Ha ha ha. That's the 8:57 comment (from Bitchphd) on this obsessive and humorless post about the Obama-Sarkozy ass-gawk and my description of it.
IN THE COMMENTS: Rick Lee says:
Well... I AM an expert in photography and this guy's analysis is stupid. You can see from the feet position of Obama and the girl that Obama is standing exactly beside the ass in question because they are on steps.Indeed!
Posts
94 comments:
You have to love these dopey scientific analyses of this incident. I am sure its true that Obama looks at a lot of nice women and their sexual parts as all men do. Even if he wasn't looking at her ass in the current picture, he was probably looking at it moments before or moments after. BUt so what. It's not proof that Obama is cheating on his wife or something.
This is all a distraction from the real tragedy of Obama. The real tragedy of Obama is that he is totally incompetent. His economic plan is a total disaster. The stimulus package has failed. He is proposing massive amounts of debt for nothing in return. His attempt to control the American economy through cap and trade and natioanl health-care is a disaster. His foreign policy is a disaster - the fact that he took the side of Hugo Chavez over the rule of law in Hondurus is a total stain on what America stands for.
I see a wonderful teachable moment here. The Professor has opened up the debate to a complete lesson in fake photos. That is a subject that we should not remain ignorant about. It is the cutting edge of propaganda in the digital ocean we are swimming in today. The wrong interpretation of this moment by our lying eyes will never be erased. That is a similar mind control event to Algore's fantasy movie which was shown by Adults to children as a Scientific documentary. Now all the bad guys need to do is repeat the majic words about dying species and rising oceans and all money will be surrendered to a Global Authority by a 51% vote.
Minutae, minutae, makes the world go round;
"We don't need no steenkin' minutae," is a sour grapes complaint
That out-of-it ideologues (of every stripe) sound.
(I deleted some off-topic things.)
You, a law professor!
Amazing that someone can write 1000 words on depth of field without mentioning F-stops and their effect.
In good light a professional photographer is probably shooting at F2.8 (wide open) which gives a very limited depth of field. The pixelation he talks about is caused by reducing the image size from 10 million pixels or more to something that a newspaper of magazine would want to print or post.
While I might be willing to accept his ignorance to the ways of the camera, he really should know how a staircase works. Obama is on a step and Chiquita is headed from that same step to the next, she is obviously behind him.
JFK was Obama's hero, Obama is just trying to be presidential.
Some time back Bitch Ph.D. attacked me as "racist."
I think it was my post, "Moving On Up!", where I made fun of the Obamas as The Jeffersons.
Some folks have no sense of humor! But Ann, don't get upset too much ... you might be doing a Bloggingheads with some of these freaks soon!
My dear lady irrelevant minutae is simply a generous description of your existence.
A query?
Do you have a band of acolytes who haul on ropes to constrain your ego like the balloons in the Thanksgiving Day parade?
"parodying"?
I resent the fact that Der Althouse's intellectual honesty is "white hot." What does that make my intellectual dishonesty -- chopped liver?
Well, screwed up that post as usual. Should've been: Althouse's intellectual DIShonesty.
- site meter reading of 21+ million and God knows there are some exceedingly sharp pencils in this bin..............
Ann, sticking by your "analysis" after viewing the video just made you look silly.
Also, this whole silly episode just makes you guys look desperate to find fault with President Obama.
Ha Ha Ha - ?
Ann, I don't know how you can effectively make fun of people making fun of you this time. Your critics (like at http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/a-stubbornness-in-the-face-of-fact-that-is-unbecoming-of-an-academic/#more-10045 - I put up whole URL for effect.) That post was overly long and indulgent on making the point, but the simple criticism of your take on Obama, merely from a still photo, is correct.
(Yeah, it sounds like a "dopey scientific analysis," but your take was a dopey, unscientific shot from the hip. Which is worse, and it's as bad as Sloanasurus' further drivel that Obama has "failed" after only a few months - long before we can know what can be done rightly about the economic crisis that was long in the making, and in the absence of any rational "counterfactual conditional" analysis such as, how it would have turned out had we done nothing or something else, etc. And no, Zelaya was not removed according to their legal principles - he may have been doing whatever, but a military coup is not going through the proper channels to remove him, even in Honduras AFAICT. That's why most of the civilized world, but not e.g. most Republicans, are against the coup.)
Brad DeLong makes a better and pithier criticism, in his fetching style:
If you take a picture of the moon and claim that the resulting photograph is proof that the moon’s a stationary object and then someone shows you a video of it moving across the night sky, you cannot claim that your interpretation of the event depicted in the photograph is still valid.
He's right. You're just propping up Drudge-like careless jumping to conclusions (about the sort of people he would like to weaken) because of this or that little thing, that you get an intuition about. Then you pretend to be a professional photo analyst or whatever - well if you are, LMK but that still doesn't excuse failing to correct.
get this man the zapruder film pronto.
And no, Zelaya was not removed according to their legal principles - he may have been doing whatever, but a military coup is not going through the proper channels to remove him, even in Honduras AFAICT.
Wow, that's some brilliant analysis there...Zelaya was "doing whatever" but shouldn't have been removed, as far as you can tell.
Funny how everyone's an expert on Honduran constitutional theory these days.
Eh. I liked how the media did their job in debunking this photo. Too bad they didn't do the same job for the previous nine years. I wonder why.
Ann:
The post to which you link does go on and is snarky and snobbish.
But that you, in spite of the video evidence, continue to insist on this being an "ass gawk" mystifies me.
I can only conclude that you're affecting thickness to create a little stir. It's silly.
Sure looked as though Obama was gentlemanly helping a young woman down from the podium to me, instead of gawking at another woman's ass oblivious to the world press.
Has she-whom-I-will-not-name been banned?
Obama has "failed" after only a few months - long before we can know what can be done rightly about the economic crisis that was long in the making, and in the absence of any rational "counterfactual conditional" analysis such as, how it would have turned out had we done nothing or something else,
Obama's economic strategy with the recession and to stem the tide of unemployment was an enormous stimulus package. This has failed. The economy will bounce back eventually, but Obama's strategy did nothing to help it along.
Obama does nothing but hinder economic growth. He is against the most efficent production methods. He is proposing massive budget deficits. He proposes anti-trade methods. He spews anti-business rhetoric. He threatens more anti-trust action. He proposes massive taxes on energy. He proposes massive taxes to pay for the uninsured. All these policies take money from business and reduce economic activity, which in turn reduces employement. Obama's counter to this anti-business environment was the stimulus package - to borrow money from the Chinese and spend t via the government. But that has failed since either it hasn't been spent yet or it got or will be spent on worthless/non-stimulative assets (such as state budget gaps).
Well... I AM an expert in photography and this guy's analysis is stupid. You can see from the feet position of Obama and the girl that Obama is standing exactly beside the ass in question because they are on steps.
Ah, Neil. How nice to have another expert on Honduran law who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Have you met Alpha Liberal?
-----------------------
The video of Obama's gawking can be seen either way. The photo can't.
What difference does it make anyway? Moonbats and the mediaswine defame opposition politicians and their wives and children, but Althouse and commenters are not permitted to joke about Obama? Please.
Vortex. Boring.
"Has she-whom-I-will-not-name been banned?"
Of course.
Some trolls are more equal than others.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!
Perhaps I shall entertain you with the details of my excrement.
It would be a quite colorful story.
Perhaps another day.
This reaction from Bitchphd is an offshoot of PDS. The lefties are fearful that Obama will be subjected to the same or similar "scrutiny" that has dogged Palin. Thus, it becomes necessary for them to defend The One to the point of absurdity and to attack his critics.
They are clear, as are we all, that scrutiny of The One will be a disaster for him and the secular progressive dream.
This blog is not doing much for the idea of Althouse-as-serious-writer...
Also I'm pretty sure Obama was gawking at that fine young ass. He shouldn't feel ashamed as it's a natural male reaction to fine young ass. Leave Obama alone, she's gone through enough!
Who do you believe, Obama defenders or your lying eyes?
The analysis is of a photo, which speaks for itself. Nothing that is subsequently learned about the what immediately preceded or followed can change what you thought when you first saw and analyzed the photo. She stood by the analysis of the photo, because nothing that happened afterward could change what her reaction to the photo was.
Perhaps I will demand oral sex from all and sundry.
It seems that is an approved mode of address here at the home of reasoned thought.
Perhaps another day.
I guess this woman was completely out of Obama's field of vision as well.
Here's a clue for his defenders: you guys are the ones turning this issue into a "story." It was nothing more than a moment of idle humor based on a president displaying a human foible. I have yet to see even a single political opponent claim that it reflects on his governance, his politics or even - other than possibly positively - on his humanity. Your increasingly ridiculous attempts to try to convince people that they cannot see (even in the video) what they plainly see are perpetuating the coverage of the issue.
If you had just had a moment of clarity, and either had a chuckle yourself or simply let the moment pass, no one would be mentioning it today.
Instead, what you're doing is creating a situation where those you are accusing of lying are now going to be on the lookout for every possible similar situation in the future. You are creating the politics of the ridiculous with your hyperventilating defense of a complete non-issue.
Just a little self-awareness on your part and this will all be over. Take a deep breath...
I do not see our President checking out an attractive female as anything wrong. It is humorous to me that he got caught.
What is just as funny are the people who cannot accept that he has normal human foibles falling all over themselves.
I have not seen any attack on the president regarding this, where are these attacks? I want to read one.
Trey
Perhaps I shall entertain you with the details of my excrement.
It would be a quite colorful story.
Did I miss something... were you one of the stars in the famous "2 girls, 1 cup video?"
Beth, the picture was a momentary interest for me, a little laugh and nothing more.
The vortex of denial is FAR more interesting to me! I worry about people who cannot tolerate humanity in their leaders. I worry about them a lot.
Outside of my savior, all my "heros" were humans and did things that disappointed me or that I disapprove of. I bet you are the same.
It seems to me that our President attracts people who are not like you and me in this matter. That concerns me because without normal critical evaluation, people turn into monsters.
I do not believe that our President is particularly inclined toward that, no more than you or I, but I know I am sure glad I have friends and family to critique me and keep me on track. I need them.
I think politicians need them even more.
So in that way, the "no he didn" vortex is very interesting and a bit chilling.
Trey
Well, I'm not an expert on photography but I am an expert on Nancy and Sluggo comics... and if Obama were really looking at the young lady's butt there'd be a dashed line going from his eye to the butt. So there.
Obama is simply showing the world that he is capable of multi-tasking. Assgawking and helping another woman down a stair. I'll bet he can assgawk and chew gum at the same time. Joe Biden... er... ah... forget it.
That video of Obama and his fly popping move proves that Obama can control his movements to perfection. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was only watching the young lady's hips in case she needed his quick assistance in reaching her full potential for womanhood. You know, like JFK assisted Marilyn Monroe.
He wasn't looking at her ass! He just noticed something interesting on the ground a couple seconds before helping a young lady walk down one step.
The funny thing is how Obama's legions of sycophants fall all over themselves to protect Obama against the slander that he might be behaving like a normal male.
Or maybe, like Bruno, he was trying to elicit a rebuke from the girl's parents and thus expose their bigotry. In hindsight, we can view that effort as flawless executed, given their public reaction.
On the linked post, it occurs to me that in an article that long, it might be a good idea to summarize the primary contention. Without that, the rest reads like someone trying to make a simple subject sound extraordinarily complex. It's not that hard: where was she standing, where was he standing, where was he looking, how did the photo editing really change anything? And if the video actually made it clear that Obama wasn't looking at the girl's ass (it didn't), why go to all the fucking trouble?
Media Matters mocks Ann's bizarre dedication to claiming that Obama was gawking:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907130010
They have some good points.
Yeah, mediamatters has some great points at that link - points such as "hey, isn't althouse an idiot for disagreeing with us and for, like, totally criticising our president?"
Wow, that's some brilliant analysis there...Zelaya was "doing whatever" but shouldn't have been removed, as far as you can tell. .
As a general rule, civilized people agree that violent overthrow of democratically elected people is the wrong way to go. Many Republicans seem to have coup envy these days.
Especially when the coup plotters use lies like "he wanted the constitutional assembly to prolong his stay in power."
They were lying about that motivation for Zelaya (whom I have no love for, but I do support civil and peaceful government).
Hi, elHombre.
Diamonhead, I refer specifically to this claim from Althouse, which MM nailed:
Althouse says that she doesn't care and that she's going to stick to the false image; she's going to stick to her parallel universe where Obama bends his knee into a "crotch-squeeze." .
I overlooked this absurd claim from Ann Althouse that Obama was squeezing his crotch as the girl went by. Really, it's a remarkably stupid claim that the video shows is wrong.
But this whole episode just reinforces my world view, and that of millions others, that conservatives don't give a damn about the truth and will twist any news or event to bash Obama.
And that Althouse is a fellow traveler with said con's, regardless of her claims to not be a political conservative.
Again, MM nailed her on this point.
Yep, alphaliberal and Obama standing alongside the Castros, Chavez, and Ortega supporting civil and peaceful government...
I overlooked this absurd claim from Ann Althouse that Obama was squeezing his crotch as the girl went by. Really, it's a remarkably stupid claim that the video shows is wrong.
Hmm... where are you getting this?
I guess, I thought the Althouse comment about the parallel universe and crotch squeeze was althouse making a joke in an "intellectual way." But, maybe I'm wrong and Althouse can explain it for the dumb conservatives out here.
I should have known that Alphaliberal is an expert on Honduran constitutional law. He's so brilliant like that.
Here's a thought, Alpha: Why not step back and let the Hondurans interpret their own constitution?
As a general rule, civilized people agree that violent overthrow of democratically elected people is the wrong way to go. Many Republicans seem to have coup envy these days.
I wonder what would happen here, if Obama attempted to bypass the constitutional process by declaring a referendum in order to change the two-term limit.
First, you would have a court rule. If Obama chose not to follow the courts ruling and still attempted to have the illegal referendum, the only proper response would be to arrest him and then for the Congress to impeach him at that point. Just like what happened in Honduras.
"But this whole episode just reinforces my world view, and that of millions others, that conservatives don't give a damn about the truth and will twist any news or event to bash Obama."
My views on the relationship between liberals and the truth don't need reinforcement. But I'm glad you're feeling bolstered.
Is Media Matters up to their old tricks again by playing actual video clips?
Running the video is a good idea. Falsely claiming that it proves their point is the trick.
Having finally watched the video -- I've avoided it completely 'til now -- I will say that Obama's actions are nebulous, and thus subject to anyone's previous bias.
Sarkozy's actions: far more clear cut.
What may gall the Obambots isn't the gawking as much as he was caught in an extremely awkward moment. Not graceful at all. Who designed those tall steps?
I can't figure out whose comments are whose at that site.
Wasn't the comment Althouse quoted from Ahistoricality, not Bitchphd?
That is a rather high step. Barack did a smooth job of panning a picturesque vista without obvious gaping. Then, he can be seen lifting his hand to help the young woman with the glasses down the step AFTER she touches his arm (good thing he's not Royalty), as the young Brazilian turns to face front.
All that depth of field hoo-hah misses the point entirely when it's not completely erroneous. Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, sonny. I'll wager the Professor knows all about f-stops and focal lengths and shutter speeds and digital compression artifacts and obsolescent concepts like film speed as well.
Wasn't the comment Althouse quoted from Ahistoricality, not Bitchphd?
Internet Explorer screws up the comment-threading with Wordpress blogs for some reason. Try using Firefox or Opera and you can see who's saying what.
In good light a professional photographer is probably shooting at F2.8 (wide open) which gives a very limited depth of field.
The Nikor lens I have mounted presently opens to 1.4. Naner naner naner. Howz that for shallow depth of field?
The Professor has opened up the debate to a complete lesson in fake photos.
Not "faked photos," but deceptive ones. I said that I didn't think Jason Reed's manipulations were nefarious because I don't think they were: professional photographers working on a deadline often do quick-and-dirty sharpenings when they're using digital cameras (and most use digital cameras now). Most of us have digital cameras that do the sharpening for us, but professionals prefer to use cameras that don't and sharpen the pictures themselves. (Basic account as to why can be found here.)
Amazing that someone can write 1000 words on depth of field without mentioning F-stops and their effect.
As I mentioned in the comments elsewhere, I didn't want to assume I knew what kind of lens the photographer was using, which is why I avoided talking about perspective distortion. I didn't want to assume to have facts not in evidence, which is why I stopped with saying that the photographer used a digital camera and tried to explain the phenomena as best I could with the facts I had.
he really should know how a staircase works
It's not a staircase: it's two wide, tiered steps leading up to a circular stage.
Brad DeLong makes a better and pithier criticism, in his fetching style
Actually, I wrote that. But I'll take the comparison to Brad as a compliment.
That post was overly long and indulgent on making the point, but the simple criticism of your take on Obama, merely from a still photo, is correct.
Note also that she still insists on not addressing any of the criticism. She responded to a careful and deliberate, if over-long, post by quoting a comment.
You can see from the feet position of Obama and the girl that Obama is standing exactly beside the ass in question because they are on steps.
If you are, as you claim, a professional photographer, then you would know better than to just say "You can see from the picture," because even absent manipulation, you'll end up saying things like, "You can see from the picture that her prom date is a foot tall!"
Sloan:
I wonder what would happen here, if Obama attempted to bypass the constitutional process by declaring a referendum in order to change the two-term limit. .
Again, this oft-repeated claim by the coup plotters and coup backers could not have worked. I posted on why and won't repeat the arguments here.
The only responses I've gotten to this are:
a) ignoring the point and repeating the charge, (Sloan/elHombre, etc) or
b) admitting the point.
How would they elect a new President in November while holding a referendum on the constitutional assembly AND THEN hold a constintutional assembly AND THEN extend Zelay's term after that election before the next Prez takes office?
No-one has explained that. I suspect a time machine is involved.
Sloan responds to one of my posts:
I overlooked this absurd claim from Ann Althouse that Obama was squeezing his crotch as the girl went by. Really, it's a remarkably stupid claim that the video shows is wrong.
Hmm... where are you getting this? .
See:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/07/2-world-leaders-demonstrate-2-ways-of.html
Now, swivel your eyes over to Obama's feet. The foot closest to the woman, like Sarkozy's, is planted and aimed forward, but the other steps off in the direction of the woman, bending the knee upward into a bit of a crotch-squeeze and forming the base of a dramatic tilt of the entire body into a flexible S-shape that leans toward the woman. .
It's an absurd statement and deconstruction, but she didn't seem to be joking.
Maguro ignores my point to call on me to shut up:
Here's a thought, Alpha: Why not step back and let the Hondurans interpret their own constitution? .
Uh huh. And you have the same advice for the righties and Senators coming out in favor of the Honduran coup?
No?
You can't handle the point I make so you tell me to STFU.
I know this is useless, but:
It's a funny picture. No one thinks less of Obama because he was oggling a nice looking girl. Treating this like the Zapruder film just makes you look like humorless gits.
This whole episode reminds me of during the election some conservatives were going on about how Democratic "goons" were going to try to steal the election. Then a Republican campaign worker who was a young white woman claimed that she was assaulted by two black men who carved a "B" into her cheek. Drudge (and I believe Althouse) pushed the story at the beginning before it was uncovered as being a hoax. After that the whole "Dem Thugs" canard was canned.
In this case President Obama looks large with all of his would be little tormentors looking silly shooting their little bent arrows. This has also given him some immunity from this line of personal attack while these little would be tormentors (Drudge, etc.) are left dangling from their petards.
Gits?
I was laughing the whole thing off on Friday.
Alpha, apparently you haven't received the memo.
In the era of Obama, we don't meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations. Don't be a Yankee imperialist pig and stick your nose where it doesn't belong.
Hi Alpha (1:11 PM).
Self-referential links are not persuasive. Try this one.
As I keep pointing out even if there were not an answer to your oh-so-penetrating question, it would be irrelevant. If Zelaya was trying to alter the term limit provision, his offense was complete.
At least according to the Hondurans.
I know that trusting people to govern themselves is not the liberal way, but it does have a quaint appeal.
No one thinks less of Obama because he was oggling a nice looking girl.
I think we are all in complete agreement on that.
And as Rick Lee pointed out, the author of the subject post understands cameras (autofocus has nothing to do with depth of field) and steps about as well as Obama understands economics.
What AlphaTroll and the other trolls don't get is that conservatives are happy to see Obama is not some demigod, but just another man with normal desires. However they must be disappointed that their god is just a man.
This whole episode reminds me of during the election some conservatives were going on about how Democratic "goons" were going to try to steal the election.
Does it also remind you of the Obama campaign workers toiling under a poster of Chez Guevara... Maybe goons and thugs is sometimes appropriate.
Alex,
What you and your fellow conservatives don't seem to understand is that it was really ugly to make the innocent young woman in the picture a prop in some banal attack on President Obama.
BTW, I quickly posted to this site that I thought Letterman's joke about Palin's daughter was way over the line.
I haven't seen much of attacking Obama over this.
I have seen a lot of half-assed claims that we didn't see what we did see though.
The President's syncophants do more damage to his reputation--by making his followers look like idiots--than his own mild oggling could ever do.
Like the Letterman joke, no decent person would defend this. It is bottom of the barrel. It is sludge. Worst yet, it is Drudge.
as Rick Lee pointed out, the author of the subject post understands cameras (autofocus has nothing to do with depth of field)
I love that I have self-professed professional photographers claiming that auto-focus has nothing to do with depth of field, or that the AF on digital cameras aren't notoriously wonky when it comes to DOF. That's but one of the 142,000 sites that discuss the relation between the two.
Alex:
What AlphaTroll and the other trolls don't get.... .
What you don't get is that people aren't "trolls" because they disagree with conservatives. That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
This is quite true.
AlphaLiberal is not a troll.
On the other hand Sarah Palin would not have aborted him.
Yet still he hates her.
It is so hard to understand.
ElHombre flails:
If Zelaya was trying to alter the term limit provision, his offense was complete. .
You've had a lot of time to make that case. You cannot. Zelaya was NOT able to extend his stay in office through the proposed referendum.
I read the CS Monitor link you provide. He makes a very weak case that Zelaya would extend his stay.
Can you explain how that would work? I've invited that for weeks now and you and other have been unable to do so. All you have is repetition of the allegation. But the allegation makes no damn sense.
Baron Zemo:
Yet still he hates her. .
Wrong. Criticism does not equal "hate".
Lame.
I seem to remember an incident wherein Althouse noticed that women have tits.
THAT WAS TEH AWESOME!
Ann:
Bitch Ph.D. is not a nice lady!
"Ann Althouse, stupid as ever, seems to think that my comment about this uncharacteristically banal post over at EotaW is somehow not insulting her as well as the post's author."
"Linky Monday: from the sublime to the banal".
I'd bet she's in love with Matt Yglesias, however!
Alpha, you're ignoring the interpretation of the Honduran Supreme Court, which some may argue is more germane than yours.
This is almost exactly like the plastic turkey issue.
Bush held a real turkey, not a plastic one. Yeah? So? What does it even mean if he didn't? Nothing.
Obama is clearly gawking at this woman's rear. Yeah? So? What does it even mean if he did or didn't? Nothing.
It's almost completely pure mindless partisanship. And for that reason it is interesting.
Sloanasaurus: you still don't get "conditionals", and most of your criticism is about assumptions of what effects things will have. Again, would McCain (or Sarah Palin!) have turned things around in a few months? This mess, building for years?! The world has changed, sorry.
Honduras: Maguro, it was misrep. to say,
Wow, that's some brilliant analysis there...Zelaya was "doing whatever" but shouldn't have been removed, as far as you can tell.
Well it sure isn't brilliant to not even get someone's point. I didn't say they didn't have the right to remove him at all (like through impeachment.) I clearly said, they don't [AFAIK] have the right to just topple him in a coup (and keep him out of the country.)
OK, those of you griping about people feigning expertise in Honduran law etc: do you know what their laws say? Maybe, but tell us instead of empty complaints about others. I know that Zelaya did wrong, but even Miguel Estrada admits there wasn't justification for exile. Shouldn't there be a trial and other due process? That's the point, not the straw man of as if Zelaya was "OK." The OAS, flawed as it may be, voted 33-0 to suspend Honduras. That should tell us something.
Hey Paul Zrimsek, do you remember me from my legendary Usenet thread ca. 2001, "The foundational problem of libertarian theory"? Man that was a monster. Heh, I don't think your side ever gave a truly satisfactory answer. I loved the way the Georgists threw in a third-way monkey wrench!
BTW, in all this hemming and hawing over whether Obama looked at/gawked at some young chick - so what the hell if he did?
Neil' - You acknowledge fault on both sides, but clearly Zelaya initiated the trouble in Honduras. Calling an unconstitutional popular referendum to extend your own power is a classic strongman power play, and it is absurd for us to sit here and bitch about whether the Honduran gov't handled it perfectly.
The Honduran gov't hasn't been killing innocent people in the streets like the Iranians did, so why not respect their nationhood and let them sort it out?
Apparently, some commenters do not understand the nature of the Althouse "Theater of Topicks". One may stir a martini or one may stir a blog. The results can be quite pleasurable.
Personally, I found her opinion of the photograph delightful. It matters not that I agree or disagree,
but rather that I am amused.
What the OAS did to Honduras tells us precisely nothing about the legitimacy of Honduras removing Zelaya, except that it seems that the OAS is 100% wrong on two things: the sanctions against Honduras and the admission of Cuba to the OAS.
The removal of Zelaya was accomplished; his physical location (free but unharmed in Costa Rica) is a trivial point. It's like arguing that Prez Nixon should have taken a train and not a helicopter.
RLB IV is right. Althouse, like Obama, often says things for effect rather than the essential "truthiness" of the statement.
I remember the thread and you, Neil. That was a good'un, even if I have to live with the shame of being the only person in the history of Usenet not to get the other side to agree with him in the end. No doubt you and the Georgists are equally broken up about their failure to come up with an argument that I consider satisfactory.
"So what?" is pretty much my reaction to the Obama thing too. The photo-Trutherism is amusing though.
You should just admit you were wrong, Althouse. The video refutes your analysis. I don't care who looks at who's ass. But if someone is not looking at someone's ass, and is positively proven not to be doing so, you should admit you fucked up - out of respect of the owner of the supposedly ogled ass - if not for the alleged ogler.
Waiting for Althouse to admit she was wrong is like, well, I don't know. Maybe like waiting for her to admit that 142,000 pages on the web establish the connection between AF and DOF, so the "professional" she cites in the post is full of it?
But because she's such an intellectually dishonest hack, she's going to take the word of the one person who validates what she already believes over reality. Which is all well and good . . . if you like your political commentary to come from people who don't know anything and cheerlead the first person who seconds their ignorant ramblings.
Follow up re Honduras:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/16/754337/-Zelaya-back-in-Honduras-Supreme-Court-admits-coup-was-illegal.
Post a Comment