Immigration bill

[Sbee]

of course the zimmmerman trial is getting all of the headlines right now but the immigration bill is in serious trouble

here's a good article by Thomas friedman about the economic impact, some good facts in here

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/o...d-see-us-now.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

it kills me that we're going to waste so much money on border security but the overall bill is good

 

[redandguilty]

Crap. You had to mention Friedman.

 

[Sbee]

Crap. You had to mention Friedman.

smart guy, I subscribe to his RSS feed along with Brooks and Krugman. I don't agree with him on everything but his column is good

 

[redandguilty]

smart guy, I subscribe to his RSS feed along with Brooks and Krugman. I don't agree with him on everything but his column is good

Not exactly sure how you took it, but I wasn't jabbing at you there.

 

[Michchamp]

smart guy, I subscribe to his RSS feed along with Brooks and Krugman. I don't agree with him on everything but his column is good

it is?

I guess we can't agree on everything.

Krugman is a trained economist and his research is good.

Brooks and Friedman are hacks. their columns mainly serve to give a intellectual-sounding shine to some of the most awful economic, political and foreign policy blunders we've made in the last decade. like polishing a turd.

My aunt had a copy of "The World Is Flat" in her house and I was reading it, and remember thinking "nice story, easy to read, but there's something wrong with it I can't put my finger on."

Then I read THIS.

Now I look forward to every column from Taibbi on Brooks or Friedman.

comedy gold.

 

[redandguilty]

There it is. That's what I was referring to in my 1st response.

 

[TheVictors]

Yep

 

[Michchamp]

There it is. That's what I was referring to in my 1st response.

just spreading the Gospel.

I don't get too passionate about many things, but I'm a true believer here: the fewer people who listen to Friedman's drivel, the better the world will be.

 

[redandguilty]

I'm halfway though that article thinking this must be Taibbi's worst article ever. I can't believe you liked it so much.

 

[redandguilty]

just spreading the Gospel.

I don't get too passionate about many things, but I'm a true believer here: the fewer people who listen to Friedman's drivel, the better the world will be.

I'd put up a fight, but I just can't. Not after you pointed out that WMD stuff.

 

[redandguilty]

That Taibbi article is remarkable. It's the only article of his I've seen with approximately no substance. He doesn't like Friedman's style. Did he say anything else in that entire article?

 

[Michchamp]

That Taibbi article is remarkable. It's the only article of his I've seen with approximately no substance. He doesn't like Friedman's style. Did he say anything else in that entire article?

As I read it, he had two criticisms:

1.) the book is about nothing more than the most banal observations of how the "global economy" is different now, thanks to the internet and modern technology, and as such, it hardly deserves some of the accolades it has received.

2.) Friedman's writing is comically bad. he creates the most absurd metaphors possible. the thing about herding animals hunting? or the idea that a "flat" world is more interconnected than a spherical one? most people would generally get annoyed with Friedman's writing, but they couldn't point out why as incisively as Taibbi does. before reading that article, I never really noticed just how bad metaphors like that could be, so maybe that's why I liked the article more than you did.

 

[Michchamp]

That Taibbi article is remarkable. It's the only article of his I've seen with approximately no substance. He doesn't like Friedman's style. Did he say anything else in that entire article?

as a more scientifically inclined scholar, you probably aren't too versed in the art of literary criticism. or you might not see how or why it has any point. it probably just seems like a bunch of words on a page.

but think of it as more akin to peer review: in the field of writing and punditry, Taibbi is taking aim at the writing and punditry of Brooks and Friedman and pointing out the many logical flaws in their reasoning, style, and their conclusions

 

[redandguilty]

as a more scientifically inclined scholar, you probably aren't too versed in the art of literary criticism. or you might not see how or why it has any point. it probably just seems like a bunch of words on a page.

but think of it as more akin to peer review: in the field of writing and punditry, Taibbi is taking aim at the writing and punditry of Brooks and Friedman and pointing out the many logical flaws in their reasoning, style, and their conclusions

Not quite. He actually doesn't point out logical flaws in the reasoning or conclusions. Banal, yes. Wrong, no.

 

[Michchamp]

Not quite. He actually doesn't point out logical flaws in the reasoning or conclusions. Banal, yes. Wrong, no.

well, I guess the essential thesis - that the world is more interconnected thanks to improved communication technology - is sound enough.

he points out the logical flaws in Friedman's metaphors & reasoning. metaphors should be logical. the man wrote almost 500 pages on how a "flat" world is more interconnected than a spherical one, and he took that premise apart.

and he also had a little fun with the absurd metaphors Friedman uses... you get that, right? You understand jokes and humor generally, yes? Sometimes people just tell eachother jokes for no reason at all.

 

[redandguilty]

well, I guess the essential thesis - that the world is more interconnected thanks to improved communication technology - is sound enough.

he points out the logical flaws in Friedman's metaphors & reasoning. metaphors should be logical. the man wrote almost 500 pages on how a "flat" world is more interconnected than a spherical one, and he took that premise apart.

and he also had a little fun with the absurd metaphors Friedman uses... you get that, right? You understand jokes and humor generally, yes? Sometimes people just tell eachother jokes for no reason at all.

It's easier to get around on a flat surface. If it's level between the US and China, and India and China, and Mexico and Canada...at some point you're drawing a picture of a flat Earth. You don't have to like the idea from a stylistic point of view, but there's no logical flaw there.

Picking on the style is fine and I thought it was funny around the hunting example, but it just went on and on with that one criticism for so long. By the midpoint, it wasn't funny anymore.

 

[Michchamp]

Okay, well, taste being notoriously varied, I suppose there's no point in really arguing about it, now that I've said my piece.

You have the people you like to read, and I have mine.

 

[redandguilty]

Okay, well, taste being notoriously varied, I suppose there's no point in really arguing about it, now that I've said my piece.

You have the people you like to read, and I have mine.

I'm not disagreeing with the criticism regarding taste.

 

[redandguilty]

MC has provided more substantial criticism of Friedman on this board than Taibbi did in that article. It's very uncharacteristic of Taibbi.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not disagreeing with the criticism regarding taste.

okay.

as far as the immigration bill goes, I'm not really too familiar with it. Though if Friedman is writing about it, I'm skeptical it's really that good for America; it's more likely not good, or bad, just one of those things DC and the media invent to kick around and distract the rest of us, while they really conduct other business behind closed doors.

uh...

so... it's hot out here today, and humid. we're in one of those bad summer heat waves. I guess Detroit is too. what's it like in NC?