Morning Links

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

67 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Sam | 

    Wow, the American Enterprise Institute has declared that inequality isn’t a problem? Well that changes EVERYTHING!

  2. #2 |  Nick T. | 

    Re: Solitary confinement. I can’t wait for Lawrence O’Donnell to do a piece on solitary. I mean, if he hasn’t already…

  3. #3 |  Stephen | 

    Aaron Worthing should be Aaron Walker according to the link.

  4. #4 |  Brandon | 

    If the AEI says it’s true it must be. I mean, they wouldn’t have any reason to obfuscate or lie about this issue would they?

  5. #5 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Some contrarianism on the soaring inequality narrative.

    I wonder how much of that low income consumption is fueled by debt in 2010 compared to 1984.

    The problem with studies that claim to look at the data “in a new way” is that they are often designed to deliver preconceived conclusions.

  6. #6 |  Radley Balko | 

    Re AEI:

    The post mentions one AEI study, but it also mentions several other from other sources that came to similar conclusions. And a scholar from Brookings is now making similar points about income mobility.

    Feel free to point out the flaws in the data for any of these studies, or to articulate your problems with how the studies’ authors have interpreted the data.

    But We don’t need to take this study seriously because it’s mentioned in an AEI blog post isn’t really an argument.

  7. #7 |  boomshanka | 

    So according to AEI, consumption spending is a better indicator of income inequality than income? Seriously?

  8. #8 |  Marty | 

    the sunburn lotion article brings up a few issues- lots of times, not following policy can lead to discipline ‘up to’ termination. These bureaucrats don’t want to face justice from other bureaucrats, so they follow the letter of the policy.
    I can’t help but wonder how many doctor visits policies like this require- it seems this would lead to higher health costs for all of us and a burden on families because of lost time at work, drive time, etc.
    It’d be nice if the policy manual just said ‘use your best judgment at all times’ and doing so led to a reward.

  9. #9 |  Dante | 

    “It’d be nice if the policy manual just said ‘use your best judgment at all times’ and doing so led to a reward.”

    Good thought, but the problem is that one man’s best judgement is another man’s “Hey, let’s try blood-letting to cure his cold”.

    Abject stupidity combined with over-confidence in one’s own ideas/abilities seem to be fairly common in our world today. For an example, just go to Washington, D.C.

  10. #10 |  La Rana | 

    If you spent half as much time reading and thinking about the occassional stupid economic link as you apparently do defending their obviously misleading claims from ad hominem we’d all be better off.

    Personally I find that a better indicator of income inequality is shoelaces per capita.

  11. #11 |  Robert | 

    RE: HLotD 2nd runner up. Looks to me like he intentionally dresses like the guy intending to cause confusion ( and possibly get a little frisky with some female fans ).

  12. #12 |  KRF | 

    Wow, just wow!

  13. #13 |  Bob | 

    Congress: More corrupt than you can imagine. But it’s all legal of course. Because it’s Congress.

    Why would this surprise anyone? This is the group that spends like drunken sailors at a whore house knowing that the Fed has no choice but to print enough money to pay for it.

    Well! I think we found the problem!

  14. #14 |  marie | 

    re: sunscreen

    Enough stupidity to go around, evidently. The school has a stupid policy, true but if your child is so fair-skinned that a sunburn is horrifying, maybe you should have that child wear sleeves. And only an idiot thinks that clouds are an adequate protection from sunburn…especially for an all-day outdoor event when the weather can change, and especially for fair-skinned people who burn easily.

  15. #15 |  David | 

    #3: Worthing is his nom de blog.

  16. #16 |  (B)oscoH, Yogurt Eater | 

    Concert promoter Kate McMahon of the Messina Group says they are reaching out to Blankenship to remedy the situation.

    Hopefully they are reaching out with yogurt, so that he might become completely indistinguishable from the singer.

  17. #17 |  Stephen | 


    Ah… OK… thanks.

  18. #18 |  Sam | 

    Radley, it’s also an AEI website. Do you think they’d have published something if the opposite conclusion had been reached?

  19. #19 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 


    The mother took what should have been appropreate precautions; her child had sunscreen. It did not occur to her that the school authorities would be stupid/sadistic enough to prevent her daughter from putting it on.

    Zero Tolerance rule like this strike me as always being about ducking responsibility. The schools want to be ‘in loco parentis’ (sp?), but don’t actually want the responsibility, they just want the authority.

    The parents of that girl should swear out a criminal complaint of child endangerment against the school employees who were on that field trip.

  20. #20 |  EBL | Who is doing the SWAT-ting? Awfully suspicious this came the same day as Walker’s victory over Kimberlin’s peace order in court. It may not be Kimberlin, although he did plant bombs when being investigated for the Speedway bombings in the hope that would throw the scent off him. So who know? I hope they find out who is doing it.

  21. #21 |  marie | 

    CSP…you’re right. I jumped to conclusions.

    Zero tolerance rules in school, mandatory minimum sentences in court. Cut from the same cloth.

  22. #22 |  omar | 

    re: Second Headline of the day – Tossed Salads….

    This link gets a bonus for the name of the page. The CummingPatch.

    When we moved to Georgia, my wife refused to spell the city the way it’s spelled on the map. It’s a real place.

  23. #23 |  hilzoy fangirl | 

    That inequality “contrarianism” is just about the most inane non sequitur I’ve read in a while. “Consumption inequality” does not “represent[] a broader look at the economic resources a person can summon” precisely because it discounts how much you’ve invested (or are in debt), which is the very definition of “the economic resources a person can summon.” If Bill Gates makes an extra billion dollars this year, of course he isn’t going to spend a proportionate share of that income on more luxury cars and beach houses; most of it’s going to be reinvested (or donated). If a family on the poverty line makes a thousand dollars less this year, of course they’ll do everything they can to avoid spending a thousand dollars less on food, housing, essential transportation, etc.; they’ll borrow (and/or not save) as much as they can to make up for the loss.* Trends (or lack thereof) in spending tell us almost nothing about inequality in economic opportunity or power.

    *Pethokoukis explains that “individuals are generally able to smooth consumption by borrowing in the low-income years . . . and saving in the high-income years.” If a significant percentage of the populace started out dirt poor and retired as multimillionaires he’d have a point, but in the real world that’s still a complete non sequitur. To then suggest that income inequality is irrelevant because it doesn’t account for food stamps is just cruel idiocy.

  24. #24 |  Burgers Allday | 

    That AEI study is pretty ridiculous for reasons that should be obvious.

  25. #25 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @24 – Sadly, it’ll instead be used as a basis for policy, as a similar study is being used by the Tories in the UK as a basis for slashing away here.

    (The Tories make Republicans look nice on the issue of the poor, and you don’t have our housing crisis)

  26. #26 |  johnl | 

    The amazing thing is that Patterico still thinks that there is no problem that the police will use anonymous tips as a reason to respond with guns drawn in homes.

  27. #27 |  Burgers Allday | 

    The amazing thing is that Patterico still thinks that there is no problem that the police will use anonymous tips as a reason to respond with guns drawn in homes.

    He hasn’t admitted to a road to Damascus moment, but there are subtle changes in his tone. This does not (even partially) excuse the SWATting calls, but it is still a bit of a silver lining.

    For example, I think in this entry he actually used the word “unpleasant” to describe the experience of being suspected of a crime one did not commit. In Paterico-land, that is progress.

  28. #28 |  EH | 

    Who is this Patterico fella, some kind of Scalia-lite?

  29. #29 |  SJE | 

    Re: congressional corruption.

    I wonder if we could file suit saying that is an unconstitutional taking? The argument goes like this:
    Person A trades on the stock exchange, and lost money to Congressional members who trade on inside knowledge. Denying a fair trade constitutes a taking which, because Congress will not regulate and has not shown a need for the taking, means that Person A is due for fair value.

    It is a huge stretch, but it would get some attention to the issue.

  30. #30 |  Burgers Allday | 

    Suspect uses face to break officer’s hand:

    charged with assault on officer.

  31. #31 |  B Mac | 

    The consumption data on which the AEI study is based is, according to Paul Krugman, widely considered to be flawed.

  32. #32 |  B Mac | 

    Just to clarify the previous post. Even though the AEI study is new, it’s the same old data (CEX) that Krugman was exposing in his post four years ago.

  33. #33 |  Peter Ramins | 

    You’ll pardon me if I view with some suspicion a reassurance piece about inequality from a mostly conservative pro-corporate ‘think tank’.

    Newt is a fellow? Lynne Cheney is a fellow? I’m sure there is no bias to be found there! Now fall in line, underclass!

  34. #34 |  SamK | 

    The interesting thing about inequality is that even apparently-socialist-fascist me thinks some degree of income equality is a good thing.

    I don’t have all the links I used (seem to recall it was a government site or two) but about a month ago I looked the number of income earners in the US and a breakdown of the total income of different percentiles. I was doing this to respond to a friend’s facebook post bitching about how we need more union wages.

    The end result was a calculation that showed that there wasn’t enough money in the United states by a long shot to bring up the bottom wage earners to even $30k/year. Not if you took every penny the top 50% made.

    I like the idea of forcing businesses to treat people well. I hate unions but think we need them. I think income inequality is too high and damages the nation by maintaining an oligarchy. That doesn’t mean that we’ll *ever* have everyone making a middle class living. The resources don’t exist.

    This is why I take issue with the conservative arguments concerning inequality…it’s all about how we shouldn’t bitch, it’s not that bad, or we deserve it. The reality is that none of that matters because real life produces inequality whether we like it or not and the question should simply be whether or not it harms us. If it does, we should do something to minimize it.

    The graph shows flat consumption. Even if it’s true that this means that nothing has grown worse it just means that things are as good or bad as they’ve always been. If history was filled with economic utopias I’d be more inclined to think there was a point to it. Since history’s not and even the roaring 20s and the post WWII years were filled with only ‘better’ times for only ‘some’ people I simply don’t see the point of the graph. The race riots of yester-year didn’t come about because all those blacks were living so well in Watts; it’s not exactly a time I want to emulate.

  35. #35 |  Cyto | 

    SamK – Let’s take a moment to examine this inequality and oligarchy idea and how business should be forced to treat people well.

    Suppose for a moment that I invent a cool new shoelace replacement. Everyone loves it so much that they just have to have one. Don’t ask why, it’s a hypothetical. People just feel their lives are made a little better by having them. I make a single dollar in profit on each one sold. And everyone in the western world and half of China just has to have one for each pair of shoes they buy. Suddenly I’m making a billion dollars a year. For me, personally. I licence the idea to all comers, so I have zero employees. Just me.

    Exactly who is it that I should be treating well? Who is being treated unfairly? Everyone likes my little thing-a-ma-bob and thinks it is well worth the price they paid. And I’m making more money than the Pope. In just a few years I’ll have enough money to buy my own stealth bomber – and an airfield to fly it from. Soo…. you want to force me to do what? Quit selling my little gems that folks love so much? Give all my money to the government? What possible claim could you (and your government) have on my money? Just ’cause you don’t want me to be “too rich?”

    I’d say that sounds silly – except it doesn’t sound silly at all. It is a pretty scary concept.

  36. #36 |  Matt | 


    Of course everyone will eventually have a middle class lifestyle. The difference will be that the goalposts will have moved. The poor in America by and large have running water, television sets, computers, and cars. A little over a century ago this would be considered staggeringly rich. Technology and capitalism have made things very cheap where they were once expensive, and that will continue.

    If you did want to get rid of income inequality, though, I would recommend getting rid of the government. The free market is an excellent profit minimization tool, as opposed to government regulated industries, which generally are crowded with a few extremely large corporations. On the moral side of things, the government manages to kill a staggering amount of people with the money we give it now. I don’t think we need to test the bounds of the slaughter by giving it any more.

  37. #37 |  albatross | 


    I can see three reasons to be unhappy about apparently rising income and wealth inequality:

    a. You may believe it is inherently a bad thing on its own. (You may still be willing to put up with some to get benefits like the shoelace replacement, but you still think all else equal, the world is better with less inequality.)

    b. You may think it has bad effects–that is, there may be nothing wrong with inequality of income or wealth in isolation, but maybe this leads to inequal application of the laws or loss of social cohesion or some such thing. Again, you may be willing to accept some for other benefits.

    c. You may see it as a effect of other changes in the society (law, custom, economy, whatever) that involve tilting the playing field heavily toward those with money, or moving more of the economy away from a normal job kind of model and toward a winner-takes-all kind of model.

    To the extent I worry about inequality, it’s essentially a little (b) and a lot of (c). I don’t begrudge the Edisons and Jobses their fortunes, but I suspect the apparent increases in inequality are the result of bad changes in our society, in terms of an increasing tendency toward crony capitalism, the need for expensive credentials and unpaid internships to get into many jobs, the increasing ability of powerful people to insulate themselves from consequences of bad decisions, etc.

  38. #38 |  Personanongrata | 

    •Just following policy.

    Can’t have people thinking for themselves now can we.

  39. #39 |  Andrew S. | 

    LZ Granderson @ CNN, with the most ridiculous and offensive take on Fast & Furious that I’ve seen from any source.

  40. #40 |  SamK | 



    I’d also argue that the problem with being (in any relative sense) poor isn’t, for the most part, any absolute availability of resources but insecurity. When you lack resources you lack power, and when you lack power you lack the capacity for stability. This prevents you from being invested in your community and leaves you with an undercurrent of fear that infiltrates everything you do. Yes, you probably will have food. Yes, you will probably have a place to live. No, you won’t necessarily pay your rent on time. You might be evicted at any moment, your home taken away, your children’s lives disrupted. You can lose your job at any moment because if you’re not a high wage earner you don’t have a skillset that can’t be replaced. You can’t be certain that when you borrow money (which our society is based on) to buy a home or car or w/e that your income will be there to pay for it.

    This is what I mean by “being nice to people”. Without a reason beyond whimsy or maximization of profits I want to see everyone invested with the capacity for stability by our system. Even when your income is high it’s damned frightening to see it go up and down or disappear even if you’re pretty sure it’s coming back even higher. This is why one of the primary focuses of union contracts, right after compensation, is when and how someone is fired and for what reasons they can be fired. The cement plant in the town I live in is famous for the owner deciding he has too many employees, lining them up, and pointing at ever third man and telling him that he’s out. Not because he’s done a poor job or has misbehaved, but simply because of the ups and downs of the market. He hires some of them back on when the market bounces back as well.

    There is a relatively normal turnover rate for any business and there are damned few, if any, where you can’t simply wait for attrition to lower your number of employees if you want to reduce your workforce.

  41. #41 |  Personanongrata | 

    Bronx cheer for Miami Heat minority owner Raanan Katz:


  42. #42 |  greenback | 

    Good grief, I can’t believe anybody still takes Kevin “Dow 36,000” Hassett seriously. He’s the Steven Hayne of economists.

  43. #43 |  supercat | 

    #35 | albatross | “To the extent I worry about inequality, it’s essentially a little (b) and a lot of (c).”

    Indeed, I find (c) troublesome. Unfortunately, efforts to make things more “fair” invariably end up reducing the good consequences of inequality while amplifying the bad aspects like (c).

  44. #44 |  supercat | 

    #32 | SamK | “The interesting thing about inequality is that even apparently-socialist-fascist me thinks some degree of income equality is a good thing.”

    Some people, given an extra $100, would use it to generate more than $100 of value (e.g. by finding a good company to invest it in). Some people would use it in such a way as to generate less than $100 of value. Naturally, people who would use it to generate the most value would be prone to end up with the most money and the most income. If they are allowed to keep the money they earn, it will in turn be used to generate far more additional wealth than if it is taken from them and given to people who would not generate further wealth with it.

    The idea that income and wealth equality should be considered a good thing may be seductive, but it is fundamentally wrong-headed. Some people are much more effective than others at using capital to produce new wealth, while others are not. Prosperity occurs when there is wealth in the hands of those who use it productively; poverty occurs when there is not.

  45. #45 |  Sam | 

    Yeah, but Greenback, Kevin Hassett is saying something that (some) libertarians desperately want to believe, which is that the rich can keep getting richer while everybody else doesn’t and everything will be fine. Better than fine actually; paradise.

  46. #46 |  Ron | 

    RE: solitary confinement

    I’m actually torn on this. Will my libertarian membership card be revoked if I’m okay with solitary confinement? It should go without saying that I’m talking about people who are beyond-the-shadow-of-doubt guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

    I mean, if we are not going to put them to death, what do we do? Allow them whatever semblance of life there is in the general prison population when the people that they mutilated, raped, murdered, or god knows what happened to them don’t get anything of the sort?

    Call me a fascist if you want, but locking the truly repulsive monsters in our society away in a room so that they’re never heard from again until we can smell the rot of their decaying corpse seems justifiable to me.

    Feel free to show me the error of my ways — like I said, I’m torn on this.

  47. #47 |  Matt | 


    What if we thought the person was a truly repulsive monster, but it turned out he didn’t actually do the things the state said he did? And we had locked him in solitary for 40 years straight? What would you think then?

  48. #48 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Call me a fascist if you want, but locking the truly repulsive monsters in our society away in a room …

    Interesting point, but, in truth, many are sent to solitary (ie, the hole) for merely pencil-fighting, farting, belching or dancing with the janitor…

  49. #49 |  Other Sean | 

    Albatross & Supercat,

    Apart from the fact that you’re both using the word inequality, there really is no common link between your subtle argument and the total non-argument being put forward by Sam, Brandon, Dave Krueger, Boomshanka, La Rana, et al.

    The inequalities produced by rent-seeking are not in the first instance inequalities of wealth, but of power. A licensed physician who makes five times more money than an equally talented nurse is unequal to her only because he can summon the state to stop her from competing with him (and thus in effect force her to become his employee). The fact that he ends up with more money is incidental. What matters is that he uses political power against her.

    The dead giveaway with the “rising inequality is a problem because it is” crowd …is that they take no care to distinguish between wealth earned by the market and wealth acquired by rent. Most are not even aware that a difference exists.

  50. #50 |  Radley Balko | 

    Do you think they’d have published something if the opposite conclusion had been reached?

    Probably not. Do you think Paul Krugman or EPI or the Urban Institute would publish or promote a study that found decreasing inequality?

    I linked to the post to show that there is a counter narrative out there. If you have problems with the data, let’s hear them. But merely dismissing all the studies outright because they’re aggregated on an AEI blog is no more intellectually honest than doing the same to any study mentioned in a Krugman column.

  51. #51 |  Radley Balko | 

    If you spent half as much time reading and thinking about the occassional stupid economic link as you apparently do defending their obviously misleading claims from ad hominem we’d all be better off.

    So. Another ad hominem argument, then. Your use of the word “obviously” doesn’t make it so.

  52. #52 |  Bob | 

    #46 Ron

    It should go without saying that I’m talking about people who are beyond-the-shadow-of-doubt guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

    Well. There’s the problem. How do you define “beyond-the-shadow-of-doubt guilty”? Do you insist on video evidence from 5 different angles? No? What then, a confession? Eye witness testimony? Those have been shown to be… iffy at times.

    Your standard of justice just cannot be applied.

  53. #53 |  Other Sean | 

    For non-members of the rising inequality choir, it’s an interesting question to ask why this particular talking point is so cherished by progressives.

    Looking at the emotional responses early in the thread, and especially the rude shit-talk aimed directly at our host, you can see that shouting down the AEI piece was Priority One for a lot of people. Hell, even the Koch brothers got a free pass over the course of 50 responses, and when has that ever happened?

    What is it about the narrative of wealth inequality that makes progressives think: “This…this is the weapon that can win us the war”?

  54. #54 |  Phil in Parker | 

    Re: Sunscreen
    Last I remember, we were supposed to trowel SPF2000 on the kids to the point where they get vitamin-D deficient in July. This year sunscreen is BAD.

    I didn’t get the memo. When did it change?

  55. #55 |  Other Sean | 


    The rules change whenever you learn the rules. The rules change BECAUSE you learned them.

    What is this, your first time playing Overlord vs. Peasant?

  56. #56 |  StrangeOne | 

    @ Ron

    The problem is that “beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty” is not defined by you or me. It’s defined by prosecutors, jurors, and judges. Supposedly that same standard was already applied to the death penalty. But as the Innocence Project continues to free people from death row based on nothing more than DNA evidence, its becoming increasingly clear that that standard of evidence is a farce.

    I believe that if someone has shown themselves to be so dangerous that they warrant a lifetime of segregation from society, it does us no harm to be a bit kinder to them than life has. If a man spends the rest of his life in a concrete bunker or in a cabin in the woods surrounded by barbed wire, whats it to you? Returning cruelty seems to just satisfy an emotional vindictiveness at a great human and monetary cost. Solitary confinement, institutionalized rape, denial of medical services; our penal system has accumulated a laundry list of human rights abuses. That says nothing about the incarcerated and everything about the society that imprisoned them.

  57. #57 |  Burgers Allday |

    “It’s me, Burgers.” (TM)

  58. #58 |  Burgers Allday | 

    further to previous link:

    Good lord!

  59. #59 |  Ron | 

    #52,Bob & #56 StrangeOne,

    We could carry out both of these points to their logical conclusions and say that short of a confession, since we never really know if a person is guilty no one should ever be jailed or imprisoned.

    Do we know *absolutely for certain* that Jerry Sandusky was truly guilty of the crimes he committed?

  60. #60 |  BackinIndy | 

    Bob: “Why would this surprise anyone? This is the group that spends like drunken sailors at a whore house knowing that the Fed has no choice but to print enough money to pay for it.”

    I kinda resent this remark. Having been a drunken sailor, I never spent money that I didn’t have. When I ran out of money, I went back to the ship.

  61. #61 |  sglover | 

    “But merely dismissing all the studies outright because they’re aggregated on an AEI blog is no more intellectually honest than doing the same to any study mentioned in a Krugman column.”

    It is really, really difficult to understand how it is “intellectually dishonest” to point out that an institution that’s made itself a sinecure haven for serial liars might not be all that trustworthy. Nobody forced AEI to gut their own reputation. They’ve spent many years earning the disdain that so many commenters here righteously dispensed.

    Oh, but they’ve produced a “counter narrative”. How precious. But for AEI we’d all be locked in groupthink, because it’s so very very hard to get information and opinion in the year 2012.

  62. #62 |  albatross | 


    Let’s assume we have a set of really awful criminals about whose guilt there is truly no doubt. These guys are too dangerous to ever be let out into the world again. We broadly have two choices:

    a. Execute them
    b. Confine them somewhere away from decent people for life

    We also have a choice about how to do those things, ranging from maximum kindness (prison is a five star hotel you are not allowed to leave) to hell on earth (prison is a torture chamber intended to make you deperately wish you could die, but not let you).

    Now, this gets down to values, and probably can’t be argued logically. For my part, I find the idea of making prisons into torture chambers horrific. I don’t like unnecessary suffering.

    Once a prisoner is locked in prison for the rest of his days, any further suffering we impose on him can serve almost no purpose. It might add a bit to the deterrent effect of punishment, but I am skeptical it will add a whole lot to life without parole, and it might instead create a deterrent to being taken alive by the police. It’s pointless cruelty for its own sake. Similarly, once we have decided to execute someone, doing it in a painful way just adds needless suffering.

  63. #63 |  StrangeOne | 

    @ Ron

    I can’t speak for Bob. But I said nothing about imprisoning fewer people because of uncertainties about proof. I simply made the argument that those uncertainties should result in a more human system for holding prisoners than we currently have.

  64. #64 |  Ron | 


    All fair points. And you’ve boiled the issue down effectively: should prisons be used to torture those who have committed the most unspeakable crimes? Phrasing it that way, I would say no.

    On the other hand, I would still ask this question – is it right or wrong for the person incarcerated to be able to be able to experience whatever life there is in the general population … To eat, to breathe, to walk in the sunshine … you know, to live — When the person they have taken life from cannot?

    Then again, it may not be right or wrong, it just ‘is’. And this is the best a civilized society can do.

  65. #65 |  La Rana | 

    I don’t think ad hominem means what you think it does, Radley.

    “hey look at this. It’s facially retarded because it claims to measure one thing with something completely different, but I won’t disregard it unless you meaningfully disprove it” is a true mark of sophistication.

    I’ll say it again. Please, please just use the same critical skills you use everywhere else.

  66. #66 |  Other Sean | 

    La Rana,

    Let me help by showing you what an ad hominem looks like.

    The worst of many annoying cliches used by commenters here is the one that goes: “tsk, tsk…I expected better from you Radley. How dare the guy who provides me with a constant stream of free content on Topic X have the sheer nerve to incidentally challenge my views on Topic Y.”

    You, La Rana, are one of the most prolific users of that cliche. You do it all the time. As a result, I don’t like you. And because I don’t like you, I have gone out of my way this evening to make you look like a dick.

    That’s an ad hominem.

  67. #67 |  La Rana | 

    oh dear. sweetheart. ad hominem is a personal attack AS argument. mine was just a personal attack. As is yours. If you and Radley find a few more, perhaps we can have a class on logical fallacies.

    And cliche doesn’t mean “stuff people do repeatedly.”

    Thanks for playing.