Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Correction. With republicans it si sex and other people's money. That is why we the taxpayers are so very concerned about this wolf in the chicken coop feeding in a frenzy be it Abramoff or Iraq contracts or the deficit or the school programs or Katrina or . . . .
Correction. With the democrats it's metaphors.
I am probably a bit skeptical but if this were a Republican Senate Leader who failed to properly report financial dealings that included a shady character like Jay Brown, and who also hung up on a reporter who asked about it, well I just imagine Keith Olbermann's head would explode after Chris Matthews spent an hour with David Shuster and Dana Milbank talking about people frog marching out of the Senate Office Building.Expect this to be buried further in the news than good economic news.
Harry Reid deserves to get scrutiny for this and punishment, if deserved. But to suggest that Republicans don't have their own "money" problems is a crock. Maybe the Prof. is too busy to know anything about Bob Ney (bribed by a Syrian busineesman) or Duke Cunningham (bribed by defense contractors) but he should read up beforehe makes silly statements.Plus, I am still hoping that Dems get backin the sex action soon.
The Republican corruption scandals are endless, but even if Abramoff were the only Republican scandal it would dwarf anything in the past couple of decades, at the very least. But if I were a Republican shill like Althouse or Instarube, yeah, I would pretend the Democrats were just as sleazy.
Oh no, Glenn Reynolds is going to get Althouse-lanched!No, that doesn't work. How about... Althosed!
Bush steals 2 trillion of your money, calls it a tax-cut, and gets you guys waving flags. Neat Trick.
Charles, if you were trying to be nonsensical you did a damn fine job. Do a little reading and catch up on things around here, you certainly don't have a clue about Althouse.
Garage, Bush hasn't laid a hand on that $3000 bucks a year I get for my three kids. I'm not that smart, explain to me how you came up with that calculus.
"Bush steals 2 trillion of your money, calls it a tax-cut, and gets you guys waving flags."Notwithstanding the fact I don't need a tax cut to waive the flag, how is it stealing two trillion of my money when 1) I don't have two trillion to start with, and; 2) my tax rates went down?Or do you have some special insight this is on Conyer's list of high crimes and misdemeanors in the bill of impeachment he's currently drafting?
SteveR,If you were trying to demonstrate that you are an Althouse sycophant, you did a damn fine job. Do a little reading outside of the wingnut echo chamber; you certainly don't have a clue how people outside of this coterie regard this blog and its blind followers.
Is everyone humor-deprived today? I thought it was funny. Sheesh!Mcg: The usual term is "Annalanched."
"Is everyone humor-deprived today?"Not everyone. Those of thus safely ensconced within the echo chamber coterie thought it a hoot, a hoot, a hoot, a hoot...
I think m liberal brother-in-law put it best. Its just that people expect democrats to have sex scandals and republicans to have money scandals, so its not really news unless its the other way around.Sorry, that was almost witty, I will try to remember that bear baiting is not just bad for the bear, it also ruins our souls.
I would put the NJ Democratic party up against Abramoff any day. Lawyer - most of your alleged scandals are nonsensical and obvious left wing talking points, devoid of substance, but heavy on the hot air. But of course, that slides into Garage's point that leaving money in the pockets of the taxpayers is somehow theft - though I can see the point, if you start with the assumption that all monies belong to the government, and we should only have what it allows us to have. But that sort of philosphy lost out here some 230 or so years ago, when we adopted the opposite approach - that government is of, by, and for, the people, instead of the other way around. Somehow, when Reynolds links to a post here, we get a lot of drive by nut cases show up. I am sure that it drives up the hit count, and thus, advertising revenue, but is it really worth it?
Actually, I think that Monkeyboy has it about right. And that is probably the point of Ann's post. We expect sex scandals from the Democrats, and money scandals from Republicans, and so neither of them is a surprise. Of course, this is all silly, since the Democrats are every bit as corrupt financially as the Republicans, and Republicans have their share of perverts and preditors too. Those in my generation and older surely remember that LBJ entered Congress almost penniless, and retired from the presidency quite wealthy. Carter had Bert Lance, and the Clintons, again, didn't need anyone else for their financial scandals - but had several in the cabinet just in case. Actually, what is interesting about this stereotype is that the current Bush Administration is exceptionally clean, in comparison to its predecessors from both parties. Five and 3/4 years into it, and no big financial scandals. The biggest scandal to rock it so far seems to be whether or not Libby lied during the Plame investigation. Instead, all the recent viable sex and financial scandals with Republicans are (so far) in Congress.
The Republican corruption scandals are endless, but even if Abramoff were the only Republican scandal it would dwarf anything in the past couple of decades, at the very least. So Republican scandals are endless? I think that scandals involving Chicago democrats are endless. How many people in Daley's (the current Daley, not his ultra corrupt father) admin are in deep shit over the hiring scam that Mr. Fitzmas is investigating? Two consecutive Dems in a Chicago congressional district were both found to have committed sexual misconduct, one with a 16 year old. The one who had sex with the 16 year old, Mel Reynolds (D - ILL) had his sentence for yet another crime, bank fraud, commuted by the democrat in the White House who had his law license suspended from his own sex scandal. Another fine dem from Ill., Dan Rostenkowski spent some time the big house for his corruption. Maybe it is pure coincidence, but he was pardoned by the same President that lost his law license in a sex scandal. The current Gov of Illinois is so dirty, even a Democratic bootlick like Markos Moulitsas has admitted to his corruption. That is just a few of the criminalities in Chicago that I know of living four hours away. If you want to delve into how corrupt the Democrats in Detroit are, it is going to take up a huge chunk of time.
Charles Giacometti said..."SteveR ... you certainly don't have a clue how people outside of this coterie regard this blog and its blind followers."You know one of the interesting differences between conservatives and liberals? Most conservatives really don't spend a whole bunch of time worrying about what other people think about us - particularly not people we think are clueless.Moreover, the mind boggles at the idea that "this blog" is "leading" somewhere that readers could "follow." What exactly do you think is the Althausian party line that we are supposed to be following? I must have not got that memo. Just because your little leftie blog coterie feels the need to expel anyone with a contrary view on something substantive doesn't mean that everyone else buys into groupthink 101.
"If you were trying to demonstrate that you are an Althouse sycophant, you did a damn fine job"Ann doesn't need my defense especially from a stupid point of view like yours.
FYI - if you thought that this was some innocent mistake on the part of Harry Reid, Senate Minority leader, and presumed Majority leader, if the Democrats retake the Senate, The Captains Quarter has more on Reid. Esp. note that Reid was esp. close to Abramoff - yes, the same guy whose name is used synonimously with Republican corruption.
With monarchists, it’s nepotism.With socialists, it’s taxes.With communists, it’s purges.With fascists, it’s militaristic urges.With anarchists, it’s just one big mess.
Tim, if Bush cuts taxes and prevents our natural Leftist Overlords from grabbing our money and giving it to those they know deserve it more, then it's obviously theft.Hope this helps.(Sorry about any accidental humor.)
With Republicans, it's sex. With Democrats, it's money.And sometimes it's about money for sex. This is known as "bipartisan cooperation".
Bush steals 2 trillion of your money, calls it a tax-cutCould you translate that from "Liberal" to "Intelligent", please? Because it didn't make any sense.
JorgXMcKie said... "Tim, if Bush cuts taxes and prevents our natural Leftist Overlords from grabbing our money and giving it to those they know deserve it more, then it's obviously theft.Hope this helps.Oh. Thanks. And here I was all these years, just thinking our natural Leftist Overlords were grabbing our money and fostering dependency and buying votes so they could stay in power to continue grabbing our money to foster more dependency and buy more votes.You're probably right, but I guess it might just be a matter of perspective.
It is not the failure to tax, but instead borrowing on the backs of taxpayers to channel the money to cronies in no bid contracts with no work being done. Katrina? Iraq? Afganistan? Any nerves firing?Who thinks this money can be recovered for actually useful expenditures? Not me with the Republicans having the pursestrings stretched open wide for distributing the 'spoils.'
Katrina? Iraq? Afganistan? Any nerves firing?Just the ones responsible for cynicism and ennui. I'm sure you find your little list of locations deeply meaningful, but I'm going to need a little more than vague, unsubstantiated accusations if you want me to show interest.
I'm going to need a little more than vague, unsubstantiated accusations if you want me to show interest.You won't get it. The best they can do is link together a string of descriptive adjectives. Its wonderful how easily they discredit themselves. I'm going to insist, once we've they've all been rounded up into camps, that Leftists be taught logic as part of their re-education. Its the humane thing to do.
Fen, Rev -You're missing the point. Here we have a liberal arguing, in essence, that all that's really wrong with government is no-bid contracts, i.e. a lack of competition. So presumably, this is either a concession that the left is abandoning the idea of nationalizing anything they can get their hands on, or a concession that he holds hopelessly contradictory views (i.e. no bid contracts are bad, but no bid contracts are good if the winner is a government agency).
The other issue, of course, in no-bid contracts is that WERE the bidding process to be followed, there would be NO timely response to disasters--and, of course, the administration would be castigated for engaging in bureaucratic red tape at the expense of the poor citizens of -------------(fill in the blank). In addition to being highly intolerant, liberals apparently suffer from terminal stupidity (or charitably, inability to read and understand the governmental contracting process.)
I am no leftist. I made the mistake of voting for Bush without realizing the scale of corruption and incompetence he has been nurturing. Shirking competition by cronies does not make them leftist either-- as if that is an excuse. They are still just thieves with friends in high places. Your stalling tactics do not make any kind of a point.As to details, read the numbers and the enormous amount of money spent in each of these major advetures while making all of them worse by every measure. Money for infrastructure resulted in less infrastructure. The list goes on.The scientific death toll estimate of at least ten time more than the highest estimates in Iraq strongly suggests that the official disinterest in oversight related activities is no accident. This art of denial or pleading ignorance by those charged to know has reached a level where nothing short of harsh remedies will work.
The scientific death toll estimate of at least ten time more than the highest estimates in IraqI think you've spotted a recursion error there. Damn those neocons and their infinite loops.
Clayton Cramer has a pretty good takedown of the estimate I assume you are refering to.(The scientific death toll estimate of at least ten time more than the highest estimates in Iraq...). Barely half as many were killed in Germany Jan '43 to Jan '45 where we were pursuing an all out bombing campaign. It took two atomic bombs in addition to other air attacks to kill a similar percentage of the Japanese population.Yeah, you're not a leftist, just an idiot.
They're still quoting the Lancet study? LOL The scientific-"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
Clayton Cramer has a pretty good takedown of the estimate I assume you are refering to.(The scientific death toll estimate of at least ten time more than the highest estimates in Iraq...). Barely half as many were killed in Germany Jan '43 to Jan '45 where we were pursuing an all out bombing campaign.Clayton might be a little more convincing if he actually got his facts straight in his "takedown". He claims that the bombing campaign that claimed only half as many lives included the firebombing of Dresden. Of course that occurred in February of 1945 and is not included in his statistics. The strategic bombing campaign of Germany was actually remarkably ineffective until very late in the war, and with few exceptions (Hamburg in '43 is about the only early bombing raid that caused mass casulties on the scale of 10s of thousands), didn't kill a lot of civilians (in the overall scale of the mass slaughter that was World War II) until late '44. He then goes on to admit that Japan lost 2.7% of its population without its homeland being invaded, kind of contradicting his entire point.And death rates for World War II in some countries make look even the 2.5% rate look like a picnic. Germany ended up with something like 8% total (up to 5 million). Russia maybe up to 15%. But countries like Poland lost 25% of their population and if the individual Republics of the Soviet Union had been counted as separate countries, some of them like the Ukraine might have had as much a third of their population killed as both the Nazis and the Russians indiscriminately slaughtered or starved them.
So far Harry Reid's getting off as easy as Sandy Berger did. Story is hardly being covered, certainly nothing like Foley. Or the Plame Non Scandal.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"Other than not liking the results of the most recent Lancet survey. What exactly are your objections to it? Why is it statistically invalid? What is wrong with the methodology? Why isn't it scientific? Can you suggest a better methodology or better estimates that are statistically valid for the whole country?
So far Harry Reid's getting off as easy as Sandy Berger did. Story is hardly being covered, certainly nothing like Foley. Or the Plame Non Scandal.It's getting covered about as much as Hastert's land deal scandal. So quit yer bitchin'. And Hastert's is worse because that involved using federal money to boost the value of his land (by rerouting an interstate close to land he had bought). Hastert will be brought down by the sex scandal, not his crooked land deals. So, Harry Reid will be toast when we find out he is a polygamist.
Why is it statistically invalid? What is wrong with the methodology?Because it uses extrapolation from clustering, which is an invalid technique for measuring fatalities that are themselves clustered.Why isn't it scientific?Because this is the second time the Lancet has made the same freshman statistical blunder. The first time could have been explained as simple incompetence on their part. That they continue to use the same bogus technique demonstrates that accurate results are not their goal. And if accurate results aren't your goal, what you're doing isn't science.
Because it uses extrapolation from clustering, which is an invalid technique for measuring fatalities that are themselves clustered.Why are you assuming the fatalities are clustered? They are measuring deaths from all causes, not just violent deaths.
Why are you assuming the fatalities are clustered? They are measuring deaths from all causes, not just violent deathsAccording to the Lancet study, 601,000 of the 655,000 supposed "excess deaths" were due to violent causes. So a minimum of 91% of the supposed excess deaths suffered from the clustering problem.There are other problems too, of course. For example, the Lancet folks went around in each cluster until they found a sufficient number of houses they felt safe approaching that were willing to talk to them. The data was gathered from those houses. So right away there's a serious problem of selection bias inherent in that methodology -- unless it can be established that people who *haven't* lost relatives to violence are neither more nor less willing to talk to foreign researchers about it than those who *have*, the Lancet method of data-gathering is invalid.Anyway, those people who did deign to answer reported 547 postwar deaths. Through various statistical shenanigans the Lancet concluded 320 of these were excess. They then inferred the other 654,680 deaths had happened.So, to sum up: the "researchers" went to a few dozen locations, talking to a few dozen people in each location who were willing to talk to them, and found a few hundred reported deaths. They then pulled the 655,000 figure out of their ass.
-------"With Republicans, it's sex.""With Democrats, it's money."Thanks to all the contestants who participated above, but unfortunately no one gave the correct answer, which is:"Because Republicans have all the money, and Democrats have all the sex"Please be sure and play again. There is no limit on how many times you can enter.
Post a Comment