Comments on: Daniel Hannan: I Hope They Fail (UPDATE: Wolverines?)

By: David W. Lincoln

David W. Lincoln — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:16:53 +0000

In defense of Daniel Hannan, I have this to offer. The United States was not alone in plunging the financial world, and ultimately Main street, into the squalls by itself. But, it played a huge role, as identified by McKitrick & McCullough in this: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/produ... So, what is to be done to deal with the evaporation of the phantom money? Those who second guess Hannan went the route of stimuli packages. Frankly the better route is this: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/89526/

By: Patterico

Patterico — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:12:58 +0000

I'm tired of it, but I'm more tired of having people misunderstand my position. So let's talk.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:04:42 +0000

I think that's fair.

My objection is that, it seems to me, your criticism began exactly where the left (using deliberate bad faith) wanted you to begin – with the four words. I don't think you acted in bad faith, but you began with poisoned fruit and there wasn't any way for your reasoning not to contain some of that poison.

We can talk more about it via e-mail if you're not tired of it by now (though I suspect you might be and I don't want to grind you down even more!).

By: Patterico

Patterico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:40:09 +0000

Or let's say this: "what happened to Limbaugh was a specific bad faith interpretation of his words." I think some people interpreted his words in bad faith and some did not. That would be clearer.

Feel free to e-mail me at patterico AT gmail DOT com.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:39:03 +0000

,i>I’m not really sure what you defend, to be honest. To go back to the Limbaugh argument, you seemed awfully keen to focus on four words and ignored the two sentences before those words, which seems to me a very bad faith interpretation. Of course, you could say that you addressed the four words as they were given you from media reports, which is an understandable position but still defends the bad faith interpretation of the actual words he said.

I read your quote and wonder what the heck you’ve been arguing for a month, since what happened to Limbaugh was a specific bad faith interpretation of his words.

I don't think it was, but I'm happy to discuss it. It might be more productive over e-mail.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:33:22 +0000

I'm not really sure what you defend, to be honest. To go back to the Limbaugh argument, you seemed awfully keen to focus on four words and ignored the two sentences before those words, which seems to me a very bad faith interpretation. Of course, you could say that you addressed the four words as they were given you from media reports, which is an understandable position but still defends the bad faith interpretation of the actual words he said.

I read your quote and wonder what the heck you've been arguing for a month, since what happened to Limbaugh was a specific bad faith interpretation of his words.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:12:29 +0000

"Well, we did catch him before he was taken out of context, didn’t we?"

Jimmie,

I have argued for weeks now that we should concern ourselves with possible reasonable and good faith misinterpretations of our words — but NOT with unreasonable, bad faith interpretations that rip the words from their context.

For example, in this post I said: "Speakers have no responsibility to self-censor to prevent unreasonable and bad faith misinterpretations of their words."

Somehow, my argument has been taken to mean that I am defending speaking carefully to prevent being taken out of context. But to read my words that way, one must take them out of context.

Which (again) is not something I defend.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:42:38 +0000

Well, we did catch him before he was taken out of context, didn't we?