Patterico's Pontifications


“U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms”

Filed under: Obama — Patterico @ 1:14 am

What could go wrong?

180 Responses to ““U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms””

  1. Great – the failed community organizer wants a new toy.

    Perfectsense (0922fa)

  2. According to the linked report,

    “The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.”

    Hey, what about directions or policies taken by companies in other industries which would damage or otherwise effect the economy in a manner contrary to the desire of the mob-swayed and mob-swaying government? Maybe we should sosh, sosh, sosh, nationalize the oil companies? Perhaps we should nationalize telecommunication companies? Perhaps we should nationalize television and radio companies because we have nothing to fear but fear itself, and we wouldn’t want any of these companies sowing fear or doubt or criticism which could affect the broader economy.

    Ira (28a423)

  3. We’re talking about the BushHitler administration here, right? That’s why all the media is expressing outrage over this move?


    navyvet (c45bb5)

  4. I think they ought to concentrate on staffing Treasury with competent non-tax cheats before they go off and worry about taking over private corporations.

    JD (33d9a9)

  5. Obama is such a good man.

    SGT Ted (c47cc2)

  6. “What could go wrong?”

    We end up with a difficult choice between zombies and bankruptcy.

    imdw (41b4a1)

  7. Coming this summer, in a theatre near you, Liberal Fascism. But it is all for the greater good. (“Never let a good crisis go to waste”).
    We’re so fing screwed!

    J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca)

  8. It is nearly time. The first revolution was started due to taxes. Looks like the second revolution might just be started by an over reaching Democratic party. A party whos leaders seem to have more in common with Lenin than Kennedy (JFK). This empty suit you call President is doing exactly what he planned to do and it is working. Problem being, he swore to uphold our consititution. Nowhere in that document does it authorized the government the kind of power Obama seeks. Impeachment is the easy solution, problem is we will have to wait until 2010 for the proceedings to start and that will be too late.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e461c0)

  9. Nothing beats free enterprize like a new tax and a government takeover

    No wonder why Chavez is trashing Obama – he’s jealous.

    Maybe they will nationalize the oil companies

    I need to walk everywhere – I need the exercise

    EricPWJohnson (c0d683)

  10. Remember how Bush took away all your freedoms and shredded the Constitution?

    Yeah, me neither. It’ll be interesting to read the spin on this move, however.

    Techie (9c008e)

  11. SGT Ted,

    Sorry you never bothered to read what I actually said, which is that Obama’s policies are dangerous and I will always oppose them. You’ve been suckered by liars.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  12. I am glad you are opposed to Obama’s fiscal policies Patterico. If only because the more people who recognize the danger of such policies, the more likely there can be polticial resistance and hopefully change of such policies.

    Joe (17aeff)

  13. I am not sure who you are referring to when you say Sgt. Ted has been “…suckered by liars.” But I am glad you recognize that it is better Obama’s goals fail, because the policies he seeks to impose are the type of policies that will result in broader failure.

    Joe (17aeff)

  14. Patrick, I read SGT Ted’s comment as sarcasm. Is there more to it ? Maybe in moderation ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  15. There is a three-stage process to establishing a kleptocracy. 1) Nationalize an industry; 2) Declare that you have seen the light and it would be better, after all, if it were privately owned and run; 3) Sell it to your friends for pennies on the dollar.

    nk (326199)

  16. Mike K, it’s just a continuation of the pretend notion that I support Obama and hi policies because I don’t call him evil on a personal level. I have always opposed Obama’s leftist policies, with which I disagree strongly, and always will.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  17. Well it’s clear that the ship of state has taken a mild hit–that has jammed the rudder hard left. As for the competence of the captain who wants to take over durn near everything in the country—but can’t even manage to staff 17 out of the 18 Presidential appointments in the Treasury Department? He’s not capable of steering a toy sailboat in a kid’s wading pool–much less the US economy.

    Mike Myers (674050)

  18. Why wait for the government to act. They’re usually so slow. I think Obama should empower ordinary citizens to seize companies outright and agree that there is no reason to stop with non-bank financial firms. Heck, we’re already bailing out the auto companies.


    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  19. Patterico, I do not call Obama evil on a personal level. I think he is profoundly wrong and is unlikely to be persuaded or change from being profoundly wrong. I am convinced many on the left are evil people who do not have the best interests of you, me, or the rest of the country at heart. In fact, they are actively trying to destroy liberty and freedom, supported by useful idiots who unwittingly help them do it. The sooner you recognize the Elsworth Tooheys out there the better.

    Joe (17aeff)

  20. Obama was duly elected, and has a Congress of the same party, and so will do things I don’t like. But this too shall pass — unless, of course, the conservative side fails to get its stuff together.

    The financial industry has done itself no favors in its behavior; too many damned insular New Yorkers controlling things, feeling entitled to those six-figure bonuses even if the company they’re steering runs aground. They can’t keep handing the anticapitalists this AIG-caliber ammunition.

    Aron (916ebb)

  21. I consider anyone that attends a racist church for 20 years, and takes his kids there to be indoctrinated too, evil.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  22. damn that bush Obama

    slizzle (cebb6d)

  23. We must demonize out enemies for that gives us a cloak of unaccountability for our subsequent actions

    EricPWJohnson (c0d683)

  24. I am not going to let people perpetrate a false characterization of my views. I’d ask Sgt. Ted and anyone else who wants to imply that I support Obama’s policies to a) find me a link where I call Obama a “good man” and b) set out every quote from that link that discusses his policies.

    Sgt. Ted should quickly find that I stated I opposed them.

    As bloggers we can do very little about the state of affairs. Our ideas and opinions matter very little. About the only thing we can do is counter the media narrative and point out distortions, because that can have an effect, however small. Any person here who wants to put up their record of fighting media distortions against mine is welcome to.

    I won’t have a false implication of my views spread by simplistic repetitions of a phrase ripped from its context. It’s an unreasonable and bad faith reading of my words and record to suggest I’m for Obama’s policies.

    Patterico (d1a27f)

  25. “too many damned insular New Yorkers controlling things”

    Aron – You’re not suggesting a conspiracy are you? Chas. Freeman was suggesting certain people had too much power in this country. Do you think THEY do?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  26. The bureaucracies at the 57 state insurance departments picked the wrong week to ramp up hiring.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  27. Why do certain people insist Obama have to be called eeeeeevil? It’s not enough to say Obama’s clueless, inexperienced and dealing with matters far above his pay grade? That his policies are ruinous and need to be defeated?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  28. Mr. Pink,

    I am concerned here with the distortion of my views to suggest I support Obama’s policies.

    That is patently unfair, and anyone who makes the suggestion should be required to do what I said: pull the links and see what I said about the policies.

    We could sit here and have a stupid debate about Obama the man, but why? I’m going to fight his policies just as hard whether I think he’s personally good or bad. He could be Hitler or Gandhi and I don’t care, if he wants to mortgage my children’s future I’m against it.

    Patterico (f05f5d)

  29. The real problem is too many damned insular ultra-liberal Chicagoans* controlling things.


    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  30. 27
    Are you saying that I can attend a white power church with my kids for 20 years and donate tens of thousands of dollars to it and I would still be considered a good man?

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  31. 28
    What moron said you supported his policies?

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  32. Pink

    Go away Pat won’t play – that even/or lame game that pseudoblogulectuals ferment

    EricPWJohnson (c0d683)

  33. Mr. Pink – When did you stop beating your wife?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  34. No really I am lost who said that?

    PS. I beat my wife late last night if you really want to know.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  35. “Are you saying that I can attend a white power church with my kids for 20 years and donate tens of thousands of dollars to it and I would still be considered a good man?

    Comment by Mr. Pink — 3/24/2009 @ 7:24 am”

    This thread took place a couple of months ago. Refer back to the post and comments there.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  36. I am not going to let people perpetrate a false characterization of my views. I’d ask Sgt. Ted and anyone else who wants to imply that I support Obama’s policies to a) find me a link where I call Obama a “good man” and b) set out every quote from that link that discusses his policies.

    Sgt. Ted should quickly find that I stated I opposed them.

    As bloggers we can do very little about the state of affairs. Our ideas and opinions matter very little. About the only thing we can do is counter the media narrative and point out distortions, because that can have an effect, however small. Any person here who wants to put up their record of fighting media distortions against mine is welcome to.

    I won’t have a false implication of my views spread by simplistic repetitions of a phrase ripped from its context. It’s an unreasonable and bad faith reading of my words and record to suggest I’m for Obama’s policies.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2009 @ 7:13 am

    Your right, because it sucks when people make false accusations about others. And if you remember Pat, when you were all freaked out about being accused of being anti Semetic, who defended you? Yet you accuse someone of a death threat? You and nk have a touch of the Olbermann bug yourself.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  37. Here’s a link, and a sample of what Patterico wrote:

    Barack Obama once said:

    Too many fathers are MIA. Too many fathers are AWOL. They’ve abandoned their responsibilities. They’re acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our family have suffered because of it. You and I know this is true everywhere, but nowhere is it more true than in the African-American community.

    He also said:

    We need fathers to recognize their responsibility doesn’t just end at conception. Any fool can have a child. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.

    It took courage to say these things. Bill Cosby said similar things and was pilloried by blacks. Jesse Jackson reacted to Obama’s comments by saying of Obama: “I want to cut his nuts off.” A white candidate saying such things risked being labeled a racist; a black candidate risked being labeled an Uncle Tom.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  38. who defended you?

    Joe – Don’t be coy. Spell it out.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  39. 35

    You are probably right but it got brought up here first by someone else I was just responding.

    I have found that beating my wife with a hose so it doesn’t leave bruises tends to get the best results. How do you beat yours?

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  40. Ahh DaleyRocks now we long for the days we argued about Ramos and Compean and illegal immigration

    Obama bringing people together…..

    EricPWJohnson (c0d683)

  41. Chas Freeman

    Sigh. I work IN the financial industry; I find the bankers in New York of whatever ethnicity have absolutely no comprehension of what life is like beyond New York — except perhaps in San Francisco or Los Angeles, or Steamboat Springs, in season — nor do they want to know what happens in Flyover Country. Some are Jews. Some are WASPs. Some are even foreign born.

    They are united by their deep belief that they actually are entitled to seven-figure salaries and six-figure bonuses, not for performance but just to compensate them for their wonderfulness and pay for their top-floor condos, their $5K children’s birthday parties, their Botox and their weeks in St. Lucia.

    And, unsurprisingly, they mostly supported Obama.

    They’ll do well no matter who owns the banks.

    Aron (916ebb)

  42. “I have found that beating my wife with a hose so it doesn’t leave bruises tends to get the best results. How do you beat yours?”

    Mr. P – Since yours enjoys having me beat her, I have no need to beat mine.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  43. Yet you accuse someone of a death threat? You and nk have a touch of the Olbermann bug yourself.

    Joe, are you done beating this particular horse yet? Are you sure? I mean, it looks dead, it’s tongue is hanging out, and it’s body looks fairly bloated. There are also flies around it’s mouth, and the beginning stages of decompose are readily apparent.

    You know, just in case you’re not completely sure about the dead part, by all means keep flogging away.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  44. I find the bankers in New York of whatever ethnicity have absolutely no comprehension of what life is like beyond New York

    They are united by their deep belief that they actually are entitled to seven-figure salaries and six-figure bonuses

    Aron – I agree completely and I was just messing with you earlier. It’s a lot less expensive to do business outside of NYC and there really is no fundamental reason to be there these days in most businesses IMHO.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  45. Hehe.
    Yeah mine loves a beating doesn’t she. I feel like writing a TV Pilot for her entitled “FallGirl”.
    PS Is there a comment thread I can refer you back to where wife beating was discussed because you are wayyyyyyy off topic.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  46. Aron, do you think that’s because the banks own the government? Did you read Matt Taibbi’s piece in Rolling Stone regarding how much of our government the banks own.

    timb (a83d56)

  47. “because you are wayyyyyyy off topic.”

    Mr. Pink – Which is where you were when I directed the question at you. D’oh!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  48. Matt Taibbi is the lunatic who chuckled about the impending death of Pope John Paul II, in a story he wrote for New York Press called “The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope.” It was disgusting, and I’m not even Catholic.

    Official Internet Data Office (63580d)

  49. Yeah too bad my sarcasm doesn’t translate well over the internet. Obviously everyone is too keyed up with internet testosterone after the arguing on here the past few weeks. I just came back from the Carribean last week cut me some slack I am too relaxed to get into an argument online.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  50. Mr. Pink.
    Nerves are frayed around here after the late unpleasantness.

    We all should have been so lucky as to have vacationed where you did.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  51. “Yeah too bad my sarcasm doesn’t translate well over the internet.”

    Mr. Pink – I think your sarcasm receiver needs some tuning as well.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  52. yes, I know you don’t like him, I asked another commenter if he read an article.

    I get it; politics is tribal: G Gordon is cool, because he’s our guy. Rove is fine. Scooter Libby was railroaded. Ann Coulter is controversial. Rush is provocative. All are truth tellers cause they’re on my team. Taibbi made a joke about the Pope and people didn’t like it….maybe it was his “Barrack the magic Negro” (which never fails to incite lefties)? At any rate, past is prologue and all, I am more interested in his latest news story.

    So, I asked a guy who framed his comments much like Taibbi framed his, if he read the article on the causes and effects of AIG.

    timb (a83d56)

  53. “We can’t have entities like AIG going totally uncontrolled and unregulated when they have such a forceful effect on the economy,” Kanjorski added.

    And thus he attempts to launch a new nationalization landslide. Totally uncontrolled and unregulated, indeed. That actually applies more to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while they built up their portfolio of horrible-risk mortgage loans, and securitized them to sell to the suckers, and took home monstrous bonuses for the volume of the loss-making business.

    Oh, come to think of it, F&F are indeed nationalized. Wonder why the President isn’t leading a new lynch mob in a movement to confiscate all the salaries and benefits its officers enjoyed while they poisoned the world economy with their ‘mortgage backed securities’?

    Insufficiently Sensitive (aa4142)

  54. Based on his track record, Taibbi seems to be a provocateur, not a reporter with any credibility. And Rolling Stone is not a news magazine.

    Official Internet Data Office (cbf26d)

  55. While it is fancy to say Wall Streeters don’t deserve the money they get paid it is a product of the free market. They are getting paid what a company thinks they merit and it is an exchange FREE of any gov.t interference.

    If you are for FREEDOM, you can not be against their BONUSES.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  56. “Yet you accuse someone of a death threat?”

    Jesus. I said ages ago it might not have been that. Try to keep up.

    Joe, stop trying to stir up trouble. That’s all you do. It’s not a good thing to do.

    Patterico (b87516)

  57. Joe also tends to cut and paste his same comments at multiple websites which is quite annoying. Oh excuse me I am off topic again.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  58. That doesn’t stop Rolling Stone from pretending to be a “serious!!!” news magazine.

    Remember when they were on the front line of the Bushitler’s ReichWing oppression of the Dixie Chicks?

    Techie (9c008e)

  59. Timb, I quit using Rolling Stone as a news source back in the ’70s. Sorry. It’s funny, the fringers on both left and right get really crazy when it comes to “the banks” — Taibbi should feel right at home in that fever swamp.

    The central bank is a function of the federal government. Commercial banks borrow from central banks. Seems pretty transparent.

    What’s gone awry here is we’ve made banks out of car companies and insurance companies and Lord knows what else.

    Aron (916ebb)

  60. The motivations for destructive policies may be of interest to some people but I’m with Pat. They need to be opposed due to their deleterious impacts, not because the person(s) espousing them may have ulterior motives.

    Esoteric arguments over ideological abstractions are not very helpful in persuading the muddle.

    Chris (a24890)

  61. Aron, then you might to check it out, since it details how AIG (an insurance company used unhedged CDS’s (an investment bank instrument) to put itself underwater. There’s nothing particularly new in that as far as reporting, just drawing a line between the presence of the CEO of Goldman at the Fed meeting where the first AIG bailout was decided and the presence of Goldman folks at all levels of the Treasury and Fed Reserve, i.e. what you said, the banks, especially Goldman, will get theirs.

    Taibbi thinks this is important development: the removal of “us” from any semblance of policy and the government almost solely working for people who are fabulously wealthy bankers and who have been bank-rolling the politicians and naming their own for the past ten years.

    On a different note, there’s a weird “shoot-the-messenger” thing on blogs. Yes, Rolling Stone doesn’t always do good journalism (I’m thinking back to Robert Kennedy, Jr’s fevered bs about the 2004 election being “stolen,” as a prime example of, well, bs). Nonetheless, the article makes the exact same point you did: people receive bonuses because they are entitled them, since they are the smartest, best people in the country.

    timb (a83d56)

  62. It is nothing short of astonishing how many plainly unconstitutional or extraconstitutional proposals and legislation we are seeing from Democrats in recent weeks.

    SPQR (72771e)

  63. SPQR,
    Good jumping off point for opposition. People get that “unconstitutional” thing.

    Chris (a24890)

  64. Chris, did you see Barney Frank’s ludicrous sputterings in Geitner’s testimony? Frank thinks its a good idea to regulate compensation on Wall Street of even those firms not taking govt bailout funds.

    Unbelievable. The Democrats are intentionally sabotaging our economy to demogogue.

    SPQR (72771e)

  65. Rolling Stone lost any shred of credibility it may have had by publishing RFK Jr.’s absurd, dishonest and bogus conspiracy theory story about vaccines.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0a7219)

  66. Credibility, Bradley? That garbage kills people.

    SPQR (72771e)

  67. Obama is doing it smarter, if not less arrogantly, than Truman, in any case. (Link is short. And safe, unless you are allergic to discussion of U.S. Supreme Court cases. 😉 )

    nk (326199)

  68. Amendment accepted, SPQR.
    As Dmac has mentioned, we had a measles outbreak in San Diego last year due to parents who refused to have their children vaccinated.

    Whenever I’ve written about vaccine issues, I always get some calls or emails from the anti-vaccination zealots.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0a7219)

  69. Did anyone see the DateLine program last Sunday about the financial crisis?

    I know there is plenty of blame to go around, but what really struck me was the 3 people interviewed. None of the 3 read any of their loan documents, they just signed them. And then complained that the loan company did not look out for their best interest. That is willfully naive and they got what they deserve, these are adults not children so why is it someone else’s job to look out for them?

    One of the women interviewed purchased a 250 thousand dollar condo, the monthly payment was around 2 grand, yet this woman made only 16 hundred a month. And when asked if any of this was her fault, she outright says NO. And then states “why would the loan company give me a mortgage I could not afford?

    Without willfully ignorant people like this, these deceitful loan companies could have never perpetrated the fraud.

    ML (14488c)

  70. “people receive bonuses because they are entitled them, since they are the smartest, best people in the country”

    timb – Aron’s comment about NYC has been true for at least 30 years. I grew up in that area, worked in the city after college, moved to the Midwest more than 25 years ago and have worked in financial services the entire time. At my most recent firm we closed out NY office in 1999 because the people costs were too expensive. We found we could duplicate the skills and experience for a fraction of the cost elsewhere. The entitlement mentality is alive and well many places in this country, particularly blue states. They tend to be lousy places to do business.

    I read the Tabibi article after you mentioned it. He raises some interesting points but is mainly interested in sensation. AIG is an insurance holding company with many noninsurance subsidiaries. The CDS’ were not written in insurance subsidiaries, but I believe were guaranteed by the holding company or some other corporate entity, which created part of the crisis. AIG actually lost more money on the securities lending business of its regulated insurance subsidiaries, but that’s not very sexy to talk about.

    Tabibi also calls Cassano, the head of AIG Financial Products “a greedy little turn with a knack for selective accounting” but provides no back up for the insult. He also makes the same old tired community based reality accusations about Phil Gramm and Bush era deregulation of the financial services industry. Sorry tinb, Gramm did not deregulate CDS’ or CDO’s, they just didn’t regulate them further. Why can’t the left get it right after so many tries?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  71. All this does make you long for the old days when the Cheney Assassin Squad was all we needed to worry about…

    At some point, I think a discussion of good and evil is appropriate. It’s all about the motivation. For instance, we would generally agree that Mao was an evil man, the suffering he caused was because of his ego. He allowed millions to die rather than change course during the Great Leap Forward because he WANTED it to be true that close planting, collectivization and deep furrows were a good thing. It was pride. Pride can be evil.

    I think it would be stupid to say, like was said for 8 years of Bush, that Obama is totally evil. However, actions that cause suffering must bear the weight of scrutiny. Some times those actions are evil and are born of evil motivations. Other times it’s just sheer stupidity.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  72. Tabibi also seems ignorant of the fact that one of AIG’s business units was among the five largest private insurers of home mortgages in the country as he’s railing about their evil.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  73. I canceled Rolling Stone after finding out the truth about the Tawana Brawley incident, about which they wrote plenty. After one particularly disingenuous article a few years back, I send a respectful rebuttal of a few facts to Matt Taibbi. He did not reply.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  74. In my humble opinion, one of the best places to follow the intricate story of toxic derivatives, shady late-night bailouts, greedy Wall Street pigs, and the recent illegal acts of the Federal Reserve is Karl Denninger’s site. Denninger is a former Chicago cable-TV entrepreneur who sold his company for $12 million, and now blogs. Last month, he received an Accuracy in Media journalism award at CPAC.

    Official Internet Data Office (cbf26d)

  75. As Deng Xiaoping said about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, “In China, one million people is not a lot”, all Obama needs is 50.1% of the people behind him.

    (They’ll all have to fight off Chris Matthews, of course, but that’s a different story. 😉 And, yes, I am totally ashamed of myself.)

    nk (326199)

  76. I don’t mean to be off topic, but the anti-vaccine stuff is such a minefield. Parents who have autistic children are hurting, and they want to blame something, someone, anyone.

    And that is VERY fertile ground for conspiracy theory.

    I mean, heck, if this business was due to mercury, why didn’t the incidence of autism go down when mercury in vaccines was greatly reduced or eliminated entirely?

    The Limbo begins—again, for people in pain. Debating them does nothing. Politicians? Please.

    What bothers me are the hucksters trying to make money from it.

    On the other hand, people aren’t reasonable. I know many people are are opposed to nuclear power because “it causes cancer” who smoke cigarettes.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  77. …did you see Barney Frank’s ludicrous sputterings in Geitner’s testimony?

    Missed that. I did hear Elmer Fudd demanding someone remove their sign from the hearing, though. Guess it wasn’t CodeStink as they have House priveleges now, don’t they?

    Chris (a24890)

  78. Vivian Louise #70: and we will see how the President deals with the many crises any President faces. That will define his innate nature for good or “evil.”

    I’m trying to be hopeful, but I am watching all this with great trepidation, based on his record.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  79. I talk to a lot of doctors, for my sins, some of them Infectious Disease specialists, and what helped fuel the mythology of the harm of the vaccines was that the vaccines were still very new. No long-term studies for either harmful side-effects, or efficacy for the job they were supposed to do, for that matter. I’m told that it is still the case for the chicken-pox vaccine. That it is still not proven sufficiently potent to prevent chicken-pox.

    nk (326199)

  80. Re 77: EB, that’s what I’m talking about.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  81. Eric – I sent Pat an email requesting that he pass mine along to you.

    JD (08ac3e)

  82. I understand your caution, nk, but you know what worries me more? Statin drugs over the counter.

    But I’m not an MD. Dr. K. (Mike K.) is an MD (and has written a great book about the history of medicine).

    JD, I look forward to chatting with you.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  83. Good Allah, I watched the circus with Franks, Maloney, Waters, et al. That is who we want regulating industry?!?!

    Waters was pushing the Goldman Sachs Joooooooooo cabal running the system meme.

    Bawnee was Bawnee

    JD (08ac3e)

  84. nk,
    All people need do is read back on what life was life before vaccines, polio being one fairly recent example.

    Mike K. has a wonderful book, “A Brief History of Disease, Science and Medicine,” that explains about the development of vaccines and much more.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0a7219)

  85. The stock market could not have been pleased with the Dems today.

    JD (08ac3e)

  86. “We’re very late in doing this, but we’ve got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it’s a necessary thing for any government…

    Really? Whenever any government official says that we’ve got to move quickly, I reflexively dig in my heels. Show me the money.

    Barney Frank is pathetically attempting to keep us distracted from his own disgusting guilt. He should have been struck by lightening when he demanded Liddy give him names. It’s always troubling when these dolts wear Guilt with such ease. A sure sign they’ve been in the game too long.

    Vivian Louise, a serious point. (It appears what motivates Obama is ignorance and a lack of understanding of just how big the picture really is. It’s almost as if he doesn’t have the necessary *depth* to realize that he really, really is the President. He appears to operate on the rock star-celebrity level rather than with the seriousness of a POTUS. But hey, he is an excellent campaigner, too bad he doesn’t seem to realize the election is over.

    Dana (137151)

  87. Sadly, Dana, weren’t we all told that campaigning was great experience for being President?

    I suspect that Mr. Obama believes what he was told on that score.

    Personally, I am starting to think that Senators should not be allowed to be President—where is the adminstrative experience?

    But this may be a special case of a particularly unprepared President.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  88. Dana – Spot on.

    Did ANY (R or D) congresscritter complain about the $165,000,000 in bonuses paid to Raines and Gorelick?

    JD (08ac3e)

  89. Geither said the bonuses were a legally enforceable contract and it was right to pay them, and then said that they were taking steps to recover the payments. If they were legal and enforceable, why would they seek to recover the monies after his office put the language in there authorizing it? How do they keep their heads from assploding?

    JD (08ac3e)

  90. Geithner is a clown among clowns.

    SPQR (72771e)

  91. You move quickly if something’s on fire. When it comes to spending money, slow down. When it comes to spending someone else’s money, go even slower.

    Aron (fd12bd)

  92. How do they keep their heads from assploding?

    I’m more concerned with my own head not um, assploding from the sheer toxicity being rent on us through the onslaught of lies, obfuscations and manipulations. The levels of shamelessness even in these first 100 days, is staggering.

    Eric Blair, I have always maintained that anyone seeking to becomes POTUS should be required to have served at least 2 years in the military. And not gone AWOL.

    Dana (137151)

  93. #’s 16/24/28…
    What many of us have been, and are, upset about is that “good” men don’t do “evil”;
    not deliberately, and recoil from it when done by accident, or misdirection.
    “Evil” policies are the result of bad intentions by “evil” men, not by “good” men.
    I would never use the adjective “good” in describing our President.
    I find him very uninformed of history and the wider culture of America.
    I also do not perceive him as wanting to learn what he doesn’t know.
    He seems to be comfortable in his ignorance and remains focused on a goal that is still
    largely unknown to the rest of us.
    His apparent political goals are antithetical to the continuation of Freedom in a Republic such as what ours was,
    and should be again.
    Saying that Barack Obama is a “good” man implies (to this observer) that though you disagree with, and oppose, his policies, you believe that he will “find redemption” and change course.
    He is an ideologue who will not change, who doesn’t believe that he needs to find redemption, and will continue his destructive policies until he is stopped (some would say that marks a sociopath).
    PP, you put people like this away every week –
    do you ever describe them as “good” (rhetorical question)?

    I believe this is my first comment on this topic, and it will be my last,
    for only history can present us with a true answer.

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  94. But, to the topic at hand, This proposal strikes at the very heart of Freedom and Liberty in our Republic (and just how does this comport with the “takings clause” of the 5th Amendment?).
    Some functionary is going to walk in my front door claiming that he is now in control of my business?
    I don’t think so!
    What’s next, visits from the neighborhood “soviet” allocating living spaces in your home?
    Is this what ACORN and Organizing for America are for?
    Well, as Richard Crenna’s character said in First Blood:
    Don’t forget a good supply of body-bags!
    (but, like condoms, we’ll probably have to out-source those to China too)

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  95. Dana, if Obama had served, he’d recognize immediately how FUBAR his first two months have become. However, since he’s been surrounded from the beginning by worshippers who don’t count one person among them that has the stature to tell him when he’s completely full of sh-t, he thinks everything’s okee dokey all the time. When I read Jack Germond’s excellent autobiography (Fat Man in the Middle Seat), he mentioned that this was Carter’s chief failing as POTUS. Scary analogy, indeed.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  96. Yet you accuse someone of a death threat?”

    Jesus. I said ages ago it might not have been that. Try to keep up.

    Joe, stop trying to stir up trouble. That’s all you do. It’s not a good thing to do.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2009 @ 8:30 am

    I admit that sometimes I stir up trouble, but not all I do and it is really not what I am doing now. In this matter you knew damn well that Jeff Goldstein did not intend to make a death threat (and in fact did not do so), but you banned him for it because you saw an opportunity to make some hay about nk’s hurt feelings. Sorry Patterico, but going after someone’s family is something Andrew Sullivan does. nk never should have gone there and defending him for going there was pathetic. It is disgusting when Sullivan goes after Palin’s kids. It is digusting when nk provokes Jeff by referencing his family the way he did. Leave family out of it. Good that you admit it might not be that, but it still was rather weaselly of you to say it.

    Seriously, aren’t you better than this kind of crap? Can Jeff be a dick? I will let you and others answer that. But try to get beyond your own personal feelings getting hurt.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  97. Joe is a Paulian, which explains a lot. They also don’t know when to just shut the fuck up.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  98. He is wayyy beyond that at this point – time to take your own advice, and drop this farking subject forever.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  99. Who is way beyond it Dmac, me or Patterico? I appreciate you feel you have to be loyal to Pat. But if you were the wee bit honest with yourself you would realize this is primarily about hurt feelings over here and primarily about issues over there.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  100. . . . rats gnawing the hooves of the metaphysically challenged putrescent equine, cockroaches using its hamstrings as violins, magpies playing tug-of-war with the distended ex-appendix, rotten stomach spewing bilous acid fermented ichor all over the worm-riddled pancreas. . .

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0a7219)

  101. And Dmac you made a good point about Carter, his sycophants followers and support groups, and how that crippled him. Of course Carter was mendacious to begin with. Most people just did not recognize it until after he became President.

    The same is true with Obama. Time to get with the program before this country really does get as screwed up as Glenn Beck predicts.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  102. See Joe, that’s what I’m trying to get across – most of us just want to discuss what’s on the thread itself, not rehash old discussions that are pointless to continue at this juncture. The host doesn’t need me or anyone else to defend him, all we’re asking for is that commenters stick to the subject at hand. Simple as that.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  103. And I stopped following PP and PW for a time just because of the cat fight, so, Joe, I ask you very politely to STFU about cat-fights.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  104. Well since you asked politely John Hitchcock, fair enough. And Dmac, your point above about Carter really was well said. And Brother Bradley, that is a powerful vision of hell you have going there.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  105. Joe,
    For inspiration, I just imagine what will happen to the economy if Obama gets his way. . .

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0a7219)

  106. Thanks for that – but the awful feeling I have is that Obama could be even worse than Carter, since there doesn’t appear to be any actual adults in the WH at the moment, and the press is much more synchophatic towards him than they were to Carter way back then. They turned against Carter when the economy went further south during his term, then the Iranian Hostage rescue fiasco, and finally his inane speech about how terrible things were (the infamous “malaise” speech – sound familiar?), replete with that dorky red sweater on TV.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  107. Honest to God, if one more person starts in with the Patterico-JG kerfuffle, I am taking this site off my favorites list and replacing it with Vanity Fair!

    Enough already. If you have to continue it, do it via email and spare us all.

    Dmac, thanks for mentioning Jack Germond’s Fat Man in the Middle Seat. Worth checking in to.

    Dana (137151)

  108. Dana, it doesn’t matter if you don’t agree with his political viewpoints – but he was the only reason (along with Novak) why I watched The McGoofy Group back when it first appeared. He’s a good writer, and even better ranconteur, and he takes you back in the days before rampant lobbying and 24/7 polling determined every single action for a politco.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  109. Dmac, seriously, you’re off-base on this one. A cat fight between two popular people is still a cat fight. And a cat fight that takes up large amounts of space is still a cat fight. Sticking up for one of the cats does nothing.

    I said I stopped following PW and PP for a while because of the cat fight. Dana suggested she’d stop following PP if the cat fight continued. The popularity or “rightness” of either cat is irrelevant. It is the cat fight that is old, tiresome, and painful to the ears.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  110. John Hitchcock,
    Are you paying attention? Dmac made that very point at 1:50 you repeated just now.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0a7219)

  111. Wha??? Guys whaddabout the unitary executive? Can O seize people’s businesses if he personally thinks they are a threat to the US economy=national security? That’s all OK right? Just to keep us safe?

    EdWood (c2268a)

  112. Ed, please remind us who was the Sec. of Seized Businesses under the GWB Admin?

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  113. Or, was that program run by the same cabal that was rounding up, and incarcerating dissenting voices?
    You know, all of the millions of the disappeared from the bastions of Liberalism.

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  114. It is like Truman and the Unions, only a lot scarier.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  115. “Ed, please remind us who was the Sec. of Seized Businesses under the GWB Admin?”

    AD – I know, I know. Wasn’t it the same person who was in charge of Constitution shredding?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  116. Ding, Ding, Ding!
    We have a winner!
    That Dick Cheney was one busy Dude.

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  117. EdWood, #112, your comment is incoherent. The Bush administration did not seize people’s businesses on the basis of national security ( that was Truman by the way ). And the “unitary executive” principle has nothing to do with seizing businesses nor national security.

    In fact, the left’s misrepresentation – really more of a paranoid raving – of the “unitary executive” concept has long been a pet peeve of mine. The “unitary executive” means that all executive authority is vested by the Constitution in the President ( hint: that’s in the text ) and that Congress can’t create agencies or commissions that carry out executive functions outside the control of the President. It would surprise no rational person that there is in fact Supreme Court precedent to that effect.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  118. #116 daleyrocks:

    Wasn’t it the same person who was in charge of Constitution shredding?

    I don’t think so…I had a little mobile stand down off Raoul Wallenberg Place, and I had plenty of Constitutions to shred so I din’t hqve much time to seize any biznesses…

    EW1(SG) (2fae0c)

  119. Joe’s comment is a good example of the way some people practice a theory called “intentionalism.” In theory it is coherent, with two important principles:

    1) the author means what he means at the time of speaking, and the only interpretations that are true to the text are those that strive to ascertain the author’s true intent

    2) the author is not necessarily the most reliable interpreter of his own intent: he could be unavailable, lying, or just mistaken about his own intent.

    An intellectually honest person keeps both principles in mind at all times.

    But on the Internet, the theory is sometimes misused to give a fancy intellectual coating to what is ultimately a doctrine of “The Text Means Whatever I Say It Means.”

    Here’s how this dishonest form of “intentionalism” works:

    First, you decide if you like the speaker and his message. This drives everything else.

    Now, if there is a contest between the speaker and a listener about the proper interpretation of the speaker’s true intent, you can resolve the dispute either way you like, and claim you are applying “intentionalism.” All you have to do is choose which of the above two principles to apply to the virtual exclusion of the other. Intentionalism nose on, intentionalism nose off.

    Approach #1: listener likes speaker’s message — If you like the speaker and his message — say, because you are very conservative and so is he — then you haughtily invoke Principle #1 above, and rail about the primacy of the author’s intent. If someone claims the author meant something other than the author claims he meant, you label that listener a lying liar who is out to twist the speaker’s words. Principle #2 — the concept that, in interpretation, the speaker could be lying — is to be forgotten . . . lost amongst the swirling eddies of self-righteous rhetoric about “fascism” and “reframing” and “recontextualizing” words and “ceding language” and “turning language into a weapon.” Speakers assume the role of victim; you can often picture the cross on their backs.

    Similar to Treacher’s “clown nose on, clown nose off” complaint about Jon Stewart, I call this approach “intentionalism nose on.” (Let me be clear: when I say “intentionalism” in this context, I don’t mean the intellectually consistent theory that actually exists in the abstract, but rather the fraudulent version perpetrated by people like Joe and others like him on the Internet.)

    Approach #2: listener dislikes speaker’s message — in this instance, Principle #2 comes to the forefront. It is acknowledged for consistency’s sake that, yes, the author’s intent is admittedly what it is — but that fact is severely downplayed. We no longer hear about “reframing” or “fascism.” Instead, the question becomes a matter of the “best interpretation” — and we are reminded that authors lie! We always maintained that and we have been consistent!

    I call this “intentionalism nose off.”

    So: you like what the speaker is saying? Intentionalism nose on. What the author says he means becomes paramount.

    Don’t like it? Intentionalism nose off. It’s really a matter of interpretation, and the author could be lying.

    It’s a rigged game, in which various principles in a theoretically coherent philosophy are ripped from their own context (note the irony) to assume paramount importance, to the detriment of the other aspects of the theory. Slather on some chest-beating rhetoric and nobody will notice — at least if they’re not that bright.

    Review Joe’s comment and you’ll see how he did this. Joe purports to interpret two speakers: myself, and a speaker he likes.

    As to the speaker he likes, Joe accepts that speaker’s interpretation of his words. No threat was intended, the speaker says, and Joe accepts that. Intentionalism nose on.

    As to the speaker he doesn’t like (me), Joe rejects that speaker’s interpretation of his words. “I truly believed it was a threat at the time I instituted the ban,” the speaker says. Not liking the speaker, Joe rejects that. The speaker must be lying. Intentionalism nose off.

    (You can call it “clown nose” if you prefer. You can assign any meaning to the word, after all. You’re the speaker.)

    daleyrocks and SEK have shown how this works in other contexts.

    The theory is thus misused to make the text mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. If I like what you’re saying, I accept your interpretation over a dissenter’s. If I dislike what you’re saying, I’ll tell you what you really mean.

    In a way, there’s nothing wrong with this. We all have to make judgments in life. It’s just that the fact that we make judgments (applying Principle #2) undercuts the Bold Rhetoric so often used with Principle #1.

    The misuse of this theory is very interesting to me. I’ll probably do a post about it some day. But currently, it’s interesting only to a very, very small minority of my readers. And right now I have a loyalty to my readers, who are tired of reading about what is after all a very abstract literary theory that has no real relevance to these dire political times in which we live — save the faux relevance that the bastardized forms of the theory are claimed to have by its more dishonest practitioners.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  120. And I stopped following PP and PW for a time just because of the cat fight, so, Joe, I ask you very politely to STFU about cat-fights.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/24/2009 @ 1:53 pm

    Well since you asked politely John Hitchcock, fair enough. And Dmac, your point above about Carter really was well said. And Brother Bradley, that is a powerful vision of hell you have going there.

    Comment by Joe — 3/24/2009 @ 1:56 pm

    Honest to God, if one more person starts in with the Patterico-JG kerfuffle, I am taking this site off my favorites list and replacing it with Vanity Fair!

    Enough already. If you have to continue it, do it via email and spare us all.

    Dmac, thanks for mentioning Jack Germond’s Fat Man in the Middle Seat. Worth checking in to.

    Comment by Dana — 3/24/2009 @ 2:20 pm

    Look at the time on Patterico’s post above! Dana, you might need a new home.

    Reminds me of this. Or maybe this.

    Joe (17aeff)

  121. Patterico – I thought nobody understood what I was saying.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  122. Least of all myself.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  123. Cut and paste Joe strikes again!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  124. Of course there are subjective and objective influences which influence how one views things.

    What you make the mistake on Pat is thinking this about liking someone and disliking someone else. This is about someone being right on his underlying principals in this argument and someone being wrong.

    Joe (17aeff)

  125. Patterico – I thought nobody understood what I was saying.


    Yeah, likewise.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  126. Joe,

    I think I found your problem.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  127. I thought I was leaving this alone, based on a polite request to STFU by John Hitchcock and Dmac above…and then you pull me back in. Dana even said she was going to Vanity Fair if one other person raised it again. And you went ahead and raised it again. You can’t leave this one alone can you Pat?

    So what is my problem Pat, a lack of credibility or an audiance who does not want to be persuaded?

    Joe (17aeff)

  128. daley,

    When I said:

    But currently, it’s interesting only to a very, very small minority of my readers.

    I basically meant you and SEK.

    I don’t know if anyone else follows it. Not because they couldn’t, but because, as I suggested, they likely don’t care.

    Which is why it’s better as a comment than a post.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  129. I thought I was leaving this alone, based on a polite request to STFU

    You are leaving it alone, based on a not-so-polite request to STFU from me.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  130. “Which is why it’s better as a comment than a post.”


    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  131. So what is my problem Pat, a lack of credibility or an audiance who does not want to be persuaded?

    The fact that you are the latter.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  132. Why? Because I disagree with you? I have nothing against you personally–well until now. I defended you when you were so bent out of shape about the inference of you being anti Semetic. I think you were wrong on the Rush business and have argued somewhat unpersuasively on the whole Jeff Goldstein intentionalism issue. I think your freaking out about an imaginary death threat (pertaining to a guy who should have never dragged family into it) and banning Jeff from your site was rather…well un-manly. But in the heat of argument sometimes a breather is warranted.

    You do not want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe we just disagree. I was leaving this alone till you brought it up again. You can ban me too and show what a pussy you are, or you be a man and just leave it alone. Your choice.

    Joe (17aeff)

  133. SPQR-

    Actually my comment was a joke but now that you mention it (and have educated me by the way, thanks) how far do you think the “executive” power of the President goes? What is an “executive” function?

    EdWood (2aab60)

  134. Joe – You should have let it go.

    Isn’t Ron Paul doing anything interesting these days, like protecting his town from hordes of crazed negro drug addicts, stockpiling gold for the coming armageddon, or plotting against the international zionist cartel that controls the world’s money?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  135. daleyrocks, what are you talking about? Ron Paul? Are you serious or is that a code reference for someone else?

    Joe (17aeff)

  136. “You can ban me too and show what a pussy you are”

    Joe – Who’s the pussy? The blog host told you in strong terms to leave it alone and you had to make one more comment to call him a pussy if he bans you? Self-fulfilling prophecy isn’t it.

    Ace had a post on a free PMS monitoring site up today Joe, you might want to check it out. It could be good for you and your mangina. It gives out threat levels.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  137. Joe – I don’t know what I’m talking about. I never do.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  138. Joe – Why haven’t you told them over at Protein Wisdom that you’ve called Patterico a pussy and dared him to ban you? I see that you’ve helpfully, as is you wont, told them basically everything else on this thread as a dutiful blog bitch crapweasel.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  139. Comment by EdWood — 3/24/2009 @ 6:52 pm

    That is a disqualifying question, is it not?
    To paraphrase J.P.Morgan, if you have to ask, you have no business being in the conversation.

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  140. Spare me your wounded pride, Joe. Your reason for being is to start fights.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  141. And he ain’t the only one, Patterico.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  142. Dana,
    Please stay with us! We’re trying to stop the ASPCA violations on a defunct equino-American. You’re a very important canary in the blogmine, and without your song it just wouldn’t be the same.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  143. daleyrocks, can you e-mail me?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  144. Bradley,

    Dana’s not leaving. Don’t worry. She’s smarter than to be baited by Joe.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  145. Dana and Bradley – Since we don’t have the Petranos to kick around any more, protecting the defunct equino-American interests is an important function. They are being beaten further elsewhere on the internet as we speak.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  146. “daleyrocks, can you e-mail me?”


    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  147. Patterico

    An Ignored troll makes no noise

    EricPWJohnson (c0d683)

  148. David Petranos Esp and MKDP are sadly missed.

    JD (45da85)

  149. “Temper gets you into trouble. Pride keeps you there.”

    Joe (17aeff)

  150. I love off-topic conversations so I’ll jump into this vaccine debate. Count me firmly in the middle. Vaccines save lives and have eliminated or curtailed horrible diseases in the world. Vaccines also hurt some people, which is why the physician has to provide written warnings about the dangers vaccines pose to people like immune-compromised individuals.

    I favor testing the titers of individuals before they receive specific vaccines. For instance, a child or adult with high titers to measles doesn’t need the measles vaccine to be resistant and might be more likely to be hurt by it. Similarly, testing titers will tell us the people who need more frequent boosters than the schedules require, making it easier to avoid outbreaks of infectious diseases in older populations. It could also protect people from vaccine complications like Guillain-Barre’ Syndrome.

    Of course, it will be expensive to test titers but widespread testing should bring down the cost per unit and increase competition to produce cost-effective testing alternatives.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  151. An ignored troll still makes noise… cluttering the noise-to-signal ratio (that’s their intent). A banned troll* makes no noise.

    Joe is only interested in keeping this going.

    *Disclaimer: Not saying that JeffG was a troll. Getting banned for making physical threats and becoming increasingly creepy is different than trolling.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  152. Anon, that would be an interesting topic for both Bradley Fikes and Mike K. Mike K. is an MD, and Bradley writes well about biotech issues.

    I suspect your approach would end up being very, very expensive. And the “herd effect” is a slippery concept in “vaccinology.”

    I’m not saying you are wrong, mind you.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  153. Patterico,

    It’s true I’m one of the people who think your debate with Jeff G should end but, having said that, I really enjoyed your comment 120.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  154. Eric Blair,

    The capitalist in me suggests this solution: Let people choose for themselves. Either pay for the titer testing or just get the vaccines.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  155. Vaccination protection is, essentially, socialism made flesh. Karl Marx triumphant among the B and T cells. Check out the “herd effect” in immunity.

    But I like free markets, too.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  156. It’s true I’m one of the people who think your debate with Jeff G should end but, having said that, I really enjoyed your comment 120.

    I will never be intimidated into silence about ideas. It’s just good to choose who to discuss them with. A crazy man resembling “Aqualung” from the album cover might yell one day about income taxes, and I will likely decide not to “debate” that man. But I’ll talk about income taxes with my commenters.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  157. Incidentally, Eric, proof of titer testing is accepted in lieu of vaccines at some colleges. As for cost, the Metropolitan State College of Denver website states that the cost of the “blood titer test for immunity is $25.00 per disease or $75.00 for measles, mumps and rubella titers.”

    Anon (eb4fed)

  158. Anon

    There is no debate – one guy is screaming in a dark room somewhere

    Dear Eric B

    Thank goodness fences have few splinters!

    EricPWJohnson (c0d683)

  159. EricPWJohnson:


    Which was your point, perhaps.

    Still, I would like to have Mike K. weigh in on this one. Or any immunologists or other MDs around. I’m just a geneticist.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  160. Anon,
    Thanks for the idea. I’ll ask the health editor at my paper about it — and of course, consult with my co-blogger/doctor pal Mike K.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  161. For all of you advocating Goldstein have you really, really read his writings? And if you do and still advocate a 50.50 thing here – well – time to find another home.

    Patterico posts and comments, posts and comments.

    Says things like gee Eric do you really want everyone to lose their jobs

    And I say – yep – if they were stupid enough to vote for Obama or sat by and let him get elected – they have it coming

    Then Pat says I just cannot agree with that at all.

    I didn’t need to scratch my head and scream off 29,500 words to figure out what the guy went and what his intentions are as well

    EricPWJohnson (c0d683)

  162. Eric Blair

    Guess my intent really……

    EricPWJohnson (c0d683)

  163. So daleyrocks, I’m interested in applying for the position of ‘Patterico’s sycophant’. Can you tell me a little bit more about it? How’s the pay? What are the hours like? Do you get medical and dental?

    Dave in SoCal (be17f6)

  164. Dave – Are you an illegal immigrant? What is your native language?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  165. AD #140
    No, it’s a question from someone curious about another person’s take on a particular subject.

    EdWood (baf071)

  166. Dave in SoCal,
    As a Patterico sychophant-in-training, I must caution you that the demands are strict. You must never, ever, disagree with him on any point, no matter how tiny. Otherwise you’ll be branded a suppressive, locked in a dirty, rat-infested hold in the ship, and fed rice and beans.

    If accepted, you will have to sign a billion-year contract with Patterico’s Pontifications, and learn our secrets. Our leader was once the Chief Justice of a great galactic empire of Califia. But he was attacked by the evil denizens of the rival galaxy Protea, whose minions stoked their master’s insane passions by slathering themselves with jasmine oil and engaging in unspeakable bodily contortions.

    Short of it is, Shirley MacLaine showed up, thrust the evil tyrant Hermy Neuticles into a giant volcano, along with his henchmen, and detonated 33 zillion hydrogen bombs.

    But the ghosts of the defeated Neuticles still exist today, possessing otherwise rational conservative/libertarian bloggers and deranging their socio-political-Freudian foundations with attempts to write the epilogue to Hermy’s “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.”

    We, the servants of the Pattericans, must cleanse these unfortunate beings of their “body wrestler thingies” through intense applications of red pills found behind the sofa cushions and a generous donation to Patterico’s Fund For Indigent Intentionalists.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  167. Dave – Are you an illegal immigrant? What is your native language?

    US citizen and full-time CA state resident. English.

    Am I disqualified?

    Sorry, it wasn’t readily apparent that the position had nationality and language requirements.

    Dave in SoCal (be17f6)

  168. Dave,

    You need vocal cord training moreso than anything else.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  169. Brother Bradley, just as long as no one makes us watch Battlefield Earth again.

    Joe (17aeff)

  170. Hey, when did this rice and beans crap start?
    All they ever fed me was weevil-infested hard-tack.

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  171. Mr. Dave in SoCal – I don’t know what the qualifications are but they must be brutal. Just look at what happened after Patterico turned Darleen down for the job when she sensed things were going haywire over at PW. She went off the deep end and pitched a hissy fit about discrimination about single parents or something. Keerist! At least Patterico sloked that out ahead of time. Who needs to deal with that shit, right?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  172. smoked

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  173. Comment by Darleen on 3/24 @ 10:44 pm #


    I haven’t been back to Pat’s and I won’t go. I’ve removed his RSS feed from my reader. I’m both angry and heartbroken. I never did anything to have him treat me with such utter mocking and disdain except disagree with him and call SEK’s idea that context exists as a force of nature, not human will. (what, there’s a context fairy with a special context fairywand?)

    I answered all his hypos, but because I didn’t reanswer them again and again, then I didn’t answer them at all and he (snarky comment to me) had no intention of answering ANY of my questions.

    The last straws for me was Bradley’s kabuki theater, daleyrocks uncalled for venom against me, nk’s indecent remarks (humor? I don’t think so) then Pat’s hysteria over a threat that never was with a slam against stay-at-home-parents as good measure. But of course, NO ONE there “sees” a slam against SAHP, it is *me* who is making it up.

    I’m done with the lot of them. They were as sexist and classist as anything I have encounted on Pandagon or Feministe.

    You know something Patterico, I am an asshole. So is daleyrocks. So are others. But you have become a real piece of shit. I will not post here and will reflect on my own faults. Perhaps you should do the same.

    Darleen’s post (which I copied on my own so don’t blame her) should make you reflect. But like most prosecutors, you have a big streak of self rightousness and an even bigger stick up your ass.

    Joe (17aeff)

  174. What could go wrong?

    I hope Maxine Waters won’t be seizing or running anything. She did such a great job with her last big project!

    Waters’ Hospital Kills People

    Patricia (2183bb)

  175. Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 3/24/2009 @ 8:44 pm (comment #162):

    Thanks for considering this topic. It would be great if knowledgeable people could find ways to satisfy the concerns of vaccine proponents and opponents. Maybe titer testing will be one of those ways.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  176. I’m grateful for the suggestion. It’s another example of how blogs can inform reporting, contrary to the opinions of the Luddites, whose ill-informed opinions are not just the province of enraged misanthropes and aging journalists, but can even be found among fledgling journalists.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  177. Joe – Many thanks for serving as a go between again. Did Jeff sind you back over again? He seems to be acting like that dickwad Jesus’ General and directing his minions where to comment, what to say, and then asking them to report back to blog central to report what is going on. It is “giggleworthy.” Hey, he also outed another commenter the other day for asking questions which was nice, so he’s got that going for him.

    Ignoring the contents of SEK’s post but then commenting on it was a nice majesterial touch. Words, I don’t need words to divine the intent of people! BOOM! That act alone confirmed the accuracy Patterico’s clown nose comment yesterday which you dutifully reproduced at PW for their delectation, as well as SEK’s post.

    I like Darleen a lot and she most seriously did not make a good faith effort to answer Patterico’s hypotheticals. Any reasonable reader would agree. She went over the top here and I met her over the top histrionics with over the top PW type comments, with which she should be well familiar. I’m saddened by her reaction. She’s reacting like Jeff, unable to handle sustained criticism or debate.

    Jeff is reacting like the Glenn Greenwald of the right. Searching for the slightist offense to “reputation” or attacks on his theories wherever they occur. His “laserlike” focus on the so-called death threat and banning is just a smokesscreen to deflect focus from his overall conduct during the course of the discussions, which was bizarre. Opponents love being called liars, anti-semites, insane, too dumb to understand the argument, and accused of deleting comments. There was not much good faith coming from Mr. Goldstein yet his puppets get appearing or get directed to appear here to defend him. Review the comment thread to his Monday post Joe and you’ll see his excuses, rationalizations, etc. are all over the map.

    The banning is bullshit. He isn’t allowed to comment at most left wing sites and does just fine arguing their positions. Remember that, mkay.

    As for you, you just continue to be a whiny bitch who likes to stir up trouble and doesn’t like people to point it out. I don’t think you add value. Your ass obsessed buddy lee certainly does.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  178. The banning is bullshit

    Heh. I wonder if that – contextually – means what you think it means. From a certain perspective, it rather drips irony …especially since Pat’ dropped by the DPUD thread on the subject, mounting – another – ineffectual (well, to everyone but the fanboys) defence.

    davis,br (3394d0)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7221 secs.