Melania Trump Plagiarism: Crazy Like a Fox?
I posted this on Facebook:
OK watch this: SUPPOSE for one second that the Trump campaign–which defied all the odds and managed to knock out the Bush dynasty plus some other candidates that were ostensibly qualified politicians–isn’t completely stupid. SUPPOSE for one second that they wouldn’t let a plagiarized speech by the candidate’s wife slip through. (After all, critics think the “Star of David” was intentional and not a slip up.) So now you’ve got all the media broadcasting Melania’s speech, side by side with Michelle Obama. So free publicity, and subconscious message that “Trump campaign respects the thoughts of a black woman when they uphold American values.” Discuss.
Then Dan Doherty added in a comment: “Not to mention that it already has you subconsciously associating Melania with the first lady in your head.”
When Scott Adams links to this post, I’ll be happy if he praises me, but it’s OK if he just says, “Exactly. I’ve been predicting this for a while now.”
Steve Landsburg and I Disagree About Politics
Steve thinks that Hillary Clinton should pick Jeb Bush as her VP, and that in so doing she would win in a landslide. I said in a comment: “I think if Hillary and Jeb were on the same ticket, Trump would quite plausibly tell people, “See folks? There’s no Dem vs. Rep. It’s the elites versus you. Let’s make America great again, they clearly don’t want me to upset their plans to screw you over.”” (I had first asked him to clarify if he personally wanted Clinton to beat Trump, and if so, why.)
To this Steve responded:
Bob Murphy (#92):
1) Yes, I would *VASTLY* prefer Clinton/Bush to Trump,for a variety of reasons. Key among them is, as you put it “minimizing mean square destruction”. Trump, if elected, is probably Berlusconi but plausibly Mussolini.
2) Another reason: With Trump in the White House, I think the most plausible scenario is that nobody in power opposes him from the right. The Republicans crumble and fall into line; the Democrats are delighted with his anti-trade pro-regulation pro-tax statism. With Hilary in the White House, there will be congressional opposition and, thank God, probable deadlock.
3) Yes, I’m sure that a Clinton/Bush ticket will fire up the Trump voters as you say, but I don’t see where it brings in any *new* Trump voters. At the same time, it gives the vast army of anti-Trump Republicans psychological cover for voting for a Democrat. So I think it locks up the election for Clinton.
In short: I’m saying that this would be both good strategy for Clinton and very good for the country. (Where “very good”, of course, is relative to the realistic alternatives, not to anything I’d design.)
Wow. I think Clinton vs. Trump is like getting the flu versus kicked in the crotch: I know what the flu is like, and it’s awful. I actually don’t know how bad getting kicked in the crotch would be, but it’s different. For sure I would prefer to receive neither.
But if I’m agnostic on who would be worse (largely because Trump is so unpredictable), I am quite sure that if Hillary Clinton picked Jeb Bush as her running mate, that Trump would win. He would pick up some votes, and there would be tons of Clinton voters who would stay home or vote Jill Stein. This would swamp, in my opinion, the number of Republicans that Clinton would gain. Indeed, there might be a rush of people to vote for Trump, once they see just how much we have a one party system right now, were the Clinton and Bush dynasties to formally unite on the same ticket.
Last thing: I hadn’t thought of the gridlock aspect, so Steve has a good point there. But, it’s hard to evaluate that point, when lots of people are complaining about Trump being so divisive that no one will work with him, and he won’t get anything accomplished.
Two Snarky Comments on Sumner
With all of my traveling this summer, I worry that Scott Sumner feels I am neglecting him. (After all, I have a weekly podcast devoted to Krugman–have I forgotten my Market Monetarist friends?)
So as to partially rectify my benign neglect, here are two snarky comments on recent Sumner posts:
==> In this post responding to a critic of his NGDP targeting plan, Scott explains that he just needs half a billion dollars to show how awesome his proposal is–are you really going to deny him that? Well, now that he thinks about it some more, Bill Woolsey’s idea is better. But stop pestering him with these details; Scott can fix the world economy.
==> In this post on Irish GDP, Scott writes:
I’ve argued that NGDP targeting is not always appropriate for small open economies, citing examples such as Australia and Kuwait. Actually, it’s probably much more appropriate for Australia than Ireland. The key is whether NGDP tracks total labor compensation fairly closely. Where it does, as in the US, then NGDP targeting is appropriate. Where it doesn’t, as in Kuwait, then you want to target total labor compensation, perhaps per capita.
Those remarks got me thinking: Imagine at the Mercatus Center one day, people are sitting around drinking coffee in the lounge. Then Bryan Caplan runs in and says, “Guys! Awesome news! I got a small country with new political leadership to agree to completely open borders! They’re expecting enormous rates of immigration! Critics are predicting massive crashes in wage rates for existing workers, but this experiment will prove those fears to be baseless once and for all!”
Everyone says, “That’s great Bryan! Well done!”
Then Scott Sumner bursts into the room. “Guys! Awesome news! I got a country with new political leadership to agree to set total nominal GDP to 5% annual growth!”
Everyone goes white. Scott can’t understand why they aren’t happy for him.
Hubris, Doubt, and Faith
I am pretty sure Richard Feynman once said something like, “In science, we have to have the courage to say, ‘We don’t know,'” and in context he was criticizing the religious mindset. (If someone knows the exact quote, let me know and I’ll update the post.)
Believe me, having gone through an extensive period of “devout atheism” (my term at the time) where I thought Feynman was the coolest guy, I totally understand why he would say that. And I have cringed at some Christians who, say, try to use the Laws of Thermodynamics as a “refutation” of Darwinism when it’s obvious they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Yet on the other hand, I can also see how the believers in modern scientism (not to be confused with actual science) are similarly overconfident in metaphysical positions, without even realizing just how dubious they are. For example, the people who say they follow only the dictates of logic and reason (not superstitious books) will say that in science we must be empirical; we can’t invoke the hypothesis of a “creator God” because that’s not testable. Yet when you point out that the constants of the physical universe are apparently “fine tuned” to support intelligent life, they explain these observations by theorizing there are an infinite number of possible universes, and so we–as intelligent life forms–shouldn’t be surprised to find that we reside in one of those universes where the charge on an electron is juuuust right. They seem not to realize that hypothesizing the existence of an infinite number of universes that are, by definition (at least in some frameworks), undetectable with our equipment is somewhat awkward in light of their statements about a deity.
Let me come at this another way. Atheists will point to something really awful, like the Holocaust, and demand, “Why would a good God let this happen?” I have learned from personal experience that it is by no means a mark of my humility and moral courage to say, “I don’t know.” Instead, I am mocked for admitting I can’t explain everything within my framework. “Oh ha ha, how convenient, ‘God works in mysterious ways.’ Admit it, there is no explanation.”
So to sum up: When an atheist empiricist says, “I can’t explain everything in my framework; my knowledge is incomplete; at some point I have to say, ‘I don’t know,'” this is the mark of true wisdom. When a Christian says, “I can’t explain everything in my framework; my knowledge is incomplete; at some point I have to say, ‘I don’t know,'” then it is the mark of an intellectual swindle.
Finally: This is what faith actually means. Contrary to confident assertions otherwise, faith does NOT mean, “Turning off your reason” or “Believing the irrational.” No, an example of faith would be, “I personally can’t give you a convincing explanation of why the Holocaust happened. However, the Bible DOES give us specific explanations of why God let other injustices occur, such as Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery and of course the torture and murder of the greatest Man to ever live. Knowing the character of God, I have faith that His plan is good, and that one day it will make sense to me, even though right now I can’t explain much of what He allows.”
If you scoff at this, be careful in how you frame your objection. Make sure you wouldn’t equally knock down someone who says, “I can’t currently reconcile the physical laws of gravity and quantum mechanics, but given my understanding of nature, I believe that there *is* an underlying order to it all, which will be beautiful once people learn more about it.”
Catching up on Podcasts
==> Tom and I talk Trump, globalization, and Chinese currency manipulation in the latest Contra Krugman.
==> Carlos and I talk Brexit in the latest Lara-Murphy Show.
Sobran on Intrinsic Excellence of Christianity
Joe Sobran wrote this essay a while ago at Easter time, and it echoes what I was saying last week. Some of his particular statements I don’t find persuasive, but below are some of the good ones:
Then there is the argument from comparative religion. Religions are a lot alike, they can’t all be true, so isn’t it probable that they are all false? By that kind of reasoning, you can prove not only that we don’t know who wrote Hamlet, but that it was never written at all.
Was Jesus just like a lot of other religious leaders? Such as? Do other religions have prayers like the Our Father? Did the ancient Greeks ask Zeus to “forgive us as we forgive others”? Did the Aztecs pray like that? How many other religions command their votaries to rejoice, be of good cheer, have no fear? (“Trust in Poseidon”?)
And many other religious figures, we are told, have performed miracles every bit as impressive as those attributed to Jesus. Really? Did they cure blind men and cripples while assuring them that their sins were forgiven?
And did they, even after they had died (and risen again, it goes without saying), make converts who would die for what they had taught? Did any of them ever give a speech like the Sermon on the Mount? If so, where can I find a copy?
For that matter, did any of these impressive religious teachers, who seem to have been very numerous, match Jesus in what has been called his “command of the moment,” making memorable retorts, still quoted centuries later, to enemies trying to trap them with trick questions? Have any of their reported ad libs endured as permanent moral teachings, like “Whoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone”?
Come to think of it, the atheists could strengthen their case somewhat by producing the prayers of other religions to show how much they resemble, or even surpass, Christian prayers. Why don’t they? Just asking. But I have my suspicions.
…
When you point to the rather horrid regimes run by atheists in the twentieth century, you can count on the atheists to disown them, on the pretext that men like Stalin were the “wrong” sort of atheists because they were just as “dogmatic” as Christians. With people who argue this way, you’d better cut the deck before letting them deal the cards. They’re saying that empirical evidence is inadmissible — except when they want to use it.
…
How can God be both good and omnipotent, when there is so much evil in the world? I can’t answer this one, and it has tormented believers so deeply that the Scriptures themselves ask it many times. It’s known as the Problem of Evil. I can say only that it’s trumped by the real mystery, the Problem of Good.
Federal Expenditures and Tax Receipts Over Time
I had to make this chart for a recent presentation, and thought it was interesting. Notice that taxes as a share of GDP tripled during WW2, and stayed up there for a decade. Notice also how high spending is, compared to historical levels.
(Be careful, I think on this chart “current expenditures” is not the same as “total spending,” having to do with transfers etc. But it’s a consistent measure over time.)
George Will Comes to His Senses
…and leaves the GOP.
But, not to be a sore winner here, I don’t think one of his reasons makes sense.
According to the press accounts, one of the last straws for Will was Trump’s “racist” comments about the “Mexican” judge who couldn’t be fair in his trial, because of Trump’s policies/remarks about Mexicans.
OK, but George Will earlier had written this:
Romney lost 73 percent of the Hispanic vote; Trump is viewed unfavorably by 82 percent of Hispanics and very unfavorably by 62 percent. Trump probably will receive significantly less than Romney’s ruinous 27 percent of this vote. And because of demographic trends and Trump’s motivating policies and insults, Hispanic turnout probably will be significantly larger than in 2012, as the white percentage of the electorate continues to shrink.
Now look at what I put in bold. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that George Will was saying that Hispanic people would predictably act in a certain way on something as important as voting for president, because of Trump’s insults of Hispanic people.
Is George Will allowed to associate with himself, after writing such a racist comment in a major newspaper?
P.S. For those who will say, “Gee Bob, why do you and your crew love Trump so much?” check out this tweet. Does it look like we’re pining for a spot in the Trump Administration?
Recent Comments