Reply With Quote
Man was that "oil to plummet" wrong. It was only a month, and could still happen, but I give the chances as being a bit less.
I've seen things like that before. Thing is, most of the people claiming she lies, are the liars.
Pick some out, and verify!
The left gets so pissed at her and they cannot dispute the facts in her books, so they have to make a big deal out of the difference between end notes and foot notes.
As many things as she has said, I'm sure you can find some things at fault. Web links don't count. It just shows the level of hatred she has acquired by the left. When you consider how many things she says are true compared to untrue, she has a pretty good record.
Man was that "oil to plummet" wrong. It was only a month, and could still happen, but I give the chances as being a bit less.
(sighs)
Fine.
Columbia Journalism Review:
MAGAZINE WRITING
Books: How Slippery Is Slander?
... a trial subscription is required for more.Are footnotes a foolproof defense of accuracy? The conservative pundit Ann Coulter seems to think so. When liberal columnists and bloggers alleged that her new book, Slander, misreads history, selectively (and deceptively) presents facts, and misquotes the media, Coulter pointed to the 780 footnotes that pepper her pages.
Her publisher, Crown, has corrected five errors for the book's second printing: three minor misidentifications of public figures, an incorrect citation of The New York Times's coverage of the race car driver Dale Earnhardt's death, and an erroneous claim about press coverage of an Al Gore gaffe.
But what about the dozens of other allegations by Coulter's ideological foes? CJR checked out a sample of forty alleged errors — some backed by footnotes and others not — and found that nineteen were either accurate or could generously be considered fair comment and criticism. (Though some of the latter were hyperbolic or oversimplified to the point of absurdity — "Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half-century," for example.) If a number of those nineteen would have raised the eyebrows of any good fact-checker, the remaining twenty-one would not pass without major debate. Here are three examples — all involving The New York Times, which consumes a major chunk of her index — of the kind of misstatements that we think Crown should consider correcting:
Coulter Claim: The New York Times columnist Frank Rich "demanded that Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." (p. 5)
Footnote: She cites an October 27, 2001 column in which Rich makes no such demands. He does chastise Ashcroft for not meeting with Planned Parenthood, which sought to offer tips on combating anthrax scares, based on its own experience with them.
Coulter Claim: Liberals called the American flag "very, very dumb." (p. 4)
Footnote: She cites a New York Times story in which a liberal history professor, Daniel Boylan, makes no claim about the intelligence of the flag. He does criticize — as "acting very, very dumb in their patriotism" — those who have criticized Hawaii for not flying an American flag over Iolani Palace, the nineteenth century seat of the Hawaiian monarchy.
Coulter Claim: She introduces a New York Times editorial on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas headlined the youngest, cruelest justice, then writes: "Thomas is not engaged on the substance of his judicial philosophy. He is called 'a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race traitor,' 'black snake,' 'chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom' . . . ." (p. 12)
Footnote: The passage is constructed to suggest that the Times authored these epithets, but the footnote refers readers to comments made in a Playboy article, which goes unmentioned in the book's text.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21.html
She lies brazenly in the book about the Dover trial, which ruled the teaching of ID in science classrooms uncons utional. According to Coulter: “They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter.” Here Ann Coulter shows herself to be either completely incompetent or deliberately deceptive. The judge that presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a life-long Republican and a church-goer, appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. Clifford A. Rieders, the former president of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association and a Democrat, said Judge Jones is “universally well regarded.” Coulter’s attempt to smear him is transparently motivated by her ideological concerns, not the facts.
“Environmentalists’ energy plan is the repudiation of America and Christian destiny, which is Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing.”
This consumerist position is untenable in light of much of Christian and American intellectual history. Coulter can’t point to a verse in the New Testament promoting self-indulgence that could justify the con uous consumption of the rich while tens of thousands die every day due to malnutrition and easily treatable diseases. Jesus exhorts his followers, “Sell that which you have, and give gifts to the needy,” and seek treasures in heaven instead of on earth. Nowhere in Coulter’s book does she express concern for the troubled people of the third world where there are food and drug shortages, or for the poor in this country who can’t even afford healthcare, much less jet skis or night skiing.
Coulter's a Joke, meanwhile, think gas prices can't go higher?
CNNNEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite daily headlines bemoaning record gas prices, the U.S. is actually one of the cheaper places to fill up in the world.
Out of 155 countries surveyed, U.S. gas prices were the 45th cheapest, according to a recent study from AIRINC, a research firm that tracks cost of living data.
The difference is staggering. As of late March, U.S. gas prices averaged $3.45 a gallon. That compares to over $8 a gallon across much of Europe, $12.03 in Aruba and $18.42 in Sierra Leone.
The U.S. has always fought to keep gas prices low, and the current debate among presidential candidates on how to keep them that way has been fierce. But those cheap gas prices - which Americans have gotten used to - mean they feel price es like the ones we're experiencing now more acutely than citizens from other nations which have had historically more expensive fuel.
Random, I didn't say she doesn't make mistakes. Consider the one article cites 780 footnotes, and how few of claims they ever find errors on. Think about how many statements she is making that fall under scrutiny. 19 of 40 said errors were not. That leaves 21 errors out of how many thousands of painful statements she says in her book "Slander."
I just wish I was that accurate. Don't you?
(shrugs)
There are waaaay more than that, and if you weren't so lazy and/or dishonest, you might find them too. I gave but a few links, and they weren't all copy and paste jobs of each other's work.
As it is, I think it has been reasonably demonstrated that a large portion, if not a majority of what she says has little substantiated basis in reality.
I will not waste a lot of time here trying to prove how her rhetoric is little more than empty demogoguery.
If you want to ruin your credibility by saying she is a great source of wisdom, go ahead.
I have three of her books. The material is verifiable. Several sites that claim she is lying are in fact using errosious data themselve.
(shrugs)
There are waaaay more than that, and if you weren't so lazy and/or dishonest, you might find them too. I gave but a few links, and they weren't all copy and paste jobs of each other's work.
The thing with Ann Coulter is knowing her style enough to distinguish what her intent is. She often exagerrates with words, calling someone for example a traitor when they are simply not patriotic, and are what I call "lawful evil." or even any other 'evil' personality as defined by the 2nd edition AD&D.
You call me lazy? You didn't pick any specific example. You are the lazy one here. Isn't the burden of proof suppose to lie with the assusor? One reason why we fought for our independence from England was because of your tactics. "Let the assused provce their innocence!"
Shame on you.
You should pick up one her books sometime and read the reference material she cites, and go beyond that.
Then don't call me lazy. You are the accusor. Are you being slanderous, or can you produce your own evidence rather than someone elses propaganda and lies?
Oh, I won't say that. She is a flamethrower and speaks what is almost always the truth, but she does it in very inflamatory ways. She does exagerate at times, but everything she says does have some good footing in the truth.If you want to ruin your credibility by saying she is a great source of wisdom, go ahead.
Take as many supposable errors you wish and compare them with the thousands of statements she makes. Do some serious work on what others say are errors, and chances are, you will find she is right. Not those who say she is lying.
Like any "Shock Jock," I can only listen to so much of her. The level of abuse she imposes on others is like Michael Savage. I have a hard time listening to such negativity for too long.
Still, she is rarely wrong in what she says.
I guess if one really boils down her material you can find that when she actually bothers with facts, they generally are correct.
What she does with those facts though is an entirely different thing. Her "claims" when it comes to drawing conclusions from those facts tend to have so little basis in reality as to be almost non sequiturs.
"Liberal Guy A was slightly critical of the president, [fact] so he must be having sex with his dog. [wtf?]
"Liberal Guy B said X, [slight misquote], so therefore all liberals deserve to be hanged or put in insane asylums. [wtf?]
She consistantly leaves out half the truth in some bizarre quest to villify people she doesn't agree with, and in that she falls into the worst category of liars, those that use *just* enough truth to not be outright lying, but couldn't really support what she says with any degree of reasonable fairness.
I would not waste my time on reading her material. I also think that the majority of that "propaganda" true.
You claim that the "propaganda" is lies, you provide the proof.
Now that is one of the undesirable aspects of Ann Coulter. When she comes down on people, she makes fun of them like allot of people do. This isn't meant as fact, and anybody can see that. The things meant as fact are understood from anyone reading her work.
I never said she was fair. I was nice at calling her a flamethrower!
As for the examples you stated above, that is her part of her style when she chooses to demean someone. I cannot recall those specific examples to a situation, but she does get mean. I don't recall her saying such things for the minor exemplas you mention either, but she does get that way at times. She will take a factual situation, then give her opinion. We all know opinion is not fact. You understand that, right?
It would be like you are I saying "I saw the him run strait into oncoming traffic." .... "He's a real crack-head."
Don't you ever make such statements? Maybe with different language and words? Don't you ever take fact, then interject your opinion? She's just a flamethrower as she does it.
As for her lying when presenting facts. No. She doesn't need to. The people she vilifies are all she says. That's part of the reason she has no mercy.
Find me an actual error or lie, or drop this.
Here is the subject that turned my opinion of her. McCarthyism. We all learned in school what a vile man he was, destroying innocent lives. In her book Treason she shows the truth behind the man and the subject, that can be verified. And I have done so after reading that book.
It was the democrat lead house investigations that were destructive. They attacked anyone thought of having communist teas during the red scare. The people McCarthy was referring to were in fact soviet agents, which were later verified with Project Venona. Being the patriot McCarthy was, he couldn't reveal his information to clear his name.
I wonder if because McCarty was right about real communist infiltration in our government if others conducted ridiculous hearings to discredit the cause.
Disruptions In Oil Supply May Extend Price Rise
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; D01
Here's how a small group of militants in West Africa can help keep an issue alive in presidential politics in Indiana and Washington.
On Sunday morning, an e-mail arrived from a representative of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) announcing that 36 hours earlier, the group had overrun a "heavily fortified" Royal Dutch S oil installation in Nigeria's Bayelsa state.
When commodity markets opened in New York yesterday, crude oil prices pierced the $120-a-barrel threshold for the first time before settling at $119.97, a record.
The $3.65 jump in crude oil prices helped sustain the intensity of political debates about gasoline prices, which yesterday stood at a national average of $3.61 a gallon -- a penny shy of a record and up about 55 cents this year. In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" yesterday, President Bush said that the price of gasoline troubled him "a lot" and that rising gasoline prices were "like a tax on the working people."
( the cretin is ing brilliant!! dubya always has exactly the right words at exactly the right time.
"working people" as opposed to the non-working "Top 2%" with their $Ts in tax cuts??
But however troubled Bush and other political leaders may be, oil experts said the small cushion of excess capacity around the world could mean a continuation of the recent volatility of oil prices at a high level. That could result in a long, hot summer for drivers, and it could leave the domestic U.S. politics of gasoline hostage to outside events.
"This continues to be a crisis-prone market, and that is reflected in the oil price," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "The fundamental fact is that it's a tight market."
Concern about Nigeria's output, which has been curtailed recently by labor disputes and militant attacks, raised new fears about the availability of world oil supplies. That concern fed into a rally in oil prices that started on Friday after federal jobs data raised expectations that the U.S. economy would be stronger than expected and that as a result, U.S. demand for oil would be more robust than expected.
"May is the lowest-demand month of the year, so it's really important that we see some buildup of stocks ahead of the summer," said Adam Robinson, an oil analyst at Lehman Brothers. "And here you have a couple of factors chipping away at that seasonal cushion."
Financial considerations continued to play a role in the high level of oil prices, oil experts said.
Robinson said that after 15 months of steady increases in oil prices, traders were reluctant to sell crude oil short, a financial method of betting on a price decline.
( meaning the traders don't expect price declines, duh )
"There's nobody waiting at retail stations to fill up cars, and there's no problem getting crude to refineries," said Rob J. Routs, executive director of oil products at Royal Dutch S . "The subprime crisis has redirected a lot of money into commodities." That, he added, was creating a "speculative premium."
( govt's should remove oil and food commodities from traders, so critical commodities are not subject to speculaton, causing financial disruption and millions of death as the traders profit. WTF has oil/food trader/speculator done for me lately, or ever? )
Oil prices "have changed dramatically" over the past year, Routs said, "certainly beyond our expectations."
( so does he get a dramatic change is expert's salary for predicting wrong?
But supplies are still important, oil experts say. Adam Sieminski, chief oil economist at Deutsche Bank, said declines in oil output in the United States and Europe and a slowdown in the growth of oil production in Russia were making it hard for world supplies to keep pace with rising consumption.
He said that even with the stagnant oil consumption in industrialized nations, world oil consumption would grow about 1.2 million barrels a day. And even with increased oil output in some nations, he predicted "rising dependence" on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
One of those OPEC countries is Nigeria, which produces a high-quality crude oil especially well-suited for U.S. refineries that produce large amounts of gasoline. Production in Nigeria has been growing from offshore oil fields, but militants continue to cripple much of the output that used to flow from wells in the sprawling Niger River delta.
S 's share of the suspended production during the first quarter was 156,000 barrels a day, the company's chief financial officer, Peter Voser, said in a conference call last week. That rose to 164,000 barrels a day before the attacks over the weekend. Based on S 's share of overall production, Voser's estimate suggests that Nigeria's exports are at least 550,000 barrels a day less than the country's capacity.
Attacks over the past couple of years had targeted operations in the western part of the delta, and Voser said S was restoring some of those facilities when MEND launched attacks in the eastern part of the delta early this year.
Although one of its fighters died, MEND, a loose umbrella of groups, dismissed the Nigerian military gunboats and soldiers guarding the installation as "mere ornaments." The group's e-mail said, however, that it was "seriously considering" a temporary ceasefire appeal by presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
( HUSSEIN! displays his foreign policy mastery!
A senior foreign policy adviser to Obama said he had not commented recently on the situation in the Niger delta, though he had urged an end to the violence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines
.
I heard on that some are even speculating Oil going upwards of $200 a barrel this year!!! What is up with that!!!???!!!???
I see that as very unlikely.
The recent run-ups seem to have had a LOT to do with the fed cutting interest rates, something they will be unlikely to continue, given the inflationary pressures from rising energy costs, as they have aleardy alluded to.
Supply worries will be leveling out, and overall consumption will be damped by a US economic slowdown. China WILL clamp down (and indeed is already doing so) on its overheating economy within a year, and that will also help mitigate demand somewhat.
Because of these two factors, both on the supply side and the demand side, at some point, returns from oil futures will flatten out, and when that happens, speculators will likely abandon oil futures to some degree, causing a pullback.
My best guess is that oil will end the year somewhere around where it is now, at about $120. The most likely range being about $95-145.
This is mostly my intuition, though. We'll see how good that intuition is in December.
Ah, the good ol' days of 2005. (gas prices are hovering around $4.50 as of now)
Well, he was off, but not by much, wasn't he?
Less then two and half years later, the price of oil has more than doubled, representing price growth of about 40% per year. (1.4 to the 2.5 power)
I think that "peak oil" is pretty much certain, the only questions are when, and what we do about it.
Go drill in ANWAR, I don't really care. It won't make much difference in the end anyways.
We need a coherent strategy on developing conservation methods first, and solid R & D looking down the road on renewables.
i used to think $4 a gal for gas was unlikely.
I was off a little, on the conservative side....now I'm saying gas could go to $8 a gallon in 2 more years....I thought it was supposed to hit 80-100 bucks and gas to $4 a gallon by now. According to nbadan that is!
Dang, those ten year futures for $100/bbl would have been a GREAT investment. Sitting three years down the road and prices are at $110-$120 or so.
Zowie.
I guess we get to find out. I hope/think scott was wrong about this. No offense intended scott.
"the constraint is refining capacity"
No longer, it seems.
It is interesting to revisit the earlier part of the thread for stuff like this.
Scott is a smart guy, and I would bet money on what he says/predicts as the odds are good that he is usually right about this stuff.
I wonder what he would say now as an analysis of the situation?
Zounds. RG may have been on to something.
Ok, sorry that was too self-congratulatory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
