A poll on the attitudes of Catholics conducted by the NYT has zero credibility. As a matter of fact, the NYT, as a news organ, has zero credibility.
Its more or less bad joke except for lefty Dems these days.

Translation: The truth hurts. But maybe Kehoskie or the unskewed guy can do you a retake---they're certified experts at poll reading.

I am mildly disappointed that Repoz didn't reference Alex Chilton's "Singer, Not the Song" in the intro.

This was my favorite post, along with the one quoting the American Enterprise Institute on conditions in Venezuela. Because, of course, the idea of American imperialism is pure lefty fantasy. We'd never, say, invade other countries for our own gain.

It's remarkable that a one-paragraph quote on the state of Venezuela's energy reserves from a former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hempisphere Affairs is all it takes to get you to bleat about a neo-Con conspiracy.

201-Catholics that attend Mass at least every Sunday, IOW, real Catholics, and these are the ones that pay the bills, follow the Church's teachings, which are those of its founder, Jesus of Nazareth.

And the Church produced Babe Ruth. Top that!

And the Church produced Babe Ruth. Top that!

Would Yadier Molina, Pope, "top" Babe Ruth, former MLB Home Run King?

201-Catholics that attend Mass at least every Sunday, IOW, real Catholics, and these are the ones that pay the bills, follow the Church's teachings, which are those of its founder, Jesus of Nazareth.

It's a sin for you to WANT to feel up Ellen; it's a sin for you to PLAN to feel up Ellen; it's a sin for you to FIGURE OUT A PLACE to feel up Ellen; it's a sin for you to TAKE ELLEN TO THE PLACE to feel her up; it's a sin to TRY to feel her up; and it's a sin to FEEL HER UP. There are six sins in one feel, man.

This was my favorite post, along with the one quoting the American Enterprise Institute on conditions in Venezuela. Because, of course, the idea of American imperialism is pure lefty fantasy. We'd never, say, invade other countries for our own gain.

It's remarkable that a one-paragraph quote on the state of Venezuela's energy reserves from a former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hempisphere Affairs is all it takes to get you to bleat about a neo-Con conspiracy.

It's remarkable that the accurate point about American imperialism is all it takes to turn you back into a whiny little bitch incapable of reading at even a sixth-grade level of comprehension.

I'm only surprised you forgot to simper, "love it or leave it!"

Having said that, SBB, where do you draw the line on moments of silence? Mugabe? Assad? Ahmadinejad? Stalin? Hitler?

Is Chavez in these peoples' league? I sure don't see it.


ditto, those 4 "gentlemen" are not where you draw the line, they are all pretty clearly well past the no moment of silence line.

Chavez, by virtue of being an anti-american blowhard has been lumped in with tyrants that he pretty clearly does not remotely compare to with respect to thuggishness, dissident squelching, property confiscatoin and the like.

He's bad on respect for private property, not nearly as bad as Mugabe (or any communist country you can name past or present)

He's bad on how he treats the media, not remotely as bad as the regime in Teheren

He does not have a secret police apparatus constantly spying/detaining/torturing people and/or quasi-official militias doing the same - not remotely in comparison with those 4 men, or even in comparison with our "ally" his neighbor, Columbia - not liek teh Castros have in Cuba either.

In terms of civil rights (freedom from arbitrary detention, torture, etc) economic rights etc., Venezuela under Chavez was pretty pedestrian among the world's 150+ countries, his record is not good, but the record of most of the world is not good, Chavez was not especially bad- if you ran a list each year of the ten most tyrannical national leaders, Chavez never comes close to making the list.

Hmm. So, where do rank a country that repeatedly bombed a civilian population, caused the death of at least a hundred thousand civilians, ran torture camps all over the world, farmed out the torture of hundreds and the murder of dozens, destroyed the evidence of same, effectively immunized its war criminals from prosecution, kills its own citizens without due process, rigs it's own drug laws and police enforcement procedures to falsely imprison hundreds of thousands of descendents of its former slave population, has attempted to forbid the documenting of abuse by its police.... Does that make the top ten, do you think?

It's remarkable that the accurate point about American imperialism is all it takes to turn you back into a whiny little ##### incapable of reading at even a sixth-grade level of comprehension.

So tell me: Do you have a substantive critique to offer on the excerpt on energy "conditions in Venezuela?"

That said, I'm with posts 2-4 (and 3 is the reason I wouldn't have done a moment of silence) - showing respect would be for the country, not the man.

Don't we show respect for the country by not showing respect for that man? It's not a tragedy for Venezuela that he died.

Don't we show respect for the country by not showing respect for that man? It's not a tragedy for Venezuela that he died.

Most Venezuelans disagree with you.

The govt share of the GDP is not historically high.

Yes, it is. He didn't say "taxes," which indeed are not.

And the low tax rates and weak economy are interlinked, as the rich have enjoyed the lion's share of that lowering, sequestering their capital while reducing demand in the economy for goods and services.

To get the economy going again, we need to tax the rich more and find ways to rejigger payscales to more equitable norms, so the rank and file make more and upper management makes less. That will increase demand for goods and services, stimulate hiring while lowering unemployment, keep interest rates low and start the long process of paying off the national debt.

Even Paul Krugman denies that claim.

But Stiglitz thinks I'm right and I think Stiglitz' opinion is more relevant since it is in this area of asymmetries that Stiglitz expertise exceeds Krugman. Krugman's expertise is more in the international trade/economic integration area.

Krugman doesn't really deny the claim. He just has his doubts.

And to more correctly state my opinion, it is that I agree with Stiglitz, rather than him agreeing with me. He's the expert, not me. And not you either.

Sic semper tyrannis.

Don't we show respect for the country by not showing respect for that man? It's not a tragedy for Venezuela that he died.

This is a loaded analogy and I do not want to be associated with some of the ideas that this implies, but... what if Bush 2* had died in office? Elected with a slim majority of votes (in the % of the vote sense, not electoral), unpopular abroad, provoked unusually strong reactions within the country, and so on. Would it be outrageous for another nation that we're less then best of chums with to show some slight pleasantry?

I also think our status as a hegemon matters here - we're the uber-state, not one that is or feels trod upon, beacon on the hill and all that - but I'm trying to keep the question simpler.


* While I didn't vote for him, I'd take GWB 11 times out of 10 over Chavez. Also, I am not a bumper sticker.

****

The more I studied macro econ, the more I feel like people gravitate toward the guys whose models support their initial worldview. Kind of bummed me out.
FWIW, I agree that this is more Stiglitz' bailiwick, but am not fully in his camp. Have found studies suggesting that income inequality impacts growth convincing, but my opinion and a buck won't buy you so much as a cup of coffee.

This is a loaded analogy and I do not want to be associated with some of the ideas that this implies, but... what if Bush 2* had died in office? Elected with a slim majority of votes (in the % of the vote sense, not electoral), unpopular abroad, provoked unusually strong reactions within the country, and so on. Would it be outrageous for another nation that we're less then best of chums with to show some slight pleasantry?

Not to mention killer of foreign civilians, international aggressor, and serial transgressor of international norms and treaties.

(America is in a different position than virtually every other nation on the globe and often has to do necessary or helpful things that aren't easy or pleasant to accomplish, but still -- from the perspective of a citizen of most other countries, the reasons why a moment of silence for Chavez would gall are significantly more applicable to GW Bush.)

Having given this infinitely more thought than I ever would have thought I would, I now believe:
* moment of silence is inappropriate. (apart from that people would boo, etc... and cause an incident)
* flag at half mast is appropriate.
Short version: having the VZ flag at half mast is more about how VZ "feels". A moment of silence is about how we "feel" about VZ (and its former leader).

This is a loaded analogy and I do not want to be associated with some of the ideas that this implies, but... what if Bush 2* had died in office? Elected with a slim majority of votes (in the % of the vote sense, not electoral), unpopular abroad, provoked unusually strong reactions within the country, and so on. Would it be outrageous for another nation that we're less then best of chums with to show some slight pleasantry?

I also think our status as a hegemon matters here - we're the uber-state, not one that is or feels trod upon, beacon on the hill and all that - but I'm trying to keep the question simpler.

All I know is that even 5 years later (minimum), had this sort of analogous role reversal come to pass -- Roger Ailes orgasm over such an occurrence might still be ongoing...

Glad I'm not a visual thinker 'bout now.

As a matter of fact, the NYT, as a news organ, has zero credibility.
Its more or less bad joke except for lefty Dems these days.

Any number of lefty Dems (& non-Dems) would object to that statement, especially given the filthy rag's dishonest aiding & abetting of the rush to war via Judith "I Blew Donald Rumsfeld, & Then I Asked for Seconds" Miller's unforgivable garbage a few years ago.

where do rank a country that repeatedly bombed a civilian population, caused the death of at least a hundred thousand civilians, ran torture camps all over the world, farmed out the torture of hundreds and the murder of dozens, destroyed the evidence of same, effectively immunized its war criminals from prosecution, kills its own citizens without due process, rigs it's own drug laws and police enforcement procedures to falsely imprison hundreds of thousands of descendents of its former slave population, has attempted to forbid the documenting of abuse by its police

Why are you talking in past tense? Same stuff that went on under Bush is still going on under Obama.

Only now, no one cares.

As a matter of fact, the NYT, as a news organ, has zero credibility.
Its more or less bad joke except for lefty Dems these days.

Any number of lefty Dems (& non-Dems) would object to that statement, especially given the filthy rag's dishonest aiding & abetting of the rush to war via Judith "I Blew Donald Rumsfeld, & Then I Asked for Seconds" Miller's unforgivable garbage a few years ago.

When perfection is the expected standard, it's not hard to dig up cases where it isn't met. Judith Miller's gullibility, the Jayson Blair scandal, and the tendentious belaboring of the Augusta Country Club's membership policies are easily identifiable examples of where the Times has had egg on its face.

The question is: By that standard, what media source is trustworthy? It's always funny to read critiques of the Times from people (not you, gef) whose main sources of information seem to be National Review, the Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh.

Why are you talking in past tense? Same stuff that went on under Bush is still going on under Obama.

Only now, no one cares.

Of course they do. However, it's useful to acknowledge a real difference between Obama and Bush, especially as regards initiating wars of choice. That even giving him the benefit of the doubt Obama has very probably committed impeachable defenses, doesn't mean Bush wasn't far, far worse.

As a matter of fact, the NYT, as a news organ, has zero credibility.
Its more or less bad joke except for lefty Dems these days.

Name one then that has more than zero.