Patterico's Pontifications

1/22/2017

Trump Advisor: Spicer’s Falsehoods Were Just “Alternative Facts”

Filed under: Alternative Facts,General — Patterico @ 12:26 pm

Chuck Todd asked Trump spokespiehole Kellyanne Conway about Sean Spicer’s pack of falsehoods in yesterday’s press conference on the trivial (but important to Trump’s ego) issue of crowd size at the inauguration. Conway did her usual shtick of aggressive deflection combined with aggressive horseshit, but one moment stood out: Conway’s statement that Spicer was simply offering “alternative facts”:

CONWAY: I did answer your question.

TODD: No, you did not.

CONWAY: Yes I did.

TODD: You did not answer the question of why the President asked the White House Press Secretary to come out in front of the podium for the first time and utter a falsehood. Why did he do that? It undermines the credibility of the entire White House press office on Day One.

CONWAY: No, it doesn’t. Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What it — you’re saying it’s a falsehood, and they’re giving — Sean Spicer, our Press Secretary — gave alternative facts to that. But the point, really —

TODD: Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . the one thing he got right was Zeke Miller [about the MLK bust]. Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Look: alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.

Here is what Conway looked like immediately after making the “alternative facts” declaration.

Conway Realizes She Screwed Up 1
Haha, isn’t it funny when I say things like that?

Followed quickly by this:

Conway Realizes She Screwed Up 2
Hmmm. That one might actually stick. Crap.

I looked at these issues yesterday in a detailed and restrained post and laid out the facts. Spicer was flatly wrong, time and time again. I think this one is indeed going to stick, Kellyanne.

I’m going ahead and creating a new category called “Alternative Facts” to use if and when the Trump administration decides to baldly lie to the American people again.

Chuck Todd overall did a poor job in the interview, by the way . . . feeding into Conway’s narrative by mocking Spicer’s performance as “ridiculous” rather than calmly citing the facts that Spicer got wrong. Nevertheless, while it may not have been apparent to his viewers, Todd is exactly right that Spicer’s performance was indeed ridiculous and does indeed call the White House’s credibility into question.

By the way, Donald Trump offered some “alternative facts” of his own yesterday, as he told the intelligence community yesterday that the notion of a feud between him and the intelligence community was made up by the media.

So I can only say that I am with you 1000%. And the reason you’re my first stop is that as you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on our Earth. Right?

And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the Intelligence Community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you’re the number one stop is exactly the opposite. Exactly. And they understand that too.

There was laughter and applause after his statement that the media is dishonest. There was no applause following his dishonest claim that the media made up his feud with the IC. This is the same man who compared the IC to Nazis less than two weeks ago:

When you’re comparing the Intelligence Community to Nazis, it’s not the media making up a feud between you and the Intelligence Community.

Peter Wehner has an excellent op-ed in today’s New York Times. Here is a sample:

Because Republicans control Congress, they have the unique ability and the institutional responsibility to confront President Trump.

What this means is that Republican leaders in Congress need to be ready to call Mr. Trump on his abuses and excesses, now that he is actually in office. It is a variation of the Golden Rule, in this case treating others, including a Republican president, as they deserve to be treated. They need to ask themselves a simple, searching question: “If Barack Obama did this very thing, what would I be saying and doing now?” — and then say and do it.

In anticipating a Trump presidency, I wish my hopes exceeded my fears. But Donald Trump has given us many reasons to worry. A man with illiberal tendencies, a volatile personality and no internal checks is now president. This isn’t going to end well.

The quoted language applies to conservatives outside of government as well. But the reverse side of the coin applies to Big Media. They should be asking themselves: “If Barack Obama did this very thing, why didn’t I speak out then the way I am speaking out now?”

After the last eight years, with “if you like your plan you can keep it” and the rest, it is quite interesting to watch the media all of a sudden concerned with falsehoods emanating from the White House. When they fly into a frenzy over lies told by the Trump administration, as they inevitably will continue to do, we should all bear in mind how so many of them circled the wagons around Obama for eight solid years.

I was right here that entire time, vociferously calling out both the lies from the White House, and the press’s failure to report them. I will continue to call out the lies from the White House for the next four years, if and when they occur (and I confidently predict they will). It is nice to know that I will, all of a sudden, have a companion in that effort in the form of Big Media.

But I will remember the ones who failed to aid me in that effort over the last eight years — just as I remember the ones who fail to aid me in that effort in the years to come.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

131 Responses to “Trump Advisor: Spicer’s Falsehoods Were Just “Alternative Facts””

  1. If only Chuck Todd and the msm cared about facts when Obama promised you could keep your plan or lied bald-faced about billion$ to the Iranian mullah….

    Harkin (dd820b)

  2. “alternate facts” is the best thing to happen in this new era of american politics since “fake news”

    the Andrea Mitchell propaganda slut media is so screwed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. The gigapixel display reveals the truth.

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. I would say that “alternative facts” are facts that undermine a media narrative, or support a contradictory narrative. And that would be a completely legitimate use of the term that is not a code for lie. I am not saying Kellyanne Conway meant it this way, or that Spicer didn’t lie, before people rush to assume that I am defending them.

    All I know about that crowd is that no one has counted it or any other inauguration crowd, and that the media always accepts its allies’ crowd numbers at face value and always seeks to discredit those of its enemies. And that when the annual pro-life march comes in a few weeks they will lose all interest in the size of crowds as a gauge of popular support of anything, unless there is a much smaller gun-control march going on at the same time they can report on instead.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  5. The cherry tree story is of course a myth, btw.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  6. A legitimate use of “alternative fact”:

    Fact: A black church was burned and “Trump” spray-painted on it.
    Media narrative: Trump encourages racist violence.
    Alternative fact: A member of the black church burned it down and spray-painted Trump on it.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  7. The dossier that has been breathlessly hawked like the shamwow was bogus, as much as the jayvee description of fmr Iraqi baathists

    narciso (d1f714)

  8. alternative facts they are so good

    we don’t have to sup at the same table as amazon turdlord Jeffy Bezos’s perverted wapo propaganda sluts

    there’s a smorgasbord of non-slut narrative out there!

    just ripe for the plucking!

    the stars and the sun

    dance to Trump’s drum

    and now

    it’s pandemonium :)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. Since the crowd was never counted, and Obama’s inauguration crowds were never counted, people have to estimate the sizes indirectly through things like Metro ridership.

    And so if there is a media narrative that Trump’s crowd was smaller than Obama’s we can expect them to selectively cite facts that support that narrative, ignoring the “alternative facts” that would discredit it, or support the opposite narrative that Trump’s crowd was larger.

    To me it seems quite probable that Trump’s crowd was smaller seeing that DC is overwhelmingly Democratic, and that he would want his people to lie about the crowd size if they can get away with it, because his strategy of saying ridiculous things to send the media chasing off after them has always worked so far.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  10. “If Barack Obama did this very thing, what would I be saying and doing now?” — and then say and do it.

    that’s *exactly* what the jiggle wiggle Megyn Kelly propaganda sluts will never once do in the next eight years

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. I reject your reality and substitute my own.

    Soronel Haetir (86a46e)

  12. Not enough time to revisit all the points made in this post.

    But I want to point out that Trump was right, and CNN was wrong, on the question of their reporting on the alleged Russian Kompromat.

    And I would point out that Trump’s assault on the IC was an assault on the leaks coming out of the IC, including the incorrect leaks given to CNN about the nature of the briefing, who was there, and what Trump was shown.

    And I would point out that Trump said at the beginning of that briefing that he accepted the IC community’s conclusion that Russia was behind the hack of the DNC and Podesta.

    And I would point out that the press’s breathless reporting on all issues “hack” related played directly into the narrative being pushed by the Dem Party — for which there was NO EVIDENCE — that the Russian’s had actually influenced vote totals.

    And I would point out that the IC Chiefs, all appointed by his predecessor, had opted to keep secret from him AFTER he won the election that they were continuing to investigate allegations that he was under the influence of Russia, and used a FISA wiretap to monitor email connections between apsects related to Trump’s campaign and two Russian banks.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  13. Patterico:

    “It is nice to know that I will, all of a sudden, have a companion in that effort in the form of Big Media.”

    If you really think the media who were either wrong or lied about Trump almost continually during the campaign are going to report accurately/honestly on his words, you are one gullible dude.

    I did not vote for The Donald and he scares the bejeezus out of me but is going to take a lot more than the media’s hate for the man to convince me they’re starting to practice actual journalism.

    Harkin (dd820b)

  14. George Costanza: “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

    B.A. DuBois (cb3214)

  15. You actually looked at the CNN video comparisons (not the dopey, unverified NYT photos) and saw a significant difference in crowd size? Perhaps you should post it and let your readers decide.

    Pro Lifer (eb009d)

  16. HappyFeet,

    You should be pretty happy about alternative facts. You used them to get your disability checks.

    Brian Sament (0a47c1)

  17. the leaker Mr. Trump was upset with was almost certainly lying CIA butt-wiggler John Brennan, who was no longer even part of the Intelligence Community by the time Mr. President Trump gave his speech

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  18. Alt-fact. Really. You don’t get just how stupid that sounds?

    If the Trump admin is going to be this thin-skinned and reactive, it’s going to be a long two years until the massive wipeout in the midterms. The Progs and the press (birm) are going to have a field day sticking pins in the Trump-doll and watching his folks go nuts every time. It will be more fun than a pile-up of clown cars.

    And they will never understand that their whole agenda is derailed because they can’t stay out of foolish arguments.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. [Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

    Patterico (115b1f)

  20. the progressive media have been pushing alternative lifestyles on us for years
    that’s a fact

    these days, you can’t even use the men’s room at target without running into rachel maddow or candy crowley

    kellyanne’s being a good sport by saying here’s some alternative facts for america’s alternative lifestyle and then the preening gatekeepers are all acting like someone mixed too much tonic with their gin

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  21. #18 Kevin M, you’re right.

    The West Wing is going to end up being the Broken Wing if they continue to fight the media about stupid stuff.
    When asked by the MSM about the size of the crowd (or anything else equitably unimportant), they should reply, “The American people have elected us to tackle big problems such as job creation, the economy, Obamacare, immigration, foreign trade, and fighting Islamic jihadists, so let’s discuss one of those issues. But we’re not even going to stand here and have a conversation about bean-counting the crowd — that’s silly stuff!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  22. You actually looked at the CNN video comparisons (not the dopey, unverified NYT photos) and saw a significant difference in crowd size? Perhaps you should post it and let your readers decide.

    If you read my post, you know that I didn’t even evaluate the claim that one crowd size was bigger than another.

    I evaluated several of Spicer’s subsidiary claims he used to support that narrative, and I showed that they were false.

    But why discuss with you, “Pro Lifer”? You are the “The lies don’t matter” fellow. So I decline to engage in further discussion with you about truth.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  23. Meanwhile the embassy will be moved to Jerusalem, per Israeli TV,

    Conway made those points subsequently.

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. CNN is wrong about the grass covers. The dirty gray ones shown in the CNN close-up from 2013 are not the same as the bright white tarps used this year. It’s very obvious from the comparison photos where it looks like it snowed.

    Damselfly (ca63ab)

  25. Kevin, thats the reasoning behind the paeans to the “inner cities”. They know the thin-skinned schtick will wesr thin most certainly by the 2020 primaries. Trump will need voter substitution at that point. Not quote what Mr. Hanna envisioned, but similar in numerical terms.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  26. CNN is wrong about the grass covers. The dirty gray ones shown in the CNN close-up from 2013 are not the same as the bright white tarps used this year. It’s very obvious from the comparison photos where it looks like it snowed.

    Spicer’s claim was: “This was the first time in our nation’s history that floor coverings had been used to protect the grass on the Mall.” That was false.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  27. The spec, one of the marches sponsors, once denied Hirst Ali’s testimony (hot Patrick Poole)

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. Always a joy to see Howard DeSilva, who was blacklisted in the 50s for being a radical commie, costumed as a radical patriot, Ben Franklin.

    “I like it.” – Benjamin Franklin [Howard DeSilva] ‘1776’ 1972

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  29. Sores is behind 50 of the sponsors of this astroturf march.

    narciso (d1f714)

  30. LoL – words matter I guess. Spicer should have said “It was the first time THOSE mats had been used to protect the grass …”

    Shipwreckedcrew (e03aa8)

  31. I enjoy your blog & read it often, though I’ve never commented. On this subject, I hate to see you waste your time & considerable effort on trivia.

    Daiwa (d1d69d)

  32. #29 DCSCA, Howard de Silva memorably played Nat the bartender to Ray Milland’s boozy writer in The Lost Weekend.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  33. One way you know the march was bigger is the steaming piles of trash left behind by the lefty radical marchers.

    Shipwreckedcrew (e03aa8)

  34. Shipwrecked – don’t know about crowd size but considering how the crowds at the Bush inaug. by and large picked up after themselves and the crowds for Obama left piles of garbage, I’d say conservatives are just more neat and respectful.

    Same goes for Occupy vs Tea Parties. One was a cesspool of trespassing, crime, property damage and trash and one was large groups of law-abiding citizens enjoying their right to peacefully assemble and oh yeah clean up after themselves.

    Harkin (dd820b)

  35. Also have to add that I have no problem with Kellyanne calling out Todd for his completely biased and unprofessional tactics.

    She’s absolutely right to point out his dishonest efforts to create a meme and ignore NBC’s shameful culpability in propagating the MLK bust smear.

    Harkin (dd820b)

  36. Your subsidiary “facts”:

    (1) An anonymous person denied it to a (giggle) CNN “reporter”;

    (2) Metro ridership numbers from (giggle) WaPo and (giggle) CNN from (giggle) an anonymous Metro twitterer;

    (3) Alleged floor covering photo from a (giggle) CNN (giggle) twitterer.

    As all of this anonymous twittery is made to look ridiculous in view of the videos and other available photographic evidence, I can certainly see why the actual facts of the crowd size (i.e. “Truth”) wasn’t important to you.

    All I said is that lies sometimes do not matter in terms of effectuating policy. I also expressed disapproval of lies over trivial matters, and of obvious lies. Finally (without contradiction from you) I noted that we BOTH agree that lies are sometimes morally necessary — e.g., protecting kids from killers. Apparently you find them useful under less compelling circumstances, such as scoring points in a blog-comment argument.

    Pro Lifer (eb009d)

  37. I enjoy your blog & read it often, though I’ve never commented. On this subject, I hate to see you waste your time & considerable effort on trivia.

    The administration is wasting its time and effort on trivia: the size of the crowds.

    I am spending my time and effort on something non-trivial: holding the new administration to the truth.

    If you don’t like the size of the crowds being a topic of national discussion, I’ll see if I can find Sean Spicer’s email so you can direct your complaint to the proper source. I can find his Twitter account for sure.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  38. Pro Lifer:

    I am not interested in discussing the truth of facts with someone who says “the lies don’t matter.”

    I thought I made that (giggle) clear (giggle).

    Patterico (115b1f)

  39. Shipwreckedcrew, at 31: words do matter. If the press secretary meant to say there were new mats that were different from previous mats, he could have said that. Instead he said that mats had never been used before.

    You want us to infer that he misspoke. I think Occam’s razor says that he was deliberately trying to mislead.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  40. Shipwreckedcrew, at 31: words do matter. If the press secretary meant to say there were new mats that were different from previous mats, he could have said that. Instead he said that mats had never been used before.

    You want us to infer that he misspoke. I think Occam’s razor says that he was deliberately trying to mislead.

    +1

    Patterico (115b1f)

  41. Occam’s razor says Mr. Spicer was misinformed about the mats

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  42. Also, as general point of moral philosophy, your apparent “the ends don’t justify the means” principle is a long-refuted fallacy. The ends are actually the only thing that do justify them. People who contend otherwise merely point to OTHER ends to save their argument. Where lying is the the “means”, they urge either that lies won’t be effective, or that some other allegedly terrible consequence (an atmosphere of distrust or uncertainty) will result. But that just requires a further analysis as to which end is better.

    Pro Lifer (eb009d)

  43. @#33. Indeed, CS. Probably served Ray ‘Red Eye’ whiskey, too.

    “In a dirty glass!” – Chester Hooton [Bob Hope] ‘Road To Utopia’ 1945

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. Occam’s razor says Mr. Spicer was misinformed about the mats

    Nope. He is a proven liar (denying a quote to John McCormack that McCormack had taped) and this was one of several falsehoods told in the same short briefing.

    Occam’s Razor says he was lying because Trump told him to.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  45. There’s a high degree of likelihood that Sean Spicer had no idea whether floor coverings had previously been used when he was saying this was the first time floor coverings had been used. This is not a man known for preparedness or research.

    NickM (d6362a)

  46. NickM,

    Perhaps, but he is also a proven liar (see the McCormack thing). So there’s that. In other words, he’s not a man known for telling the truth either.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  47. 40 and 41:

    It was a joke.

    Shipwreckedcrew (03a28c)

  48. SWC: Gotcha.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  49. words do matter.

    Not nearly as much as we’d like to believe; not in my lifetime.

    “Watch what we do, not what we say.” – Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. Also, as general point of moral philosophy, your apparent “the ends don’t justify the means” principle is a long-refuted fallacy. The ends are actually the only thing that do justify them. People who contend otherwise merely point to OTHER ends to save their argument. Where lying is the the “means”, they urge either that lies won’t be effective, or that some other allegedly terrible consequence (an atmosphere of distrust or uncertainty) will result. But that just requires a further analysis as to which end is better.

    The issue is more fundamental: whether utilitarian analysis is the only analysis to apply. You assume it is without examining the assumption. I do not.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. ALLAHPUNDIT caught Inaugural Committee Chair Tom Barrack’s appearance on MTP that the view from the stage was different than the “overhead” view used in the side-by-side comparison of crowd size. Different view – different perspective. The Gigapixel Interactive and Inaugural Live Stream screenshot links let you see for yourself what Barrack’s describing.

    his point, as I take it, is that Team Trump’s crowd count was partially distorted by the vantage point of looking out from the Capitol towards the Lincoln Memorial, which makes the lawn appear completely packed even if it isn’t. The estimate of 1.5 million was accurate from that vantage point, but not when you saw the shots from overhead. He also told Cooper that many attendees were late getting onto the lawn because of a wider security perimeter and the strain on police from dealing with the riots happening elsewhere in the city, which meant that even the overhead shots taken before Trump spoke didn’t accurately capture how many people ended up being there.

    and

    In the end, he says, Trump was bothered less by the idea of drawing fewer people than Obama than by the fact that the media seemed so eager to highlight the comparison, to try to diminish him over such a silly, irrelevant metric. I made the same point myself on Friday night. If you want to say that Trump invited extra attention to his crowd size because of all of his boasting about it during the campaign, okay, but the sheer volume of media preoccupation with the topic on Friday suggests something more to it. Clearly, on a day when they felt the left’s political power at low tide, they were looking for a way to cheer themselves up at Trump’s expense. It was cheap. And the self-defeating Spicer presser was stupid.

    No argument there

    crazy (d3b449)

  52. @Patterico, Pro Lifer: “the ends don’t justify the means” principle is a long-refuted fallacy. The ends are actually the only thing that do justify them. People who contend otherwise merely point to OTHER ends to save their argument.

    The issue is more fundamental: whether utilitarian analysis is the only analysis to apply

    I guess I am not seeing the connection to utilitarianism; Pro Lifer’s objection is accurate. “The ends don’t justify the means” is a misleading verbalization of the true principle, that ends are necessary, but not sufficient, to justify the means.

    A means undertaken with the wrong end in mind is a waste of time and energy.

    Two examples:

    End: I am hungry and wish to be fed.
    Means: I order a pizza.

    End: My rich uncle who has left me a lot of money is having a heart attack and I wish his life to be saved.
    Means: I dial 911.

    Now reverse the two:

    End: I am hungry and wish to be fed.
    Means: I dial 911

    End: My rich uncle who has left me a lot of money is having a heart attack and I wish his life to be saved.
    Means: I order a pizza.

    In the first two cases the ends did justify the means, and in the second they did not, in fact one of them casts serious doubt on whether the actor can be possibly be honest about the end he claimed.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  53. the more Mr. President Trump ratchets up the rabid slavering ferocity of the sleazy (and universally reviled) CNN Ashleigh hooker glasses Banfield media the better off he is

    the more neutered impotent and loathsome they become

    I love him and I’ll stand by him in darkest night

    cause of there is no other

    there’s nobody else

    he’s what we’ve got

    and like Madonna I choose love

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  54. What was the Obama version of “alternative facts”? I remember we made fun of it -Tell me [alternative facts], sweet little [alternative facts]- but I can’t remember their weasel word(s).

    nk (dbc370)

  55. he said I won

    those were food stamp’s alternate facts

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  56. I guess I am not seeing the connection to utilitarianism

    Your entire analysis assumes utilitarianism is the correct and only moral framework within which to analyze a question. Same for Pro Lifer. This is so common these days that nobody second-guesses it, so I guess it is hard to see.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  57. @Patterico:Your entire analysis assumes utilitarianism is the correct and only moral framework within which to analyze a question.

    I’m afraid I don’t see that. My analysis assumes that people act with an end in mind, and the action (the means) has to be evaluated in the relation to the end. I don’t see that utilitiriamism has anything to do with it.

    If I wish my rich uncle to die of his heart attack ordering a pizza instead of 911 is an appropriate means that end. If I want him to live, it isn’t. Where does utilitarianism come in? Can you make the connection explicit?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  58. the means are we kick the fascist EPA in the nuts

    the end is freedom and prosperity

    Mr. Ted Cruz is really psyched up about this

    like Madonna, Ted Cruz chose love

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  59. Meet the new alternative fact sayer,
    Same as the old alternative fact sayer.

    — “We Will Be F***ed Again, by The What?(sic)

    nk (dbc370)

  60. The trouble with your Jury rules, Patterico, is that teasing Trumpkins is fun.

    nk (dbc370)

  61. I’m afraid I don’t see that. My analysis assumes that people act with an end in mind, and the action (the means) has to be evaluated in the relation to the end. I don’t see that utilitiriamism has anything to do with it.

    But we’re discussing moral philosophy. You’re citing concepts from Human Action, which is great, but that’s a book that seeks to describe human action, not whether it is moral. Mises explicitly says that in the book.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  62. The trouble with your Jury rules, Patterico, is that teasing Trumpkins is fun.

    Do it here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  63. means what are no good are include sucker punching the nazis, being hurtful on the delightful and earnest Mr. Barron Trump, and anything involving jade vagina eggs

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  64. @Patterico:But we’re discussing moral philosophy

    Okay, so is ordering pizza instead of calling 911 moral, or immoral?

    If the end is to satisfy hunger, calling 911 is immoral and ordering pizza is immoral.

    If I’m watching some one die of a heart attack, calling 911 is moral ordering pizza is immoral.

    So where did the utilitarianism come in?

    Because utilitarianism is not the only system of philosophy that would come to the same conclusions I did. At no point did I say anyone had to act as to maximize utility or some such–I don’t know what is considered authoritative utilitarianism these days.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  65. ordering pizza is immoral.

    That should be “moral”. Unless, of course, the money to pay for that pizza was entrusted to you for feeding a starving orphan, in which case the end makes the means unjustified. Which is my point. The end is necessary to justify the means, but it is not sufficient to justify the means, and I’ve read nothing to indicate that utilitarianism is the only system of philosophy for which that is true.

    And yes I know what Mises was saying in Human Action. My point is similar. Means cannot be justified in ANY sense, moral or not, without examining the end.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  66. So one is assuming the frau march is something other than genuine, that car which would Ben women from working are an honest broker then what has been produced by the intelligence community is worthy of bad takeout

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. “The issue is more fundamental: whether utilitarian analysis is the only analysis to apply. You assume it is without examining the assumption. I do not.”

    Perhaps. But you haven’t identified what other analysis you believe should be applied. And I can’t say whether your analysis is utilitarian unless I know what your ultimate goal is, if you have any goal at all. However, I can narrow it down:

    (1) You goal is “holding the new administration to the truth.” For some reason, you believe that merely compiling a list of true propositions is a great thing, no matter what Trump actually does. [But since you’re not compiling a list of true statements made by the government of Swaziland, I assume there’s some specific benefit for America or its allies in having a truth-telling Trump administration].

    (2) Your means is “holding the new administration to the truth” because you believe it is the best way of achieving the ultimate end of enacting whatever conservative, constitutional agenda most appeals to you.

    (3) Your means is “holding the new administration to the truth” because you believe the truthfulness will set a good example for future administrations, even if the current one is truthful in pursuit of a ruinous economic and social agenda.

    (4) You’re an super-intelligent alien from outer space who knows, due to principles of physics beyond human comprehension, that a truthful Trump administration will make the earth tastier for you when you devour it in 2018.

    Numbers (2) and (3) are utilitarian; number (1) could be utilitarian if you believe happiness is maximized when people read lists of true propositions, even if the world is crumbling around them. Number 4 is purely selfish, but could be utilitarian if you’re the only conscious being in the universe and the rest of us are just part of a your hallucination.

    Personally, I don’t care how much the administration lies so long as they replace the Scalia, Ginsburg and whatever vacancies arise with conservative prolife judges. Whatever else happens, I believe the country would be much better off than it would have had a truthful Hillary been elected.

    Pro Lifer (2bd4da)

  68. I would say that the Labor Dept’s monthly reported unemployment rate was a set of alternative facts.
    I mean, we allegedly have had better than full unemployment for awhile now, yet Barack’s the only President who failed to achieve 3% growth for a full year.

    To quote Bush 43, that’s fuzzy math! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  69. “[I]f and when.” Heh.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  70. Attorneys have a pretty good idea of means and ends. It’s spoon-fed to us for three years; we have to pass an examination on it; and we have to take a refresher course of a minimum ten classroom ours every two years up where I’m at.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. And yes I know what Mises was saying in Human Action. My point is similar. Means cannot be justified in ANY sense, moral or not, without examining the end.

    I think it’s important to separate praxeology as discussed by Mises from discussions of moral philosophy.

    The study of human action as discussed by Mises is neutral as to the ends chosen by man, and examines whether the means that a man chooses are suitable to the end he has chosen.

    Moral philosophy, by contrast, is the philosophy addressing the ends at which man ought to strive.

    I don’t have a fully-worked out moral philosophy that can be placed on a postcard. But my objection is to the assumption that underlies too much discussion of public policy that utilitarianism is the only goal of humanity: to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (or whatever alternative definition of utilitarianism you prefer).

    I think it gives away too much to give in to that assumption wholesale.

    Some forms of utilitarianism would argue that it is moral for me to be forced to be a slave to society — a literal slave, with no free choice of my own — if that would achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of other people.

    Most people who would instinctively recoil at such a conclusion will easily accept many states of human condition that are a continuum of degrees of slavery or quasi-slavery, ranging from taxation to forced surrender of other property to forced “volunteering” for the “public good” to outright socialism, meaning state-owned control of the means of production.

    If one never takes a step back and looks at the choices available, and realizes that Benthamite utilitarianism is only one framework among many, one is ill-equipped to fight those states of human condition.

    My own philosophy includes large measures of liberalism (the classical variety, as Mises would define it) together with a heaping helping of admiration for the Eudaimonism of Aristotle.

    That is all I am saying.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  72. “[I]f and when.” Heh.

    Yeah. Sometimes I engage in understatement for effect.

    Nice to see you, Beldar.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  73. So, Pro Lifer, I have identified elements of my moral philosophy. So when I demand truth from my government, in large part it is because I am a liberal (a classical liberal) and as such I strongly prefer societal solutions to governmental solutions — and because out-of-control government makes me very nervous. So I want government shrunk to address the very limited set of issues as to which I think it does a better job, and I want it to be honest about those issues, and I am going to be hyper-viigilant about that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  74. Ends do not ever justify the means. The means justify the end, that is the truth you seek! If the means are honorable so should the end be honorable. If the means are dishonorable, then the ends are also dishonorable no matter if the result is one that is desired. Just like the old question, “If you could go back in time, and strangle Hitler in his crib, would you do it to prevent what he would do later in life?”

    The only honorable answer is no! Killing an innocent baby is not the answer! What could happen if you did that? The situation in Germany was ripe for a person like Hitler to take advantage of. What if his death as an infant had allowed someone not quite as insane to arise. Say someone that would not have attacked Russia until he had conquered Britain by invading instead of the useless bombing of London that lost him half his air force? We would have had no base to launch Operation Overlord from, nor to bomb his rocket factories from either. As it was estimated, Germany was only about six months away from completion of their own Manhattan Project, and that was after day and night bombings for years. With their advances in rocketry coupled with the Atomic Bomb, would we be speaking German now, or would we be a radioactive wasteland? It’s those unintended consequences that will jump up and bite you in the butt! But acting with honor will lessen the bites you receive, and when you do get bit, the honor lessens the sting!

    Yoda jr (310909)

  75. Chuck Todd overall did a poor job in the interview, by the way . . . feeding into Conway’s narrative by mocking Spicer’s performance as “ridiculous” rather than calmly citing the facts that Spicer got wrong.

    He only did that about the fourth time he asked the same question. Kellyanne Conway was not going to answer why Sean Spicer was sent out to say that. It’s very possible she has no idea how and why that happened.

    When Chuck Todd called it ridiculous, she shot back that he was not supposed to be an opinion journalist. That’s how I knew she knew Spicer was wrong. Chuck Todd then said what was ridiculous was arguing about crowd size. I wish he ahd stuck to saying the statemen itself was ridiculous. He could do that without calling Spicer “Baghdad Bob.”

    Chuck Todd had earlier said she gave good and maybe valid answers (he used other words) about why this wasn’t important but that didn’t answer the question as to why he said this.

    I think he pressed a little on Senator Schumer too, a bit later.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  76. They have since conceded, I think, that Spicer’s figures for Metro fares was wrong. Somebody, somwwhere, had to work to come up with these numbers.

    The whole thing might have had some basis in that the picture of the crowd that Donald Trump saw being circulated looked too small. I wouldn’t rule out 3-dimentional or even 4-dimentional chess here – on the part of somebody like Steve Bannon who maybe sucked Donald Trump into this, and convinced him the media was lying about the crowd size. (in that case, though, the balancing act is going to be hard for him to maintain)

    But, whether or not he knew he was wrong about the crowd sizem Donald Trump has to know that, while his argument with at least some people in the intelligence community might not have risen to the level of a “feud,” it wasn’t made up by the media either. He didn’t even say that his argument was with the political appointees who had just left. He just went over the top wth all these CIA people the addressed.

    His saying that he loved them all actually bothered me – that might mean he;s not going to straighten it out. He actually said the same thing while President-Elect – in the middle of the “feud.”

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  77. Yes, Trump tweeted:

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it.

    8:51 AM – 6 Jan 2017

    But he also said in a statement later the same day:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/donald-trump-statement-hack-intelligence-briefing.html

    “I had a constructive meeting and conversation with the leaders of the Intelligence Community this afternoon. I have tremendous respect for the work and service done by the men and women of this community to our great nation.

    And he tweeted:

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

    Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results. Voting machines not touched!

    3:56 AM – 7 Jan 2017

    So he was citing them (somewhat inacurately) praising them, and and also attacking them for leaking.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  78. With alt-liberty and alt-justice for all.

    NC Mountain Girl (eaf922)

  79. happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/22/2017 @ 3:09 pm

    Occam’s razor says Mr. Spicer was misinformed about the mats

    I can’t figure out if it says it was accident or on purpose. I think at least for the subway fares, it must have beenon purpose. Occam’s Razor further states, it was someone else on Trump’s staff who deliberately misinformed Spicer. If it was not, they’d probably name the source. I’m still interested, because this tells you all about how the Trump White House is working.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  80. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/22/2017 @ 5:39 pm

    we allegedly have had better than full unemployment for awhile now, yet Barack’s the only President who failed to achieve 3% growth for a full year.

    People have dropped out of the labor force, or never got in it.

    Causes: Anti-poverty programs and Medicaid means testing, including the expansion of Medicaid, minimum wage hikes, Social security disability, workmen’s compensation.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  81. “holding the new administration to the truth.”

    Huh? Are you under the impression that anybody of importance in Washington reads this blog? And if any of them does, that are hanging on the opinions voiced here?

    Carping about every little thing is pointless, and diminishes the importance of when you complain about big things that *are* important.

    Trump has just spent 18 months getting the MSM to run around like a kitten chasing a flashlight beam. He gets them yammering on some trivial unimportant topic, and they can’t figure out why he is running rings around them.
    You know what normal people think about this inaugeration audience size? “Who cares, there were a lot of people there, and anyway we got a better view here at home on the TV.”

    You think Trump cares if it was 1M or 1 1/2 or 800,000? No. But he makes the MSM look foolish, chasing after an issue that is completely unimportant.

    What next, are you going to go after Trump for saying he is 6’3″ instead of 6’2″?

    And, really, is anybody astonished that a politician lies? Geesh!

    It’s going to be a long 8 years for a lot of people.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  82. @Patterico:I think it gives away too much to give in to that assumption wholesale.

    Okay, well I don’t give in to it at all and I’m pretty sure Pro Life doesn’t either. We don’t have to embrace any part of utilitarianism in order to reject “the ends do not justify the means” and I’m puzzled why you would think that one would to have accept one to reject the other.

    By rejecting “the ends do not justify the means” we are most emphatically NOT saying that “a sufficiently noble end can justify any mean no matter how ignoble”. I hope that is understood, that there is a whole universe existing outside those two statements and that is where Pro Life and I are coming from.

    What we are saying is, “ends are necessary, but not sufficient, to justify means”. In the universe of justifiable means every one has a justifiable end it is compatible with. In the universe of unjustifiable means, some have justifiable ends and some have unjustifiable ends. But every mean is justified or not with respect to its end.

    That’s all that I’m saying.

    Moral philosophies, including but not limited to utilitarianism, would tell you how to pick an end, and then further logic would tell you if your means were justified with respect to it.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  83. Also, as general point of moral philosophy, your apparent “the ends don’t justify the means” principle is a long-refuted fallacy.

    Seriously? You actually believe that this is a fallacy? Here’s an example:

    End: We must prevent too much use of natural resources in order to sustain their use into the future

    Means #1: We encourage thrift and recycling

    Means #2: We kill 90% of the world’s population so that fewer resources are consumed

    Tell me: did the noble end justify Means #2?

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  84. Ends are not necessary either, according to at least one modern Greek poet.

    nk (dbc370)

  85. Or maybe it is. Poets!

    nk (dbc370)

  86. Coming after Carney and Earnest, I would not have known Spicer was lying.
    I remember Earnest saying that Obama was running the most transparent administration in history and also trotting out the claim that the Obama administration was scandal free.
    Spicer getting a little torqued over crowd size seems like the sweet breath of honesty.
    Just don’t Gruber me about healthcare

    steveg (5508fb)

  87. Huh? Are you under the impression that anybody of importance in Washington reads this blog? And if any of them does, that are hanging on the opinions voiced here?

    You never know, freddie my boy. You might be surprised by who has read it before. A story from this blog was a major story on Hannity’s television show years ago. It was read on Mark Levin’s show and Glenn Beck’s show during the election, and posts have been read on Rush Limbaugh’s show more than once. It’s been reported on in the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post. This blog is probably the reason Anthony Weiner quit Congress. I’ve done op-eds at the L.A. Times. I’ve turned down national TV appearances at least three times that I can think of. I could go on. Steve Bannon didn’t once tell me to go fuck myself because he didn’t know who I was.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  88. fred-2, did you ever figure out whether Russia holds elections or not?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  89. Gabriel Hanna,

    It just seemed to me that you and Pro Lifer were both arguing from an assumed shared moral philosophy based on utilitarianism. If you say I’m wrong, I’ll accept that. It’s a very common thing, though, for people to argue that way and not even be aware they’re doing so. I’m sure it happens to me too.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  90. Golly this is SO awesome! Take that, Trump supporters! Explain THIS away!

    I always know before I arrive whether Patterico will have posted or not. If the newsworthy event involves a way to NeverTrump, Patterico will be there. But if the news can at all be construed as favorable to Trump (with the exception of some stupid liberal looking like a total hypocrite or ass), then the day’s hot Trump topic will fall to the bench.

    Credit will be given to Trump only with a back hand.

    Consistency!
    Fairness!
    Ego!

    LOL

    School Marm (5999c1)

  91. @Patterico: If you say I’m wrong, I’ll accept that.

    Utilitarianism was not in my mind when I wrote it out, and I cannot see that any assumptions specific to utilitarianism were made, and I can’t see what you say that put the thought in your mind.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  92. @Chuck Bartowski:Tell me: did the noble end justify Means #2?

    Once again, “necessary but not sufficient”. There was no one here arguing that a noble end is sufficient to justify an ignoble means. Instead, they were arguing that a means may or may not be justified by its end, BUT if it is justified at all it MUST be by its end and in no other way.

    So yes, “the ends do not justify the means” is fallacious, because means can never be justified at all in any way without their ends. The converse of “the ends do not justify the means” is NOT “a sufficiently noble end can justify any means no matter how ignoble”, and no one was saying that.

    Any more questions about it?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  93. R.I.P. Maggie Roche, of the singer-songwriter sister trio The Roches

    R.I.P. Overend Watts, bass player for Mott The Hoople

    Icy (b77e9d)

  94. Re: “the ends justify the means”

    Worse is when the ends are invented to justify the means.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  95. Completely ignorant statement. There is no such thing as alternative facts anymore thanthere is such a thing as an alternative reality. The theoretical multiverse does not count.

    Facts are facts. There is no alternative.

    Locke (10dafc)

  96. Ann Althouse offered a possible interpretation of alternative facts as being an alternative set of facts to write about. That does not apply because the issue wasn’t emphasis.

    It is also all right when “alterative facts” means disputed facts, but Spicer there was no good reason to dispute them.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  97. Some people are saying that Mr. Spicer’s numbers were wrong.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  98. Only 65.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  99. #98 Mr happyfeet, are those “some people” the types that meet in fancy parlours to discuss current events while being served tea and crumpets by Mr Beldevere? (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  100. i don’t even have anything to wear to that place

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  101. Mr happyfeet, if Mr Don Rickles walked in there and poked fun at someone’s choice of necktie, they might say, “Get out, you jerky short bald man! There’s no room for insults in this parlour!” (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  102. well I most sincerely hope their crumpets are a tad less stale than this thread

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. “But every mean is justified or not with respect to its end.

    That’s all that I’m saying.

    Moral philosophies, including but not limited to utilitarianism, would tell you how to pick an end, and then further logic would tell you if your means were justified with respect to it.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    I respectfully disagree. I would say many ethical models are purely procedural (i.e. concerned with means), and take no position on particular ends. Discourse ethics, for one.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  104. speaking of ends i heard lil roob roob was gonna vote for Mr. Tillerson

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  105. “There is no such thing as alternative facts anymore thanthere is such a thing as an alternative reality. The theoretical multiverse does not count.

    Facts are facts. There is no alternative.”

    So I guess there’s no such thing as an “alt-right”, which is good because I’ve never understood the term as anything other than a pass to label conservative thought as racism or fascist nationalism.

    Harkin (fabf46)

  106. RE: End and means.

    Theer are some means that have not wrong, by any standard of measurement. ends vs means usually is taking about things that are wronor very wrong and that’s when people say the ends do nt justfy the means.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  107. You don’t see very much indenpendent fact checking by the major media.

    Maybe just what fits into Democratic talking points. If it isn’t a talking point or doesn’t contract atalking point they don’t even know it happened.

    The major media let a provable falsehood in Donald Trump’s inaugural address slip by:

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/Full-Text-President-Donald-Trumps-Inaugural-Address-411337325.html

    whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the wind swept planes of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky

    NO they don’t!

    That hasn’t been true since before Nebraska was a state. Ask any astronomer.

    http://www.cleardarksky.com/lp/Detroitlp.html

    http://www.observingsites.com/ds_ne.htm

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  108. INOPERATIVE ! INOPERATIVE !

    The previous statement is inoperative.

    Neo (d1c681)

  109. The New Yorok Daily news found one or two additional lies told by Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump said it didn’t rain while he was speaking. He said he was hit by only a couple of drops, and it poured after he left. The Daily News says it rained all throughout hi speech. (I think I remember during the TV coverage, with someone saying, I think, that it ust started to rain when he began to speak. (I also some rain was forecast and the Secret Service or whoever had decidd to allow people to caryy with them small umbrellas)

    I think Donald Trump didn’t want to say it rained, because this could look like maybe there was some disapproval from God, although that might have been only to comfort the Democrats.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  110. The New York Daily News said Donald Trump said:

    “We have the all time record” for appearing on the cover of TIME Magazine.

    The Daily News says the leader actually is Richard Nixon.

    It doesn’t say how close Donald Trump is to overtaking him.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  111. @Leviticus:Moral philosophies, including but not limited to utilitarianism does not foreclose the possibility that many ethical models are purely procedural (i.e. concerned with means), and take no position on particular ends, so I guess I don’t understand what you are disagreeing with me about.

    In some of the examples I gave took no position on the desirability, moral or not, of the ends. I took the ends as given and showed that some means were not justified with respect to them, regardless of whether the ends were moral or not.

    If there be moral philosophies that don’t address the morality of ends, my failing to mention them is not evidence that I believe they don’t exist.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  112. Harkin, our friend at MOTUS A.D. (formally Michelle Obamas Mirror) agrees: (check out the pic)

    No longer will “nationalist” be defined as “a person who advocates political independence for a country,” it now means a person of the Right who is anti-immigrant, racist, sexist, homophobic,

    Islamophobic and… fascist!

    Welcome to your new nomenclature, according to the Left we are all alt-right (which has been redefined to mean “left of center”) which has been redefined to mean “fascist.” And we all know that fighting fascism is good.

    fascist against facism

    3C54A2A500000578-0-image-a-169_1484939521771Anti-fascists at work in Washington D.C.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  113. “If there be moral philosophies that don’t address the morality of ends, my failing to mention them is not evidence that I believe they don’t exist.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    You stated that “every mean is justified or not with respect to its end.” I respectfully disagreed, with reference to ethical models that do not bother to justify means with respect to ends, but emphasize the primacy of the means themselves. I think your statement was over-broad.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  114. Some means don’t require any justification, because they’re within people’s normal rights.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  115. ABC News show with George Stephanoupolous this morning stated with saying that the controvery started with Donald Trump(‘s speech at the CIA) But it didn’t. It started with Sean Spicer’s statement to the press corps.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  116. Been listening to about 30 minutes of Spicer’s first actual press briefing this morning, and he’s doing a pretty good job slicing and dicing some of the less than friendly questions thrown his way. Didn’t hear a single gaffe, and he pretty much took care of all the issues that came out of the wayward statement yesterday.

    Had two good responses — 1) he reported numbers re attendance that he had been provided by the Inauguration Committee, and they later admitted that the way they came up with their numbers was different than the Park Service’s method, and the Park Service’s method, in retrospect, was a better way to calculate. Said most of the time he’s communicating info from the Admin based on what others tell him, and sometimes they act too quickly in an effort to communicate without delay, and the mistake on the numbers re attendance are a learning experience.

    2) Its not a “lie” to report information that turns out to be erroneous. Pointed out that when media member make what later turns out to be a mistake in their reporting, they usually run a correction. The doesn’t make the initial report a “lie.” Also noted that one member of the media pool tweeted out that the MLK Bust has been removed from the Oval Office. Later realized someone was blocking his view of the Bust, and it was still there. So was the tweet a “lie” or a mistake later corrected? It was inaccurate when it went out, but that doesn’t mean it was a lie.

    On substantive questions, pretty much cleaned the press’s clock when they went for some “gotcha” moment. Great answer on the withdrawal from TPP.

    Basically said trade partnerships are great, but its Trump’s view that such deals should be bilateral instead of multilateral. Easier for each partner in the agreement to understand what’s in their best interests, and to withdraw from a trade deal when its no longer in their best interests. Multi-lateral deals have too many working parts, and end up stuck with bad aspects of the deal in order to get good aspects of the deal. Said TPP treated all participants “equally” when their bargaining positions weren’t equal. US shouldn’t accept bargaining with a weaker hand as a result of having a multilateral deal. US ends up taking “lowest common denominator” position in order to make deal go through, whereas bilateral agreements with each partner would produce individual agreements more in the US interest.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  117. Not everyone believes rights and moralities to be equivalent, Sammy.

    Leviticus (70ca80)

  118. I would love to see Mr. Spicer’s press conference

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  119. Leviticus, were you this vociferous when Obamacare architect was mocking the stupidity of the American voter?

    Bicurious.

    Not a Trump fan.

    Your friend, Steve57.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  120. Vociferous about what, Steve57? I’m not contesting the stupidity of the American voter.

    Leviticus (70ca80)

  121. Actually Gruber was wrong about the stupidity of the American voter

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  122. Maybe in his specifics.

    Leviticus (964a66)

  123. No it didnt sammeh,

    narciso (d1f714)

  124. Gruber loves dumb American voters just as long as they vote for his dumb American candidate.
    Otherwise, he thinks they’re just … dumb!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  125. Monday.

    Good presser.
    Busy President.

    “Oh, that’s the way, uh-huh uh-huh, I like it…” – KC & The Sunshine Band, ‘That’s The Way (I Like It)’ 1975

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  126. OMG – now the big controversy out of the presser is that Spicer called on a reporter from the NY Post first, and not the AP – “A big break from tradition.”

    What fooking difference does it make.

    This is the kind of stuff that makes the press look like idiots — like Helen Thomas getting the first question of the President for 40 some years.

    Get over yourselves — the new world media has 500 alternative ways to news besides AP.

    Reminds me of something I like to say to folks I live and work with — “tradition” and “culture” are not justifications for continuing to do something wrong.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  127. here’s a link to Mr. Spicer’s press conference

    it is so good

    there is so many informations

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  128. Well ap was the one that preferred the phone pictures so ‘no soup for them’

    narciso (d1f714)

  129. Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/23/2017 @ 11:48 am

    Not everyone believes rights and moralities to be equivalent, Sammy.

    There are llegal righst that are not right for people to do, but here I meant rights that are also moral.

    Say yu want to buy something. You pay for it, or perhapseven you arrange to make more money or to borrow money. If theer’s nothing wrong with the borrowing or he obtaining of money insome other ways, the eissue of whetehr the ends justify the means doesn’t arise. Say it was lifesaving food water or medicine. If there is no issue about the means, the question of whether the ends cold justify it is meaningless.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4450 secs.