Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
This is actually how I first became aware of Ed Darrell. A J.P. Morgan analyst, Michael Cembalest, did some research on the business experience of the Obama cabinet officials — or rather the lack thereof. He found that the experience of this cabinet in the private sector, compared to that of previous administrations, is extremely low. Darrell has yet to find a progressive cause he doesn’t like, so he took issue with this.
Something you need to know about the way Ed Darrell argues. He has experience as, or has tried to become, or wishes he could become, or has studied to become…a trial lawyer. And so he argues like one. And what I mean by this is, he goes after the definitions first, followed by inclusions and exclusions. He’s got some argument to present about why A should be thought-of as B…and C is to be excluded…and everyone should be fixated on D. He seems to think such initial engagements will be hashed out in front of some authority figure, like a judge, and the outcome of that initial engagement will be decided in his favor — which will oblige everyone to think of A as synonymous with B, or to exclude C, or to fixate on D.
That is not how grown-ups actually argue, of course. When you think like a mature adult, first thing you settle on is the outcome desired; if we don’t agree on that, then of course there’s nothing to argue about. Next, you figure out what the facts are, which is where the argument has potential to become a learning experience. Darrell does contribute helpfully to this, when he tries to get everyone fixated on D. Trouble is, he doesn’t want anyone thinking about anything else. Also, that D very often turns out to be a fektoid, a fact whose veracity would survive skeptical and critical inspection, but whose relevance would not. DarrelLogic, therefore, becomes an exercise in endlessly deliberating, on a circuitous road track, whatever Ed Darrell wants to talk about and nothing else. If it helps the progressive agenda, you are to fixate on it, and if it doesn’t, you are to exclude it.
Darrell ends up frustrated a lot, the few times I wade into the fray, because of course there is no judge ruling that I have to think of things the Ed Darrell way. His objections are not sustained, mine are not overruled.
And, for the matter under discussion, I note that as the time has rolled on past since Cembalest’s original article from November of ’09, Ed’s attack upon it has been reduced in credibility. President Obama has continued to prove that if He does know something about the private sector and how it works, it isn’t enough…or if it is enough, then Obama doesn’t much care about it, or isn’t trying to make the economy any stronger. It’s interesting that between Darrell and myself, I could be inferred to be the one defending our current President, with a sort of “Well how much would you expect Him to know about it?” defense. Ed Darrell could be construed as attacking the President, with an attack that looks something like “He knows damn good and well what He is doing, if the economy remains this anemic it must be because He wants it to be.”
Which I don’t think is what he’s saying. But that’s where his argument leads.
Obama worked for a law firm and sued people. According to DarrelLogic, that is “private sector” experience and therefore anybody who says “Obama’s never worked in the private sector” should eat their words.
Ya buyin’ it, Your Honor?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nice. I think this nails it perfectly. And it explains a lot of those leftist “arguments” that infuriate me the most. “Obama’s not a socialist and neither are we,” for example, or “real communism has never been tried.” Point out that Lenin, Mao, and all sure as hell thought what they were doing was “real communism” and oh, here come the rationalizations. (Same thing with the socialism bit, of course. Hell, we can even check — Bernie Sanders actually IS a Socialist; he’s got the party card and everything. Check his voting record — I bet he’s with Glorious Leader 98.9% of the time).
Maddening. Nice takedown.
- Severian | 06/28/2011 @ 15:02“real communism has never been tried.”
I’d love to hear a proponent of this argument explain to me why “real communism” (whatever that is) doesn’t necessarily rely on concentration camps, silencing of opposition, and expansionist militarism in order to survive. If it’s so wonderful – I won’t even ask why it’s got so many critics – but rather, why the need to shut them up?
Of course, this is what you get when you have a group of people who worship human beings instead of God…you get people who think that the right group of men can be informed enough to make informed & responsible economic decisions for an entire nation – the decisions that are properly made by millions of individual producers and consumers voluntarily associating with one another. They actually have themselves convinced that someone, or a group of someones, could possibly be wise enough.
The USSR had 73 years to get it right – and communism was personified better by no one than by Josef Stalin…a man with the blood of no less than 30 million people on his hands. (Incidentally, I learned this evening that Mike Tyson, the misbegotten boxer, has a tattoo of Chairman Mao on his chest, probably with no knowledge at all of what Mao did to tens of millions of Chinese on his way to establishing “real communism” there.) I won’t even go into the crimes against humanity committed by numerous other communist states over the years.
Can anyone even play devil’s advocate with me on this?
Darrell ends up frustrated a lot, the few times I wade into the fray, because of course there is no judge ruling that I have to think of things the Ed Darrell way.
Isn’t this the same problem the entire Left has? It’s hardly unique to this individual. Instead of subscribing to their false choices, you reject their entire premise….and they don’t know how to handle it.
As for that Obama cabinet….all I can tell you right now is that I want Eric Holder GONE. This Gun Runner scandal over at ATF is an outrage and heads need to roll. If Holder didn’t know what was going on in his own DOJ, he should have…and so in my opinion he isn’t off the hook. I’ve disliked him especially ever since he called our country “a nation of cowards” for not wanting to have yet another tiresome, one-sided discussion of racial relations.
- cylarz | 06/29/2011 @ 01:02[…] got a post where he discusses the left’s lawyerly logic. I’m not actually familiar with the target […]
- Solecism | academiczoology | 06/30/2011 @ 13:55