Atlas Shrugged: The Mocking

Monday, February 8, 2010

You're Still Here?




Onward to Colorado Springs!


Megan McArdle gives us two posts that depend on her erroneous belief that the nation does not want health insurance reform. She can keep this up forever--why not say anything and everything when you can ignore facts and use hypotheticals you created to "prove" your opinion is factual?

We are going to hear a lot more about the eradication of Social Security and Medicare. Our elite might even be able to pull it off this time, telling various tea-baggers, libertarians, and newly poor that the government can't do anything right. It will be a lie, because lies are the only way they will be able to defend the removal of any and all social safety nets. And McArdle will cheer our elite on the entire way, despite the fact that her Masters of the Universe drove the economy into a ditch.

All it will take is a population that is both ignorant and refuses to think. And I wouldn't bet against those odds.

Reading Recommendation

Megan McArdle reprints one of her brain-dead posts at Business Insider, and the commentariat rip her to shreds. Good times for the entire family.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

A Birdie Told Me

Speaking of Twitter, little miss I-Called-Myself-Jane-Galt-A-Long-Time-Ago-To-Heckle-Liberals twitters under the name Jane Galt too--according to boy fiance P. Suderman.

Watching "Reds" with @janegalt instead of the Palin speech. (Now if it were an Orszag speech, I'd be all over it. )
about 21 hours ago from Tweetie


Unless he's snuggling with someone else called Jane Galt, and there can't be two such elitist twits in his life, can there?

Die Hard

Brave, brave Jonah Goldberg, who refused to fight when his nation needed him to win the War Of All Wars against The Terror Of All Terrors, faces a blizzard with his usual equanimity.

DC snow finally starting to stick. Getting really pretty. Ugliness comes later.
2:15 PM Feb 5th from web


To prepare him for a tough day, Jonah stoked up on carbs.

Snowbound menu: Martinis. Then: Gnocchi with slow-cooked pork ragu, arugula salad (that's right: Arugula) and a nice red. Life is good.
2:47 PM Feb 5th from web


But before Jonah gets to pick the pork bits out of his teeth, disaster strikes.

[Ooops, it's the next day, so Jonah is stuck in the house without electricity overnight. Thanks for the correction, anonymous.]

Seriously: We're buried. Electricity is out. House getting cold. May evacuate.
5:07 AM Feb 6th from API


So within less than two and a half hours, Jonah is panicking and thinking evacuation. It's a good thing for him that he refuses to live in our area. He'd spend the entire hurricane season fleeing for his life every time it rained.

Sending wife, daughter and brother-in laws to hotel. staying behind with the animals. need to macguyver some coffee. ideas?
6:22 AM Feb 6th from API


After three or four hours twelve endless, tortuous hours of no electricity, our tough pioneers are ready to run away. But although Jonah lives in the Heartland like all conservatives, in his case the Heartland is on the upper West Side of New York City. It must be hard to survive in a high rise with no electricity and with a child. How cold was it, Jonah?

it's now 56 degrees inside the house and dropping.
6:23 AM Feb 6th from API


Dear God, the tragedy! It's time to pull out the emergency sweater ration! What fresh hell will Jonah endure next?

just when I was about to type "All work and no play makes Jonah a dull boy" ten million times, the power came on.
about 23 hours ago from API


No doubt K-Lo would say that it was the Hand Of God that preserved Jonah from Nature's savage devastation.

Sorry for the mistakes; I was sloppy.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

Gerard Alexander is given space in the "liberal" media to complain that liberals are condescending to conservatives. I'd go over his article pointing out his psychological motive (too insecure to tolerate dissent or accept unpleasant facts), flawed thesis (conservatives' fact-free, illogical arguments are unjustly ignored), and emotional demands for attention and approval, but I would never lower myself that far.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Advice Column

Dear Susan,

I have a problem. My commenters are mean to each other and it's making me look bad. They insult and pick fights with their ideological enemies, ignore evidence and counter-arguments, and insist on inflicting their morality (or lack of morality) on others. It's embarrassing me in front of my family. I tell them to ignore all criticism like I do, but the situation is just getting worse. What do I do?

Helpless Victim

Dear Victim,

You set the tone for your own blog. If you don't like your commenters' behavior, stop insulting and picking fights with your ideological enemies, ignoring evidence and counter-arguments, and inflicting your lack of morality on others.

Or you can continue to ignore all criticism and endure the social disapproval, which is the inevitable consequence of your own actions.

Susan

ADDED: Ha! McArdle adds her rules of blogging behavior. My favorite:

If you're wrong, admit it at once. No one will fault you for being mistaken. Everyone will hate you for refusing to admit it. Andrew Sullivan et al. didn't go after Tapped because they got the numbers wrong, but because they refused to admit the possibility that the numbers were wrong, and wrote snotty posts about anyone who suggested they should check again.

No, wait! This is my favorite!:

If you have to fudge numbers and blur distinctions in order to make a case for your ideas, why do you believe them? If you don't understand the science or math behind an issue, why are you arguing with people who understand it better? Do you hope to convince them with the vast inertial weight of your ignorance? Or are you hoping to get them so frustrated by the difficulty of explaining climatology to someone who dropped out of freshman physics that they spontaneously combust? [unfortunately, this does not work -- ed.] Or do you just enjoy looking like a total idiot in public?

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Crying, Over You

Recently Megan McArdle wrote a post saying that mental illnesses should not have parity with other illnesses of the body, that monopolies help the consumer, and teachers are too lazy to improve in their jobs. Then she complained that people were being mean to her.

Note to My Angry Liberal Interlocutors

Before you pop off at me, would you please try to read all the words in the post? In order?

I say this because in the past few weeks, I've had a notable uptick of incidents where someone berates me by saying, "Well how come you don't think we need to help mentally ill people who have jobs!" or "You're completely ignoring the possibility that once a company gets a monopoly, they will jack up prices!", when I have spent a paragraph or so discussing exactly the problem that they are angrily demanding that I address . . . or rather, angrily declaring that my failure to understand this point is evidence of my total hypocrisy/ideological blindness/hatred of the unfortunate.

I have many flaws. There is no need to go fabricating imaginary ones.


There are many issues in this short post that could be disputed. For instance:

The people disagreeing with McArdle are all liberals.
The liberals are very angry at McArdle and pop off at her.
The liberals don't read what she wrote.
Her discussions actually address the counter-arguments.
Her discussions successfully negate the counter-arguments.

But my main question is, who declared that Megan McArdle is immune from criticism? She writes for the public, she appears in the public media, she has comments on her blog, and she states her opinions with unequivocal conviction. Of course she is criticized. Some journalists are proud of being criticized, because it means they are doing their job. But McArdle seems to feel that nobody should disagree with what she writes and that she shouldn't have to put up with dissent.

Perhaps the problem is that she is being forced to defend her principles, ideas and opinions, instead of grandly tossing them off and ignoring their effect on other people's lives. Perhaps the circle of admirers is getting smaller and nuttier. Perhaps having to defend the indefensible is getting just a tiny bit harder.

No matter. This is a great time to advocate for the dissolution of government services and a winner-take-all ethos. McArdle might very well end up the crown princess of Hell.

She Just Doesn't Learn

Some time ago I wrote this:

Dear Megan
Dearest Megan,

If you start pushing school vouchers again I will clean your clock with the facts you are omitting. You will look like the clueless shill that you are, and by the time I'm done you'll be wishing you avoided this conversation. This will take up a tremendous amount of my time to do the research*, and I am not being paid to work 16-hour days like you are. So I will be very cranky.

Hugs and Kisses,

Susan


*Ask your friends what that word means.

P.S. Don't forget that you first got my attention by attacking teachers. How many posts have I written just for that reason? Hundreds. But go ahead, make me angry. Again.
Posted by Susan of Texas at 12:20 PM 5 comments Links to this post


McArdle has decided to attack teachers and unions once again. Basically, McArdle's views on teachers stem from the fact that she thinks teachers are lazy. She dresses up her elitist snobbery and parades it around in borrowed clothes, but that's all it is.

Game on.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

MyGodSpace

God, I love K-Lo's twitter. The only thing better than the high school essays she publishes is her unvarnished trivial thoughts.

i have tiny url issues. that vatican social-media link again:...
32 minutes ago from HootSuite


You just know she begged for nun and priest puppets as a child.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Trivial Offering

I thought the Atlantic hired an economics reporter, not a gossip columnist for a business college newspaper. Megan McArdle finally posts today, about a political pissing contest and meaningless controversy. She does not discuss 2010 loan recasts, soaring foreclosure, tightening credit, Bernanke, hearings, state and city budget crises, rising debt ceiling, the blurring line between government and corporate intelligence and spying, and the national budget. McArdle better watch out, she can be replaced by someone who will work harder for less. It's the free market way.

Possibilities

Interesting article on our recent financial history, but I have a question.

Investors Should Prepare for a Bumpy Ride– Capitalism Is In Crisis

Several things have now become very clear. First, as has been argued here many times here, the international monetary system is in dire need of reform. Since the US’s abnegation of fiscal and monetary responsibility in 1971 and its termination of the quasi gold standard Bretton Woods system, the international monetary system has dumped excess liquidity on the world and enabled bubble after bubble.

Second, the fiat international monetary system has allowed numerous countries – China being the latest – to hold down (I would never use a word like “manipulate”!) the value of its currency and export its way to prosperity. This export model has been at the expense of the US worker. Remember the real US unemployment rate, the U6 rate which includes discouraged and part time workers, is 17.3%. The American consumer is in a debt deflation mode. The US oriented export model is dead. Only a massive devaluation of the US dollar against Asian currencies will allow America to compete globally. The US has to become the exporter. If that doesn’t happen, protectionism looms.


Couldn't a massive reduction in wages help America compete globally? If they can reduce us to third world wages, they don't have to worry about third world governments. They've already bought this one. It's not like anyone can afford to hold out for more money.

Except bankers, of course.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Baby Needs A New Pair Of Shoes

01 Feb 2010 09:23 am
Public Service Announcement
My favorite food processor is available at Amazon with a $30 mail-in rebate.
Permalink :: Comments (16) :: TrackBacks (0) ::
Share This


How much is McArdle's cut on a $300.00 item?

The wedding expenses must be adding up.

UPDATE: Question answered.

Anon Y. Mous February 1, 2010 12:05 PM
LOL. Is it also a public service when you collect your commission from Amazon?

Reply

Megan McArdle (Replying to: Anon Y. Mous) February 1, 2010 12:11 PM
The commission that I can expect to earn from Amazon on putting up a link will probably not add up to enough to buy a Venti cappuccino at Starbucks. If I don't genuinely think something is worth owning, I don't link it.


It's okay to shill from The Atlantic because she believes in the product. But something tickles at my memeory....

November 17, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:

Absolutely shameless begging: kitchen edition
As you know, now is the time of year when I engage in an absolutely shameless attempt to encourage you to earn me money from my Amazon.com associates account, under the thin pretense of suggesting things you can buy your loved ones for Christmas. I am poor, and my student loan officer is hungry, and the people at the workhouse will only give me one serving of gruel a day. . . this brazen commercialization of The Birth of Our Lord is the only way that I can afford to buy myself the books with which I enrich my mind so that I can offer you keen insight and witty commentary on a quasi-daily basis.

If you're going to do your Christmas shopping on Amazon this year, just click the handy links provided by me or another of your favourite bloggers (mine's over there at the right, if you scroll down a little!), and at absolutely not cost to yourself, you can send a little commission our way. We get the commission even if you buy something other than the product we linked, though the commission is higher for direct links.

However, even if you don't order through Amazon, all the stuff I'll suggest here is stuff that I genuinely love, so do consider purchasing for yourself or your loved ones offline. And if you do buy something I recommend, please, please, please email me to let me know how it went over.

And if you don't like anything you see here, please feel free to peruse last year's selections, though there is some overlap.


And then there was:

December 09, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:

What I'm buying myself this Christmas
Well, I just got my hands on A Feast of Crows, by George R. R. Martin. If you haven't read the previous books in this series--A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, and A Storm of Swords--well, I envy you my friend, because you have a rare treat in front of you. I don't read a lot of science fiction and fantasy, but I'm as fond as the next person of well-written page-turners, which this one is. It's a low-magic version of The War of the Roses, with the Yorks as protagonists. I bought the first one to read on the plane to London, and raced through the next ones as soon as I got home. I've been waiting eagerly for this one ever since, and now I'm holding off on reading it for just a little while so I can savor the anticipation.

Also, I'm finally trying to get my kitchen organized. I invested in a butter boat, which uses water to keep butter cool enough that it doesn't go rancid, but warm enough that you can spread it. I have no idea if this will work, but if it does, I will be extremely excited. I hate hard butter on my toast. I also bought three of these spice racks, which stack into one tower that takes up a lot less space in my tiny apartment. I just assembled it last night and filled it with spices, and it looks surprisingly lovely with all the different colored spices in it. I'm very excited to finally cook with the thing. And I got a tupperware carousel, which is far too small for a family, but is just perfect for a single person. It has cleaned up the perilous tower 'o tupperware that used to lurk in my cupboards.

I finally got Kanye West's College Dropout, Damien Rice's O, and Freedy Johnston's This Perfect World.

I'm toying with the idea of getting one of these, but am worried that it won't do nearly as good a job as a conventional microwave. Reader comments are solicited.

Oh, and I'm investing in the first volume of George Orwell's four-volume collected essays, journalism and letters. If it's good, I'll buy the next three.

If you want to know what sort of things I think are cool, but do not yet own, my wishlist is here . Think of it as a big recommendation list for Christmas presents if you happen to know someone who shares my obsession with financial markets and kitchen gear.

Thanks, all of you who bought through my Amazon account. Y'all are making all this possible. Merry Christmas, everyone.

The View From The Top

In her continuing effort to justify her lack of a soul, Megan McArdle published yet another post saying that the other side must understand her side, since we are all good fellows, and jolly well met. But some foolish, unpleasant people will insist that McArdle listen to them complain and whine about doing without health care. You see, McArdle had just written an exceedingly callous and insulting post about mental health, and then (inevitably) had to publish another post supporting her first when she was criticized. The blogosphere recoiled in disgust but McArdle is accustomed to that, and her second post merely reinforced her lack of feeling. Usually that will be the end of the matter, barring more public criticism and further desperate posts claiming justification. Let's see what she says.

Empathy by Analogy
01 Feb 2010 11:29 am

A friend suggests that the best way for those who opposed the health care reform bill to understand how the other side may be feeling is to read this article.

On the other hand, this suggests that the denouement[*] may actually be ours in the end.


"This article" is an article on how sad sports fans get when their team loses.

It's a game to her. Winners and losers. Rich and poor. You lose, you're poor, too bad, so sad. But you lost because we're better than you. Our money proves that.

When Ross Douthat weeps over The Holy Fetus or David Brooks do his damndest to protect the poor or McArdle pretends to care about any other creature in existence, they are merely rooting for the home team, utterly oblivious of anyone else's concerns. They don't care if we live or die. They say so, quite plainly. They are defending their tribe and obeying their authority and for that they are being richly rewarded. That is all they know, and all they need to know.



*Denouement means the conclusion, or unraveling, of the plot. This is like saying the ending might be hers in the end.

She has an Ivy League English degree, by the way.

Friday, January 29, 2010

It's All In Your Head

As you may have noticed, we at the Snark are interested in authoritarian behavior and the methods people use to justify that behavior. Sometimes the lengths that people will go to in the service of satisfying their emotional needs are funny, sometimes they are frightening. Sometimes they are just repugnant.


Apparently, the administration has issued rules requiring parity for mental health treatment with other illnesses. They'll take effect July 1st. If you want to know why health insurance costs keep marching upward seemingly uncontrolled, this is why: mandating new benefits is always popular, and the government doesn't have to pay for them.


Why do our costs keep rising? Megan McArdle believes it is because we use more health care than other nations because we're richer. She is wrong, of course; McArdle does not pay attention to facts when she can ask her guts for advice and information instead. Let's see what Ezra Klein had to say about the same subject: (not that we trust Klein, but at least he uses verifiable facts)


There is a simple explanation for why American health care costs so much more than health care in any other country: because we pay so much more for each unit of care. As Halvorson explained, and academics and consultancies have repeatedly confirmed, if you leave everything else the same -- the volume of procedures, the days we spend in the hospital, the number of surgeries we need -- but plug in the prices Canadians pay, our health-care spending falls by about 50 percent.

In other countries, governments set the rates that will be paid for different treatments and drugs, even when private insurers are doing the actual purchasing. In our country, the government doesn't set those rates for private insurers, which is why the prices paid by Medicare, as you'll see on some of these graphs, are much lower than those paid by private insurers. You'll also notice that the bit showing American prices is separated into blue and yellow: That shows the spread between the average price (the top of the blue) and the 90th percentile (the top of the yellow). Other countries don't have nearly that much variation, again because their pricing is standard.

The health-care reform debate has done a good job avoiding the subject of prices. The argument over the Medicare-attached public plan was, in a way that most people didn't understand, an argument about prices, but it quickly became an argument about a public option without a pricing dimension, and never really looked back. The administration has been very interested in the finding that some states are better at providing cost-effective care than other states, but not in the finding that some countries are better at purchasing care than other countries. "A health-care debate in this country that isn't aware of the price differential is not an informed debate," says Halvorson. By that measure, we have not had a very informed debate.
Where Megan McArdle operates, we will always have uninformed debates, because she sees no need whatsoever to become informed when she can just toss off a fact-free post and go shopping. She was not taught to think by her parents; she was taught to accept their prejudices and assumptions without question. She was taught that she is superior by virtue of birth (which is humble) and breeding (which is non-existent), and therefore she is more intelligent that those who actually felt the necessity to develop and train their minds. She was not taught to think at her exclusive elite universities and prep schools--or if she was, she was mentally absent on those occasions. She was not taught to write persuasively at Reason or The Atlantic, as her editors were only interested in the dispensation of right-wing talking points in the service of global corporations. She can't think, can't write, and can't feel, yet she feels perfectly free to tell the rest of the world her medical and political opinions.


I am very sympathetic to the plight of the mentally ill. Unfortunately, most of the people who will tap the benefits are not severely ill people who need intensive care; they're people who are unhappy. Unhappiness is not a condition for which psychotherapy, or antidepressants, have been shown to be very effective. (Severe clinical depression, yes. But contrary to the belief of people who felt awfully down the time their boyfriend left them, these two conditions are not the same thing.) Since the moderately unhappy and dissatisfied are much more prevalent than those with serious disorders, that's most of what we'll be paying for: someone to listen to complaints. That's what Senators are supposed to be for.
No proof. No facts. No argument. Just a declaration that unhappy housewives and love-lorn men will bilk the insurance companies and taxpayers so they can feel better about themselves. That most people who say they are mentally ill are, in fact, just dissatisfied. She has the arrogance, the unmitigated gall, to say that real people with real problems, medical problems and emotional problems that affect the mind and body, are just complainers. You thought schizophrenia was a problem? Dumbass. Oh, sure, maybe a few people have a problem but most don't, so don't care for any of them. Depression? Doesn't exist. Severe clinical depression, maybe that exists, for a few people, but unless you're 100% incapacitated, you're just a big old faker. Bipolar disease? Anxiety? Post traumatic stress syndrome from growing up in poverty, in horrendous abuse, in war? Silly housewives, you just need to buck up and quit whining.

Diseases of the brain don't exist, people. It's the Magic Organ, that never malfunctions or is damaged. Because Miss Megan McArdle says so.


On a more serious note, I feel like we could have achieved the laudable goal of ensuring that serious mental illnesses are not left untreated (at least, in cases where the patient wants to get treatment), without guaranteeing cheaper psychotherapy for America's ennui-laden affluent classes. Of course, then we'd have to recognize the fact htat this stuff has to be paid for, rather than pretending that benefits can somehow be magically generated for free with just a wave of the regulatory pen.


People do enjoy mental illness so. They don't even want treatment some of the time.

For some bizarre reason, McArdle thinks she's an expert on depression, without actually knowing anything about it, and always with the motive of denying corporations any expense. It's not that she wants people to be unable to get health care. She just wants health insurance and drug companies to have as much money as possible.

From the comments:

jegmont (Replying to: David Cohen) January 29, 2010 4:49 PM
I didn't mean to imply that any one who feels sad is in danger of developing clinical depression. The point I intended to make is that when someone does have a mental illness, it often progresses, so if there isn't early treatment, things can get very, very bad. The spirit of the post seemed to be that it is so easy to distinguish between someone needing treatment and someone just feeling down.

Reply

Megan McArdle (Replying to: jegmont) January 29, 2010 5:41 PM
As far as I know, that's not really true. People don't start out feeling sad, and then progress to severe clinical depression, except perhaps in cases of severe trauma. People who become severely clinically depressed have usually been struggling with fairly severe episodes of depression that go way beyond feeling sad since at least late adolescence. It may progress from severe to psychotic. But the majority of people who say they're "depressed" are in no danger of developing severe depression, and mild depression doesn't seem to be all that responsive to treatment.

[snip]

Nimed (Replying to: Skullberg) January 29, 2010 5:19 PM
Skullberg, this is pretty basic - Megan, not Martin, made the claim that most future beneficiaries are people who are just unhappy. It's up to her to back it up, not Martin to disprove it.

Reply

Megan McArdle (Replying to: Nimed) January 29, 2010 5:43 PM
Sigh. Look at the incidence of mild depression, which shows limited response to either treatment or drugs that is actually distinguishable from a placebo effect, and moderate-to-major depression. This isn't even vaguely controversial, as far as I know: mild depression doesn't actually respond to drugs in a way that is easy to distinguish from placebo, talk therapy has very dubious benefits except for CBT, and mild depression is much, much more prevalent than the kind that ends in suicide or a locked ward.

[snip]

alkali (Replying to: DBN) January 29, 2010 5:37 PM
Medication is pretty cheap too, relative to 24/7 hospitalization of a seriously-afflicted schizophrenic

Reply

Megan McArdle (Replying to: alkali) January 29, 2010 5:50 PM
Yeah, except the number of seriously afflicted schizophrenics who are holding down jobs, and thus eligible for employer-sponsored private health insurance (or able to afford their own) is very small. http://www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm With people who have schizophrenia or similar illnesses, Medicaid, Medicare, and state insurance programs are more important. People underestimate just how disabling it is--just because we can control the hallucinations, doesn't mean we can restore people to a normal life.

For that matter, the severely clinically depressed are also fairly likely to exit the private insurance market, because one definition of severe clinical depression is that you're so impaired that you have difficulty carrying out major life activities. If it's persistent, it's probably not being covered through private insurance unless you have a very supportive spouse.


The New York Times must have run an article about depression, in between articles about young Park Slope matrons and trophy banker girlfriends. Now Dr. Megan knows all about the subject, and with the full authority of The Atlantic and David G. Bradley's hundreds of millions behind her, feels free to tell the anguished and suffering that they can just go curl up in a ball and die. The fakers.

Play That Funky Music, White Girl

Kathryn Jean Lopez twitters:


whoa. frank luntz gets ditzed. how does he know fox news cut away?
about 2 hours ago from web

Breitbart's Big Government Demands Correction from Atlantic Blogger

Economics blogger Megan McArdle of The Atlantic is being targeted by Andrew Breitbart's Big Government web site for publishing incorrect information about the arrest of political agitator James O'Keefe. A "senior fellow at Breitbart" named Retracto, the Correction Alpaca, quoted a recent post by McArdle that discussed O'Keefe, who is employed by Breitbart, and demanded a retraction.

In Megan McArdle’s piece “A Tape Too Far” of January 26th, 2010, Ms. McArdle repeatedly refers to an alleged wiretapping plot by James O’Keefe at the offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu:

James O’Keefe, the guy who did the ACORN sting, doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a completely legal recording of an interview between you and someone else, and a completely illegal and reprehensible wiretapping of someone’s phones. Journalists are not spies, and there are very good reasons that you need a warrant to bug a telephone system or otherwise eavesdrop on third-party conversations.

Like many 24-year olds, he may not have fully appreciated why what he was doing was wrong, but if the allegations are true, I hope that the judge explains it to him while handing down a stiff penalty.


There are no allegations of any wiretap plot in the FBI affidavit, and a law enforcement official has conceded that the four men were not attempting to wiretap or intercept calls. Furthermore, legal representation for the accused has gone on record stating there were no intentions to bug phones in the Senator’s office. The Atlantic’s own Politics blog recently published a post acknowledging there was no attempt to wiretap.

We kindly ask you to issue a correction/retraction to the story.

We have been/will be making similar requests of other news sources to correct similar errors. Some, such as the Washington Post and MSNBC’s David Shuster, already have posted corrections or retractions.

In addition, Mr. O’Keefe is 25-years old.


Retracto did not mention McArdle's second post on O'Keefe, in which she softened her criticism by stating that O'Keefe's excuses had "the ring of possibility," although they did not nullify breaking the law, and what he did "was not right."

As of this time, McArdle has not responded to the demand for a retraction.

Jobs

Megan McArdle is dreadfully worried about all the people thrown out of work by our economic crash and the bursting of the housing bubble. All those construction workers, granite salesmen, interior decorators, window manufacturers, landscapers, restaurateurs, and other workers who depended on cheap credit and the credit boom to survive are losing their jobs, and the jobs won't be back. McArdle is worried sick.

In 1930s, when FDR was trying to combat mass long-term unemployment, all he needed to do was create a construction project; most of the men in the country did some sort of hard physical labor. It was relatively easy to create jobs that they could fill.

But what kind of public works projects would absorb mortgage brokers or mid-level managers? As jobs have gotten more skilled, more human capital is specific to firms, industry, and job classifications.

That means it's going to take longer to transfer those workers into other areas of the economy. Either they need to search harder to find a job that meets their skill set, or they need to get new skills. Either way, that high unemployment number is probably going to be very stubbornly persistent well into next year.

Oh, my bad. She was talking about the bankers.

Jonah Goldberg in Skirts

Megan McArdle (among others at The Atlantic) live-blogged Obama's State Of The Union address, sharing her wit and wisdom with the masses, and telling us all that it was a waste of time.

Preview
Let us not mince words, nor even chop them loosely: most State of the Unions are, well, completely useless. As useless as the human appendix. As useless as the six layers of weapons-grade saran wrap in which all convenience foods now come encased. And frankly, almost as time consuming. What does a president say in a State of the Union? Mostly, that the State of the Union is swell--or at least, a heck of a lot better than it would be if you'd elected that mouth breather who opposed him last November. He introduces artfully picturesque "ordinary citizens" hand-selected by his political operatives after months of careful screening. Platitudes about America's commitment to democracy are mouthed. Freedom is praised, in the most general terms, but with a thundering delivery that suggests that many of the people in the room might disagree. Uncontroversial policies, so anodyne that they could be opposed only by an Objectivist psychopath, are unveiled. Oppositions are chided for, um, opposing the president's policies. The particulars hardly matter.

But this one is a little bit different, isn't it? These days the Democrats are feeling, well, a little under the weather. I don't know whether America is looking to see whether Obama can muster a rally out of the doldrums that have lately afflicted his party. But the chattering classes certainly are. Can he do it? Unlike the previous occupant of the office, Obama is a master of soaring oratory.


His name was George W. Bush. You voted for him twice, remember? Or does that name bring back bad memories of war, economic destruction and global humiliation?


But State of the Unions are not a super vehicle for the presidential agenda any more. Gone are the days when a president could command the attention of virtually everyone in this vast republic of ours, merely by getting the broadcast networks to air him speaking for an hour. Most Americans will not be watching. The ones that are tend to be the highly informed voters who already have pretty set opinions. No State of the Union has delivered a poll bounce since 1998--and that was the year that America was watching, fascinated, to see whether Bill Clinton would address the issues raised by Ms. Lewinsky. Unfortunately for Obama, he's only been caught with a naked business recession. His speech may be worthy, but it will not likely be worth much at the polls. Nor will it tell us very much that we didn't already know.


Because it's all about the polls, not governance. Like many conservatives, McArdle has reduced democracy to a pissing contest.

The Meet and Greet
We are now in my favorite part of the SOTU: the part where the President walks through an adoring crowd and is applauded either for his ability to shake hands with the men and kiss the women, or for just being, well, Mr. President. There is no better guide to our political culture than this: our president gets the most applause when he is doing nothing but beaming for the camera.


McArdle graces us with more of her undergraduate-level cynicism, and her belief that governments should do nothing but kill foreigners and keep the peasants happy enough to prevent revolt.

The Opening
Obama leads with D-Day, and how we didn't know back then how it was all going to turn out. In fairness, he came into office at a most unpropitious time. But I think the faster the Democrats get over the notion that Obama is FDR 2.0, the better off we'll all be.


The only one who said Democrats think or want Obama to be FDR 2 is McArdle.

Washington is Broken?
Marc [Ambinder] suggests that the theme of this speech is "Washington is Broken". Is this a wise move? That was, after all, the theme of most of his prior speeches, indeed, the theme of his whole campaign. Obama convinced millions of voters that he could fix the broken-ness, something not in his power to do. Now they're all furious with him, and the rest of us are just as skeptical as we were before. So what good does it do to complain that DC is broken? He is president of the country we have, with the political system we have, not some other place with more felicitous rules.


Yes, pointing out the country has problems that need to be solved during a depression is a stupid, useless idea. Ignoring the economic situation would have been much, much better, and not garnered any criticism at all from facile, antagonistic pundits.

The Stimulus and Jobs
The first of the Amazing Political Whoppers That Cannot Actually Be Disproved emerges: the administration has saved 2 million jobs. That's supposed to vindicate the rather unpopular stimulus bill, which cost about $860 billion. If my math is correct, that means that instead of doing the stimulus, we could have given two million people $400,000 apiece to tide them over while they looked for work--and still come out ahead.


McArdle hates the stimulus and loved the bank bailout. Money for banks, not jobs! That's just what the average tax-payer wants to hear, as her tea-bagger fiance can tell her. I could check her math, but math and McArdle are natural born enemies, and the odds of her success are so low that they can be ignored.

The Jobs Bill
The jobs bill is coming! What the jobs bill might actually look like, however, is depressingly vague. Obama wants a jobs bill on his desk without delay . . . but what will be in it? We can't all develop lucrative new businesses designing windmills or insulating homes. All presidents keep these things to broad outlines, of course, but Obama seems to be delegating any actual details to Congress. That didn't turn out to be a winning strategy with the health care bill, and I'm not sure it will with jobs, either . . . the kind of compromises that legislators make to get things passed then take front and center in the political narrative about the bill. Obama's main contribution cannot simply be bashing the scary Germans and French and Japanese who are going to steal our clean energy jobs unless we pour massive subsidies into the sector.


Government doesn't work and nobody can do anything ever.

The Nuclear Presidency
Nuclear energy . . . opening up offshore oil and gas development . . . clean coal . . . if Obama keeps tacking right, I'm going to get seasick.


No praise for Obama's embrace of McArdle's beloved free market? How ideological of her.

Protectionist Sops
Now Obama gets into the part of his candidacy that I most hated: bashing foreigners and their tricksy imports. But it could be much worse . . . indeed, he said much worse on the campaign trail. It's just confirming what we already knew, which is that the Obama adminstration is not going to meaningfully enhance trade freedom.


He's also not going to embrace unicorns or fairies, which are just as real as McArdle's free markets.

On Health Care
I might be biased, but I don't think this part of the speech is particularly strong. This is a classic professor move that will be well known to the children of academics: I am very smart, so if you disagree with me, it must be because you are very stupid, or I have been insufficiently clear. This doesn't go down with the public at large any better than it does with the children of academics.


Arguing from authority is, of course, McArdle's modus operandi, and she doesn't like it when others steal her schtick.

Financial Reform, The Hard Way
As Josh [Green] notes below, the most interesting part of the speech is where he threatens to veto any financial bill that doesn't really take on the banks. The proposals he unveiled last week to limit the size of bank liabilities, and dismantle their proprietary trading desks, were greeted with acclaim by many financial journalists, but it is widely believed that legislators like Senator Dodd will simply kill them in committee. If he's willing to risk ending up with nothing, that may be smart politics--and perhaps smart regulation. But that's a very daring move for a president who has so far proved extremely reluctant to take on his congress.


You see, when a Democrat hands the banks everything they want he's weak and hypocritical. When a Republican does the same thing, he's saving the free world and global financial system.

It's All Someone Else's Fault, Except for Where I Didn't Make it Sufficiently Clear That it's All Someone Else's Fault
Weakest part of the speech by far is where he claims that anything you dislike about our financial state is the fault of George Bush. Not to defend the Bush deficits, but by the end of 2007, they were down to 1% of GDP, which is basically manageable indefinitely. The big deficit that Barack Obama inherited was the result of a financial crisis that crushed tax revenues, and stimulus/bailout policies that were enacted when one Barack Obama was a Senator.


That's so dishonest I don't know whether she's being clever or stupid.

Yeah
I'm talking about the part where he indicates that disagreement with his policies is simply due to the fact that he hasn't explained them well enough.


Didn't the right just spend ten years telling us that if you believe hard enough you'll succeed, even when you fail?

Hail Mary Pass
Obama is arguing that legislators should be governing, not setting themselves up for re-election. The era of the permanent campaign is certainly wearying . . . but it's also true that the more details emerge about his health care plan, the less the citizenry likes it. It cannot be true that legislators are supposed to govern entirely without reference to the wishes of their constituents. Also, it is easy to say, as Nancy Pelosi has, that she's willing to lose twenty seats in the house, or for Barack Obama to tell legislators to ignore the electorate, when neither of them is in danger of losing their jobs in November.


It's all about elections, winning and losing, being a failure or being a success, not running the country.

Water Cooler it Is!
But in a parting shot, I will ask how he could have explained his policies, when Congress hadn't written them yet? By the time the policies emerged, people had seen too much of the sausage-making process . . . and involved substantially reneging on important promises he'd made about things like transparency, and the mandate for health care.


She had nothing to do with the sausage-making, of course. It's Obama's fault that he must deal with the Party of No. And lets utterly ignore the fact that Obama is giving the health care industry whatever it wants, just like he did with the banks. But Obama is pretending to be against the banks, and McArdle doesn't like even fake criticism of her Daddy authority figures.

Woo Reagan!
Foreign policy is not my beat, but props for name-checking Reagan on his efforts to speed nuclear disarmament. Very smart politics, and might quiet the sort of Republicans who view anything except bristling aggression as a wimpy metrosexual cop-out.


Because people who automatically call their enemies effeminate are reasonable people who can be mollified with a few flattering words.

Right Makes Might
We also do it because it is right. Best, most passionate line of the night. First glimpse I've seen of the Obama of yesteryear.


The Obama she routinely trashed at the time.

Barack is Back!
Finally he gets to the stirring rhetoric we remember . . . urging America to pull together and try to be a little bit better, as a nation. I kind of want to go out and hug someone, and/or join the Peace Corps. That sounds sarcastic, but I'm not really kidding.


She's a Randian, you know--the former Jane Galt.

Good Question
Why do we put our whole government in one room where they could all be taken out by a nefarious terrorist attack?


Because it's kind of hard to carry out a massive, planned terrorist attack, unless a lazy moron like Bush is in charge.

Republican Response Preview
Responses to the State of the Union are almost uniformly awful. In recent history, Katherine Sebelius looked and sounded like an early-model Cylon. Then responding to Obama's Not-quite-state-of-the-union address last year, the normally quite personable Bobby Jindal was so wooden, he was practically petrified. This is thought to be an artifact of the format, in which a politician who does, in fact, know how to talk, tries to do so while speaking at length to a round glass circle. So tonight, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell will be giving the response in front of a live audience in the Virginia legislature building. That may mitigate the awfulness, but unfortunately for him, Obama is a very, very tough act to follow.


She's Fair and Balanced.

Republican Attack Machine on Mute
A friend notes that there were fewer boos than usual from the opposition side. And the speech is pretty friendly, which is smart politics. Obama is still personally pretty popular, and his speech didn't turn on the Republican-bashing that it might have. If the Republicans break out the heavy weaponry, they'll just alienate the audience.


Doesn't this contradict everything she just said?

Response Better Than Expected, But Not Actually Good
Fiance tweets: GOP roboresponse surprisingly lifelike. Indeed, much better than the usual show. If only I could actually remember something the good Governor had said for longer than two minutes. The actual content sounded like the sort of talk that local politicians give to girl scout troops.


Would that be the tea bagging fiance that she mentions every five minutes? I thought "my husband, the doctor..." went out of fashion in the seventies. But she can sound cynical and contrarian again, so for her it's a win.

Roundup: No Game Changers
Like Josh, I think we saw two serviceable speeches tonight. Obama was his usual, excellent caliber. Bob McDonnell did not utterly humiliate himself, which is a big win for a SOTU response. There were a couple of minor "That's interesting" moments with financial reform and gays in the military, but mostly it was both sides saying, "I wish you'd help me enact my agenda, America." Which is not exactly surprising. In the end, maybe Obama gets a transitory bump on the strength of his delivery, but I don't see it really moving the needle on any issues. Nor do I think that the Republicans are going to rally behind McDonnell's stirring rhetorical presence and storm the nation's capitol. So everyone sleep easy . . . the world will still be much the same when you wake up tomorrow.


Do nothing. Nothing matters. Go back to sleep. Eat. Reproduce. Consume.

And we're done, thank all the imaginary gods and goddesses.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Honeymoon Hints

Folks, Megan McArdle needs our help. She is trying to decide where she will take P. Suderman for their honeymoon and is asking for advice. Should they go to Hawaii or Turkey? Let's discuss.

Hawaii is a very traditional honeymoon destination, due to the beautiful beaches and other fascinating natural features such as volcanoes and tropical forests. But that is its problem--any common Megan, Dick or Harry can go to Hawaii, and when one is relating the fascinating tales of one's honeymoon to one's rapt social circle, one will excite neither awe nor envy. And what is the point of traveling unless you can brag about your expensive and exclusive vacation, exciting others' envy and resentment? It's like a sundae without the cherry and whipped cream! Let the hoi polloi go to Hawaii--McArdle and P. Suderman deserve better by virtue of their superior birth.

On to Turkey, then! But alas, Turkey, while exotic and adventurous, is, well, full of inferior people who don't even speak English or understand the superiority of the American Way of Life. Will they have Himalayan Rock Salt? Will the maids turn down her bed and leave a mint on the pillow while modestly keeping their eyes downturned as a recognition of their fiscal inferiority? Can you stiff your waiters while telling yourself that you're going galt for their own good? It's one unknown after the other.

True, you can haggle the natives down while shopping, carefully calculating their degree of poverty to gauge how little you can pay them. (Hint--buy rugs at a shop where the proprietor has lots of little kiddies running around. He might be more desperate.) Since the acquisition of possessions is the main goal in life and the only gauge of its quality, the shopping might make up for all the stupid historical sites and Islamic influence.

I have a better suggestion, of course.



Come to beautiful Baghdad!

It's very close to Turkey but without all its boring archaeological sites. Sure, they preserved our mutual human history for centuries, history that told us how civilizations rose and fell and gave us the origin of our religions, priceless, utterly irreplaceable means of increasing the total of human knowledge, the most exalted goal of mankind. But now they are gone, having made way for American bases and battlefields, so McArdle need not be concerned with them. Unlike Turkey, everything is privatized on the American bases, and she can rest assured that Halliburton and KRB will take very, very good free market care of her.

Some might hesitate to honeymoon in Iraq because of its infrastructure and violence, but McArdle knows better. She says that the the country is better off than before Saddam Hussein was executed, and quite safe. Best of all, she can visit our troops in person to show her support for all they have sacrificed for her, for their own good.

By the way, I still haven't received my invitation to the wedding, hint hint.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The Pimp's Hooker Throws Him Under The Bus

'Shocked' [NRO Staff]

From Hannah Giles, in regard to news coverage of James O’Keefe’s arrest in Louisiana:

I am shocked by the reports of this behavior. I am well aware that following the law is an integral part of being a good investigative journalist. I take that responsibility and accountability very seriously. I certainly hope these reports are untrue.


Miss Giles is the daughter of Toownhall wingnut Doug Giles.

Doug earned his Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Texas Tech University and studied for his Master of Arts in Christianity and Culture from Knox Theological Seminary. [Didn't graduate, did he?]

He’s the author of ten books on Christianity, masculinity and cultural insanity. His latest book, If You’re Going Through Hell, Keep Going is published by Bridge-Logos (Oct. 2009) and yet the little voices inside his head still will not go away.

Doug and his wife of 20 plus years have two daughters. Giles’ interests include guns, big game hunting, big game fishing, fine art, cigars and being a big pain in the butt to people who dislike God and the USA.


It looks like Miss Giles, despite being raised by a Rush Limbaugh wannabe, has enough shrewdness to run away from the latest generation of Young Republican dirty tricksters.