Tee Believes Media have immunity bubble from criticism

[Michael Tee]

OK, I see I'm getting nowhere, so I know when it's time to quit.  The guy with the Nobel Prize says the war cost $3 trillion, cro says it didn't, so it's a wash.  OK?

[Amianthus]

The guy with the Nobel Prize says the war cost $3 trillion

He says it will cost $3 trillion. He's predicting the future.

[Plane]

Nobel Prize winner, Kenneth Arrow, wrote a famous impossibility theorem that showed voting cannot be used to create a “general will”. Only a dictatorship could meet Arrow’s criteria.

http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/04000729/Amartya-Sen-turns-75.html?h=A1

Sen did much to weaken Arrow’s pessimistic result, showing when political choices can be coherent.



[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

In this example one Nobel winner finds the opposite of another , I don't think this is strange , the Nobel Prize is not awarded by previous Nobel winners , as far as we know it is not necessary for the people making the award to understand the work of the recipient.

[Michael Tee]

<<He [Dr. Stieglitz] says it will cost $3 trillion. He's predicting the future.>>

Economists would say he's "projecting."   I was trying to keep it simple, for rhetorical purposes.

[crocat]

<<He [Dr. Stieglitz] says it will cost $3 trillion. He's predicting the future.>>

Economists would say he's "projecting."   I was trying to keep it simple, for rhetorical purposes.

hummn... rhetorical, is that what you call your 'strawman?'

[Michael Tee]

<<hummn... rhetorical, is that what you call your 'strawman?'>>

Nope, two entirely different concepts.  Rhetoric is artfully arranged or contrived speech, configured for a striking or memorable effect, for maximum effectiveness in delivering a particular message, for creating or defusing a mood or for some purpose related in some way to the creation of a desired perception in the mind of the listener.

A strawman is a target or issue set up to draw attention or fire from an issue which the person setting up the strawman wants to avoid.  A strawman can be set up without any rhetoric at all, although of course it would probably be more effective as a strawman if some measure of rhetoric were to accompany its creation.

[sirs]

<<hummn... rhetorical, is that what you call your 'strawman?'>>

A strawman is a target or issue set up to draw attention or fire from an issue which the person setting up the strawman wants to avoid. 

Kinda like when bringing Obama's age into any discussion involving Ayers

[BT]

Stiglitz was also a Clinton administration official for 8 years.

[Michael Tee]

<<Kinda like when bringing Obama's age into any discussion involving Ayers>>

Nope, it's a rhetorical device.  It immediately enables one to see the vast amount of time that elapses as an eight-year-old turns to 40, which I think is about where Obama meets Ayers.  And (compared to one's later years) these are the most impression-packed, novelty-packed years, a really dense tapestry of events where what happened six months ago might as well be ten years ago in the mind of the child.  Helps one to see that to the adult Obama, the 1960s were ancient history when he met Ayers.

[Michael Tee]

<<Stiglitz was also a Clinton administration official for 8 years.>>

Relevance?

[sirs]

<<Kinda like when bringing Obama's age into any discussion involving Ayers>>

Nope, it's a rhetorical device. 

Nope, it's a strawman, since it has no relevence to the point being made about Obama & Ayers

[Michael Tee]

<<Nope, it's a strawman, since it has no relevence to the point being made about Obama & Ayers>>

I just explained the relevance to you, but you can go on calling it a strawman if you like.  I just don't have the time for this bullshit.

[BT]

Relevance?

Bias

[Michael Tee]

What are the odds?  Clinton's gone for good but Stieglitz still has a reputation to protect.  Why whore it out for a guy who can't do him any good any more anyway?

[BT]

Why whore it out for a guy who can't do him any good any more anyway?

Who says he whored it out for a guy who could no longer do him any good, though that statement is debatable.

Why publish the opinion piece in the first place?

His opinion wasn't peer reviewed. It first appeared in the foreign press as an oped in advance of a book he co-authored.

Perhaps he thought the shock value of the high projections would hasten the end of the war. His coauthor is not a fan of the war either. Perhaps that was his higher goal and he wasn't too concerned about his reputation taking a hit, because he didn't present this as a scholarly work.