Comments on: Betsy McCaughey and Big Tobacco http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 09:28:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290635 John Quiggin Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:55:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290635 @functional If you're not a corporate shill yourself, you're apparently happy to be sucked in by them, and to push their line for free. If you aren't already on the payroll, I'd suggest writing to Manhattan and asking for a cut. @functional

If you’re not a corporate shill yourself, you’re apparently happy to be sucked in by them, and to push their line for free. If you aren’t already on the payroll, I’d suggest writing to Manhattan and asking for a cut.

]]> By: functional http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290629 functional Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:01:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290629 <i>If your views on rent control are derived from reading what Milton Friedman wrote about in the 1950s, or from an extrapolation of 19th century classical liberals, and you’re content not to update your beliefs with new information, the institutional corruption observed here is no problem. But if you want more on the topic you might well find something like this piece from the Manhattan Institute convincing. The fact that the Manhattan Institute is up for sale to any industry that cares to pay, and prone to weaselly denials of this fact, would then be a bit of a problem. Maybe, as with Betsy McCaughey’s lie-packed piece on health care, you’re being sold a pup by people who would benefit from the removal of rent control.</i> Well, sorry, but your argument again boils down to utter silliness: because the Manhattan Institute apparently got $25,000 or $30,000 from some tobacco company once (compared to a yearly budget of over $12 million), therefore an article on rent control is probably wrong. If your views on rent control are derived from reading what Milton Friedman wrote about in the 1950s, or from an extrapolation of 19th century classical liberals, and you’re content not to update your beliefs with new information, the institutional corruption observed here is no problem. But if you want more on the topic you might well find something like this piece from the Manhattan Institute convincing. The fact that the Manhattan Institute is up for sale to any industry that cares to pay, and prone to weaselly denials of this fact, would then be a bit of a problem. Maybe, as with Betsy McCaughey’s lie-packed piece on health care, you’re being sold a pup by people who would benefit from the removal of rent control.

Well, sorry, but your argument again boils down to utter silliness: because the Manhattan Institute apparently got $25,000 or $30,000 from some tobacco company once (compared to a yearly budget of over $12 million), therefore an article on rent control is probably wrong.

]]> By: David http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290618 David Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:53:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290618 I think the fact that Betsy literally can't get a job any more--has been dumped by the Hudson Institute, the think tank that has employed her for more than a decade, as well as by the board that she served on--speaks volumes about her credibility even on the right. Credible conservative critics of health care reform are horrified by McCaughey's insane, self-serving lies. The only reason she gets media play is that liberal media outlets like to quote her to discredit conservatives. Now that she has no job, here's hoping she fades into the obscurity she so richly deserves. I think the fact that Betsy literally can’t get a job any more—has been dumped by the Hudson Institute, the think tank that has employed her for more than a decade, as well as by the board that she served on—speaks volumes about her credibility even on the right. Credible conservative critics of health care reform are horrified by McCaughey’s insane, self-serving lies. The only reason she gets media play is that liberal media outlets like to quote her to discredit conservatives. Now that she has no job, here’s hoping she fades into the obscurity she so richly deserves.

]]> By: Jeff http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290232 Jeff Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:27:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290232 Isn't it likely true that a huge proportion of supposed opinion pieces (e.g. letters, columns, guest pieces, comments, and the like from "interested public", expert, so-called think tanks, columnists, etc.) as well as journalism and other articles of background and general interst, are actually placed, bought, and strategized manipulative propaganda? Analogous to astroturf, much of public discourse less an expression of than manipulative of public opinion? Is this cynicism or am I slow and it's obvious? Isn’t it likely true that a huge proportion of supposed opinion pieces (e.g. letters, columns, guest pieces, comments, and the like from “interested public”, expert, so-called think tanks, columnists, etc.) as well as journalism and other articles of background and general interst, are actually placed, bought, and strategized manipulative propaganda? Analogous to astroturf, much of public discourse less an expression of than manipulative of public opinion?

Is this cynicism or am I slow and it’s obvious?

]]> By: Alex http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290074 Alex Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:19:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290074 Tim Worstall, of course, at least used to be on the TechCentralStation payroll, i.e. on the ExxonMobile and AEI lobbying budgets, working for Jim "Dow 36,000" Glassman. Tim Worstall, of course, at least used to be on the TechCentralStation payroll, i.e. on the ExxonMobile and AEI lobbying budgets, working for Jim “Dow 36,000” Glassman.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290072 John Quiggin Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:07:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290072 Leaving aside the Betsy McCaughey dispute, there's ample evidence that the Manhattan Institute is (or was, while the cash was flowing) in the pay of the tobacco lobby http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research Leaving aside the Betsy McCaughey dispute, there’s ample evidence that the Manhattan Institute is (or was, while the cash was flowing) in the pay of the tobacco lobby

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290046 John Quiggin Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:33:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290046 To respond a bit further to functional, it's not " a handful of American right-wingers made bad arguments on behalf of Exxon and tobacco in the 1990s", it's all the major thinktanks, news sources and so on for which rightwingers rely on for information and new arguments. If your views on rent control are derived from reading what Milton Friedman wrote about in the 1950s, or from an extrapolation of 19th century classical liberals, and you're content not to update your beliefs with new information, the institutional corruption observed here is no problem. But if you want more on the topic you might well find something like <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-rent_controls.htm" rel="nofollow">this piece from the Manhattan Institute</a> convincing. The fact that the Manhattan Institute is up for sale to any industry that cares to pay, and prone to weaselly denials of this fact, would then be a bit of a problem. Maybe, as with Betsy McCaughey's lie-packed piece on health care, you're being sold a pup by people who would benefit from the removal of rent control. And, for Manhattan, you can substitute CEI, AEI, Cato, Fox News, Hudson, Marshall Institute and just about every other source of advocacy for rightwing views (go to the archives and search for Milloy, Bate, Singer, Seitz, Fumento etc etc.) To respond a bit further to functional, it’s not ” a handful of American right-wingers made bad arguments on behalf of Exxon and tobacco in the 1990s”, it’s all the major thinktanks, news sources and so on for which rightwingers rely on for information and new arguments. If your views on rent control are derived from reading what Milton Friedman wrote about in the 1950s, or from an extrapolation of 19th century classical liberals, and you’re content not to update your beliefs with new information, the institutional corruption observed here is no problem. But if you want more on the topic you might well find something like this piece from the Manhattan Institute convincing. The fact that the Manhattan Institute is up for sale to any industry that cares to pay, and prone to weaselly denials of this fact, would then be a bit of a problem. Maybe, as with Betsy McCaughey’s lie-packed piece on health care, you’re being sold a pup by people who would benefit from the removal of rent control.

And, for Manhattan, you can substitute CEI, AEI, Cato, Fox News, Hudson, Marshall Institute and just about every other source of advocacy for rightwing views (go to the archives and search for Milloy, Bate, Singer, Seitz, Fumento etc etc.)

]]> By: Uncle Kvetch http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290027 Uncle Kvetch Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:52:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290027 <i>This seems a remarkable bit of extrapolation . . . because a handful of American right-wingers made bad arguments on behalf of Exxon and tobacco in the 1990s, therefore conservative arguments against, say, rent control or farm subsidies, etc., are discredited.</i> "We will be welcomed as liberators." This seems a remarkable bit of extrapolation . . . because a handful of American right-wingers made bad arguments on behalf of Exxon and tobacco in the 1990s, therefore conservative arguments against, say, rent control or farm subsidies, etc., are discredited.

“We will be welcomed as liberators.”

]]> By: Tim O'Keefe http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290011 Tim O'Keefe Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:47:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290011 To follow up on #33, bans on smoking in public places would seem easy to justify under Mill's Harm Principle, given the effects of second-hand smoke. To follow up on #33, bans on smoking in public places would seem easy to justify under Mill’s Harm Principle, given the effects of second-hand smoke.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290001 engels Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:11:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290001 <i>“And, to return to the OP and my comment, SamChevre appears unaware that the entire case against restrictions on smoking (including “libertarian” arguments against restrictions on smoking in public places and supposedly grassroots groups like FOREST) was ginned up by the tobacco industry.”</i> <i>Really? The tobacco industry was responsible for JS Mill?</i> Where did John Stuart Mill argue against bans on smoking in public places, Tim? “And, to return to the OP and my comment, SamChevre appears unaware that the entire case against restrictions on smoking (including “libertarian” arguments against restrictions on smoking in public places and supposedly grassroots groups like FOREST) was ginned up by the tobacco industry.”

Really? The tobacco industry was responsible for JS Mill?

Where did John Stuart Mill argue against bans on smoking in public places, Tim?

]]> By: Barry http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-290000 Barry Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:04:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-290000 Ajay, I've felt that that was the big reason why so many people got on the anti-smoking bandwagon. 20-30 years ago, smokers smoked, and non-smokers STFU and breathed the smoke. I remember several years ago walking into a smoky bar; my eyes were burning afterwards, which was (at last!) an unfamiliar sensation, rather than the norm. Ajay, I’ve felt that that was the big reason why so many people got on the anti-smoking bandwagon. 20-30 years ago, smokers smoked, and non-smokers STFU and breathed the smoke. I remember several years ago walking into a smoky bar; my eyes were burning afterwards, which was (at last!) an unfamiliar sensation, rather than the norm.

]]> By: ajay http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-289998 ajay Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:37:14 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-289998 <i>Why, pray tell, would anyone want to stigmatize smokers and make smoking more difficult if not for “health reasons,” which might, of course, be mistaken?</i> Well, smoke smells bad, and clothes worn in a smoke-filled room smell worse, and smokers tend not to have the common courtesy to ask other people in the room whether they mind if they smoke. Why, pray tell, would anyone want to stigmatize smokers and make smoking more difficult if not for “health reasons,” which might, of course, be mistaken?

Well, smoke smells bad, and clothes worn in a smoke-filled room smell worse, and smokers tend not to have the common courtesy to ask other people in the room whether they mind if they smoke.

]]> By: becky grant http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-289986 becky grant Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:46:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-289986 I have to agree with James. There have been to many instances personally where I haven't verified the source and it has led to mayhem. Not only personally but professional I think it is extremely important. I have to agree with James. There have been to many instances personally where I haven’t verified the source and it has led to mayhem. Not only personally but professional I think it is extremely important.

]]> By: Barry http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-289939 Barry Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:19:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-289939 "In general, it is always a good idea to verify information sources on a per topic basis." Uh, no. “In general, it is always a good idea to verify information sources on a per topic basis.”

Uh, no.

]]> By: james http://crookedtimber.org/2009/09/28/betsy-mccaughey-and-big-tobacco/comment-page-1/#comment-289925 james Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:30:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=13178#comment-289925 functional - People tend to selectively remember lies. If you want to ‘play the dozens’ on this topic. Point out the NY Times involvement in covering for Stalin and Castro. It gets pretty nasty. In general, it is always a good idea to verify information sources on a per topic basis. functional – People tend to selectively remember lies. If you want to ‘play the dozens’ on this topic. Point out the NY Times involvement in covering for Stalin and Castro. It gets pretty nasty. In general, it is always a good idea to verify information sources on a per topic basis.

]]>