Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7172)

Don Zeko 11-15-2011 02:21 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 231606)
I never said they were competing theories, merely examples of the different ways in which economists' actions and theories affect the economy. The dual mandate isn't a theory, it's a mandate, although I guess when it was established there was a theory that it would be a great thing.

And I have shown you that Krugman's view of boosting the economy includes Fed policy changes. You asked me what the difference was between two specific examples I gave. I can now see that I misconstrued your question but that does not mean that I don't know the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.

So apparently you were asking me what about Krugman's view differs from the dual mandate. Well, I never said it did. I would imagine that everything Krugman advocates he believes will stabilize prices and encourage maximum employment eventually. Besides, the question itself actually doesn't make sense. It's like asking what the difference is between weight loss and the Atkins diet. The Fed has mandates. Krugman has ideas about how to achieve them. Am I wrong about this?

Now you're just declaring that you said something other than what you said. It was crystal clear in your first post that you were discussing the dual mandate, Krugman's prescriptions, and NGDP targeting as alternatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 231516)
I think Glenn was talking, not just about government intervention, but monetary policy. Unless we want to go back to carrying around gold in our pockets we need to have a monetary system. The question is how it should operate. What should the Fed do? Should it be in the business of boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests? Should it have the dual mandates it currently has? Should we tie the monetary supply to the NGDP as Scott Sumner is advocating?


Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 231606)
My main point was that economists think that their prescriptions will work because they think they will work. They study, make charts, analyze data and make educated guesses on both monetary and fiscal policy. They enter the halls of the government and help make laws based on their best guesses. Glenn spoke of the grand edifices they erect. And we need them because we need a central bank and a way to fund what the government does. The problem is that they affect us all in ways that we never imagine and sometimes they make things worse than if they had just stayed away. But they won't.

How should economists or policy makers "just stay away" from the economy?

thouartgob 11-15-2011 02:28 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 231570)
He's too smart for the political process, really.

I believe he believes that. Like Cain Newt's campaign is more of a book tour than an actual bid for the White House. If he were nominated he would be as shocked as anybody.

timba 11-15-2011 03:46 AM

Let me help you out, Glenn
 
Perry is dumb - you can take that to the bank. Bush II and Reagan were also plenty dumb and Reagan was already mentally disabled from Alzheimer's when he was governor of California. 300 IQ points for those three musketeers combined is a very charitable guess. We appreciate your scientific approach of not assuming that they're stupid just because everything they say and do is stupid, but c'mon man. The more interesting question is the competition for dumb, dumber and dumbest. My guess is (starting dumb and getting dumber): Bush, Perry, Reagan.

miceelf 11-15-2011 05:25 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 231602)
If you could erase the last 5 years of Gingrich's life, and subtract one marriage, he would be the perfect President of the United States.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

miceelf 11-15-2011 05:28 AM

Re: Let me help you out, Glenn
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by timba (Post 231631)
Perry is dumb - you can take that to the bank. Bush II and Reagan were also plenty dumb and Reagan was already mentally disabled from Alzheimer's when he was governor of California. 300 IQ points for those three musketeers combined is a very charitable guess. We appreciate your scientific approach of not assuming that they're stupid just because everything they say and do is stupid, but c'mon man. The more interesting question is the competition for dumb, dumber and dumbest. My guess is (starting dumb and getting dumber): Bush, Perry, Reagan.

I think you're being too kind to Bush.

Florian 11-15-2011 06:11 AM

Re: Let me help you out, Glenn
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 231636)
I think you're being too kind to Bush.

Tweedle-Dee, Tweedle-Dum, Tweedle-Dum-Dum

Or the reverse.

Brn 11-15-2011 06:45 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 231566)
I don't know what Glen said

I posted a link to what he said, and it lasted all of seven seconds. Perhaps you could take seven seconds to listen to what he said so that you could see that what she wrote is a clear refutation.

stephanie 11-15-2011 08:53 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brn (Post 231639)
I posted a link to what he said, and it lasted all of seven seconds. Perhaps you could take seven seconds to listen to what he said so that you could see that what she wrote is a clear refutation.

Your link didn't work. But what Glenn said was in the context of not seeing the Cain allegations as disqualifying -- "it's not necessarily attractive, but I don't know, when you lay it along side Newt Gingrich leaving his wife when she was dying of cancer...."

Glenn was referring to the story and its political effect, not asserting it -- and particularly not the fact the wife supposedly died -- as reason not to vote for Newt. The problem with pointing to the daughter's account (and here's a discussion of how it relates to the original account and the story the ex-wife told) is that, as apple noted, it doesn't make the facts sound all that much better. Any focus on that whole thing is bad for Newt. Getting into "oh, she had cancer and sure was in the hospital to have a new tumor biopsied, but it didn't turn out to be malignant and she didn't end up actually dying -- a claim which doesn't address the perceived state of her health at the time, btw -- so no biggie" doesn't actually address the issue that Glenn was making a passing reference to.

I'm not saying it's disqualifying under any version of the facts (it's hard for me to predict how it would play to someone otherwise attracted by Newt), but does it make it harder to see Gingrich as the person who can take down Mitt, who the Republicans will decide can beat Obama? Sure, as part of the overall Newt package.

It's true I always assumed she was dead, though, so it's interesting to know she is not. I guess he got that marriage annulled somehow.

bkjazfan 11-15-2011 08:58 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Newt Gingrich is yesterdays news. He's doing well in the polls since he can speak intelligently in these debates and the field is a weak one. I doubt he will win any of the initial primaries which are crucial.

Ouch! I just checked the polling and he seems to be doing pretty well. Apparently, he is taken the votes that would have gone to Perry. Cain is still hot, pardon the pun, but that has to dissipate. Where his votes will go is anyone's guess. If they go to Newt than Romney will have problems which he is already laboring under.

Talking about OWS. How about the recent report that pols are benefitting from inside information and cashing in on there stock picks due to it. More reason for the unpopularity of those serving in Congress.

miceelf 11-15-2011 09:22 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 231641)
It's true I always assumed she was dead, though, so it's interesting to know she is not. I guess he got that marriage annulled somehow.

When you truly believe in the sanctity of marriage, you want to be certain to get it right. So, you need a couple of practice runs before the Real Thing.

jbarton 11-15-2011 09:32 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
I'm surprised to hear Dr. Loury bemoan the lack of introspection within the economics profession, and to call for a "Hippocratic oath". Read Hayek. Read Sowell. Read Russ Roberts, etc. The essence of their voluminous work of decades is the knowledge problem. Absorbing the meaning of their philosophy leads inevitably to a "first, do no harm" worldview for economics, and deep skepticism for the guiding hand that so many in the economics profession would feel confident in offering societies which, in their difficulties, would grasp for any that is offered.

Brn 11-15-2011 09:39 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 231641)
Your link didn't work.

Sorry. Here is it http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/398...7:39&out=17:45

badhatharry 11-15-2011 10:06 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 231625)
Now you're just declaring that you said something other than what you said. It was crystal clear in your first post that you were discussing the dual mandate, Krugman's prescriptions, and NGDP targeting as alternatives.

Bullshit. There are no 'ors' in that array. This is a series of independent questions not alternatives. We both misread each other. But since it is your goal to denigrate me you won't admit it.

Brn 11-15-2011 10:09 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 231641)
Glenn was referring to the story and its political effect, not asserting it -- and particularly not the fact the wife supposedly died -- as reason not to vote for Newt.

I'm not saying that he is saying that it is a reason not to vote for Newt, I'm saying that he is saying that the story is true and widely known. Unless you mean that he isn't saying that story is true but just saying that the story is out there, but that isn't how I heard it. I grant that other interpretations are possible, but I think that in general if one wants to refer to something that way, one usually says something like "the general belief that X did Y", not just "X did Y". If I say something like "that charge, compared to Bill Clinton's rape of Juanita Broaddrick, seems pretty unimportant" I think most people would read that as my asserting that he did rape her, not that some people say that he did.

Quote:

The problem with pointing to the daughter's account (and here's a discussion of how it relates to the original account and the story the ex-wife told) is that, as apple noted, it doesn't make the facts sound all that much better.
Again, I disagree and I frankly find it hard to believe that any fair observer cannot see the difference between "Newt served divorce papers to his wife on her deathbed" (which, again, is the version that my original post was pointing out is wrong, and which is repeated over and over again, even by well-informed people like Glen here, and as you yourself say, you thought that she was dead) and "Newt discussed an ongoing divorce (which she may have initiated) with his wife, while she was in the hospital, during a visit in which he brought their children to see her".

Should one discuss a divorce in that situation? I'd say in general no. But doing so seems like a very human thing to do, like losing your temper at an innocent person after a bad day. We shouldn't do it, but we all do.

Again, my point is not that nothing unpleasant happened at the hospital, it is that everyone seems to "know" that Newt left his wife on her deathbed, and I posted a link showing that that was not so. But for some people, that isn't enough. He has to be evil, not just wrong.

miceelf 11-15-2011 11:06 AM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 231570)
I always liked Newt, probably because I began my interest in politics from 1992 to 1994, and volunteered for some local GOP candidates when I was a youngster. His problem is that he lacks discipline when it comes to message. He's too smart for the political process, really.

Here's Glenn's usual sparring partner, John McW, on the subject of Newt's intelligence:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...gingrich-smart

Gingrich's patterns of speech are largely analytically acute, and sometimes aesthetically interesting, but substantively, they are very often lacking. Language is supposed to be a package that carries substance, but Gingrich is sometimes so pleased with his uninterrupted stream of words, that he mistakes it for an actual flow of ideas. This, sadly, is an affliction endemic in academia, where too many spend too long trying to score points in petty intellectual fights; the further the substance of the debate recedes, the faster the self-satisfaction of the participants grows.

...
For someone with vaunted academic credentials, this is an embarrassment. If Professor Gingrich is intent on brandishing his Ph.D, might not he be expected to have done some basic research—or at least show basic respect for research—on the subjects he talks about? But there is a basic misunderstanding at work here: Scholarship is not about the production of words, but about the search for knowledge on the basis of evidence. Gingrich seems to have interpreted his academic training rather as a way primarily to burnish his own ego—to confuse supporters into following him, rather than to clarify matters of importance.

badhatharry 11-15-2011 12:01 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 231652)
Here's Glenn's usual sparring partner, John McW, on the subject of Newt's intelligence:

So what is John's actual job these days? writing critiques? being a member of the academy? Nice work if you can get it.

As far as Gingrich goes, there are different types of intelligence.

miceelf 11-15-2011 12:06 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 231660)
So what is John's actual job these days? writing critiques? being a member of the academy? Nice work if you can get it.

I think at the start of his diavlogs he instroduces himself in terms of his job descritpion. I know he still has an academic job somewhere, but not sure where.

he's also a blogger for TNR, but I think his offiicial title there might be "contributing editor." I'd certainly like to have his job. Well, except for the teaching part.

badhatharry 11-15-2011 12:18 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 231662)
I think at the start of his diavlogs he instroduces himself in terms of his job descritpion. I know he still has an academic job somewhere, but not sure where.

he's also a blogger for TNR, but I think his offiicial title there might be "contributing editor." I'd certainly like to have his job. Well, except for the teaching part.

I think John has a way with words. As to the value of those words I think, not so much. He seems like a professional cocktail party chatterer commenting about style.

But what do I know? I'm a blue collar schmuck.

miceelf 11-15-2011 01:13 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Oy gevalt.

Now that I am watching. Glenn is engaging in one of the most annoying kinds of things that stereotypical liberals do in other contexts. "I don't want to say that Rick Perry is dumb, because I'm an academic and I shouldn't be judging the lesser people, poor dears."

This is what Black conservatives ALWAYS accuse a certain type of liberal of doing with regard to race, and it's no less annoying in the context of an academic, whose wealth is likely less than 1% of that of Perry's, and who is NOT running to be leader of the free world.

The notion that we shouldn't be evaluating the intelligence of non-academics strikes me as the worst kind of elitism.

badhatharry 11-15-2011 01:21 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 231670)
Oy gevalt.

Now that I am watching. Glenn is engaging in one of the most annoying kinds of things that stereotypical liberals do in other contexts. "I don't want to say that Rick Perry is dumb, because I'm an academic and I shouldn't be judging the lesser people, poor dears."

This is what Black conservatives ALWAYS accuse a certain type of liberal of doing with regard to race, and it's no less annoying in the context of an academic, whose wealth is likely less than 1% of that of Perry's, and who is NOT running to be leader of the free world.

The notion that we shouldn't be evaluating the intelligence of non-academics strikes me as the worst kind of elitism.

I thought he was being characteristically open minded.

University professors make good money, my friend...one of the reason college costs have gone up.

miceelf 11-15-2011 02:17 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 231672)
University professors make good money, my friend...one of the reason college costs have gone up.

There isn't a university professor in the country who makes as much money as Rick Perry.

Sulla the Dictator 11-15-2011 02:50 PM

Re: Let me help you out, Glenn
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by timba (Post 231631)
Perry is dumb - you can take that to the bank. Bush II and Reagan were also plenty dumb and Reagan was already mentally disabled from Alzheimer's when he was governor of California. 300 IQ points for those three musketeers combined is a very charitable guess. We appreciate your scientific approach of not assuming that they're stupid just because everything they say and do is stupid, but c'mon man. The more interesting question is the competition for dumb, dumber and dumbest. My guess is (starting dumb and getting dumber): Bush, Perry, Reagan.

Liberals who still assert that Reagan was unintelligent only look foolish. Sorry gents, I know anti-communism was the mark of the "unhip", provincial, but it worked out pretty well. Time to get over it.

AemJeff 11-15-2011 03:25 PM

Re: Let me help you out, Glenn
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 231682)
Liberals who still assert that Reagan was unintelligent only look foolish. Sorry gents, I know anti-communism was the mark of the "unhip", provincial, but it worked out pretty well. Time to get over it.

Then let me go for the Full Monty. Reagan was pretty dumb, a fact that has exactly nothing to do with "anti-communism." He was also apparently suffering early-stage Alzheimer's during his second term. He may have been good for the movement, but there are plenty of us who believe he was a disaster domestically, and excepting his good fortune in having Gorbachev as his Soviet counterpart he was pretty awful overseas, too. We've been suffering horrendous blowback for Reagan era FP blundering for over a decade now.

miceelf 11-15-2011 03:44 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 231670)
Oy gevalt.

Now that I am watching. Glenn is engaging in one of the most annoying kinds of things that stereotypical liberals do in other contexts. "I don't want to say that Rick Perry is dumb, because I'm an academic and I shouldn't be judging the lesser people, poor dears."

This is what Black conservatives ALWAYS accuse a certain type of liberal of doing with regard to race, and it's no less annoying in the context of an academic, whose wealth is likely less than 1% of that of Perry's, and who is NOT running to be leader of the free world.

The notion that we shouldn't be evaluating the intelligence of non-academics strikes me as the worst kind of elitism.

Glenn goes on, near the end of the diavlog to say of himself that he, having made an error, was sounding like Rick Perry and apologized for sounding stupid.

If one shouldn't evaluate Rick Perry's intelligence, why evaluate Glenn's?

This is really of a piece here. This is the kind of thinking that polluted a lot of Dems in the wake of W's first election and especially after his re-election. This notion that liberals dare not ever say anything negative about anyone's intelligence, if the person criticized is not one of the "elite" (and this is especially silly coming from Glenn regarding Rick Perry, who has more political, economic, and popular power than Glenn will ever possess in two handfuls of academic careers).

It's exactly like Rush Limbaugh's fever dreams of liberals with regard to race, where theoretically whites dare not say anything negative about any black person ever, lest they be labeled racist. Replace "racist" with elitist, and you have what Glenn is doing in real life, not in Rush's imagination.

Simon Willard 11-15-2011 03:46 PM

Re: PENN STATE VALUE Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
We are told that a heinous crime has been committed. No one can understand how someone could witness this and not call 911 immediately.

Suddenly half-a-dozen other victims rise up, years later, to complain of a similar heinous crime.

Does anyone else find this description incongruous? I don't know what's going on, but there's a logical inconsistency here somewhere. Does anyone want to make a hypothesis?

(1) The crimes were not really all that heinous ?
(2) The victims are idiots ?
(3) The victims are so damaged they can't function rationally ?
(4) Some sort of crowd psychology ?

miceelf 11-15-2011 03:52 PM

Re: PENN STATE VALUE Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 231695)
We are told that a heinous crime has been committed. No one can understand how someone could witness this and not call 911 immediately.

Suddenly half-a-dozen other victims rise up, years later, to complain of a similar heinous crime.

Does anyone else find this description incongruous? I don't know what's going on, but there's a logical inconsistency here somewhere. Does anyone want to make a hypothesis?

(1) The crimes were not really all that heinous ?
(2) The victims are idiots ?
(3) The victims are so damaged they can't function rationally ?
(4) Some sort of crowd psychology ?

(5) The victims were very young children at the time they were allegedly assaulted; as logical, reasonable people, we can't expect very young children, apparently well before puberty which is already a shaky time cognitively, to behave in a way we would expect fully matured adults to behave.

Romanized 11-15-2011 04:06 PM

Re: Why is Cain not viewed as historic as Obama?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thouartgob (Post 231615)
It is nice that Cain does well (or was doing well ) in the polls but when republicans start actually voting then we can start discussing about extend of Cain's historicity.

As if the media waited until Iowa to start hyping Obama.

thouartgob 11-15-2011 04:07 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 231663)
I think John has a way with words. As to the value of those words I think, not so much. He seems like a professional cocktail party chatterer commenting about style.

But what do I know? I'm a blue collar schmuck.

John writes books as well and was/still attached to the conservative Manhattan Institute ( yes the Mr. Negros R Stupid - Charles Murray haunt ) so I think he has been exposed to lots of conservative lecturing and has espoused a some of it himself I am sure.

From the Mcworter article:

Quote:

Linguists have long known not to be distracted by the decorative aspects of language, and that profound substance can often be found in unexpected packages; indeed, they are trained to find it there. A classic study, performed by the University of Pennsylvania’s William Labov back in the 1960s, shows that to be the case. Labov showed that in Philadelphia’s inner city, those speaking the roughest “Ebonics” were often reasoning more deeply than more educated, middle-class black neighbors. (This was just before middle class blacks started moving to the suburbs in the wake of the Fair Housing Act.)

Here’s a male teenager asked whether he believes in heaven:

Like some people say if you’re good an’ shit, your spirit goin’ t’heaven ... ‘n’ if you bad, your spirit goin’ to hell. Well, bullshit! Your spirit goin’ to hell anyway, good or bad. ‘Cause, you see, doesn’ nobody really know that it’s a God, y’know, ‘cause I mean I have seen black gods, pink gods, white gods, all color gods, and don’t nobody know it’s really a God. An’ when they be sayin’ if you good, you goin’ t’heaven, tha’s bullshit, ‘cause you ain’t goin’ to no heaven -- ‘cause it ain’t no heaven for you to go to!

On the surface that hardly sounds like what we call sober reasoning. However, Labov laid out the clear formal lines of logic expressed in this slangy, nonstandard vehicle of speech:

1. Everyone has a different idea of what God is like.
2. Therefore nobody knows that God really exists.
3. If there is heaven, it was made by God.
4. If God doesn’t exist, he couldn’t have made heaven.
5. Therefore heaven does not exist.
6. Therefore you can’t go to heaven.

Compare this to the more bourgeois person asked whether there is such a thing as witchcraft:


I do feel that in certain cultures there is such a thing as witchcraft, or some sort of science of witchcraft; I don’t think that it’s just a matter of believing hard enough that there is such a thing as witchcraft. I do believe that there is such a thing that a person can put himself in a state of mind, or that something could be given to them to intoxicate them in a certain – to a certain frame of mind – that – that could actually be considered witchcraft.


A teacher would have no problem with the phraseology; we all see the basic confidence in self-expression. In a television debate, this may not have even been considered a gaffe. But technically this guy didn’t say a thing of use. Is there witchcraft or not? What is it that “could be considered witchcraft”? Smooth talking and smooth thinking reveal themselves to be hardly the same thing.
I see Palin and a bit of Bachman and Cain in the witchcraft passage. Talking to fill in space that would otherwise contain a point. Not casting aspirations on intelligence here.

The idea is that there is a lot of Newt's debate performance that consists of logic games and flowery language.

thouartgob 11-15-2011 04:15 PM

Re: Why is Cain not viewed as historic as Obama?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanized (Post 231700)
As if the media waited until Iowa to start hyping Obama.

Well Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes both ran for president already so there is nothing historical about either Obama in '07 or Cain '11. History will be made when the votes are made.

Romanized 11-15-2011 04:17 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Thanks to Glen and Ann for finally fleshing out what the media is doing to Cain. That doesn't mean they condoned anything he may have done. They just pointed out the embarrassing bias of the media and liberals in regard to Cain.

thouartgob 11-15-2011 04:21 PM

Re: PENN STATE VALUE Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 231697)
(5) The victims were very young children at the time they were allegedly assaulted; as logical, reasonable people, we can't expect very young children, apparently well before puberty which is already a shaky time cognitively, to behave in a way we would expect fully matured adults to behave.

And lets not forget in Pennsylvania being raped by Paterno's right hand man is like being diddled by Jesus ( or at least a beloved Cardinal ). From a youngster's point of view who wants to make everybody hate you by speaking out on something that is shameful and would harm the nice man that mom and dad and the rest of the world love and probably happened because you did wrong in the first place.

thouartgob 11-15-2011 04:34 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanized (Post 231703)
Thanks to Glen and Ann for finally fleshing out what the media is doing to Cain. That doesn't mean they condoned anything he may have done. They just pointed out the embarrassing bias of the media and liberals in regard to Cain.

Well the press is biased towards making money by entertaining people with a news like product that basically hypes easily digested conflicts, talking points and simplified metrics of who is doing better in the polls. If the intent of the press was to maximize the chances of Obama being elected they would be helping Cain rather than hurting him. I'm a liberal and I would love Obama to be facing Cain in the general.

I wonder how come Ann and Glenn didn't even bother mentioning the fact that Cain's story changed from day to day. It's not the crime but the cover-up right ? Was it mentioned once ??

By the way the idea that the first accuser complained because she saw Cain measuring her in relation to Cain's wife is bogus. She says that it happened but wasn't a problem and not the source of her complaints.

stephanie 11-15-2011 05:18 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 231662)
I think at the start of his diavlogs he instroduces himself in terms of his job descritpion. I know he still has an academic job somewhere, but not sure where.

Right now he's a lecturer at Columbia. He's talked about teaching in their core, which is a good one -- doing the general ed stuff and not just his linguistics. Seems like he's off the full-time professor thing, then.

He's also at the Manhattan Institute. I'm never sure what people do at think tanks. Write stuff, I guess.

Obviously, as others have mentioned, he's still writing books and doing the TNR thing.

He does have a fabulous job (or set of jobs).

Simon Willard 11-15-2011 05:47 PM

Re: PENN STATE VALUE Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

(5) The victims were very young children at the time they were allegedly assaulted; ... we can't expect very young children ... to behave in a way we would expect fully matured adults to behave.
Quote:

Originally Posted by thouartgob (Post 231704)
And lets not forget in Pennsylvania being raped by Paterno's right hand man is like being diddled by Jesus ...

These are good points. I assumed the victims are now adult, but I suppose there's not a sharp transition between childhood and a "fully matured" adult.

miceelf 11-15-2011 05:54 PM

Re: PENN STATE VALUE Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 231715)
These are good points. I assumed the victims are now adult, but I suppose there's not a sharp transition between childhood and a "fully matured" adult.

IN my experience, and without getting too psychoanalytically, adults are often functionally children when thinking about things that happened to them when they were children.

thouartgob 11-15-2011 06:07 PM

Re:OMFG PENN STATE VALUE Added: Special Shame Edition
 
Sandusky's lawyers must be going for the insanity defense.

from transcript of unreleased footage:

Quote:

BOB COSTAS:

18:58:59:00: "But you're a man who by his own admission has showered with young boys, highly inappropriate. Who has continually put himself in the presence of young boys, volunteer high school coach, volunteer at a small local college, even after -- you were largely disassociated from Penn State. Multiple reports of you getting into bed with young boys who stayed at your house in a room in the basement. How do you account for these things? And if you're not a pedophile, then what are you?"

JERRY SANDUSKY:

18:59:30:00: "Well I'm a person that has taken a strong interest. I'm a very passionate person in terms of trying to make a difference in the lives of some young people. I worked very hard to try to connect with them. To make them feel good about themselves. To -- be something significant in their lives. Maybe this gets misinterpreted, has gotten depending on -- I know a lot of young people where it hasn't. I have worked with many, many young people where there has been no misinterpretation of my actions and I have made a very significant difference in their lives."

BOB COSTAS:

19:00:28:00: "But isn't what you're just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don't necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it's entirely possible that you could've helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn't that possible?"

JERRY SANDUSKY:

19:01:01:00: "Well -- you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would-- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and-- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have-- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

Costas then asks Sandusky if he is sexually attracted to young boys, the portion of the interview that was shown on "Rock Center."

BOB COSTAS:

19:01:47:00: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?"

"Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?" Sandusky repeats.

"Yes," Costas answers.

"Sexually attracted, you know, I -- I enjoy young people," Sandusky says. "I -- I love to be around them. I -- I -- but no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."

According to New York defense attorney Tom Harvey, who joined a chorus of criminal defense lawyers who found it hard to understand why Sandusky's lawyer, Joseph Amendola, allowed his client to appear on national television, Sandusky's admissions will be costly.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/co...#ixzz1doWx4wUj

I'm not making any moral equivalence here but reminds me of Cain's; For every woman that comes out saying I harassed her there many more that don't, line

thouartgob 11-15-2011 06:18 PM

Re: OMFG PENN STATE VALUE Added: Special Shame Edition
 
A little background on this ridiculous spectacle:

Quote:

1998: Boy known as Victim 6 in grand jury presentment is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old and showers with Sandusky, according to grand jury testimony. Sandusky lathers up boy and says, “I’m going to squeeze your guts out.” When Victim 6 is dropped off at his home, he tells his mother of the incident and she reports the information to university police, who investigate. Investigators eavesdrop on two conversations between the mother and Sandusky, and after one conversation, Sandusky asks for forgiveness, even telling the mother, “I wish I were dead.” Then Centre County district attorney Ray Gricar ultimately says no charges will be filed against Sandusky.

Summer 1999: Sandusky announces he will retire from Penn State at the end of the season. He will have emeritus status, maintain an office on campus and have access to all Penn State facilities.

Dec. 28, 1999: Boy known as Victim 4, is part of Sandusky’s family party for the 1999 Alamo Bowl in Texas, according to grand jury report.

Fall 2000: According to grand jury report, Penn State janitor named Jim Calhoun observes Sandusky in university’s Lasch Football Building showers with a young boy, Victim 8, pinned up against the wall, performing oral sex on the boy. He informs janitorial staff members. Employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and witnesses Sandusky and the boy, whom he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13, exit holding hands. Calhoun, a temporary employee, never reports incident.

March 1, 2002: According to grand jury report, Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary enters the locker room at the Lasch Football Building. He witnesses Sandusky performing anal sex on boy, known as Victim 2, whose age he estimates at 10. McQueary tells his father, who advises him to tell Paterno. McQueary meets with Paterno the following morning.

March 3, 2002: According to the grand jury, Paterno calls Penn State athletic director Tim Curley, and tells Curley what he was told by McQueary. Paterno’s version is that McQueary had seen Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature.” Later that month, McQueary meets with Curley and senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz. McQueary says he believes he witnessed Sandusky having anal sex. Curley and Schultz never report the incident to authorities.

April 15, 2005: Gricar, the Centre County DA, disappears after a trip to Lewisburg, Pa. His car is later found parked in a lot and his computer and hard drive are found in the Susquehanna River. The twice-divorced Gricar, 59, is never seen or heard from again. “It’s literally a mystery,” Bellefonte Borough Police Chief Shawn Weaver tells the Daily News in 2011. “The man vanished, period. No human trace has been found. There’s only one of three things that could have happened to him — a suicide, homicide or he just walked away.”

2007: According to the grand jury report, during the 2007 track season, Sandusky begins spending time with boy known as Victim 1. Victim 1 stays overnight at Sandusky’s home, and later testifies that Sandusky performs oral sex on him multiple times. Sandusky also brings Victim 1 onto PSU campus even though he was barred from bringing boys to the university after alleged 2002 incident.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/co...#ixzz1doa4MbLB

This shit happens everywhere in the world and for as long as we as humans have had memories but it just sucks seeing out there again. Just like the Catholic Church. Sports is the closest thing to a secular religion as I've ever seen.

PreppyMcPrepperson 11-15-2011 07:36 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
Ann complains that there isn't enough investigative reporting on abuses and injustices in our economic life. Good news, Ann: I'm running a nonprofit that funds that sort of thing, and we're taking grant applications through November 28th.

Globalcop 11-15-2011 09:19 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
I love John McWhorter, but this pairing is much more fun and interesting. I hope we see more of these two together.
I wonder how an Althouse/McWhorter diavlog would go.

T.G.G.P 11-15-2011 10:12 PM

Re: Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)
 
It's not just an appearance from the debates, Rick Perry is not too smart.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.