Breaking: ample evidence that a New York Times writer suppressed his true assessment of a political figure out of fealty to a party/movement in the critical weeks before the election ... just as Mickey predicted!
We'll be right here, waiting for Mickey's gloating update about those spineless lefty journalists shamelessly pandering to the Money Liberal agenda ...
Monday, November 16, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Contradictinggg Oneself
So, according to GreGG Easterbrook:
(1) Paternalism is a very bad, no good, horrible thing when applied to health care, and everyone, rich and poor, should pay out-of-pocket (!) for services that are legally required to be standardized (!!) so that they can negotiate for their health services the same way you'd bargain shop for, say, a television (!!!),
(2) Paternalism is a very good, not at all bad, terrific thing when applied to young adults who could easily be plying their trade in the NBA, because Grggggg doesn't like the quality of play in a sport he doesn't care about in the first place. [Isn't this the argument that the erudite and not at all crazy Buzz Bissinger absolutely demolished on the same day that this idiotic Easterbrook article was published? -- ed. True, that op-ed has data and logic ... but it forgot that JaVale McGee does not entertain Gregg the same way a player with a degree in communications does!]
It's pretty simple: the father of a family of four should be totally accountable to market forces in determining whether to get that growth looked at, but LeBron James must be protected from himself.
What's not to love?
(1) Paternalism is a very bad, no good, horrible thing when applied to health care, and everyone, rich and poor, should pay out-of-pocket (!) for services that are legally required to be standardized (!!) so that they can negotiate for their health services the same way you'd bargain shop for, say, a television (!!!),
(2) Paternalism is a very good, not at all bad, terrific thing when applied to young adults who could easily be plying their trade in the NBA, because Grggggg doesn't like the quality of play in a sport he doesn't care about in the first place. [Isn't this the argument that the erudite and not at all crazy Buzz Bissinger absolutely demolished on the same day that this idiotic Easterbrook article was published? -- ed. True, that op-ed has data and logic ... but it forgot that JaVale McGee does not entertain Gregg the same way a player with a degree in communications does!]
It's pretty simple: the father of a family of four should be totally accountable to market forces in determining whether to get that growth looked at, but LeBron James must be protected from himself.
What's not to love?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Mickey Kaus Turning Into Richard Cohen Watch
Mickey simply does not care for doctor's waiting rooms:
Shouldn't doctors give patients waiting to see them little hand-held beepers or vibrating devices like those some crowded restaurants give you when you're waiting for a table? That way you could wander around nearby instead of staying in the unventilated waiting room filled with coughing, sneezing people. ...
BONUS: Aren't doctor's waiting rooms one of those few places where everyone is treated equally and people of all classes mingle (like the post office, the DMV, and other "public spheres")? Wouldn't having everyone leave (perhaps to wait in their luxury cars, away from the poors!) destroy Mickey's precious social equality?
Shouldn't doctors give patients waiting to see them little hand-held beepers or vibrating devices like those some crowded restaurants give you when you're waiting for a table? That way you could wander around nearby instead of staying in the unventilated waiting room filled with coughing, sneezing people. ...
BONUS: Aren't doctor's waiting rooms one of those few places where everyone is treated equally and people of all classes mingle (like the post office, the DMV, and other "public spheres")? Wouldn't having everyone leave (perhaps to wait in their luxury cars, away from the poors!) destroy Mickey's precious social equality?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mickey Asks, FMK Answers
Mickey:
This chart seems to be going in the wrong direction for health care reform, even if you discount the lopsided FOX poll (for Nate Silverish reasons--they only get the big support/oppose question after asking a series of spoiling questions). ...
Huh? This chart? The chart where you can actually discount lopsided Fox polls? Hmm ... I wonder what that chart would look like ...
/click
/click
/click
Right is the wrong direction? Straight sideways is the wrong direction? An uncomplicated rendering of the linear progression of time is the wrong direction?
Does this suggest that the much-derided insurance industry study (suggesting premiums would rise after reform) had an impact?
... Nope.
Glad I could help!
This chart seems to be going in the wrong direction for health care reform, even if you discount the lopsided FOX poll (for Nate Silverish reasons--they only get the big support/oppose question after asking a series of spoiling questions). ...
Huh? This chart? The chart where you can actually discount lopsided Fox polls? Hmm ... I wonder what that chart would look like ...
/click
/click
/click
Right is the wrong direction? Straight sideways is the wrong direction? An uncomplicated rendering of the linear progression of time is the wrong direction?
Does this suggest that the much-derided insurance industry study (suggesting premiums would rise after reform) had an impact?
... Nope.
Glad I could help!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Far Center
Christopher Beam, stretching so far that I think he pulled his hamstring:
Swine flu may have an unexpected side effect: political unity. The far left and far right agree that they're sure as heck not getting vaccinated against swine flu.
Wow, the far left hates the swine flu virus? I'm a Radical IslamoMarxist Money Liberal Fascist and I had never really thought about it before ... I better read up before the next drum-in!
For examples of the "far right", Beam cites Alex Jones and Pat Buchanon. No, wait, he cites Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, easily the two most popular members of the conservative media. Swing and a miss.
For examples of the "far left", Beam cites Peter Singer and Amy Goodman. No, wait, he cites Dr. Frank Lipman and Jim Carrey. [*The* Dr. Frank Lipman??? -- ed. In fairness, he also cites Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who at least is a blood relative of somebody that someone might associate with the left.] Swing and a miss.
So, in crafting this pinnacle of a-pox-on-both-your-houses faux-centrist horseshit, he identifies mainstream conservative lunacy as the "far right" and considers the star of Lemony Snicket as emblematic of the "far left."
When the Garmin lady tells Chris Beam to "bear right" or "turn left" does he just run the car into a ditch?
Swine flu may have an unexpected side effect: political unity. The far left and far right agree that they're sure as heck not getting vaccinated against swine flu.
Wow, the far left hates the swine flu virus? I'm a Radical IslamoMarxist Money Liberal Fascist and I had never really thought about it before ... I better read up before the next drum-in!
For examples of the "far right", Beam cites Alex Jones and Pat Buchanon. No, wait, he cites Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, easily the two most popular members of the conservative media. Swing and a miss.
For examples of the "far left", Beam cites Peter Singer and Amy Goodman. No, wait, he cites Dr. Frank Lipman and Jim Carrey. [*The* Dr. Frank Lipman??? -- ed. In fairness, he also cites Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who at least is a blood relative of somebody that someone might associate with the left.] Swing and a miss.
So, in crafting this pinnacle of a-pox-on-both-your-houses faux-centrist horseshit, he identifies mainstream conservative lunacy as the "far right" and considers the star of Lemony Snicket as emblematic of the "far left."
When the Garmin lady tells Chris Beam to "bear right" or "turn left" does he just run the car into a ditch?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Doubling Down
Looks like some lowly bloggers have the temerity to question Mickey's slapdash ACORN/Franken analysis. What say you, Mickey? Is it something that condescendingly dismisses their legitimate criticisms of your line of argumentation? It is? Terrific:
Dan Kennedy and Oliver Willis have never heard of absentee ballots (not to mention the fun you can have with same-day registration).
In the original post, Mickey used his ignorance of absentee ballot and same-day registration procedure as circumstantial evidence of a nefarious scheme. [Hey! Questions remain! Questions that Mickey will never bother to find an answer to! -- ed. Obvious questions, even!]
But now Mickey -- who once again seems to operating under the assumption that there was no hard-fought months-long review of the Minnesota election, much less a review that focused almost entirely on absentee ballots -- is actually using the mere existence of absentee ballots and same-day registration in a state where ACORN has an office as per se proof of perfidy.
This defensive leap from wink-wink speculation ("if there were funny business" ... ) to outright citizen-of-the-land-of-make-believe (what, exactly, is "the fun you can have with same-day registration"?) is subtle, but it's the little things that make reading Mickey worthwhile.
That, and the stupid.
Dan Kennedy and Oliver Willis have never heard of absentee ballots (not to mention the fun you can have with same-day registration).
In the original post, Mickey used his ignorance of absentee ballot and same-day registration procedure as circumstantial evidence of a nefarious scheme. [Hey! Questions remain! Questions that Mickey will never bother to find an answer to! -- ed. Obvious questions, even!]
But now Mickey -- who once again seems to operating under the assumption that there was no hard-fought months-long review of the Minnesota election, much less a review that focused almost entirely on absentee ballots -- is actually using the mere existence of absentee ballots and same-day registration in a state where ACORN has an office as per se proof of perfidy.
This defensive leap from wink-wink speculation ("if there were funny business" ... ) to outright citizen-of-the-land-of-make-believe (what, exactly, is "the fun you can have with same-day registration"?) is subtle, but it's the little things that make reading Mickey worthwhile.
That, and the stupid.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The New York Times Is No Longer Trying
Oh, come on:
I am not unemployable. I have a master’s of fine arts and spent two years in the Peace Corps.
At least *try* to pretend you aren't the paper of record for clueless liberal caricatures ...
I am not unemployable. I have a master’s of fine arts and spent two years in the Peace Corps.
At least *try* to pretend you aren't the paper of record for clueless liberal caricatures ...
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Aw, Cute
Hey, look! A disreputable paper's even more disreputable celebrity news auxiliary lifted a particularly noxious section of idiocy almost verbatim from one of Mickey's worthless posts!
Does Mickey respond with a blend of pride and annoyance?
He does?
Awesome. Here's what Mickey wrote:
Did ACORN chicanery elect Al Franken? That's the import of this tactfully phrased Minneapolis Star Tribune column.** Franken won by 312 votes. ACORN claimed to have registered 48,000 new Minnesota voters. If just 1% were ineligible but cast ballots, or had ballots cast for them illegally, and survived the recount process ... that's 480 votes, almost certainly overwhelmingly cast for Franken.
What do you suppose it was about this vibrant prose that attracted the obviously discerning editors of this prestigious journal?
- The October 2008-style conspiracy theorizing about ACORN and stolen elections?
- Mickey's obvious inability or unwillingness to distinguish between falsified voter registrations and actual voter fraud?
- How he completely ignores the thorough review of ballots and subsequent court fights that lasted for 10 months after this election?
- The way he ridiculously pulled a statistic out of thin air ("just 1%"!) to aid in his "analysis"?
- How one of his sources is an obviously insane marginal figure who has naturally become a folk hero to the please-God-let-there-be-a-military-coup crowd?
- The way Mickey walks right up to saying that Al Franken was illegitimately elected and ... doesn't ... *quite* ... say it ... ?
In any event (and the answer, for the record, is "all of the above, and did you hear that Democrats are Marxists who want to kill your grandmother?"), here's Mickey on the NYP's plagiarism:
kf Tuesday, Page Six today (Doris Kearns Goodwin style!)
You see, Mickey won't come out and angrily accuse the Post of lifting his entire story without even bothering to change Mickey's patently stupid math -- that might offend the death panel enthusiasts and hyperbolic outrage factories that have hilariously become Mickey's peers -- so he makes his accusation in the form of an out-of-the-blue cheap shot at a known liberal. Ha ... ha?
Once upon a time, Mickey had much stronger opinions on the subject:
Plagiarism's supposed to be theft, right? If it is theft, how can it be merely "careless" to cut and paste somebody else's graf into your story?
Oh, but that's when it was the New York Times ... my mistake ...
Does Mickey respond with a blend of pride and annoyance?
He does?
Awesome. Here's what Mickey wrote:
Did ACORN chicanery elect Al Franken? That's the import of this tactfully phrased Minneapolis Star Tribune column.** Franken won by 312 votes. ACORN claimed to have registered 48,000 new Minnesota voters. If just 1% were ineligible but cast ballots, or had ballots cast for them illegally, and survived the recount process ... that's 480 votes, almost certainly overwhelmingly cast for Franken.
What do you suppose it was about this vibrant prose that attracted the obviously discerning editors of this prestigious journal?
- The October 2008-style conspiracy theorizing about ACORN and stolen elections?
- Mickey's obvious inability or unwillingness to distinguish between falsified voter registrations and actual voter fraud?
- How he completely ignores the thorough review of ballots and subsequent court fights that lasted for 10 months after this election?
- The way he ridiculously pulled a statistic out of thin air ("just 1%"!) to aid in his "analysis"?
- How one of his sources is an obviously insane marginal figure who has naturally become a folk hero to the please-God-let-there-be-a-military-coup crowd?
- The way Mickey walks right up to saying that Al Franken was illegitimately elected and ... doesn't ... *quite* ... say it ... ?
In any event (and the answer, for the record, is "all of the above, and did you hear that Democrats are Marxists who want to kill your grandmother?"), here's Mickey on the NYP's plagiarism:
kf Tuesday, Page Six today (Doris Kearns Goodwin style!)
You see, Mickey won't come out and angrily accuse the Post of lifting his entire story without even bothering to change Mickey's patently stupid math -- that might offend the death panel enthusiasts and hyperbolic outrage factories that have hilariously become Mickey's peers -- so he makes his accusation in the form of an out-of-the-blue cheap shot at a known liberal. Ha ... ha?
Once upon a time, Mickey had much stronger opinions on the subject:
Plagiarism's supposed to be theft, right? If it is theft, how can it be merely "careless" to cut and paste somebody else's graf into your story?
Oh, but that's when it was the New York Times ... my mistake ...
Friday, September 25, 2009
One Day in the Life of Mickey Kausovich
Mickey, in admittedly extreme form:
Maybe Landesman should order a viewing of The Lives of Others to underscore to them what (in admittedly extreme form) people who worry about politicizing funding for the arts are worried about.
The Lives of Others was about ... the problem of politicizing funding for the arts?
/deep breath
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Holy shit! What fucking movie did Mickey fucking Kaus fucking watch? Does he think that the actress in the movie was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the high-ranking party official because she was worried about grants for her play? Here, I was thinking it was because she lived in a totalitarian state run by sociopaths with no tolerance for dissent or individual freedom ... when *all along* it was an allegory for the consequences of an unchecked National Endowment for the Arts!
[This is the same Mickey Kaus who mocked "privocrats" fears of data mining, right? ("Do you have an expectation of privacy when you check out a book from ... the government? I don't.") -- ed. Hey, you don't hear him complaining about tapping dissidents' phones and conducting warrantless searches of their homes, do you? "First they came bearing Jazz Masters Fellowships, and I said nothing because I am not a Jazz Master ..." -- ed.]
***********************
The Official Mickey Kaus Totalitarian State Reading List
Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number: The narrator's survival of brutal conditions as a political prisoner is a testament to the fundamental inefficiency of government-run programs.
Darkness at Noon: The protaganist's frustrating attempts at communication with the other prisoners is a convincing argument against subsidies for public radio.
The Gulag Archipelago: The camp massacres are vibrant metaphors for Peter Orszag's death panels.
1984: The poor quality of government-approved gin reveals fundamental problems with free market regulation.
Jesus Christ, Mickey. THE LIVES OF OTHERS?
Maybe Landesman should order a viewing of The Lives of Others to underscore to them what (in admittedly extreme form) people who worry about politicizing funding for the arts are worried about.
The Lives of Others was about ... the problem of politicizing funding for the arts?
/deep breath
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Holy shit! What fucking movie did Mickey fucking Kaus fucking watch? Does he think that the actress in the movie was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the high-ranking party official because she was worried about grants for her play? Here, I was thinking it was because she lived in a totalitarian state run by sociopaths with no tolerance for dissent or individual freedom ... when *all along* it was an allegory for the consequences of an unchecked National Endowment for the Arts!
[This is the same Mickey Kaus who mocked "privocrats" fears of data mining, right? ("Do you have an expectation of privacy when you check out a book from ... the government? I don't.") -- ed. Hey, you don't hear him complaining about tapping dissidents' phones and conducting warrantless searches of their homes, do you? "First they came bearing Jazz Masters Fellowships, and I said nothing because I am not a Jazz Master ..." -- ed.]
***********************
The Official Mickey Kaus Totalitarian State Reading List
Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number: The narrator's survival of brutal conditions as a political prisoner is a testament to the fundamental inefficiency of government-run programs.
Darkness at Noon: The protaganist's frustrating attempts at communication with the other prisoners is a convincing argument against subsidies for public radio.
The Gulag Archipelago: The camp massacres are vibrant metaphors for Peter Orszag's death panels.
1984: The poor quality of government-approved gin reveals fundamental problems with free market regulation.
Jesus Christ, Mickey. THE LIVES OF OTHERS?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Kausfiles Minus Kaus, Again
Wherein I remove whole sentences from context, etc. ...
Mickey (advancing a fairly standard "The hyperbolic and distinctly racist opposition to our black president is not because our black president is black!" argument):
It's that he's a relative newcomer, as Presidents go--an unknown quantity, an enigma, with a short track record and patches of that record left fuzzy. That means opponents can fill in the blanks with ominous possibilities. It makes paranoia more rational, if you will.
It's true! George W. Bush had only been an elected official for 6 years and had never held national office before he was essentially hand-picked by a group of plutocrats to be the nominee of the Republican party! Thus, when a major terrorist attack occurred eight months into his presidency, raising all sorts of ridiculous questions and advancing absurd hypotheses was a completely rational response because the president was a huge question mark.
Mickey Kaus, defender of Truthers. Who knew?
Mickey (advancing a fairly standard "The hyperbolic and distinctly racist opposition to our black president is not because our black president is black!" argument):
It's that he's a relative newcomer, as Presidents go--an unknown quantity, an enigma, with a short track record and patches of that record left fuzzy. That means opponents can fill in the blanks with ominous possibilities. It makes paranoia more rational, if you will.
It's true! George W. Bush had only been an elected official for 6 years and had never held national office before he was essentially hand-picked by a group of plutocrats to be the nominee of the Republican party! Thus, when a major terrorist attack occurred eight months into his presidency, raising all sorts of ridiculous questions and advancing absurd hypotheses was a completely rational response because the president was a huge question mark.
Mickey Kaus, defender of Truthers. Who knew?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
