A Philosopher's Blog

Binders Full of Women

Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Reasoning/Logic by Michael LaBossiere on October 19, 2012
Romney

Romney (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

During the last debate Romney was asked about rectifying inequalities in the workplace. His awkward response involved the phrase “binders full of women” and this ignited a Facebook frenzy. The Democrat operatives have been busy spinning the story in order to “prove” that Romney doesn’t get women’s issues.

As might be imagined, I do agree that his phrase was rather odd. However, since I speak in front of people for a living, I know full well how easy it is to have a poor phrase or verbal slip during the course of a long event. Talking at length under pressure is not an easy thing. As such, I tend to be more understanding than some folks when it comes to such verbal errors. I also subscribe to a general principle of charity when it comes to interpreting what a person says, especially when it is clearly a verbal error. I held to this in regards to Obama’s “you didn’t build that” and extend the same principle to Romney.

Unfortunately, the idea of being consistently charitable or at least understanding is not one that is accepted in politics. The Republicans willfully misinterpreted Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark and make it the focus of their convention. The Democrats have grabbed onto Romney’s “binders” remark and are attempting to read all sorts of wickedness into it. This tactic of taking comments and inflating them to monstrous proportions is certainly effective rhetorically. However, such tactics have no logical weight or merit. Of course, throwing out “binders full of women” is far easier than actually examining Romney’s record and policies in a critical manner.

There has, of course, been some analysis of the matter-generally along partisan lines. While such analysis is useful in terms of seeing how the two sides are crafting the narrative, they tend to be rather less useful in making a rational assessment of the facts.

One thing that has come up is that when Romney was elected 30% of the senior positions were held by women but when he left, the percentage was 27%. The next governor increased this to 33%. This has been presented as evidence that Romney did not do well when hiring women.

To be fair to Romney, he did better than the American people. After all, 16% of the members of congress are women and there have been no female presidents. Also, the decline from 30% to 27% should not be assumed to be the result of Romney not trying to hire women. After all, that shift could be due to other factors and it is worth noting that the change was rather small in terms of percentages. While 30% is more than 27%, both still fall rather short of 51% (the percentage of women in the population). So, while Romney can be said to have hired slightly fewer women he was only slightly below an already low number. His successor increased it to 33%, but that number also needs to be assessed. More importantly, 33% still falls short of 51%.

My overall point is that it is unfair to single out Romney for this disparity. After all, the percentage of women in political positions is low (as noted above, congress is only 16% women) and Romney cannot be singled out for special blame in this regard. Naturally, if Romney shows signs of misogyny, then that would be another matter.  However, just pointing out that the number went from 30% to 27% and then 33% hardly seems to prove anything about Romney, other than the percentage of women remained about the same during his tenure. Such variation could also be due to factors other than Romney-after all, to assume that Romney was the cause without due consideration would be an error in causal reasoning.

There are, of course, legitimate grounds for women to be concerned about Romney-however, these concerns need to be grounded in actual evidence and not mere awkward phrases.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

160 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Norm said, on October 19, 2012 at 5:18 am

    Mike, you are too charitable to Romney. You failed to mention a crucial fact–he lied …again.

    What actually happened was that in 2002—prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration—a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

    They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

    Romney’s claim during the debate that he asked for such a study, is false.

    Oh, and once he had those binders? He hired women for agencies he then cut the funding for.

    There were actually fewer women in executive positions when Romney left office than there were when he started.

    That scant man can’t tell the truth about anything.

    • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 8:22 am

      What actually happened…from the debate transcript:

      ROMNEY: And – and so we – we took a concerted effort to go out
      and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become
      members of our cabinet.

      I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us
      find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.

      So when picking nits, you might want to take note that Romney did not claim that he had asked for such a study, he had simply asked for help finding candidates. So it is your statement about Romney’s statement that is false. Scant man can’t tell the truth about anything indeed.

      • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 9:08 am

        Picking nits? Yet another habit of biomass.

        • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 9:08 am

          And Anon

          • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 9:34 am

            While still not sure about Norm (something in the voice is throwing me off), you’re fogetting daschellhammit. That one was obvious. I’m thinking of making some sort of drinking game out of it. I’d call it Mike and The Seven Dwarfs…

            • biomass2 said, on October 19, 2012 at 12:37 pm

              Seriously, the only one of six or seven you found “obvious” was dhammett? As a great philosopher once wrote— “As dhammet (God help me here) states (via AJ) a large number of conceptions never produce a viable child.” So, God help me here. . . you actually agreed with dhammett there. Hey. Occasionally I changed the names. Occasionally I was more assertive or even virulent. I made intentional spelling and grammar errors—as opposed to the accidental and/or stupid spelling and grammar errors. But I prefer the softer, gentler biomass2, don’t you? If I stay, I’ll always be biomass2. . . Strike the “always”. Make it “likely”.

              But don’t let”Norm” throw you off. :( Don’t try to chase him away.
              I’ve disavowed using “Norm” as a screen name. Take that for what it’s worth to you.
              Now, you can settle with that ,or you can take the road some of you on here sometimes take : put the name in a teensy box with everyone else on here who disagrees with your opinions.
              Or you can just snuffle and kvetch about an unjust world in which a contributor to a blog can assume different identities .

              But, honestly, I hope you don’t do that in real life.

            • Norm said, on October 19, 2012 at 1:03 pm

              Kvetch? Go easy on the boys, biomass2. I have met very very right wing landsman. These guys are intellectually challenged already. Why complicate the matter by using words they have to look up?

            • biomass2 said, on October 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm

              Norm: This may come from part of a borrowed memory of my limited experience on the politico blogs, or it may be accurate. Anyway, just ask magus if he remembers imploring me to take it easy on kernunos.
              Now you’re saying I’m perhaps causing confusion by utilizing a word of Yiddish origin? I can’t catch a break. :(

              To further enhance your understanding of what’s going on here, you may find useful my comment from January 28, 2011 10:17pm — “SOTU Draft” –Glenn Beck’s mug at the top right.

            • Norm said, on October 19, 2012 at 1:52 pm

              Actually, biomass, the pejorative aspect of the comment was not directled at you, but I think you realize that.

        • biomass2 said, on October 19, 2012 at 9:33 am

          Wouldn’t have it any other way. :)

          A nit is a nit. *
          Nits I pick at could be errors indicating lax thinking. They could be incidental parts of unintentional or accidental deceptions.
          My favorite nits to pick are often integral parts of the fabric of damn lies.
          Ignore the nits, the difference between ‘will be’ and ‘could be’, for example, and one ignores meaning. Meaning, and the words or symbols that convey it, is at the root of our language—the glue of our civilization.

          Someone has to care.

          *We’re not talking spelling errors here.

      • Norm said, on October 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm

        Typical right wing intellectual dishonesty. You left out the first part of what Romney had to say. He said that he was reviewing the list of possible appointees and noticed there were no women on the list, and “I said: ‘Well, gosh, can’t we find some women that are also qualified?”
        Romney spun the story dishonestly in a way to appear that he was concerned about equality in his cabinet and proactively sought out women. The fact of the matter is that the ad hoc women’s group was formed before the election, in an effort to convince the ultimate winner that women were underrepresented in state executive positions with a view towards convincing the winner—democrat or republican—that more women needed to be given executive positions, and “by the way, we’ll make it easy for you—here is a list of qualified women.”

        Those binders were presented to Romney shortly after the election. He did not ask for them nor did he initiate the effort, as he implied in his debate remarks. He was not proactive, he was reactive.
        And if you refuse to acknowledge the difference, you are either primitive in intellectual functioning or intellectually dishonest.

        And by the way, I have no idea who the hell biomass or anyone else is. While identify of the messenger is irrelevant (and another intellectually dishonest method of argument typically employed by right wingers), my name is Norm. I came across this blog after sustaining a torn quadriceps tendon tear a little over two weeks ago. Mike has an entry on that topic. I read that blog thoroughly and posted several messages, also under my real name of Norm. From that topic I gravitated to this one.

        You are wrong again (not that it surprises me).

        • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 12:29 pm

          Sorry, Magus, I think you were right. The biomass mentality shines through. Typical right wing dishonesty…parody that eliminates the middle man.

          • biomass2 said, on October 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm

            And there you go again. . .

          • magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm

            See, this is why forensic psychology works. We may think that certain people could change their behavior, if only to remain hidden. But they can’t do it for long.

  2. [...] Binders Full of Women (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) [...]

  3. T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 10:40 am

    News flash to Democrats! Women are more than just their vaginas:

    The fact that Obama is making an issue of this suggests to me that his campaign is increasingly worried about signs that Romney is closing the gender gap, which would mean lights out for his reelection given Romney’s advantages among male voters.

    It’s hard to see what argument Obama is advancing here, however. The attack isn’t even that Romney didn’t hire enough women as governor. It’s that he had to consult a binder prepared by a women’s group to find more female candidates when he wanted to hire more women. Is the suggestion that if he cared about women more he would have just hired his friends and associates rather than draw from a wider applicant pool?

    In 2008, Obama was praised by his admirers for campaigning above the fray, for avoiding the temptation to score cheap points in the daily news cycle and instead focus on the big picture. When he all but sewed up the Democratic nomination after winning the North Carolina primary in May 2008, he said his win showed, “it’s possible to overcome the politics of division and distraction; that it’s possible to overcome the same old negative attacks that are always about scoring points and never about solving our problems.” Yet as the campaign enters its final serious stages, Obama is increasingly focusing on small things, like Romney’s mention of “Big Bird” and now this. This is typically the type of thing that you witness with losing campaigns — see, for instance, the hopes on the right in 2008 that Obama’s “spread the wealth around” comments to “Joe the Plumber” would show Americans the true Obama and thus provide a boost to John McCain.

    To be sure, polls in many states still suggest Romney has to make up ground in the final weeks to score an electoral victory over Obama and perhaps as more data come in post-debate, the momentum will shift back in Obama’s direction. But if Obama is going to lose this election, this is sort of what you’d expect the final stages of his campaign to look like.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-emphasis-on-binders-best-sign-yet-for-romney/article/2511164#.UIDAjIWSWbK

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:52 am

      Obama has been consistently for women’s rights. However, the battle for the ladies is clearly on.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 1:55 pm

        Everybody is for women’s rights. Obama has gone way beyond equal rights and is buying women’s votes with promises of free stuff.

        • biomass2 said, on October 19, 2012 at 2:10 pm

          “Everybody is for women’s rights.”
          So are you saying this sarcastically, or stating it as a straight-out fact?
          If it’s ” ‘Everyone’ is FOR women’s ‘rights’” I mostly agree. If, on the other hand, you think it’s a fact and you’re stating it as such, I may stop laughing when you’ve defined for me what you mean by “women’s rights”.

        • abjectbooks said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:37 pm

          Does that include a roku box? I really want one…What is this free stuff?

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 20, 2012 at 6:11 am

            The free Roku act will make it so. But the Red Roku will only show socialist media.

          • WTP said, on October 20, 2012 at 8:00 am

            Interestingly, I acquired a “free” roku box from my dirty capitalist quasi-monopolist cable company when I subscribed at my new location. TANSTAAFL.

          • biomass2 said, on October 20, 2012 at 10:29 pm

            . . .and again

            Phew! Paranoia strikes deep. Reminds me of a song. It also reminds me of one of that long list of quotations about conservatives I offered up at my 10/12/2012 7:12pm below.
            “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”

            ~William E. Gladstone

  4. T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:24 am

    “The Republicans willfully misinterpreted Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark and make it the focus of their convention.”

    There was no misinterpretation. It is a true philosophical difference between the parties. Democrats are far more collectivist than Republicans.

    Why don’t the Dems just come out and admit that they aren’t that keen on capitalism and prefer a more collectivist approach? Why blow smoke?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:50 am

      It clearly was. In general, Democrats are capitalists. Obama made his fortune by investing what he made from his book sales. The wealthy Democrats clearly have no problem with capitalism.

      Now, Democrats sometimes are willing to mitigate the harms of capitalism and do sometimes speak of fairness. But if this is socialism, then we need some new terms for what was actual socialism.

      • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm

        Again….Mike says that these people are “capitalists”…

        willing to mitigate the harms of capitalism Sure, for a price. Real or imagined.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 1:56 pm

        It clearly was not. The “that” clearly referred to “business.”

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm

        Liking money is not the same as liking capitalism.

        • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 3:10 pm

          Words lost their meaning around here a while ago. The Left is afraid of being held to any standard, even their own. Words that have meaning come uncomfortably close to dealing with the real world. Or as E.A. Poe said more exquisitely:

          Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality.

          • Norm said, on October 19, 2012 at 3:14 pm

            Or as W. Shakespeare once wrote, “that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

      • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 5:05 pm

        Mike,

        Every hack knows you can’t just march into America and start quoting Lenin. Another professor friend of mine says he worked with a professor who was an outright communist behind closed doors, but when he was confronted with this on his website, denied it vehemently.

        You do realize that Engels was a capitalist, too, right, Mike? What these people do and what they want others to do are two different. things. They have their money already.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 19, 2012 at 7:05 pm

          Which professors?

          I’ve been in academics for 28 years as a student and a professor. I have met some liberal professors, some conservatives, some badly confused post-modernists who seemed to think they were some sort of Marxists, but I have only met one actual communist. He was the real deal-he even took money to the USSR from his university. I’ve even met conservative faculty.

          The vast majority of faculty are liberal to moderate (on a non-crazy scale) with the same concerns as everyone else (family, bills, career) and so on.

          My adviser in grad school summed up the view of Marxism held by most professors I’ve met in the following discussion:

          Me: “I took a class in analytical Marxism over the summer.”
          George: “Hmm, that would be doubly vacuous.”

          The class was actually rather interesting-the professor focused on the analysis of Soviet ideology and how it affected their world view. The class was, as I recall, rather critical of their brand of Marxism.

          I know that there is a carefully forged narrative that the academy has been infiltrated with atheists, communists, homosexual and Jews devoted to destroying America and corrupting the youth. However, they apparently have failed to invite me to their secret meetings for the past 28 years and have managed to hide their agenda from me and all the faculty I know. Unless, of course, I am the last non-Marxist left and they all cleverly switch to complaining about the cost of gas or how their favorite team is doing when they see me.

          • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 10:57 pm

            Communism is like religion: No two people can hold the exact same view of God or what communism is. To some, communism is everyone sharing stuff. Then the government gets to tell everyone what they share. Before you know it, a government needs all its guns to make sure you share the stuff you have.

            • abjectbooks said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:41 pm

              maybe it’s like pornography — undefinable, but you know it when you see it?

          • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:12 pm

            I know that there is a carefully forged narrative that the academy has been infiltrated with atheists, communists, homosexual and Jews devoted to destroying America and corrupting the youth.

            Typical of the Leftist delusions of paranoia and grandeur. The Jews part is particularly amusing. If you want to find Jew hatred, it’s more popular on college campuses than off.

            Oh, and Mike, where’s your study that proves the existence of this carefully forged narrative? But you know this…what was that Socrates quote again?

    • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm

      T.J., you’re expecting truth from people who want the votes of liars…

    • biomass2 said, on October 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm

      Whether the “build that” refers to building a business or producing the product or being the source of the new idea from which the product and business came, any individual who thinks he is solely responsible for the business that produces the product that comes from that idea is delusional. Not Jerry Sandusky delusional :(, but delusional, nevertheless.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 2:45 pm

        If you want to stress the collective nature of human activity, biomass, then you should not object when people call you a collectivist.

        I would prefer to stress individual achievement.

        • biomass2 said, on October 19, 2012 at 7:46 pm

          “Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ‘the common good’.” Ayn Rand would probably be proud that such a man as yourself would quote her. She may or may not care whether you misapplied the contents of her statement

          It would appear that Rand is saying that essentially a collectivist believes man (in general, mankind, I assume) must be ‘chained to collective action”? **Do you really think that’s what I wrote? Or what I feel? I wrote that, essentially, any man is a fool who doesn’t admit the role of others who came before him and those who exist with him in making what he does possible.
          Obama didn’t say or imply what’s contained in Rand’s message, and I certainly didn’t say, or imply, the word ‘must’ or the words ‘must be chained’ . My assertion is, clearly, that a man’s own common sense and humanity , should he have access to such, should be enough to prove to him that he’s not alone as he achieves success in the real world. I mentioned Nothing about government controlling production, distribution, or anything else.

          **’col·lec·tiv·ism (k-lkt-vzm)
          n.
          The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.’

          • biomass2 said, on October 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm

            So—Iobject when “people” call me ‘collectivist’.
            Go label yourself.

            • T. J. Babson said, on October 20, 2012 at 11:18 pm

              No one is denying the importance of other people, biomass. It is the “usually under the supervision of a government” that is the problem.

              The problem with collectivists such as yourself is that “more government” is the solution to every problem.

  5. [...] Binders Full of Women [...]

  6. T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Mike, why do you keep trying to deny that Democrats are pushing us toward socialism? Only 53% od Dems have a positive impression of capitalism.

    Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans
    Majority of Americans positive on capitalism, entrepreneurs, free enterprise, and small business
    by Frank Newport

    PRINCETON, NJ — More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of “socialism,” while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

    *******************

    There are significant differences in reactions to “socialism” across ideological and partisan groups:

    A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
    Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.

    Capitalism

    “Capitalism,” the word typically used to describe the United States’ prevailing economic system, generates positive ratings from a majority of Americans, with a third saying their reaction is negative.

    As was the case with “socialism,” there are differences across population segments.

    Republicans are significantly more positive than Democrats in their reactions to “capitalism,” although majorities of both groups have favorable opinions.
    Opinions of the word by ideology are divided in an unusual, though modest, way. Conservatives have the highest positive image, followed by liberals. Moderates have somewhat lower positive ratings than either of these groups.

    One might expect those with negative attitudes toward capitalism to be more likely than others to have positive attitudes toward socialism. That is indeed the case, but the difference in positive attitudes toward socialism between those with positive and those with negative attitudes toward capitalism is fairly modest: 33% vs. 43%, respectively.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx

    • Norm said, on October 19, 2012 at 3:19 pm

      Your suggestion that certain democrats and/or the President are socialists is so tired, absurd, and nonsensical that it is unworthy of response. One of many myths created by the charlatans at Faux News.

      There is a socialist party in America, you know. If fact there are several socialist sects. And Bernie Sanders, a member of the House of Representatives, is a self-proclaimed socialist. Perhaps that is why he runs as an Independent and not a socialist.

      Give it a rest. Your arguments are unworthy of a intelligent discussion. Its merely neo-McCarthyism. It didn’t work then, and it ain’t gonna work now.

      You wouldn’t know a socialist if he or she bit you in the behind.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 3:52 pm

        Gallup: A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.

        Norm, do you deny the numbers in the Gallup Poll?

        If a majority of Dems have a positive impression of socialism, why wouldn’t they want to move us in that direction, which is what I claimed?

        And by socialism think of the policies of François Hollande. Punitively tax the rich, obsess about social equality, etc.

        And all the socialists I know don’t bite. They are well educated, have good manners, and are Europeans. Maybe you should get out more.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 19, 2012 at 4:23 pm

          Does that mean that 17% of Republicans are socialists?

          Also, what did the poll ask?

          • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 4:34 pm

            Does that mean that 17% of Republicans are socialists?

            I wouldn’t rule it out. It certainly shows some weak thinking/ignorance on their part and helps explain how we got into this mess in the first place.

            • T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm

              Lots of Republicans are confused and are entirely too socialistic for my taste.

            • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 5:06 pm

              It’s the result of good compromising with evil. Evil wins.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 19, 2012 at 6:46 pm

              A more accurate claim would be that people had a favorable or unfavorable response to the word “socialism” without any definition of the term being provided. That does not really provide much useful information. The same poll also indicated that American are evenly split in their response to “big business” (the phrase). What does that prove?

            • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:01 pm

              Mike,

              It proves Americans have been duped into thinking big business has harmed as many people throughout history as big government.

          • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:25 pm

            The perfect demonstration of sophistry.

        • Norm said, on October 19, 2012 at 5:41 pm

          Bab, I don’t play games with children. The poll is meaningless. There are countless definitions, permutations, and concepts of what socialism is, and therefore, you could have as many concepts as people having individual formulations as to what they believe socialism is or entails. It’s like debating whether god exists. Before you can have a rational, intelligent debate on whether god exists, you have to agree on who or what god is.

          Same dilemma here, the nuances of which are perhaps too complex for you to understand. MIght I suggest you play with your Barbie Dolls instead. A philosopher you are not.

          • T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 7:44 pm

            Norm, why don’t you crawl back under your bridge and re-join your trollish brethren.

            • biomass2 said, on October 19, 2012 at 7:59 pm

              You’re sounding a lot lilke WTP back in 2011 when he called me a troll. The accusation was stupid then (esp since I had been on the board with several identities over the two years prior to that and people continued to respond in a more or less civilized fashion to my replies. Remember when we discussed the degree to which American Muslims should be marginalized in the attempt to assure that they would not become a danger in our society? You didn’t let loose the T word. But when WTP was caught up in a situation where he hoped to bolster a claim with a somewhat questionable claim (which he only clarified when pressed) he got in a snit and called me a troll.

              Similarly, you don’t seem to have any good reason or purpose when you use the term on Norm.

            • T. J. Babson said, on October 19, 2012 at 10:58 pm

              What is with that multiple identity stuff anyway, biomass?

            • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:06 pm

              TJ,

              He swears Bob and Norm are not his doppelgangers. But I’m saying otherwise.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 20, 2012 at 6:09 am

              Since I can see the IP address of a commentator I’m reasonably sure Norm is not Biomass. I’m not Norm either, in case that conspiracy theory is being considered. :)

            • magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 7:41 am

              Mike,

              People can use more than one IP.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 20, 2012 at 10:13 am

              I know-but it would be somewhat odd for a person to take the effort to switch IP addresses when commenting. Not impossible , of course. Biomass would seem to have little reason to spoof another identity. Similarity in views is not good evidence for identity-after all you typically agree with TJ and WTP.

            • magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm

              He seems to have little reason to constantly change identities at all, and yet he still does it. And it’s not just similar views that I’m going on here. Syntax similarities and other things too.

            • WTP said, on October 20, 2012 at 7:45 am

              Of course it doesn’t occur to the deep thinking philosopher that the same person could quite easily post from two different locations. A common logical error made by people who think they understand something in theory but lack real world experience.

            • biomass2 said, on October 20, 2012 at 9:52 am

              TJ etal
              “What is with that multiple identity stuff anyway, biomass?”*#
              That’s biomass2 by the way. Show some respect. :)

              When WTp asked that same question some while back, I replied “What’s it to you?” Same question still applies. If you can answer a question or deal with an issue raised by someone on here, why should it matter what his/her screen name is? You fellas get your panties in a twist over everything, especially when you have problems dealing with real questions involving claims that you’ve made, inconsistencies in your arguments, etc. You just can’t stand opposition. If I’d leave, and Mike would refrain from offering comments , and newcomers like Norm would stay away, you three would be all alone in you little echo chamber marveling at the wisdom that emanates from your keyboards.

              So it comes down to this: I’m a troll once under WTp’s watch. And now you label (note the use of the word “label”) Norm as a troll. So that must make him me and vice-versa and versa-vice. In the meantime, apparently, I was not a troll, because you and magus71 have interacted with me regularly over the past years, no matter what my identity.

              I thought the policy is not to feed the trolls. Tell WTp to stop eating.

              *# I was conceived in a laboratory, raised in foster homes, and for 40 years I’ve wandered the mean streets of Central PA with only my iPad, a bottle of cheap Scotch, and my friends like freddiek, erik ,anon, and others to keep me

            • WTP said, on October 20, 2012 at 11:12 am

              Again something Mike just doesn’t understand….All one would have to do is post from the library or any other location that differs from where one usually posts. With all the clues Mike still doesn’t understand this. Is it any wonder his understanding of economics is akin to that of Paul Krugman’s cat.

            • biomass2 said, on October 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm

              WTp: I believe Mike said, when he was dealing with ‘your’ complaint about multiple identities, that he didn’t find it to be of significant importance. It certainly wouldn’t be worth caring one iota about the location from which one posts. I think my 9:52am adequately explains why I feel it’s a hollow complaint.
              I, personally, don’t care whether you and TJ hook up at a local club dressed as cowboys just in off the range. More power to you.

          • WTP said, on October 19, 2012 at 9:10 pm

            Bab, I don’t play games with children.

            Well look at the big balls on Normy. He’s a big grown-up. Philosophically speaking, that is.

          • magus71 said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:26 pm

            “Norm”, what’s your definition of socialism?

        • abjectbooks said, on October 19, 2012 at 11:45 pm

          I have a “positive image” of Siamese cats, but I wouldn’t want to bathe by licking myself.

          • T. J. Babson said, on October 20, 2012 at 11:14 pm

            At least not in public :-)

  7. magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 9:01 am

    The easiest way to see what our leaders think in private is to look at the people they hang out with that do not fear going too far in their rhetoric. Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, are these people you would expect Republicans to befriend? Saul Alinski’s Rules for Radicals is Obama’s favorite book. Alinksi–avowed Marxist. The people now in power are heavily influenced my Marxism in its current evolution, which is not about Trotsky’s permanent armed evolution, but about slowly changing culture and political systems. Of course they don’t come out and declare their communism; they likely don’t even see themselves as communists. They merely think to themselves, and actually argue in public, “well, the communists had good intentions and clearly our system is unfair, so…” Biomass has openly stated that he is a socialist–and he likes Barack Obama. Obama states in an interview that his mother was “the dominant figure in my formative years. . . . The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.” So, what kind of people did his mother hang out with? Frank Marshall Davis, avowed black communist and pornographer.

    An article on Frank Marshall Davis, written in 2008: Fine fellow he was.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 20, 2012 at 10:18 am

      Guilt by association?

      • WTP said, on October 20, 2012 at 11:10 am

        And which logicall fallacy is this statement?

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 20, 2012 at 12:05 pm

        Birds of a feather…

      • magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm

        Birds of a feather flock together. Not philosophy. Psychology.

        • WTP said, on October 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm

          So Magus…I’m curious if you think Mike is a socialist?

          • T. J. Babson said, on October 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm

            Not the hammer and sickle sort, but certainly the Swedish sort.

            • WTP said, on October 20, 2012 at 11:46 pm

              Yeah, not so sure Mike qualifies for the Swedish level of socialism. In spite of the level of socialism they do have (which seems to be disintegrating in the face of immigration from cultures with very different values), Sweden still has some significantly large corporations. Never heard Mike speak well of anything larger than a Mom & Pop operation. Perhaps he supports the “cool” corporations like Apple and/or Google, though success by those companies is starting to wear thin with the Left.

              Thinking you may have a point about “substitute Christianity” below, though it raises one of my favorite philosophical questions…When what feels good from a moral perspective conflicts with empirical evidence, are you willing to risk your soul, or for the atheist, how you are perceived by your community, for the opportunity to seek truth.

              “Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.” ~Andre Gide

          • magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm

            Yes. Somewhere along the lines of Orwell and Hitchen’s democratic socialism. Obviously not of the Soviet model, which was accurately labeled Red Fascism. I suppose Mike’s reply will be that if he is a socialist, so am I, since took a Pell grant while in college. Essentially, Mike’s and many others’ socialism boils down to always believing the weak are good, simply because they are weak, and that they got that way because the strong trounced on them. Thus, distribution of wealth is not only a way to help the weak, it is a way to punish the strong. This is not my view, at least for countries like America. Certain things do not happen for the same reason in different parts of the world. My own experience in America tells me that when I failed, it was usually because of poor choices on my part. When I succeeded, it was because I chose to work hard. Of course there are ups and downs in any system.

            The tenets of modern American socialists are rooted in complex psychological matrices and post-modern philosophies. It is not about Marxism, though Marx does give some proponents of socialism a strong personality to fall back on when they themselves begin to doubt their own beliefs. These tenets and socialist dogma do not exist to right the wrongs of society so much as to communicate the outrage felt by people against their own existence and the “out of sorts” feeling that people have about the world.; socialism is a lashing out from existential crisis.

            • magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm

            • T. J. Babson said, on October 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm

              I think Mike tries to be a Christian but without the supernatural stuff.

              Where I differ is the difference between the golden and silver rules.

              The golden rule is “do unto others…” Basically treat others as you want to be treated.

              The silver rule is “do not do unto others…” Basically don’t do anything to others that you would not want done to you.

              I am more of a silver rule guy, Mike is more of a golden rule guy.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 21, 2012 at 7:03 am

              True-I find the golden rule a good guide. But I also follow the bronze rule: before doing (or not doing) onto others, consider what they would want done (or not) unto them.

            • WTP said, on October 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm

              Isn’t it interesting that at the same period in history that this man was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics (back when the NP meant something), the school systems in the US were moving their curriculum in the direction of reinforcing this myth without benefit of presenting the point of view Mr. Friedman presents here.

            • magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm

              “I think Mike tries to be a Christian but without the supernatural stuff.”

              Yes. Which is why he attributes the success of Christianity to the Greeks.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 21, 2012 at 7:03 am

              Plato for the people.

  8. magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Unfortunately for liberals (and for conservatives) for all the existential angst, liberalism manifests itself as PJ O’Rourke describes:

    “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” ~ P.J. O’Rourke, Give War a Chance: Eyewitness Accounts of Mankind’s Struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice, and Alcohol-Free Beer

    So not only do I find that liberalism, and thus socialism, are insufficient in addressing the true problems of mankind, but it’s also just plain annoying.

  9. biomass2 said, on October 20, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Lordy, Lordy. The ol’ quotation game again.

    http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdThread=Tx38F8LP7A07U1J

    I like 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 23. You’ll like 33. It’s PJ, again. Still generalizing. But he’s generalizing about both parties. How dare he? Off with his f’in head.

    I like 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 23. You’ll like 33. It’s PJ, again. Still generalizing. But he’s generalizing about both parties. How dare he? Off with his f’in head.

    This didn’t post the first or second time, so I’m putting it up again. If it doesn’t go up, I’ve copied it, and I’ll keep trying.

  10. magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Another reason I’m voting for Mitt.

  11. magus71 said, on October 20, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Hey Norm. So you played college baseball, eh? Or so that’s what Norm says on the quadriceps tear post. Had problems with the “college slider”? Tell me, Norm, what years you played and what college you played at, and what your coaches name was. Oh how deeply Norm delves into every aspect of his life on that post. His weight, his job, his college sports. One would almost think that Norm is doing what we call, in the military, “shaping the battlefield”…

    I’m not sure what’s creepier, biomass. The fact that you’ve created a carefully crafted fake persona to make oblique arguments for liberal agendas (you run a small business and you’re afraid you’ll miss work due to your injury, and well, times are tough, among other things that only someone with a finely tuned bullshit detector, such as I possess, would notice) or the fact that you are having a full blown conversation with yourself on here. What happened to Bob, by the way?

    Seriously, get a grip.

    • biomass2 said, on October 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm

      And you’re in intelligence. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    • biomass2 said, on October 20, 2012 at 10:16 pm

      Is your “finely tuned bullshit detector” crafted of the same fine crystal as your crystal balls? :)

      Your March 18,2011 12:58am comment , on here, at “Nuclear Power” 3/17/2011:
      “Keep believing what you want. In 3 weeks it’ll be all but over and the news will move on to something else.
      Help save the pandas. ”

      It wouldn’t take an intelligence officer to predict that the news would move on. Nothing short of turning Japan and most of the Asian continent could prevent the news from “moving on.”

      And as for the other part of your informed guess? Here’s reality more than a year later:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/concerns-grow-about-spent-fuel-rods-at-damaged-nuclear-plant-in-japan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
      http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

      • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 6:24 am

        Norm? Is that you, Norm?

        • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 8:16 am

          magus. . .again. . . you’re in intelligence?

      • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 6:34 am

        Japan is an island the size of California.. One would expect that an apocalyptic problem would have caused much more damage.

        Here, the experts tell us that 130 people may die from radiation from the reactor. That’s not an apocalypse.

        http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/17/researchers-estimate-130-might-die-from-fukushima-related-cancers/

        There is simply nothing about this to tell me that this was anything close to Chernobyl. Of course, there could be problems not foreseen. The monster black swan.

        • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 8:19 am

          Quit hemming and hawing. Is it, as you say’ “all over” or not? Has the news really moved on, or are they still covering it because there’s real news there?
          And 130 people. . . Probably part of Japan’s 47% right. No one to care about there.

          • T. J. Babson said, on October 21, 2012 at 9:59 am

            If you crunch the numbers nuclear energy is the safest.

            Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

            Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
            Coal – China 278
            Coal – USA 15
            Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
            Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
            Biofuel/Biomass 12
            Peat 12
            Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
            Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
            Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
            Hydro – world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
            Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

            http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html

            • T. J. Babson said, on October 21, 2012 at 10:14 am

              I see that Biomass causes 12 deaths per terawatt hour.

            • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 10:50 am

              That’s been said on here before. Some of that does depend on where nuclear energy plants are built, no?
              The issue here, is, unfortunatelly, is magus71′s crystal balls :) , and your comment doesn’t address that issue.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 21, 2012 at 7:13 am

      But why create a conspiracy theory? Is it not more plausible that of all the folks who visited my QTR post there would be one person who would argue against you?

      While a person could go through the trouble of going places to get different IP addresses to create new online identities, that seems like a lot of effort just to mess with you. It would also require predicting that I would bother to check the address.

      But, even if it is supposed that there is a plot in operation, the comments stand or fall on their own merits.

      • WTP said, on October 21, 2012 at 7:22 am

        the comments stand or fall on their own merits.

        Well, they do now…

      • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 8:32 am

        Problem is, the kvetchers don’t want to deal with the comments on their own merits. They want to deal with the evil liberal/socialist/commie menace that threatens conservative,patriotic, Christian Americans and they want to do it with labels, and virulence, and vids and quotations from PJ O’Rourke.

        That my shifting identities could cause so much distress among such intelligent people isn’t so incredible.
        Solution. They should keep some Pepto-Bismol beside their keyboards.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 21, 2012 at 7:19 am

      Bob might have left because of the hostility.

      I have a lot of patience, but some folks get tired of mean-spirited attacks and borderline incivility fairly quickly.

      • WTP said, on October 21, 2012 at 7:27 am

        Oh…My…God…The Bob whose first comment here was this…


        I am with you, T.J. I can hear all the liberals screaming about the need for more government regulations in light of the meningitis outbreaks. . Yes, thousands of pages of bureaucratic red tape may have saved a few lives, but it would have cut into profits dramatically. The people who died. Yeah, its too bad, but no different than getting run over by a drunk driver. They are just collateral damage.

        I’m voting for Mitt Romney. Do I value profits over people? No. But I do value MY profits over people who are strangers. I am a multi-millionaire and I want to keep it that way.

        Don’t like it? Go organize a candlelight vigil and sing “Kumbaya.”

        ROMNEY-RYAN 2012
        The team that will keep me wealthy.

        …left because of the hostility? Or is this Mike’s famous sarcasm again?

        • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 8:36 am

          Remember the following WTP?
          “Oh. Bull fucking shit.”

      • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 9:38 am

        Give me a break Mike. This is why academics cannot be trusted to run the world. Work on your street smarts.

        • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 10:03 am

          A definition, from Urban Dictionary, for “street smart”:

          The general definition of street smart is someone who is intelligent, has good common sense, knows how to handle bad situations, and has the skills necessary to function where they live (usually the ghetto or the streets). However, the term is usually used to contrast and compare with another term known as “book smart”.

          The stereotype of a street smart person is someone who is intelligent and knows how to handle important situations in the streets but is not as well-educated academically. However, the stereotype of a book smart person is someone who is upper-class and well educated but less knowledgeable when it comes to handling important situations faced in bad neighborhoods and lower-class city areas.

          The more extreme and negative stereotypes are that street smart people are unintelligent and incapable of achieving a higher education, while book smart people are naive, easily manipulated, and have bad judgment in bad situations.

          Both stereotypes aren’t always true and any semblance of them are only due to different lifestyles and experiences.
          Josh: Are you sure me and Jason will get along? Jason is street smart and I’m book smart. We will probably be very different from each other.

          Mike: Nah, don’t worry. Jason may be street smart but he is also book smart. I’m sure you two will have a lot in common.

          http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=street%20smart

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:09 am

          Is this Because academics would be somewhat more likely to

          1. require evidence & reason for claims.
          2. Not be swayed by fallacies and rhetoric.
          3. Consider alternative views.
          4. Use actual science.

          • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:11 am

            And can’t see internet sock puppets for what they are.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:17 am

              I know about sock puppets-you’ll see a post on them by me.

              Interestingly, some people act in ways that make them seem like puppets, but they are presenting their own views. And, of course, some people are seen as puppets merely because they hold views others reject.

            • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:28 am

              I’ve seen sock puppets on here before. Biomass has created several identities in order to deceive people into believing his views are more popular than they are, and also to make the opposing side look stupid by using the strawman sock puppet technique. I would say this violates some basic tenets of trust and openess on a serious blog. If someone were misrepresenting who they were on my blog, I would ban them. Seeing biomass’ past behavior, it is quite logical to assume that he may be behind creating Bob and Norm who, by coincidence I’m sure, have the same political views and same polemical style as biomass, FDK, freddiek, biomass2, Anon, Anonymous et al (did I miss any?). In law enforcement terms, though there may not be “probable cause” to arrest biomass, he has at least reached the level of “person of interest” and warrants further investigation.

              On an instinctual level–which I trust explicitly and have ignored at my own peril in the past–I smell a rat.

            • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:53 am

              “did I miss any?” Well, er, duh, yeah. Your ‘intelligence has claimed that Norm and Bob should be there. Seems like a pretty careless omission to me.
              If you omitted them because you know you’re wrong,and your are, my friend, I’m still not going to allow your omissions to affect my much-lowered expectations of you. You likely only omitted them accidentally.

              Admit it. This is like the alcohol promoting Dr./exercise freak. Faced with the information and common sense, you knew he was wrong about his daily alcohol recommendations. I provided plenty of studies proving that his generalizations obviously could not apply to women or people of differing ages or sizes, but you continued arguing. Stuck there with your thumbs in your ears, you continued.

            • biomass2 said, on November 5, 2012 at 12:14 pm

              magus71: Your link to the Independent fell through the cracks for a while. Fortunately WTP leads us back to those binders full of women :).
              Allow me to add a moonbat interpretation of your “Independent” offering. First, I’d like to reiterate that our discussion months ago about your fitness ‘doctor’ centered around the fact that he failed to distinguish between various possible drinking groups. Not surprisingly, in a way, so does your “Independent ” article.

              Typically, you’ve grabbed the shiny object ( the headline ) and failed to read the details. Just one to begin:

              “The research was conducted among 15,000 men and 26,000 women aged from 29 to 69 who were followed for 10 years.” Did it seem odd to you that pre-teens, teens, those in their twenties were omitted and that pregnant women weren’t mentioned. How ^do^ those groups fare with heavy alcohol use? Do you know? Did your crazy Dr. Whositz know—or care—when he made his general claims in that video you shared with us a while back?

              Something else you failed to note when you read your “Independent” article:
              “British specialists said the protective effect of alcohol on the heart is only seen in men over 40. Robert Sutton, professor of surgery at the University of Liverpool, said: ‘This study suffers from several flaws, so cannot be taken to suggest that high levels of alcohol intake can improve health. Most importantly, all other alcohol-related diseases were completely ignored so that it is a highly biased view of the effects of alcohol’.”

              Holy crap, Batman! It can’t possible that headlines can mislead, can it? Or that there can be two sides to an issue—one better reasoned than another. Nah.

          • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:14 am

            Post the ip addresses for Norm and Bob, Mike.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:13 am

          My street smarts are fine. I’m just less inclined to think the worst of people without adequate reason.

          I generally try to think well of people until they provide grounds for thinking they are fools or knaves.

          I also believe that fools can sometimes gain wisdom and knaves virtue. That is, I believe in redemption.

          • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:15 am

            Just don’t get manipulated by sock puppets, because that’s what’s happening.

      • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 10:55 am

        Say this several times to yourself, today: Bob was a sock puppet, Bob was a sock puppet. I will not be fooled by sock puppets again.

        Here is the definition of Stawman Sockpuppet; that is what Bob was. Biomass made him:

        A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance “straw man” arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position.[26] Such sockpuppets behave in a similar manner to internet trolls.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Strawman_sockpuppet

        • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:15 am

          magus71??: “Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance “straw man” arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute.” When I was anon, erik, freddiek, dhammett I was bigoted? uninformed? unintelligent” Your definition makes a convincing argument that you and WTP and TJ are ‘my’ strawman puppets. Could that be? Why, of course, in magus, TJ, WTp world it could be. . .Yes it could.

          I’m certain that I didn’t create Norm or Bob. And I know that I’m less certain of your claim that you’re in intelligence. How much booze does that nutrition expert that you revere, Dr. Whatsisname, claim one can drink daily? I’d love to see that little interview vid you provided for us once again.

          You’re going to have to help me here. When did Bob appear? Give me an archival reference.

          • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:19 am

            Lol. You just responded to WTP’s comment on Bob. And you found the string, then, but now you don’t know where it is?

            WTP: Oh…My…God…The Bob whose first comment here was this…

            I am with you, T.J. I can hear all the liberals screaming about the need for more government regulations in light of the meningitis outbreaks. . Yes, thousands of pages of bureaucratic red tape may have saved a few lives, but it would have cut into profits dramatically. The people who died. Yeah, its too bad, but no different than getting run over by a drunk driver. They are just collateral damage.

            I’m voting for Mitt Romney. Do I value profits over people? No. But I do value MY profits over people who are strangers. I am a multi-millionaire and I want to keep it that way.

            Don’t like it? Go organize a candlelight vigil and sing “Kumbaya.”

            ROMNEY-RYAN 2012
            The team that will keep me wealthy.

            …left because of the hostility? Or is this Mike’s famous sarcasm again?

            biomazss’ response:

            Remember the following WTP?
            “Oh. Bull fucking shit.”

            You may not be convinced I’m in intelligence, just as I’m not convinced you took your meds.

            • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:41 am

              On my screen it looks like what you’re responding to here is my response to your 10:55am comment.

              My response to WTp’s 10/21/2012 @7:27am appears at 10/ 21/2012/ 8:36am. WTp brings up the mysterious Bob and provides a quote of dubious origin . Your intelligence background has apparently led you to believe that because I confronted WTp with some ignorantly hostile crap that he’d thrown out there in the past that I’m somehow connected with “BOB. I want to know what WTp didn’t provide: When did that first comment appear on here? Use your intelligence skills and dig into the archives for me.

              I don’t believe I’ve lost the string to anything. Your meds are in WTp’s lower left desk drawer.

      • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 10:58 am

        Let me pull a TJ, WTP, magus71 here, reach into my little drawer of generalizations, and guess that the three thumbs down on Michael’s comment came from TJ and WTP and magus71.

        • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:03 am

          Let me pull out my crystal ball and use it to look at the past, this time. The 3 thumbs up were biomass, Norm, and Bob.

          • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:23 am

            Well, now I’m certain that at least one thumbs down was yours. You and TJ and WTp share the habit of avoiding dealing with the comment you’re ostensibly responding to.

            Sorry. The thumbs up were all me. And I’m not Norm or Bob. God, you must hate having your ‘intelligence’ exposed for the world to see.

            Anyone can restart Google Reader and add another thumbs up or thumbs down.
            And I’m biomass2, not biomass. Show a little respect. If you do, you’ll get respect in return.

            • magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:29 am

              Yes, you’re well known for respect.

            • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 12:42 pm

              Take a trip in the archives, magus. Go back to 2009 when I first came on here. I was respectful. I wanted to discuss issues without getting into name-calling. I didn’t bring up “spaghetti-armed metrosexuals” or “moonbats”. You did.
              Go ahead. In intelligence you’re probably used to combing through massive amounts of information. Pore through the archives, and you’ll see where the tide turned. It wasn’t with WTp. He was the second or third wave.
              I’m sure there’s an old saying out there about bringing a knife to a shootout. It doesn’t work. Perhaps you and TJ could find it for me.

  12. magus71 said, on October 21, 2012 at 11:47 am

    And here, biomass2 exibits the typical habits of the sociapath–bragging about their past crimes in a letter to the police:

    “Seriously, the only one of six or seven you found “obvious” was dhammett? As a great philosopher once wrote— “As dhammet (God help me here) states (via AJ) a large number of conceptions never produce a viable child.” So, God help me here. . . you actually agreed with dhammett there. Hey. Occasionally I changed the names. Occasionally I was more assertive or even virulent. I made intentional spelling and grammar errors—as opposed to the accidental and/or stupid spelling and grammar errors. But I prefer the softer, gentler biomass2, don’t you? If I stay, I’ll always be biomass2. . . Strike the “always”. Make it “likely”.

    But don’t let”Norm” throw you off. Don’t try to chase him away.
    I’ve disavowed using “Norm” as a screen name. Take that for what it’s worth to you.
    Now, you can settle with that ,or you can take the road some of you on here sometimes take : put the name in a teensy box with everyone else on here who disagrees with your opinions.
    Or you can just snuffle and kvetch about an unjust world in which a contributor to a blog can assume different identities .

    But, honestly, I hope you don’t do that in real life.”

    Made intentional spelling errors? This sounds like Jack the Rippers’ letter to the London Police:

    “From hell
    Mr Lusk
    Sor
    I send you half the
    Kidne I took from one women
    prasarved it for you tother piece
    I fried and ate it was very nise. I
    may send you the bloody knif that
    took it out if you only wate a whil
    longer.
    signed
    Catch me when
    you Can
    Mishter Lusk.

    Do the right thing and ban him, Mike.

    • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm

      Intentional spelling errors make me Jack the Ripper.
      Perhaps I’m a spy for the liberal/socialist conspiracy trying to get inside the brains of the loyal conservative opposition.
      You’re in intelligence. Spies may “adopt a new cover identity at any time.”
      Booo! It’s almost Halloween!! :)

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm

      No one has hit my banning threshold. I set the ban bar fairly high and intentionally so.

  13. WTP said, on October 21, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    OK, I gotta express an opinion on this banning thought. While the various Biomasses (and you keep forgetting daschelhammit, dammit) are quite obnoxious, I find it curious that Mike won’t speak to me but is fine with interacting with the biomasses. Not that I want Mike to resume engaging me. After all, one should not deny the blessings of Allah.

    Note that not once in the numerous, over-the-top, personal insults that have come from the Norm/Bob/Biomass industrial complex has Mike asked or requested that he/they/it tone it down. I’m sure this is just one of Mike’s discretionary decisions that has no bearing on his objectivity. I would however suggest that he refrain from banning. It usually does no good as one can always get a new IP address if one is as obsessive as the biomasses. But more importantly, I think the comments from the biomasses stand on their own as a reflection of the incoherence and immaturity of the Left. Just ignore him/them like Mike does me. It’s a happier world all around that way.

    • biomass2 said, on October 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm

      Wtp: I beg your pardon.
      I what universe are those identities considered “quite obnoxious” and you’re not? Unless, of course, you’re finally admitting that you’re an obnoxious twit. In your response, I’d like to remind you to take into consideration your “Oh. Bull fucking shit.” and numerous other offenses to humanity you’ve been guilty of on this site.

  14. T. J. Babson said, on October 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    I’m curious about Mike’s view of Obama’s most recent line of attack. Remember, Obama approved this message.

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 21, 2012 at 1:08 pm

      You still think Obama is not a divider, Mike?

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 22, 2012 at 11:39 am

        I think that “Obama is a divider” is a talking point that has been hammered home with the weight of repetition. I have come to believe that it is all but pointless to attempt to address this matter with the methods of critical thinking. Rather, those who believe Obama is a divider would most likely believe it regardless of what I wrote. As such, I don’t see any merit in continuing to address this matter.

        • WTP said, on October 22, 2012 at 11:47 am

          Rather, those who believe Obama is a divider would most likely believe it regardless of what I wrote
          Quite the tell.

          It is all but pointless to attempt to address this matter with the methods of critical thinking?
          Isn’t this expressing an opinion on the matter without bothering to address it with the methods of critical thinking?

          I don’t see any merit in continuing to address this matter.
          Rather dismissive attitude.

        • T. J. Babson said, on October 22, 2012 at 4:49 pm

          I do provide evidence in the form of an ad approved by Obama. This ad objectifies Romney, and by extension his supporters, as “the other.”

          • Norm said, on October 22, 2012 at 5:35 pm

            Why don’t you children go back and play, and leave Mike alone. Recess is almost over but you have a little time left.

            I can’t think of anything much more divisive that Romney’s comment that 47% of American people are moochers who consider themselves “victims” of the system.

            This is an inane, sophomoric argument. Give it a rest.

            Can’t you come up with any original thoughts. It seems everything you spout are talking point taken directly from Faux News.

            • magus71 said, on October 22, 2012 at 6:14 pm

              Biomass, was the library closed yesterday?

            • WTP said, on October 22, 2012 at 6:32 pm

            • T. J. Babson said, on October 22, 2012 at 7:26 pm

              Old tactic. When you can’t argue with the message, go after the messenger. This is Obama’s whole campaign strategy.

              Politico:

              Barack Obama’s aides and advisers are preparing to center the president’s re-election campaign on a ferocious personal assault on Mitt Romney’s character and business background, a strategy grounded in the early stage expectation that the former Massachusetts governor is the likely GOP nominee.

              The dramatic and unabashedly negative turn is the product of political reality. Obama remains personally popular, but pluralities in recent polling disapprove of his handling of his job and Americans fear the country is on the wrong track. His aides are increasingly resigned to running for re-election in a glum nation. And so the candidate who ran on “hope” in 2008 has little choice four years later but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent.
              Continue Reading

              In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama’s high command has even studied President Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John F. Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger.

              “Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.

              http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60929.html

            • magus71 said, on October 22, 2012 at 8:44 pm

              TJ,

              Saul Alinsky, writer of Obama’s favorite book. 12 Rules for Radicals:

              RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

  15. T. J. Babson said, on October 21, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    Something to chew on before tomorrow’s debate:

    • magus71 said, on October 22, 2012 at 6:08 am

      Yet we bombed Libya, and not Iran. Brilliant strategic thinking, there.

    • WTP said, on October 22, 2012 at 10:14 am

      Looks like a testing glitch. Makes one wonder why they use such sensitive data for their tests. Like the old Kentucky Fried Movie line, Moscow in flames. Missiles headed to New York…Film at 11:00…

  16. magus71 said, on October 22, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    Marx loved money very much. Found this while doing some research:

    On February 27, 1852, Karl Marx wrote to his comrade in evil, Friedrich Engels, about an inheritance he would come into if his wife’s ill uncle passed away: “If the dog dies, I would be out of mischief.” On March 2nd, Engels replied, “I congratulate you for the sickness of the hinderer of an inheritance, and I hope that the catastrophe will happen now.” As bad luck for Marx would have it, the old man recovered and did not depart for a better world until 1855. But on March 8th of that year, Marx wrote again to Engels, expressing his glee: “A very happy event. Yesterday we were told about the death of the 90-year-old uncle of my wife. My wife will receive some 100 Lst; even more if the old dog has not left a part of his money to the lady who administered his house.”

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R1F1I0OGLWOZWN/ref=cm_cr_dp_title/179-2963354-9069664?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0882640844&nodeID=283155&store=books

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 22, 2012 at 10:37 pm

      “To each according to his needs…”

      Marx obviously thought his needs were more important than the next person’s. “Some animals are more equal than others…”

  17. T. J. Babson said, on October 22, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    This is delicious–especially the updates at the end:

    Scott Adams, the creator of the popular comic strip “Dilbert,” endorsed Mitt Romney on his blog Wednesday. The reaction he received from liberal news sites was predictably outraged and, in Adams’ hands, hilarious. Adams chronicled the results of his announcement in a series of updates which point out just how absurd the professional left can be when someone goes off the liberal reservation for any reason.

    Granted, Adams’ reasons for endorsing Romney aren’t the usual ones you’ll hear from conservatives about growing debt and a slow-speed economic recovery. The issue Adams takes exception to in his post is Obama’s tough stance on medical marijuana. Adams links to a story on the Huffington Post which outlines how the owner of a marijuana “dispensary” in California is facing ten years to life in prison. Adams suggests that Obama, who used pot frequently in high school as part of the “choom gang,” has taken a tough line purely for political expediency.

    While Adams has no illusions that Romney plans to embrace marijuana legalization, he does believe Romney is more flexible, more of a political pragmatist. And since the issue in this case is California’s right to effectively legalize pot under the rubric of medical marijuana, Adams hopes Romney might be more open to this kind of states’ rights argument.

    The post concludes with Adams’ endorsement which is really framed as a rejection of Obama. He writes, “while I don’t agree with Romney’s positions on most topics, I’m endorsing him for president starting today… jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.”

    The endorsement did not go over well with the left-wing media. Readers of this site will not find it surprising, that outlets like Gawker, Huff Post and Daily Kos did their best to attack Adams by taking his comments out of context. Adams chronicled the reaction in a series of updates that conservatives should find amusing:

    [Update: Congratulations to Politico for being the first to take this post out of context. I'm a little disappointed in Jezebel, Gawker and Salon for being slow to the party. Are all of their context-removers on vacation or something?]

    [Update 2: Nipping on the heels of Politico, Mediaite.com weighs in with their own out-of-context outrage. They managed to throw in some charges of racism and something about rape. Well done.]

    [Update 3: Kudos to Reason.com for doing a good job preserving the context of this post while still quoting from it. Notice their story headline shows they understand the central point of my post. And since their readership probably overlaps a lot with mine, my writing makes sense in their environment too. That rarely happens. -- Scott]

    [Update 4: Meanwhile, at Huffington Post, where context goes to die, a key point in my blog post has been summarized as: “. . . cartoonist Scott Adams said he’s under the impression Romney would be softer on marijuana than President Barack Obama.” Is that how you would interpret my sentence “Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration”? If not, you can’t write for Huffington Post.

    [Update 5: Daily Kos takes the context destruction trophy by proudly quoting from the Politico article’s out-of-context treatment. Daily Kos scored a rare “double” by taking out of context a piece that was already out of context. Their under-informed readers chimed in to point out that they are sure I don’t believe in evolution, which I’ve often publicly said meets the tests to be called a scientific fact. Another commenter points out that I must hate women because the Alice character is getting less time in Dilbert. You can’t get that kind of insight anywhere but Daily Kos.”

    Huffington Post “where context goes to die.” Well said. Thanks for the laugh, Scott.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/22/Scott-Adams-Endorses-Romney-Professional-Left-Freaks-Out

    • Norm said, on October 22, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      pla·gia·rism   [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-]

      an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author.

      It took me around five seconds to uncover your intellectually dishonest act of lifting an entire passage verbatim from the following webpage without proper attribution. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/22/Scott-Adams-Endorses-Romney-Professional-Left-Freaks-Out

      I can’t say I am surprised. People like you tend to be dishonest. What you did was wrong. It’s called stealing.

      Are you simply too lazy to create your own product, or are too intellectually infirm?

      Instead of continuing your college career, have you considered another route? Perhaps your high school guidance counselor found that you “worked well with your hands.”

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 22, 2012 at 11:20 pm

        Norm, have you seen your optometrist lately? Better check your prescription.

        • magus71 said, on October 23, 2012 at 5:44 am

          Mike still thinks Norm is an overweight former college baseball player with a torn quadriceps muscle. Sigh…I’ll never be able to retire.

        • magus71 said, on October 23, 2012 at 5:58 am

          Biomass2…errr…Norm became so enraged by reading your post that he couldn’t make it all the way through without pointing out that he hadn’t seen a link yet. Plus, Obama’s impending defeat is really getting him riled. I’m sure he’s having trouble sleeping and it may have resulted in (another) psychotic break.

          Mike, I think I’m going to have to leave, like Bob did, because the atmosphere is getting so hostile in here. I mean, Norm is making it impossible for me to just relax and have a good chat.

          Of course you know I’m joking. I’m made of tougher stuff than Bob (FDK) and enjoy a good tussle. Biomass–you play Moriarty and I’ll be Holmes. Keep sending your letters to Mr. Lusk–they’re amusing reads.

          • biomass2 said, on October 23, 2012 at 11:15 am

            It’s biomass2—not Biomass2. Show some respect. . .:)
            Let’s place the blame for the hostility where it belongs. You can go back as far as my first appearances on here —the archives are on the right side of this page. Who began the labeling and name-calling, moooonbat? Did I respond by calling you a dingbat? And we can’t really blame WTP for what he’s contributed to the little group here, can we? WTp is what he is.
            Surely, the rising temperature here must be affecting you for some other reason. . .

      • biomass2 said, on October 23, 2012 at 10:54 am

        Once you’ve been around here long enough, you’ll come to realize that TJ just doesn’t respect quotation marks. Never has; likely never will. He’ll often do something like what he did here. First, he provides nothing to differentiate the source of the first nine words of his comment —are they his?—from the hundreds that remain. Then he heaves out a chunk of the usual, and provides a link at the end.

        And when you mentioned that, he attacked. You’ll note that just within the confines of the comments on this blog article the meds attack comes from magus , or it could have been WTp, and TJ. But, there you go. That’s TJ. If you want to continue on here, you’ll have to live with TJWTPmagus71.

        Note: We don’t criticize one another’s punctuation, editing, or spelling on here. Attribution and its sibling the need to back up claims with facts, however, are fair game. They don’t like that, but the red line has to be drawn somewhere.

        • T. J. Babson said, on October 23, 2012 at 11:11 am

          biomass, do you not see the irony of Norm copying from some un-named source the definition of the word “plagiarism”? No quotes, no link. It is too rich.

          • biomass2 said, on October 23, 2012 at 11:44 am

            I thought that was likely his point . . . He was, however, a bit rash in his use of the word “plagiarism”.
            I would have to admit, however, that I’ve always been irritated by your general tendency that he’s pointed out.
            From:

            http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/blockquotationterm.htm

            “Too many [block quotations] may make your writing seem choppy–or suggest that you have not relied enough on your own thinking.”
            (Andrea Lunsford, The St. Martin’s Handbook, 2008)

            Also from that source:
            “Researchers in English literature usually follow the style guidelines of the Modern Language Association (MLA). The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (New York: MLA, 2009) offers this advice for creating block quotations:

            ‘If a quotation extends to more than four lines when run into the text, set it off from your text by beginning a new line, indenting one inch from the left margin, and typing it double-spaced, without adding quotation marks. A colon generally introduces a quotation displayed in this way, though sometimes the context may require a different mark of punctuation or none at all. If you quote only a single paragraph or part of one, do not indent the first line more than the rest. A parenthetical reference for a prose quotation set off from the text follows the last line of the quotation.’ ”

            My view–and this does not just apply to your 10:48 offering: Be more selective about the material you throw out there. Edit it (fairly) to a reasonable length with the use of ellipses. Provide your source at the beginning of your reply so 1/We’ll know it’s a quotation 2/We can have a clear idea, from the outset, the nature of the source. If the material you’re passing on is from al jazeera, I want to know that ‘before’ I start reading. I don’t want to have to scroll down through a thousand word screed to find out.

    • magus71 said, on October 23, 2012 at 5:49 am

      Scott Adams is a genius. I follow his blog on an irregular basis and have it linked on my blog.

  18. T. J. Babson said, on October 23, 2012 at 7:48 am

    This one’s for Norm. (psst, it is a joke, Norm–and I put the link up at the top).

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-takes-out-romney-with-middebate-drone-attack,30055/

    Obama Takes Out Romney With Mid-Debate Drone Attack

    BOCA RATON, FL—Saying that the high-value target represented a major threat to their most vital objectives, Obama administration officials confirmed tonight that former governor Mitt Romney was killed by a predator drone while attending a presidential debate at Lynn University.

    Sources said the drone attack, which occurred at approximately 10:10 p.m. Monday night, obliterated Romney in the middle of a statement on Chinese-purchased U.S. securities, sending his dismembered limbs and internal organs into the audience and leaving a smoking pile of charred flesh and bone in his seat.

    “The information we have received from military personnel in the field indicate that tonight’s drone strike took out Mitt Romney, a former businessman the Obama administration has long considered a serious danger, especially in past few weeks,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney, describing the operation as “an unmitigated success.” “The president personally authorized the strike earlier this evening, and as soon as we had visual confirmation that the target in the drone’s sights was, in fact, Mitt Romney, we eliminated him.”

    “We can all rest a little easier tonight knowing we have rid the world of a man who has been a continual menace to us,” Carney added. “I know I will.”

    Pentagon officials confirmed that tactical teams were able to pinpoint the former Republican presidential candidate’s location with intelligence gathered through surveillance, reported sightings of the target, a campaign calendar posted on the Romney 2012 website, and testimony from confidential informants.

    According to eyewitness reports, when Romney saw the unmanned combat vehicle enter the college auditorium, he promptly stood up and shrieked in terror before the device launched an AGM-114 Hellfire missile that “took him apart.”

    “Our information indicated that the target, who had been recently spotted in Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado, was traveling all around America and had access to a fortune consisting of hundreds of millions of dollars,” a military spokesperson said of the mission to “find and kill” the Detroit-born politician “no matter what the cost.” “When we received credible evidence that Romney was going to be in the vicinity of Lynn University the evening of Oct. 22, we realized our opportunity had arisen.”

    The drone strike, which killed three of Romney’s sons sitting near the debate stage, reportedly also took the lives of at least 45 civilians, including 12 Lynn University students, nine Secret Service agents, first daughter Malia Obama, and two cameramen.

    “Military operations of this ilk are dangerous, and occasionally a few innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire,” said Carney, describing the lost arm and severe second-degree facial burns inflicted on debate moderator Bob Schieffer as “necessary collateral damage.” “However, we must realize that this is a price we pay when we face our greatest challenges.”

    At press time, President Obama was reportedly wiping his face clean of Romney’s blood and had removed his late opponent’s severed head from his lap to begin his closing remarks.

    • biomass2 said, on October 23, 2012 at 11:00 am

      TJ: Sorry. I didn’t read this link, though I like the Onion. There are many funny articles there that I could link here. We could just sit back, me with my coffee and you with your brew, and share large chunks of stuff and vids all day. Sounds like good fun.

      I did notice that you’re still not using quotation marks around the material that you’re quoting. My impression was that that’s what Norm was referring to earlier.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,915 other followers

%d bloggers like this: