WELL, THAT WAS FUN WHILE IT LASTED

You can pretty much stick a fork in John McCain.
buy flexeril online buy flexeril online no prescription

His campaign manager, Terry Nelson, and chief strategist John Weaver just abandoned ship. On the heels of the news that McCain 2008 has a smaller bank account than Ron Paul 2008 (think about that for a second), I think it's pretty safe to say McCain is toast.

With the possible excepton of Gary Hart, I can't recall a presidential candidate going from front-runner (or at least well-respected contender) to laughingstock and failure in such a short period of time. It's really sort of impressive.

ED VS. LOGICAL FALLACIES, PART 4: ARGUMENTUM AD FOXWORLD

The final stage of the evolution of capitalism in western societies – agrarian to industrial, industrial to post-industrial – is self-parody. And we've reached that point. We now unironically celebrate a complete lack of job security as the market giving us "freedom." We rejoice that we've advanced beyond the primitive days when jobs had benefits. We return functions of the state (which can't be trusted) to the benevolent guardians of Wall Street (who can). We pat ourselves on the back for avoiding the horrors of European socialism – they'll never know the pleasure of $30,000 student loan debts while they take their productivity-sapping 6 week vacations. It has become self-parody; we take every pitfall of the unrestrained market and celebrate it as an achievement.

I mention this because of the parallel one could draw (and what the hell, I think I will) with the media. The final stage of their evolution – newspaper to radio, radio to TV, TV to cable, cable to internet – is self-parody. Look no further than Fox News – or, hell, any of the 24-hour cable competitors which now look shockingly similar – to see nothing short of a complete parody of journalism. All the while, more Americans get their Real News from a parody of the news than from the Real News itself. The Real News is the parody, and the Parody News is real. I think my cerebellum just fell out.

But stick with me. I'm going somewhere with this.

Now that outlets like Fox News have strayed so far from legitimacy and so deeply into parody, their job actually becomes easier. Once one has embraced parody journalism as journalism, worrying about credibility becomes unnecessary. In fact, it's downright counterproductive. Verifying sources, treating government sources skeptically, worrying about "facts"…all these things just get in the way of the new Parody Journalism. Who cares if the commentators don't "make sense" or their arguments aren't grounded in reality? That's so 20th Century!

No, our friends at Fox News (the highest-rated and therefore best network, for the market is the sole arbiter of quality) have led the charge into this final stage of evolution.
buy zithromax online buy zithromax no prescription

They've done away with reality in its entirety and created their own: FoxWorld. Pity the old journalists, stuck in their ways, who can't adapt to the new reality – it doesn't matter what actually happens in the world since the job is no longer to report that.
buy bactroban online buy bactroban no prescription

You simply decide what you want to say and then say it. Why limit oneself to stories that are actually about terrorism when you can just make every story about terrorism???

Following their example, I no longer feel it necessary to stick to actual logical fallacies so I make up my own: Argumentum ad FoxWorld. It is defined as an argument that is internally valid and logically consistent…in the alternate reality that Fox News has created. In FoxWorld journalism is about driving home an ideological message, so coming up with creative ways to do so is the highest accomplishment in the field.

I give you Neal Cavuto. Mr. Cavuto recently decided that, goddammit, he didn't want to have to choose between fearmongering about terrorists and bashing universal healthcare. In FoxWorld, those two things are actually the same issue! Isn't that amazing? Who knew.

terrorhealthcare.jpg

Let's do a quick review of Mr. Cavuto's logic:

  • 1. Some of the people involved with the recent terrorist activities in Britain were doctors.
    online pharmacy ventolin best drugstore for you

  • 2. Universal healthcare would require more doctors (no justification needed: it just will)
  • 3. We will have to meet that need by importing foreign doctors (???)
  • 4. Said foreign doctors would be Muslims (as all today's foreign doctors "seem to be from the Muslim world.")
  • 5. The Muslim doctors would be terrorists.

    Therefore, universal healthcare would bring terrorists into the country. Why stick to debating the actual issues or reporting on real events when you can go from any topic to terrorism in five easy steps or less?
    online pharmacy wellbutrin best drugstore for you

    I know that Mr. Cavuto's logic doesn't "make sense" and isn't really "plausible." To what extent his points do make sense, they require gargantuan leaps and unfathomably unlikely assumptions in order to connect them. But that's not the point. Fox has long since disregarded any concern about being considered legitimate and credible. Instead, they've embraced what they are and decided to take it to its logical extreme. So what we see here is everything that used to be antithetical to journalism – all of which is now desirable. The old pitfalls of journalism are now its noble purpose.

  • ED VS. LOGICAL FALLACIES, PART 3: ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORATUM

    Ah, the argument from ignorance. It's my 'favorite' logical fallacy, inasmuch as it seems to be the go-to fallacy of the dumbest people making the dumbest arguments.
    buy priligy online buy priligy no prescription

    It's the Nuclear Option of bad logic; when all else fails and every single shred of evidence is against someone's argument, you can rest assured that this bad boy is about to be whipped out.
    buy lasix online buy lasix no prescription

    An argument from ignorance is, quite simply, "There is no evidence for X, therefore not X" or "There is no evidence against X, therefore X." This fallacy is frequently paired with a sub-fallacy regarding evidence which holds that only direct observation can prove or disprove something. Combined, they make an extremely pernicious fallacy in politics because so much of what gets debated is not directly observable. We don't get to sit in on many White House meetings, do we? And we don't spend a lot of time eyewitnessing events in Iraq, do we?

    I like to call this sub-fallacy the "red handed" fallacy, because it is often argued that unless you can provide first-hand evidence for something (even if it is well-supported by circumstantial evidence) then you must be wrong. If you can't produce a signed affidavit from George Bush stating that he didn't consider the potential for sectarian strife (or if you weren't in the room while they debated it), then the pre-war planning is unimpeachable. If you can't provide documented proof that pre-war intelligence was distorted, fabricated, or cherry-picked – something on the order of a video of Cheney saying "Let's lie about the intelligence!" – then they were telling the truth. If you didn't see a murder being committed, then you can't say that the accused is guilty (forget fingerprints, DNA, eyewitness testimony, or any other evidence). These arguments all rest on the assumption that if we can't directly observe X then we can't prove it…from which the leap to X being necessarily false is easy. For idiots.

    Am I being unfair? Perhaps this is the kind of nonsense one only hears from Rush Limbaugh call-in guests and it's unfair of me to depict it as a larger problem. Well…

  • 1. Robert Kagan, Washington Post – This man is a walking, talking Argument from Ignorance. He's obscure, but all you need to know is that he is Bill Kristol's favorite writer, the occasional co-author of Kristol's screeds, and presumably the "catcher" in that relationship. To wit: there have been no terrorist attacks in America since the invasion of Iraq, therefore the war has prevented terrorism.

    For instance, what specifically does it mean to say that the Iraq war has worsened the "terrorism threat"? Presumably, the NIE's authors would admit that this is speculation rather than a statement of fact, since the facts suggest otherwise. Before the Iraq war, the United States suffered a series of terrorist attacks: the bombing and destruction of two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the attacks of Sept.
    https://beautybeforeage.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/jpeg/premarin.html

    11, 2001. Since the Iraq war started, there have not been any successful terrorist attacks against the United States. That doesn't mean the threat has diminished because of the Iraq war, but it does place the burden of proof on those who argue that it has increased.
    https://beautybeforeage.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/jpeg/xenical.html

    Ladies and gentlemen, that actually got published in one of the nation's widest-circulating and most well-regarded newspapers. Read it again. Honest to f'n Christ, that got printed. Not to be outdone (by himself, apparently) Kagan squatted over the national discourse, pants around his ankles, and pinched off this sludgy brown loaf of wisdom a few weeks ago: "The 'Surge' is Succeeding." His logic, in case you can't bring yourself to read the whole thing, is that we have no evidence that it isn't working, so it is working. Reading an extended 'argument' from Kagan is like swimming the backstroke through a 100m trench of broken glass and saltwater.

  • 2. Global Warming skeptics, Washington Post and elsewhere – The anti-GW debate would be absolutely nowhere without this logical fallacy. To refute the claims of people like Al Gore, an effective argument would either A) present evidence suggesting that Gore's claims will not happen, or B) present evidence that the consequences of the events Gore predicts will not be as severe as he claims. Absent the ability to do that, the Exxon-funded crowd inevitably falls back on non-arguments about how future events are uncertain. We can't be certain that global warming will occur, therefore it will not occur. In other words, since humans do not possess the ability to see the future, no claims about future events have any validity. I'd point out the dozens of times George Will has made this argument, but I like George Will's baseball writing too much to embarass him like that.

  • 3. Federal Appeals Courts, re: domestic spying – This one's fresh off the presses. On Friday the 6th Circuit voted 2-1 against the case brought by the ACLU on behalf of journalists, academics, the public, and non-profit groups against the NSA. In the decision the Court's logic is based on standing. In other words the plaintiffs can't prove they were spied upon, therefore they were not spied upon. How, exactly, would one go about proving that the most secretive agency on the planet is spying on them? FOIA requests? Subpoenas of sealed-lips NSA personnel? The Court's judgment, in essence, suggests that the NSA's program can't be legally challenged by any citizen or group in this country. The NSA is allowed to maintain absolute secrecy and yet the Court appears to demand that claimants provide tangible proof that they're being spied upon. Well I guess the program is pretty much bulletproof. Thanks, 6th District Court of Appeals!

    This is probably the most appropriately-named fallacy, since you can be quite certain that "ignorant" is a fitting adjective for anyone who makes this sort of argument.

  • GRAB SOME POPCORN

    Oh, this is going to be good.

    The injunction against publicly releasing the list of names in the "DC Madam" prostitution sting has been lifted by Federal Judge Gladys Kessler. A copy of the list is on its way to Citizens for Legitimate Government. I wonder if there are many nervous people in Washington this morning?
    online pharmacy antabuse best drugstore for you

    buy elavil online buy elavil no prescription

    The Sum of Human Knowledge.

    (Editor's Note: Welcome back Mike K, who brings us this week's No Politics Friday [tm])

    Unlike some, I have no beef with Wikipedia. Such a source of collective information was going to happen on the Internet at some point, and the model they use strikes me as the best way to handle it. However there are two things that occur regularly on the site that get me laughing:

    1) Absurd Entries. Entries that are treated as quite serious though their very existence creates a smirk on your face. There are Wikipedia entries for Cameltoe, Vaginal flatulence (Qweefs, as the kids say), Drunk Dialing, and Italian Beef. The real challenge the writers face with these pages is to make them serious enough to get past the vetting process; presenting all your sources for Cameltoes without having to stop from laughing is a feat in and of itself.

    2) Geeked-Out Entries on Non-existent things. Entries that were written by people (a person?) so obsessive about their pop-culture loves that they start writing and don't know where to stop. I noticed this while looking at the Wikipedia entry for Megatron. Take a peek at that page – it is really detailed. And long. Hitting the "Print Preview" button told me that there was 27 pages (!) worth of detail on the Transformers villain. Thomas Jefferson only has 24 Pages.

    This is also something that one can turn into a fun game – find an absurdly long entry on a geek staple and find another Wikipedia entry that is shorter. So the classic game for the Nintendo 64, GoldenEye (15 pages) beats out the entry for the Koran (13 pages). Pikachu (8 pages) gets a ton more space than the philosopher Jurgen Habermas (5 pages). The Predator (14 pages) has more pages than The 14th Amendment (12 Pages).

    I can keep this up all day. The Lord of the Rings (20 Pages) beats out the The Dropping of the Atomic Bombs (19 pages). That episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where Angelus kills Giles' librarian girlfriend Jenny Calendar (10 pages) has more written about it than Four Quartets (9 pages), as well it should. And, god bless it, The Jedi (16 pages) beats out The Moon Landing (15 pages).


    No entry on Roast Beef or the Jedi

    One of the great things about Wikipedia is that work filters almost never block it, and you can still look quasi-respectable searching it if your boss walks by. I encourage you all to throw your favorite examples from #1 or #2 above into the comments section this Friday afternoon.

    SCOOTER WHIPS IT OUT

    His checkbook, that is.

    scootercheck.jpg

    Boy, our president was right: the fine was clearly a harsh enough punishment without the 30 months of jail time.

    It took Scooter all of about 12 hours to come up with the 0,000.

    Since he's worth a couple of million, I can only assume it took 12 hours because he had some other chores to take care of before running to the bank.

    Dry cleaning, perhaps.

    How rock-solid is the logic on which the president's justifications rest?
    online pharmacy priligy best drugstore for you

    Well just watch White House Press office scrub/5th-stringer Scott Stanzel deftly field reporters' questions while offering full, transparent answers.

    KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR

    Six months ago, looking at the GOP field of presidential nominees must have been about the most depressing thing on Earth for right-wingers. The big "name recognition" guy is an unelectable social liberal from New York, McCain set a velocity record for transitioning from Well-Respected to Living Joke, and Christian-right heavyweights were reduced to throwing their weight behind 5th-rate nobodies like Sam Brownback. I can't really blame them for grasping at straws to find a savior. So in rides Fred Thompson, a Knight in Shining Armor.

    online pharmacy buy stromectol online no prescription pharmacy

    To anyone who cares to look, however, his armor is so shiny because it is covered in layer upon layer of raw sewage.

    Please take note of the Boston Globe's excellent expose of Thompson's intimate involvement with the only U.S. President less respected than the current one. I'm sure that neither Freddie or the GOP will be real eager to talk about his Watergate links, but I bet the facts will have some resonance with Americans old enough to remember that debacle.

    In typical bizarro-world fashion, Watergate conspirators are folk heroes to Republicans (see also: North, Ollie and Libby, Scooter). It seems that if one breaks the law in support of a Republican president's efforts to do things that are patently illegal, that's good enough for beatification.

    online pharmacy buy propecia online no prescription pharmacy

    buy augmentin online buy augmentin no prescription

    Getting convicted of something, well that's martyrdom material right there.
    buy wellbutrin online buy wellbutrin no prescription

    So, believe it or not, Freddie actually benefits among Neocons from his seedy Watergate involvement. He fought the good fight to defend the idea that the president is not only completely above the law but the sole relevant branch of government.

    If that doesn't give Bill Kristol a massive, throbbing erection then I don't know what will. It's always dangerous to give the American public much credit for intelligence, but something tells me that arguing "I helped Nixon obstruct justice!" won't get the same amount of applause on the campaign trail that it gets at Federalist Society luncheons. But I'm sure that if Freddie T doesn't work out, some other knight in shit-covered armor will emerge. What's Chuck Colson doing these days?

    I HAVE $100 AND YOU HAVE A BIG PROBLEM

    In one of my favorite pieces of stand-up comedy ever performed, Joe Rogan (I know, I know, but trust me: he's a good stand-up) tears into academic over-analysis of pornography and the adult entertainment industry.

    online pharmacy propecia no prescription

    He says, in the character of a patron at a strip club, "The fact that I'm looking at you naked doesn't mean anything. It means I have a dollar and you have a bad job."

    Looking at the terror attacks (although the media, if they had any objectivity, would refer to them as "attempted" attacks) in the UK over the weekend, I can't get Mr. Rogan's one-liner out of my head. Moments like these are usually moments of alarmism, evocative imagery, and grandiose pronouncements that This Is a Reminder of What We Are Up Against. Thinking specifically about the planned car bomb attacks (as opposed to the bizarre and seemingly pointless flaming-car-into-the-baggage-claim attack), anyone willing to be moderately reflective can see that it is a reminder of what we're up against. And why our current tactics are so utterly pointless.

    Those car bombs, had they detonated (and Jonah Goldberg sure wishes they had!), would have killed many people. They would have caused fear, panic, anger, and suffering.

    And what were they, really? A car (I think those are fairly easy to come by in most western societies), a hundred bucks worth of gasoline, some barbecue grill propane tanks, and some penny nails. That is a good reminder. Not a reminder that we need to Surge or Stay the Course or any of that other bullshit. It's a reminder that we can throw all the technology, money, and propaganda in the world at this problem, but as long as one pissed off person remains breathing we'll meet the same problems tomorrow that confront us today.

    In the Cold War mindset (which all too many of the current administration still have in their DNA) we could outspend, outsmart, and outproduce our way to victory. The Russians have X ICBMs, so we build 2X. They develop a tank, we develop a better, more powerful one. But none of that matters here. We Americans are accustomed, in both private and public life, to buying our way out of tight spots. When all else fails, our economic might carries the day (see: WWII). Here we are confronted with an enemy that has no physical form, no high-value targets to be aerially bombarded, no armor, no formations, and no uniform. We can't even identify the enemy let alone destroy it.

    We can talk about taking out "important" leaders in Al Qaeda, but that supports the delusion that terrorists need Al Qaeda in order to function. The terrorists in London needed nothing. They needed seething anger and about $100. And every other person who wishes to do us harm can do exactly the same – no "network" or "training camps" or "experts" required. In about 10 seconds of google searching, even the most idiotic person could figure out how to make something that will explode and hurt people.

    online pharmacy cipro no prescription

    So we've fallen back into the trap that led to our biggest Cold War-era failures. We did just fine when we defined our objective as opposing the Communists (i.e. the Soviets). When we decided that our enemy was not the Communists but instead Communism, we failed (see: Vietnam, Africa, Central/South America, Korea, etc). And so it goes here. We've not declared war on terrorists, we've declared war on terrorism.

    Wars are fought against enemies, not ideas. Enemies can be killed, and you can negotiate with them.

    Ideas are indestructible. The next terror attack in the west might be committed by someone who, at this very moment, is not a terrorist. But once that idea, the idea we can't destroy, gets into his or her head, a new enemy might be born. Because ideas are both intangible and persistent, we fruitlessly run around killing today's enemy while the idea silently creates tomorrow's.

    SICKO

    So I took in Michael Moore's latest on Saturday evening. Some of the criticism the movie is receiving is deserved, and some of it is not. Please be warned that the following will contain some "spoilers" inasmuch as that concept applies to a documentary (hint: there is no universal healthcare by the end of the film)

    Before I talk about the specifics, it's confession time. For 3.5 years prior to my graduate career, I was a manager at a collection agency that dealt solely with medical accounts. Nothing in Sicko shocked me. A casual viewer might be tempted (especially a casual Rush Limbaugh-loving viewer) to treat Moore's anecdotal evidence as mere anomalies in an otherwise functional system. I cannot stress enough how false that assumption is. We did not deal with uninsured people (neither does Sicko). What we did was simple. Joe has Insurance. Joe gets in a car wreck and needs $18,000 in surgery, ER, and rehab. Insurance investigators locate a technicality that allows them to retroactively void what Joe thought was a legally binding contract. Hospital returns money to Insurer, refers Joe's account to Collectors. Collectors take Joe's assets – liquid or extremely un-liquid (read: house, car, etc) to pay bill.

    online pharmacy buy silvitra online cheap pharmacy

    As you can imagine, this job did not make me feel particularly good. I graduated college with a lot of debt and I needed to make some money. Real money. It paid very well (as you might imagine, it is hard to get people to do such a job for very long). I do not, as the PI Moore interviews in the film stated, believe that bad-mouthing the system atones for my participation in it. Nor do my excuses excuse it. I'll probably be guilty about some of the things I saw for the rest of my life. Truthfully, I try not to think about a lot of it.

    I digress. My point is that the tragedies Moore discusses – even though he certainly cherry-picked the available anecdotal evidence to find shocking and/or ludicrous examples – happen all the damn time. Every day. My personal experience is that the entire health insurance industry would like nothing more than to reject every claim they have ever been asked to pay, and there is no depth to which they will not stoop to avoid paying whatever they can feasibly avoid.

    The criticisms of the film are, broadly speaking, as follows:

  • 1. A whitewashed / "overly positive" depiction of other healthcare systems, namely Cuba. There is little doubt that Moore and his crew received better treatment than the average Cuban would get. But isn't that true of anywhere that Michael Moore and a camera would show up? If he went to an American hospital, when the director got a frantic phone call that "Michael Moore is here with a camera crew and some patients" you can bet that they'd get red-carpet treatment. They'd get immediate service from a whole team of doctors.
    buy amitriptyline online healthcoachmichelle.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/amitriptyline.html no prescription

    And they sure as hell wouldn't be shuttled into a lobby and forced to wait for hours. So the Cuban healthcare system did in fact put on a show for the cameras. That's an unavoidable consequence of recording anything: the mere act of observing something fundamentally changes it.

  • 2. Acceptance/repetition of Cuban government healthcare statistics. Moore should be ashamed of himself on this one. Everything – and I do mean everything – that Castro's government has ever released in the way of statistics is pure fabrication. He learned from the Soviets, after all. Whether it's GDP, population size, economic equality, education, or healthcare, you can rest assured that the Cuban government's self-reported statistics are fantastical bullshit.
  • 3. Moore violated the prohibitions against Americans entering or spending money in Cuba. So do 2 million (Republican) Cubans living in Florida every year, and the government has absolutely no problem turning a blind eye to that. If the Fed even loosely enforced this law, I could see a problem. But Cuban expatriates visiting family via a third country is a well-established, decades-old industry in Florida.
  • 4. British, French, and Canadian systems are presented as flawless when in fact there is massive public dissatisfaction with them. This is the absolute linchpin of anti-Universal Care right-wing alarmism in the US. Nine-month waiting lists, unqualified doctors, crumbling facilities, Creeping Socialism, and so on. Oh, the Horror, the Horror. On the one hand, Moore does downplay things like waiting periods. In Canada, for instance, elective surgery waiting periods are about 4 weeks (as opposed to our Free Market system in which HMOs routinely require 8-12 weeks to see a Gatekeeper, and God help you if you need a specialist). What these alarmist, Red Scare hacks never adequately explain, however, is why these democratic nations continue using these systems if they're just so horrible. They have elections in Canada, right? Britain too? If the systems were horrible communist gulags with year-long waits to receive substandard care, you'd think that some opportunistic political party would suggest a change, no? And they'd win quite a few votes, no?
    online pharmacy buy dapoxetine online cheap pharmacy

    I mean the system as described by Gingrich/Frist/et al sounds like something that only slaves and peasants would have to endure. Yet Canadian single-payer and the British NHS both enjoy almost unanimous, thoroughly bipartisan support (Stephen Harper is a supporter, albeit he proposes more provincial discretion). Britain has privatized 50 different industries since the fall of Labor in the 1970s. If people hated the NHS, it would have been the 51st. But Thatcher didn't dare touch it.
    buy cipro online healthcoachmichelle.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/cipro.html no prescription

    Why not?

  • 5. Moore oversimplifies many issues. It's a goddamn 90-minute movie. Not only is it required to be entertaining but it also must be succinct. It's not a doctoral dissertation. It's a film made by a human being with one eye on marketability and the other eye on getting its message through effectively. Emotional resonance is what they aim for. It's a movie.
  • 6. The Veterans' Administration system proves that government-run healthcare is not viable in the US. The VA scandal proves only that a woefully-underfunded program will provide substandard care. Stunning, really.

    The crux of the film, in my opinion, addresses the American psyche moreso than the healthcare system. Why are we the only industrialized nation that lacks universal care? When we see Haves and Have-Nots, why is our reaction "the American dream" of succeeding and making sure we end up as a Have? Why do we accept massive amounts of bureaucratic interdiction in healthcare decisions (HMOs, mandatory pre-approval of services, denial of benefits) so long as those bureaucrats wear Aetna name tags rather than Government ones? Why do we believe that paying for something means we are exercising choice? Why do we bristle at the government telling us which doctor to see but call it a "free market" system when Blue Cross does so?

    As I constantly remind my students, the fact that we have elections is not prima facie evidence that we have Democracy and Freedom and all that other happy horseshit. They had elections in the Soviet Union, after all. Likewise, the fact that we as Americans pay out the collective ass for the services of private healthcare providers does not mean that our system is, in even the loosest sense of the term, a "free market" solution.

    Isn't that the grand dilemma in post-industrial America? We're so goddamn Free. And with that magnificent freedom – freedom from the government controlling our lives – we've chosen to privatize everything that wasn't bolted to the floor so that a handful of corporations can control our lives. We are a nation-sized insane asylum in which we, the inmates, are ready to fight to the death to protect our right to have a healthcare system we can't afford.