Daily Howler - self explanatory

[springhill]

APPLEBAUM’S PIETY! There’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist: // link // print // previous // next //
Sorry about the multiple texts. Don't know what happened.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2004

APPLEBAUM’S PIETY:There’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist. We refer to Anne Applebaum’s column in this morning’s Post, in which the siren of ruling-class piety mocks an intelligent Times editorial about our absurd voting systems. Try to believe that a sentient being dreamed up this kooky comparison:
APPLEBAUM (11/17/04): Two weeks after the election, the Internet rumor mill continues to spout stories of computer-stolen votes. No sooner are they disproved than others appear. Some are demanding an Ohio recount. Otherwise sober people are asking whether there can be smoke without fire. Last weekend the New York Times published an editorial that found !no evidence! of vote fraud but called electronic voting !a problem! all the same. After all, the editorial noted, there is !no way to be sure! that votes weren't changed !by secret software! inside the machines. If you're tempted to believe that analysis is rational, just ask yourself this question: Are you really sure that your bank isn't using secret software to steal $9.72 from your retirement account every week? And if the answer is no, why aren't you up in arms about that, too?
Typing from the far side of Neptune, Applebaum compares our current voting systems with the way your bank is handling your money. Have you checked to see if your bank is stealing your money? the deeply daft columnist types.
Could any comparison be less apt? No, you probably haven’t checked this week to see if your bank is stealing your money. But duh! The reason you haven’t checked is obvious—banks provide extensive paper trails, and a major bank would quickly be caught if it swiped that nine bucks every week. (As anyone except a “journalist” would know, many Americans do check their bank statements quite religiously.) And duh! Let’s note another fact which would be obvious to anyone outside Applebaum’s tribe. Here it is: If banks were allowed to run audit-free systems, many banks would of course steal your money! Only a fool would fail to know it. But Applebaum—like powdered elites through the annals of time—is paid good money to pretend not to know this. Instead, she rolls her eyes at the kooky crowd which is troubled by current voting arrangements. And just like that, she starts playing shrink. Try to believe that a sentient being typed up this daft diagnosis:

APPLEBAUM (continuing directly): Given our reliance on computerized accounting, the explanation for the American paranoia about computer voting cannot be rational.
As a recent observer correctly noted, there’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist.
But Applebaum is more than a Washington journalist; she’s also part of a ruling elite, and her cohort has been busy this week mocking those who question the systems by which we conduct our elections. Indeed, the editorial which Applebaum scorns anticipated her mocking imagery, even as it made a point which would be obvious to anyone who understands the American system:

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (11/14/04): Defenders of the system have been quick to dismiss questions like these as the work of ''conspiracy theorists,'' but that misses the point. Until our election system is improved—with better mechanics and greater transparency—we cannot expect voters to have full confidence in the announced results.
Duh! The American system is based on “transparency”—on those famous “checks and balances.” We don’t assume that the powerful play by the rules. Unless you’re part of Applebaum’s crowd, of course. In this case, your system is based on mocking those who promote the most basic understandings.
Applebaum’s column helps us remember who we are and where we live. No, we don’t live in the land of our civics texts, where eighth-grade children are falsely told that an eagle-eyed “press corps” looks out for their interests. And no, we aren’t part of a race—the human race—which has been falsely proclaimed, since the Dawn of the West, to be “the rational animal.” In point of fact, we live on a planet where ruling elites have always gamed the system their way; and we live on a planet in which those elites always go out and buy tribunes like Applebaum. So go ahead and stretch your horizons! Read the paragraph quoted above—and search for metaphors which help us see who we are and where we live. Alas! Elites have always typed daft agitprop to fool the peons they hope to suppress, and in the long run, the likes of Applebaum have always been overcome by force, by the will of the people.

There’s almost no way to be that daft—unless you’re part of a store-bought elite. The Applebaums will not be converted. They’ll type on until overcome.

APPLEBAUM’S PIETY! There’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist: // link // print // previous // next //

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2004

APPLEBAUM’S PIETY:There’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist. We refer to Anne Applebaum’s column in this morning’s Post, in which the siren of ruling-class piety mocks an intelligent Times editorial about our absurd voting systems. Try to believe that a sentient being dreamed up this kooky comparison:
APPLEBAUM (11/17/04): Two weeks after the election, the Internet rumor mill continues to spout stories of computer-stolen votes. No sooner are they disproved than others appear. Some are demanding an Ohio recount. Otherwise sober people are asking whether there can be smoke without fire. Last weekend the New York Times published an editorial that found !no evidence! of vote fraud but called electronic voting !a problem! all the same. After all, the editorial noted, there is !no way to be sure! that votes weren't changed !by secret software! inside the machines. If you're tempted to believe that analysis is rational, just ask yourself this question: Are you really sure that your bank isn't using secret software to steal $9.72 from your retirement account every week? And if the answer is no, why aren't you up in arms about that, too?
Typing from the far side of Neptune, Applebaum compares our current voting systems with the way your bank is handling your money. Have you checked to see if your bank is stealing your money? the deeply daft columnist types.
Could any comparison be less apt? No, you probably haven’t checked this week to see if your bank is stealing your money. But duh! The reason you haven’t checked is obvious—banks provide extensive paper trails, and a major bank would quickly be caught if it swiped that nine bucks every week. (As anyone except a “journalist” would know, many Americans do check their bank statements quite religiously.) And duh! Let’s note another fact which would be obvious to anyone outside Applebaum’s tribe. Here it is: If banks were allowed to run audit-free systems, many banks would of course steal your money! Only a fool would fail to know it. But Applebaum—like powdered elites through the annals of time—is paid good money to pretend not to know this. Instead, she rolls her eyes at the kooky crowd which is troubled by current voting arrangements. And just like that, she starts playing shrink. Try to believe that a sentient being typed up this daft diagnosis:

APPLEBAUM (continuing directly): Given our reliance on computerized accounting, the explanation for the American paranoia about computer voting cannot be rational.
As a recent observer correctly noted, there’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist.
But Applebaum is more than a Washington journalist; she’s also part of a ruling elite, and her cohort has been busy this week mocking those who question the systems by which we conduct our elections. Indeed, the editorial which Applebaum scorns anticipated her mocking imagery, even as it made a point which would be obvious to anyone who understands the American system:

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (11/14/04): Defenders of the system have been quick to dismiss questions like these as the work of ''conspiracy theorists,'' but that misses the point. Until our election system is improved—with better mechanics and greater transparency—we cannot expect voters to have full confidence in the announced results.
Duh! The American system is based on “transparency”—on those famous “checks and balances.” We don’t assume that the powerful play by the rules. Unless you’re part of Applebaum’s crowd, of course. In this case, your system is based on mocking those who promote the most basic understandings.
Applebaum’s column helps us remember who we are and where we live. No, we don’t live in the land of our civics texts, where eighth-grade children are falsely told that an eagle-eyed “press corps” looks out for their interests. And no, we aren’t part of a race—the human race—which has been falsely proclaimed, since the Dawn of the West, to be “the rational animal.” In point of fact, we live on a planet where ruling elites have always gamed the system their way; and we live on a planet in which those elites always go out and buy tribunes like Applebaum. So go ahead and stretch your horizons! Read the paragraph quoted above—and search for metaphors which help us see who we are and where we live. Alas! Elites have always typed daft agitprop to fool the peons they hope to suppress, and in the long run, the likes of Applebaum have always been overcome by force, by the will of the people.

There’s almost no way to be that daft—unless you’re part of a store-bought elite. The Applebaums will not be converted. They’ll type on until overcome.

APPLEBAUM’S PIETY! There’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist: // link // print // previous // next //

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2004

APPLEBAUM’S PIETY:There’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist. We refer to Anne Applebaum’s column in this morning’s Post, in which the siren of ruling-class piety mocks an intelligent Times editorial about our absurd voting systems. Try to believe that a sentient being dreamed up this kooky comparison:
APPLEBAUM (11/17/04): Two weeks after the election, the Internet rumor mill continues to spout stories of computer-stolen votes. No sooner are they disproved than others appear. Some are demanding an Ohio recount. Otherwise sober people are asking whether there can be smoke without fire. Last weekend the New York Times published an editorial that found !no evidence! of vote fraud but called electronic voting !a problem! all the same. After all, the editorial noted, there is !no way to be sure! that votes weren't changed !by secret software! inside the machines. If you're tempted to believe that analysis is rational, just ask yourself this question: Are you really sure that your bank isn't using secret software to steal $9.72 from your retirement account every week? And if the answer is no, why aren't you up in arms about that, too?
Typing from the far side of Neptune, Applebaum compares our current voting systems with the way your bank is handling your money. Have you checked to see if your bank is stealing your money? the deeply daft columnist types.
Could any comparison be less apt? No, you probably haven’t checked this week to see if your bank is stealing your money. But duh! The reason you haven’t checked is obvious—banks provide extensive paper trails, and a major bank would quickly be caught if it swiped that nine bucks every week. (As anyone except a “journalist” would know, many Americans do check their bank statements quite religiously.) And duh! Let’s note another fact which would be obvious to anyone outside Applebaum’s tribe. Here it is: If banks were allowed to run audit-free systems, many banks would of course steal your money! Only a fool would fail to know it. But Applebaum—like powdered elites through the annals of time—is paid good money to pretend not to know this. Instead, she rolls her eyes at the kooky crowd which is troubled by current voting arrangements. And just like that, she starts playing shrink. Try to believe that a sentient being typed up this daft diagnosis:

APPLEBAUM (continuing directly): Given our reliance on computerized accounting, the explanation for the American paranoia about computer voting cannot be rational.
As a recent observer correctly noted, there’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist.
But Applebaum is more than a Washington journalist; she’s also part of a ruling elite, and her cohort has been busy this week mocking those who question the systems by which we conduct our elections. Indeed, the editorial which Applebaum scorns anticipated her mocking imagery, even as it made a point which would be obvious to anyone who understands the American system:

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (11/14/04): Defenders of the system have been quick to dismiss questions like these as the work of ''conspiracy theorists,'' but that misses the point. Until our election system is improved—with better mechanics and greater transparency—we cannot expect voters to have full confidence in the announced results.
Duh! The American system is based on “transparency”—on those famous “checks and balances.” We don’t assume that the powerful play by the rules. Unless you’re part of Applebaum’s crowd, of course. In this case, your system is based on mocking those who promote the most basic understandings.
Applebaum’s column helps us remember who we are and where we live. No, we don’t live in the land of our civics texts, where eighth-grade children are falsely told that an eagle-eyed “press corps” looks out for their interests. And no, we aren’t part of a race—the human race—which has been falsely proclaimed, since the Dawn of the West, to be “the rational animal.” In point of fact, we live on a planet where ruling elites have always gamed the system their way; and we live on a planet in which those elites always go out and buy tribunes like Applebaum. So go ahead and stretch your horizons! Read the paragraph quoted above—and search for metaphors which help us see who we are and where we live. Alas! Elites have always typed daft agitprop to fool the peons they hope to suppress, and in the long run, the likes of Applebaum have always been overcome by force, by the will of the people.

There’s almost no way to be that daft—unless you’re part of a store-bought elite. The Applebaums will not be converted. They’ll type on until overcome.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/