Private sector takes responsibility, government takes more money
Posted by aogThursday, 14 July 2011 at 20:39 TrackBack Ping URL

Mark Steyn get this exactly correct — the recent flap over New of the World demonstrates once again the clear superiority in terms of morals and accountability of the corporate world over the political one. The entire news organization was disbanded. When, ever, has a government agency suffered that fate? Does anyone think any public employee involved in this will suffer any negative effects? Almost certainly not. Yet it is such unaccountable, detached people who should run our society?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Harry Eagar Sunday, 17 July 2011 at 13:14

I am amazed,

Taking responsibility is exactly what did not happen. Punishing the low level workers while maneuvering to protect the bosses is what happened here.

NOTW was not the only unit that transgressed, but no others have been shut down. The managers — you know, the ones who are paid 500 times what the worker bees are because their services are so crucial — who either did not manage or were principal actors (the latter will prove to have been the case) were protected.

It looks just like the operation of a Wall Street bank. You know, the place where several tens of thousands of non-responsible workers were dismissed but not one of the culpable actors has been. (Think, Mozillo.)

As I explained at RtO (“Imaginary Conversations”), we newspapermen know for certain that Brooks was a decisive actor. Hinton, too. It is just barely possible that James Murdoch did not know what was going on, but R. Murdoch set up the system, and even if he was not aware of the particular transgression, was responsible for setting up the designed-to-fail, deliberately unethical business model.

You are correct that government agencies caught doing what this private business did are seldom shut down — the United States government did not shut down the FBI, but it did try (twice) to correct the failures. (Neither attempt worked, which may be more a reflection of the inherent dynamic of secret policing than any general incapacity of government as such.)

OTOH, Massey Energy.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 17 July 2011 at 13:31

Joe Nocera has a good short explanation of the Murdoch ineptitude, dishonesty and corruption here

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 17 July 2011 at 15:27

but not one of the culpable actors has been. (Think, Mozillo.)

Think “Barney Frank”.

How were the managers protected? Brooks was just arrested after resigning. Are you saying that the managers are still working for News of the World after it was shut down?

As for protection,

we newspapermen know for certain that Brooks was a decisive actor

But none of the cooperating government types were? Let me know when any significant player on the public side takes a hit of any kind for this. So far it seems the Murdoch side is still being held far more accountable.

And it is to laugh that you are citing the New York Times about ineptitude, corruption, and dishonesty. You mean the newspaper of record that covered up the engineered famine the Ukraine? Or one need merely cast back to the Valerie Plame scandal where someone who wsn’t involved was sent to jail because the New York Times wouldn’t cooperate with on an issue the NYT claimed was of vital national security. Or we could consider the NYT’s regular outing of American intelligence assets and operations. The NYT is a bigger cesspool than NotW and far more significant because of its reputation. What newspaper is more incestuous with the Aristocracy of Pull than that one?

P.S. The NYT will make a big deal of this precisely to cover up their own far greater complicity in worse.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 17 July 2011 at 17:11

Bad luck for you to post at almost the same moment that the head of the Metropolitan Police resigned. I think we could have seen that coming though.

You seem not to understand how business works. The guys who sign the checks are the ones who are supposed to take responsibility, no? The people who signed the checks — big ones, 2,700,000 pounds — did not resign.

In fact,Brooks did not resign from NI before or at the time that NOTW was closed. Few or none of the people dismissed when NOTW was closed were responsible executives (although some may have had guilty knowledge).

And the lying goes way back. I recommend to you the Guardian’s list of questions that Parliament ought to ask of Brooks and the Murdochs.

There are examples of businesses taking responsibility for illegal acts. The most obvious and most parallel one is H-P. You do see how the outcome at H-P was exactly the opposite of how News Corp. reacted, I hope.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 17 July 2011 at 18:09

Ah, well, color me surprised that a public sector person got some blowback.

You seem not to understand how business works.

I think exactly the same thing about you.

The guys who sign the checks are the ones who are supposed to take responsibility

Ah, the goal posts have been moved from “manager” to “the guys who sign the checks”. But you don’t seem to understand how business works — the guys who write those big checks are the ones who get the big income from a functioning business. Now they don’t. Are you now going to claim that Murdoch, for instance, lost no wealth or income from shutting down NotW? Is not a corporate exploiter, but a charitable man who kept NotW running out of the goodness of his heart so he could share his money with those employees?

In fact,Brooks did not resign from NI before or at the time that NOTW was closed

OK. Irrelevant to anything I wrote.

And the lying goes way back.

OK. Irrelevant to anything I wrote. I personally think the lying goes back to before writing was invented, but you seem to have a rather more narrow view of history thinking it only goes back to Murdoch. You also seem to parochially think that only Murdoch and his crew are involved in this sort of thing.

There are examples of businesses taking responsibility for illegal acts.

That’s my point. List similar examples for government. For instance, look up the history of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tell me that’s not a scandal, not so big, and something the government took responsibility for.

Harry Eagar Monday, 18 July 2011 at 01:43

You really don’t know how business works, do you? Murdoch closed the modestly profitable NOTW to try to save his deal to take over the vastly more profitable BSkyB. He sacrificed the worker bees to save his chosen CEo, then sacrificed her to save his son. It will be instructive to see whether he tries to save his son or himself at the Parliamentary inquiry.

It seems you have not bothered to read the timeline of events. So far, News Corp. has not taken responsibility for anything they have not been caught doing first, despite possession since at least 2009 (and probably 2007) of internal evidence of widespread wrongdoing. Murdoch was repeating lies about News Corp.’s behavior as recently as Thursday.

You and Steyn are missing the point. If you want to make a case that business takes responsibility, you have to start with a business that takes responsibility. That hasn’t happened so far.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 18 July 2011 at 10:07

You really don’t know how business works, do you? Murdoch closed the modestly profitable NOTW to try to save his deal to take over the vastly more profitable BSkyB.

And therefore closing NotW doesn’t represent a cost? You think Murdoch would not have preferred to keep NothW and BSkyB? You’re just moving the goal posts again, changing from “no cost” to “acceptable cost”.

It seems you have not bothered to read the timeline of events. So far, News Corp. has not taken responsibility for anything they have not been caught doing first

I have read the timeline. You’re judging based on The Narrative in your mind, not what I write. No where do I make the claim you think you’re countering.

I think Steyn and I see that, as poor as it is, Murdoch is still taking more responsibility than one ever sees for a governmental agency. The latter doesn’t take responsibility even after they’re caught. Your previously quoted statement very strongly implies that News Corp. has in fact taken responsibility, if late and after being discovered. Now you claim they haven’t at all. Moving the goal posts like that is more effective if you do it in separate comments.

Harry Eagar Monday, 18 July 2011 at 12:47

No doubt Murdoch would have liked to have kept NOTW, but the advertisers baled out on him, so his cost in closing it was minimal.

If I implied that News Corp. has taken responsibility for anything, I misspoke.

Even the apology ads are negated by Murdoch’s campaign against his own apology in the WSJ, the only publication he owns with any residual respectability, which he has decided to throw out. For obvious reasons, too. He has US television licenses that are in some danger. (Probably safe based on what’s known to us now, but Murdoch may know more than we do. He also has the new UK Bribery Act to worry about.)

Perhaps, as some newspaper commenters have said, he is just an old, confused man who has lost the thread. I don’t read him that way myself. He never showed any integrity before, why should we expect any now?

He apparently did not learn anything from BP, or he wouldn’t have told even a tame interviewer that he was “annoyed,” although that might have been his only honest statement in that interview. If he were getting good damage control advice, he wouldn’t have used the WSJ yesterday to attack the Guardian on the grounds of commercial advantage. That’s a non-starter, since the Guardian pursued the story for four years when it was only commercial disadvantage to them.

As I have often said, management of big corporations tends heavily toward incompetence. No ability to deal with anything outside routine. Certainly the case for News Corp.

And you can keep hammering the errors of government all you want, but it doesn’t make your case, because your case is that a business is taking responsibility when it isn’t.

Dean Starkman at Columbia Journalism Review sez today: ‘Behold, editors and reporters at The Wall Street Journal, the Times of London, Fox News, and, for that matter, the Sunday Tasmanian, and every other News Corp. journalism property around the world: The NotW debacle show what happens when you do what your bosses are paying you to do. You get thrown overboard, is what happens, while those same news leaders express surprise and regret that you acted according to incentives they created, in a system of their making, in which they themselves took part.’

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 18 July 2011 at 14:28

And you can keep hammering the errors of government all you want, but it doesn’t make your case, because your case is that a business is taking responsibility when it isn’t.

Where in this comment string have I been doing that?

My point here is that the corporate world ends up far more accountable than the public sector and this incident demonstrates that. You can play labeling games about whether that’s “taking responsibility” but the fact remains that Murdoch suffered far more for his trangressions than those (like The BBC or the New York Times) who do far worse in doing the bidding of their public sector friends. As usual, the whole “comparative” concept goes right by you.

Harry Eagar Monday, 18 July 2011 at 18:53

He sure has suffered, but give credit where credit is due — the market. His stock is pounded and advertisers have left him.

I’d have thought you, of all people, would be praising the market.

I have a hard time believing you typed ‘the corporate world ends up far more accountable tghant he public sector’ after the events of the past 3 years. I recommend a healthy does of Jonathan Weil.

Harry Eagar Monday, 18 July 2011 at 20:12

From a Bloomberg story speculating that the breakup value of News Corp. is about $40 billion over its stock value:

‘“ ‘There’s just sort of this generic Murdoch discount, which encompasses the concern that he will make decisions that are not consistent with other shareholder interests,’ said Michael Morris, an analyst at Davenport & Co. in Richmond, Virginia. ‘The sum of the parts on News Corp. is huge compared with where the stock trades.’ ”

Yay, markets.

Or should I just say, Heh.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 18 July 2011 at 21:47

the market. His stock is pounded and advertisers have left him

Yes. That’s the market and the precise reason the private sector is far more accountable. I had thought it obvious but I am glad that you finally realized that point.

I have a hard time believing you typed ‘the corporate world ends up far more accountable tghant he public sector’ after the events of the past 3 years.

I would say the last 3 years are exhibit A on why I think that. Exhibit 1A — Barney Frank and all his friends. Let me know when they’re rotting in jail for creating and growing this crisis. The exact same people in the federal government who did this were the same who got to spend a trillion dollars enriching their friends and becoming multi-millionaires (e.g. Frank Raines) and they are still doing it to this day. Even you just shrug off wasting $22B or $800B if it’s done by the government.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 19 July 2011 at 12:37

Uh, Raines was an employee of a private corporation. His misdeeds were related to trying to appease the market.

Your absurd belief that business is punished by the market for misdeeds and therefore is accountable is disproven by, among numerous other examples, Massey.

Business is punished and hyped by the market for any number of reasons, most of them illogical and irrational, but never, ever moral.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 19 July 2011 at 12:47

No, Raines was put in place by political players (such as Barney Frank) and he then proceeded to do the bidding of his political cronies, running an organization entirely dependent on government support to operate, created by the government to achieve political goals.

Your absurd belief that business is punished by the market for misdeeds and therefore is accountable is disproven

Uh, maybe you should mention that to this guy who claims otherwise.

P.S. If Massey means markets don’t punish misdeeds is true, doesn’t the exact same logic mean that it’s absurb belief that government punishes murderers because of O.J. Simpson? I’d argue against your point but once again I’ve failed to discern it in the midst of your adsurb hyperbole.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 19 July 2011 at 19:59

Well, the government did its not very good best to punish OJ. It was the 12 citizens good and true who said no.

Raines was taking risks at the behest of Wall St., not Washington. It turns out to have been — I could have told them this — a big mistake to let the markets ‘help’ but Raines was driven entirely by the need to keep his stock price from falling, because being prudent he could not, for the moment, match the returns of such well-managed wholly private operators as, say, Bear Stearns.

Had he been a purely public corporation, there would have been no need to buy chancy paper.

The hybrid corporation did not quite get us the worst of both worlds — the purely private corporations did a whole lot worse for their investors — but it was bad enough.

You do not seem to understand that Fannie was not entirely dependent on government support. It was in the markets.

You really have to stop listening to the Fox in your head and observe what really happened.

(My browser at work wouldn’t open your link, but I can guess — Dickie Fuld. He leveraged his company 100:1, ran it bust and has been whingeing ever since how things would have been just great if nobody had noticed he was insolvent. If I’ve guessed wrong, I’m sure you’ll let me know.)

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 19 July 2011 at 21:29

Well, the government did its not very good best to punish OJ. It was the 12 citizens good and true who said no.

Can I use that for the private sector? “It wasn’t NotW, it was just the managers” — “It wasn’t Massey energy, just the accounting guys”. There’s always some excuse that eliminates blame when it’s the public sector, isn’t there?

Raines was taking risks at the behest of Wall St., not Washington.

No. He was playing with government money to reward cronies. His mission was set by the government, to promote housing policy. The government decided to measure his performance with the stock price. And as a root cause, no government money, no problem. Without the federal backing the FMs would have disappeared, not been the foundation of the mortgage crisis. But there’s always an excuse when it’s the public sector, isn’t there? “Sure, I gave the boy car keys and whiskey, but the accident wasn’t my fault”.

Of course this is an archetypical example of my original point (and thanks for showing it so clearly). You do not hold public sector accountable, the fault is always elsewhere. If there’s a non-public actor anywhere involved at any level, that’s where 100% of the blame (and therefore accountability) goes.

You really have to stop listening to the Fox in your head and observe what really happened.

At least the Fox in my head doesn’t prevent me from reading what you actually write. There’s also the fact that I don’t, and never have, watched anything on Fox TV (or whatever it’s called). I gave up mainstream channels before Fox went on the air. But you can’t imagine any other basis for a divergent opinion save proganda…

P.S. I fixed the link. Check it out.

erp Wednesday, 20 July 2011 at 08:03

Harry’s comment about Fox News, apparently the bane of the left’s existence, was amusing.

When Fox got rid of Brit Hume, the only conservative voice on television, I stopped watching the 6 o’clock news on Fox — I’d stopped network news at least 20 years earlier and never got the cable news habit.

Now my TV viewing is limited to HGTV design shows, Masterpiece Classics and old B&W movies.

The hullabaloo about Murdoch is also amusing as much is being made of his non-existent conservatism. The fact that he supported Hillary in 2008 has apparently fallen into the left’s memory hole.

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 20 July 2011 at 18:59

Up here in the great white north, Mayor (now Sen) Begich agreed to extortionate labor contracts that very quickly dug Anchorage into a $35M hole.

Then lied about it.

There is at least a decent chance that had a private company executive done such a thing, he would be serving five years.

There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell Begich will even see the inside of a courtroom.

I happen to believe corporate executives are frequently not held nearly as accountable as they should be.

Politicians and government flunkies (that’s a two-fer for Barney Frank) almost never are.

That is the difference.

erp Wednesday, 20 July 2011 at 21:17

almost never are. Unless they’re Republicans.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 20 July 2011 at 22:39

Let’s all note that the number 1 all time recipient of News Corp. political donations is — President Barack Obama. Yeah, if I were a MAList I’d hate too for foisting someone like that on the party as its leader.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 20 July 2011 at 23:59

I’m not celebrating the fall of Murdoch because he’s a fascist, although he is, I’m celebrating because I like to see dishonest newspapermen driven out of the business.

Hey Skipper Thursday, 21 July 2011 at 01:20
I’m not celebrating the fall of Murdoch because he’s a fascist …

Fascist. Hmmm. What does that even mean? Synonym for a**hole, perhaps?

Yesterday’s Best of the Web makes an important point:

In England, however, the complaint about Murdoch is not merely that he supports “evil” points of view but that he exercises actual power, because the press plays a larger and more direct role in politics there than in the U.S. In all this there is a warning to Americans, to which the Financial Times’s Clive Crook perhaps unwittingly alluded in an interview with NPR’s Scott Simon the other day (hat tip: Newsbusters.org):

Crook: An important aspect of this story in Britain is the close relationship between the newspaper business, Rupert Murdoch’s business, and leading politicians—not just the Tories, though the current prime minister is very embarrassed by this.

Simon: Yeah.

Crook: But Labour is just the same, all the parties are just the same. They have to get on with the newspapers. And why is that? I think it’s interesting that they have to because Britain has largely succeeded in getting money out of politics, something many Americans would like to do here. The consequence of doing that is that the newspapers become incredibly important and you have to have them in your pocket if you’re going to do well.

“Getting money out of politics”—that is, imposing governmental restrictions on political speech—is a cause that many American newspapers have championed. (The Journal is a notable exception.) The McCain-Feingold law’s unconstitutional ban on corporate political speech included an exemption for “media corporations,” so that while it was in effect, those corporations had an effective monopoly, as in Britain.

Figures that the Left hated Citizens United so much.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 21 July 2011 at 07:56

Skipper;

Don’t forget the trend of putatively objective journalists switching to being political operatives.

As for Mr. Eagar’s use of the term “fascist”, this post over at some other weblog clued me in a bit. I read it as Eagar not having what we would consider an ideology or political orientation, but really a tribal view. The feds, having protected members of his family, are his tribe. Those who oppose the feds are his enemies, because they’re a different tribe. This is what he means by the term “fascist” — a member of the wrong tribe. I think this is why it’s so hard to get any coherent policy or consistent principle out of him. Consider his comment here,

I’m celebrating because I like to see dishonest newspapermen driven out of the business.

Do you think he would celebrate the downfall of “Pinch” Sulzberger and the New York Times? Or the termination of NPR? The fact that both are arguably more dishonest than Murdoch is irrelevant, because they support his tribe.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 21 July 2011 at 14:21

I’d celebrate driving any dishonest journalists from the temple. Your definition of dishonest journalism, however, is highly subjective, while bribing cops to break into private telephones is a more objective measure of misbehavior.

(Although, for a subjective view that might be agreed to by almost all decent people of any political outlook, the uproar over Rupert’s cartoon in the Times today is instructive.)

Murdoch’s journalistic version of squadrism is what earns him the label fascist.

I don’t think I mind a political label of tribalist. I consider myself explicitly non-ideological, so gotta hang my hat somewhere. If government protects my tribe, that’s something. My tribe, as you call it, was in genuine danger.

However, I stop here this morning primarily to report, off topic, that I tried to send AOG an email, but after a 27-hour delay, it was bounced back with this message: All MX servers are unavailable for domain thoughtmesh.net.

What’s up with that?

The webhost I use is a bit flaky. I not infrequently have trouble connecting to this website. Interesting, I have all comments mailed to me and I got the email for this comment just fine. Also, did you use “thoughtmesh.net” or “thought-mesh.net”? The latter is the correct one.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 22 July 2011 at 07:54

Your definition of dishonest journalism, however, is highly subjective

Is it? In which case that I listed was the newspaper not being dishonest? I think by your definition of “dishonest” you mean “criminal”. Those are, however, different things.

Murdoch’s journalistic version of squadrism is what earns him the label fascist

But literal squadrism (like the New Black Panther Party) isn’t fascist. Interesting. Or the attacks on Tea Partiers. Or assaults on democratically elected governments.

I don’t think I mind a political label of tribalist

That would mean that your views are uninfluenced by facts, logic, or reason. It’s just about group loyalty. I would say consider where that kind of thing ends up — the destruction of capital and poverty, but perhaps you don’t see Haiti as a troubled society since they’ve put paid to the kulaks and all the rich become and stay that way by power of the government.

P.S. Another datapoint for accountability in private vs. public sectors — accounting and government immunity to the rules they consider necessary for private business. I’m sure you have a good reason why public finances should be explicitly subject to gimmicks that would result in the incarceration of someone in the private sector.

Harry Eagar Friday, 22 July 2011 at 12:24

I don’t think you know what squadrism means.

Bret Friday, 22 July 2011 at 12:28

Regarding tribalism, I’m a tribalist at least to some extent, I think most people are, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s way too black and white to claim that because I have loyalty to my family and friends (my tribe) that I’m completely uninfluenced by facts, logic, or reason. Subjective preferences and facts/logic work together to inform decisions and behaviors.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 22 July 2011 at 15:30

I could find few references to the word, but they were all of this basic gist

government by armed squadrons of supporters or party members

which fits all of my examples. I will admit I have no idea what the word means in Eagarish but I feel free to respond as if you were using the English language when you don’t provide an explicit translation.

harry Eagar Thursday, 28 July 2011 at 19:38

That’s close enough, and fits well with by use of ‘journalistic squadrism’ but not at all with your hysteria over the NBPP.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 28 July 2011 at 21:27

Hmmm, so being concerned over physical intimidation of voters is “hysteria”. I’ll remember that point next time you bring up a historical example. I will take it then that you accept my other examples as valid and simply don’t care about that kind of thing when it’s done to another tribe.

Harry Eagar Friday, 29 July 2011 at 12:31

Your definition of squadrism refers to government by armed squadrons of supporters or party members, and not even the most hysterical of commenters (and some of them have been very hysterical) have proposed that the NBPP is influencing government, which is not a statement anybody could make about News Corp.

harry Eagar Friday, 29 July 2011 at 13:01

From the Guardian:

‘Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator at the centre of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, has said that he only ever acted on instructions from his employers.

‘The day after revelations that Sara Payne’s phone may have been targeted by Mulcaire, who worked for the News of the World for several years before being jailed for intercepting voicemail messages in early 2007, the statement issued by his solicitors firmly pushed the spotlight back on his former News International employers.

‘Mulcaire said he was “effectively employed” by the News of the World from 2002 until 2007 “to carry out his role as a private investigator”.

’ “As he accepted when he pleaded guilty in 2007 to charges of phone interception he admits that his role did include phone hacking. As an employee he acted on the instructions of others,” said the statement.’

I guess we can expect a retraction from Steyn in 5,4, 3 . . . ?

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 29 July 2011 at 13:02

Your view is that voter intimidation has no influence on government. I am just noting that I will take note of this view in case I need to cite it in the future should you bring up, say, voting by minorities in 1950s southern USA.

I will also note that you’ve gone from “armed squads” to “influence”. May I presume you consider K Street to be full of squadrists as well?

And may I presume that you consider journalistic organizations “influencing” governments to be a Bad Thing and intrinsically squadrist? So if a group of journalists got together to coordinate stories and reporting in order to drive government policy, that would be wrong?

Of course I realize all of these questions are pointless, since you don’t make your judgements based on any principles, but simply on which tribe wins or loses from the action. Since you basically agree with the political orientation of the NBPP, they are therefore innocent of wrong doing. You don’t like News Corp putative political orientation (despite its donation history) and so what they do is wrong and no amount of indignation counts as hysterical.

harry Eagar Friday, 29 July 2011 at 15:41

Since there’s zero evidence that any voters really were intimidated, you’re starting off on a wrong premise, but since, also, there was a preemptive strike against any future intimidation, the situation seems well in hand.

That would not be the case where News Corp. is concerned.

Open attempts by news organizations to sway opinion would be one thing, and journalistic squadrism (a term I like more and more, the more I think about it) would be another.

But if you cannot see the difference between two goofballs standing openly on a streetcorner and a global pressure group using secret methods to influence government policy, then you are beyond help. I believe I have used the rabbit stew joke before — the one where, because of meat shortages, the recipe was cut 50-50 with horsemeat, one horse to one rabbit.

If not, I should have. The idea that the NBPP has any influence on government is absurd. The idea that News Corp. does not have influence on government is also absurd.

erp Friday, 29 July 2011 at 15:57

Harry, I don’t know if the News Corp. has any influence on government or not, but that Dems have enormous influence on 99.99% of the news media is incontrovertible.

One of the funniest examples of this influence was when Bush became the candidate in 2000, Limbaugh did a riff on dozens of reporters and pundits all using the word, gravitas — Bush was sadly lacking in it, if you recall. Hilarious.

BTW - my money is on Murdoch to clean the clocks of his detractors even though he’s not conservative and probably agrees with you on most issues. This whole deal is a back door attempt to silence Fox News which isn’t conservative either. It’s just not as rabidly leftoid as the other media. When Murdoch fired Brit Hume, he lost me and a lot of others who tuned in just to hear him.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 29 July 2011 at 17:25

Mr. Eagar;

I think the NPBB case evidence is clear. It’s amusing hypocritical to hear apologia coming from a man who hears “dog whistles” in discussions of vote fraud. I personally don’t consider political intervention that dismisses a likely successful prosecution a successful sort of preemptive strike. I note that you are scrupulously avoiding any response to my other examples, which show where that kind of thing leads. As a single incident it’s of little concern. As a trend and an indication of indifference by the Dept. of Justice it’s quite a loud dog whistle. But I was actually more interested in seeing if you could abstract out any similarities in order to illuminate your definition of “squadrism”. I hoped, once again, in vain because you clearly see no benefit in being clear or precise.

journalistic squadrism (a term I like more and more, the more I think about it) would be another.

You mean like Townhouse and Journolist? I can’t really tell because you refuse to discuss what you mean by “squadrism” other than it is what News Corp. does. Sometimes that’s just influence, other times it’s criminal activity, and sometimes it’s being secret. And no analogy may even be discussed. You complain of ignorance then refuse to explain. That’s quite telling.

As for the rabbit / horse joke, you have used it previously and just like last time it has no relevance or point.

The idea that the NBPP has any influence on government is absurd. The idea that News Corp. does not have influence on government is also absurd.

OK. Therefore … ?

harry Eagar Friday, 29 July 2011 at 19:31

OK, so you’re het up about nothing.

Want to know what voter intimidation looks like? Drag the river. If you find a body chained to an engine block, that’s voter intimidation where I come from. But if you come across an instance in which the government declines to prosecute real voter intimidation, let me know. (It did get an injunction. Are you concerned that wasn’t sufficient?)

By squadrism I mean intimidation by violence. Journalistic squadrism involves a different sort of intimidation, same intent, same contempt for democratic procedures. There’s good evidence it was used successfully against British politicians.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 30 July 2011 at 11:30

No, you’re the one who is “het up”, as exemplified by your stridency here. I suspect that you’re not really “het up” about that, but are simply using that as a rhetorical distraction to avoid all my other points.

If you find a body chained to an engine block, that’s voter intimidation where I come from

This is another typical rhetorical trick, the false dichotomy although you’ve added a nice twist of ambiguity (an odd specialty for a journalist, one notes). If I take this at face value (that anything short of cold blooded murder isn’t voter intimidation) you’ll bring up historical incidents of such that didn’t involve murder and accuse me of being a shirtist. If I don’t then you’ll go with the “if you can’t tell the difference then you are beyond help”. Do you not ever wonder why you need to resort to such sophistry rather than actual argument?

Journalistic squadrism involves a different sort of intimidation

Not that you will bother to explain exactly what sort of intimidation you mean, because it’s easier to move the goal posts if you don’t put them on the field.

We could discuss whether what happened to Joe the Plumber counts as intimidation. But I expect you’ll instead find some obscure and secondary point on which to attack. Ah well, it does keep my semantic analysis in shape.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 30 July 2011 at 13:17

I didn’t see anything happen to Joe. Did some reporter tell lies about him? Missed that.

I’d rather go back to your original claim, though. Do you still think, now that more evidence is in, that News Corp. or any of its responsible executives took responsibility?

As for NBPP, it is not at all clear that any violation occurred; or if it did that the perps needed to serve long terms to cure it or them.

I propose two points for discussion:

1. If they had not been so poorly armed, they could be heroes of the Right, which, after all, demands the right to and praises the wisdom of bringing infantry weapons to church services, kindergarten classes, baseball games and political rallies. If, instead of sticks, the Panthers had had a Browning short barrel pump action trench sweeper shotgun and an AR-15, what could have been said against them?

2. That maybe buckra thought they were there to intimidate, but that tells more about buckra than about black people in Philadelphia. Maybe black voters saw them and thought they were providing protection against antiblack hooliganism, which is not unknown in Philly.

(And, to anticipate, don’t bother to tell me they confessed. That carries as much substance as the claims of corporations paying billion-dollar mulcts that they don’t admit any wrongdoing.)

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 11:18

I didn’t see anything happen to Joe.

It was widely reported (such as here) and his personal life splashed all over Old Media for daring to ask a question that candidate Obama gaffed so that he could serve as an example of what happens to people who get in the way, but I am confident that you were able to remain unaware.

Do you still think, now that more evidence is in, that News Corp. or any of its responsible executives took responsibility?

Yes, much more so than the public sector. Let me know when the Department of Education is shut down due to insider trading scandals. Or the ATFE for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Let me now demonstrate how to respond directly to someone’s main points, rather than throwing up minor points as a distraction. You continue to harp on the NBPP, thus demonstrating which one of us is really “het up” about that issue. I would be fine with you responding to my main points, although I am gratified to have my prediction validate.

If they had not been so poorly armed, they could be heroes of the Right, which, after all, demands the right to and praises the wisdom of bringing infantry weapons to church services, kindergarten classes, baseball games and political rallies.

You’re starting with a false premise here. Conservatives praise being able to defend one’s self threw being armed. This can involve do the things you mention but those things are not of themselves praiseworthy. You also use the loaded and vague term “infantry weapons”. Would that include knives, as almost all infantry is so armed? That would make “bringing an infantry weapon to a gun fight” an amusing interpretation.

There is also the difference between being a group and being an individual, the personal demeanor of the armed individual, and the ideology and political history thereof. I would say that everything that was said against the NBPP could continue to be said, if not more so.

That maybe buckra thought they were there to intimidate, but that tells more about buckra than about black people in Philadelphia.

Yes, quite likely. Therefore …?

Harry Eagar Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 12:54

You need to spend as much time as I do reading rightwing screeds. No one theme is more common than demands that people like me praise people like them for going everywhere armed. And not just armed but armed with big guns.

While you were focused on the exposure of Joe as a scofflaw and danger to the public — there’s a reason plumbers are regulated — I was reading threats to send white ‘pollwatchers’ to harass brown would-be voters. I don’t know what the NBPP was thinking, but if I had to guess, I’d guess that was it.

Quite the conservative organization, the NBPP, in favor of armed citizen democracy.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 15:03

You need to spend as much time as I do reading rightwing screeds.

Why? I make my own arguments for my own reasons.

Although, perhaps I should start reading HuffPo or MyDD and use whatever I find there as typical examples of the Modern American Left and your personal beliefs. Would you find that objectionable?

While you were focused on the exposure of Joe as a scofflaw and danger to the public

I don’t remember being focused on that. You’re making stuff up again. Does that count as the sort of dishonesty that should be run out of journalism? May I also presume that you’re OK with government officials breaking laws and regulations to expose such scofflaws and dangers to the public, and Old Media focusing such investigations on those who cause problems for favored government officials?

I don’t know what the NBPP was thinking

Yet you will still laud them based purely on your guess, and ignore what the NBPP says about itself. I wonder how that compares to the “righwing screeds” you think I should read. And perhaps now you might have some idea what the NBPP was, in fact, thinking.

Since we’ve reached the point where you are, by your own admission, using your imagination as the basis for your argument, I’m done. If you want to respond to other of my points, that’s fine.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 02 August 2011 at 13:34

I’d still like to see you and Steyn address the claim that News Corp. took responsibility for anything. Attention has shifted away, but if you read the trickle of new revelations still coming out, it is obvious that — as one American newspaperman put it — Murdoch apologized for everything and took responsibility for nothing.

The boards of his various enterprises also are taking no actions, nothing to protect the property interests of the minority owners.

Meanwhile, the New Black Panther Party riots in the streets.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 02 August 2011 at 17:45

Mr. Eagar;

I have addressed it, repeatedly. You’ve even responded to me doing that. But now you have no memory of it? Try scrolling back up a bit.

Lots of problems at NotW, now there’s no more NotW, so it seems unlikely it will continue to cause problems. How dearly I would love to see an equal level of responsibility that causes the same thing happen to government agencies that commit far more egregious acts!

Harry Eagar Sunday, 21 August 2011 at 20:35

Ready to retract that goof about News Corp. taking responsibility yet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/17/whistleblower-murdoch-empire?CMP=twt_fd

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 21 August 2011 at 23:01

No. Please spell out for my tiny intellect exactly how this story, if accurate, has any bearing on my original post.

I will say he’s lucky he wasn’t a whistle blower on the Obama Administration. Those guys are must nastier than the private sector.

Harry Eagar Monday, 22 August 2011 at 13:23

The question isn’t whether somebody else is worse, but whether you and Steyn were accurate in saying 1) that News Corp. took responsibility; and that 2) business has a general tendency to take responsibility.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 22 August 2011 at 14:24

The question isn’t whether somebody else is worse

No, that’s exactly the question. Let’s go back to the original post —

clear superiority in terms of morals and accountability of the corporate world over the political one [emphasis added]

“Superiority” is a comparative, not an absolute. Read the rest of the original, which is almost entirely a contrast, that is a comparison on which is worse.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 23 August 2011 at 13:11

‘Private sector takes responsibility’

News Corp. has not. Care to offer any actual, you know, examples of how the private sector takes responsibility?

Massey?

Citi?

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 23 August 2011 at 14:30

Sudden acceleration syndrome, for which the private sector took the hit despite it not being their fault.

That makes two, while you have yet to provide an example in the public sector.

Dolphin safe tuna is another. Every single voluntary product recall. Return policies (try returning any public sector service). Use of escrow accounts. Software bug fixes. The floating point bug for Intel processors.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 23 August 2011 at 18:10

Democrat donor gets federal health policy slot despite conflicts of interest — is that an example of the public sector taking responsibility? Why, there might even be a profit motive in that, the original sin itself!

Or maybe you mean HHS helps campaign for Democratic Party. Let’s see if anyone in the public sector takes responsibility for that.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 24 August 2011 at 11:03

Any evidence of the public sector taking responsibility for

  • The Global Warmening hoax, which dwarfs Massy, Enron, and Citibank put together.

Perhaps you should ask yourself, “why do I only attack, never defend?”. I would suggest because your position is indefensible, so pounding the table your only option, flinging out “Citi! Massy! Enron!” instead of actual arguments. I also note that I have no shortage of new items, where as you’re stuck repeating yourself. I wonder what that indicates…

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 09 November 2011 at 21:08

Probably you should have waited for all the bricks to settle before rushing to defend News Corp.

It’s the gift that keeps giving to those of us who don’t trust business to police itself.

Brooks gets $2.7 million, a limo and a luxury office AFTER she hires goons to try to blackmail lawyers seeking compensation for Murdoch’s victims.

That’s taking responsibility for you.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 08:36

Hmmmm. You somehow, completely innocently I expect, neglected to mention that News Corp paid out $4.8 million to a victim’s family and charity. Any News Corp payment to Brooks is an internal matter if the State declines to prosecute. I think it’s a stupid thing to do, but if News Corp has settled up with the victim that closes the matter.

May I stack that up against Solyndra and the loans to the Obama Administration cronies which were (illegally) put in front of government debt? Can we expect any settlement with the taxpayer victims of that?

Or what about Attorney General Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious fiasco where he is blaming the GOP caucus in the House of Representatives for keeping him in the dark, and calling for stronger gun control to prevent government sponsored gun running? That one got people killed.

The entire essence of modern liberalism is the avoidance of responsibility as Victor David Hanson outlines, that if they just say the politically correct things, none of their results can be held against them. E.g., Holder says good things about civil rights (for those with the correct skin color) therefore he can’t be held responsible for selling guns to Mexican criminal cartels.

Also, John Corzine.

Also, the California high speed train.

What about Hawaii state finances?

I stand by my assertion that News Corp took more responsibility than almost any public sector equivalent. I’ll take Brooks over what was done with Franklin Raines.

I note that you have to keep going back to this incident, where as my tabs overflow with a never ending stream of examples on the public side.

erp Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 08:41

aog, kudos to you for your excellent tabs.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 14:59

Well. you chose News as an example of taking responsibility, not me. An odd choice, since it is still denying any responsibility. Still yet in Parliament just yesterday.

And what about Hawaii’s finances? Are you perhaps referring to Lingle’s purchase of $1,000,000,000 of SLARS? She’s no liberal. Still waiting for her to take responsibility for that one.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 17:09

And what about Hawaii’s finances?

You might click on the link. It’s a wonderful new feature I’ve implemented — you just put your mouse cursor over the text, push down the left mouse button, and zoom! you’re off to see exactly to what I referred. I think it will turn out to be very popular.

But hey, if you want to sign on to shrink government so it doesn’t have $1B to stash in shoddy bonds, I will definitely support that. Or maybe a better solution would be to get the public sector out of student loans entirely, which would also have prevented this problem. It’s simple when you look in the right places.

Hey Skipper Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 21:05
It’s the gift that keeps giving to those of us who don’t trust business to police itself.

Who does?

Adam Smith, who didn’t either, made it perfectly clear: in the quest for the consumer dollar, businesses police each other.

Of course, if you want to see government finances in action, read this. (AOG, I just love that link feature!!!)

Here is the nut graf:

Indeed, five months after the I.M.F. [submitted a pessimistic report the Greeks succeeded in suppressing], Prime Minister George A. Papandreou of Greece disclosed that under the previous government, his country had essentially lied about the size of its deficit. The deficit, it turned out, amounted to an unsustainable 12 percent of the country’s annual economic output, not 6 percent, as the government had maintained.

Private creditors, who accepted Greek claims about their own finances, will be forced to take a 50% loss on Greek bonds.

In the realm of accountability, why aren’t at least 50 Greek and EU politicians in jail?

Harry Eagar Friday, 11 November 2011 at 00:00

Except, of course, businesses don’t police each other, or even themselves. You might want to read up what Forbes has to say about Corzine.

It is not true, by the way, that private creditors accepted Greek claims about the Greek fisc. You might want to read a little deeper about just what private creditors were up to in Athens. (Hint: they weren’t policing anything.)

Harry Eagar Friday, 11 November 2011 at 00:03

But when are you going to admit that News Corp. still hasn’t taken responsibility. Nobody made you bring it up.

Do you have an example of a private business that really did accept responsibility? I cannot think of any.

Go to Bloomberg and read Jonathan Weil and William Cohan for examples of responsibilities not taken.

erp Friday, 11 November 2011 at 08:40

Harry, go to lefty sites to read lefty spin by lefty writers on lefty messes. Yeah, that’s a productive use of one’s time and energy.

Among the differences between private and public entities is that without government meddling and interference aka bail outs, the private sector can police its failures the old fashioned way, companies that employ mis/malfeasance go out of business, fail, get stockholders darn angry, etc.

OTOH public sector entities are the only thing I can think of that are truly immortal. They can’t die nor can they fade away. The get funded and kept propped up with more and more union goons on the payroll who are free to travel the country in support of their fellow union thugs who are doing their best to destroy our fair land.

Question: Why are peaceniks occupying our parks shooting and some cases, killing each other? I thought they were anti-guns.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 11 November 2011 at 10:05

Skipper;

This quote

It’s the gift that keeps giving to those of us who don’t trust business to police itself.

demonstrates to me that even after all these years, Eagar still doesn’t understand anything we write about free markets or the distinction between private and public. Implicit is the idea that we can trust the public sector to police itself and the private sector. Despite the endless examples of why that isn’t true, it remains an unstated but required basis for his worldview. The idea that we don’t trust either private or public is apparently inconceivable. Or his goals aren’t a well run government / society / economy but smashing free markets regardless of the collateral damage.

Mr. Eagar;

Except, of course, businesses don’t police each other, or even themselves

I think erp handled this one reasonably well. I would add that my point is you will do better on both sides if the public sector doesn’t involve itself directly in economic matters (e.g., Solyndra). You seem to find that a good idea, despite the fact that it requires us to trust the public sector to police itself when it’s playing the game and making the the rules. The only person asking for trust here is you, and I fail to see on what basis you expect us to have that trust.

But when are you going to admit that News Corp. still hasn’t taken responsibility

When I see some clear evidence that News Corp has taken less responsibility than the average public agency engaged in similar activities. You don’t see it because you edit out any evidence in that regard (such as the News Corp settlement I mentioned above). When will you look at all the evidence, not just the evidence you like? Or the even more radical (for you) step of actually reading what I wrote? Let me quote it for you again —

the clear superiority in terms of morals and accountability of the corporate world over the political one

This is what I mean when I write of your Narrative — it prevents you from reading the clear words in front of you.

Do you have an example of a private business that really did accept responsibility?

I already listed some in this very comment string. Again, perhaps you should try reading what I write, if you’re going to respond to it.

Hey Skipper Friday, 11 November 2011 at 17:05
I would add that my point is you will do better on both sides if the public sector doesn’t involve itself directly in economic matters (e.g., Solyndra).

But wait, there’s more.

(Caution: GASB*)

*Grab a Sick Bag

Harry Eagar Sunday, 12 February 2012 at 15:48

Well, well, well.

Now with the arrests of the hierarchy of Britain’s biggest paper, it appears — again — the Murdoch’s notio s of taking responsibility were extremely limited. Basically, to admitting what he couldn’t deny and covering up the rest.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 07:52

Let me know when anyone is arrested for running guns to Mexican drug cartels, or looting the pension via GM bonds.

Jeff Guinns Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 02:31

Or Chris Dodd, the Boston Fed, the ex-mayor of Anchorage, now junior senator (lied about city finances to the tune of $35 million while giving the store away in the form of labor contracts).

Or anyone who was in the Greek government or the EU for the last 20 years.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 13:01

Or the Ted Stevens prosecutors. These people abused their office to take out a US Senator and quite possibly tipped the balance of power in the Senate. Yet the money quote from the article —

What is known is that nobody — including the Anchorage-based FBI agent accused of misconduct who was responsible for handling Allen, the government’s lead witness — has lost a job or even been publicly reprimanded.

And their request to keep the records of their malfeasance secret was seriously considered. One can reasonably view this as the biggest vote fraud case in recent history and apparently the perpetrators will get away with it.

Hey Skipper Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 14:01

If memory serves, and it might not, one of the prosecutors committed suicide.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 16:22

Yes, that is the case. I don’t know if it was related to their actions with regard to Stevens.

Hey Skipper Monday, 20 February 2012 at 22:18

Impossible to know, I suppose.

What is particularly shameless is that the prosecutors wanted the report on their actions to remain secret.

Their actions, which for which we taxpayers footed the bill.

And the report, for which we footed the bill.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 25 February 2012 at 18:55

Yet more on Murdoch’s notions of responsibility:

“According to court documents filed by victims of hacking, the newspaper publisher allegedly produced an email deletion policy in November 2009 whose aim was to “eliminate in a consistent manner” emails “that could be unhelpful in the context of future litigation”.”

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 27 February 2012 at 09:07

Still waiting on any response to the gun running or pension looting. That keeps Murdoch ahead on points. But preventing evidence from coming to light for criminal activity … like the report on the Stevens prosecution above. Or the Obama Administration firing and not hiring Inspector Generals — why delete emails when you can just not have any one to investigate them? And if that doesn’t work, just corrupt the data until it can’t be trusted. Or use the power of a regulatory agency to promote your investment and damage its competitors while putting national security at risk. I’m not seeing much responsibility taken there.

Every one of these seems to me to be far worse than anything Murdoch or his organization has done, yet you see truly obsessed with the latter and completely disinterested in any of these other issues which will affect far more people in a much more serious way. What is the basis for your animus, other than Murdoch doesn’t work for the government? Or is that enough for you?

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 27 February 2012 at 13:39

Here’s an entire column about the Obama Administration concealing documents, every one worse than Murdoch. But laws are only for the private sector, apparently.

Oh, and lets not forget that the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email leak was based on CRU’s blatant refusal to release the data and attempted destruction of those emails. Again, much worse than Murdoch. Yet who has been held accountable for that? Let me know when anyone loses their job from that, or the offending group is shutdown.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 03 March 2012 at 12:45

It was Steyn and you who made the claim about business responsibility and chose your example. It was ill-chosen, was it not?

When are you going to admit that?

If you have a better example, bring it on.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 03 March 2012 at 15:47

A better example of what? I have plenty of worse examples on the other side demonstrating my point, not one of which you’ve deigned to notice. I think it’s clear who is ignoring anything that doesn’t fit his Narrative.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 04 March 2012 at 13:30

you wrote the post,not me.

Misbehavior elsewhere would be some other post.

The claim that business takes more responsibility than government is disproved because 1) your example was incorrect; and 2) apparently you don’t have another example.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 04 March 2012 at 15:18

Misbehavior elsewhere would be some other post.

No, because the original post was a comparison which requires at least two things to compare, as I have already noted in this comment string.

  1. My example was correct, you’ve yet to provide a substantive counter.
  2. You’ve written that before in this comment string even though I have done precisely that and repeated it and here we are for the third go around in a single comment string.
AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Monday, 05 March 2012 at 13:45

…demonstrates once again the clear superiority in terms of morals and accountability of the corporate world over the political one.

…was the original claim.

IMO, that has not been substantiated. That gov’t officials are also scumbags doesn’t absolve any private wrongdoers, particularly ones who a)aren’t repentant and b)are still actively involved in covering up criminal activity.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 05 March 2012 at 19:36

IMO, that has not been substantiated.

Which, you must admit, is distinct from being shown to be incorrect.

That gov’t officials are also scumbags doesn’t absolve any private wrongdoers

What part of “superior” or “compared to” is confusing people? I wrote nothing of absolution, I make a comparison.

Go back and read the original post and then point out where it went wrong. Answer the questions posed there (which my subsequent comments have addressed).

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 06 March 2012 at 23:28

Well, you and Steyn said News had taken responsibility, which it hasn’t done.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 07 March 2012 at 10:27

More than government does, and I listed above ways in which that happened. As before, let me know when a government agency is shut down for doing something like this. I listed plenty of examples of much worse with no repercussions. Little and grudging beats nothing at all.

erp Wednesday, 07 March 2012 at 12:18

Harry, the private sector takes responsibility by failing and going broke thereby not bothering us about them anymore. The public sector just keeps on going like zombies, they’re neither dead nor alive, but either way just keep on getting refunded year after year.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 07 March 2012 at 18:30

It does? You mean like the Countrywide division of Bank of America?

erp Wednesday, 07 March 2012 at 20:39

Those two were among the Dems slush funds/piggy banks.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 08 March 2012 at 08:59

erp nailed it.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Thursday, 08 March 2012 at 10:07

Not really.

The finance, insurance and real estate bubble created slush funds for Congress, irrespective of party, and both political parties indulged deeply.

Why do you think that the Bush administration’s regulators never actually used their agencies’ powers to rein in the excess, and even now, under a Dem regime, the GOP members of Congress are peculiarly silent about the near-total absence of criminal investigation into CLEAR AND SUBSTANTIATED illegality and wrongdoing in the FIRE industries?

Using only existing publicly-revealed sworn testimony before Congress, one could put away a couple hundred people…

If one had real investigatory and enforcement authority, easily ten thousand people could be indicted, possibly even a hundred thousand, assuming a will and a very large budget…

erp Thursday, 08 March 2012 at 10:09

Really Rough, Bush bashing is dating you badly.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Thursday, 08 March 2012 at 17:39

I think that perhaps you didn’t fully grasp what I wrote.

erp Thursday, 08 March 2012 at 17:58

Probably.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 09 March 2012 at 17:52

I certainly would have no objections to putting the entire lot in the clink. But it does demonstrate one of the rarely acknowledged weaknesses of dealing with a problem through government regulation, a reason that causes me to have a rather jaundiced view on the subject.

Harry Eagar Friday, 09 March 2012 at 21:15

Odd to call nonregulation regulation, but, more to the point, these businesses were businesses.

Now it turns out, although BofA told me it was incapable of writing down principals on fraudulently arranged mortgages, it can.

Boy, that’s what I call taking responsibility!

I would now advise erp to write her comments, set them aside for at least 24 hours, and read the daily paper. It would save her some embarrassment.

Drat those reporters!

erp Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 08:34

Harry, which mistake was that?

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 23:18

read the daily paper

You means a paper that relies on sources like the AP with fact laden articles like this

GINGRICH: “Having become deeply involved in GM’s operation, the federal government has a vested interest in the company’s success. So what is stopping it from requiring all Americans—under threat of penalty—to buy a GM car?”—In his book “A Nation Like No Other,” published last summer.

THE FACTS: This is called Newt being Newt

Or like the recent NY Times coverage of the Patrick Witt case which go the story wrong quite thoroughly. It’s far from clear to me that erp will have a better or more accurate understanding of the world from reading the daily paper. I wonder if that’s Eagar’s problem, that he reads those things and uncritically accepts them as accurate.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 14 March 2012 at 10:44

And now, Reuters chips in with their deliberate distortion. So remember kids, read the daily paper to get this kind of quality information!

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Wednesday, 14 March 2012 at 22:08

I’m not sure what is the point of such biased polling. It’s too far out from the election to be trying to influence undecided band-wagon voters, and even if Obama polled at a satisfaction rating of 100% the GOP show would go on.

Reassuring the faithful, perhaps?

But is it even effective? 50% approval rating??? Woo-hoo. Reach for the sky.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 14 March 2012 at 23:02

If I had to guess I would say that the people doing it can’t psychologically handle the thought of Obama being labeled unpopular. It’s a common thing for regimes based on the cult of personality. Because there’s nothing really there being a “leader” can only be maintained by convincing people that they’re they only ones who don’t like the “leader”. But, as you note, this is quite pathetic.

A cynic might argue that if people decide Obama is toast, who’s going to pay for stories about the Presidential election?

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 15 March 2012 at 23:50

Country Wide, Country Wide, I think I have something in tabs about that.

Ah yes — erp was more correct than she knew as the Obama Department of Justice steers the much of the Country Wide settlement to political allies. Slush fund indeed.

erp Friday, 16 March 2012 at 08:27

Like the Shadow, erp knows and sees all. ;-]

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 16 March 2012 at 09:29

May I also note that you wouldn’t have known that from reading the local paper? It doesn’t fit The Narrative.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 02:17

More about those honest, upright corporatists:

‘Part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation empire employed computer hacking to undermine the business of its chief TV rival in Britain, according to evidence due to be broadcast by BBC1’s Panorama programme on Monday .

‘The allegations stem from apparently incriminating emails the programme-makers have obtained, and on-screen descriptions for the first time from two of the people said to be involved, a German hacker and the operator of a pirate website secretly controlled by a Murdoch company.’

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 08:21

Mr. Eagar;

I am happy to provide a venting location for you. I’ve been a bit worried about you and I hope you feel better for letting it out.

On a side note, have your heard about the bogus GAO report on for profit colleges that was used to enrich cronies of various Congressmen? I wonder if it’s worse to undermine rivals with computer hacking, or to corrupt a respected institution in the process? Which is more damaging to society? Which is more likely to be punished?

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 09:53

Is it the opposite of taking responsibility when whistle blowers are driven out of a job?

erp Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 14:17

Harry’s buds wanted to “get” Stevens. His guilt or innocence was immaterial. Same is going on with Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida and countless others across our formerly fair land.

Anyone or anything that gets in the way of that narrative’s gotta go.

Quite simple.

Harry Eagar Friday, 30 March 2012 at 17:12

I’ll stop posting examples of News Corp. failing to take responsibility once a) you admit you and Steyn were wrong; or b) I run out of examples, whichever comes first

Harry Eagar Friday, 30 March 2012 at 17:20

Here’s a real fake narrative, erp.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 30 March 2012 at 18:33

Mr. Eagar;

Feel free to keep on posting. I don’t mind.

You do seem to lack a bit of grasp of logic, though — no number of examples can overcome a single counter-example. I have provided the latter so everything you are posting is simply irrelevant to my point. To use an analogy (although those seem difficult for you as well), if I wrote “Mr. Eagar wrote something true” and provided an example, no number of examples of false things you write would ever disprove that point.

erp Saturday, 31 March 2012 at 12:23

Not having watched the proceedings nor the ad with my own eyes and/or ears, I’ll refrain from comment.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 31 March 2012 at 15:09

Leftist Ann Althouse disagrees with Mr. Eagar’s assessment. Apparently you need to have a sense of humor to watch it.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 31 March 2012 at 20:58

It wasn’t obvious to everyone. NPR, for example, got pwned and used it as an authentic sound bite Friday.

So nuch for the leftist MSM.

Considering the source, I don’t think humor is the sense you need to bring. Remember the death panels? That was a real hoot, wasn’t it?

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 31 March 2012 at 22:01

NPR? They got pwned by a performance artist — they’re just not that bright.

So nuch for the leftist MSM.

So a single counter-example disproves a general rule? I expect you concede the case on this post then, by your own logic, after all, “so much for the irresponsible private sector”.

Remember the death panels? That was a real hoot, wasn’t it?

I don’t know anybody who found POR-care “a real hoot”. Do you?

Hey Skipper Sunday, 01 April 2012 at 11:04
NPR, for example, got pwned and used it as an authentic sound bite Friday.

That may be; however, I listened to extended NPR coverage of the hearings, which frequently included the actual audio. Several times the commentators (Nina Totenberg and another woman whose name escapes me) mentioned that the government was having a hard time making the constitutional case for the insurance mandate.

Even granting that the RNC stepped over the line (an extremely charitable concession), I am somehow unable to muster even a glimmering of surprise that the RNC might, on occasion, be, you know, just that little partisan. In fact, I am sufficiently unflummoxed that I suspect very few go to the RNC with the expectation they will be treated to an unvarnished version of reality.

As opposed to a major “news” outlet doing “journalism”. Over at Volokh (no link—I’m on the road with my iPad, but without a keyboard, and for some darn reason it won’t let me copy URLs) I earned that NBC materially altered the 911 transcript of the Florida shooting in order to create the impression that Zimmerman acted with racist intent. NB—I’m not saying he didn’t, only that once again the MSM is caught manufacturing evidence.

Remember the death panels? That was a real hoot, wasn’t it?

Perhaps you don’t have much experience with socialized medicine. IIRC, the UK’s system was total: it prohibited the private provision of health care. And their socialized medicine explicitly includes guidelines as to whom care will be provided. That’s a real hoot, isn’t it?

Link added.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 01 April 2012 at 15:24

Here’s some public sector responsibility for you —

Detroit high school students walked out to protest absent teachers and the principal’s removal at an all-boys public school, reports the Detroit Free Press. Fifty students were suspended.

Remember kids, the public sector is there to help the poor.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 02 April 2012 at 13:13

Hey Skipper;

Here is an even better round up of Old Media falsehoods in the Martin/Zimmerman incident. I still don’t know what happened, or who was guilty of what, but I do know Old Media didn’t hesitate to stir up racial strife by fabricating evidence.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 02 April 2012 at 14:53

It never ends. Now President Obama says the flow of guns from the USA in to Mexico must be stopped. Perhaps Obama could talk to Attorney General Holder about that and, you know, take responsibility? But not likely since he doesn’t like to talk to his Administration — not, frankly, that I blame him. I’m sure he wasn’t responsible for them being appointed.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 00:37

The revelations that News corp. not only has not ever taken responsibility but continues its coverup come out almost daily. It’s hard to keep up, so I skip over about a dozen fresh examples of how Stein was wrong to this one, which sounds portentous:

Mark Lewis, the tenacious lawyer who has been at the forefront of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, is considering an approach to the FBI in his pursuit of three potential legal cases of alleged hacking on US soil.

Lewis has arrived in New York at the start of five days of intense legal discussions over the possibility of launching civil lawsuits in the US courts. In his first newspaper interview since arriving in Manhattan, he told the Guardian that he was determined to “go wherever the evidence takes us, now some of that evidence is pointing to America.”

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 01 May 2012 at 11:53

The House of Commons agrees with me:

“This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organization and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International,” the report said.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 01 May 2012 at 12:40

It’s hard to imagine any corporate governance in the UK that does worse than the House of Commons. This has as much punch as the Iranian theocracy criticizing our political system for lack of democracy.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 02 May 2012 at 08:14

But actually, thinking a bit more, the House of Commons might well be correct. So let us stipulate that. Therefore …?

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 02 May 2012 at 13:18

You should read the papers. News Corp. isn’t even close to the bottom in UK corporate governance. I don’t know who is at rock bottom, but RBS was pretty low.

The reason I have stopped reading TM regularly is that it used to be a source of notes of things I hadn’t known about, but over the past year, it’s just become petulant anti-obamaism. If I want to read disparaging remarks about Obama, I can read Restating the Obvious.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 02 May 2012 at 13:41

You should read the papers. News Corp. isn’t even close to the bottom in UK corporate governance. I don’t know who is at rock bottom, but RBS was pretty low.

Therefore … ?

Why should I read the papers? As I demonstrate over and over in my petulance, they are heavily biased, frequently wrong, and will almost always sacrifice facts to support ideology.

Post a comment