Asymmetrical Information

Look over here, look over here at that stupid Micahel Moore. Slow news day? I don't think so. Just an uncomfortable one for Bush's sycophants.

But then criticizing dear leader gets people killed, so maybe it is best just to neglect the story of Bushco outing a CIA agent.

Is it getting lonely under your bridge, Bobo?

-------------------

Anyway, the movie thing isn't really going to be more than a cult movie. Ever.

Why?

Firstly, access: It simply will never see the light of day in movie theaters, and the internet isn't yet an appropriate medium for mass release of movies.

Secondly, audience: There are two reasons to specifically dislike Michael Moore. You dislike either his spin, or his blatant dishonesty.

The people who dislike the spin, but don't care about the dishonesty won't get the 'joke' of the movie, of using his own methods against him. For the second group, they won't like lying or deception from this guy much moore than they did from Moore.

The kind of people who both would watch this film and would hear about this film in the first place are a distinct minority.

Ain't gonna work. Sorry.

Yes, Ryan, you're right -- making fun of Michael Moore is so much more important than the treasonous actions of high government officials. That's why Jane hasn't had time to post anything about Dubya's Excellent Iraq Adventure in months, even though in the run-up to the war she was in the forefront of the Kill! Kill! Kill! crowd.

Well, that's confusing the baby with the bathwater, I think.

So Michael Moore hates America. I knew he'd go with the flow. Siding with 94% of the world's population is the coward's way out. Shame on you, Michael!

So, why don't you go and try to bring a treason indictment. Bring a tape recorder to document the ensuing laughter from the judge, so we can all join in the fun, you pitiful space troll.

There's Ryan, fingers plugging his ears, chanting "troll troll, la la la, I can't hear you".

If you'll note, this was written on Friday, before the Plame story broke. I'm afraid I was working today, Orbitron; the post you wanted is now above. But you're not going to like it.

There's a few things I wonder about. First, why is it that most of the spiteful, illogical Internet trolls out there have a decidedly Left political bent? If the arguements against the current administration are so compelling why not simply present the facts and let reasoned debate make the case?

Second, I can't help but wonder why these same trolls don't use their real names? I suppose it's along the lines of personal responsibility. It's alright to demand that their political opponents stand to principal, it's just not something they want to do themselves.

C'mon, guys. Ms. McArdle might very well be mistaken, but your tactics certainly aren't doing anything but gauranteeing that people will just roll their eyes and ignore you when you have something important to say.

James

"First, why is it that most of the spiteful, illogical Internet trolls out there have a decidedly Left political bent? If the arguements against the current administration are so compelling why not simply present the facts and let reasoned debate make the case?"

James,
I think a part of what you see here are the cries of anguish from a dispossessed rentier class. From the early 1930s to the year 2002 there has never been a time when the Democratic Party had not held at least held at least one house of Congress. So at least 2 generations have grown up with an expectation of power as a birthright and a rather open disdain for the common man.

And now that "birthright" has been lost!

Do you wonder that they are bitter? There is no fury like that of a disappointed patronage hound, so we should not be surprised that such dogs should run mad and howl. ^_^;

Not should we be shocked that they would snarl and growl like curs. ~_~

Lest Republicans like myself be smug, we should bear in mind that this is merely human nature at work. One thing I learned in Political Science classes is that *any* political party is guaranteed to accumulate quite a bit of corruption and foggy thinking should it hold power for 20 years or more and the only true cure for it is either the destruction of the political party at the hands of the voters or else a long spell of exile in the "political wilderness" in which that party may regain its common sense.

(Another reason not to be smug lies in the fact that a frequent holding of the Presidency by us from the time of Nixon to 2002 may have produced a lesser version of the same effect in us. Never mind the outcry against Mr. Clinton - a number of things that came out just prior to the impeachment hearing persuaded me that he was genuinely vile were they true. But Mr. Carter was a good man by anyone's standards and I have not forgotten that to some extent a similar albeit lesser fury among us was against him as well! As human beings, we Republicans are not immune to this effect either. So we should guard against it in ourselves lest we become such spiteful and incoherent creatures as these leftists have made themselves into upon the day *we* are out of office! I think one pragmatic test of this may be, "How often have you been able to say, 'Darn! They were right about that after all!' or "Sheesh! I guess we were wrong on that one!'?" The fact that no Democrat can currently bring himself to say such things either publicly or privately is one of the reasons they deserved to lose power and when we get to that point we will deserve to do so as well. Let's hope that the Democrats have regained their sense of proportion upon that day or else that they have been replaced by a party that does have such a sense of proportion! ^_^;)

I think that there is one other reason the comment list on this article has drawn the trolls. Either one has a sense of humor that allows one to laugh at oneself or else one does not. But even the former must hesitate about laughing at their own clique in public lest their friends be offended or, worse, their clique be brought into disrepute. Therefore, in spite of the fact that "The Biter Bit" is true humor at its finest, Leftists who do have a sense of humor will be hesitant about sharing the laugh that something like this deserves. Thus only those Leftists who are without a sense of humor will respond. Sacred Cow is the tastiest of meat but Roger Moore is *their* sacred cow so of course in their minds "It's Not Funny!" and they will stand upon their hind legs to say so. Of course, the fact that it *is* amusing merely makes their indignation over the matter a subject of amusement in its own right. ^_^

As to why people like to use pseudonyms...Uh, can I answer that one upon another day? ^_^;;; I *do* have a vested interest in defending the practice but I fear that I've ranted long enough! ^_~

Sincerely yours,
S.P.M.

Ah yes, I'm plugging my ears, drowning out the reasonable, rational cries of "impeach Bush for treason!".

Why, what a fruitful and productive conversation we could have about the subject, if only I were not finding trolls under every bridge.

I'm ashamed of myself. Ashamed, I say.

*mocking laughter*

Oh, and mouse:

I'm not mystified by the reaction to Carter. In fact, I'm boggled that there isn't much, much MORE venom directed at him.

Carter is a innately good and decent person... who nonetheless shouldn't be trusted with tinker toys, much less the white house. Good man, atrocious president.

Clinton was generally the opposite: A man with no innate morals or ethics, who was nonetheless a fairly effective and undeniably moderate president. He got a pass on a lot of things he shouldn't have, but didn't get credit for the things he should, either.

Although it won't last forver, he was a major player behind the movement for banning internet sales taxes. A democrat... AGAINST sales taxes ... and using the rationale of allowing business growth. That's an uncommon stand, and this country is still reaping the benefits.

I hope the democrats come back in 8 years. That's enough time in the cold to for them to figure out that they need to dump the america-haters, neo-communists, and rip the microphone out from in front of their most lunatic fringe.

By then, I anticipate we'll need them back.

Then: "September 27, 2003 From the desk of Jane Galt: Hey, everyone, let's make a movie!
This fellow is pulling a Michael Moore on . . . Michael Moore?"

Later: "If you'll note, this was written on Friday, before the Plame story broke."

September 27 was Saturday, which was when you published your Michael Moore post. The story "broke" on Friday. I think you just added your self to the list of lying liers.

Jesus, Boban, as far as I'm concerned, the story "broke" on Sunday, which is when I saw the WaPo story and all the blog entries. I don't know what was published when; I don't actually have an AP feed.

Look over here, look over here at that stupid Micahel Moore.

Veni, vidi, verily.

Slow news day?

Non-sequitur.

I don't think so.

You think! This is indeed more relevant news. When did this phenomenon start?

Just an uncomfortable one for Bush's sycophants.

The sycophant who, later in the thread, came along and indicated to not even being aware of the story until Sunday. It's called 'benefit of the doubt,' and it earns you debate friends and influence, unlike your current approach of defecating in the lilac bushes.

But then criticizing dear leader gets people killed,

You're killing me, yes, but mainly through your failure to use logical reasoning.

so maybe it is best just to neglect the story of Bushco outing a CIA agent.

Ah yes, the classic fallacy of reducing a complex, multifaceted story - even as yet rather incomplete in its evidence and sources - to a pi[th/ss]y phrase that upholds one's own view of events and cripples further opportunities for debate.

My dear impudent boy, I would send you to Dr. Rita Rational's office for a sound spanking, but I fear you would enjoy it.

You may not have an AP read, but I think its safe to assume that you do read blogs (like, say, Calpundit) and/or that you might watch TV. The story "broke" in both formats on Friday.

And your one sentence Michael Moore hates America post was published on Saturday, though you claim to have written it on Friday.

So both premises -- 1) I wrote it "on Friday", 2) "before the Plame story broke" -- of your defense are dubious.

I'm willing to be persuaded that sweet little you didn't know a thing about L'affaire Plame on Saturday morning at 9:23 AM. But given that you are a professional journalist and that you usually follow public affairs very closely, you'll have to provide a better explanation. Otherwise, welcome to the lying lier's hall of shame.

My goodness! Do you really think that I care enough about the accusation that I was ignoring the Plame story to lie about it? I didn't see the Plame story until Sunday, when I got an email from Kevin Drum saying he'd posted about it. I'm afraid I don't have a better story than that, and if that means you need to believe that I'm lying, so be it. Even professional journalists occasionally take the weekend off. Now go forth and proclaim that I am a prevaricator because I, like Instapundit, Daniel Drezner, and quite a few others, didn't pick the story up until Sunday. Or maybe they picked it up before then and I didn't see it. I really don't care either way. Incidentally, it's probably correct that I wrote that post on Saturday, not Friday; I really can't remember. Again -- not lying. Not caring, either.

As much as I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, the lack of internal consistency in your defensive response compels me to do otherwise.

If you didn't know when the relevant stories broke, why was your response to claim (falsely) that your Michael Moore post was written before the Plame story broke? How would you have known?

And why do you now credit Kevin Drum's e-mail with alerting you to the story whereas you previously credited the WaPo and various blog entries?

Shifting and inconsistent defenses don't inspire confidence.

As much as I would like to care weather you think Jane's lying, your utter irrevelence and constant snivelling compel me to snicker at your little troll self.

If you didn't know when the relevant stories broke, why was your response to claim (falsely) that your Michael Moore post was written before the Plame story broke? How would you have known?

Because at the time she made the claim, she thought the Plame story broke on Sunday... which is exactly what she said she thought?

The only inconsistancy here is the one fabricated by your fevered brain, desperate to find a hole, any hole, to inject your predjuides into.

Good lord, desperation is pitiful to behold.

What are you doing away from your bridge? Back! Back!

Boban's comments remind me of a stunt my brother pulled this weekend. He went next door to the hotel room my sisters were staying in, pretending he'd left something in there, slipped into the bathroom and took a very smelly dump into their toilet. Not something they asked for or earned, just purely to be annoying and crass. Only difference is, my brother's actions were really all in fun.

Hey Jane,

I pay absolutely nothing for the right to visit this site and I expect you to work 24/7 on this blog to keep the timeline correct. I don't want to hear about your weekend plans. Weekends were created by George Bush to help right leaning reporters dodge critical timelines and obscure the facts about Presidential scandals. From now on I expect more or I will have to assume that you are a tool of the White House.

Honestly, thanks for the hard work and the forum. Keep up the good work.

Jim English
Chicago, IL

I'm sorry, but will someone please explain to me what this "lier" thing is that boban keeps carrying on about?

boban's handle hasn't been posting on AI for long, but already he has proven himself to be very small and very toxic person who amuses himself by alternately tossing grenades into a discussion, and explaining to the shrapnel victims how stupid they were for making him pull the pin.

In short, he is wholly lacking in logical reasoning. We can hope he learns of its merits and adopts its principles, but until then it is best to just refute him until he goes away.

More than one of you confuse ad hominem for logic.

For what it's worth, I find that the "economic" posts on this weblog are usually thoughtful, though the comments most often reveal an ignorance of basic economic theory. However, the "political" posts appear to be motivated by an extreme ideological commitment that leads the poster to distort, mislead, and yes, lie.

Hey boban,

You say:

"However, the "political" posts appear to be motivated by an extreme ideological commitment that leads the poster to distort, mislead, and yes, lie."

So, which of the three describes the following comment from your original post in this thread:

"But then criticizing dear leader gets people killed, so maybe it is best just to neglect the story of Bushco outing a CIA agent."

Can you name the person or persons who were killed for criticizing the president. LOL

If your going to accuse people of lying, please site examples. I hope the examples will be better than this line of tripe directed at Jane. Also, if you must make any accusations, at least have the guts to post using your real name.

Jim English
Chicago, IL

While using my real name -- Boban Kostelic -- is often a liability in dialogue with xenophobic Republicans, my christian name remains Boban Kostelic.

I'm sure we will soon learn exactly who has been killed due to Valerie Plame's outing by the Bush Administration. When we do, I will be sure to post those names in this forum.

And as for pointing out Jane's lies I will continue to do so. The bottom line is that she did make a "Michael Moore hates America" post rather than tackle the Plame outing.

Did Jane take the day off as claimed? No -- she posted about how Michael Moore hates America. Was she confused about when the Plame outing story broke? Possibly, though this is a dubious claim for someone who claims to be a professional journalist.

And if Jane really was confused about when the Plame story broke, then her initial defense to my red herring allegation is itself misleading -- if you don't know when the Plame story broke you can't know if it was before or after posting the Micheal Moore post.

Those of you willing to overlook Jane's inconsistencies are more than welcome to do so. But they remain none the less.

We must have two bobans in these forums. The one that called me a 'troll' out of the blue in one of the minimum wage threads, and then magically disappeared when queried to explain precisely how he was choosing to use 'opportunity cost,' could not possibly be the same one who is here decrying ad hominem and absence of economics knowledge.

boban #2, welcome to Assymetrical Information :)

Boban,

Put the shotgun away. You hit me and everybody else with your "xenophobic Republicans" comment. Tell me, who were you aiming that at. I prefer such charges addressed to the intended target. I also prefer that they come with some evidence. Using your real name is a good step. For one thing it encourages one to be polite. It may also convince you to make sound arguments instead of name calling.

Jim English

Boban,

"I'm sure we will soon learn exactly who has been killed due to Valerie Plame's outing by the Bush Administration. When we do, I will be sure to post those names in this forum."

Slow down man. Check your assumptions. Compare them with the known facts. We really don't know what happened yet. What you say may be true but could only be speculation based on what is known. You may want to temper you arguments by acknowledging what is speculation and what is fact. It buys you credibility with the audience.

Jim English

I'm not sure how you define a known fact but I consider two such facts to be:

1) Valerie Plame was outed
2) The outing was done by and at the behest of the Bush Administration

The assumption I am making is that someone will get killed because of this. This may or may not happen, and we may or may not know if it does or does not happen. It's hardly a far fetched scenario that someone will get killed over this.

More generally in the best case scenario outing Plame can not help in our counter-terrorism efforts (unless you believe the CIA's efforts are counterproductive) and will almost certainly hurt these efforts.

Given this, the probablity of innocents dying from terrorist acivity goes up. And the increased probablity of innocents dying can only be attributed to the craven disregard of the Bush administrations elevation of politics over policy.

1) Valerie Plame was outed
2) The outing was done by and at the behest of the Bush Administration

"at the behest of" is certainly in doubt. What exactly does that mean. At the behest of who? Are you saying that someone directed the leak. Who actually leaked to Bob Novak? Who directed the leak to be made? I like my facts to be a little more specific.

Do you think the entire "Bush Administration" met with Bob Novak and they collectivley outed Ms. Plame. Did they all collectively shop it around to the press as well.

Jim English

Your apologetics in defense of a hateful act against an American hero and against America's national security interests are telling. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows well what I communicated.

You apparently love Bush more than you love America. We could split hairs until you were bald, and you still wouldn't admit the most basic of facts. (And yes, Rita, you may rightfully spank me for this comment, though not for the others.)

People who love America believe that people our innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You obviously don't believe that.

Your only source of information is Bob Novak. Nobody else has come forward to say they were contacted by the White House. Andrea Mitchell says she wasn't until after Novak's article ran. Bob Novak says he was told in passing. Do you have evidence that Novak's source was directed to do so? Or do you just want to believe that. For all your ranting, you have yet to site a single source to back-up your claims. Instead you question my Patriotism and name call. Typical.

Fortunately, in America, you need more than wishful thinking to get a conviction.

Finally, you should consider reading my posts more carefully. I have not defended the Bush Administration in any of them. Largely, I have been calling out the lack of facts behind your assertions. While I believe that Bob Novak is probably telling the truth, I am prepared to wait and see what comes out in the wash. You may be right, but I doubt it.

Feel free to respond with more nonsense.

Jim English
Chicago, IL

I rather suspect it would take more than a lifetime for anything unbecoming to come out in your whitewash. Whistle on my dear bald man.

That is certainly nonsense. Thank you. Carry on.

Jim English
Chicago, IL

Comments are Closed.