Takes One To Know One

Your link text here.

This reminded me of some folks at our table one night on a cruise last fall. It was obviously they were filthy rich -- guy was a retired upper level exec from some big corporation and in the chit chat it was clear they had a home in Aspen CO as well as Palm Springs. They were huge BO supporters and all things liberal, and as per usual I didn't follow this guys advice of "just keeping quiet".

It was pretty clear the guy hadn't been in much "give and take" in awhile -- probably a lot more used to decreeing his views and everyone agreeing with him. He got flustered on the tax problem while I was asserting things about our taxes, and he was asserting "that couldn't be". We had the benefit of actually doing our own taxes, which he didn't -- his accountant and lawyer did his, and it finally came to light that his assets were "in a trust". When I asked him "If you are so in favor of higher taxes, why would you put your assets in a trust?".

"Well, **MY** taxes are too high -- that is what trusts are FOR! He was smart enough to be angry that he had been caught with his liberal pants down, although I'm sure it won't change a thing -- facts rarely do for liberals. Taxes are for the "rubes" ... the small business owners, the two income familes that don't make enough to qualify for the trusts.

"Redneck" is as good a description as any. "I'm pround of my prejudice even if it has been proven to be counterproductive"! 

Your link text here.

Taxing Power

Our Kind of Class Warfare | The Weekly Standard

If it is written by PJ O'Rourke, it is likely good. If it isn't good, it is even more than likely funny. Even if it is neither, it is probably snarky and cynical and somehow a guilty pleasure, so worthy of your time in any case.

I love his out of the box thinking in this one -- just read the whole thing, I don't want to ruin the conclusion!

 

Hooray for Cheney's Assassination Squad!

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/028956.php

Ah yes, how times have changed! The liberals HATED Seal Team 6 under Bush. Now? Oh, now, trapsing into other countries and terminating with extreme prejudice is just peachy! Consistency? IT IS NOT AN ISSUE!!! How many times must it be repeated?

Hersh then went on to describe a second area of extra-legal operations: the Joint Special Operations Command. “It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently,” he explained. “They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. … Congress has no oversight of it.” 

“It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on,” Hersh stated. “Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.”

Moral Ambiguity

How the U.S. found and finished Bin Laden - The Washington Post

Some of the detainees who confirmed the courier’s nickname were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the CIA’s formal name for what is now widely viewed as torture. This adds a moral ambiguity to a story that is otherwise one of triumphal retribution and justice.

Ah, "moral ambiguity". I thought we 1oo% knew that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were always ineffective? In fact, rather than "widely viewed as torture", we have been told they ARE torture. We tend to NOT be told that every one of those Seal team members have been "waterboarded" as part of their training. Do we "torture" our own troops?

One might say there is a certain "moral ambiguity" in reporters, Democratic congresswomen and others that very firmly said one thing on Gitmo, waterboarding, and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya when W was in office, but are now quite sanguine about it all with BO in the WH!

The Nostalgia of the Left

Krugman’s Lament « Hot Air

There is no question that the aging Boomers, of which I am one, are entering that phase of life when it is human to long for yesteryear. My father, being of leftward list, seemed to enter his phase at about 40, or maybe it was the day that he heard that I had a job at IBM, I can't recall. Thankfully he is still "wisting away" at age 84 for all things pre-computer, pre-big medical advances, and maybe most of all pre-Reagan. (just to be clear, not a spelling error of "wasting", a bad pun on "wistful").

I found this article to be a very interesting short read, and it links off to a bunch of books and articles that look like they would also be interesting. The conclusion is that the left thinks of the America of the late 50's and 60's as "the pinnacle" -- the time they wish to see again.

There is a lot of humor there -- the right has been heavily lambasted at various times and various quarters for "pining for the non-existent halcyon days of Father Knows Best", "Powder Wigs and Slavery", or "The 19th Century".

Liberals always have a lot of trouble with naming. They used to be "progressives", but when the Fascist Progressives of the day, Mussolini and Hitler feel into a bit of disrepute, that was out. About the same time it was getting to be questionable to directly declare yourself to be "communist", or even a "socialist" (Given NAZI was short for "National Socialist". It became hard to figure out what to call someone that was for maximizing state control in general, and specifically using state power to loot the productive of society. After some no doubt interesting thought, they stole "liberal" from those who want less government and more liberty, and used the fog of WWII to tag Nazi Germany -- clearly NOT a "liberal" state as being "right".

Just a short review for those that forget and fall prey to the media / academic obfuscation. LEFT is STATE CONTROL -- dictatorship, monarchy, communism, facism, etc. RIGHT is Chaos, Anarchy -- No government at all. "The state of nature". Our nation was founded as "Center Right", just enough government ("Leviathan") to keep life from being "Solitary, Nasty, Brutish and Short" and to provide the basic framework for productivity and growth -- private property and rule of law.

In theory, there should be no such thing as "progressive nostalgia", because "progressives" claim that the arc of history is upward -- we are way "smarter" today than our founding fathers, Moses, Aristotle, St Augustine, and no doubt god from their perspective -- if there was one. An actual progressive believes in the future, or they believe in nothing -- there is no "master plan", we are "blessed" by a cold and uncaring random universe that luckily instituted "directed evolutionary progress". A benign process created through randomness where "progress" is always better than "conservation" -- or "nostalgia".

In any case, a good little read with more than a few references off to things which also look interesting. One of the things I most frequently run across to add credence to the general time scale of the nostalgia is the yearning for Uncle Walter. It seems that what the left wants most is a world where "news" is what comes out of the mouth of a "head lefty spokesman" and by doing so, is converted to "facual, unbiased holy writ". My view is the core lefty nostalgia is for the suppression of alternative political thought. They dream of a time where the questioning of lefty dogma is a death sentence -- if not physically, at least intellectually. Their recent views on the "Birthers", as well as those apostates who would ever question the divine nature of Global Warming is reminiscent of such high points of history as The Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials -- all be it in intellectual clothing to date.

Disallowing Disagreement

RealClearPolitics - 'Oh Yeah, Prove It'

The intellectual serenity that comes from being part of the dominant political and cultural elite is often breathtaking. People that have ANY different thoughts than you have, are not just "wrong", they are "sideshow barkers", "ugly forces", "not-reality based" and of course in the BO case, the all-purpose "racist". If the liberal case on issues is so obviously factual, then why all the name-calling?

Empirical polarization -- a rejection of this nation's founding Enlightenment principles -- is something new.

Ah, "empirical polarization" -- with two whole examples; BO's birth certificate, and Global Warming. Why is GW a fact? "the vast majority of scientists look dispassionately at the date and conclude". Is science a democracy? Is the structure and operation of the universe now determined by a "2/3 majority" of "properly credentialed scientists"? What if say, oh, the Chinese had a vested interest in some direction and decided that the old fashioned way of doing battle -- guns, bullets, bombs and such was just messy. Why not just have the US bankrupt itself through a bunch of well meaning environmental programs? Perhaps they could just buy us out lock stock and barrel -- I'm betting they would treat Blacks, Whites and Hispanics completely alike -- breakthrough!!

Two ugly forces had to combine to produce the birth certificate sideshow, which can only be described as a national disgrace. One is a calculated attempt by Obama's political opponents to delegitimize his presidency.

Is this a new phenomenon? I saw "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers within days of his inauguration. As we struggled with two wars, 20-30% of Democrats believed 9-11 to be a "inside job". "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a mockumentary designed for nothing else than to discredit a sitting president during and election year, and it became the highest grossing "documentary" of all time -- also with a heavy "truther" overtone. "Death of a President", 2006 is about the assassination of then sitting president George Bush. Valerie Plame? Have we forgotten CBS doing a 1 hour special about W's guard service based on fake documents after he was nominated in '04?

Republican presidents in my lifetime have been considered laughing stocks from day one of their administrations by the MSM, hollywood, late night comedians, etc. The reams written on "how dumb are they really"? About especially Reagan and W this knew no limits -- if they can get on TV and not just slobber all over themselves they exceed the expectations the media has set for them.

Rodney King famously asked, "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?" If we decide there's no difference between fact and opinion, then surely the sad answer is no.

Were this column written by a conservative columnist, it might be tagged as "chilling". "If we decide there is no difference between fact an opinion"?? There is a difference, but it certainly isn't going to be arrived at by taking a vote on Global Warming, or being told by the MSM on any given topic "move along, nothing to see here ...". The incidence of scientifically repeatable, universally accepted fact in the world isn't all that high, and one of the favorite rhetorical devices is to assign your side's world view the status of un-opposed fact -- unopposed by those that you didn't call some names at least ... "birther", "not reality based", "sideshow barkers", etc., while assigning the viewpoints of your opponents as "insane, ludicrous, medieval, racist ..."

Humans operate with very imperfect models of reality, but fantasies that conform well enough to reality to provide competitive advantage, along with culturally defined motivational values even less tied to objective reality -- since the effective structures are based on assumptions about the future, rather than primarily on solid data about the past. That is just who we are -- all sides. Realizing the reality of being human -- a reality far better understood by science today than at any point in the past, MIGHT give us a far better chance of being able to "just get along" than either Mr King or Mr Robinson's musings.

Massachusetts Assault on Unions

Strassel: Union Busting, Massachusetts Style - WSJ.com
oh, wait, it is Democrats doing it in MA, so it is merely a "necessary budget matter".

Not that this has mollified labor. Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, was so irked he forgot to stick to the union script about "rights" and a "war" on the "middle class." He skipped to the real outrage—that the 81 Democrats who voted for the bill were failing to play by the political rules. "These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns," he complained. The unions would fight this to the "bitter end," he vowed. "Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees."

Got that? They skip the fake rhetoric about "war on middle class" and "union busting" and get to the meat -- those are Democrats that are bought and paid for by the unions, what the hell do they think they are doing??!!!!
Can we EVER get by the complete partisanship that makes dealing with the same real problem a national circuis in WI, but a quiet internicene hissy fit in MA.  We ALL have to deal with the totally obvious real problems with public unions being financial bag men for Democrat politicians so they can pad each other's pockets at public expense.  Please people, do we want to be self governing or do we want to be Chinese puppets???

Exhuming the NYT's Real Views

The Republican Threat to Voting - NYTimes.com

So if this is true, then did the Times also do an article on BOcare titled "The Democrat Threat to Health Care"?? If not, why not? Look at this:

Anyone who has stood on the long lines at a motor vehicle office knows that it isn’t easy to get such documents. For working people, it could mean giving up a day’s wages.

So government is completely unable to handle a simple operation like getting a free picture ID so you can vote in a reasonable amount of time. They are SO bad at it in fact that it is a clear infringement of the right of Democrats to vote early, often, and with complete anonymity. So if even the Times realizes that government is incapable of doing a reasonable job at something as simple as providing a picture ID, how is it that they are perfectly willing to give it control of health care?

Imagine the THREAT! To vote -- something you do every couple of years for most of us, you are FORCED to have a picture ID! Oh the horror! Now on taxes -- there you MUST file under penalty of law every single year! The forms are complicated, you have to present a whole bunch of personal financial information, and if you get it wrong you can be fined. Want to get on a plane? You MUST have a picture ID for that. Those areas however are no problem!! The Times LIKES taxes and they like to feel secure on planes. Forced to go get a picture ID? Not a problem in those cases.

Kansas’ new law was drafted by its secretary of state, Kris Kobach, who also wrote Arizona’s anti-immigrant law. Voters will be required to show a photo ID at the polls. Before they can register, Kansans will have to produce a proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate.

The Constitution actually declares that we have a right to bear arms that "shall not be infringed". As to your right to vote? It is largely left up to the states. How excited is the Times about someone having to show a picture ID, suffer a waiting period, wait around while a bunch of phone checks, etc are made before they can purchase a gun? According to the Constitution, that right "shall not be infringed". If we are suddenly so concerned about impinging on citizens "rights", would not their efforts be better served by fighting taxation rules, gun rules, or rules for getting on a plane?

I think we all understand what is really going on here. Democrats have long cheated on elections and have largely rigged the system so that they can do so with impunity. They want to continue to do so, and while making sure that the folks that vote are US citizens and that they vote only a single time or are likely to be caught and prosecuted, seems very reasonable to most, it isn't to the Times. They want to maintain the system so that the elections can be suitably rigged -- in their minds it is only "fair" that "close means the Democrat gets it".

The Mother of Truth

Inside the GOP's Fact-Free Nation | Mother Jones:

When one sees "Fact Free" and "Mother Jones" in close juxtaposition, one can be certain that a fact free screed is at hand. Anyone that has spent a couple of hours trying to get a basic flavor of rhetoric or epistemology will understand that "facts" are a rare thing indeed. There are mathematical and philosophic / logical facts -- like "red is red", but there are no scientific or political facts. In science they are all hypothesis, some reproduced by experiment many times, so outside the danger of inductive weakness, "assumed factual" -- others (and usually the ones held most dear by non-scientists) are not provable and in some cases, not even falsifiable (global warming and evolution would fall in those camps).

In all human camps, what passes for "knowledge" and "fact" is often more akin to a bedtime story than hard cold fact. Go to the neighboring tribe where the bedtime stories are different, and the "facts" are different as well. Such is the case with both the liberal and the conservative tribes, but apparently those smoking the peace pipe around the liberal campfire have forgotten the limits of their own mythology.

The article does do a great job of a short and amazingly honest appraisal of a core liberal myth:

"Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer from Plains, swooped in from nowhere to take the White House on the strength of the modest slogan 'I'll never lie to you.' And during his presidency, one of the grand, founding lies of western civilization itself—that there need be no limits to humans' domination of the Earth—was questioned as never before.

The truth hurt, but the incredible thing was that the citizenry seemed willing to bear the pain. All sorts of American institutions—Congress, municipal governments, even the intelligence community (the daring honesty of CIA Director William Colby about past agency sins was what helped fuel the Church and Pike investigations)—launched searching reconstructions of their normal ways of doing business. Alongside all the disco, the kidnapped heiresses, and the macramé, another keynote of 1970s culture was something quite more mature: a willingness to acknowledge that America might no longer be invincible, and that any realistic assessment of how we could prosper and thrive in the future had to reckon with that hard-won lesson.

Then along came Reagan."

In the dim and distant past, long before there was any evidence  like modern medicine, spaceflight, nuclear power, or the pop top beer can, God declared man to have "dominion over the earth". Cain, being the first liberal, was unhappy, but it was a long time -- in fact until the 1970's as documented above, before liberalism reached the pinnacle of having Jimmuh Carter tell God he was wrong.

Jimmuh Carter, slayer of bunnies and architect of the "Jimmy Carter Desert Classic" attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran, as well as the ever popular "Rose Garden" political strategy. He was a one term abortion of a president, but he was smarter than God on the truth of man's position -- but then all liberals are very certain they are smarter than God.

Now, while Carter was truth, beauty and victory -- for mother earth and the less fortunate of the planet, Reagan was satan. It is all clear ... in a liberal sort of way, including the final paragraph.

Sure, there will always be liars in positions of influence—that's stipulated, as the lawyers say. And the media, God knows, have never been ideal watchdogs—the battleships that crossed the seas to avenge the sinking of the Maine attest to that. What's new is the way the liars and their enablers now work hand in glove. That I call a mendocracy, and it is the regime that governs us now.

Got that? The man asserted by the left to be the greatest president in US history sits in the White House. Harry Reid sits as majority leader of the US Senate, BUT, we are governed by a "mendocracy"! Why? I guess because Republicans have the house and Fox news is still on the air. Please, recognize once and for all that "liberal truth", it is the kind that can only reign without opposition.

Understand that the objective of liberalism is as stated above -- the destruction of the US and the return of mankind to a pre-Genesis "mother earth centric" model. They are convinced they know the only "facts" that matter, THEIR FACTS!! They are perfectly convinced, and very willing to force their "only correct view" on the world at the point of a gun, in the gulag, in the gas chamber, via starvation, infanticide (China today), or by any other means they are able to wield. Because, they are CERTAIN they are right!!!

Another BO Record!

Reliance on Uncle Sam hits a record - USATODAY.com

There is no doubt that the BO presidency is a catastrophe of record proportions, and here we have another:

A record 18.3% of the nation's total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.

Wow, A record that has stood for over 80 years smashed after just over two very long years in the pungent cloud of BO.

Being As SImple As Possible

RealClearPolitics - The First Adult -- AWOL:

A good article covering the general shape that the discussion of the budget and debt eventually has to take:

- How big a government do we want? For four decades, federal spending has averaged 21 percent of gross domestic product. An aging population and high health costs mean that average spending, as a share of GDP, will rise by a third or more in the next 10 to 15 years if today's programs simply continue.

-- Who deserves government subsidies and how much? About 55 percent of spending goes to individuals, including the elderly, veterans, farmers, students, the disabled and the poor.

-- How much, if at all, should social spending be allowed to squeeze national defense?

-- If taxes rise, how much and on whom? What taxes would least hurt economic growth?

I'd modify the questions slightly:

1). What is the total tax bill that we are willing to shoulder as a nation in a given year? (Income)

2). How much do we want to pay down the debt in that year? 10% of total income ought to be the minimum ("savings")

3). How do we want to spend what we have left?

Adults start their budget with MEANS and end it with DESIRES, with RESPONSIBILITY in between. Caring enough to write someone a bad check is not really caring -- it is just wishful thinking. Writing someone a check on the backs of future generations is also not caring, it is financial child abuse. We as a nation have been doing a "teen budget" that begins with our wants, throws in whatever income shows up, and ends with a bloated credit card bill. It is no surprise we have ended up where we have.

#3 is a long but worthy discussion. #1 ought to be easy ... something less than 20% of projected GDP gathered as widely as possible, a "flat tax". America of all nations ought to completely repudiate the concept of "eating the rich". The fallacy of doing so is as old as killing the goose that laid golden eggs. The biggest problem with the "tax the rich approach" is that it is merely an extension of the "teen budget" -- "Mom and Dad will bail me out". That form of thinking assumes someone else has infinite resources (they never do), and it allows desires to run wild against an irresponsible and incorrect financial model.

The president keeps promoting an "adult conversation" about the budget, but that can't happen if the First Adult doesn't play his part. Obama is eager to be all things to all people. He's against the debt and its adverse consequences, but he's for preserving Social Security and Medicare without major changes. He's for "tough cuts," but he's against saying what they are and defending them. He pronounces ambitious goals without saying how they'd be reached. Mainly, he's for scoring political points against Republicans.

At some point, we as a nation will have to generally grow up so that BO style blather is seen as the juvenile wishful thinking that it is, and therefore unhelpful. Let us pray it is quick!

Birther Bush AWOL

Debunking the birther claim – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I love the difference in MSM treatment of BO's double secret Birth Certificate and "charges from some" that Bush didn't fulfill his TX National Guard service.

Normally, the issue with ones military service is honorable discharge, yes/no. Unless you are running on being a war hero or because of something else, the only criteria anyone cares about is if you received an honorable discharge. Flying a fighter and having more than one person remember they saw you while you were there is a plus, and a BIG plus on top of maybe saying you graduated from Columbia, yet nobody recalls you being there. http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/05/wayne-allyn-roots-million-doll
If nobody recalled Bush being in the TX National Guard, might that have been a news story??

Since Trump has brought up the birth issue again, the MSM is out in full defense of BO. Here we have their "airtight evidence":

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, says she has personally viewed the president's original vital records and verified that he was born in Hawaii.

Former Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, has been quoted as saying, "I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records at the Department of Health. We issued a news release at the time saying the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that is just a fact."

Does ANYONE that ever reads MSM news doubt at all that were BO a Republican, the required level of evidence would be quite simple??? Show the $#%$@ Birth Certificate!!!! There is no way the MSM would EVER take the word of ANYONE if they could raise any question on something like this against a Republican, and they would NEVER give up!!

Just consider the difference with the Bush Guard "issue". It was in no way disqualifying for president under any circumstances. There was no doubt Bush got an honorable discharge. Can you even IMAGINE what kind of media circus there would have been if he was trotting out "people who had SEEN the records of his honorable discharge"??! Dan Rather lost his job over having a full hour special on it in the fall of '04 based on FORGED DOCUMENTS to attempt to influence the election for Bush's second term, and we already KNEW he had gotten an honorable discharge!

Ask yourself: What would the assumption have been if the best evidence of Bush's honorable discharge was identical to this evidence for BO's Birth Certificate?? What would an article in CNN or a show on CBS have said about it in '00 or '04??? 

If it takes you more than a second to answer that, you really do need to think a bit about your partisanship completely destroying your reason. Oh, and BTW, why is it important for CNN to defend BO?? Does BO not have a staff? Is there not a Democratic party?  How many MSM articles / shows did you see DEFENDING Bush on the Guard issue?? 

How Bad Can You Hate Palin?

Wonkette Makes Fun of Trig Palin, Calls Him “Retarded” - Big Journalism

I guess bad enough that you are willing to pick on retarded children -- at least if you are "progressive" enough.

Need anyone really be reminded that if the MSM could find ANYONE that they even DREAMED was somehow "Conservative or Republican" -- like say the koran burning FL pastor or the gay bashing military Kansas protestors from some church, or whatever, it would need to be close to front page news a few hundred times?

This? It has the MSM anonymity it so richly deserves. Wish they could be more even handed about anonymity.

Willie Sutton on Taxes

Review & Outlook: Where the Tax Money Is - WSJ.com

BO and the Democrats like to lie a lot. If they want to pay for all of their vote buying attempts, the people that make from $50K - $500K are going to carry the freight, especially those that make from $100-$200K.

War is now Civil

War on the Weak - Newsweek:

This article is an orgy of misdirection. For one thing, we resurrect an old bogeyman of the left; Ayn Rand. It is always amazing to me after exposure to a constant stream of leftist thinking from grammer school through college, how completely threatening the left finds the fact that some people read one chain smoking dead megalomaniac semi-libertarian. I suspect that book burning would be one of their favorite hobbies if they could get just a bit more control.

Is the thinking of the left so fragile that rather than talk of specific policies, we need to open with a character assassination because somebody has read a book??? One would think that BO's paean to anti-white racism, tribalism, weird ties to old ancestors, soil attachment, drugs and various discredited leftists; "Dreams from my Father", would be more dangerous to read than Ayn -- let alone having it be written by the president!!

Remember Congresswoman Giffords? Shot in the head due to the uncivil rhetoric of Sarah Palin and other Tea Party wackos if you are a Democrat or MSM sheep. BO used the term "an assault on unions" to describe WI Governor Walker's attempt to balance the WI budget. I've renamed my M4 Bushmaster .223 to a "Civil Rifle" in BO's honor!  It really makes more sense -- it is far more likely to be used in defense of my family or the liberty of all than in anything like an "assault".

Here we see "War" used to describe a budget. Is the term "war" now not a "warlike metaphor"??? Isn't this exactly the kind of overheated rhetoric that was so dangerous as recently as January?? Oh wait, that only applies to Republicans -- rhetoric, nasty signs, death threats and vandalism are all "just politics" when they come from the left.

Aside from attempts to tell us how to think, the biggest difference here can be summed up by what your worldview is. If you believe that resources are close to infinite, no matter what the level of debt or deficit is, and "balance" is simply a matter of loading more on the folks that already pay 90% of the total tax bill, then by all means -- spend away. For the most needy, the might be needy, or even the not needy at all, but likely to vote for your party.

If you on the other hand believe that resources are finite, and saving some safety for the most needy even if that means encouraging the close to needy to work, and the not needy at all to just take care of themselves, then you might want to look a the Ryan proposal with something other than an 80% ad hominem attack on his reading history as a reason for rejecting it!

Attacking the man is always easier than making a real argument.