Yes, I am weighing in on this overly hyped story on the problematic proposal by President Trump to appoint Brett Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS. Obviously the main reason why BK will end up not on the court is all his lying about his past sex and drinking behavior, ironically some of which he may not remember, although claiming he does remember all his past may lead to him convicted of perjury.
For poor Brett Kavanaugh, his personal tragedy is that Trump nominated him for SCOTUS. If DJT had not done so, BK would probably have reasonably quietly lived out his life as a far right wing member of the Washington District Appeals Court, basically the second most important and powerful court in the US. Dr. Prof. Ford would not have come forward to drag up his ugly ancient past, much less the several other women who have done so. His 10-year old daughter would not have been publicly embarrassed, and he might even have been able to coach a few more years of school basketball teams, certainly the most important thing one can do personally. Shame on Trump for destroying his Kavanaugh's fragile life.
Of course the reason Trump destroyed the life of this worthless scumbag is that he was reportedly the only judge at his level in the system who publicly proclaimed that a president should not be investigated, that he can refuse a suppoeana, even though Nixon accepted one. BK has gone down because he would not even accept this precedent, and laughable madman President Trump really wants some sucker on the SCOTUS to help save his behind if/when it comes to pass.
But, frankly, I do not feel sorry for Brett Kavanaugh. While what is doing him in is all this sex and drinking scamdal, what makes him completely unacceptable as a SCOTUS nominee is his role in the W. Bush admin, most of the relevant papers not publicly released, is his reported role in writing memos supporting torture as an appropriate activity by the US. Nobody is talking about this, but his support of torture is the most important reason Kavanaugh should be rejected for sitting on SCOTUS.
Barkley Rosser
30 comments:
Legitimacy lost
Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘Trump Destroys His Favored SCOTUS Nominee’
After a long phase of degeneration, the institution of POTUS has now obviously lost the last bit of legitimacy.
After a long phase of degeneration, the institution of SCOTUS currently loses the last bit of legitimacy on the open stage.
We know this from the economist Barkley Rosser. That’s a bit strange, provided one realizes that it is NOT the business of the academic economist to dabble in politics. Politics is the proper business of Political Science. The business of the economist as a scientist is to figure out how the economy works ― not less, not more.
Economists have failed at their mission. They have to this day produced NOTHING of scientific value. Fact is that economists have messed up
• profit theory, for 200+ years,
• microfoundations, for 140+ years,
• macrofoundations, for 80+ years,
• the application of elementary logic and mathematics since the founding fathers.
Economists do not know to this day how the price- and profit mechanism works. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. Because of this, economic policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundation since Adam Smith/Karl Marx.
As we speak, Stephanie Kelton, her academic fellow campaigners and the hyper-active MMT sales force on the social media pull off “one of the greatest cons ever perpetrated on the American people.”#1
MMT is proto-scientific garbage, the Post-Keynesian sectoral balances equation that underlies the whole analytical edifice is provably false but, curiously, the academic economist Barkley Rosser turns his eyes away from his own profession and prefers to comment on the reported sex and drinking scandals of SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Why does a failed/fake economist repeat at great length what everybody knows already from the extensive media coverage and why does he let us know that he does “not feel sorry for Brett Kavanaugh”? Economics is NOT about feelings but about knowledge, NOT about politicians but about the economy.
Academic economics has entirely abandoned scientific standards and integrity. Economists over the whole spectrum from Orthodoxy to Heterodoxy, from Paul Krugman to Brad DeLong to Simon Wren-Lewis to Barkley Rosser to Steve Keen to Lars Syll to Yanis Varoufakis are full-time media clowns and useful political idiots. Academia, too, has become a failed institution.
To recall, political economics has NO legitimacy since the founding fathers: “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.” (J. S. Mill) #2, #3
As a matter of principle, it is entirely beyond the capacity of economists to make a valuable contribution to the advancement of humanity because economics has no sound scientific foundation to this day.#4
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Stephanie and Noah ― economics at the intellectual zero lower bound
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/09/stephanie-and-noah-economics-at.html
#2 The end of political economics
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-end-of-political-economics.html
#3 The case for pure economics
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-case-for-pure-economics.html
#4 For details of the big picture see cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/11/political-economics-cross-references.html
While what is doing him in is all this sex and drinking scamdal, what makes him completely unacceptable as a SCOTUS nominee is his role in the W. Bush admin, most of the relevant papers not publicly released, is his reported role in writing memos supporting torture as an appropriate activity by the US. Nobody is talking about this, but his support of torture is the most important reason Kavanaugh should be rejected for sitting on SCOTUS.
[ I appreciate the essay, but this paragraph must be precisely referenced. ]
...reported role in writing memos supporting torture as an appropriate activity by the US...
[ This passage simply has to be precisely referenced. Please. ]
Anonymoous,
Just google "Kavanaugh and Bush torture memo." There are lots of stories about it. BK has denied having anything to do with all that, but there are various accounts by observers a=from the time who claim he was involved in discussions of the polivy and how to publicly spin it. Sens. Durbin and Leahy both argue that BK almost certainly perjured himself on this matter when he was approved for the appeals court back in 2006.
Egmost,
So why are only political scientists allowed to comment on political matters, and what makes them so scientific when you claim economists are not? BTW, if you answer this, I shall not reply to your answer. This will be my only comment on your comment, which is mostly just another repetition of the usual tripe you post here.
Just google "Kavanaugh and Bush torture memo."
[ Where is the reference? I am waiting for the reference. Where precisely is the reference? ]
While what is doing him in is all this sex and drinking scamdal, what makes him completely unacceptable as a SCOTUS nominee is his role in the W. Bush admin, most of the relevant papers not publicly released, is his reported role in writing memos supporting torture as an appropriate activity by the US. Nobody is talking about this, but his support of torture is the most important reason Kavanaugh should be rejected for sitting on SCOTUS.
-- Barkley Rosser
[ Where is the precise reference? I am waiting. ]
Anonymous,
Frankly, I seriously disrespect assholes like yourself who make demands behind a veil of anonymity. What is your problem?
BK may not have been an actual author of a torture memo, but he strongly supported even for judgeships who were known to be when they were doing so, see https://thinkprogress.org/confidential-brett-kavanaugh-email-john-yoo-torture-memo-28387c2ee165 and he also apparently lied to Congress in 2006 about his role in crafting a legal strategy related to the torture memos, see https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/did-brett-kavanaugh-lie-to-congrss-the-first-time-he-was-appointed . As far as I am concerned, both of these make him unacceptable to be on the SCOTUS even if you do not, "Anonymous."
It seems to me the chief BK disqualifier, beyond his apparent social shortcomings, his emotional lability under stress, his lack of experience in litigation, his prevarication under oath, etc ... setting aside all these, It seems to me it is his political obedience and willingness to undermine the loadbearing walls of democracy that disqualify him for this office, and probably any high office.
"While what is doing him in is all this sex and drinking scamdal, what makes him completely unacceptable as a SCOTUS nominee is his role in the W. Bush admin, most of the relevant papers not publicly released, is his reported role in writing memos supporting torture as an appropriate activity by the US. Nobody is talking about this, but his support of torture is the most important reason Kavanaugh should be rejected for sitting on SCOTUS."
-- Barkley Rosser
This is what you wrote and I can find no evidence for the accusation and rather than name-call a professor should be respectful enough to either provide a precise reference or admit to having made a mistake. The name-calling is of course disgraceful and you might consider that in future.
...his reported role in writing memos supporting torture as an appropriate activity by the US....
-- Barkley Rosser
[ Where is the evidence? Where is the reference? I simply asked, and repeated the request, and the professor finally chose to name-call rather than answer. ]
"While what is doing him in is all this sex and drinking scamdal, what makes him completely unacceptable as a SCOTUS nominee is his role in the W. Bush admin, most of the relevant papers not publicly released, is his reported role in writing memos supporting torture as an appropriate activity by the US. Nobody is talking about this, but his support of torture is the most important reason Kavanaugh should be rejected for sitting on SCOTUS."
-- Barkley Rosser
[ Still waiting for the reference. Still waiting. ]
To paraphrase Egmont: only political scientists are allowed to comment on politics. And most other people too. In fact, everyone but Barkley Rosser is allowed to comment on anything at all, ever.
"Anonymous,"
Are you able to read? I have granted he may not have written the memo. But he actively supported it and its writers and helped plan the legal strategy related to it. I continue this to be as disqualifying as being one of the actual writers of the memo.
Do you think it is just fine for somebody who has actively been involved in developing and supporting a torture policy to be on the Supreme Court if they did not actually be one of the authors of the actual memo or memos? Do you?
If you do, you can go to hell.
Zachary Smithingell
There is the political sphere and there is the scientific sphere. The political sphere is about agenda pushing, the scientific sphere is about knowledge.
In the political sphere, every imbecile is entitled to climb on a soapbox and to vomit the content of his dysfunctional brain all over the place.
In the scientific sphere, people are supposed to contribute something to the growth of knowledge. Scientific knowledge, in turn, is well-defined by material and formal consistency. Confused off-topic blather is NOT appreciated in the scientific sphere.
You certainly agree that Barkley Rosser’s gossip about Mr. Kavanaugh’s beer and sex life has NO economic or scientific content whatsoever. This would be no embarrassment if Barkley Rosser were a talk show host or a yellow press journalist. But Barkley Rosser pretends to be a competent academic economist.
And this is the point: economics claims to be a science and economists claim to be scientists and they communicate this every year loud and clear with the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.
Reality is different: economics is a cargo cult science, economists are fake scientists, and Barkley Rosser as brain-dead blatherer is the living proof that academia, too, is a failed institution.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
"While what is doing him in is all this sex and drinking scamdal, what makes him completely unacceptable as a SCOTUS nominee is his role in the W. Bush admin, most of the relevant papers not publicly released, is his reported role in writing memos supporting torture as an appropriate activity by the US. Nobody is talking about this, but his support of torture is the most important reason Kavanaugh should be rejected for sitting on SCOTUS."
-- Barkley Rosser
[ This was what was written. I merely asked for a reference, after all the passage is important and should be precisely referenced. I asked but was dismissed and cursed for asking.
A professor wrote a passage, I only asked for a reference and the professor answered with a curse. I read the New York Times thoroughly but found no relevant writing about the Supreme Court nominee, so I asked for a reference. Cursing really will not do, supplying a reference will do which is what a teacher should be about doing.
Please do reference the passage. ]
You understand, I really did look for "his reported role in writing memos supporting torture" and could find no support for the assertion. What am I missing? A teacher should explain and avoid cursing.
Here was the best I could do in referencing your passage, but you could not be bothered to even refer to this article so I still do not understand what you are asserting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/us/brett-kavanaugh-signing-statements.html
July 29, 2018
Bush Claimed Power to Override a Torture Ban. What Did Brett Kavanaugh Think About That?
By Charlie Savage
How do you know what Charlie Savage of the New York Times did not know? I surely wish I knew, but was cursed for asking.
Do you not understand? I posted a reference, though you would not. Charlie Savage of the New York Times has written extensively about the torture memos from the beginning when he was with the Boston Globe. Savage however does not lead me to a supporting reference for your assertion: "his reported role in writing memos supporting torture..."
Well, I am disappointed tried and I was polite as always and you wrote as a bully for whatever reason. For a professor to write as you write is really a disappointment and I do hope you will use restraint in future.
I thought this article would help you:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/us/brett-kavanaugh-signing-statements.html
July 29, 2018
Bush Claimed Power to Override a Torture Ban. What Did Brett Kavanaugh Think About That?
By Charlie Savage
My sentence should read:
Well, I am disappointed, I tried and I was polite as always...
I regret that you were so angered, but the fault was not with my request.
I regret that you were angered, but my intent was to learn and not to anger you.
"Obviously the main reason why BK will end up not on the court is all his lying about his past sex and drinking behavior, ironically some of which he may not remember, although claiming he does remember all his past may lead to him convicted of perjury."
I am not so confident BK will not end up on the Supreme Court. However, I do strongly agree that he should not end up on the Supreme Court, because I am very confident that he was misleading under oath. (However, I did not see the oath, so maybe it was something like, "Do you swear to tell the truth, at least partially, unless it's about something you consider rather trivial, and telling the truth would be embarrassing or otherwise put you in a bad light?")
Specifically, I think his answers were misleading on: 1) the meaning of "Renate Alumnius" and "Renate Alumni", 2) his meaning of "Have you boofed yet?" and 3) His meaning of "devil's triangle".
I am not sure of whether he attempted to rape Christine Blasey Ford in the summer of 1982. (But if he did, on July 1, 1982 at Tim Gaudette's house, or nearby, seems like a significant possibility.)
For the record, I did not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton...I voted for Gary Johnson, who was a much better candidate than either Trump or Clinton. And though I haven't done extensive research, I think Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch was one of the best things Donald Trump has done.
Anonymous,
Wow, you really llke to lecturw while claiming not to.
In case you have not figured it out, I would not have cursed you if you had a name, even if was one you made up. As it is, I do not respect people who go on and on very self-righteously lecturing and repeating themselves under the label you are using, "Anonymous," even if you think you have good reason for doing so. All you have done is piss me off with repetitious hypocrisy.
Oh, btw, you could get support from Egmont if you declare him to be the only person in worl history to have approached economics scientifically, with his theory of profits being an even greater scientific discovery than the discovery of the DNA molecule.
MB,
I agree with you that BK may still get through, and whether he does so or not, Trump has succeeded in inflaming his nauseating base with his chanting about how Ford did not know either what year it was (she does) and where in the house it supposedly happened (she also knows that, but who cares if you are a drooling chanting piece of Trumpshit).
Oh, and, "Anonymous," you have never said whether or not you think it is just peachy keen that BK only actively supported the torture policy rather than actually write any torture memo.
Do you?
More specifically, I consider it to be profoundly immoral and downright evil to do so, with this certainly disqualifying BK from the SCOTUS, quite aside from anything else.
Mark Bahner
You let the world know on EconoSpeak: “For the record, I did not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton...I voted for Gary Johnson, who was a much better candidate than either Trump or Clinton.”
It is pretty obvious that this statement has zero informational content and is not of any interest to anyone.
So, a Mark Bahner, a Barkley Rosser, an Anonymous, and others are producing pure noise on EconoSpeak. This has NO positive effect whatsoever but only prevents that economic debate gets above the level of brain-dead nonsense.
To speculate about whether this effect is unintentional or intentional is a pointless exercise. Sticking to the facts as they are, what anyone can learn from the beer-sex-asshole noise on EconoSpeak is that the long march of the lowlifes of all walks of life has reached its logical end. The institutions of POTUS, SCOTUS, and ACADEME have lost their function and legitimacy and have been brought down to a noisy clown wrestling show.
So, EconoSpeak and Barkley Rosser have at least one positive purpose: to provide an indicator of how deep the social shithole has become by now.#1
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 By the way, with his tortured irony “… you could get support from Egmont if you declare him to be the only person in worl history to have approached economics scientifically, with his theory of profits being an even greater scientific discovery than the discovery of the DNA molecule.” Barkley Rosser unintentionally hit the metaphorical nail. The three macroeconomic axioms (A1) Yw=WL, (A2) O=RL, (A3) C=PX are actually the DNA of economics. They replace the monster-producing Walrasian and Keynesian axioms. This is called evolution in biology and paradigm shift in methodology.
Egmont,
I just received a personal and friendly email from Meghnad Desai, whom you like to quote from time to time. He happens to take me quite seriously.
I am also good friends with Roy Weintraub, who has asked me to perform a variety of academic functions for him, including going to speak on his invitation at Duke University twice, with him another person you like to periodically quote and misinterpret, as you do with Desai.
Just letting you know that two of your supposed big guns are not exactly fully on your side.
Oh, and indeed saying that my joke "hit the nail on the head" is pretty good evidence for MB or any other even remotely well-informed reader wandering off the street here about what a lunatic crank nutcase you are, Egmont.
Do not apologize for crying. Without this emotion, we're only robot
Barkley Rosser
Every economist knows from the Palgrave Dictionary that Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, Austrian profit theories are false: “A satisfactory theory of profits is still elusive.” (Desai, 2008) So, there is only one interesting question in economics: is the axiomatically founded macroeconomic Profit Law Qm=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M) true?#1
As long as economists have not definitively clarified the concept of profit, economics is not merely a sick proto-scientific joke but a betrayal of the general public. As things stand at the moment, economics has NO scientific legitimacy.
You are on the F-side of the fence. F stands for false. I am on the T-side of the fence. T stands for true. It does not matter how many of your friends and colleagues stand also on the F-side. The number of followers does not make a false theory true.
There is no need to tell the world that you are goods friends with Meghnad Desai and Roy Weintraub and that they are on your side. Everybody on your side of the fence shares your fate and will end up at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery. There is enough space for the whole of academe.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Go! ― test the Profit and Employment Law
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/09/go-test-profit-and-employment-law.html
Well, on the main premise of this post, it looks like I am wrong again: apparently Kavanaugh will squeak through his confirmation, although he will forever be tarred by this, which would not be the case if Trump had just let him sit in his current position on the second most powerful court in the land. Indeed, more bad stuff will come out about him, including lots of evidence of him committing perjury, which may well lead to him being impeached from the court if the Dems actually take over.
To Egmont: If you go back and reread that long post I put up here about capital and profit that you and I had our longest exchanges about, I clearly states that we did not have clear agreement on the topic, that it remains an open matter of debate. It is you who thinks it is settled, that your worthless crackpot theory is The Truth. You are the one whom Meghnad Desai's admonition is clearly directed at. I am in complete agreement with him. You are not and are unfortunately seriously deluded.
Barkley Rosser
You say: “If you go back and reread that long post I put up here about capital and profit that you and I had our longest exchanges about, I clearly states that we did not have clear agreement on the topic, that it remains an open matter of debate.”
No. The matter was settled then.#1
I started the debate with: “The representative economist fails to this day to capture the essence of a capitalist market economy.”
I concluded the debate with: “Barkley Rosser cannot get out of his self-created muddle. Who cannot handle three macro axioms (Yw=WL, O=RL, C=PX), two conditions (X=O, C=Yw) and two definitions (Qm≡C−Yw, Sm≡Yw−C) and UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY that Qm=−Sm, i.e. that business profit and household saving are NEGATIVELY related, is OUT of economics. When the pivotal concept of profit is not properly understood the rest of the analytical superstructure of economics falls apart and there is NO use at all to filibuster about capital and equilibrium. The best the representative economist can do for the welfare of humanity is to get out of the way.”
This is the stupidity-feature of all those economists who stand together with you on the F-side of the fence. It is accompanied by the corruption-feature. The representative economist violates scientific standards and habitually denies refutation: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941).
And it is quite obvious why economists habitually violate scientific standards: “… suppose they did reject all theories that were empirically falsified ... Nothing would be left standing; there would be no economics.” (Hands)
To deny refutation, to obscure matters, and to claim that the debate is still open is the modus operandi of economists for 200+ years.#2 This is the reason why economics is a failed science and never rose above the proto-scientific level.#3
The corruption of economists consists of deliberately keeping things in the swamp between true and false where “nothing is clear and everything is possible” (Keynes) The apex of corruption is telling the general public that what they are doing is science and to congratulate themselves with the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.
The fundamental concepts of economics are inconsistent for 200+ years. Economics has NO scientific legitimacy.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Economists: scientists or political clowns?
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/06/economists-scientists-or-political.html
#2 And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/and-answer-is-ncnd-economics-after-200.html
#3 The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-biggest-scientific-mistake-of-last.html
Post a Comment