PM":
Yours is a great blog. "
The Post
Rejecting the Alternative II
Elementary Statistics on the Front Page of the New York Times again.
Rejecting the alternative hypothesis is an elementary error in statistics. In the Neyman Person framework (hypothesis testing) the null hypothesis can be rejected against an alternative. A failure to reject the null is not evidence against the alternative. I have mentioned this error before here.
Todays case is very blatant.
Benedict Carey writes
But in the only rigorously controlled trial so far in depressed patients, the stimulator was no more effective than surgery in which it was implanted but not turned on.
and
In the study, doctors implanted the device in 235 severely depressed people. The stimulator sends timed pulses of electricity to the vagus nerve, which has wide connections throughout the brain.
Half of the patients then had their stimulators turned on. The investigators did not know which of their patients had their stimulators on.
After three months, researchers "unblinded" the study and compared levels of depression in the two groups based on standard measures of disease severity, the F.D.A. documents show. They found that 17 of the 111 patients who had implants turned on and completed the trial showed significant improvement. But 11 of 110 who had no stimulation and completed the trial also felt significantly better. The difference between the two groups was small enough to be attributable to chance.
It appears that Mr Carey is unaware of the subtle mathematical point that 17/111 is greater than 11/110. The arithmetic error is made worse by the fact that the false claim that the two proportions are the same is made before the jump and the actual numbers which are not the same only appears after the jump.
Now the difference does not reject the null that the two rates are the same, that is, that the treatment is ineffective. The probability that 17 or more of 28 positive responses are in the treatment group is (roughly using a normal approximation to the binomial) 13 %. To be careful people tend to use a two tailed test, that is, ask what is the chance that 17 or more of postive responses are in the treated group plus the chance that 17 or more are in the control group. That would reject the null at the (very roughly) 26% level. This is far above conventional significance levels.
It is, indeed, very strange that the FDA is considering approval of a treatment supported by such weak evidence. Like various experts quoted in the article, I would have expected that FDA advisory panel to tell Cyberonics Inc., the Houston company that makes the stimulator that the device would only be approved after they performed a larger study and then only if the pooled results were significant. If the point estimate of the benefit were exact (roughly a 50 50 chance) the study would need to be quadrupled, so the new sample would have to be about 330 patients half treated and half controls. If the device happened to be almost exactly as effective as (weakly) suggested by current data, this would have a 50 50 chance of resolving the question.
At the cost of $ 15,000 per patient mentioned in the article it would cost about 5 million (rounding up a bit for the cost of keeping FDA quality records). I suspect that Cyberonics claimed that they couldn't afford such a study.
It seems to me that it might be reasonable to give the FDA some money to finance studies of promising but unproven treatments. The current approach of having firms pay all of the cost of testing seems to me to be a false economy, since firms can choose not to release negative data.
Still my basic point stands 17/111 > 10/110, weak evidence in favor of the alternative is not proof that the alternative is false, don't reject the alternative that a treatment is better than nothing unless there is significant evidence that it is worse than nothing. If you can't know, don't write nonsense like 17/111 = 10/110.
posted by Robert permalink and comments6:26 PM
Comments:
Dear Robert,
The blog is a joy, but I really did not find this article confusing or poorly written. Quite the opposite :)
Anne
# posted by Anonymous : 1:19 AM
I repeatedly use the New York Times as a writing model, and this at "our" school :)
Anne
# posted by Anonymous : 1:21 AM
I agree that the article, taken as a whole, was clear and interesting.
However, the journalist interpreted insignificant evidence that the treatment worked as evidence that it did not work. Also note the text I quoted. The journalist said that 17/111 is less than or equal to 10/110 which is simply false, not unclear, false.
This post was second in a series about how insignificant evidence that a treament works is treated as evidence tht it does not work. This is a very common practice. It is also an elementary error.
In each case the NYT did not draw a false conclusion, but they did not explain what hypothesis testing is and isn't.
Rejecting the alternative is a major pet peeve of mine. Pointing out this error is one of the things I do for a living.
Thanks for your comments. You are very very kind. In fact, one of the things that convinced me I wanted to blog was a comment which you wrote on Brad's blog about his post about a coyote.
(just checked it was you or at least someone named Anne who is very kind)
# posted by Robert : 4:01 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "5/21/2005 06:26:00 PM":
Yours is a great blog.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Yep Stupid is a la Mode.
Unfair to blame Reynolds and Johnson. It is clear that they were just following orders. The official line is that the New York Times' clumsy reference to 14 year old (clearly bogus) claims is the news of the day.
Hans has left a new comment on your post "11/03/2006 09:39:00 PM":
interesting times: my bloglines feed shows today 6 posts by robert vs 1 post by brad.
Yeah but Hans they are all different edits of the same post. Thanks though.
Unfair to blame Reynolds and Johnson. It is clear that they were just following orders. The official line is that the New York Times' clumsy reference to 14 year old (clearly bogus) claims is the news of the day.
Hans has left a new comment on your post "11/03/2006 09:39:00 PM":
interesting times: my bloglines feed shows today 6 posts by robert vs 1 post by brad.
Yeah but Hans they are all different edits of the same post. Thanks though.
TG 2 Blogging.
I just saw this video on Italian national television. The subject of the service was how George Felix Allen's campaign is a disgrace to Democracy. Kinda makes me proud to be an American.
I just saw this video on Italian national television. The subject of the service was how George Felix Allen's campaign is a disgrace to Democracy. Kinda makes me proud to be an American.
Some Semi New Thoughts on the Idiocy Epidemic Discussed Below.
For one thing, I live among feminists and have waited for years for a chance to write
"Dumb Broad."
For another thing, dumb Broad seems to agree with dumber Reynolds and dumbest Johnson that genuine experts "say that at the time [1991], Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away".
Obviously the claim that the Iraqi bomb was "as little as a year away" was an early effort in Feith based analysis. Anyone who knows anything must understand that it was a flat out lie. The reason is simple. You can't make a bomb without Plutonium or highly enriched Uranium. Saddam had neither.
In 1992 as in 2003, someone decided to deceive the American people by conflating how long it would take to make a bomb *if* the appropriate fissionable material was available with how long it would take Iraq to make a bomb.
In 1992, experts on bombs might have imagined that there was such material hidden in Iraq and/or that there was a huge Uranium enrichment plan somewhere. By now, even non experts like me know that Iraq was not so close to making a bomb.
In fact, common sense makes it clear that the "as little as a year" line was nonsense in 1992. Saddam Hussein is an insane evil idiot, but he is not idiotic enough to pick a fight with most of the rest of the world one year before getting the bomb.
What kind of idiot would invade Kuwait without an a-bomb to deter the world's respons instead of waiting for "as little as a year" to move ?
That really would be the ultimate abyss of idiocy. Why are people willing to believe such a story in spite of subsequent proof that it was always nonsense ?
For one thing, I live among feminists and have waited for years for a chance to write
"Dumb Broad."
For another thing, dumb Broad seems to agree with dumber Reynolds and dumbest Johnson that genuine experts "say that at the time [1991], Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away".
Obviously the claim that the Iraqi bomb was "as little as a year away" was an early effort in Feith based analysis. Anyone who knows anything must understand that it was a flat out lie. The reason is simple. You can't make a bomb without Plutonium or highly enriched Uranium. Saddam had neither.
In 1992 as in 2003, someone decided to deceive the American people by conflating how long it would take to make a bomb *if* the appropriate fissionable material was available with how long it would take Iraq to make a bomb.
In 1992, experts on bombs might have imagined that there was such material hidden in Iraq and/or that there was a huge Uranium enrichment plan somewhere. By now, even non experts like me know that Iraq was not so close to making a bomb.
In fact, common sense makes it clear that the "as little as a year" line was nonsense in 1992. Saddam Hussein is an insane evil idiot, but he is not idiotic enough to pick a fight with most of the rest of the world one year before getting the bomb.
What kind of idiot would invade Kuwait without an a-bomb to deter the world's respons instead of waiting for "as little as a year" to move ?
That really would be the ultimate abyss of idiocy. Why are people willing to believe such a story in spite of subsequent proof that it was always nonsense ?
update posing as a new post.
I can't equal Instapundit's idiocy no matter how hard I try.
Just below, I commented on a badly written sentence before finishing the article which I just finished reading. When I posted, I had already read the very clear sentence
Which undoes the not really possible honest confusion due to the badly written sentence and makes it clear, again, that Iraqi efforts to construct the bomb ceased years before 1995 and, thus, years before 2003.
Clicking on the link to instapundit I notice an update. It is clear that Reynolds can't stand the idea that the New York Times has outdone him in idiocy even for one day and concludes
Dear Prof. How about, just once, reading the whole article before discussing what it means ? It will be a new experience for you. Try it, you might like it.
Try as I might, I just can't keep up with Reynolds in the quest for the ultimate abyss of idiocy.
Update to update
Infectious idiocy
Via Atrios of course
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/11/charles-johnson-genius.html
OK Chuck, how about reading the article ? Does make clear, as the poorly worded sentence doesn't, that the (alleged) year of risk was 1992 not 2003. Sort of like How the sentence before Kerry's poorly phrased joke made it clear that the slacker student he was talking about is named George W Bush.
Quoting out of context is the new black.
Heeeeyyyyyy Charles and Glen why don't you quote me out of context ? I could use the traffic and I personally was about to construct an H-bomb for Saddam in 2002 and I admit it.
I can't equal Instapundit's idiocy no matter how hard I try.
Just below, I commented on a badly written sentence before finishing the article which I just finished reading. When I posted, I had already read the very clear sentence
In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.
Which undoes the not really possible honest confusion due to the badly written sentence and makes it clear, again, that Iraqi efforts to construct the bomb ceased years before 1995 and, thus, years before 2003.
Clicking on the link to instapundit I notice an update. It is clear that Reynolds can't stand the idea that the New York Times has outdone him in idiocy even for one day and concludes
Kind of undercuts that whole "Bush lied about WMD" thing. Reader Eric Anondson emails: "It surely must have been a Rovian plot to somehow get the Times to admit that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program on the verge of an atomic bomb by as early as 2003... and right before an election where the Iraq War is listed as the top election concern among likely voters."
TigerHawk: "Seems that the New York Times owes Judith Miller an apology. Or at least a hat tip."
Dear Prof. How about, just once, reading the whole article before discussing what it means ? It will be a new experience for you. Try it, you might like it.
Try as I might, I just can't keep up with Reynolds in the quest for the ultimate abyss of idiocy.
Update to update
Infectious idiocy
Via Atrios of course
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/11/charles-johnson-genius.html
OK Chuck, how about reading the article ? Does make clear, as the poorly worded sentence doesn't, that the (alleged) year of risk was 1992 not 2003. Sort of like How the sentence before Kerry's poorly phrased joke made it clear that the slacker student he was talking about is named George W Bush.
Quoting out of context is the new black.
Heeeeyyyyyy Charles and Glen why don't you quote me out of context ? I could use the traffic and I personally was about to construct an H-bomb for Saddam in 2002 and I admit it.
To err is human to perservere is stupid
Atrios writes: ".and it's even funnier because of this. Our discourse is truly controlled by the stupidest people on the planet." - Atrios
JIM GERAGHTY writes: "I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?"
William J Broad writes: "Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the *1990 S* and in **2002** for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at *the* time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."
Atrios writes: "Our discourse is truly controlled by the stupidest people on the planet."
Robert Waldmann writes: "Heh indeed."
Atrios writes: ".and it's even funnier because of this. Our discourse is truly controlled by the stupidest people on the planet." - Atrios
JIM GERAGHTY writes: "I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?"
William J Broad writes: "Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the *1990 S* and in **2002** for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at *the* time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."
Atrios writes: "Our discourse is truly controlled by the stupidest people on the planet."
Robert Waldmann writes: "Heh indeed."
Find Stupid.
Atrios discusses an important article in the New York Times. It shows that irresponsible Republicans who can't hide the fact that they care more about winning debating points than national security are idiots (as well as being moral idiots). That they thought that Feith based intelligence analysis was not aggressive enough and they want to use web based conspiracy theorys to cloud the gross intelligence failure and grosser deliberate distortions in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
Click the link and read the whole thing. They are always worse than you imagine possible even after you take into account the fact that they are worse than you imagine possible.
Atrios also has an amusing closing line "...and it's even funnier because of this. Our discourse is truly controlled by the stupidest people on the planet."
The link leads to Instapundit quoting a commenter
There is some 200 proof idiocy here. Before reading the New York Times article, I thought that Mr Geraghty was a grade A idiot. It is universally agreed that Iraq had an actice nuclear weapons program in the 80s. After the gulf war, it was discovered that the program was much more advanced than expected. It was universally agreed during the run up to the invasion that, if Iraq obtained purified Plutonium or highly enriched uranium, Iraq could make a bomb quickly. It is now (almost? ) universally agreed that Iraq did not reactivate its nuclear weapons project after 1991 and that Iraq made no (significant?) further efforts to obtain nuclear weapons after the Gulf War. The question "did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB" ? demonstrates that there is some highly enriched idiocy going around. It is not news that before 91 "IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB," there is no evidence that after 1991 "IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB." Did the new York Times assert that after 1991 "IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB."
Yes it did.
If anyone has actually read the article, as instructed, that person will know that the idiocy is right there in the New York Times and I quote
"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."
This is, for one thing, grammatically incorrect. At least two dates are listed 2002 and an unspecified number of dates between January 1 1990 and December 31 1999, the the article goes on the refer to "THE time" in THE singular. A good faith effort to interpert this mangled sentence would be to pick one of the 11 years in the interval (with gap for 2000 and 2001) as the year of "THE time". The only semi specific time mentioned is 2002 and the only reasonable grammatical correction of the garbled sentence is
"Experts say that in 2002, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."
Major error in English communication in the New York Times. It's going on my refrigerator door.
As far as I know JIM GERAGHTY's comment might just be a complaint about sloppy writing in the NY Times. If so I agree completely. I don't see why he felt the need to waste 10 seconds of his time pointing it out, and I certainly don't see why I felt the need to waste 10 minutes of my time exploring the non issue.
Yep you just found stupid. He is named Robert James Waldmann and he has better things to do with his time.
update: by the way, I commented on the badly written sentence before finishing the article which I just finished reading. When I posted, I had already read the very clear sentence
Which undoes the not really possible honest confusion due to the badly written sentence and makes it clear, again, that Iraqi efforts to construct the bomb ceased years before 1995 and, thus, years before 2003.
Clicking on the link to instapundit I notice an update. It is clear that Reynolds can't stand the idea that the New York Times has outdone him in idiocy even for one day and concludes
Dear Prof. How about, just once, reading the whole article before discussing what it means ? It will be a new experience for you. Try it, you might like it.
Try as I might, I just can't keep up with Reynolds in the quest for the ultimate abyss of idiocy.
Atrios discusses an important article in the New York Times. It shows that irresponsible Republicans who can't hide the fact that they care more about winning debating points than national security are idiots (as well as being moral idiots). That they thought that Feith based intelligence analysis was not aggressive enough and they want to use web based conspiracy theorys to cloud the gross intelligence failure and grosser deliberate distortions in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
Click the link and read the whole thing. They are always worse than you imagine possible even after you take into account the fact that they are worse than you imagine possible.
Atrios also has an amusing closing line "...and it's even funnier because of this. Our discourse is truly controlled by the stupidest people on the planet."
The link leads to Instapundit quoting a commenter
JIM GERAGHTY writes: "I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?"
There is some 200 proof idiocy here. Before reading the New York Times article, I thought that Mr Geraghty was a grade A idiot. It is universally agreed that Iraq had an actice nuclear weapons program in the 80s. After the gulf war, it was discovered that the program was much more advanced than expected. It was universally agreed during the run up to the invasion that, if Iraq obtained purified Plutonium or highly enriched uranium, Iraq could make a bomb quickly. It is now (almost? ) universally agreed that Iraq did not reactivate its nuclear weapons project after 1991 and that Iraq made no (significant?) further efforts to obtain nuclear weapons after the Gulf War. The question "did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB" ? demonstrates that there is some highly enriched idiocy going around. It is not news that before 91 "IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB," there is no evidence that after 1991 "IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB." Did the new York Times assert that after 1991 "IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB."
Yes it did.
If anyone has actually read the article, as instructed, that person will know that the idiocy is right there in the New York Times and I quote
"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."
This is, for one thing, grammatically incorrect. At least two dates are listed 2002 and an unspecified number of dates between January 1 1990 and December 31 1999, the the article goes on the refer to "THE time" in THE singular. A good faith effort to interpert this mangled sentence would be to pick one of the 11 years in the interval (with gap for 2000 and 2001) as the year of "THE time". The only semi specific time mentioned is 2002 and the only reasonable grammatical correction of the garbled sentence is
"Experts say that in 2002, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."
Major error in English communication in the New York Times. It's going on my refrigerator door.
As far as I know JIM GERAGHTY's comment might just be a complaint about sloppy writing in the NY Times. If so I agree completely. I don't see why he felt the need to waste 10 seconds of his time pointing it out, and I certainly don't see why I felt the need to waste 10 minutes of my time exploring the non issue.
Yep you just found stupid. He is named Robert James Waldmann and he has better things to do with his time.
update: by the way, I commented on the badly written sentence before finishing the article which I just finished reading. When I posted, I had already read the very clear sentence
In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.
Which undoes the not really possible honest confusion due to the badly written sentence and makes it clear, again, that Iraqi efforts to construct the bomb ceased years before 1995 and, thus, years before 2003.
Clicking on the link to instapundit I notice an update. It is clear that Reynolds can't stand the idea that the New York Times has outdone him in idiocy even for one day and concludes
Kind of undercuts that whole "Bush lied about WMD" thing. Reader Eric Anondson emails: "It surely must have been a Rovian plot to somehow get the Times to admit that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program on the verge of an atomic bomb by as early as 2003... and right before an election where the Iraq War is listed as the top election concern among likely voters."
TigerHawk: "Seems that the New York Times owes Judith Miller an apology. Or at least a hat tip."
Dear Prof. How about, just once, reading the whole article before discussing what it means ? It will be a new experience for you. Try it, you might like it.
Try as I might, I just can't keep up with Reynolds in the quest for the ultimate abyss of idiocy.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Undermining America's Morals and Proud of it
Zack Exley boasts "Voters are doing it in their living rooms with people they've never met before"
James Dobson should be so scared he's peeing his sticky pants.
"come together, right now" - Paul McCartney & John Lennon
Zack Exley boasts "Voters are doing it in their living rooms with people they've never met before"
James Dobson should be so scared he's peeing his sticky pants.
"come together, right now" - Paul McCartney & John Lennon
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Whatever it Takes
"They also noted that a person would have to drink at least 100 bottles of red wine a day ... to get the levels given to the mice, which may not be safe in humans."
Blogging might be irregular around here for a while. Also my spelling might get worse hard as that is to believe.
"They also noted that a person would have to drink at least 100 bottles of red wine a day ... to get the levels given to the mice, which may not be safe in humans."
Blogging might be irregular around here for a while. Also my spelling might get worse hard as that is to believe.
Dolcetti Scherzetti in Frascati
That is the Italian translation of "trick or treat". Yesterday October 31 I had an amazing experience. As usual we had a halloween party. However Kathy (age 9) thought it ended too soon and saw kids in costumes walking around Frascati (just South of Rome)so she insisted that we go out to trick or treat.
She rang a door bell and said "Dolcetti Scherzetti" to my utter amazement a window opened and a nice couple of people tossed candy down. Halloween has spread to Italy. Now I had noticed that little stores have been selling Halloween junk for the past few years, but selling and giving are rather different activities.
We continued to walk around. She was dressed as a pumpkin, I occasionally wore a rubber jackolantern face mask (occasionally because there were no nose holes). I was a bit shy about attempting to introduce the concept of trick or treat to unsuspecting households in Italy, so we joined a group of girls age slightly more than Kathy who were supervised by two very young looking women who must have been a generation older but struck me as big sisters with very nice hair (and who might read this).
They were ringing door bells and almost consistently getting candy. In fact, sad to say, the bells belonged to relatives of the girls and I suspect that there was some advanced planning. The indirect approach of tossing candy down from a 3rd floor window was widely used leading to a rush to collect it.
A further amazingly wonderful thing is that the girls whose group we joined insisted on sharing their candy with Kathy. First house the candy was all in a bag lowered in a basket on a string. They offered it to Kathy who took one piece. They insisted she take more.
Kathy concluded that it was the best Halloween of her life.
Giampiero M. Gallo has left a new comment on your post "11/01/2006 08:26:00 AM":
Well, after a while, we tracked you down (not a hard feat). We were thinking of you guys the other day and wondering how old Kathy may be. As per Halloween, there is an American friend of ours who buys candies (or rather imports those fluorescent radioactive Halloween candies from the US) and distributes them among her neighbors. Our kids go around and visit these enlisted neighbors to collect them. A good tradition - one neighbor even attempted a 'scherzetto'.
All the best. A very entertaining blog.
That is the Italian translation of "trick or treat". Yesterday October 31 I had an amazing experience. As usual we had a halloween party. However Kathy (age 9) thought it ended too soon and saw kids in costumes walking around Frascati (just South of Rome)so she insisted that we go out to trick or treat.
She rang a door bell and said "Dolcetti Scherzetti" to my utter amazement a window opened and a nice couple of people tossed candy down. Halloween has spread to Italy. Now I had noticed that little stores have been selling Halloween junk for the past few years, but selling and giving are rather different activities.
We continued to walk around. She was dressed as a pumpkin, I occasionally wore a rubber jackolantern face mask (occasionally because there were no nose holes). I was a bit shy about attempting to introduce the concept of trick or treat to unsuspecting households in Italy, so we joined a group of girls age slightly more than Kathy who were supervised by two very young looking women who must have been a generation older but struck me as big sisters with very nice hair (and who might read this).
They were ringing door bells and almost consistently getting candy. In fact, sad to say, the bells belonged to relatives of the girls and I suspect that there was some advanced planning. The indirect approach of tossing candy down from a 3rd floor window was widely used leading to a rush to collect it.
A further amazingly wonderful thing is that the girls whose group we joined insisted on sharing their candy with Kathy. First house the candy was all in a bag lowered in a basket on a string. They offered it to Kathy who took one piece. They insisted she take more.
Kathy concluded that it was the best Halloween of her life.
Giampiero M. Gallo has left a new comment on your post "11/01/2006 08:26:00 AM":
Well, after a while, we tracked you down (not a hard feat). We were thinking of you guys the other day and wondering how old Kathy may be. As per Halloween, there is an American friend of ours who buys candies (or rather imports those fluorescent radioactive Halloween candies from the US) and distributes them among her neighbors. Our kids go around and visit these enlisted neighbors to collect them. A good tradition - one neighbor even attempted a 'scherzetto'.
All the best. A very entertaining blog.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
I Write Letters
Just e-mail Rep Maralyn Musgrave. I do hope that Angie Paccione is the Dem candidate in her district or I just made a fool of myself.
My letter
The autoreply seems especially silly
"Thank you very much for contacting my office. As your Member of Congress, I take the job of representing your views seriously and I appreciate hearing from you. [snip]"
My claim about my donation is honest and accurate.
I didn't advise Rep Musgrave on what I thought she should do given that I consider her unfit for elective office. I would really like to see a stage performance staring Maralyn Musgrave and Maralyn Manson, but I didn't think the suggestion would be appreciated.
Just e-mail Rep Maralyn Musgrave. I do hope that Angie Paccione is the Dem candidate in her district or I just made a fool of myself.
My letter
Dear Congresswoman Musgrave
I am not a resident of your district, but I think that you care what I think, because I just donated $ 100 to Angie Paccione's campaign. This is my first campaign donation this cycle. I think you are very special.
I just saw your refusal to respond to the question "if you had a choice between saving a soldier's life or preventing a gay marriage which one would you stop"
here
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/31/01014/779
and here
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010674.php
I assume that you refused to answer the question, because your honest answer would have been that you would rather that a soldier die than that two people of the same gender marry, and you know that all decent and normal people would be disgusted and appalled by your moral idiocy.
As you must know by now, the first of these sites recieves hundreds of thousands of visits every day. I don't expect all such visitors to the site to have had the same reaction I did.
I would also like to mention that you seem to employ criminals who use illegal means to hamper debate. The activist who aggressively asked you the question described the actions of your employees as "very close to assault." On this point I absolutely disagree with the activist. The actions which are clearly recorded on the film were clearly criminal assault. I wish (but do not hope) that the assailants will be prosecuted for their crime, not because I think simple assault should usually be prosecuted, but becausze the crime was part of an attempt to block politica debate. Part of the reason I made my contribution was to attempt to convince you and other Republicans that crime doesn't pay.
Congresswoman Musgrave I very much hope that very soon you will no longer be a congresswoman and that you never hold any elective office again.
Sincerely your fellow citizen
Robert Waldmann
The autoreply seems especially silly
"Thank you very much for contacting my office. As your Member of Congress, I take the job of representing your views seriously and I appreciate hearing from you. [snip]"
My claim about my donation is honest and accurate.
I didn't advise Rep Musgrave on what I thought she should do given that I consider her unfit for elective office. I would really like to see a stage performance staring Maralyn Musgrave and Maralyn Manson, but I didn't think the suggestion would be appreciated.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Why was "Necessarily" Necessary
Pointlessly piling on I quote Kevin Drum
OK so Tapper and McCown have already been blasted by Atrios and Drum, but now they are in for some real trouble. Drum goes on to politely note that they must know that , as suggested by all of the specific evidence they present, Republicans are principally responsible for lowering the level of debate. He concludes "no one who's followed politics for the past decade or two can pretend not to know how we got where we are today. For some reason, though, they sure do try." He has an important point which he expresses perfectly. I want to add some pointless quibbles.
The word "necessarily" serves no legitimate semantic purpose. It does not change or even clarify the meaning of the sentence. I don't see how it could possible be true that "Democrats aren't necessarily running clean campaigns, though" if the claim in brackets [Democrats aren't running clean campaigns, though] is false. Nor do I see how the quoted claim could be false and the modified claim could be true. I know that logical postivism has its problems, but I can't resist believing that two claims such that either both are true or both are false are equivalent claims.
Logically, semantically, in terms of truth values or, I think, meanings, the word "necessarily" adds nothing and subtracts nothing. It was a waste of time to say it on the air and quoting it (again and again) is a waste of pixels.
Now consider the edited 2 sentences "Democrats aren't running clean campaigns, though. As the races tighten in the next couple of weeks, the left will likely unleash its garbage as well." Here we have a claim in the present continuous which is not supported by any evidence. Instead, the final sentence is speculation about what might the future. Clearly, the claim in the edited sentence is libelous. It is an accusation, and the accusers go on to confess that they have no evidence for their claim and believe that there is no evidence for their claim. The argument that a currently false accusation might become true in the future is, of course, no defence in a libel suit.
Instead Tapper and McCown's defence would have to be that their statement is rendered arguably true by the word "necessarily." I find this odd, since I don't think that addition of that word could possible have changed a false statement into a true one. The key word in my proposed legal strategy is "arguably." Ah yes, that is another matter. It is impossible to describe any way in which the word "necessarily" changes, adds or clarifies meaning. It is also impossible to prove that it makes no difference. It is semantically useless verbiage which can only create confusion.
I think the purpose of the word "necessarily" was exactly to create confusion -- to make people unsure that they had understood the sentence so they wouldn't be sure that Tapper and McCown had lied.
One of the principles of reading and listening is to attempt to interpret what people say so that all words are necessary. It is generally useful to assume that people aren't wasting their breath. This appears to be something we do spontaneously, automatically and effortlessly (Gricean attribution theory I think). It is useful, even though people often do waste their breath, since there are many many ways to uselessly toss useless words around (this blog is proof if further proof were needed).
Semantically useless words serve a rhetorical purpose, because they cause listeners to doubt their comprehension. They create confusion which can be useful when one feels the need to make a patently false assertion.
Now why would ABC reporters feel the need to make accusations against Democrats which they believe to be false ?
Back to Drum
Pointlessly piling on I quote Kevin Drum
Via Atrios, I see that ABC News is running a story today about right-wing attack ads. The story acknowledges that "the nastiest rhetoric right now is coming from the political right," and Jake Tapper and Greg McCown document this with several examples. Then they end with this:
Democrats aren't necessarily running clean campaigns, though. As the races tighten in the next couple of weeks, the left will likely unleash its garbage as well.
Needless to say, they present exactly zero evidence for this.
OK so Tapper and McCown have already been blasted by Atrios and Drum, but now they are in for some real trouble. Drum goes on to politely note that they must know that , as suggested by all of the specific evidence they present, Republicans are principally responsible for lowering the level of debate. He concludes "no one who's followed politics for the past decade or two can pretend not to know how we got where we are today. For some reason, though, they sure do try." He has an important point which he expresses perfectly. I want to add some pointless quibbles.
The word "necessarily" serves no legitimate semantic purpose. It does not change or even clarify the meaning of the sentence. I don't see how it could possible be true that "Democrats aren't necessarily running clean campaigns, though" if the claim in brackets [Democrats aren't running clean campaigns, though] is false. Nor do I see how the quoted claim could be false and the modified claim could be true. I know that logical postivism has its problems, but I can't resist believing that two claims such that either both are true or both are false are equivalent claims.
Logically, semantically, in terms of truth values or, I think, meanings, the word "necessarily" adds nothing and subtracts nothing. It was a waste of time to say it on the air and quoting it (again and again) is a waste of pixels.
Now consider the edited 2 sentences "Democrats aren't running clean campaigns, though. As the races tighten in the next couple of weeks, the left will likely unleash its garbage as well." Here we have a claim in the present continuous which is not supported by any evidence. Instead, the final sentence is speculation about what might the future. Clearly, the claim in the edited sentence is libelous. It is an accusation, and the accusers go on to confess that they have no evidence for their claim and believe that there is no evidence for their claim. The argument that a currently false accusation might become true in the future is, of course, no defence in a libel suit.
Instead Tapper and McCown's defence would have to be that their statement is rendered arguably true by the word "necessarily." I find this odd, since I don't think that addition of that word could possible have changed a false statement into a true one. The key word in my proposed legal strategy is "arguably." Ah yes, that is another matter. It is impossible to describe any way in which the word "necessarily" changes, adds or clarifies meaning. It is also impossible to prove that it makes no difference. It is semantically useless verbiage which can only create confusion.
I think the purpose of the word "necessarily" was exactly to create confusion -- to make people unsure that they had understood the sentence so they wouldn't be sure that Tapper and McCown had lied.
One of the principles of reading and listening is to attempt to interpret what people say so that all words are necessary. It is generally useful to assume that people aren't wasting their breath. This appears to be something we do spontaneously, automatically and effortlessly (Gricean attribution theory I think). It is useful, even though people often do waste their breath, since there are many many ways to uselessly toss useless words around (this blog is proof if further proof were needed).
Semantically useless words serve a rhetorical purpose, because they cause listeners to doubt their comprehension. They create confusion which can be useful when one feels the need to make a patently false assertion.
Now why would ABC reporters feel the need to make accusations against Democrats which they believe to be false ?
Back to Drum
ABC News political director Mark Halperin on Bill O'Reilly's show last night:
As an economic model, if you want to thrive like Fox News Channel, you want to have a future, you better make sure conservatives find your product appealing.