Vodpod videos no longer available.
Our loyal Bloomberg economist Mr. Hassett has been busy lately (as opposed to myself, at least in the bloggerdome) and, as would be expected, making me want to stab myself in the eye with a tuning fork. As I’ve noted before, Hassett is not an imbecile; he’s not even a terrible economist (like, say, Paul Krugman). But, as previously stated, what he is, though, is a political hack. He is most comfortable analyzing the political realm and its implications for economic policy. Every once in a while he lets loose a highly quotable line like:
On the far right, there are many who think that everything the government does is always bad, unless it is being done by a government employee in a uniform. On the far left, there are many who think that everything the government does is terrific, unless it is being done by a government employee in a uniform. [Obama’s Inner Radical Unbound in Gates Cop Case, 7/26/09]
Fucking awesome. Then he chokes on whatever Republican cock he was spit-shining and says:
Our government is broken because the far left and the far right are so busy trying to finish each other off that they have little time to devote to the nation’s real business.
Which I can only assume is popping their dicks out of their government issues clown suits and ramming them up the asses of people with turbans or the politically marginalized at home (hint: it’s not Goldman, Sachs). Hassett did proffer a fairly cogent read on the health care situation and the supposed resistance of Democratic “Blue Dogs” [Blue Dogs Bark, Don’t Bite Socialized ObamaCare, 8/2/09], though not without the usual partisan trappings (“socialized Obamacare”?) that he bemoaned in the article previously mentioned.
But his most mind-boggling screed to date was charmingly entitled Cheney Was Right All Along About Budget Deficits [9/16/09]. First, if Cheney is right about anything, it was his proof that there was no God by the sheer fact he hasn’t been struck down by a swarm of locusts yet. Secondly, Hassett makes an interesting discussion on whether interest rates are affected by budget deficits. And let’s be honest, he is referring to primarily US deficits; quite naturally, other entities running deficits is usually quite deleterious to their credit standing and thus the interest rate they are charged. The US economy has been robust enough in the presence of deficits though that it hasn’t experienced detriment in regard to interest rates. The question though is whether the future will follow the past or even has the same conditions as such, which the economic about face we’ve seen recently should force economists to question some of their premises such as the bold statement of “deficits don’t matter”. And to his credit, Hassett does lend an opposing viewpoint. He begins though with:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney was ridiculed by Democrats when he said “deficits don’t matter.” If they don’t rise with our current deficit, then the current recovery can be sustained. How strange it is that precisely now, Dick Cheney is the only thing between us and the abyss.
Dick Cheney lives in the abyss. He feeds on the souls of children thrown in there by Rumsfeld.
I have always agreed with Cheney’s view, mostly because the link between interest rates and deficits is so tenuous in the literature, just as we have experienced over the past decade.
So here we have it, Hassett agrees with the bridge troll. But wait:
It is anyone’s guess what the future would hold, but such a scenario of high deficits forever seems impossible. The deficit effect may already be baked into interest rates, in which case the increase from here on may be smaller.
Under what may be a more realistic assumption about future taxes and spending, the difference between today’s deficit outlook and 2007’s is about 6.5 percent. If that is the market expectation, then interest rates will be between 130 and 390 basis points higher.
Why does he let in the specter of possible higher rates? So he can score some points off of Obama!
Needless to say, such interest rate spikes would be very troubling for the economy, were they to occur. They probably will not, even if Obama’s health-care plan becomes law, because Cheney was right all along.
If Obama wants to pursue yet more spending, he should at least level with us and explain why he believes we can afford to risk higher interest rates.
Boo-yah! Didn’t even grease it up before he slid it in! “If Obama wants to continue his dollar gushing orgy, he should at least tell us if it’s worth risking the herp.” Yeah, Obama, you spending whore! (Ignore Bush’s profligate spending whilst under the banner of supposed pro-free market rhetoric, which is far more disingenuous than reckless spending under the flag of socialism). Hassett isn’t done yet though:
But that talk will only happen in our dreams. The fact is, deficits are a problem precisely because politicians can get away with running them with near impunity. If interest rates did soar in the face of deficits, it would provide a constraint on the growth of big government.
Sadly, there will be no such constraint.
You sack of shit! What the hell was this article about? Why even bother mentioning Dick Cheney and the political skirmishes if your discussion consisted on whether deficits raised interest rates doesn’t even matter, in that even if deficits don’t raise interest rates that’s still bad? Here’s fucking why: you wanted to massage Cheney’s taint at the expense of the Dems. That was the point of this article and your brilliant conclusion was in fact your unmasking.
Well kids and kittens, my considerable vitriol isn’t even reserved for Hassett. No, my good sirs, the winner of the past few months was the always sanctimonious Scott Soshnick, also of Bloomberg. Soshnick did his best to construct a soapbox to hitherto unforeseen levels, in a sort of skyscraper race with Marioti. Here’s a true winner, kids:
July 28 (Bloomberg) — What happened to ESPN reporter Erin Andrews is disgusting.
My penis didn’t seem to think so.
On that point there can be no debate.
So why bring it up? Ah, you needed a man made of straw.
The facts are pretty well known by now: Someone secretly,
Well that’s not so…
MY GOD, NO!
videotaped a naked Andrews, twice named Playboy magazine’s Sexiest Sportscaster, in her hotel room and placed the footage on the Web.
You didn’t mention her astute sideline reporting or her possible charity work! You SEXIST!
Once there it set Google records for searches. What does that say?
A lot of penises agree with my penis.
What is up for discussion, though, is whether Andrews might have unwittingly contributed to the widespread objectification of women.
By being beautiful? The sideline reporter has always been a fluff job based on sex appeal. Even when it was held by men.
Particularly in professional and big-time college sports, billion-dollar industries that go about their business with a perpetual leer on their faces.
Consider cheerleaders whose outfits leave little to the imagination, beer ads that depict women attracted to an awkward man made virile by the brand he chugs and even an iconic publication whose best-selling issue is about skin, not sport.
Um, is anyone missing the irony of the sports themselves were the athletes are objectified for their physical prowess? What happens to athletes when they can’t play: they’re called soft or disappointments. BUT SPORTS IS TRANSCENDENT AND NOT DIRTY AND SEXUAL AND ICKY. Yes, no one wants to be Tom Brady purely for his ability to throw a football and nail supermodels—it’s his devoted Catholicism! The same for Tebow!
Andrews, 31, is attractive, yes.
I WILL ACCEPT NO DEBATE ON THIS POINT.
And television is a visual medium.
And I’m banging my head against a keyboard right now.
More eyeballs translate into higher ratings, which mean more money. It’s a simple formula ESPN, a unit of the Walt Disney Co., and other TV networks know well.
Maybe he threw in the Walt Disney thing because this is a Bloomberg article. But let’s be honest, there’s nothing he can do to Disney that South Park hasn’t already done.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Just ask Sports Illustrated, which generates a disproportionate amount of its annual revenue from the swimsuit issue, where slinky bikinis and tan lines are no longer titillating enough. Now the models sometimes literally wear nothing except for paint and a come-hither pout.
The pout is what sells it.
SI’s celebration of skin used to be a once-a-year thing. Then along came the Web and technology that lets us see what we want, when we want, where we want. This should be called the iWant generation.
You kids and your mobile porn! Back in my day, we had to pay $2.50 to jerk off in a theater to poorly dubbed skin flicks with twenty other dudes!
So, naturally, SI earlier this month proudly announced its swimsuit iPhone application, which is being marketed as the “world’s sexiest app.” Only $2.99.
Why would people pay for stuff like this? It’s probably free in the same place they posted that Erin Andrews video.
Don’t fret Blackberry users. Your swimsuit application is coming soon.
Is it any wonder that Andrews, with this as her occupational backdrop, has an unlisted telephone number?
She knows there’s a lunatic fringe out there, eager for more, hungry for an even closer, more personal relationship than the television allows.
Methinks most highly visible sports personalities do likewise. Except for Bradshaw. He wrestles the freaks shirtless on his lawn in a sprinkler; big fan of Lethal Weapon, I’m told.
The world is a scary place.
And Soshnick hasn’t even gotten to the crimes going on in Darfur yet.
I’ve attended a number of the same sporting events as Andrews,
My erection was enormous.
who has never been anything but professional, even when some dunderhead in the stands makes an offensive comment about her appearance.
Dunderhead? Did Montgomery Burns just start writing this? I’m guessing all sideline reporters take a lot of shit from drunken college fans though. It’s sort of a drunken college fan’s thing. In fact, it’s also Ryan Dempster’s (dammit, I may have proved one of Soshnick’s following points somewhat).
She knows those one-track-mind morons are out there, scouring the Internet.
Man is a sexual creature.
Which is why it’s so puzzling that Andrews willingly associated herself with a part of Sports Illustrated’s Web site called “Hot Clicks,” where, near as I can tell, there always seems to be a photo — or two or three — of a woman in something skimpy.
Models. Actresses. Girls next door. And yes, sometimes even athletes. Here’s the archive. Judge for yourself. The section exists, it would seem, to satisfy the carnal cravings of the frat-house crowd.
Or to compete with sports by brooks. There definitely seems to be a T&A angle in that SI blog but it’s not like that’s the only thing they’re doing daily.
There’s even a college Cheerleader of the Week gallery. You know, for the Q & A.
Today, Leslie of ASU discusses astrophysics, we’ll have the musical stylings of Charlie Mingus, and Lane Kiffin discusses on the best way to remove your johnson from the vacuum cleaner.
Women such as Andrews and Jenni Carlson, a sports columnist for the Oklahoman newspaper and president of the Association for Women in Sports Media, have a chance — some might say an obligation
Like Lord of the Rings. The Fellowship of the Tits.
— to alter perceptions and elevate discourse.
YOUR DISCOUSE WILL NEVER BE ON SOSHNICK’S LEVEL.
“You do have to have a certain level of vigilance about your brand,” Carlson told me, referring to questions about Andrews. “I have to think what image people have of me.”
Question: who the hell are you? My image of you is a blank sheet—probably like the Oklahoman in a couple of years.
Worse in Clubhouse
Scott’s going into full attack mode. The perpetrators:
SI’s “Hot Clicks,” for one, doesn’t aim to elevate discourse.
YOU HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THE SOSHNICK ELEVATED DISCOURSE SEAL OF APPROVAL. SUCK ON THAT, JIMMY TRAINA!
In Soshnick’s favor, “Jimmy Traina” who supposedly runs Hot Clicks, does sound like the douche of the month.
It reinforces the Neanderthal thinking that results in the Chicago White Sox last year utilizing a pair of naked female blowup dolls as a so-called slump-busting tool.
This is your fault, Traina! Personally I think Neanderthals are getting a bad rap here. Have we learned nothing from the GEICO commercials?
Each wore a sign over its breasts, one saying “Let’s Go White Sox” and the other reading “You’ve Got to Push.”
Just like Salt-n-Pepa.
White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen in response to criticism said a lot worse things happen in the clubhouse. Oh, great.
Granted Guillen was referring to the time he reenacted the entirety of Henry 5th with his nutsack.
That ought to make the female journalists feel welcome in the locker room, which, let’s remember, is a workplace.
Whoah, pump the brakes now, chief. This is something I’ve never understood: why do journalists feel the need access to the locker room? What the fuck is the point of this? How does the locker room have anything to do with sports? Isn’t the field the beginning and the end of the workplace of sports? I’m going into rhetorical question overload, you asshole! I’m sure Soshnick encourages that male reporters are given the same courtesy in WNBA locker rooms (in which no players actually shower or dress when reporters or present…which sort of defeats the use of a locker room). Point being: the locker room should not be part of the workplace. That is retarded.
“Our organization feels for Erin,” Carlson said. “We are reminded that there is still a lot of ugliness out there.”
There’s no way that whoever did this to Andrews thinks of her as a human being with feelings and friends and loved ones, as someone’s daughter or sister. The perpetrator probably didn’t think about her at all. She was an object, a thing.
The dude drilled through a wall to take a secret video. I’m not positive this person isn’t covered in jello having a conversation with Kermit the Frog right now. Suffice to say, there’s a lot going on there.
Andrews herself has said the athletes she covers don’t see her as a sex object.
“If anything,” she told the Star Tribune in Minneapolis last year, “I think these guys look at me like a little sister or one of the guys.”
No, they don’t.
SOSHNICK KNOWS THIS FOR A FACT! THIS IS NOT DEBATABLE! ALL OF YOU ATHLETES WANT TO CHASE ERIN AROUND THE LOCKER ROOM WAVING YOUR DICKS!
And neither did the videotaping sicko,
I think he just compared all athletes to a guy that drills into walls and takes illegal videos of people. I mean Stephan Marbury has probably done this, but it was also something crazy like watching the janitor’s closet.
who deserves whatever pain and heartache find him after the police. Consider that the next time you’re watching a sporting event and the camera lens zooms in on some cheerleader’s cleavage.
Are we considering the objectification of women? The pain and heartache? The police? Sting? What are we supposed to consider when we see bouncing jugs in our face? And to bring it back around, what are we to consider when we see a kid with no college degree tear his knee in half?
Fucking douche tank.
Sports in general is the objectification of humans’ physical qualities for entertainment. Humans beat the holy hell out of each in football every time they’re on the field. Other sports all put enormous pressure on the fleeting physical gifts of various athletes. What were being told here is that because sport takes on a sexual aspect, it is automatically bad. Sports appeal primarily to men, so it’s of little surprise when advertisements or otherwise take advantage of other things that appeal to men: namely beautiful women. The bounds of what’s licit are malleable to say the least. There aren’t any hard and fast rules here. But to deny a woman her right to use her physical beauty to advance herself, all awhile aware of the risk she faces of countless internet masturbators, is to deny them control over their own body. We shall censor them for their own good, for the doughy skanks know not what they do. Decide for yourselves whether you consider the scantily clad women present around sporting events to be on the level and act accordingly; but those women owe neither you, nor society anything.
And you know where Soshnick is going next: OLIVIA MUNN, STOP OBJECTIFYING YOURSELF IN FRONT OF THE GAMERS! Those people are Level-9 masturbators!
And if you think this is misogynistic, take a look see…
And now, ladies and gentlemen, Harrison Ford: