- Long, but worth watching in its entirety:
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c So You Think You Can Douche Daily Show
Full EpisodesPolitical Humor Joke of the Day - Short, but worth watching in its entirety.
- Spoiled, but worth watching in its entirety.
- Will not be worth watching in part or its entirety.
- Not worth reading in part or its entirety (the McArdle, that is, not the takedown).
-
- Total Recall
Pink Floyd is the greatest band *ever*: DLD 073009 36
36 thoughts on “Pink Floyd is the greatest band *ever*: DLD 073009”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Re: 5 (and my back-and-forth yesterday), his point would be plenty strong (and likely more convincing) if he skipped the McArdle-as-idiot routine at the beginning and went right to the McArdle-is-totally-wrong analysis.
Re: 6, I guess. I mean, the “supercharged knowledge of the Constitution” part is over the top, but don’t we want cops to be aware of racial issues and “never ha[ve] a complaint based on a race-based stop.”
Re: 7, I would vote against any recall absent actual wrongdoing. That said, how on earth do 14% of Californians think we are heading in the right direction?
But McArdle is an idiot, and she really does know next to nothing about the issues on which she presents herself as some sort of expert. She really should be resolutely ignored.
He (persuasively) demonstrated that an MBA does not an econ-expert make.
He persuaded me that her argument was stupid and, quite possibly, intentionally misleading. Based on that, I can’t imagine myself taking a sudden interest in her writing.
She has an undergraduate degree in English Literature from the University of Pennsylvania, and an MBA from the University of Chicago. She is not an idiot, and there’s no need to label her as one to achieve his goals. I think it demeans him as much (if not more) than it does her.
How is lit degree + MBA from prominent school not simply a positive ad hominem argument?
I know a Yale history grad + Harvard MBA who’s got a rich legacy of fuck-uppery and moronic decisions.
It’s not an ad hominem because I’m not suggesting it has any impact on her argument. It’s a description of her that refutes any meaningful definition of the term “idiot.” She’s highly educated, well written, and (at least in this case – I haven’t read her other things) clearly wrong about some aspects of health care and related industries.
I absolutely hate that everyone we disagree with must necessarily be an “idiot,” to the point where the phrase “idiot” no longer has any meaning. I think the internet plays a big role in this development, since Levenson clearly scored points with some people for his comment about mesh filtering. For me, it cost him some credibility because it showed he is far from objective.
Maybe this is my personal bias showing through (making any such argument in court is a very very stupid move, even when you can prove the other lawyer is an idiot) but I hate it and find it unnecessary.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the GSB at the U of C has the best cafes. And quite frankly, when they moved, I’m glad we took their old ones over. Say what you want about business majors–they know their canteens.
Of course, I almost beat up my cohort leader in the GSB cafe one day…
Concur. Their new place is good.
So, does Larry Johnson still have credibility with you? And can I keep calling Palin an idiot? (Actually, whomever is advising her on media strategies lately is really sharp — they’re pulling just the right bits of ’60s Nixon, ’70s Reagan, late-90s/early-aughts Bush, and all-eras Buchanan together in a pretty cohesive manner.)
If Larry Johnson wrote this, and I stumbled upon it, I would not dismiss it out of hand because Larry Johnson wrote it. You’re misstating my argument, which is not that I believe everybody. It is that I do not uncritically believe anybody, but nor do I uncritically dismiss them.
Palin, unlike McArdle, might well be an idiot.
McArdle’s an idiot. She, more so than even a lot of other conventionally partisan D/R pundits, is entirely driven by her juvenile Randian glibertarian ideology — everything she writes is calculated to advance the ideology no matter the facts or the accepted wisdom. (That she has a “philosophy,” and that it is what it is, is what leads Sullivan to blindly accept a lot of what she says.)
We clearly have different definitions of idiot. This is mine.
Ezra Klein, FK lurker:
Now, you may be somebody who doesn’t know anything about healthcare — that’s fine!
One of the points I was trying to make is that there’s a difference between calling someone stupid (and, yeah, he basically does that here too) and pointing out their qualifications (or lack thereof) on a complicated subject. In a debate on something like macroeconomics no one is going to be able to fit all the details in nuances into a blog post, and if, say, McArdle and DeLong each give a rough argument and come to opposite conclusions, I’m going to be inclined to believe the one with expertise.
I actually kind of agree with you here, though, because the subject in which McArdle is in over her head (advanced macroeconomics) is really only vaguely related to the topic of discussion (health care policy). In this case, it seems to me, the arguments can be evaluated on their own merits.
Also (and perhaps ironically) I sometimes read McArdle. On occasion has writes some good stuff. Anyone who links so frequently to Sullivan shouldn’t really throw stones.
Yeah, I think that argument makes a lot more sense given this as an example. Also, I completely agree that the best part is that he takes her lack of econ background to task and then criticizes her for not understanding the “pharma” industry’s practices.
Unsurprisingly, I still think that if a police officer (or other person with absolutely no relevant background) had written the same words McArdle did it would be wrong to start with a swipe at their intelligence/background.
And speaking of DeLong…
This cop should have used robot profiling
The robot retaliated by stealing the link?
Dammit
Tom Sellick is sure mad at that copy machine.
Grandma-profiling
I’m interested in your thoughts on this comment from the underlying page:
Ah, the “Hey, at least he didn’t use lethal force–bitch should thank him” argument.
If that lard-ass bullying pussy of a cop felt threatened by that little old lady, he needs to find a different line of work.
Then, and I ask this seriously (I’m conflicted), what would monkeyball do in that situation?
That comment vastly underestimates how brutal Tasers are. If you’re interested, I suggest digging through some of digby‘s posts on that subject. To answer the poster’s rhetorical questions, yes, if the use of force were really necessary, forcible handcuffing her or even “beating her into submission” probably would have been better.
Since it seems I’ve recently been touting my non-outrage at things, here’s one that actually does register outrage.
This is Florida. Tolerant Florida.
Okay, so the past few work days have been filled with what I consider a true Jesus freak. He’s 100% pure hippie and 100% pure pro-Jesus. Beside the lingering of patchouli, his overwhelming positivity was kind of a welcome relief to the dark brooding of a disgruntled sign master and his death metal sign monkey. We’re putting Bible passages on his newly acquired truck. He literally had a VW Bus until about two weeks ago, but decided against one more repair.
So this hippie, this peace-loving Jesus freak, while paying for his Bible passage make-over today, pulled out his newly-acquired concealed weapons permit. This state is seriously fucked.
You should have tasered him.
Thought about it. I have my hippie tasering license, you know. I can legally taser them.
MK… this is pretty weak sauce.
Agreed. I support (relatively) free organ markets — more out of a health-policy concern than a libertarian concern.
I dunno, ultimately, how I come out (if you allow organ sales, you’ll get more organs but no one will ever donate organs to non-family members).
For example, I firmly believe it would be wrong to allow the sale of blood since it is so easy to donate. Things like bone marrow and organs, however, are much more difficult to donate so the question becomes harder.
My primary criticism of the article is that it’s the sort of slippery slope argument I hate to hear from, say, gay marriage opponents.
The government should pay people to marry other people’s organs.
You down with OPO?
Low
He’s not really making the argument, though. He’s merely inviting discussion:
(that last line laments the departure of the recently retired – and exceedingly awesome – Hilzoy, blogger extraordinaire)
I submit that worrying about the possible endgame of body part commodification (kidneys today, eyeballs tomorrow) is a little different than arguing that once gay people start getting hitched the tidal wave of polygamy and cocaine and donkey fornication will sweep us all straight to the ninth level of Hell.
In other words, one is fucking stupid and the other is not.
In any event, the central question he (and the commenters) are wrestling with is to what extent the “choice” to sell a kindey or a finger or whatever is actually a choice, and how queasy (or not) we are about sanctioning poor to rich organ transfer. Which seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable topic to debate.
I’ll go with Gary Farber’s take (because he’s a smart dude, and I haven’t thought about this issue at all until 10 minutes ago).