tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post4302108396554232006..comments2024-03-28T05:37:00.890-04:00Comments on the daily howler: We think Kevin Drum got it right!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58502638937919455082013-05-06T17:11:49.861-04:002013-05-06T17:11:49.861-04:00That "all weather science proves global warmi...That "all weather science proves global warming" is a strawman, and that is seems that the only premises that this logical fallacy disproves are so absolute that they sound like versions of arguments that one puts into an opponent's mouth instead of being actually believed by someone.<br /><br />As an aside, I do not understand your stance on global warming. It seems anti-conservative. As far as public policy goes, you do concede that it is in the public's interest to not allow persons or corporations to pollute without consequence, right? Now the bulk of the scientific evidence seems to point to the likelihood that CO2 is a pollutant that we have not previously thought as such. So we should start treating CO2 levels with concern, along with other airborne pollutants. Wouldn't a conservative attempt to keep things from changing too greatly, to preserve the status-quo? Global warming does not need to be "proven" for us to concede that CO2 is a pollutant.<br /><br />Long live Teddy Roosevelt!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-74989380080588316702013-05-05T22:36:24.442-04:002013-05-05T22:36:24.442-04:00Or his family or friends.
Here's a link,
http:...Or his family or friends.<br />Here's a link,<br />http://obrag.org/?p=40275<br /><br />BertoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42562938613840916322013-05-05T22:13:37.532-04:002013-05-05T22:13:37.532-04:00Berto, be careful with the phrase "conflict o...Berto, be careful with the phrase "conflict of interest." Normally that means financial interest, not underlying philosophy. Thomas has no financial interest in any case he ruled on. <br /><br />Now, he certainly does have underlying philosophic beliefs and political preferences that were affected by some of the cases. But, the same is true of every other SC Justice. E.g. you didn't see any Justices, liberal or conservative, recuse themselves from Roe v Wade or from Bush v Gore.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9346629333817310642013-05-05T12:13:19.110-04:002013-05-05T12:13:19.110-04:00D in C:
At least you admit that you have no examp...D in C:<br /><br />At least you admit that you have no examples that the NYT news coverage is biased to the left. (If anything, the opposite is true IMHO). You also have zero to back up your claim that the NYT has "apparently" banned Thomas Sowell from its op ed page. I haven't read any books by Sowell, but did go to his website and read a sampling of his recent columns. The guy is a typical ideological right wing sophist, from what I can see based on my sampling, with minimal insight or evidence of objectivity. <br /><br />AC/MAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-17976016534273556992013-05-05T11:50:57.724-04:002013-05-05T11:50:57.724-04:00"They started it""They started it"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-43925443606277813512013-05-05T01:58:56.460-04:002013-05-05T01:58:56.460-04:00DinC,
Crooked is just something they call judges w...DinC,<br />Crooked is just something they call judges who don't recuse themselves in cases where they have conflicts of interest. Don't overthink it.<br /><br />BertoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60437914254498761952013-05-05T01:56:36.188-04:002013-05-05T01:56:36.188-04:00"The Wall St. Journal has conservative editor..."The Wall St. Journal has conservative editorials and op-eds, but their news coverage is moderately liberal."<br /><br />That's because their news is of the financial world and has to be true (or as DinC says "liberal"). Their editorials on the other hand are full of nonsense. DinC, would you call that "conservative"?<br /><br />Berto<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-17178386700957882892013-05-05T01:45:11.651-04:002013-05-05T01:45:11.651-04:00And Bingo was his name oh!
BertoAnd Bingo was his name oh!<br /><br />BertoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79232578541535201772013-05-04T21:33:18.137-04:002013-05-04T21:33:18.137-04:00AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM -- I don't dis...AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM -- I don't disagree with you. The New York Times has perfect right to take a liberal position in the editorials and news coverage. I simply was discussing with another Anonymous whether or not the Times is liberal.<br /><br />Am I equally concerned when conservative newspapers do the same thing? Well, there aren't any comparable conservative newspapers. The Wall St. Journal has conservative editorials and op-eds, but their news coverage is moderately liberal. There are some truly conservative newspapers, like the Boston Herald and the Washington Times, but they are minor players of little significance.<br /><br />Greg, when you make an unsupported charge that Clarence Thomas is crooked, you don't come across well. And, calling his "selfish" is silly. Nobody on the Supreme Court is selfish. They're all top lawyer who could likely earning over a million dollars a year in private practice.<br /><br />AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 10:37 AM -- You're right. I have no way of knowing whether the Times specifically chose to boycott Sowell. That's why I said "apparent." <br /><br />Sowell isn't just some black conservative. He's arguably the leading conservative thinker alive today of any race. He has written a large number of well-researched, thoughtful books on a variety of topics. Go read a bunch of his books and you'll see what I mean. One thing that distinguishes his books is that they tend to be very well researched. E.g., in one of his books, he travelled to several other countries that practice some form of affirmative action and analyzed how affirmative tends to work out. David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-40429968712223528312013-05-04T16:51:09.929-04:002013-05-04T16:51:09.929-04:00David in Ca is one of those Republicans who hasn&#... David in Ca is one of those Republicans who hasn't gotten the memo: yes, Clarence Thomas was a very effective use of the reverse-racism-two-step by the last throes of Jim Crowe America, but alas, that sick and cynical party is over. We have the bloated, greedy, and crooked Justice Thomas on the Court every day, sitting though the cases in confused boredom, waiting to take the most reactionary possible stance. Most sensible Americans view him as they should: with the same warm affection they hold for the manager of the Phillies in "42." Both will, no doubt, be thrown in the same dust bin of history soon enough. <br /> Another big favorite among these lillywhite dead enders is reverse affirmative action baby Thomas Sewell, one of the worst nation columnists in history, but, it must be said, always good for a few laughs. His greatest was probably the one where he explained that while the Kennedy assassination was pretty cut and dried, the death of Vince Foster was rife with serious questions about Clinton's involvement that needed to be investigated to the full extent. Well, at least it kept him from writing about his principle subject on which he's been completely discredited, The Chicago School of Economics now being roughly to economics what the band Chicago was to Rock N Roll. Anyone making it though one of his terrible books should be paid. Yet the strange vanity of Whites like David Mamet and David in Ca seems to have an endless thirst for a black guy, any black guy, telling them they are correct. This works out rather well for our tribe in the long run. <br /> Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77438392100903771972013-05-04T16:07:49.412-04:002013-05-04T16:07:49.412-04:00Howdy! I'm at work browsing your blog from my ...Howdy! I'm at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the fantastic work!<br /><br />my blog post: <a href="http://wealthwayonline.com/louisvuittonbags.html" rel="nofollow">Louis Vuitton Outlet Online</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63310460880777824082013-05-04T13:37:27.286-04:002013-05-04T13:37:27.286-04:00I'd like to add a big "so what?" to ...I'd like to add a big "so what?" to David's expose that the NYT takes the liberal side and endorses liberal candidates for president.<br /><br />Is he equally concerned when an "conservative" newspaper takes the "conservative side" on most issues and routinely endorses "conservative" candidates for president?<br /><br />If not, why not?<br /><br />Is it because he believes that "conservative" newspapers are not nearly as influential as "liberal" newspapers? Which brings the same question. If they are not, why not?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46717613774490885432013-05-04T10:37:40.913-04:002013-05-04T10:37:40.913-04:00D in C - you only have examples of editorials, not...D in C - you only have examples of editorials, not news stories, which undermines what you say. To evaluate your position that sowell is being discriminated as a conservative black on the op ed page, I'd have to accept your unsupported premise that no or hardly any other black conservatives (apparently a rare breed) have published in the NYT op ed over the past 30 years; and there aren't any black or white liberals who may have written an op ed piece or pieces years ago but not after that, who also have prestigiou degrees and have written several books. How do you know Sowell ever submitted anop ed column that wasn't published, or that the Times may have asked him to write one, and he declined? If a "libral" made a similar claim about a Black being discriminated against, my impression is you'd reject it out of hand.<br /><br />AC/MAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-71698614299892647852013-05-04T09:53:59.144-04:002013-05-04T09:53:59.144-04:00I'll be real busy today. Too busy to look up e...I'll be real busy today. Too busy to look up examples of shots at conservatives in the Time. They've endorsed the Dem for President for many decades. They very rarely endorse a Republican-- always for lower office.<br /><br />The Times editorials invariably take the liberal side of every issue. Again I'm too busy to look up examples. <br /><br />The evidence of Sowell's apparent banning is that he had a handful of columns in the Times around 30 or 40 years ago, but none since. And, they've given little prominence in the book review. <br /><br />The Times has been a big supporter of the advancement of blacks. Sowell is highly respected. He has the right credential -- Havard, u of Chicago, UCLA. etc. He writes around a book a year. The books have been on quite diverse and interesting subjects. A non-politicized supporter of black advancement would make Sowell a poster boy.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-37650819770881468492013-05-04T08:57:02.918-04:002013-05-04T08:57:02.918-04:00Din C, what examples do you have that the NYT news...Din C, what examples do you have that the NYT news coverage is biased toward the liberal POV? What evidence are ou relying on that Sowell "apparently" has been banned from the op ed section because he is"smart, black and conservative?" <br /><br />AC/MAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-44170650348309987652013-05-03T23:12:57.226-04:002013-05-03T23:12:57.226-04:00I'm just going to assume you're a troll.I'm just going to assume you're a troll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19956263538893241602013-05-03T21:46:24.142-04:002013-05-03T21:46:24.142-04:00The New York Times may not be as liberal as the Na...The New York Times may not be as liberal as the Nation, but they're pretty firmly in the liberal camp. Their editorials almost always endorse Democrats. News stories are often slanted to favor the liberal POV. They've apparently banned some leading conservatives from their op-ed page. E.g., Thomas Sowell was evidently banned for the "crime" of being smart, black, and conservative. Even non-political areas like the Book Review often take shots at conservatives.<br /><br />The one area where their corporate structure seems to affect their coverage is in regard to the owners of the paper. They tend not to report negative news about the owning families. Also, since Mexican plutocrat Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world, put so much money into the paper, he's been pretty much immune to criticism.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15995264740412822772013-05-03T21:32:08.361-04:002013-05-03T21:32:08.361-04:00We owe it to ourselves, Reagan proved deficits don...We owe it to ourselves, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.MaxFrostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45248601613954404412013-05-03T21:20:39.657-04:002013-05-03T21:20:39.657-04:00Anon -- all you say may be true, but that doesn...Anon -- all you say may be true, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all revenue increases, which was what I said.D in Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-43184995664363997752013-05-03T18:26:08.046-04:002013-05-03T18:26:08.046-04:00Thanks, DinC
I will save this in my Good Quotes f...Thanks, DinC<br /><br />I will save this in my Good Quotes file.<br />gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12955691576453201412013-05-03T16:47:40.013-04:002013-05-03T16:47:40.013-04:00I really want to understand this, Anon. Without s...I really want to understand this, Anon. Without sarcasm, what point are you making?David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-39461403609860798602013-05-03T15:02:31.532-04:002013-05-03T15:02:31.532-04:00(1) All weather science proves global warming.
(2)...(1) All weather science proves global warming.<br />(2) A study found on the Internet does not prove global warming.<br />Therefore:<br />(3) The study is not weather science.<br />Therefore:<br />(4) The study is not a counter example to the claim that all weather science proves global warming.<br /><br />You caught us, David. Wow. This is truly a great way to totally destroy nearly every strawman you can think of.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-50462016961997354412013-05-03T14:15:41.150-04:002013-05-03T14:15:41.150-04:00IMHO here's what Kevin Drum and Bob Somerby me...IMHO here's what Kevin Drum and Bob Somerby meant when they said the Republicans will never agree to "real" revenue increases.<br /><br />First of all, it's a statement about the future, so the numerous, substantial revenue increases that took place in 2013 don't count. Even the ones scheduled to take place in 2014 don't count, because they were already enacted in the past.<br /><br />But, there's the problem that Republican likely <i>will</i> agree to a revenue increase, namely the interest sales tax. Kevin and Bob dispense with that by asserting that this new tax would not be a <i>"real"</i> revenue increase. <br /><br />This argument is a well-known logical fallacy. It's called the <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/" rel="nofollow">"No true Scotsman" Fallacy.</a> <br /><br /><i>Explanation<br /><br />The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.<br /><br />Example<br /><br />The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.<br /><br />If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:<br /><br />(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.<br /> (2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.<br /> Therefore:<br /> (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.<br /> Therefore:<br /> (4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.<br /><br />This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.<br /></i>David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-17276050854654024372013-05-03T13:58:04.881-04:002013-05-03T13:58:04.881-04:00What's it going to take for Somerby and Drum t...What's it going to take for Somerby and Drum to admit that we don't have progressive policy in the U.S., and higher taxes on wealth, not because of dastardly Repubs, but because the pols they admire so much don't want it?<br /><br />Forget actual enacted law. When Dems controlled both houses of Congress, did Obama fight to eliminate the Mitt Romney "carried interest loophole"? Did he demand mortgage principal reductions, even as he gave the banks trillions in relief? Did he break up the too big to fail banks, as was well within his authority, those banks being insolvent without government guarantees? Did he even try to curtail huge banker bonuses, funded by tax-payer money, at the same time he abrogated the union contracts of blue-collar auto-workers? <br /><br />Did renegotiate NAFTA, as promised during the campaign, with environmental and workers' rights protections? Did he restore Constitutional protections "shredded" by GWB, or did he do more shredding? Did we hear a word on either subject?<br /><br />Even Somerby and Drum know the answer. What little progressive policy Obama did claim to support was opposed by **Democrats** -- the guys who, presumably, Obama could pressure. Did he do so? Of course not! <br /><br />And yet Somerby and Drum insist that, because Obama can get nothing through Congress now, it ain't his fault that he isn't the progressive of their dreams.<br /><br />What, Kevin asks, would you have him do? For one, start telling the truth. And make the case, damn it. There's a reason why Republicans, in or out of power, control the terms of the debate and set the limits on policy. They fight. And they engage. Of course, they have an incalculable advantage: they actually want the policies they claim to want. Unlike Mr. Obama.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-57537757487059428232013-05-03T12:56:54.144-04:002013-05-03T12:56:54.144-04:00The Daily Howler has often, rightfully, jeered at ...The Daily Howler has often, rightfully, jeered at Joan Walsh for handing a pass to Matthews around the time She started going on his show.... Can't help noticing the hands off Fox policy round these parts in the years since this interview. Dowd belittles Obama in his tactics against the right (Drum admits at least a bit of this may be true), but who created this atmosphere of zealotry? Might it not be the legion of idiots Bob rarely addresses and, if so, mostly excuses? This should be brought to his attention with the tenacity with which he reminds us of election 2000Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.com