.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, November 22, 2014


The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect

The late Michael Crichton’s 2002 essay “Why Speculate?”:

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

Labels: , ,


American troops to fight on in Afghanistan: Obama kicks military under the bus

Leaked to the NY Times by Team Obama:

In an announcement in the White House Rose Garden in May, Mr. Obama said that the American military would have no combat role in Afghanistan next year, and that the missions for the 9,800 troops remaining in the country would be limited to training Afghan forces and to hunting the “remnants of Al Qaeda.

But a secret order by Obama changed that.

Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.

To me that sounds as if Americans will be in combat under any conceivable circumstance. It sounds as if the military and the new Afghan government convinced Obama that if his Afghan strategy was carried out, the war would be lost before he left office.

So, despite prior promises, Obama doesn't want Afghanistan to turn into another Libya on his watch. One Benghazi is enough.  

According to the report in the NY Times, official print house organ of the Obama administration:

“… generals both at the Pentagon and in Afghanistan urged Mr. Obama to define the mission more broadly to allow American troops to attack the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other militants if intelligence revealed that the extremists were threatening American forces in the country.

And if things go wrong, will the Commander in Chief be responsible? You have to be kidding me. It’s going to be the fault of the military. As one administration official put it:

“… the military pretty much got what it wanted.”

[Cue Obama voice] "You can'r blame me, I gave the military what it wanted.  The Commander in Chief?  Not me; it's the military's fault."

The Limbaugh Theorem in action.

Labels: , , , , ,


Why do so many people not know that Bill Clinton raped women?

Reading a story recently about the Bill Cosby rape allegations.  I enjoy reading the comments at the end of many stories (one of the benefits of the internet).  Someone brought up the subject of Cosby being treated differently from other alleged rapists like Bill Clinton.

A woman responded that cheating on your wife was different than rape.  It was obvious that the only woman sexually associated with Bill Clinton today in the minds of most people is Monica Lewinski.

The women that Clinton was accused of raping, like Juanita Broaddrick are not remembered of dismissed as unbelievable trailer trash.

Meanwhile, accused white liberal rapist and former president Bill Clinton has no such problems. He still dominates Democratic politics, commanding an average $195,000 per speech imparting his wisdom and insights. Past allegations of rape and groping and using his power and charm to seduce women are ignored – or secretly admired.

The Clinton Foundation hauls in millions, supporting Bill; his wife, stand-by-your-man former New York State senator, former secretary of state, and potential presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton; daughter Chelsea; and hundreds of hangers on in style. Women of all backgrounds, especially feminists, flock to his speeches as he tells them what they want to hear.

Clinton's alleged victims haven't fared so well. Paula Jones was dismissed as "trailer trash" by Clinton, defending himself against her claims of rape, which he later settled for $850,000. Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrrick were scorned and mocked by Clintonistas after going public with their claims. Gennifer Flowers, charmed by Clinton in exchange for sex and talk of marriage, was mocked as silly – someone who couldn't even spell her first name correctly. Mention Monica Lewinsky, the 22-year-old starry-eyed intern in the Clinton White House and Clinton charmee, and (sometimes nervous) laughter erupts. Except from the victim herself. No complaints from liberal women about the degrading treatment of their "sisters."
It's Liberal Privilege.

Labels: , , ,


I guess that there has been enough time to "Hoover" the e-mails and remove any incriminating ones

30,000 "lost" Lerner e-mails "found."

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: They will find no smoking gun that definitively ties the White House to the targeting scandal. Those emails — if they ever existed — would have been destroyed long ago. It’s not likely that there is any kind of electronic or paper trail that leads back to the White House. These guys may not be the brightest bulbs in the room, but is there anyone in Washington stupid enough to leave bread crumbs for a prosecutor to follow?

After the manifold the ObamaCare lies, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the Gruber tapes does anyone with the brains of a newborn still believe that the Obama administration is even capable of telling the truth?

Labels: ,


I guess that Obama doesn't want al Qaida to take over Afghanistan until he leaves office

In a Shift, Obama Extends U.S. Role in Afghan Combat

Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 21, 2014


Emperor Obama Speaks, Democrat Eunuchs Hasten to Obey

"Pass a bill," Obama said. His faithful minions, having emasculated themselves during the first six years of his reign, cheered his imperial decree.

'Obama issued an oral royal decree that will be followed by a written regal decree, as any good monarch would do,' said Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert

But for pure imperial condescension, you can't parody how Obama spoke of his newly legal serfs. They pick our fruit and make our beds. I hope they know their place. 

HEH:  "President Obama made his executive amnesty announcement last night, and this weekend he will submit himself to another hard-hitting interview with former Bill Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos."

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, November 20, 2014


Team Obama lies about ObamaCare enrollment, Ezra Klein covers.


Just a "harmless error" anyone could have made it.

Ezra Klein         @ezraklein
This is such a dumb, unforced error by the Obama administration: http://bit.ly/1xGPuR0 
The term you're looking for is "lie." RT @ezraklein This is such a dumb, unforced error by the Obama administration
 What a coincidence!

  Charles C. W. Cooke         @charlescwcooke
The exact number of plans needed for Obamacare to reach its target were erroneously included in the total. Amazing. http://ccwc.me/1uXoYR3 

Labels: , ,


Larry the Cable Guy asks a fair question

Larry The Cable Guy         @GitRDoneLarry
Honest question? How come Cosby is toast and Clinton is toast of the town? That's a fair question is it not?

Labels: , , , , ,


I, For One, Support Our New Imperial Ruler

Labels: ,


The What-the-Hell Presidency

Bud Norman on Obama unleashed.  This is how Republics become dictatorships.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 19, 2014


Gruber and the Democrats go Head to Head

The nut of why this whole episode is so infuriating, when it isn’t enervating, are the repeated insults done to America’s collective intelligence by those who believe themselves to be members of a superior class. That condition is made even more insufferable by those Obamacare supporters who are attempting to rewrite the history of the ACA in order to airbrush Gruber out of the picture.

The Federalist’s Sean Davis has a compelling piece on this phenomenon, and it’s worth your full attention. It concludes…

Come. On. I hate to break it to you all, but Gruber doesn’t get to be an architect of Obamacare and Romneycare when you want to use his authority and credentials to bash Republicans or spin for the law, and then radically transform into one of three Jon Grubers who just happens to live in Obama’s neighborhood once Gruber becomes a massive liability for the Left.

Gruber was one of the key architects of Obamacare. He didn’t just build econometric simulation models based on the law. He was also involved in drafting its key components. And he was paid enormous sums of money for his advice and counsel. These are facts. Accept them, learn to deal with them, and give the embarrassingly bad Gruber Truthing a rest.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 18, 2014


What did the press know and when did they know it?

The reaction of the MSM to the Gruber tapes is revealing. Today’s article by Chris Cillizza tries to misdirect the issue into a personality conflict between Gruber and Conservatives whom he thinks are the object of Gruber’s charge that the American people are stupid. His article, about Gruber as catnip for conservatives, tries to make the story about Conservative pique, not the fact that Gruber did something that you are never supposed to do when you pull a sting: expose the sting. A good sting never ends, but Gruber ended the ObamaCare sting. So the press, after hoping it would simply die because of lack of oxygen, is desperately trying to change the subject.

But Cilliza is wrong, not just on the focus, but also on the issue of whom Gruber classified as stupid. Conservatives were always opposed to ObamaCare. And not just conservatives. ObamaCare passed without a single Republican vote. The lies and deception described by Gruber fooled only Liberals. Liberals who were fed the story the Obama administration was feeding to its media accomplices. No tax, lower cost, better coverage, no changes if you were happy.

But were Liberals in the media really fooled, or were they simply promoting the Obama/Gruber/Democrat lies because they were being Good Germans? I mean, really. What non-comatose human being believes you can insure 30 million more people, provide more services, cover pre-existing conditions, and reduce the cost to the average family by $2500? Melissa Francis tells of being called on the carpet at CNBC for her criticism of ObamaCare’s math and told that she was “disrespecting the office of the President.”

I believe that the average reporter and editor is functionally innumerate, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. Like Good Germans, the press corps knew, but didn’t want to know.

So now one of the architects of the conspiracy couldn’t keep his mouth shut. And the lies and deception have been uncovered, not by the complicit press that does not want to know what was really going on, but by a guy who lost his health insurance policy thanks to ObamaCare and spent hours searching the internet. Because everything that you say in public gets recorded. And citizen journalists are looking where the Good Germans of the press don’t want you to go.

Labels: , , ,


Fire Mary Landrieu

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, November 16, 2014


In which Ann Althouse gets hammered

Ann Althouse decide to take up the cudgels for Rose Eveleth.  Defending this sexist, Feminist, coyote-ugly harridan when she tweeted a series of comments criticizing the shirt that one of the rocket scientists that just landed a spacecraft on an asteroid, Matt Taylor, wore.  She tweeted: "Thanks for ruining the cool comet landing for me asshole"

Right; that's what was in his mind when he put on his shirt: "I'm going to ruin Rose Eveleth - and every other feminist harridan's day - when I get interviewed for landing a spacecraft on a comet."

Althouse decided to throw in with this Feminist jerk by posting a critique of Glen Reynolds' comments, stating - among other things that fashion is more important than space travel.  I suppose that a mind that works that way explains why she voted  for Barack Obama. 

Here's the beginning of Reynolds' essay:

Better not to land a spaceship on a comet than let men wear sexist clothing.
So how are things going for feminism? Well, last week, some feminists took one of the great achievements of human history — landing a probe from Earth on a comet hundreds of millions of miles away — and made it all about the clothes.

Yes, that's right. After years of effort, the European Space Agency's lander Philaelanded on a comet 300 million miles away. At first, people were excited. Then some women noticed that one of the space scientists, Matt Taylor, was wearing a shirt, made for him by a female "close pal," featuring comic-book depictions of semi-naked women. And suddenly, the triumph of the comet landing was drowned out by shouts of feminist outrage about ... what people were wearing. It was one small shirt for a man, one giant leap backward for womankind.

What is it about women like this?  People who have never accomplished anything except manipulate words?  And the Althouse types, college professors, who - thanks to Jonathan Gruber - are now exposed to the entire country as elitist pigs who consider the American people "stupid."

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, November 09, 2014


Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican"

Labels: , , ,


The meaning of the 2014 elections

The 2014 midterm election was interesting for several things.  First, it was a repudiation of Obama-ism only 2 years after he was re-elected.  The “dense-pack” strategy (having one scandal after another take the previous one off the front pages) of Team Obama didn't work.  The “independent” voters finally saw failure follow failure and realized that the things they were promised were either lies or that Obama was incompetent.  Either way, they abandoned him, big time. 

Keeping in mind that the “Black” vote was a Republican lock for nearly a century after the Civil War, it’s very interesting that there is the beginning of a reaction against Democrats among Blacks.  For the first time in my lifetime several videos castigating Democrats for what they have done to Blacks have gained wide popularity.  The assumption that the Black vote is a lock for Democrats is not valid.  The grand experiment of urban centers run by Black Democrats using Democrat Party principles is gradually creating awareness - among those who want something better than a welfare handout - that Democrats view them the same way as slave-owners did their plantation slaves, bodies to be exploited.

The “war on women” theme deluded the Democrats into believing that they had a winning issue.  Instead, it boomeranged.  It made the male “gendergap” worse.  It alienated married women.  And it was carried to such an extreme that even the reliably Liberal press got tired of it.  Some by denying that it was a theme, others by calling one of its major practitioners “Mark Uterus.”

Democrats believe that demographics are their salvation, assuming that the patterns of the past can be overlaid on the future.  That’s the problem with a lot of things, like the subject of Global Warming, a mixture of chemistry, modelling and politics.  It’s also the problem with the assumptions that you “own” a demographic group.  The Democrats don’t own the Blacks, the youth, the Hispanics or the women.  They just assume that they can scare - or bribe - these groups into voting for them.  The problem becomes one of finding the resources for the bribe, for keeping the fear alive.  Detroit is its own antidote.

Labels: , , , , ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?