by Not even Glenn Beck would draw so many far-fetched connections. This is my impression, too.Conventional economic studies are rigorous formally but based on questionable assumptions about the real world and little if any hard evidence.The sociology of Russiagate is similar in a different way since there is zero rigor. However, it is based on hugely ideological tacit assumptions and the conclusions are more allegation based on inference than chargeable offenses based on evidence.Both are just different forms of BS."American madness," indeed.However, this is not just another rant. Floyd is no Trump or Putin fan and he makes a lot of good points about why this madness is bad for America and should end immediately.If there is evidence of chargeable offenses, let the authorities bring charges
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Russiagate, US propaganda
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results? — Alan I. Abramowitz
Mike Norman writes Concord Management and the End of Russiagate? — David Lazare
Mike Norman writes Deconstructing Elliott Abrams on Venezuela — Peter Bolton
Mike Norman writes Adam Carter — “Mueller Report – Expensive Estimations And Elusive Evidence”
Not even Glenn Beck would draw so many far-fetched connections.This is my impression, too.
Conventional economic studies are rigorous formally but based on questionable assumptions about the real world and little if any hard evidence.
The sociology of Russiagate is similar in a different way since there is zero rigor. However, it is based on hugely ideological tacit assumptions and the conclusions are more allegation based on inference than chargeable offenses based on evidence.
Both are just different forms of BS.
"American madness," indeed.
However, this is not just another rant. Floyd is no Trump or Putin fan and he makes a lot of good points about why this madness is bad for America and should end immediately.
If there is evidence of chargeable offenses, let the authorities bring charges and those accuse have their day in court. Otherwise, STFU!
Second, it is driving us toward more and more constrictions on free speech, while also putting tech companies in charge of deciding on the political "trustworthiness" of websites, news organizations and individuals. Is this what we want? I'm not talking about open hate sites or calls for violence; I'm talking about the parameters we're seeing used by the many groups suddenly springing up to determine “Russian influence.” Some of these guidelines include “material critical of US policy in Syria” or of US policy in general, or even stories about BLM or the pipeline protests. These groups — some of them anonymous, some of them made up of neocons and warhawks — are supplying the “information” being used in most news stories and Congressional hearings on the subject. Is this what we want? Google and a gaggle of anonymous militarists to determine whether we are following the correct political line or not? To be able to accuse anyone who questions US policy of being a Russian dupe or even a Russian agent? Is this really where we want to go? Because that’s where many Democrats are taking us.Empire Burlesque
Don Draper Rules: Russian Ads and American Madness