Comments for Detailed Balance http://blog.bbbeard.com A Peculiar, Yet Refreshing, Blog Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:37:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 Comment on The other shoe [BUMPED] by bbbeard http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-383 bbbeard Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:43:35 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-383 Well, no, what I'm saying is that people -- "the public" -- will hold Obama accountable for continuing unemployment after the six-month mark, even as Reagan "owned" the unemployment rate from mid-1981 onward. However, it is clear to me that it can take a couple of years for an economic downturn to wash through the economy. These are two different sets of considerations: the political and the economic. = The Republicans lost seats in the 1982 elections, and surely Democrats understand that they will lose seats in the mid-term elections, no matter how unworthy they think the Republican Party is. But by 1984 Reagan was able to convince "the public" to "stay the course", even though we had only just begun the recovery that would become the longest peacetime expansion in American history. It might be the case that Mr. Obama will convince people to stay the course of massive deficits, socialized industries, withdrawal from international leadership, and general race-baiting that seems to be Obama's current policy direction. I hope not, but to paraphrase Lincoln, you only have to fool half the people once every four years. = You seem to take it as a given that Reagan's policies hurt the poor, and I'll repeat my request that you at least dig up a fact or two to support that accusation. I read through the Reaganomics link you provided and the thrust of the (disputed) criticism seemed to be that the cause-and-effect of the economic growth in the 1980's can be obfuscated by using peak-and-trough analysis. = And on the other side, I dispute the assertion that Obama's accumulation of massive deficits is not deliberate. In fact, his economic team seems very much to buy into the Krugman analysis, which says we should be spending even more to make up for "lost demand". I suppose by definition, intelligent people can disagree on this (if you grant the controversial assumption that Krugman and I are both "intelligent"), but I think a small amount of deficit spending (1-3% of GDP) is probably optimum, but that 12% of GDP is insane. = Now, unlike Krugman or me, you seem to be implying that this policy is inadvertent. I'm not sure where you draw that inference. My understanding of the argument about the stimulus is that both sides very much understand that the deficit thereby created is intentional, indeed is the point. It's just that Obama believes a 12% deficit is a good thing, but people like me demur. = In a late-breaking twist of irony, the <em>Swedish </em> government has announced that they are cutting marginal tax rates in order to spur job growth. See <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a3018ceef6a0590e0fe87c97c608ebdc.4b1&show_article=1" rel="nofollow">the story here</a>. Well, no, what I’m saying is that people — “the public” — will hold Obama accountable for continuing unemployment after the six-month mark, even as Reagan “owned” the unemployment rate from mid-1981 onward. However, it is clear to me that it can take a couple of years for an economic downturn to wash through the economy. These are two different sets of considerations: the political and the economic.
=
The Republicans lost seats in the 1982 elections, and surely Democrats understand that they will lose seats in the mid-term elections, no matter how unworthy they think the Republican Party is. But by 1984 Reagan was able to convince “the public” to “stay the course”, even though we had only just begun the recovery that would become the longest peacetime expansion in American history. It might be the case that Mr. Obama will convince people to stay the course of massive deficits, socialized industries, withdrawal from international leadership, and general race-baiting that seems to be Obama’s current policy direction. I hope not, but to paraphrase Lincoln, you only have to fool half the people once every four years.
=
You seem to take it as a given that Reagan’s policies hurt the poor, and I’ll repeat my request that you at least dig up a fact or two to support that accusation. I read through the Reaganomics link you provided and the thrust of the (disputed) criticism seemed to be that the cause-and-effect of the economic growth in the 1980’s can be obfuscated by using peak-and-trough analysis.
=
And on the other side, I dispute the assertion that Obama’s accumulation of massive deficits is not deliberate. In fact, his economic team seems very much to buy into the Krugman analysis, which says we should be spending even more to make up for “lost demand”. I suppose by definition, intelligent people can disagree on this (if you grant the controversial assumption that Krugman and I are both “intelligent”), but I think a small amount of deficit spending (1-3% of GDP) is probably optimum, but that 12% of GDP is insane.
=
Now, unlike Krugman or me, you seem to be implying that this policy is inadvertent. I’m not sure where you draw that inference. My understanding of the argument about the stimulus is that both sides very much understand that the deficit thereby created is intentional, indeed is the point. It’s just that Obama believes a 12% deficit is a good thing, but people like me demur.
=
In a late-breaking twist of irony, the Swedish government has announced that they are cutting marginal tax rates in order to spur job growth. See the story here.

]]> Comment on The other shoe [BUMPED] by D. Franks http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-355 D. Franks Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:54:14 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-355 Well, some info here http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/re/reaganomics.htm looks fairly even-handed at first glance (and makes the point that cycling is not all president-initiated), but my objection was to the term "policy": I don't think Obama and his advisors sat around and discussed how they might "accumulate massive debt obligations" any more than Reagan and his folks talked about how they might stick it to the poor and middle class. Yeah, "FDR’s incompetent and ideological commandeering" and its supposed result is iffy history at best--especially since we have no way of knowing the results of alternativestrategies. You're "bending over backwards" yet Obama "owns" the unemployment after 6 months while Raegan got years? The psychological 10% as--what, something that will instill terror and so head us back down again? Your implications throughout are pretty clear! But, BBB, I think you might enjoy the article on healthcare by David Goldhill in this month's Atlantic: a very different perspective from anything I've seen on either "side," and makes some sense although it would have some problems too--seemed it might reconcile w/ your own ideas on that subject. Well, some info here http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/re/reaganomics.htm looks fairly even-handed at first glance (and makes the point that cycling is not all president-initiated), but my objection was to the term “policy”: I don’t think Obama and his advisors sat around and discussed how they might “accumulate massive debt obligations” any more than Reagan and his folks talked about how they might stick it to the poor and middle class. Yeah, “FDR’s incompetent and ideological commandeering” and its supposed result is iffy history at best–especially since we have no way of knowing the results of alternativestrategies. You’re “bending over backwards” yet Obama “owns” the unemployment after 6 months while Raegan got years? The psychological 10% as–what, something that will instill terror and so head us back down again? Your implications throughout are pretty clear!

But, BBB, I think you might enjoy the article on healthcare by David Goldhill in this month’s Atlantic: a very different perspective from anything I’ve seen on either “side,” and makes some sense although it would have some problems too–seemed it might reconcile w/ your own ideas on that subject.

]]> Comment on The other shoe [BUMPED] by bbbeard http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-287 bbbeard Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:42:39 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-287 No, actually, I'm bending over backwards NOT to blame Obama for not solving the unemployment problem in six months. It can reasonably take a couple of years for the economy to recover from a downturn -- IF you do the right thing, fiscally speaking. That's why the previous post was called "Lagging Indicator". But I am trying to make the case that Obama is doing exactly the opposite of what it takes to get us out of the doldrums. = What fiscally aware folks are concerned about it is that Obama looks to be repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. FDR's incompetent and ideological commandeering of the economy extended the Depression long past the few years it should have taken to recover. But, as Mr. Babel might say, that's "iffy history", so I won't press the point. = Can you give me an example of Reagan kowtowing to industry? Can you show me some statistics that show that the poor and working class were worse off after eight years of Reagan? = And, yeah, I guess "we shall see". ;-) = BBB No, actually, I’m bending over backwards NOT to blame Obama for not solving the unemployment problem in six months. It can reasonably take a couple of years for the economy to recover from a downturn — IF you do the right thing, fiscally speaking. That’s why the previous post was called “Lagging Indicator”. But I am trying to make the case that Obama is doing exactly the opposite of what it takes to get us out of the doldrums.
=
What fiscally aware folks are concerned about it is that Obama looks to be repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. FDR’s incompetent and ideological commandeering of the economy extended the Depression long past the few years it should have taken to recover. But, as Mr. Babel might say, that’s “iffy history”, so I won’t press the point.
=
Can you give me an example of Reagan kowtowing to industry? Can you show me some statistics that show that the poor and working class were worse off after eight years of Reagan?
=
And, yeah, I guess “we shall see”. ;-)
=
BBB

]]> Comment on The other shoe [BUMPED] by D. Franks http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-282 D. Franks Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:25:08 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-282 So, when Reagan takes years to cure the unemployment rate, it's okay, because he did it the Right way. Obama, however, sucks when he hasn't turned it around in 6 months , because he's relying on "policies" of higher taxes, deeper national debt, and nationalizing major industries. You might just as truthfully credit Reagan for implementing his bold policies of kowtowing to industry and leaving the poor and the working class to rot. Indeed, we shall see, but if your Limbaughian rhetoric is any indication of the soundness of Republican "policy," I'm banking on the Democrats, foolishness and all. So, when Reagan takes years to cure the unemployment rate, it’s okay, because he did it the Right way. Obama, however, sucks when he hasn’t turned it around in 6 months , because he’s relying on “policies” of higher taxes, deeper national debt, and nationalizing major industries. You might just as truthfully credit Reagan for implementing his bold policies of kowtowing to industry and leaving the poor and the working class to rot. Indeed, we shall see, but if your Limbaughian rhetoric is any indication of the soundness of Republican “policy,” I’m banking on the Democrats, foolishness and all.

]]> Comment on Contradictions by dave http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-204 dave Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:01:46 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-204 again, most of my reply was deleted. The CRA explicitly forbade lending to people who didn't otherwise qualify for credit. The consensus among bankers subject to the CRA is that it was an unimtigated success, and should in fact be strengthened and expanded Sheila Baird, the Dole protege whose FDIC is the primary overseer of CRA covered institutions, argued insistently that the chorus promoting your view was simply and flatly wrong The subprime fiasco eruped after the FBI warned of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and still the Bush administration continued to follow their combination of radical laissez-faire/crony capitalism tenets, elminating as much enforcement of regulations-such as the CRA- as they could. To reiterate, for 25 years the CRA failed to cause a credit crisis (and in fact led banks to make , in their view, exceptionally sound and profitable loans), and then largely sopped being enforced:I suppose you could call that "the CRA causing the subprime crisis"- if you were perverse and/or had had a WSJ Editorial pahe pod attached to your brain. again, most of my reply was deleted.
The CRA explicitly forbade lending to people who didn’t otherwise qualify for credit.
The consensus among bankers subject to the CRA is that it was an unimtigated success, and should in fact be strengthened and expanded Sheila Baird, the Dole protege whose FDIC is the primary overseer of CRA covered institutions, argued insistently that the chorus promoting your view was simply and flatly wrong
The subprime fiasco eruped after the FBI warned of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and still the Bush administration continued to follow their combination of radical laissez-faire/crony capitalism tenets, elminating as much enforcement of regulations-such as the CRA- as they could. To reiterate, for 25 years the CRA failed to cause a credit crisis (and in fact led banks to make , in their view, exceptionally sound and profitable loans), and then largely sopped being enforced:I suppose you could call that “the CRA causing the subprime crisis”- if you were perverse and/or had had a WSJ Editorial pahe pod attached to your brain.

]]> Comment on Contradictions by dave http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-203 dave Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:52:47 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-203 It did so by creating incentives for banks and mortgage companies to lend money to people who didn’t meet traditional credit requirements. It did so by creating incentives for banks and mortgage companies to lend money to people who didn’t meet traditional credit requirements.

]]> Comment on Contradictions by dave http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-201 dave Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:01:19 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-201 Numerous economists have looked at the GOP claims that the CRA is a major contributor to the mortgage fiasco. Various Fed branches, as well as the central Fed, find no relationship- as in zero. Bankers themselves report liking CRA loans because of their low risk. The overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages were made by entities not covered by the CRA.. And, of course, it's odd that it worked basically as intended for 30 years, and then suddenly brought the world to its knees. All of the people promoting the idea that the CRA did are people with an anti-regulation/anti-affirmative action axe to grind. Literally no one without a deep-seated desire to blame everything on Carter (with help from Clinton) find any merit in the claim at all Numerous economists have looked at the GOP claims that the CRA is a major contributor to the mortgage fiasco. Various Fed branches, as well as the central Fed, find no relationship- as in zero. Bankers themselves report liking CRA loans because of their low risk. The overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages were made by entities not covered by the CRA.. And, of course, it’s odd that it worked basically as intended for 30 years, and then suddenly brought the world to its knees.
All of the people promoting the idea that the CRA did are people with an anti-regulation/anti-affirmative action axe to grind. Literally no one without a deep-seated desire to blame everything on Carter (with help from Clinton) find any merit in the claim at all

]]> Comment on Lagging Indicator by dave http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/07/02/lagging-indicator/#comment-200 dave Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:33:58 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/07/02/lagging-indicator/#comment-200 I'll look more closely at this post later, but I note a few things right off the bat. The first is a more reasonable tone. More concretely "But I’m not arguing that right now. Maybe I believe it, maybe I don’t — I’m still on the fence. In the long run I don’t think it will matter much, because in the long run I think we are in for a Japanese-style “Lost Decade“, due fully to the incompetence of the Obama administration. But only time will tell." The only thing I disagree here is is, really' the adjective "fully". That becomes more lausible if you consider continuing Bush policies as being "Obamas". In particular, the post 1992 policy of letting Goldman Sachs and its alums run the economy, mainly for the benefit of GS but also othere large bankers (whom they do substantial business with). But he has some excellent economists with major influence on staff (as well as Volker, who seems to be ignored. Sadly.) Romer and Summers are both excellent economists- and neither is markedly liberal. Both have a high regard for merkets- as all serious economists doI think your worries about "who he's listening to' are over-played. Who he listened to in college isn't nearly as important as who has his ear now. As to the WSJ article you started with, I just read Brad DeLongs piece on it, where he bemoaned the reporting at WSJ these days: printing the official GOP response is not reporting. The WSJ has an excellent record of reporting. The opinion page is a different matter, where they routinely assert as uncontroverted fact things reported to be false on their own front page. (I'd have to dig a while to find actual citations on that, since I don't read it regularly. But I've seen it and others have pointed to it frequently. Fine, don't believe me! It's your head in the sand.) While I'm here, let me point out a generally excellent econ blog (and one with no political slant apparent to me):https://self-evident.org/ I’ll look more closely at this post later, but I note a few things right off the bat. The first is a more reasonable tone. More concretely
“But I’m not arguing that right now. Maybe I believe it, maybe I don’t — I’m still on the fence. In the long run I don’t think it will matter much, because in the long run I think we are in for a Japanese-style “Lost Decade“, due fully to the incompetence of the Obama administration. But only time will tell.”
The only thing I disagree here is is, really’ the adjective “fully”. That becomes more lausible if you consider continuing Bush policies as being “Obamas”. In particular, the post 1992 policy of letting Goldman Sachs and its alums run the economy, mainly for the benefit of GS but also othere large bankers (whom they do substantial business with). But he has some excellent economists with major influence on staff (as well as Volker, who seems to be ignored. Sadly.) Romer and Summers are both excellent economists- and neither is markedly liberal. Both have a high regard for merkets- as all serious economists doI think your worries about “who he’s listening to’ are over-played. Who he listened to in college isn’t nearly as important as who has his ear now.
As to the WSJ article you started with, I just read Brad DeLongs piece on it, where he bemoaned the reporting at WSJ these days: printing the official GOP response is not reporting. The WSJ has an excellent record of reporting. The opinion page is a different matter, where they routinely assert as uncontroverted fact things reported to be false on their own front page. (I’d have to dig a while to find actual citations on that, since I don’t read it regularly. But I’ve seen it and others have pointed to it frequently. Fine, don’t believe me! It’s your head in the sand.)
While I’m here, let me point out a generally excellent econ blog (and one with no political slant apparent to me):https://self-evident.org/

]]> Comment on Why ’slippery slope’ is not a fallacy by dave http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/06/11/why-slippery-slope-is-not-a-fallacy/#comment-195 dave Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:22:08 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/06/11/why-slippery-slope-is-not-a-fallacy/#comment-195 Well, for the record, for eight (seemingly interminal) years I made an effort not to casually slur Bush, and publicly chastised people for calling him stupidI'm not the usage police or anything and as I've said, ad hominem arguments can at times be somewhat compelling, but simple name-calling is something that turns me off whether I agree that Nixon is a tricky Dick or not.I believe, and I could well be totally wrong about this (hopefully not) name calling, attacking strawmen and the like is something that is applauded by true believers but doesn't, on whole, advance ones position with undecideds or soften the fervor of the opposition == Like ad hominem arguments, guilt by association can be quite compelling. As you note, it dpends on things like the strength of the association, its relevance to the topic at hand, etc.. Like generalizations from extremely small samples (two ouot of two freon smugglers were Arabs) they can, at the very least, cause the night watchman to wake up. When it goes to 4 out of 4, he should even open his eyes. When five out of six are arabs and friends of Bill W, you might even ask for some funding to run an investigation. IOW, they're fallacious in that the premise could be true and the conclusion false, they can be very suggestive. Years ago I served on a jury of six, deciding whether this guy was drunk when he drove from KC to Lawrence. No individual piece of evidence was conclusive (actually, the breathylizer was, there was an admitted screw up in the administration, but the prosecutor didn't make at all clear that it was simply a matter of turning the machine on before reading him his rights, which was item one on the checklist. That was a question of admissibility, which the Judge had already ruled on. It had no bearing on the relilability of the test). So I, at least, thought we should seriously discuss it (every single piece of evidence having some flaw). Whoa! Turned out I was unable to persuade my peers that the totality of the evidence could be conclusive without one single piece of infallible proofWe'd have hung had I not finally rationalized that we had to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was so drunk that he could not safely operate a car. No one disputed that he drove from Independence MO, through KC and to Lawrence without incident until he was arrested while parking at home. So persuading me that it was impossible to drive safely required at least some argument as to why he appeared to have done so. If I had it to do over again, I'd have stayed the couorse.(One thing the prosecutor was foiled on in voir dire was finding out if any of us sometimes drank and drive. I was at the peak of my alcoholism at the time, and thus I was actually the DAs best friend on the jury: I knew he was pieeyed;I heard in his testimony the speech of a fellow traveller Anyway, how you present your views is your own deal, I just feel it would reflect better on you and your opinions if you left out the name calling, guilt by association, etc.. It's not as if you don't have enough material to work with otherwise. It was easy not to call Bush a moron when I could say "look, he's not an idiot, but he did say "x", where x was some idiotic thing While my impression of Mr. Obama (where "Mr." just implies that he's an adult male, which I'm certain he is) is very different from mine, I thought he shared one important trait with Senator McCain: he was not only a professional politician, he aspired to the presidency. I haven't voted for a major-party presidential nominee since Mondale I was young and foolish then. Being a weasel, and a self-important one at that, is axiomatic. The intent of my vote is almost always primarily to stand against the two-party duopoly we have. I at least want Root Beer on the menu (even if it's bad rootbeer) rather than just Coke and Pepsi. What I'd really like, though, is a good chocolate malt. Well, for the record, for eight (seemingly interminal) years I made an effort not to casually slur Bush, and publicly chastised people for calling him stupidI’m not the usage police or anything and as I’ve said, ad hominem arguments can at times be somewhat compelling, but simple name-calling is something that turns me off whether I agree that Nixon is a tricky Dick or not.I believe, and I could well be totally wrong about this (hopefully not) name calling, attacking strawmen and the like is something that is applauded by true believers but doesn’t, on whole, advance ones position with undecideds or soften the fervor of the opposition
==
Like ad hominem arguments, guilt by association can be quite compelling. As you note, it dpends on things like the strength of the association, its relevance to the topic at hand, etc.. Like generalizations from extremely small samples (two ouot of two freon smugglers were Arabs) they can, at the very least, cause the night watchman to wake up. When it goes to 4 out of 4, he should even open his eyes. When five out of six are arabs and friends of Bill W, you might even ask for some funding to run an investigation.
IOW, they’re fallacious in that the premise could be true and the conclusion false, they can be very suggestive.
Years ago I served on a jury of six, deciding whether this guy was drunk when he drove from KC to Lawrence. No individual piece of evidence was conclusive (actually, the breathylizer was, there was an admitted screw up in the administration, but the prosecutor didn’t make at all clear that it was simply a matter of turning the machine on before reading him his rights, which was item one on the checklist. That was a question of admissibility, which the Judge had already ruled on. It had no bearing on the relilability of the test). So I, at least, thought we should seriously discuss it (every single piece of evidence having some flaw). Whoa! Turned out I was unable to persuade my peers that the totality of the evidence could be conclusive without one single piece of infallible proofWe’d have hung had I not finally rationalized that we had to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was so drunk that he could not safely operate a car. No one disputed that he drove from Independence MO, through KC and to Lawrence without incident until he was arrested while parking at home. So persuading me that it was impossible to drive safely required at least some argument as to why he appeared to have done so. If I had it to do over again, I’d have stayed the couorse.(One thing the prosecutor was foiled on in voir dire was finding out if any of us sometimes drank and drive. I was at the peak of my alcoholism at the time, and thus I was actually the DAs best friend on the jury: I knew he was pieeyed;I heard in his testimony the speech of a fellow traveller
Anyway, how you present your views is your own deal, I just feel it would reflect better on you and your opinions if you left out the name calling, guilt by association, etc.. It’s not as if you don’t have enough material to work with otherwise. It was easy not to call Bush a moron when I could say “look, he’s not an idiot, but he did say “x”, where x was some idiotic thing While my impression of Mr. Obama (where “Mr.” just implies that he’s an adult male, which I’m certain he is) is very different from mine, I thought he shared one important trait with Senator McCain: he was not only a professional politician, he aspired to the presidency. I haven’t voted for a major-party presidential nominee since Mondale I was young and foolish then. Being a weasel, and a self-important one at that, is axiomatic. The intent of my vote is almost always primarily to stand against the two-party duopoly we have. I at least want Root Beer on the menu (even if it’s bad rootbeer) rather than just Coke and Pepsi. What I’d really like, though, is a good chocolate malt.

]]> Comment on Why ’slippery slope’ is not a fallacy by bbbeard http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/06/11/why-slippery-slope-is-not-a-fallacy/#comment-194 bbbeard Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:46:07 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/06/11/why-slippery-slope-is-not-a-fallacy/#comment-194 Well, I admit I get tired of referring to Mr. Obama as "Mr. Obama", because I feel he has done nothing to earn this respect, and has in turn made every effort to demonize and to alienate "bitter-clinger" people like me. My co-blogger Luke has asked me to stop capitalizing pronouns referring to Mr. Obama, to stop referring to his Godhood, and to stop using his initials, so I have tried to expunge these tics from my writing. However, I would feel more motivated if critics of Mr. Bush showed anything like a similar restraint. Instead we got eight years of "selected, not elected" and "Bushitler" and "village idiot" and "war criminal" -- I still get email and read blog posts along these lines (see, e.g., Roger Ebert's recent blog post about Bill O'Reilly). For that matter, mainstream media admirers of Mr. Obama continue to refer to his Godhood (try googling "Evan Thomas Obama God"). Naturally the left would like to silence criticism of this adulation, while saying nothing about the inappropriateness of this sin. Given that the left likes to conflate Mr. Obama's personal popularity with endorsement of his disastrous policies, it seems fair game to me to deflate this adulation at the same time we are arguing about his policies. = So I don't think you're analyzing my statements correctly. This is not "ad hominem". That is, I am not implying Mr. Obama's policies are disastrous because he's a bad man, I am saying that one should disregard the adulation he receives from some quarters when evaluating his policies. = And, like "slippery slope", the "association fallacy" is only fallacious if the association is immaterial. Mr. Obama himself has specifically named Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and Frank Marshall Davis as intellectual heroes. Mr. Obama himself has said that he sought out Marxists professors at Columbia. This is not "guilt by association". This is an analysis of Mr. Obama's intellectual roots. And it explains his approach to economics and foreign policy. = And no doubt you are aware of the most flagrant abuse of the term "guilt by association" -- by leftists defending the Stalinist infiltration of the United States government during the '30's and '40's. It is simply a fact that Stalin managed to place hundreds of agents in government, industry, and cultural positions, including positions close to the President (try googling 'Harry Dexter White'). It is simply a fact that the Hollywood Ten were guilty as hell. I admit, chagrined as ever, that the left has been fabulously successful in deflecting criticism of this treason by the tendentious use of terms like "guilt by association" -- but is this really the precedent you want to use in deflecting criticism of Mr. Obama? = Best regards, BBB Well, I admit I get tired of referring to Mr. Obama as “Mr. Obama”, because I feel he has done nothing to earn this respect, and has in turn made every effort to demonize and to alienate “bitter-clinger” people like me. My co-blogger Luke has asked me to stop capitalizing pronouns referring to Mr. Obama, to stop referring to his Godhood, and to stop using his initials, so I have tried to expunge these tics from my writing. However, I would feel more motivated if critics of Mr. Bush showed anything like a similar restraint. Instead we got eight years of “selected, not elected” and “Bushitler” and “village idiot” and “war criminal” — I still get email and read blog posts along these lines (see, e.g., Roger Ebert’s recent blog post about Bill O’Reilly). For that matter, mainstream media admirers of Mr. Obama continue to refer to his Godhood (try googling “Evan Thomas Obama God”). Naturally the left would like to silence criticism of this adulation, while saying nothing about the inappropriateness of this sin. Given that the left likes to conflate Mr. Obama’s personal popularity with endorsement of his disastrous policies, it seems fair game to me to deflate this adulation at the same time we are arguing about his policies.
=
So I don’t think you’re analyzing my statements correctly. This is not “ad hominem”. That is, I am not implying Mr. Obama’s policies are disastrous because he’s a bad man, I am saying that one should disregard the adulation he receives from some quarters when evaluating his policies.
=
And, like “slippery slope”, the “association fallacy” is only fallacious if the association is immaterial. Mr. Obama himself has specifically named Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and Frank Marshall Davis as intellectual heroes. Mr. Obama himself has said that he sought out Marxists professors at Columbia. This is not “guilt by association”. This is an analysis of Mr. Obama’s intellectual roots. And it explains his approach to economics and foreign policy.
=
And no doubt you are aware of the most flagrant abuse of the term “guilt by association” — by leftists defending the Stalinist infiltration of the United States government during the ’30’s and ’40’s. It is simply a fact that Stalin managed to place hundreds of agents in government, industry, and cultural positions, including positions close to the President (try googling ‘Harry Dexter White’). It is simply a fact that the Hollywood Ten were guilty as hell. I admit, chagrined as ever, that the left has been fabulously successful in deflecting criticism of this treason by the tendentious use of terms like “guilt by association” — but is this really the precedent you want to use in deflecting criticism of Mr. Obama?
=
Best regards, BBB

]]>