« Mitch McConnnell Holds His Breath Until His Face Turns Blue | Main | The GOP's 2pm Senate Shutdown: An Opportunity To Start Rewriting Senate Rules? »

March 24, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I wouldn't wait for a reply from McCardle. McCardle's arguments on every aspect of the progressive agenda remind me of those of a paid expert witness in a civil case or like those of the paid scientists that the tobacco companies used for years to challenge evidence on cigarette smoking. Empirical evidence is cherrypicked and leads to sweeping conclusions unsupported by a comprehensive review of facts. Worst case scenarios are played up when they support her contentions regarding the progressive agenda. Best case scenarios are presented as if they are the only possible conclusion when the contrary is true.

However, the worst part of her opinions writing is that she relies primarily on evidence based arguments of market failure for subsidies and government aid to her preferred interest groups (e.g. the finance industry, big banks), but retreats into her libertarian fantasy view of the world when it comes to government aid or protection from the whims of the market for anybody else.

The sad thing is she isn't being paid expert witness style fees to spout this nonsense.

Sir Charles

McArdle is really such an astonishing twit. She knows absolutely nothing of the world and yet somehow has convinced the people at the Atlantic that she has something worthwhile to say. She is a callow Randist (a tautology I know) who lacks wisdom, life experience, or expertise in anything.

More wingnut affirmative action. If she were a liberal, she'd be xeroxing for someone.


I have to disagree with you Sir C. Randists are truly horrible-- as Ayn Rand was a truly horrible person with a truly horrible worldview who espoused a truly horrible ethos and political philosophy. But Randists are at least consistent-- to the point of acting like they belong to some kind of robotic, sociopathic religion. Society must be structured around a totally free market-- consequences be damned. That's the only way for the truly competent to create.

But when it came to bailing out the financial system, McCardle was amazingly sympathetic. She found amazing nuance associated with those concerned about market failures.

On the other hand, McCardle's Randist arguments are selectively reserved for progressive constituencies and progressive initiatives.


McCardle used to blog as Jane Galt. Therefore it is perfectly fine to tar and feather her with all the worst aspects of Objectivism, because at this point it's just throwing feathers at someone who jump in Le Brea.

And I think that fact that McCardle reserves her Randist arguments only for liberal ideas just makes her more worst. So it's ok for nuance when we are throwing money at rich people, oh, but stopping mass death and bankruptcy and human suffering, well, that just goes against her principles?! Fuck her.

I should point out I didn't read all of this point. The is really too much writing aimed at engaging her ideas.
I come only to bash Randianism.

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

First, I agree in part with Joe, but the percentage of Randists who are totally consistent in their beliefs is no larger than in any other faith-based system. Even the Texas Doctor who named his son Rand 'strays from the strict doctrine' occasionally -- as in his pro-forced pregnancy position. (And if said son wins the Kentucky Senatorial nomination, that might be one of the most important races to contribute too. McConnell's unanimous consent stunt is simple petulance, but imagine someone blocking almost all legislation on principle. Unanimous consent is a minor factor in the House, so Daddy is just an annoyance. But the Senate runs on unanimous consent, and Sonny Boy really could 'kill the Senate.' (In fact, this would mean the first six months of the next Congress would be tied up in finding a majority for rewriting the rules, but still...)

Later for the second part. Shoping pulls me away.

Sir Charles


Your point is well taken. She's an inconstant Randist. And a fucking twit.


The term is "Randroid". As in, "There's a new shipment of Randroids coming off the line at 3:30. Prepare the gulching packs!"

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

The second point is that while McCardle is a twit, she's pretty damn good at setting up sucker bets, and she set a good one here. The point is that every single one of the points she mentioned will be affected by any number of unforseeable factors, and both of you can write your comments claiming you 'won' right now, and 'fill in the blanks later.

Sir C: here's your start off: "In 2010, Megan and I had a challenge that would be settled today, On each of these, here is the results as of today. And while some argument can be made that the changes in X were caused by Factors A, and B, that the failure to reach the result in Y was a result of Factor C, and the higher than predicted change in Z comes from Factor D, in fact it is obvious that, once you discount for these, there are unremovable differences that totally match the predictions."

Megan, your turn: "Sir Charles is obviously deluded in thinking that you can not explain every change by other changes in the situation, and that none of the effects of HCR that were predicted actually occurred."

There will be unexpected medical breakthroughs, political changes -- the bill we are discussing might be totally superceded by a better one if the Republicans implode, if they regain control of even one branch of Congress, they could screw up the economy so badly that the effects will be hidden in the overall collapse. There are any number of unpredictable X Factors, technological, a new terrorist attack, either a 9/11 or an Oklahoma City, even some religious effect -- us atheists would be wiahing for a God we could ask to help us if the New Apostolic Rformation actually got some power. And the two of you will always be able to argue how much these xplain the changes that will take place.

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

And irrelevant, but I had to mention it. Guess which dentist has filed suit claiming that HCR violates her "right" to practice dentistry.

"Along with raising the specter of death panels and charging that Obama, as an illegitimate president, does not have the right to sign the health bill into law, Taitz writes in the new section of the complaint, titled, "VIOLATION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE AND OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AS A DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY UPON DEFENDANT'S IMMINENT SIGHNING OF THE HEALTH BILL":
"Health bill, as being prepared and reconciled, will create an enormous machine of governmental burocracy which will intrude into Plaintiff's practice, will affect her doctor-patient relations, will undermine her Hippocratic oath, will force her to ration medical care and de-facto deny medical care to elderly, whom some committees of burocrats will deem to be too old to receive such care, meaning too old to live." (Typos in original.)

And irrelevant, but I had to mention it.

I already did...... ;)

Sir Charles

Have you ever seen Lady Gaga and Orly Taitz in the same room?

I thought not.



Acai Optimum

very informational... educative as well, i read and felt like reading over and over again....good job!

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Spam alert ^^^

big bad wolf

i wonder what sort of offspring on-line doctor and acai optimum would gift us with.

orly and gaga: a thread-winner from SC.

Krubozumo Nyankoye

Prup up thread-

Exactly so, these are in no sense testable predictions. At least not in the manner in which they are stated.

I think one could also make the case that this bill is so diffuse and diluted that it is likely only to slow the bleeding instead of stop it, let alone reverse it.

This is just a typical disingenuous strawman series of claims. What we can be sure of is that the insurance industry is already beavering away to find loop holes and workarounds they can use to circumvent the intent, and that they are also gearing up their massive lobby to seek out and identify those legislators who are "on the market" and can be readily bought.

While it is true it is a step forward, and perhaps a major step forward, it is a drop in the ocean overall.

Since my comments elicited no response on the prior thread by SC about hamburgers and Israel - the best hamburger to be had in NYC used to be from Chumleys, I don't know if they are back in business yet or not.

Sir Charles


Sorry my friend. I did not mean to leave you hanging.

Sir Charles


I had looked at your comment and thought it was one of those topics that wasn't succeptible to a brief reply, but a post. And the idea of doing a full blown Israel -U.S. post left me exhausted. Sorry to cop out, but I feel like getting into this topic requires a level of care with what is said that it is daunting.

I very rarely post about the Middle East for this reason.

And now that I've driven 480 miles today, attended two meetings, and consumed 88 ounces of coffee -- now I'm consuming alcohol to bring myself back down -- I find the idea of such a post doubly unappealing. I promise I will address it in the future.

Krubozumo Nyankoye

SC - no problem, I fully understand we all do have lives outside this little text box input thingy.

If you would like I could provide you with something of a background on my viewpoint of the recent history of Liberia. It is not necessarily relevant to the middle east per se but there are stome striking parallels.

88 ounces? You may need to start looking for kidney donors. :-)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment