May 28, 2009

Empathy and Obscurantism [Dan Collins; UPDATE x4]

To those who read this blog regularly, the connection between the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor and the lefty defense of Chrysler’s dealership closings will be readily apparent, so I apologize if I’m boring you. In a post below, I state that American citizens have the right to know on what basis Chrysler decided to maintain or cut a dealership. We have the right to know because our elected representatives have decided to “invest” in Chrysler on our behalf. It’s even more essential to understand who’s making what decisions based on what criteria, since GM is going to be going through a “government guided” Chapter 11 reorganization.

Here are some of the reactions to my stipulation that we are entitled to this information:

Comment by meya on 5/28 @ 6:34 am # |Edit This

“The disturbing thing, for me, is that Chrysler seems unable or unwilling to disclose the formula that they used to determine which dealerships would close, and which would stay open with expanded territories–assuming there was a formula at all.”

Yeah, disturbing that Chrysler doesn’t want to disclose statistics on the competitive strength of its remaining dealerships and the business process they used to assess them. What possible reason could they have for that?

Comment by meya on 5/28 @ 6:48 am # |Edit This

“Meya, your evasions are torporous. Whose money is that?”

Dan, please. Just think for a minute. Me and you are not treasury, even if it is our money there. Your argument is akin to telling a cop you pay his salary. But if you want to be a chrysler shareholder and get this information by fiduciary duties, I’m sure its real cheap to do so. Good luck.

Comment by jon on 5/28 @ 6:56 am # |Edit This

Dan, I have no problem with the idea of them releasing the formula they used. My guess is that it was less math-oriented and much more a result of a bunch of people looking at a map of all the dealerships and making geographic arbitrary decisions rather than political or even economic arbitrary decisions. But yes, I really have no problem with anyone asking why.

I do have serious problems with those who analyze things they pretty much admit to knowing little or nothing about. It’s quite possible there’s a stronger link to the letter E than politics, but until the formula is known, I welcome various people wasting their time trying to prove things with limited data. It allows for some fun popcorn time as I watch wild accusations fly, see competing conspiracies fly this way and that, and generally make wingnut bloggers look smarter and smarter as the days pass. And the end result: nothing is solidified other than the conspiracy-theorists’ sense of self-importance. I hope the Chrysler Truthers live long and prosper in their own fun way. I guess trying to melt a girder in a backyard fireplace still looks crazier than a bunch of statisticians with incomplete formulas trying to prove a conspiracy, but please keep trying.

So, you see, trying to get all of the available information, including whatever formula Chrysler is supposed to have used to make their determinations, is an attempt to prove a conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, it’s necessary to suggest that the decisions made were arbitrary. Chrysler is reorganizing with taxpayer monies by making arbitrary decisions? Ah, but that’s a feature, you see–not a bug.

How is this like Sotomayor? She has stated that one’s perspective is shaped by one’s experience, and there’s no denying that. The disturbing part is that she seems to believe that the way that her unique experience has shaped her is of benefit in her consideration of the law. That is to say, she does not register her “subject position” as something that needs to be neutralized in order to reach the most objective conclusion possible (insert Spock Obama quote here), but something that ought to be brought to bear in the act of interpretation. Another way of stating this is, she has determined that her special circumstances entitle her to a “fudge factor” of arbitrariness in her judgments.

If there is no objectivity, however hindered that may be by our humanity, neither is there such thing as arbitrariness. Any bias that pleases the person on the bench may be justified as being arbitrary rather than proceeding from differential weighting of claims and evidence. You see, arbitrary is a good thing, when it’s for the greater good.

I am interested in this question, in part, because I would like to know what leftists regard as sufficient evidence of bias to make a claim actionable.

More: I’m waiting for a call back from the Office of the Inspector General of TARP at Treasury. Prediction: Will cite pending litigation.

UPDATE: Got my call back from TARP, and they say that it was an internal decision by Chrysler management, which says to me . . . a) that’s some oversight you guys are doing, and b) it appears to contradict what was said in Jim Press’s deposition.

Follow-up question: Can we get a breakdown of the minority dealerships mentioned by Carin, between black and other minority? Is this a valid information request? If not, why not?

REUPDATE: Despite the news, via Sarah, that

A reader notes something about “car czar” Steven Rattner: “Rattner is married to Maureen White, the former National Finance Chair for the Democratic Party.” The comment: “So one of the guys advising SecTreas on this thing is married to someone who used to be one of the people in charge of fundraising for the Democratic Party. This explains so much it’s scary.” Well, it bears a close look.

there’s nothing worth investigating here. Mere paranoia. Cannot see how disclosure of such information puts organic fruit on Mrs. Obama’s table.

REREUPDATE: These are not the droids you’re looking for.

REREREUPDATE: Steve Benen looks at the numbers and concludes . . . oh, wait . . . he doesn’t look at the numbers.

Posted by Dan Collins @ 7:46am
88 comments | Trackback

Comments (88)

  1. “her special circumstances entitle her to a “fudge factor” of arbitrariness in her judgments.”

    It’s worse than that. She argues her special circumstances entitle her to a fudge factor of racially-aware BIAS in her judgements.

  2. As no doubt the Chrysler preservations may have been arbitrary in the sense they were not based on the criteria assumed (practical business benefit) but BIASED and based on political affiliation/contribution. Why? Are Dem dealerships more grateful, more likely to pay back in some kind? Are Dem dealerships more “malleable”? Do dems want to remove lobbying power from the fact that auto dealership owners and interest groups trend Libertarian/GOP overall?

    Its deliberate bias, not the stupidity of dartboard-hit arbitrariness (which would be the best case scenario) that has me worried. Although the latter is bad enough.

  3. Red herring in both cases. The left does not care, so long as they get control over the lives of others.

  4. jon said,”I do have serious problems with those who analyze things they pretty much admit to having little or no knowledge about”. Yet this assclown appears quite confident that Barcky’s little auto task force, which its members have little to ne experience in the auto indistry, should be afforded the benefit of the doubt, or even praised for making random and arbitrary decisions. What. The. Fuck?!

  5. Ah, but JD, Barky’s minions are Wise Latinos and Other People of Color, while most of those icky business types are Evil Old White Men.

    Obviously Barky’s buddies are going to be more likely to make good decisions.

    So Sotomayor hath written, and so it shall be.

  6. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Dan.

  7. So, the argument from the left comes down to this, all decision making public officials can be replaced with that wonderful “Magic 8 ball”.

  8. You know, racism is not such a bad thing, as long as the proper groups are being descriminated against…

    We all know about the uber-victims grace of their absolute moral authority…

    And the Chrysler Conundrum..?

    Why who would doubt the machinations of the most ethical administration-evah!

    There’s that Judgement!, Brilliance!, Transparancy!, Fairness!, Ethics!, and new kind of politics that our betters are employing to divine all the right moves…

    I mean, we all know by now that a wise black man will always make better decisions than a white one, right..?

  9. Yet this assclown appears quite confident that Barcky’s little auto task force, which its members have little to ne experience in the auto indistry, should be afforded the benefit of the doubt, or even praised for making random and arbitrary decisions. What. The. Fuck?!

    Government is beyond reproach.

    (Unless a Republican is in office. Then it’s Satan Incarnate.)

  10. By all means, please do get the details about dealer closing criteria. Transparency is always a good thing.

    My prediction is you’ll find one of two things:
    1. Damn near all Chrysler dealer owners either don’t contribute, or contribute to Republicans.
    2. Democrats run better dealerships.

    But let the data show what it shows. This is why I love science. The truth is out there, we just have to do some digging. If dealer closing were based on partisan selection, the data’s going to show it.

  11. Sammy is an aggressively dishonest lying little fuck. Alphie, with more words. A verbose meya. But a liar, nonetheless.

  12. Tell us again how Objectivism is a left wing philosophy, Sammy.

    Tell us again how DARPA is a “progressive” organization, Sammy.

    Tell us again how justice can be “scientifically measured”, Sammy.

    Oh, yeah. You’re a veritable Karl Popper.

    Heh.

  13. I would like to know what leftists regard as sufficient evidence of bias to make a claim actionable.

    With meya as a barometer, the answer is virtually nothing — reality takes a back seat to bias and therefore personal accountability does to to burying the herd’s embarrassment at being thunderously wrong. (That said, full credit to the left that promotes the Paul Fed disclosure bill as posted at FDL. It’s a start.)

  14. “My prediction is you’ll find one of two things:
    1. Damn near all Chrysler dealer owners either don’t contribute, or contribute to Republicans.
    2. Democrats run better dealerships.”

    The concise version.
    1. Republicans are dumb and evil
    2. Democrats are smart and good.

    Every damn time.

  15. “My prediction is you’ll find one of two things:
    1. Damn near all Chrysler dealer owners either don’t contribute, or contribute to Republicans.
    2. Democrats run better dealerships.”

    Bahaa haa haaa … .

    Oh, you were serious?

  16. Why who would doubt the machinations of the most ethical administration-evah!

    There’s that Judgement!, Brilliance!, Transparancy!, Fairness!, Ethics!, and new kind of politics that our betters are employing to divine all the right moves…

    So who’s to be the first innocent MSM journalist to doubt the Emperor’s New Administration? In public?

    IOW who’s going to be a liberal outlaw instead of a hidebound statist lackey? They told us if we voted McCain the Rolling Stone would demote The Man, to torture a common phrase. Power to the freaking people already. The Sixties live!

  17. Squeaking Trvth to Pawah!

  18. Mother Jones Exposes Sister Palin!

  19. The Village Vocal!

  20. Instapundit updated:

    “UPDATE: A reader notes something about “car czar” Steven Rattner: “Rattner is married to Maureen White, the former National Finance Chair for the Democratic Party.” The comment: “So one of the guys advising SecTreas on this thing is married to someone who used to be one of the people in charge of fundraising for the Democratic Party. This explains so much it’s scary.” Well, it bears a close look.

    Posted at 8:40 am by Glenn Reynolds”

    I didn’t know that connection. But it doesn’t make the situation less smelly, now, does it.

  21. Guys…..guys. Judging which dealerships to close should not be based on some abstract “auto industry” theory. Rather, there should be empathy and life experience to tell us how the closings will affect every day lives.

    Then close all the Republican dealers.

  22. Meya and her ilk think that Chrysler should keep it’s business practices secret as a competitive advantage.

    Meya and her ilk think that the BusHitler gov’t shouldn’t keep it’s interrogation practices secret as a security advantage.

    Meya and her ilk maintain a level of intellectual dishonesty that is admirable in it’s audacity.

  23. So who’s to be the first innocent MSM journalist to doubt the Emperor’s New Administration?”

    That’s like zero divided by zero…An indeterminate case!

    Although, if the war in Afghanistan heads south (God forbid), there may not be any shortage of far left types lookin’ to throw down the Q word (quagmire), compare it to Vietnam, and go after their pulitzer prize…

    What these journalists don’t get is that you can get a pulitzer for bringing down a liberal President too…

    Bewtween the Chrysler/GM strongarm stuff, the exploding defecits leading to a spiraling debt, and the oncoming unfunded entitlement burden, the O!ne will have frigged the economy for generations…

    I mean, that might be as pulitzer-worthy as erasing 18 minutes of tape, eh..?

    But who am I tryin’ to kid…Hell the MSM will cover for the messiah even of we suffer a string of terror attacks and get nuked by Iran or Korea…

  24. “My prediction is you’ll find one of two things:
    1. Damn near all Chrysler dealer owners either don’t contribute, or contribute to Republicans.
    2. Democrats run better dealerships.”

    The concise version.
    1. Republicans are dumb and evil
    2. Democrats are smart and good.

    Every damn time.

    I was mainly just poking fun. I am interested in how the analysis turns out. It reminds me of a story from when I was a kid, and stores were all starting to put in all the scanning checkstands, and get all computerized. A major retailer launched a new anti-shoplifting program. I don’t remember the details, but certain products were equipped with something that made them harder to steal (maybe it was those little tags that make the gate beep when you walk out, but I don’t remember). All I remember is it was easy to look at a product and see if it had this enhanced shoplifting protection.

    People went crazy because the devices were put on all the “black” products. You’d walk down the isle – vidal sassoon- nope, jerry curl – yep…

    The news, sensing something of massive importance, ambushes a guy from the retailer, “Why doesn’t your business like black people? Why did you only choose black products for enhanced shoplift protection?”

    And the guy from the store, total deer-in-the-headlights, looks into the camera and says, “I didn’t pick the products, the computer did. We just generated a list of the most shop-lifted products, and put it on those.”

    Even so, the store soon dropped its enhanced shoplifting protection program.

  25. Sammy, similar reasoning went into the decision for all major supermarket chains to move out of the city of Detroit. Theft rate was all too high.

    There is not a single major supermarket w/in Detroit. All are independent, small grocers.

  26. And of course it’s “racist” for the big chains to pull out, and “racist” for the convenience stores to charge higher prices to cover the shoplifting losses, right?

  27. But of course. A racist plot. Kroger hates black people.

  28. Imagine, for a moment, the outrage that would have been generated by the Leftists and the MSM (redundant) had this been Bush, and it was being done to Dems. Imagine the outrage were Gattner and his DNC bride Republicans taking over an industry. Never mind, silly thought.

  29. similar reasoning went into the decision for all major supermarket chains to move out of the city of Detroit

    And similar reasoning went into Detroit moving out of Detroit. There’s a reason they filmed RoboCop there. Detroit is a read made post-apocalyptic setting.

  30. Sammy, now here’s the rule. Only “I” am allowed to slam on Detroit. Proprietary rights.

  31. And of course it never occurs to Sammy Dullwit to observe what brand of politics controls all of these blighted cities.

  32. Carin – Sammy is blissfully unaware that Detoit being a socialist’s petri dish made it into what it is today.

  33. Sammy, now here’s the rule. Only “I” am allowed to slam on Detroit. Proprietary rights.

    My bad. (and my condolences)

  34. Sammy, Detroit is our future!

  35. Cannot see how disclosure of such information puts organic fruit on Mrs. Obama’s table.

    It can’t take any off it, either.

  36. Seriously, Sammy, what would a scientist do?

    Surely the socialist experiment has been run enough times by now to construct a theory about the likely outcome?

  37. Sammy, Detroit is our future!

    Kill me now. Can I keep a small potted plant to remind me of the past?

  38. Like I said, it is blissfully unaware. But, it is prolly the Republican’s fault. Or Bush.

  39. Seriously, Sammy, what would a scientist do?

    Surely the socialist experiment has been run enough times by now to construct a theory about the likely outcome?

    Yeah. Socialism doesn’t work very well. Europe doesn’t even use it.

  40. But Teh One can do it the right way.

  41. #39. That would be news to the people living in the EU as the latest diktat from Brussels tells them what they can or cannot wear, buy, say or do….

  42. LtC John – Don’t let facts get in the way of Teh Narrative. Just feeeeeeeeeeeeeel ….

  43. In fact, I’m going to say that these dealers are wealthy enough to donate to political parties, and since most of them are local small business owners, they tend to strongly favor the Republican party as such.

    Huh. I was told it was just Godbotherers and hatemongers left in the GOP tent. Small business owners, you say?

  44. Small business owners, you say?

    We, you know, it’s not like these are high-tech start ups. They sell Chryslers for god sake.

  45. Surely the socialist experiment has been run enough times by now to construct a theory about the likely outcome?

    It’s not been done right.

    Of course.

  46. But Teh One can do it the right way.

    Maybe he could, I just don’t think he has any interest in making America socialist. In fact, I think he’s pretty sure capitalism’s the way to go.

  47. I do have serious problems with those who analyze things they pretty much admit to knowing little or nothing about.

    You mean like Lawrence O’Donnell?

    If you don’t find him troubling as a terrorism expert, you have a twatbrain. One that can be scratched and sniffed.

  48. Maybe he could, I just don’t think he has any interest in making America socialist. In fact, I think he’s pretty sure capitalism’s the way to go.

    You should have quit after “I just don’t think”. Then you would have been right.

    Let’s assume that Teh One is an avowed Socialist, Sammy. What would he have done differently to this point?

  49. So Obama’s taking over Chrysler and closing dealerships. Is this how we create jobs? I always wanted to know how to create jobs.

  50. JD — the problem is, Sammy’s concept of “capitalism” includes fascism. That’s the model Obama’s following, not socialism. Obama will let you own your business — until you step out of line, then you’ll find your life’s work parted out to Democrat donors and hacks.

  51. Zelda – This is how you creats AND SAVE jobs, by cutting Republicans. It is the same logic that allows them to claim that in order to fix out of control spending, you need to spend at least 4 times as much, in a completely blind and non-transparent and more out of control manner.

  52. Can dealership service departments be union shops? I did a little googling to see if the UAW had chapters for dealership mechanics, or if there was some other union to which they may belong. I wasn’t really able to find anything.

    That would be an interesting angle if the dealerships left open were in some way unionized.

  53. Let’s assume that Teh One is an avowed Socialist, Sammy. What would he have done differently to this point?

    Nationalize ExxonMobile, Microsoft, Wal-mart, and Google. In other words, nationalize the most thriving companies, not the failing ones.

  54. This one places a lot of faith in Google. Teh One does not need to nationalize Exxon, with cap and trade, VAT, and punitive windfall profits penalties, they already work for the government far more than they work for themselves.

  55. So, Sammy is only able to show that there would have been a difference in selection, not in tactics or practice.

  56. until you step out of line, then you’ll find your life’s work parted out to Democrat donors and hacks

    If by “step out of line” you mean “go to the government and beg them to save your failing business” then you might have something there.

  57. nawoods — I’m pretty sure dealer mechanics are not unionized.

  58. How many of these dealers went to Teh One with their hands outstretched, Sammy?

  59. If by “step out of line” you mean “go to the government and beg them to save your failing business” then you might have something there.

    Like ExxonMobile, Microsoft, Wal-mart, and Google. And auto dealers?

  60. Nationalize ExxonMobile, Microsoft, Wal-mart, and Google. In other words, nationalize the most thriving companies, not the failing ones.

    By what authority? And that’s not the question you probably think it is: That’s not asking by what means, it’s asking by what morality? The means are arrayed all around us these days and promoted by the blind and the, er, dumb.

    No, this entire picture is about achieving ends that justify those means, isn’t it, and those ends surely have some ostensible justification, right? Can you articulate what ends those would be, Sammy, because if you so much as try then that’s the first place your thesis will obviously fail.

    The second: If you cannot or will not — one of those choices is assured — then I’ll assume this is just the theft the rest of us have already concluded it is.

    Maybe [Obama] could, I just don’t think he has any interest in making America socialist. In fact, I think he’s pretty sure capitalism’s the way to go.

    So we know you fantasize but can you think? See, it’s bad enough to advocate anti-constitutional measures but it’s quite another to fail to justify them, and worse to not even know why what you promote will fail, even as it already has and is on a purely pragmatic scale.

    That’s about three levels of dishonest.

    We, you know, it’s not like these are high-tech start ups. They sell Chryslers for god sake.

    When the govt scares off new investment then were’s the billions in capital going to come from to revive these stone-age bulwarks of the American economy, Sammy?

    If by “step out of line” you mean “go to the government and beg them to save your failing business” then you might have something there.

    Oh? And when the government’s centralized fiat monetary system fails — government being a costly force for what history says is parasitic oppression and government being a net producer of nothing but force — will you come to, say, the private investor and the private laborer and the public company comprised of these individuals and put a gun to their heads and demand they save the central banking system? Then will we “have something”?

    Because I’m thinking that’s kinda the last play coming on stage.

  61. Pingback: So, How About Those Closed Dealerships? | Little Miss Attila

  62. Chrysler says they didn’t make the decision. The Obama administration says they did. My guess? Obama’s administration is identifying its self as Chrysler, and the execs are insisting they still are, so they are both technically right.

  63. To all appearances, it is now illegal to be a distributor for a union product WHILE donating to republican causes.

    This ban on Distributing-While-Republican will generate three predictable events, and should be rethought.
    1. only Democrat-Party apparatchiks will retail in Government-Motors’ subsidized dream cars. This will tie the party’s brand to GM’s, for better or for worse.
    2. the brand’s sales gimmicks will begin to chafe. The circular financing (ie. taking taxes from us and giving them to “organized” patrons so they can give us rebates to “incentivize” us to buy the same subsidized product that we are already part-owner in) will begin to demand press attention, perhaps even Paul Krugman’s.
    3. and, Yes, we’ll see fewer donations to republican politicians emitting from GM’s distributorship.

    Whiz-bam…fizzle.

    In the end, Obama’ll get what the unions say they want. But, as their brand’s sales lag and war begins the ME, l think they’ll find finally that the pudding they ordered is too sweet to eat.

  64. You’re all pissed that Chrysler won’t renew its contracts with a bunch of dealerships. This is something Chrysler has to do to get a cost structure that aligns with revenue. The other alternative is Chrysler goes bankrupt and liquidates – killing all Chrysler dealerships.

  65. Prove that it’s something that Chrysler needs to do, first, Sammy. Then tell me about the likelihood that these decisions weren’t political.

  66. You’re all pissed that Chrysler won’t renew its contracts with a bunch of dealerships.

    Are you sure about that, really? It couldn’t be that people have built-in detectors for unequal treatment before the law, for instance, and take hyper-offense to seeing others abused in such a manner, on the theory that they might just be next to fill the role of abusee?

  67. “A preliminary study by FOXNews.com found that the data do not support the charges. Among the dealerships set to close, 12 percent of a random 50 selected for review donated to Republicans and 8 percent to Democrats. Of the dealerships remaining open, 14 percent of a random 50 selected donated to Republicans and 10 percent to Democrats. In both samples, the average size of donations was similar for both parties.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/gop-bloggers-charge-obamas-auto-task-force-playing-politics-chrysler-dealer/

    Lying FOX bastards.

  68. Expanding on the GM/Dem (and Green) brand conflation, a good attorney could easily argue that buying a GM product is now a donation a political party.

    Obama/Sotomayor need to check their rear-view mirrors on this: if GM’s “workers” buy airtime on Pacifica Radio to endorse the Party’s candidates, or to denounce a tax-holiday or prison-expansion, or anti-”gay-marriage” ballot-measure, it could be found to be in violation of some of the Dem’s hallowed campaign-finance laws.

    Today’s Yahoo-Finance headline reads, “GM says [...] bondholders [...]” But, really, it is the government that is expressing satisfaction with the new, “sweetened” bondholder deal – not any distinct, self-determining company. This is evidence that, already, the machine’s media-monlies are pimping the cross-branding

    This could easily bite both ways. They should tread softly here.

  69. Media-monkies.

    hic!

  70. You’re all pissed that Chrysler won’t renew its contracts with a bunch of dealerships.

    Way to ignore the government interference!

    Have you chosen between the neck collar and the ankle collar? From what I’m hearing, the Obamatons give you an extra carbon ration for the neck collar; it’s much more a statement of devotion, after all.

  71. Prove that it’s something that Chrysler needs to do, first, Sammy. Then tell me about the likelihood that these decisions weren’t political.

    Sorry, the person making the claim needs to provide the proof. The claim is that Chrysler unfairly targeted Republican dealerships for closing. Evidence supplied by Fox news (of all places) seems to refute the claim.

  72. Sorry, the person making the claim needs to provide the proof.

    Weird. It sure as hell didn’t work that way from January 2001 to January 2009.

  73. What a bunch of fucktards. If Chrysler restructures, “The government’s making them put Republicans out of business!”. If we let Chrysler go bankrupt you’d say, “The government does nothing while Chrysler goes under and lets dealerships close, just because they’re Republican dealerships.”

    Seems that nothing short of a Republican Dealership Welfare Program will make you happy.

  74. Sammy, you seem to forget . . . we were against ALL the bailouts.

  75. “The government does nothing while Chrysler goes under and lets dealerships close, just because they’re Republican dealerships.”

    um. no. I think most of us would have preferred the government not get involved in this. at. all.

  76. Well, there is an auto mechanics union, the IAM.

  77. See the first comment to this article.

  78. Judge Sotomayor says, toward the end of her La Raza speech [my emphases]:

    There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

    So two items for further pondering with Judge Sotomayor’s help. First, what of that “danger embedded in relative morality” Judge? What sort of danger is it, what effects would you think it has or can have? Second, given that you posit that you and your like are making a difference (and we will assume that difference is a positive good rather than an outright evil), please say something more about those differences. How, for instance, those differences are more just than the decisions that have been taken or are being taken by Judges not like you in these, your chosen crucial respects (namely your personal cultural characteristics or skin color)? Oh, and by the way Judge, don’t you think it odd that you should fall back on some greater statistical sample in order to better understand those differences, at least, under the lamppost of that other statement you’ve made in this speech? You know, that statement, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”?

  79. You’re begging the question, sdferr — WTF is a federal judge doing giving speeches before the Brown Klan?

  80. The reason I don’t say I hope your President employer fails, Sammy, is that you’d probably take it as a personal slight and go huffing off, tossing fucktards over your left shoulder. But I’d mean that I hope your theories get put to the reality test right in your own back yard where you could witness firsthand just how your kind of costs-to-society justified nationalization plays out.

    As I predicted, you can’t defend either the ends or the means of such things and you certainly haven’t bothered with constitutional authority.

    If you can’t see the causes and effects then you’re advocating dooming us all to patching up only the most recent effects of decades of bad government policy — ever ask yourself how in a country where three quarters of all government expenditures go to entitlements, which is a great and hallowed thing to the left, not a single War on Something Unfair or Distasteful has yet worked and we’re trillions in debt?

    How did America slide backwards to become the biggest debtor in history in only thirty years if it didn’t involve shit monetary policy? Do you even know what trillon is? How about nearly a hundred of them.

    Sorry for the crummy grammar and missing emphasis in my last rushed post but your degree of exasperating cluelessness shouldn’t be allowed out of doors with a vote.

  81. If you can’t see the causes and effects then you’re advocating dooming us all to patching up only the most recent effects of decades of bad government policy — ever ask yourself how in a country where three quarters of all government expenditures go to entitlements, which is a great and hallowed thing to the left, not a single War on Something Unfair or Distasteful has yet worked and we’re trillions in debt?

    Has it ever struck anyone else as odd how the amount of social spending since the ’60s equals the national debt? It’s as if the government shouldn’t be doing what the Constitution doesn’t allow it to do.

  82. Sammy appears to be intentionally missing the point, it being uncomfortable and inconvenient and all.

  83. If you can’t see the causes and effects then you’re advocating dooming us all to patching up only the most recent effects of decades of bad government policy — ever ask yourself how in a country where three quarters of all government expenditures go to entitlements, which is a great and hallowed thing to the left, not a single War on Something Unfair or Distasteful has yet worked and we’re trillions in debt?

    Amen brother. No disagreement their.

    How did America slide backwards to become the biggest debtor in history in only thirty years if it didn’t involve shit monetary policy? Do you even know what trillon is? How about nearly a hundred of them.

    It started with Reagan.

    Look, I have enormous reservations about Obama’s Keynesian H-Bomb to “restart the economy”. I’m not convinced that, since spending beyond our means got us into this, that spending beyond our means is the only/best way out. It’s a “bet the country” move, and if it doesn’t work, there’s no plan B.

  84. Because quadrupling one’s debt seldom leads to better credit rating without quadrupling one’s income.

  85. It started with Reagan.

    It started with FDR. At least.

  86. Look, I have enormous reservations about Obama’s Keynesian H-Bomb to “restart the economy”.

    By what authority would you have the President issue such dictates, Sammy? See my point?

    I’m not convinced that, since spending beyond our means got us into this, that spending beyond our means is the only/best way out. It’s a “bet the country” move, and if it doesn’t work, there’s no plan B.

    Mostly amen brother.

  87. It’s as if the government shouldn’t be doing what the Constitution doesn’t allow it to do.

    Oh come on, Rob. Let the Constitution live dance and twitch like Bernie on the beach.

  88. Rob Crawford – I prefer to call it the new Bund. Just me being all history-like and all that.

Leave a Reply