Jeez, Jason - there's no need to chose between either Carlson or glibertarians in the credibility stakes. Both are terrible.
On Carlson in particular - he has been sending out contradictory messaging on COVID and masks, just as Hannity has, and both would clearly be responsible for a large percentage of the Fox ageing audience not taking COVID precautions seriously.
Of course, he is also escalating, for political purposes, the sense of a national security crisis and encouraging Trump to use his heavy handed response which polling would indicate even most Americans think is hurting the situation rather than helping. (See this article in Washington Post today.)
I think there is room to criticise a lack of effective Democrat leadership on trying to get protesters to de-escalate too (Biden should be taking a higher profile on this), but any President should be taking a de-escalation approach. (Yeah, I know, Trump is constitutionally incapable of being a figure of unifying appeal - but it's still a scandal that a "news" network works to goad him into being even more divisive than he needs to be.)
4 comments:
A person who says you need to choose between Carlson and anybody else has already lost credibility.
No Jason has it right. Tucker is no genius but he's got the courage, or the permission or the backing to tell the truth as he sees it. That makes him unique in the Mockingbird news. It doesn't make him perfect but it makes him unique. We've got to admire him for his courage or it might be Ruperts conscience speaking to Rupert, when Rupert has been roped into so much wickedness, maybe his Catholic side has made him give Tucker some rope. Or even push Tucker on the sly, to make up for Ruperts co-operation with evil.
Taleb has given us so much in terms of defining better analysis. He's the master of analysis rule improvement.
But be careful. Taleb is an expert on ANALYSIS ITSELF. Taleb is not an expert in the subject to hand. He doesn't know that HCQ was the designated "antidote" and he probably doesn't recognise this Covid as a terrorist attack.
So for example its not right to stomp on the other guy for using the Taleb's "skin-in-the-game" concept, even though its usage might deny the current position Taleb-the-man is taking on the subject of the day.
Taleb is the great innovator when it comes to teaching us better analysis. That doesn't mean his own analysis is the best in every subject. That would be putting the cart before the horse.
"Of course, he is also escalating, for political purposes, the sense of a national security crisis and encouraging Trump to use his heavy handed response which polling would indicate even most Americans think is hurting the situation rather than helping. (See this article in Washington Post today.) "
For fucksakes. Take a deep breath and say: Trump trump trump trump trump trump trump.
Come on man. Trumps not running things any more. He's been Epsteined. He's got no snap at all any more. Get real. It was never about Trump.
Although candidate Trump was pretty fucking awesome really.
Okay Homer. Okay Boomer.
"If you reduce the viral load WITHOUT eliminating a viral load, you may be creating a kind of natural vaccination."
Steve you should have let the Heller video through. He made a very good point and I thought I explained it well.
My ideology is that if you reduce the viral load without eliminating the viral load thats herd immunity. The empirical reason I think this is that my patient hasn't passed it on to family members. The girl got a sore throat. The boys are all built like a stream of bats piss and they seldom wear a shirt. They never caught it off the Mother.
Fucking serious data point.
Post a Comment