Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1542.5 | -2.0 | -0.13% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2712.8 | -16.0 | -0.59% |
| Oil (WTI) | 91.9 | 0.0 | -0.05% |
| LIBOR | 0.28 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 82.75 | 0.057 | 0.07% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.05% | 0.01% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 194.2 | -0.6 |
Markets are slightly weaker this morning after Fitch downgraded Italy’s sovereign debt. This week is light data-wise. We have retail sales on Wed, and industrial production / capacity utilization on Friday. Bonds and MBS are up small.
Legal and business experts have weighed in on the government’s case against S&P and have found it, well, wanting. Turns out they don’t have any witnesses who will support allegations that S&P intentionally defrauded banks and the credit unions that are the victims in this case. In reality, the victims are not widows and orphans, but sophisticated institutional investors. And it is hard to argue that S&P were the smartest guys in the room and knew that the financial system was about to collapse when everyone else (Moody’s, the Fed, etc) did not.
Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke gave a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association where she predicted that the housing recovery is real and is poised to accelerate. She does note that inventory is very low, and credit standards are very tight which is making it difficult for the first time homebuyer who is going to drive demand in the housing sector. Apparently the fraction of mortgages going to first-time homebuyers is half of what it was in the early 00s. The low housing formation numbers of the past few years represent a lot of pent-up demand and the Fed is forecasting that it should reach 1.5 million a year. Of course some of those people will rent, but still it will drive home prices higher, especially when you consider housing starts had been stuck around 600k – 800k since the bubble burst. Finally, the Fed is watching liquidity in the MBS market and is prepared to slow purchases if it thinks that it is dominating the market.
On the back of last Friday’s jobs report, it turns out that there a shortage of construction workers. Builders in some areas are finding it difficult to find workers and are having to raise wages to attract them. It turns out a lot of them left the residential construction industry after the bust and took jobs in trucking and energy. Interestingly, housing starts are up 24% or so YOY, while construction employment is up only 3%. In some ways, the weak housing market probably exacerbates this problem as many workers are stuck in an underwater house and cannot move to where the jobs are. As house prices rise, this effect should dissipate and could portend a rapid drop in unemployment. Which also means that margins are going to be under pressure for the home builders if they cannot pass the higher labor costs onto home buyers. Food for thought as the XHB bounds to post-crisis highs.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Worth a read.
“In Search of Debt Deal, Obama Walks a Narrow Path
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and JOHN HARWOOD
Published: March 10, 2013 ”
LikeLike
Worth a read for fun – Mante Tio was not as dumb as a famous physicist.
http://tinyurl.com/b9393kg
LikeLike
Mark, I saw that earlier. It was pretty hilarious.
LikeLike
Ahh the male ego. We always think we got a shot.
LikeLike
Worth a read:
“The high costs of Medicare’s low prices
By David Goldhill, Published: March 10
…
In the mainstream of our health-care debate, this growth in seniors’ demand is considered organic — a need to be fulfilled. But this extraordinary growth in volume is better understood as a provider reaction to the perverse incentives of low prices.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-medicares-low-prices-inflate-health-costs/2013/03/10/1d2b11d2-89a7-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
His original piece from the Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/307617/
LikeLike
jnc (from the article):
Our government promises to pay for any care seniors need and providers respond by relentlessly expanding the definition of need. It’s no coincidence.
Nor ought it be a surprise. Econ 101.
LikeLike
Re: the physicist I thought his best line was about the importance of tenure
LikeLike
My “give recipients the cash to spend on whatever they want” is looking better and better, no?
LikeLike
McWing:
My “give recipients the cash to spend on whatever they want” is looking better and better, no?
Only if the government is willing to say TFB to the recipient once the money is gone. Which of course it won’t be.
Frankly I find the whole health care debate incredibly tedious, given that it inevitably revolves around a fundamental denial of economic reality. Enthusiasts for government provided/financed care have irreconcilable goals which they refuse to acknowledge are indeed irreconcilable. Having a discussion about using government policy to lower the cost of health care while at the same time using government policy to make that care available to ever more people is like having a discussion about how to make a 60 inch-long sheet cover a 75 inch-long mattress.
LikeLike
Interesting piece on the Paul filibuster. The main participants aren’t beholden to the establishment. Puts Rove’s vow to participate in primaries into a new perspective.
Effin’ Teabaggers!
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-with-pauls-filibuster-tea-party-made-senate-work/article/2523707/?page=2&referrer=/politics
LikeLike
i like that idea, troll. cut a check and use it buy care or something more fun. “give me the outside numbers and jack on the rocks”
LikeLike
And for those that blow the money on hookers and tootskie? (I’m looking at you Scott)
One word: Carousel.
LikeLike
Mcwing:
(I’m looking at you Scott)
LOL
LikeLike
Hilarious!
http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives
LikeLike
Scott, my solution to those (like me) that waste the money is large, dorm like wards where patients are given pain meds until they die. These wards will undoubtedly be miserable places that should be highly publicized. It might make some people think twice, but in the end, it would be better than dying in the street.
I guess I should have been clearer, this is a solution to a phase out of the idiotic Medicare and Medicaid program.
LikeLike
McWing:
I guess I should have been clearer, this is a solution to a phase out of the idiotic Medicare and Medicaid program.
Yeah, I am with you, believe me. But I doubt the political system would ever force people to suffer the consequences of their decisions, at least in this respect.
LikeLike
FYI..You all may be interested to know that today mandatory clearing under Dodd/Frank went into effect for most $, EUR, GBP, and JPY OTC derivative trades.
Shockingly, the leading clearing house for such trades, LCH, sent out a notice this morning informing all members that, as of today, their fees and maintenance charges for clearing trades have been increased by 20%. Who would have imagined?
Government regulation is a wonderful thing…for those on the right side of it.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on March 11, 2013 at 11:02 am said:
And for those that blow the money on hookers and tootskie? (I’m looking at you Scott)
One word: Carousel.”
Points for a Logan’s Run reference.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on March 11, 2013 at 11:42 am said:
Scott, my solution to those (like me) that waste the money is large, dorm like wards where patients are given pain meds until they die. These wards will undoubtedly be miserable places that should be highly publicized. It might make some people think twice, but in the end, it would be better than dying in the street. ”
OK, now you are going Soylent Green
LikeLike
I’ll rank the Chuck Heston dystopian future movies:
3) Soylent Green
2) The Omega Man
1) Planet of the Apes
LikeLike
the planet of the ape sequels are awesomely bad.
LikeLike
from the greenwald link:
“Such Obama-defending progressives also wilfully ignore just how much they now sound like Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, and George Bush”
ha!
LikeLike
NoVA, I have a question for you since you’re around. PL is too crowded. Why is secondary insurance through small group three times as expensive as it is for individuals, if you know?
LikeLike
I wonder if Holder’s To Big to Jail is laying the groundwork for letting Corzine (and Raines, Dodd and Frank) off the hook? Thoughts?
LikeLike
seconday, meaning dental and vision? stuff like that?
I really don’t know how it would be priced. unless the group stuff covers things with lower out of pocket. FWIW, I never buy vision insurance. by the time i pay the premiums, the discount isn’t worth it. i just pay cash for my contacts and glasses.
LikeLike
No, secondary as in Medicare being primary. My husband is turning 65 next month and I just received a letter with his new premium amount. $663/mo for secondary insurance. Generally individuals can get pretty good coverage for around $200. Just curious if you know. I called BS but they couldn’t answer my question.
LikeLike
Is this kind of self-flagellation a frequent requirement of the left, or a once in a lifetime and your done thing?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/10/1193110/-3-Things-You-Didn-t-Know-Were-Privilege-In-High-School
I didn’t know having caring parent(s) was something that only happened to white kids.
LikeLike
Oh …. really don’t know, other than $200 seems low. and there’s talk of an exicse tax or something on them.
LikeLike
Thanks anyway Nova. I guess it’s just because they can. I may drop my insurance altogether until the exchanges open up and save about $15,000 in the meantime and hope I don’t get sick again anytime soon. And most supplemental plans run from $150 to $250 max per month, plus the medicare premium, unless you have small group insurance apparently. We can’t change unless I give insurance up altogether or hire another employee (you have to have at least two employees to qualify for small group insurance), so my husband can opt out and get his own supplemental. It’s outrageous though. I suppose I’m supposed to be grateful our premium will only be about $1650/mo from now until Nov., hahahaha.
Mark gave me some ideas, none of which will work either. I’m going to think long and hard about dropping out and taking my chances.
LikeLike
“Having one or two parents at home- and I use the word parent here very intentionally- is one of the most significant and unnoticed privileges that exist. You have no idea how much of a difference it makes.”
No, we know exactly how much a difference it makes. And we do everything possible to ignore it or wish it away.
LikeLike
just so i understand, the group coverage is more $$ than the individual in the medicare secondary market?
I can ask around if you’d like
LikeLike
lmsinca, the new premium is higher than what he was paying without Medicare?
Also:
“I’m going to think long and hard about dropping out and taking my chances.”
but the CBO assured us this couldn’t happen when they scored Obamacare.
(Sorry couldn’t resist 🙂 ).
LikeLike
That’s correct. We’re stuck in the small group market unless I opt out with him and so his medicare secondary premium is over $400 more than if he were acquiring a plan on the individual market. I just called Blue Shields medicare supplemental plans administration to verify. yep
LikeLike
Particularly good turn of phrase from the Greenwald article:
“echoed, as usual, by various liberal blogs, which still amusingly fancy themselves as edgy and insurgent checks on political power rather than faithful servants to it “
LikeLike
I’ll check with some people who are in the same boat as you and see what I can find out and report back tomorrow. However, I suspect that pricing varies considerably by state.
LikeLike
Nova, we’re still saving off his regular premium amount.
Old premium pre medicare $883
New secondary premium $656
Max secondary premium
on individual market $216
So because we have small group insurance (the only way I can get insurance) we’re paying $440 more per month than on the individual market. Plus the plans at $216 cover much more than what he’ll be getting as he’s stuck with our high co-pay, high deductible plan (the only one we could remotely afford).
Sorry, I’m sure the rest of you are bored. We only have two employees, myself and him. In order to qualify for small group insurance you have to have between 2 and 20 employees.
jnc, I’m sure it varies state by state but here in CA small group premiums are basically written in stone across insurers. We like to call it a monopoly.
LikeLike
Anyway, enough of my complaining…………..I apologize. I’d just like to know why it’s like this. I guess because he’s still working at 65 he’s expected to pay more, that’s the only thing I can figure out. I wonder if large group insurance is the same way or if they’re encouraged to opt out which would only work as long as they don’t have a younger spouse on their plan. I’m just bummed because I thought we were going to be able to relax a little more………………….hahaha. I may still drop out and save the money…………………..a little scary though.
Thanks Nova and jnc.
LikeLike
Plus, we need more barriers to entry because… Competition!
LikeLike
JNC, did you see my distinction about the costs, it wasn’t quite the way you described it. We’re still saving a little money, overall about $120 per month but still paying more than I ever imagined with one of us on Medicare. I’ll check in tomorrow to see if you checked with any of your friends that might be going through the same thing. Saw the crack re Obamacare 🙂 ………………I’ll actually be better off once the exchanges open because then we can drop our small group insurance and I can buy as an individual again. Also re Obamacare, it’s the only way our daughter would have had insurance in the last year or more now, so I can’t complain.
LikeLike
lms:
I’ll actually be better off once the exchanges open because then we can drop our small group insurance and I can buy as an individual again.
Or not bother at all and buy “insurance” only if you ever actually need it. Existing conditions are no longer a barrier to getting insurance, remember.
LikeLike
That’s my plan if/when my employer drops me and/or my wife. Fuck it, got a credit card and a cell phone, I’ll call on the way to the Dr.’s.
LikeLike
“Fuck it, got a credit card and a cell phone,”
damn, that’s my plan for just about everything. it’s a Disney card, so earning those points to visit The Mouse.
LikeLike
Iwonder if AG Holder considers the hackers to be engaged in combat. I wouldn’t drink coffee at an outside cafe if I were them.
http://rt.com/usa/hackers-president-attorney-general-fbi-director-and-others-120/
LikeLike
Damn, this womyn can turn a phrase. Damn the patriarchy!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/11/in-2010-ashley-judd-accused-apple-customers-of-financing-mass-rape/#ixzz2NGfpwmpJ
LikeLike
Hey, McWing:
Lose the “womyn”. That went out in the 70s.
LikeLike
Mich:
Lose the “womyn”. That went out in the 70s.
Maybe someone should clue in your home state university.
LikeLike
Lose the “womyn”
Not only did it go out in the 70s, the connotation was usually associated with only the most extreme (and usually lesbian) radical feminists. To call Ashley Judd a ‘womyn’ is to imply that she is well outside the mainstream of modern liberal thought. But I suspect Troll knew that and is only living down to his moniker.
In the mid- 80s, I was a very frequent listener to the local community radio station’s women’s music show. It was from there that I became aware of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival which at that time was (and likely still is) only for ‘womyn-born womyn’. It was a sad disappointment to realize that I would never get to attend.
LikeLike
yello:
To call Ashley Judd a ‘womyn’ is to imply that she is well outside the mainstream of modern liberal thought.
If Ashley Judd isn’t well outside the mainstream of liberal thought, then mainstream liberals are even more screwed up than even I thought.
LikeLike
Something about Ashley Judd must terrify conservatives or The Daily Caller wouldn’t be doing pre-emptive hit pieces on her already. One would think that if she were so toxic that conservatives would be welcoming her with open arms, particularly in Kentucky.
I really don’t have an opinion about her one way or another, not caring much for her movies or her politics. For all I know perhaps she is somewhere to the left of Bella Abzug. But I do find it amusing that she is garnering such reaction already.
LikeLike
yello:
Something about Ashley Judd must terrify conservatives or The Daily Caller wouldn’t be doing pre-emptive hit pieces on her already.
So hit pieces are a sign of terror now? I guess that makes liberals and the likes of the NYT terrified of all kinds of things. But of course that’s different, right? LOL
LikeLike
Yello and Michi,
I think “womyn” is funny, especially in the context of her frequent references to the “patriarch.”
I pray she runs! Her frequent comparisons of things she doesn’t like to rape (such as IPads or mountain top mining) will be fantastic. Jeebus, I hope she runs as mainstream liberal as possible.
And I actually thing that if she doesn’t auger in before the end of the campaign (I give that a 30% chance) she might beat McConnell. That’s how unpopular he is! My God, I wouldn’t miss this for the world!
I read this Joshua Trevino piece a couple of years ago and if only a third is true, Wow! (It exists on various websites, and the Freep was the first that came up. I know it has a real DU/DailyKos feel, but bear with it, it’s fantastic.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1665919/posts
Game fucking on!
Womyn of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your patriarchy!
LikeLike
Talk about your fearful hit pieces. I’m pretty sure the primary wasn’t even over yet, lol.
LikeLike
McWing:
McCain sure did terrify liberals, eh?
LikeLike
Here’s more righties on Ashley Judd’s (hopeful) Senate run.
http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/03/ashley-judd-for-senate-an-endorsement/
And the infamous, “Puffy Face” scandal for ought twelve.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/ashley-judd-calls-puffy-face-criticism-hatred-of-women-2012114
LikeLike
If only the NYT had trolled some trailer park to find some hookers to make up stories about McCain…
And yes, those are the kind of ‘Bring It On!” endorsements the right wing should be making for Judd. Tell them not to throw you in that briar patch.
LikeLike
Yeah!
Oh, and the conspiracies surrounding the uterus of my ‘Cuda, musta had’em shitting themselves!
Puffy facer’s of the world deflate! You have nothing to lose but misogyny!
LikeLike
You’re assuming I give a shit about McConnell, I don’t. He’s a good tactician but letting Mukowski keep her seat on the Energy committee, or any other committee after she dumped the party was unforgivable. If Judd implodes, spectacle. If Judd wins, awesome spectacle.
It’s win, win, win!
LikeLike
Scott:
Maybe someone should clue in your home state university.
Do you agree (did you ever agree with everything that happened at your alma mater. Didn’t think so.
LikeLike
Mich:
Do you agree (did you ever agree with everything that happened at your alma mater.
Most definitely not. But neither do I say that what is going on at my alma mater in 2013 hasn’t been happening since the 1970s, even if I do disagree with it.
The whole “womyn” thing may be somewhat of an embarrassment to feminism (and rightly so), but it’s not exactly a relic of the long distant past.
LikeLike
McWing:
I think “womyn” is funny
It grates. It isn’t as bad as nigger but it’s at least as bad as queer.
LikeLike
It isn’t as bad as nigger but it’s at least as bad as queer.
Oddly, ‘queer’ is being reclaimed as a component of the LGBTQABCDEF consortium as a catch-all for situations which don’t neatly fit into the first four letters. However, like all repurposed slurs, it is strictly a self-identification thing. People are not permitted to affix that label to you without consent.
LikeLike
“It grates. It isn’t as bad as nigger but it’s at least as bad as queer.”
Now this is fascinating. Who does it insult, and why? Sincere question. I thought the use of “womyn” was to dissassociate the female from the patriarchy. As in, women not being an adjunct of man/men, both literally and verbally.
Obviously I meant it in a way that I think denigrates the above thinking, because I think the above is stupid. Also, future Senator Judd has referred numerous times to the patriarchy so I assume she believes the whole structure of society is designed to suppress women.
LikeLike
Obviously I meant it in a way that I think denigrates the above thinking
You are seriously skating close to “Why can’t I as a white guy call people the N-word?” territory. It’s disingenuous and offensive.
LikeLike
yello:
You are seriously skating close to “Why can’t I as a white guy call people the N-word?” territory.
You can’t be serious.
LikeLike
Scott:
Some people still look polyester shirts look good, too; just because it was once popular and some feminists still like to use the term doesn’t mean that it hasn’t gone out of fashion.
McWing:
Women in general when you use it sarcastically as you did. Your sarcasm does not always transfer well to the small screen.
LikeLike
Maybe it is just Michigan that is stuck in a time warp.
Although California seems to be behind the times as well.
LikeLike
There are a LOT of things McWing and Scott says that don’t translate well on the small screen. And I am having the same thoughts about ATiM becoming more of a personal conservative boys’ club.
While I rarely post, my primary purpose of even being on ATiM was that I found it to be very informative (when I first started “monitoring” ATiM. I initially found it to be very informative with it’s civil debates from both sides of issues. But lately it has changed and instead of learning now, ATiM now feels just like all the other online chat vines where anyone can just say anything, no matter how offensive it may be.
I for one am about to be one of the liberal commenters to be eliminated, off to find a more civil room where we can debate, and learn, without being insulted at every turn.
LikeLike
Geanie:
…without being insulted at every turn.
By which comment of mine were you insulted?
LikeLike
Starting with the most recent “womyn”… it is degrading to us… and while you may find it ok to use that term, once it was brought to your attention it was offensive, you evidently weren’t able to find your civility and just take the offense for what it was worth and NEED to know WHY it’s offensive. It’s offensive and that’s all you need to know.
And without spending hours and hours going through all posts to gather all the insults, here are just a few others I find offensive:
delusional leftists
predictable and mindless
gullible
simple minded and foolish
comrades
no principled desire for freedom
While I have no delusions about what debating is all about, I do not find the need to belittle others while presenting your side of the debate.
I am very tired of being talked down to and being insulted repeatedly simply because we do not always agree.
LikeLike
Geanie:
Starting with the most recent “womyn”… it is degrading to us…
Who is “us”? Women in general? I don’t see how or why. It is a self-description of certain women who hold a particular political/world view. Unless you are one of those women, it has nothing to do with you. Certainly neither I nor McWing directed the characterization at you. And from what I can tell the women it is directed at actually want to be called “womyn”.
It’s offensive and that’s all you need to know.
I very much disagree. I do need to know why it is offensive. It is too easy to shut down conversations by claiming “insult” at whatever one’s opposition might say. Can I get the phrase “war on women” banned from ATiM by claiming it is offensive to men or to conservatives? How about “war on science”? I object to the use term “reproductive freedom” to refer to pro-choice policies. Can I get that phrase abolished from ATiM by demanding that I find it offensive? Will it suffice for me to simply insist on it and claim that you don’t need to now why I find it offensive? I doubt it.
I am very tired of being talked down to and being insulted repeatedly simply because we do not always agree.
I have never talked down to you nor insulted you. Ever. Nor, from what I have seen, has anyone else here. (I’m tempted to insist that I find the charge, er, offensive and request that you never say such a thing again. But in truth my sensitivities are not nearly so fragile.)
As for your list of horribles:
delusional leftists – a characterization used in regards to the aforementioned accusation about a “conservative war on science”. If you do not object to one, there is no reason for you to object to the other.
predictable and mindless – same as above.
gullible – Really? Gullible is insulting and offensive to you, even when it is someone else who was called gullible? That makes no sense to me at all. Were you equally insulted when yello suggested Manti Te’o might be the “world’s must gullible sap”? Or when banned referred to “gullible GOP voters”? Somehow I find it remarkably unlikely that you did.
simple minded and foolish – again, a characterization of the whole “conservative war on science” and “war on women” canard. If conservatives shouldn’t be offended by accusations of waging a “war” on women and/or science, then I see no reason for you to object to the accusations being characterized as simple minded and foolish.
comrades – Sorry, but to me this one is even more inexplicable than “gullible”.
no principled desire for freedom – This was not a value judgment, but rather an observation of fact. One might dispute it as incorrect, (I’m happy to argue the case if you want), but there is no reason to take offense at an assertion of fact.
LikeLike
And with all this enlightened google searching, one might wonder why all the female former commenters (except Michi it seems) have fled. Just paint the sign and hang it on the treehouse.
LikeLike
yello:
And with all this enlightened google searching, one might wonder why all the female former commenters (except Michi it seems) have fled.
Two out of three. Not exactly a statistically significant sample from which to draw conclusions, yello. No doubt you will, though. Call it your own little war on science.
Just paint the sign and hang it on the treehouse.
Ah yes, play the ever useful “hater” card. Of course mockery of radical feminist silliness is evidence of hating women. Or womyn. Or something.
LikeLike
“You are seriously skating close to “Why can’t I as a white guy call people the N-word?” territory. It’s disingenuous and offensive.”
I disagree.
As for your last comment, whatever dude. Because my politics differ from the left, in that they are to the right, I have been called racist, bigot, homophobe, mysoginist and breeder. Goes with the territory apparently. If a disagreement has to be reduced to an accusation of bad faith because your opponent has to be, just has to be one of the above? Well, then, dunno. Sounds Godwin to me.
LikeLike
OT: I laughed out loud at this comment from Andrew Sullivan about Sarah Palin writing a Christmas book:
LikeLike
Do you believe that Sarah Palin birthed Trip Palin?
Also, do you believe that Dr. Sullivan, OB/GYN actually believes in the conspiracy theory?
LikeLike
You can’t be serious.
I disagree.
As for your last comment, whatever dude.
I respectfully request that you both stop being assholes. I’ve told you very gently that the term is offensive. Now I’m telling you directly: it’s offensive. Quit.
LikeLike
Mich:
I respectfully request that you both stop being assholes.
I sense a contradiction in there somewhere.
Anyway, if you find it offensive that someone might question the seriousness of equating the use of the word “womyn” to the use of the n-word…get over it. You have no rational reason to be offended by anything I have said. I mean, it’s not as if I made a snide and gratuitous remark against you personally.
LikeLike
I’ll stop using it.
I’m still interested in knowing to whom it is offensive and why.
LikeLike
I’m still interested in knowing to whom it is offensive and why.
McWing, I already answered this above. Women are actually quite good at figuring out when they’re being insulted, even if men try to protest that they don’t mean a term pejoratively. Have you ever called a woman in a business meeting “honey”? Of course not, because it would be offensive.
It’s not that complicated.
LikeLike
Do you believe that Sarah Palin birthed Trip Palin?
I believe it as much as I do that we really landed on the moon or that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. My explanation of the events surrounding the conception and birth of one Trig Palin would make a good weekend post if I got bored enough to put it together.
Also, do you believe that Dr. Sullivan, OB/GYN actually believes in the conspiracy theory?
I think Sully (who publicly declares himself agnostic but curious on the issue) latched onto Triggerism as meta-satire of Birtherism and was completely oblivious to the point at which he crossed over from mere bad taste into irreconcilable offensiveness. That line seems to be a spot many people have a hard time recognizing.
LikeLike
“I believe it as much as I do that we really landed on the moon or that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. “
Do you believe that humans have landed on the moon and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman?
LikeLike
Scott, if you think that was snide and gratuitous you (a) aren’t particularly self-aware of your debating technique and (b) WAY more thin skinned than I ever thought.
You have no rational reason to be offended by anything I have said.
Who died and made you the arbiter of what I should think? I have told you that I find the use of womyn the way you and McWing were tonight offensive. Get over yourself.
LikeLike
Mich:
Scott, if you think that was snide and gratuitous…
It was obviously both. But don’t get me wrong. I don’t care in the slightest. You can deride my debating style, call me an asshole, say whatever you want about me and it won’t bother me in the slightest. I just find the whines about being “offended” and “insulted” to be rather ironic.
I have told you that I find the use of womyn the way you and McWing were tonight offensive.
Yeah, I know. And I have told you there is no rational reason for you to be offended by anything I have said. Glad we could recap that for anyone who wasn’t paying attention the first time.
LikeLike
Let’s recast these comments:
Damn, this negro can turn a phrase. Damn the white heirarchy!
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2013/03/you-know-nothing-of-my-work/273969/
Lose the “negro”. That went out in the 70s.
Maybe someone should clue in this organization.
I think “negro” is funny, especially in the context of his frequent references to “diversity.”
Negroes of the world unite!
Maybe it is just women who are stuck in a time warp.
Ah yes, play the ever useful “hater” card. Of course mockery of radical racial silliness is evidence of hating African-Americans. Or negros. Or something.
And it’s an analogy. I’m not calling anybody a racist. Or sexist. Or whatever.
LikeLike
yello:
I really can’t believe you are going to press this absurd point, but OK. The analogy fails for various and obvious reasons.
First of all, the word “negro” actually is a dated word, which is why you had to link to organizations created and named decades ago rather than any of more recent vintage. In fact, it is notable that you even had to link to a website that simply referred to the United Negro College Fund rather than linking the organization itself, because even the organization itself dropped the term from its name, now using only the initials UNCF. None of this is true of the word “womyn” which is used to this very day by the radical feminist types who created it in the first place.
Second of all, the word “negro”, when it was used, was a generic term used by everyone to indicate a physical attribute, namely race, of the object of the discussion. The word “womyn”, on the other hand, is a very non-generic term used to indicate a mindset or a political posture, usually of the speaker herself. Which is to say that to use the term “negro” in a mocking manner would indicate mockery of a person for a physical attribute, which is quite taboo in out culture, especially regarding race. But to use the term “womyn” in a mocking manner indicates mockery of a certain way of thinking, which is not at all taboo in our culture and fairly routine, even (perhaps even especially) among bien pensant liberals. Tea partiers and fundamentalists, quite often the targets of liberal ridicule, are two examples which immediately come to mind.
Lastly, the term “negro” is out of date precisely because those people of whom it is an indicator, ie blacks, reject the label. However, far from rejecting the term “womyn”, those of whom it is an indicator, ie radical feminists, actually embrace the term.
For these reasons (among others) your tortured attempt to portray the use of the term “womyn” as even remotely equivalent to the use of the term “negro”, much less its highly toxic cousin, fails.
LikeLike
Given that you and McWing seem to do little more than mock, insult, and denigrate liberals and liberal thinking, Scott, and don’t engage in actual dialogue, it’s pretty much impossible to think that you want to do anything other than insult the liberals who are trying to hang around here.
And since you won’t own the fact that this type of caustic commentary is responsible for eliminating one after another of the liberal commenters I have to come to the conclusion that you want ATiM to turn into nothing more than your personal conservative boys’ club.
LikeLike
Mich:
Given that you and McWing seem to do little more than mock, insult, and denigrate liberals and liberal thinking, Scott, and don’t engage in actual dialogue…
You see only what you are looking for, Mich. No honest and objective analysis of the sum total of my comments could possibly conclude as you have.
LikeLike
the sum total of my comments
You’re right–a year ago we could have a conversation. Now it’s nothing from you except mockery and insults.
LikeLike
Mich:
Now it’s nothing from you except mockery and insults.
Even a look at my comments from just yesterday do not justify this claim. Again, you see only what you are looking for.
LikeLike
No honest and objective analysis of the sum total of my comments could possibly conclude as you have.
Seeing as you are the one who has completed this rather comprehensive analysis which excludes even those things people have explicitly told you are offensive, it is little wonder nothing clears this astoundingly high bar.
LikeLike
yello:
Seeing as you are the one who has completed this rather comprehensive analysis which excludes even those things people have explicitly told you are offensive…
It excludes nothing of the sort. The term “sum total” means everything I have posted here.
Mich claimed that I “…do little more than mock, insult, and denigrate liberals and liberal thinking.” It is most certainly true that I have, on occasion, mocked, insulted, and denigrated liberal thinking. But the notion that I do “little more” than that is certainly not supported by my history of comments, either in its entirety or even just yesterday when this most recent brouhaha began.
So actually it is Mich’s claim that sets the bar high (little more than…), not my defense against it.
LikeLike
Let’s try again since the first attempt didn’t sink in.
Damn, this queer can turn a phrase. Damn heteronormalcy!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/andrew-sullivan-why-gay-marriage-is-good-for-america.html
Lose the “queer”. That went out in the 70s.
Maybe someone should clue in this organization.
I think “queer” is funny, especially in the context of his frequent references to “marriage.”
Queers of the world unite!
Maybe it is just this college that is stuck in a time warp.
Ah yes, play the ever useful “hater” card. Of course mockery of radical homosexual silliness is evidence of hating gays. Or queers. Or something.
We can play this game all day, but the point of these analogies is that by using terms in a derisive manner you negate any right to defend them as not being offensive since the intent of the comment is to mock.
And by the way, the singular of ‘womyn’ is ‘womon’ so if you are going to appropriate terminology at least do so correctly.
LikeLike
yello:
…but the point of these analogies is that by using terms in a derisive manner you negate any right to defend them as not being offensive since the intent of the comment is to mock.
As I pointed out, there is quite a difference between mocking someone for their innate physical (or now sexual) characteristics and mocking them for ideas they promote. Again, you (and others) mock people all the time for their political views. The only difference is that I don’t whine about being insulted/offended when you do. The double standards here never cease, it seems.
LikeLike
My knowledge of debating is to provide your views with facts to support them, and to hear the other side, then debate between the 2 sides.
Debating does not, and should not, and is condemned by many, to include insults.
Referring to those who do not agree with you as “mindless”, “delusional”, “simple minded” and “foolish” does nothing to assist in your presentation of your point of view. It only stops your audience from even caring to hear anything else you may have to say.
And those insults do not have to be directed just to me to be taken as offensive by me. I do not side with one political party or the other, I side with whomever I personally believe will do the better job for our Country, as a whole. So while in some cases I actually agreed with your point, it didn’t matter as you short sold your point by including insults to your audience.
And yes, I have read the “rules” for posting here at ATiM, and am aware we can curse, etc. But there are NO rules anywhere that say it’s ok to insult.
If you can’t present your point of view without casting insults, then your point of view becomes mute, to me anyway, leaving me not even wanting to participate in such debates.
I’m done with presenting my side of why offending someone is not needed, nor desired by myself. If you care to continue, you will either be “debating” with someone else, or all by yourself.
LikeLike
Geanie:
Referring to those who do not agree with you as “mindless”, “delusional”, “simple minded” and “foolish” does nothing to assist in your presentation of your point of view. It only stops your audience from even caring to hear anything else you may have to say.
So does, for example, referring to those who disagree with you as engaging in a “war on women”. Why is that more acceptable to you than the dismissive response that it elicits?
So if anyone has insulted you, Scott, it has not been me and never will be.
According to your own standards, you couldn’t possibly know this to be true. All I have to do is claim that something you said is insulting/offensive, and that makes it so. I don’t need to justify it, I just need to make the assertion and “that’s all you need to know.”
LikeLike
P.S. While I haven’t posted many comments, in none you will find any comments that include anything, even remotely, that insults any of you, in any way. And you never will. So if anyone has insulted you, Scott, it has not been me and never will be.
LikeLike