In his most recent screed--Will Leftists Launch "Currency Trutherism" Against Nouriel Roubini?--Professor Douglas links to this post, saying the following:
"Roubini's made a big name for himself recently with a series of prescient articles on the scale of economic collapse (see, "The Coming Financial Pandemic," from Foreign Policy, March/April 2008). He's something of a "Chicken Little" if you ask me, but my interest here is whether leftist airheads will start attacking him for his "black copter" currency conspiracies:"
(This post is the "leftist" link. The "airheads" link goes to one of Donald's own AmPow posts (make of that what you will), which I replied to in the previous update.)
In answer to professor Douglas' question, no, I don't think many will suggest Roubini is touting a "black copter" currency conspiracy," because what he says is quite possibly true; If we don't improve the security of the dollar, other countries may start moving their reserve currencies away from the dollar and to other currencies playing on the world market. There is only so much we can do to prevent other countries from changing the reserve currency they choose to use, other than to make the dollar as attractive as possible on the world stage.
Bachmann on the other hand, was suggesting that the US was going to change it's own currency. She offered a congressional resolution against the replacement of the dollar by a foreign currency as the unit of exchange in the United States, something no US politician or government official supported in the first place. That is what made her sound like a conspiracy theorist.
That Donald Douglas cannot understand the difference surprises me no end.
UPDATE in reply to Donald Douglas @ AmPow 4/1/09:
Nothing new in professor Douglas' April Fool post about his love for Bachmann, except for the Rassmussen bit. I'm opposed to America changing it's currency, too. But since no one here is suggesting we do, Bachmann's quest to protect our American currency by law is as frivolous as one making it illegal to remove one's own legs with a hacksaw, or prohibiting dogs from working as chefs in five star restaurants. If no one here wants to do it in the first place, we don't need a law clarifying our position on it. It's a smokescreen. (Yes, I'm pretty sure Rassmussen would find we're all in favor of protecting ourselves from intergalactic alien invasion too, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to vote for spending several billion bucks or so on building a multigalactic space laser to protect us from them, or that I won't mercilessly excoriate the first politician who suggests it.)
Also, see if you can spot professor Douglas' lie about what Geithner said. Donald sez in his Fool post:
"Indeed, Geithner specifically claimed that the world economy needed a "new global supercurrency" as a unit of international commerce and exchange. Check the links, folks."
Check it, indeed, because Donald doesn't quote it... Anyone wonder why?
"...Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China’s central bank, suggested on Tuesday that the world needs a new global “supercurrency” to replace the dollar.
Geithner, who had not read the proposal, did not immediately dismiss the idea during his talk on Wednesday. He said the governor was “very thoughtful, pragmatic.” He added, “Anything he is thinking about deserves consideration.”"
Donald: Geithner "specifically claimed" what, again?
Donald's Dear Readers: Does Donald's link say what he claims it does?
No matter how much or how often our friend Donald Douglas jumps up trying to defend this woman --and drum up support and cover for her from like-minded Cons--the fact remains that she often sounds a little bit crazy. And while feigning (or being) over the top or crazy works for some cons as an attention-getting device (see: Ann "Homenim" Coulter, or Glenn "Crazy Eyes" Beck), I believe the American people know the difference between show business clowns like Beck or Coulter, whose job it is to get eyeballs and ears for the media outlets for whom they work, and elected officials like Bachmann, whose job it is to intelligently discuss and debate legislation, and provide oversight of our government.
In his first post in defense of Ms Bachmann, Professor Douglas offers cover for her "foreign correspondent on enemy lines" quip and misquote of Jefferson's "a little rebellion..." line. My favorite part is where professor Douglas takes offense at the comment of a person who says:
"I want this nutjob - and others like her - stripsearched every time she comes close to the President. It would NOT at ALL surprise me if at one point people like her get the insane idea that they need to "save" the nation and do stupid things."Donald has obviously already forgotten that nutjob who shot up the Unitarian Church in TN, or the reasons he gave for doing so.
Post #2 sees Donald Douglas mentioning (but not really defending, so much as changing the subject of) his heroine's insistent questioning about Treasury Department power in the US Constitution, after noting that many people found her behavior a bit odd. (In answer to her question, the US Congress granted that power, as authorized by the US Constitution. The Constitution itself doesn't verbally authorize all that much of what we now have in modern America. And in answer to one of Donald's anon commenters, where in the Constitution is there a rule analogous to the free speech clause saying that Congress cannot legally decide to grant powers to the Treasury department?) After showing the video of Bachmann's behavior and quoting one of the folks who question it, Donald ignores both video and quote, and instead attacks a different FDL post about Bachmann--this one about her "foreign enemy" comment I mentioned above, which Donald took offense to based on a photoshopped photo included in the post, rather than any of the commentary it contained--, put Bachmann in the same league as Palin (at least some liberals agree, calling them the "Thelma and Louise" of the Republican party.), and then quoting some other right wing blogger saying what a good girl Michele Bachman is...
Donald's third Bachmann post this week defends her against those who think she's a nut for creating a congressional resolution against the replacement of the dollar by a foreign currency as the unit of exchange in the United States, something no US politician or government official supports in the first place.
This time Donald tries to justify Bachmann by talking about what happens in developing economies, where they essentially adopt the dollar as their currency, either together with, or instead of their own. Dollarization is real, but it isn't something likely to happen here anytime in the near (or far) future.
Realizing dollarization was a mighty thin thread on which to hang his defense, professor Douglas offers the example of the Euro, which did change the sovereign currencies of several European countries into one continental currency. Again, I suppose it's possible somewhere down the road, but at the moment, those defending our nation against a similar move here (which now includes Bachmann, hence the title of this post), are fighting against a straw man of their own making, as no one--NO ONE--is suggesting any such thing.
As I said above, Bachmann post #4 begins with Donald bemoaning the fact that few right wing bloggers have leapt to Ms. Bachmann's aid like he has. Beyond that it's simply Donald restating the things he's said in the previous posts--the Euro, dollarization, stupid liberals are attacking Bachmann unfairly, .... While he at one point says "She's simply putting in place legislative protections against this administration's transnationalists, those who are willing to consider the replacement of the dollar of the world's reserve currency.," Donald offers no evidence that any "administration transnationalists" exist. In fact, it was many good liberals (and good libertarians and paleocons) who've been opposed to all this free trade transnationalism from the beginning. (NAFTA's giant sucking sound continues moving jobs away from America and other developed nations, and to places where pennies a day gets you 12 or more hours of union-free, protection-free labor. All hail cheap plastic crap from Wal-Mart. Ford paid his employees enough so they could afford to purchase one of his cars. Wal-Mart & the like pay just enough so that their workers can't afford to by anything anywhere else.)
"Bachman is my heroine (or heroin)" post # 5 is another plea for help in protecting the honor of this poor woman against the slings and arrows of those who see her for the crackpot she proves herself to be with her every word. He's disappointed that so few are coming to rescue her. And, if Donald thinks mentioning "Beck of the Apocalypse" as someone who understands and agrees with Bachmann is going to help the reputation of Glenn or Michele (or Donald, himself), he's sadly mistaken. They have their true believers (including professor Douglas, apparently), but outside of those insular pockets, the American people see both Bachmann and Beck for who they are...
I can understand why it would take five posts to even try to keep up with the crap Michele is slingin' and the responses to it from across the blogesphere... What I don't understand, is why someone would wish to make himself look so pathetic by posting them. I mean, I'm glad Donald Douglas has found his Con hottie of the moment and can't stop talking about her, but when she falls even further out of favor with the American people over some future stupid comment, and one after that--as she inevitably will--it's going to break his tiny heart, and one of these times, his disappointment over the sorry state of his chosen political party/movement will turn the rest of his blog as black as his masthead.
I'd feel bad for the guy, but the fact is, he brings it on himself...
More info than a person could ever want about the buffoonery of Ms. Bachmann: Dump Michele Bachmann