I’d say that marxism is somewhere ahead of ID on that list. ID advocates haven’t killed millions of people. To its credit, marxism is arguably the most successful intellectual idea ever in terms of its spread. In terms of everything else, it’s pretty much a failure or worse.

I didn’t see it on his site, and a web search only mentions one as a “systems engineer”, quite a stretch.

People do have multiple competencies. Nathan “Gunner” Myhrvold, former CTO of Microsoft has published papers in paleontology journals.

Okay, so maybe a polymath genius is an exceptional example. Still, don’t disregard someone just because their primary discipline does not immediately appear to be relevant.

When Dan Rather got fired over what was almost certainly a forged document about GWB’s Air National Guard service, his defenders dismissed Charles Johnson and other critics as bloggers in pajamas, ignoring the fact that CJ makes his living as a web designer and coder and has a lot of experience working with fonts.

I certainly could. But there are also others who certainly don’t belong on that list.

The thread topic was intended to be about Obama’s Friday press conference and what we could discern of his plans for the automotive industry based upon his comments then.

I am aware of Mr. Farago’s politics and as it turns out, they largely differ from mine. Yet still, he was able to offer a cogent analysis of Mr. Obama’s speech. In this case, I also differ somewhat with Mr. Farago’s analysis, but it should be clear that both he and I made good faith efforts to assess the speech without regard for our relative election preferences.

You’ve spent your time on this thread attempting to convince the readers that Mr. Obama isn’t up to your standards. That’s lovely, but it smacks of sour grapes, it neglects to account for the fact that your standards aren’t necessarily shared by the rest of us, and most of all, it isn’t at all relevant to the thread topic at hand.

You are obviously looking for a sounding board to complain about Mr. Obama. I am assuming that you will be seeking internet outlets for the next four or eight years, or perhaps longer, to complain about being on the losing side of this election, irrespective of the specific actions or policies of the man.

That’s your right, but there are all sorts of internet forums dedicated to that sort of thing, and this isn’t one of them.

If you have a thoughtful assessment of the automotive industry, and if you can criticize, analyze or praise Mr. Obama’s or anyone else’s conduct somewhere within that context without resorting to cliches or overreaching violations of Godwin’s law, I would welcome them, even if I disagree with you. But if you can’t or won’t, then I will voice my objections, just as I am doing now.

I didn’t see it on his site, and a web search only mentions one as a “systems engineer”, quite a stretch.

But I did see Intelligent Design being defended there, and that easily invalids a researcher’s credibility as it is one of the most intellectually bankrupt ideas of our times.

I thought that citing exceptional examples was a fallacious argument.

It was clearly an ironic note and not an argument.

I thought that citing exceptional examples was a fallacious argument.

The research was not done because the parties cannot come to terms. But even ignoring this, your logic was incorrect. It would only make sense the test came out negative because that was the only area of contention (if the test were positive, it would be published).

How could the test come out negative if the research was not done? It seems that the area of contention was not the results of tests that apparently never were done but rather the researchers’ insistence that the results be published regardless of turning out positive or negative, an admirable stance.

Notwithstanding my stated skepticism (not quite sure how I can backpedal from a statement already indicating skepticism) about Cashill being a conspiracy nut, it seems as though you believe that there was only a single team that Cashill contacted about testing his thesis. His web site cited four different researchers who have tested his hypothesis and identifies three of them.

The problem is that you posted a lot of points which are easily refuted and therefore rather embarrassing.

Whether or not it’s intentional we can let others decide, but in the future at least try to let the research lead the opinions instead of the other way around.

And that last part goes for everyone. Leading in with a predetermined position clouds judgment.

ps. If obama were an “affirmative action” entrant, it would be about the greatest possible endorsement for that policy. Be careful what you wish for.

He thinks I can write. If it comes to be and I fail to meet ethical or editorial standards, well, I guess that’s what editors are for.

I generally rely on the opinions of experts when it comes to my own abilities. I’ve always liked comedy and love to make folks laugh but didn’t think I was truly good at it until two professional comedians and a writer/producer on a hit sitcom told me I should try standup.

Likewise, when someone like RF or Roger L. Simon tells me that I have some writing abilities, I can only assume that’s the fact. Even when I’m an advocate of a position, I try to be intellectually honest and acknowledge doubts and misgivings. Am I gonna make the other side’s case? Hell no but I try to make honest arguments. I’m sure I don’t always succeed and I’m a big boy and willing to take my lumps when I fail at something.

So far on this thread I’ve been accused of lying, deliberate deception, intellectual dishonesty and a lack of integrity. I only wish that those who’ve attacked me here would apply their same standards for rhetoric and logic to those on their own side of the aisle. If they won’t, well then I think my political position has more to do with their critique than my rhetoric.

On the Cashill issue, I highly recommend that you actually spend the few minutes to research the specifics before posting further. The research was not done because the parties cannot come to terms. But even ignoring this, your logic was incorrect. It would only make sense the test came out negative because that was the only area of contention (if the test were positive, it would be published).

Can you cite a single writer, pundit or blogger on the US political right that you don’t consider to use hollow, empty, cliched political rhetoric? I’m quite sure that I can identify some thoughtful writers on the left.

Substantial, thoughtful, original political rhetoric: Yes we can! Change! Hope!

I understand. Only the right demonizes its opposition.

It must be good to go to bed at night thinking that your thoughts and motives are 100% pure.

You mean like Michael Malone, a fourth generation journalist?

Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions
http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings/2008/10/24/editing-their-way-to-oblivion-journalism-sacraficed-for-power-and-pensions/

You accuse me of something I never did but I’m the one guilty of “falsehoods”. Riiight. I never accused him of being an affirmative action candidate for admission to HLS, I said we have no way of knowing whether or AA had something to do with his admission to any of the colleges he attended. I’m sorry if you think that it’s biased to believe that someone can be very smart but not be a genius. Do you know the difference between doubt, possibility and certainty? If Magna Cum Laude is such a high indication of achievement why do they bother with Summa Cum Laude? While 90th percentile is certainly impressive, the 99th percentile is both a much smaller cohort and much farther to the right on the bell curve.

2. You continue to propagate the claim that Cashill’s results with the academics came out positive, which is simply false. I realize you put the disclaimer in, but that is just a CYA move when the intent is clearly to smear someone with false charges.

I’m sorry if “conspiracy” and “tinfoil hat” are not sufficient disclaimers of skepticism. As for whether or not the results were positive, your own statement was:

A min or two on google reveals that the “legitimate academics” exposed him when he and his partisan crony friends would’ve refused to publish the result had they come up negative.

Your statement “had they come up negative” can only make sense if the results were indeed positive.

In fact, I recall the very same post contained even more deceptions like the logical fallacy of selective comparison to exceptional figures to support a claim that someone is deficient.

So now a fallacy is a deception? Just who is debating in bad faith here. I’m no logician and regret having no formal training in logic. I suppose only those on the left have the luxury of making a fallacy without being accused of deliberately lying. When I wrote about Feynman, Sagan, Dalrymple and Chrichton I was aware that once can’t prove a point with exceptional examples, but I’m familiar with their work off the top of my head and the fact that without any research could cite a number of scientists who are fine writers seems to me to be a reasonable response. Of course, when someone says that “a lot of brilliant doctors and astro-physicists couldn’t have…” I suppose it’s technically impossible to completely rebut it as long as there are significant numbers of brilliant scientists who aren’t good writers. Wouldn’t “a lot of…” be considered a non-falsifiable claim?

It’s not a matter of avoiding politics, but of avoiding hollow, empty cliched political rhetoric.

There is a difference. To be blunt, it’s clear to me that some don’t understand the distinction.

Folks if NAFTA is the problem then BOTH parties are responsible for our troubles.

That link is an excellent read and I recommend it to everyone.

However, I do believe the standard-fare response to something like this is to accuse the media (in this case, Newsweek) of being liberally-biased puppets.

I have neither the talent or time to propagate the truth as you would seem to have for falsehoods.

I examined one portion of one of your posts and found numerous errors. I will make this short so that we are clear where this discussion stands:

1. I see you’ve backed off from crazy accusations that Obama is an “affirmative action” candidate given that he graduated near the top of one the most prestigious programs out there. (but still throw in the qualifier that it’s not THE very top honor as if that would change your fundamentally biased outlook).

2. You continue to propagate the claim that Cashill’s results with the academics came out positive, which is simply false. I realize you put the disclaimer in, but that is just a CYA move when the intent is clearly to smear someone with false charges.

Again, if you prefer, we could dissect more of your posts. In fact, I recall the very same post contained even more deceptions like the logical fallacy of selective comparison to exceptional figures to support a claim that someone is deficient.

The level of intellectual dishonesty in your writing is quite astonishing to be frank, and I hope RF would think twice before letting someone with such low regard for integrity write for TTAC.

ps. The fixation on intelligence in my post was a parody. Please do not take it as an endorsement to continue that topic.

pps. (to others) If you are interested in learning about the character of people behind this election, I would recommend this series of articles which contain actual journalism instead of editorial wankery http://www.newsweek.com/id/167582

Only following orders, eh?

Wait, I’m not allowed to go anywhere near appropriate analogies because of some guy on Usenet named Godwin.

Are Afghanis who want American planes to please stop blowing up their villages bad people for fighting back?

Ah, but I’m the one with partisan or ideological blinders. Okey dokey.

By all means, but in a thread about Obama it’s hard to avoid politics.

How about let’s discuss the automotive merits of Trabants, Volgas and Moskviches?

Godwin’s law?

Joe McCarthy?

Red Scare?

Which one of those comments of yours isn’t hackneyed, partisan or ranting?

Considering I’ve explicitly criticized Senator McCarthy on this site, I’ll let the impartial members of the B&B decide who is being partisan.

McCarthy was am alcoholic bumbling fool who discredited a worthy cause by his megalomania, exaggerations and lies. He worked with hypocrites like Roy Cohn and Bobby Kennedy.

Condemning someone for decade’s earlier political affiliations can be inappropriate. The entire neoconservative movement inspired by Norman Podhoretz was made of former lefties who moved to the right, like Ron Radosh and David Horowitz. That being said, if those affiliations continued unabated into the present, they’re fair game.

Regarding McCarthy, in light of blind squirrels, nuts, broken clocks and the correct time, the Venona transcripts as well as ex KGB and other eastern bloc intelligence agents testify to the unquestioned Soviet intelligence and subversion efforts in the west.

I’m sure you’re a very smart guy, and I don’t mean that sarcastically. But some of your facts are clearly misinformed and your logic flawed.

A lot of brilliant scientists were also brilliant writers. This does not mean ALL brilliant scientists will ALL be brilliant writers. Some will be great, some will be awful. Conversely, many brilliant writers are notoriously inept in the math and science fields (Fitzgerald comes to mind), I don’t think that’s a mark against his “intelligence.” That was my point, not all people good at one thing are going to be good at another. Even if Obama COULDN’T acheive a Ph.D in nuclear physics, it doesn’t mean he’s not brilliant in his own right. And no one here seems to “worship at his altar” (and I know plenty of people who do), I personally have stated that I have no special insight into Obama’s intellect; but neither do you. Thus, it was strange that you knew his IQ score to such specificity.

And as someone has already pointed out. Obama graduated magna cum laude, so I don’t think you need to see his transcripts to figure out that he excelled academically in his field as a student.

Also, congratulations on your son doing scoring high marks on the LSAT, but I think you misunderstand waht the LSAT tests. It does not test knowledge of political science or history, so having taken classes in those fields would not be helpful at all. It tests logic and reasoning, so mathematics and physics majors would at an advantage when taking the LSATs for the most part. Philosophy majors also do quite well.

And finally, even a perfect LSAT score does not guarantee you admission to Harvard Law. Just like a perfect SAT score does not guarantee you admission into Harvard or Princeton. (I recall that in 2004/05, Princeton rejected 70% of students with a perfect 1600 SAT). In fact, it doesn’t even give you close to a 50/50 chance generally speaking.

Your claim to be a centrist is clearly dishonest. Let’s make an example of couple of these lies (from a cursory glance at just 1 post):

Speaking of lies, I never claimed to be a centrist and it’s dishonest of you to say so. I said I was an independent. I don’t belong to either major party and while on many issues I’m ideologically right of center I still vote for some Democrats and would describe myself as center right or a small L libertarian. For example, while I’m generally opposed to corporate welfare, price supports and farm subsidies, I recognize that some industries and market sectors are strategically vital. I do prefer market solutions to problems if possible.

Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. I find it curious that someone with self-reported high intelligence does not understand what that means. (Since I am apparently someone of high intellect according to your standards, I have a good idea of where people who like to brag about such things usually stand, but will defer due to this site’s policy on personal attacks).

Did Obama release his transcripts or not? How is saying that we don’t know his grades is a lie? We know his approximate ranking in his graduating class. That’s all. We know nothing about his grades as an undergraduate or any of his standardized test scores like the SAT or LSAT.

Magna cum laude is the middle ranking of the three honorifics typically given to high ranking graduates (though some schools add a fourth, Maxima Cum Laude, between Magna and Summa). At HLS that means Obama was in the top 10% of his class. Actually it’s a bit lower than that because they remove the highest ranking Summa Cum Laude graduates from that calculation. At HLS, Summa Cum Laude is granted to those with a 7.2 GPA (HLS uses the 8 point scale), slightly higher than a solid A, which is 7.0. So we know that while Obama performed well, he wasn’t exactly at the top of his class nor did he graduate with highest honors.

As for bragging, well, like the great Walter Brennan’s character, Will Sonnett, would say, no brag, just fact. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t smart. I suppose someone as smart as you think you are can try to explain how “I’m no genius” or the fact that I acknowledge people much smarter than me is bragging. However since you raised the subject, is it possible that for many people “the guy I support is smart” is just a proxy for “I’m smart because I support a smart guy”?

>“but Cashill has had computer analysis of the three books done by legitimate academic researchers who study such things and he may be on to something.”

A min or two on google reveals that the “legitimate academics” exposed him when he and his partisan crony friends would’ve refused to publish the result had they come up negative.

I was well aware of those complaints, however, I’m under no obligation to make my opponent’s case.

The partisan nature of Cashill, the claim that he would not have published had the results been different, and the chagrin of the academics that their work might have been used to question The One! are irrelevant to the fact that the results were positive.

The rest of your posts are similar deceptions.

You mean like the way you omitted my skeptical remarks about Cashill?

If you would like, I can continue on with the embarrassing expose.

What is it about lefties that makes them so arrogant?

Otherwise, please take the GOP talking points elsewhere. They are designed to fool people of lesser intellect and not in keeping with this site.

So after criticizing me for bragging about my intelligence, you distinguish yourself from those “of lesser intellect”. Okee-dokey.

As for whether or not my remarks are “in keeping” with this site, that’s for Mr. Farago to decide. I have a lot of respect for RF. I was going to say that that respect is despite our disagreements but the truth is one of the reasons why I have some respect for him is because we disagree and he has not tried to silence me. As a matter of fact, you just might find me blogging for TTAC.

I’m going to let the rest your post slide, mostly because Pch101 makes a good point about going way, way off topic and worsening the signal-to-noise ratio.

Except this, because it’s Remembrance Day, and because I found that line particularly offensive.

This fellow was a foot soldier, not a generalissimo, and a decent man, and at that point in his life was driving a cab for a living, despite having served with Guevara. He didn’t have an easy time of it either before or during the revolution and took up arms as a result. And he’s not alone: there’s a lot of people in military service who did what, outside of war, would be awful things at the behest of awful people, and are living normal lives.

Some of them are people you agree with, some of them are not. And you don’t get to arbitrarily decide how “moral” a foot soldier is because of your particular ideological bent, because it’s oh-so-easy for the other side to do exactly the same, and for the same reasons, and be just as valid in their opinion as you. Unless you’re doing to drag every soldier into a court of law and judge all of them not just on their actions, but on the moral weight of their commanders and the people they’re fighting for, you’re on very tenuous ground calling this fellow and others like him on both sides of every conflict “murderous scum”.

And be careful, because you might not like the results.

My grandfather, along with a lot of people, fought against Mussolini and the assisting Nazis as part of communist-sympathizing partisan groups: are they bad people because Stalin was? Are agents of Mossad or the CIA bad people because of the work they’ve done to stop bad things from happening? Are Afghanis who want American planes to please stop blowing up their villages bad people for fighting back? Think very hard about this, because if your answer depends on whom you happen to support, you’re thinking about it in the wrong way.

I’d suggest you stop seeing the world through ideological filters before you end up blind.

Amen to that.

Political analysis, even if it is intertwined with a bit of tempered bias, can be useful. But hackneyed partisan political rants that slavishly tout a given party line are not. They quickly become tedious and don’t help with the learning process.

Nor do the constant violations of Godwin’s law, including the variants that toss around inaccurate references to socialism as if Joe McCarthy was still in office. I thought that we were supposed to have moved past the Red Scare during the Eisenhower administration, but I guess some folks didn’t get the memo.

Your claim to be a centrist is clearly dishonest. Let’s make an example of couple of these lies (from a cursory glance at just 1 post):

“Since Obama refuses to release his transcripts from Occidental, Columbia or Harvard, there’s no way of knowing what his grades were and whether he got in under normal criteria or was an affirmative action admission.”

Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. I find it curious that someone with self-reported high intelligence does not understand what that means. (Since I am apparently someone of high intellect according to your standards, I have a good idea of where people who like to brag about such things usually stand, but will defer due to this site’s policy on personal attacks).

“but Cashill has had computer analysis of the three books done by legitimate academic researchers who study such things and he may be on to something.”

A min or two on google reveals that the “legitimate academics” exposed him when he and his partisan crony friends would’ve refused to publish the result had they come up negative. Next time, please use whatever intelligence you possess to do the minimal homework before wasting everyone’s time on a non-issue.

The rest of your posts are similar deceptions. If you would like, I can continue on with the embarrassing expose. Otherwise, please take the GOP talking points elsewhere. They are designed to fool people of lesser intellect and not in keeping with this site.

Thank you.

Smear campaign part with automotive reference: Do you know where German employees of VW’s (and we all know the founder of those) Headquarters in Beijing, China (and we all know who rules THAT country) like to hang out after work? You won’t believe it: Schindler’s Anlegestelle. And who owns that establishment? The former Military Attache of friggen EAST Germany, who found himself unemployed after 89. How about that? Hitler’s heirs cavorting with a possibly unrepentant Communist (and a butcher to boot) in China?

Dragging out of closet part: Who can be found at said den of conspiracy once in a while? You didn’t guess it: The author of these very lines. He claims it is only to fill his gene-induced appetite for a real Eisbein or the best Schweinshaxe east of the Ural. This guy has the NERVE to order his underpaid Chinese cook to buy meat (and we all know where that comes from) from the butcher of East Germany. Disgusting! Said author is married to a Japanese! Did we forget Pearl Harbor? This guy writes for TTAC? Where’s McCarthy when we need him?????

Coup de grace part: It’s all a part of a grand conspiracy. Look under your bed. There may be a Nazi and a Commie, and god knows what the preverts are doing down there.