Pink Floyd is the greatest band *ever*: DLD 073009 ← FREE KRAUT!

Pink Floyd is the greatest band *ever*: DLD 073009 36

30 Jul 2009  |  monkeyball  |The Grill
  1. Long, but worth watching in its entirety:
    The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
    So You Think You Can Douche
    www.thedailyshow.com
    Daily Show
    Full Episodes    		 Political Humor Joke of the Day
  2. Short, but worth watching in its entirety.
  3. Spoiled, but worth watching in its entirety.
  4. Will not be worth watching in part or its entirety.
  5. Not worth reading in part or its entirety (the McArdle, that is, not the takedown).

  6. I dream at night about arresting white people for cocaine.

  7. Total Recall
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come

36 thoughts on “Pink Floyd is the greatest band *ever*: DLD 073009”

  1. nevermoor Jul 30,2009 10:52 am

    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?

    "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
    • monkeyball Jul 30,2009 10:57 am || Up

      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.

      you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
      • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 11:10 am || Up

        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.

        "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
        • monkeyball Jul 30,2009 11:18 am || Up

          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.

          you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
          • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 11:31 am || Up

            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.

            "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
            • Leopold Bloom Jul 30,2009 2:48 pm || Up

              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…

              • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 2:53 pm || Up

                Concur. Their new place is good.

                "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
            • monkeyball Jul 30,2009 5:04 pm || Up

              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.)

              you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
              • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 5:40 pm || Up

                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.

                "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
                • monkeyball Jul 30,2009 5:45 pm || Up

                  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.)

                  you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
                • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 5:48 pm || Up

                  We clearly have different definitions of idiot. This is mine.

                  "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
                • monkeyball Jul 31,2009 10:10 am || Up

                  Ezra Klein, FK lurker:

                  In 1,600 words, she doesn’t muster a single link to a study or argument, nor a single number that she didn’t make up (what numbers do exist come in the form of thought experiments and assumptions). Megan’s argument against national health insurance boils down to a visceral hatred of the government. Which is fine. Megan is a libertarian. That’s, like, her journey, man. But her attack on national health insurance seems a lot more about libertarianism than it is about national health insurance.

                  you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
                • monkeyball Jul 31,2009 11:21 am || Up
                  you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
        • andeux Jul 30,2009 11:35 am || Up

          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.

          TINSTAAFK
          • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 11:43 am || Up

            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.

            "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
          • andeux Jul 30,2009 11:59 am || Up

            And speaking of DeLong…

            TINSTAAFK
  2. monkeyball Jul 30,2009 11:10 am

    This cop should have used robot profiling

    you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
    • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 2:53 pm || Up

      The robot retaliated by stealing the link?

      "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
      • monkeyball Jul 30,2009 3:21 pm || Up
        you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
        • Leopold Bloom Jul 30,2009 10:43 pm || Up

          Tom Sellick is sure mad at that copy machine.

  3. monkeyball Jul 30,2009 5:06 pm
    you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
    • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 5:57 pm || Up

      I’m interested in your thoughts on this comment from the underlying page:

      I’m sorry but…
      …this time I’m on the officer’s side. I’ve watched the video more than once, and as a Texas resident, I believe he did what he had to do. She challenged him, was belligerent, 100% uncooperative and was posing a danger to him and herself from oncoming traffic. Too many Texas police have died on the side of the road from such actions. Plus, she may have had a gun in her truck (100% possible here!). The officer did what he had to do in order to bring this to a swift end. Would it have been better if he’d broken her arm(s) to get her handcuffed by forcing her hands behind her back? Maybe having her battered and bruised would have been better because beating her into submission would definitely been a better solution, right? The taser is a non-lethal way of subduing someone, and by her own actions, she was in need of being subdued. Her howls of pain make my skin crawl and I do feel sorry for her, but she brought it on herself.

      "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
      • monkeyball Jul 30,2009 6:11 pm || Up

        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.

        you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
        • nevermoor Jul 30,2009 6:13 pm || Up

          Then, and I ask this seriously (I’m conflicted), what would monkeyball do in that situation?

          "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
      • andeux Jul 30,2009 6:11 pm || Up

        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.

        TINSTAAFK
  4. nevermoor Jul 30,2009 6:42 pm

    Since it seems I’ve recently been touting my non-outrage at things, here’s one that actually does register outrage.

    "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
  5. Leopold Bloom Jul 30,2009 10:37 pm

    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.

    • monkeyball Jul 31,2009 6:58 am || Up

      You should have tasered him.

      you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
      • Leopold Bloom Jul 31,2009 9:48 am || Up

        Thought about it. I have my hippie tasering license, you know. I can legally taser them.

  6. nevermoor Jul 31,2009 9:49 am

    MK… this is pretty weak sauce.

    "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
    • monkeyball Jul 31,2009 10:08 am || Up

      Agreed. I support (relatively) free organ markets — more out of a health-policy concern than a libertarian concern.

      you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
      • nevermoor Jul 31,2009 10:27 am || Up

        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.

        "There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
        • monkeyball Jul 31,2009 10:37 am || Up

          The government should pay people to marry other people’s organs.

          you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
        • mk Jul 31,2009 6:06 pm || Up

          He’s not really making the argument, though. He’s merely inviting discussion:

          At the end of the day, I’m not sure any of this is helpful. I’ve basically said “there should be a line,” but I haven’t established whether kidney selling crosses that line. Maybe someone else can.

          […]

          If only we had a real philosopher who blogged here…

          (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).

Leave a Reply