-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
According to a Wall Street Journal article, Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, found that since June 2009 37% of all net new jobs in America were created in Texas. Even though Texas is an energy state benefitting from high oil and natural gas prices, Fisher touts Texas’ business friendly environment, its right-to-work laws, and its “tort reform”– a $250,000 cap on punitive damages.
The WSJ article even calls Texas “fiscally responsible.” That’s the same Texas with a $27 billion budget shortfall. The WSJ article also uncritically cites Texas’ statutory limits on mortgage borrowing, a regulation of the financial industry they would decry if Obama proposed it.
While the 37% figure is accurate, the details are what’s interesting. Texas has the highest percentage of minimum wage worker in the country. As the chart below shows, the level of minimum wage jobs has increased during Perry’s reign.
The median hourly earnings for all hourly-paid wage and salary workers in Texas stood at $11.20 per hour in 2010; nationally, the median was $12.50.
Texas also ranks number one in the percentage of residents without health insurance. Texas’ percentage is almost 28%. Massachusetts, with Romneycare, has the lowest at 4.7%.
According to The Economist, the state-level Gross Domestic Product of Texas grew by 2.6% last year, equal to the national average. New York grew by 5.1% and California by 1.8%.
Here is a listing of the Perry economic portfolio touted as a model for the whole country:
- Highest percentage of minimum wage jobs.
- Highest percentage of residents with no health insurance.
- A budget deficit of $27 billion.
- Lower than average wages.
- Average growth in GDP.
So, if you want a low paying job with no health insurance, Texas is your choice.
C’mon people. KNOCK IT OFF!!!
Don’t make me call your parents.
Gyges,
I can roll with the best of them…I can throw verbal jabs and punches with them as well…I did finally give up when it came to kde…When it ceases being fun…I picked up my toys and went home…Used to I’d come back to clean up the beer bottles…this time…I left the bottles and saw another situation arise that got out of hand…
This site has too much to offer to allow a disruption to take it down…I appreciate all that people have said….There was a time when Buddha would drone on and on with Bryon or who ever…I usually skimmed over them….This time, I as well as others got sucked into the vortex…as Mike S said by a skilled person…If, he really is a patent attorney…I bet he is the best one that ever did the type of work…it is nit picking eye straining repetition….I would also go nuts if I did that type of work…wink…
“It was my opinion, and continues to be my opinion, that this was a poorly orchestrated attack against the guest blogger system itself…”
Blouise,
The complaints about guest bloggers were few and far between until JT gave Buddha Administrator access. Most, if not all, of the previous complaints were left by drive-bys.
I think the majority of articles from the guest bloggers have been very good (except for some of the recent overtly partisan ones).
Mike Spindell didn’t like the comparison of leaving one’s children in the care of Casey Anthony, just because she changed her name. I think the comparison is on target.
Is there a remedy readily available?:
I suggest leaving Nal and Elaine with Administrator access. The other guest bloggers should be given Editor access only. To accomplish this JT need only create accounts for each guest blogger. The individual account can then be set to the deisred access capabilities.
JT moderated this blog for years without assistance. Giving moderation capabilities to those two additional people should be sufficient.
Okay, I am going to hold my comments until Professor Turley sorts all this out, being the excellent counselor that he is. I do not want to be a continual catalyst to any hard felt animosity. I will state that I like all of the regulars here regardless of any comments contrary to mine, but I abhor what Gene Howington has done to this blawg in the recent past. Good luck Professor Turley.
Also, I just want to add skimming a few more conversations I want to join in FFLEO’s critique that some of our regulars were overly aggressive.
That said, I still agree with Gene’s decision. KDErosa was being hugely disruptive, and no amount of bad behavior on our part excuses his behavior, which sank well below the usual level of discourse. We unfortunately allowed the sinking ship to pull us all down.
My first encounter with kderosa was a drive-by in that I supported a point OS had made and kderosa sought to diminish that support by dismissing me as kissing-up (paraphrased) which was hilarious. After that I had his number and occasionally tested the waters to see if he remained constant. He did.
It was my opinion, and continues to be my opinion, that this was a poorly orchestrated attack against the guest blogger system itself and Gene H. in particular. Why? Quite frankly the wealth of ideas presented creates an ungodly amount of work for those bent on maiming this blog.
I, for one, was not at all certain if I would like the guest blogger system in the beginning. But, after two posts, I was hooked. The wealth of ideas presented, the wide ranging topics and discussions … sweet!
I personally like it when a guest blogger comments on his/her own articles and I wish they would jump in more often. I also greatly appreciate the time and energy they put into their research and presentation. My greatest fear is that one or more of them will chuck it all in and walk off the stage shaking their heads in disgust.
Also, I don’t expect or want any of them to give up their personalities becoming “malleable, witless” because they have assumed a guest blogger role. That’s another reason I’d like to see them jump in more often where their own articles are concerned.
Also, I believe in the value of constructive criticism and Gene will certainly be able to sort the wheat from the chaff in this situation. Usually I dismiss destructive criticism but in this instance, FFLEO, I take exception to your characterization of him “With friends like Gene, who needs enemies…” as over the top and a perfect example of the very thing you claim to be against.
Roco,
When you compared Rabbi Hillel to Rand, I must admit I gave up on you.
Besides Hillel, the same formulation was also made by Confucius, The Buddha and Jesus. So I would guess you would compare Rand to them also? All you prove by that is that you don’t understand the meaning of the words and merely interpret it coming from the canons of your deeply religious, fundamentalist if I may, belief in Rand.
Confucius first stated them around 600 BCE as a response to the ongoing wars he saw around him and in the hope of the establishment of a governing force to restrain the individuals battling for power. The Buddha saw the world as a place of suffering and wanted to show a path beyond suffering, where people could amicably live together. Jesus to saw a world of suffering and wanted to lead his people from pain. Hillel wanted his people to be free of the harsh nature of Roman rule in which only profit and power were king.
You are a religious zealot for the religion of an atheist. One who when need arose sold out her principles by utilizing social security and medicare. At least L. Ron Hubbard was an excellent writer in setting up his crackpot religion. Rand succeeded in finding adherents to her religion with a dearth of writing skill and a truly sociopathic bent. If the shoe fits, wear it because i’ll say this for you, you are a true, orthodox believer.
You can call me what you want, because you’ve exposed how truly a fanatic you are.
Gyges,
I guess you stated what I was going to state…Therefore, I leave the (my) defense in your capable hands…..
FFLEO,
What difference does it make if Buddha and Gene are the same critters…If they are the same and I am not saying that they are…they have different posting styles….While I may not agree with everything everyone says….Gene H is different in arguments…..
Professor Turley,
Can you state unequivocally that Gene Howington *is not* Buddha Is Laughing?
_____________
No Way stated some important issues (however, I seriously doubt the Kevin conspiracy).
For what it’s worth by my count KDE escalated the hostility two of the four times: The second thread with me; the fourth thread he and Buddha were involved in an exchange that was more or less civil until KDE’s response to Roco.
I know it’s a small sample pool, but I was just killing time while feeding my daughter.
Disruptions? Is that what they call it when someone points out a problem? As long as the problems continues to exist, those who have a problem with it should voice their opposition.
None of you who email Buddha/Gene have a dog in this fight. All of you have already voluntarily given up any expectation, that identifying information, gathered by this blog, would not be shared with Buddha/Gene. Who would be on that list? Slartibartfast, Blouise, Gyges, Mespo, Otteray Scribe and Mike Spindell to name a few. Maybe we should consider their biased defense of Buddha/Gene to be the true disruption? (Slartibartfast is the only one of you who posted a comment at the outing Buddha wordpress blog. That is pretty good evidence that the rest of you care about who is given access to your information. Yet, when it’s the other way around you don’t have a problem with it? Hypocrites!)
Gene H. keeps denying that he used to post as Buddha. Every one of you knows that is a lie. That says a lot about all of you. For all of you, it is evident that the end justifies the means.
Was JT complicit in the efforts to reinvent Buddha? Did JT tell Gene to keep quiet about being Buddha? If he did, that’s a pretty clear indication that JT knew it would be a problem, but gave him access.
JT, Did you know that Gene Howington has been posting as Buddha is Laughing? Did you ask him to keep that information confidential?
Does kderosa have proof that Gene Howington and Buddha is Laughing are the same person? If he doesn’t I’ll be happy to provide him with that proof. I have it. I have seen it with my own eyes.
Every guest blogger, other than Gene Howington, has identified themselves as being associated with their chosen pseudonym (if they used one) . Gene did not do that. He thought he could just reinvent himself and no one would notice. Gene even went so far as to post a comment as Buddha is Laughing to compliment Gene H. Buddha/Gene is the provocateur General. When it comes to civility rules at this blog, Buddha => Gene is and always has been the worst offender.
The question JT needs to ask himself is; “Would any of those who comment here has a problem with me giving Buddha is Laughing access to their stored, yet unpublished, information?” When it comes to some of the guest bloggers, the answer must be, “yes”. When it comes to Buddha, the answer is “Hell YES!”
When Buddha/Gene banned kderosa, he insinuated that kderosa posted as Buddha. Did he have any proof of that? Absolutely not. **At the time, none of us knew it because kderosa had been prevented from posting any comments in his own defense. kderosa denies posting the Buddha is Laughing comment. The burden is on Buddha to prove that it was posted by kderosa; not the other way around. Buddha did not even attempt to prove that the Buddha comment came from kderosa. All he stated was that the comment did not come from an ip address used by Buddha.
The Buddha is Laughing comment did not come from kderosa’s ip address! (evidenced by the fact that Gene H did not make that claim) Gene had absolutely nothing to tie kderosa to the Buddha is Laughing comment. Yet, he banned kderosa for posting the comment as Buddha, and made sure that he let everyone believe that kderosa posted the comment. Gene wanted to silence kderosa. He just needed an excuse to do it. It is even possible that Buddha/Gene posted the comment himself, or asked a friend to do it. (A search of that ip address by one of the Administrators might reveal who posted the comment. It will also demonstrate that kderosa did not post the comment.)
This is what I think: Gene needed the unpublished information of those leaving comments at this blog so that he and his buddy Kevin could play some games. He played JT like a fiddle. After gaining Administrator access to this blog, he simply exported the blogs database (very easy to do). Now he and Kevin had all the information they needed, going back to the beginning of this blog. It also gave Buddha/Gene access to every comment ever made by anyone. He now had the ability to edit the comment, and no one could ever prove that he didn’t.
Past comments on this blog can no longer be considered reliable records. Any guest blogger has the ability to modify them. Comment modifications do not change the time of the posting. Any changes would not be detectable, even by the blog administrator.
Mike Spindell,
Understood. What I seek is for each of us using this blawg to know the boundaries in an effort to prevent the reoccurrences of similar problems–real or supposed—that occurred during Professor Turley’s vacation. I have stated before that I am thoroughly pleased there are guest bloggers to give Turley a break from blogging and for the opportunity to read others’ topics. I also understand the time it takes to research, cite, write, and annotate the almost invariably fine essays posited by each guest blogger.
Of course, your aforementioned respect for me is unabashedly mutual.
Just for fun, here are some posts, and as an extra bonus the posts they were responding too in the first 5 threads that come up when I did a google search for KDErosa Site:Jonathanturley.org:
Bold comments are my interpretation
First thread, nothing insulting
Second Thread:
In response to ““An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it”
Did Mespo say your statement was smelly because you’re smelly? No. he said that your statement was wrong, and then implied that you’re often wrong about historical matters.
It’s the difference between “my dog barks because your car is blue,” and “my dog barks, and your care is blue.””
KDE Said “@Gyges, you’re being stupid again and missed Mespo’s attempt at sarcasm”
From my point of view an escalation
Third Thread:
In Response to: “foilman,
They call it TRESPASS for a reason…..You like have to be some place the requisite number of years to take possession by squatting….But then again….Your Brand of Republicans think everything is just for the taking…kind of like a 3 year old in a candy store….no concept of what the cost is and they know they want it….so when no body is looking they take it….knowing somebody else has paid for it…Think Wall Street…..yeah…that is a great example….”
KDE said:
“tinfoil elf boy, so where do our homeless set-up their little chanties?”
giving what he got
and In response to: “Blouise,
I think I understand….I think this is one that has been around a while….It has been kinda fun watching his head get cooked….brain dead to say the least…reminds me of putting foil in the microwave….it sorta sparks and then just burns out…You can open the door, the light comes on….but it just does not work anymore…Then they reinvent themselves…new name, persona and gravatar….You know what I mean….I think Idiot savant comes to mind…
”
“@Ay, are you still talking? It’s like that chicken that managed to live for years after his head was cut off. Brain-dead but in a different way you are.”
Fourth Thread:
In a side conversation with Roco “Name call, discredit your opponents through subtle and not so subtle ad hominems, nitpick, throw your crentials around, change the argument, and fall in with the herd. Then, accuse you opponents of doing these things.
It’s funny that they think that people don’t see past this little ruse of theirs. ”
not very civil is it?
And number five:
As part of an exchange with Buddha (which I think we can all assume to be caustic on both ends)
“In this magnificent example of Stage 4 Palin Derangement Syndrome (terminal) we see that the hapless victim, Buddha, has lost almost all ability to reason and most bowel functions. The victim is drawn ineluctibly to any comment thread mentioning Palin, Alaska, or Tea whereupon it will incessantly parrot simple, yet nonsensical, phrases in Tourettes-like fashion until exhaustion. A pitiful sight to behold.”
If you go into a bar five times and you;re involved in a fist fight four times, at some point the fact that someone else started the first fight stops being a good excuse.
Mike Spindell:
Do you believe in a social welfare net paid for by other people?
You have said worse things about me than calling me a Fascist or a collectivist.
If you called me a running dog capitalist lackey, I would agree and take no umbrage. Personally I love capitalism and think it is the finest system that man has invented. And it is the most moral system. I embrace it and have no shame whatsoever in being considered a capitalist.
Maybe you really now deep down that Marxism and its many variants dont work? I wouldnt want to be called a socialist/fascist/collectivist either, it is a pretty nasty thing to call someone since the end result of those systems is human misery.
But if the shoe fits and if you or others think collectivism is such a good thing then defend it and be proud to be called a collectivist.
We are seeing the results of socialism now, it isnt pretty is it?
FFLeo:
As you rightly know, I have never seen fit to hold my tongue while in the presence of a deliberate provacateur. This has been true well before my stint as guest blogger and goes back to the early days of the blog with any number of baiters, trolls, dolts, or just plain buffoons. I agree to be civil but not infinitely malleable, witless, or pleasant unless it is warranted. Also, I see no reason to be kind in the face of agendized bloggers hell bent on discrediting people I know to be of good will and whose raison d’être is merely to disrupt the discussion. I respect your views as always, but I check neither my very modest wit nor my penchant for the abrogation of fools at the guest blogger’s door. I see no need to do that, nor have I ever been asked to do that.
“It went far beyond mere retorts. As I have shown in another post, in all instances it was the guest bloggers (Howington in particular) and a few others who originally instigated the incivility, personal attacks, and repeatedly ignored any attempts to get back to civil discourse.”
You have shown nothing at all but the propensity to ignore anything which disrupts your line of deceptive, self-serving reasoning, as illustrated below.
“21 comments in came kderosa’s first comment: “Didn’t the nazis also justify their nonsense on utilitarian grounds? You can pretty much justify anything on utilitarian grounds. It isn’t a very good basis for protecting minority rights.”
“K’s next comment: “@ay, even if I kant, I can still tell you are an idiot.”
The Nazi comparison was hardly a mild rebuke. It was loaded and any fair judgment would deem it so. You cannot excuse yourself because you felt maligned on other threads, where you also started in the same way. That is why you drew people’s ire. Your technique from the beginning has been ridicule, attack and obfuscation. Your professions of innocence and attempted civility are mere cant and the record shows it. I’ll give you this, you are good at what you do, but so then was Joseph Goebbel’s, to carry your own NAZI analogy further.
“What bothered me the most was that some of the guest bloggers and some of the regulars keep the bantering up while Professor Turley was on vacation, disrespecting his previous calls for civility, especially in his absence.”
FFLEO,
Some of your points were well taken and I believe you will find on several threads my comments admitting that I had responded to often to trolls. We both equally value this blog, but as you know we share different perspectives on many things, which we both agree is fine. I to JT’s admonition to mean that in my roll as guest blogger I should not dominate, or respond to attacks on threads that I’ve personally begun. I also inferred that when I write a post, i should refrain from commenting as much as possible, since my role is as facilitator of discussion, rather than an advocate of my post.
I think though that you ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room, so to speak. If I am called words like collectivist, socialist, communist, fascist, I take those as insults. This is because I have actually been in real political battles with all of those types and abjure being associated with them. I have been called “A running dog of capitalism” by communists and I was called a Bush supporter/fascist at sites like “Alternet” and “Democracy Now” for my support of Israel. That is how I wound up here originally. I don’t suffer those I think of as fools gladly. The exception though is when someone “employs me” in the broadest sense, as I’ve been “employed” here. On threads I’ve initiated I’ve followed JT’s wishes, check it out and see if I’m being untruthful. However on other threads I do not take kindly to outright attacks, no matter how obliquely they may be cached.
I imagine if someone, because of your strong conservative beliefs called you a reactionary, neanderthal, etc., you too would see that as an attack, I certainly would knowing your real positions and putting myself in your shoes.
As far as Gene H. goes I think you have a mixed result. The post of his that drew the most responses drawn her in many months on “What Makes a Good Law and what Makes a Bad Law” was I thought not only brilliantly done, but was a perfect topic for discussion on this blog.
14 Comments in it was NoWay who wrote: “Are we are supposed to act like Gene H. is a recent arrival? The question is; Would JT hand over the care of his children to Casey Anthony just because she changes her name?” Was this part of the discussion or a personal attack, of a particularly vicious nature? Two comments later Tootie chimed in disparaging the post, but doing so in a way that would promote discussion and was valid from her view.
21 comments in came kderosa’s first comment: “Didn’t the nazis also justify their nonsense on utilitarian grounds? You can pretty much justify anything on utilitarian grounds. It isn’t a very good basis for protecting minority rights.”
K’s next comment: “@ay, even if I kant, I can still tell you are an idiot.” These were typical of the initial thrusts made by kderosa in thread after thread and when his insults were responded to, he topped them in kind and an escalation began.
This excellent posting was hijacked in a round of vitriol and the false issue of whether or not Gene H. is Buddha, which is a non issue, either way. At some point Gene did begin to respond too much. However, I can’t criticize him for it and i’ll explain why.
These postings are not easy to do and I’m a fast writer. however, with the responsibility comes the need to check and re-check premises, read and re-read ones’ writing and each one in general has taken me at least 3 hours. I suspect that others are much quicker than I and I guess Jonathan can knock this stuff out all day, between his ultra busy schedule. Gene’s comment obviously took a good amount of his time and energy. It is to say at the least very disappointing to a writer, when his work is criticized not on its merit as Tootie for instance did, but on something extraneous to the topic.
I think he got pulled in against his better judgment, but I can’t criticize because not only did I join him in the trenches, (so angry was I that this important topic was being sidetracked) but I can’t say how I would respond if it was being done to me and a work I was proud of, which was done with a moderate tone.
“I think Gene H. was blatantly vindictive with his moderation.”
I disagree with you strongly, but as you know it in no way diminishes my high regard and respect for you as a person of great integrity.
Naturally I agree with almost everything FFLEO has stated above with one exception.
“There is no point in posting the names of those who retorted with ad hominem attacks, you know who you are.”
It went far beyond mere retorts. As I have shown in another post, in all instances it was the guest bloggers (Howington in particular) and a few others who originally instigated the incivility, personal attacks, and repeatedly ignored any attempts to get back to civil discourse. They do this to every new commentor with whom they disagree. It is a form of intellectual bullying that they often get away with. And, in the cases that they don’t get away with it (as in the instant case) the result is mostly uncivil discourse and then whining becasue there are “disruptions”– disruptions they are responsible for instigating and prolonging. If anything, they are trolling their own forums.
This is especially disgraceful behavior for the guest posters who were supposed to be mantaining civility (In fact, I confronted one guest poster, Mark Esposito, and he specifically indicated that he agreed to no such condition and continued with his personal attacks unabated).
Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done. (Josh Billings)
MORE FYI:
“Rick Perry said a prayer on Sunday.
After you’ve picked yourselves up off the floor and recovered from your collective shock, you can read the full transcript of it here, or if you are so inclined, you can watch the video here. As is perfectly obvious to everyone who has ever met someone who’s attended a Christian church, Perry’s prayer was standard-fare mainstream evangelicalism – and painstakingly non-partisan. Perry went so far as to say:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/08/09/the-enemy-within/