What Does it Mean to Have a Speaker that Knows Nothing about Economics?

boehner_gavel_apSpeaker John Boehner is bad at a lot of things.  His speakership has been marred by so many mishaps and embarrassing moments that it’s easy just to try to laugh at him and the entire House of Representatives.  They seem to do nothing but try to repeal the impossible and stand for the unfathomable.  However,  the country is struggling to come out of an extremely horrible financial crisis with deep, lasting and dangerous unemployment.   The Fed chair–a republican and republican appointee–points out exactly how bad this has been for our economy. What does it mean when the third in line to the presidency is clueless about one of the most important functions of modern government and appears to get all of his knowledge from a bad Ayn Rand novel?

Bernanke spoke to the press after the release of the Federal Open Market Committee minutes.

If the recovery continues, the Fed plans to taper off mortgage-backed securities purchases once the unemployment rate hits 7%, the Fed Chair suggested.  And while reporters grilled Bernanke about inflationary risks and the impact of MBS purchases, he remained cautiously optimistic.

The Fed Chair’s more optimistic tone stemmed from improving market fundamentals, with Bernake highlighting increases in household wealth and fewer large scale layoffs. State and local governments also are improving somewhat financially, he said.

The only major drag is federal fiscal policy.

It is difficult to understand why the portion of US government designed to be the most accountable to the masses seems least concerned with jobs and economic growth.  It is undoubtedly due to the significant misunderstanding and willful ignorance of economics recently demonstrated by the speaker and many–if not most– in his party. Paul Krugman speaks sincerely to this problem.

John Boehner’s remarks on recent financial events have attracted a lot of unfavorable comment, and they should. Actually, I think even the stuff most commentators have shied away from — he talks about the Fed “deflating” when I think he means either inflating or debasing, or possibly is doing a Sarah Palin and merging the two — is significant. I mean, he’s the Speaker of the House at a time when economic issues are paramount; shouldn’t he have basic familiarity with simple economic terms?

But the main thing is that he’s clinging to a story about monetary policy that has been refuted by experience about as thoroughly as any economic doctrine of the past century. Ever since the Fed began trying to respond to the financial crisis, we’ve had dire warnings about looming inflationary disaster. When the GOP took the House, it promptly called Bernanke in to lecture him about debasing the dollar. Yet inflation has stayed low, and the dollar has remained strong — just as Keynesians said would happen.

Yet there hasn’t been a hint of rethinking from leading Republicans; as far as anyone can tell, they still get their monetary ideas from Atlas Shrugged.

Oh, and this is another reminder to the “market monetarists”, who think that they can be good conservatives while advocating aggressive monetary expansion to fight a depressed economy: sorry, but you have no political home. In fact, not only aren’t you making any headway with the politicians, even mainstream conservative economists like Taylor and Feldstein are finding ways to advocate tighter money despite low inflation and high unemployment. And if reality hasn’t dented this dingbat orthodoxy yet, it never will.

It is rather obvious and rather sad that nearly all the economic ideas of the Speaker and his party come from a bad piece of fiction and ignore every lesson of economics learned from even libertarian-leaning economists like the late Milton Friedman. The result has been damaging to many Americans and the underlying economy.

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: Well,it certainly could because you know, people open their 401(k) statements you know, at the end of every quarter and for most people it’s an indication of their wealth. And the value of their home would be another indication,how well homes are selling in their neighborhoods.

But sell off is in large part due to the policies that we’ve had coming’ out of the Federal Reserve. You know, you can’t continue to deflate our money and deflate it and deflate it– have equity markets go– without some change, yeah. Bernanke has made it clear he’s doing these policies in the absence of the government doing its part to help improve our economy.

That’s why Democrats and Republicans here on Capitol Hill and the president need to deal with– fix our tax code that would help us promote more economic growth and deal with our long term spending problem. We’ve spent more money than what we’ve brought in for 55 of the last 60 years. That ought to scare the hell out of every American.

We need to deal with this problem openly and honestly. Because if we do, investors around the country, business owners are going to look up and go, “Gee, they’re actually dealing with the issues that I’m most concerned about.” Then they’ll begin to invest.

MARIA BARTIROMO: But how likely is that over the next year? I mean, Bernanke made it clear yesterday that if the data continues as it is then they could be out of the bonds buying business by next year this time. So that’s one year. Will we see fiscal policy in terms of tax reform, in terms of regulatory clarity? Will we see that in the next 12 months?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: Listen,hope springs eternal in my heart. And while we have big differences over what tax reform might look like, what entitlement reform might look like we have to — we have to come together and deal with these things. Because if we want our economy to grow, we want to create jobs– we’ve got to deal with the issues that are affecting it.

You know, Republicans– we’ve got our jobs plan. We’ve had it now for literally the last three or four years. We’ve updated this effort and it’s our number one focus here. And while, you know, we’ve got other obligations under the constitution that provides oversight of the Executive Branch we’re trying to stay focused on those things that would improve our economy– help the American people’s wages increase and have more jobs available.

Fixing the tax code is not fiscal policy.  It’s not anything that will create any kind of job growth or economic well being.   What is this man thinking?

To quote Matthew O’Brien at The Atlantic Boehner is “dangerously clueless” about economics and economic policy required of the Federal Government in challenging times.  It is rather pathetic and deluded.  O’Brien points out the facts about that quote from Boehner above.

Bookmark this, print it out, and put it in a time capsule, because this is about as wrong as anybody could possibly be about economics (excluding Don Luskin, of course). Now, Boehner doesn’t put it very clearly, but when he says markets are going down because Bernanke is “deflating the dollar”, he means markets are in the red because the Fed is weakening the dollar. The opposite is true. Markets sold off not because the Fed is doing too much, but because markets worry it won’t do enough. As you can see below from Bloomberg, the dollar went up during the recent sell-off on Wednesday and Thursday after Bernanke explained how and when the Fed expects to wind down QE3. That’s what happens when the Fed tightens policy.

DollarIndex1.png

For all the talk of “currency debasement” from conservatives who fancy themselves monetary experts, the dollar is actually stronger today than it was when the Great Recession began. Core PCE inflation, the Fed’s preferred measure, just hit a 50-year low at 1.05 percent. And no, stripping out food and energy prices isn’t hiding the inflation monster: headline PCE inflation was a meager 0.74 percent in April. Weimar we are not.

Boehner was no more coherent on fiscal policy. Now, it’s true that Bernanke would like to see some kind of budget deal that reins in long-term deficits, but he wishes we were doing less to try to rein in short-term deficits. In other words, he wants less austerity now, and more austerity later. Here’s what Bernanke said about about our cutting-spending problem in his press conference on Wednesday:
The main drag or the main headwind to growth this year is, as you know, is the federal fiscal policy, which the CBO estimates is something on the order of 1.5 percentage points of growth.
That’s not exactly the clarion call for future spending cuts that Boehner imagines. It’s a plea, in the understated lexicon of central bankers, to stop maiming the recovery with pointless and premature austerity. But Boehner either isn’t listening or doesn’t understand. He somehow thinks it’s scary that the government has run deficits for 55 of the last 60 years (though not so scary that he didn’t vote for many of those budgets). This is nonsense. As Josh Barro points out, there’s no better proof that we shouldn’t be scared of deficits than the fact that we have run them for 55 of the past 60 years without any problem. As long as the economy grows faster than the debt, there’s no reason we can’t run deficits forever.

We tried Hoovernomics. It failed. So we’re … trying it again?

Yes.  Republicans are completely in love with failed policies of the past and they’re not about to change anything now.  It’s unbelievable that we could have a Speaker of the House that can be so completely ignorant about economic policy this day and age.  It’s pathetic and it’s sad.  It is also dangerous.

About these ads

65 Comments on “What Does it Mean to Have a Speaker that Knows Nothing about Economics?”

  1. bostonboomer says:

    Great post, Dak. We’re being ruled by village idiots. It’s completely insane.

    • dakinikat says:

      We are ruled by idiots. Boehner being the king of fools. I just wish we could get some of these guys out but they are so gerrymandered in to their districts it’s a damned shame!

  2. Fannie says:

    How in the hell do we get these idiots out of the picture…………especially with all the gerrymandering, and all the strings of money. I don’t think the republicans will doing something to stop the idiots……….they know they are not going to be elected in 2016, and probably not for another 25 years………….my guess, for what it is worth.

    • RalphB says:

      We can only hope that enough rank and file republican voters eventually get too much and turn their backs on them. I think that may be coming.

  3. RalphB says:

    Looking into the issue of NSA collecting metadata from phone calls etc, I came upon the reason this is not legally a violation of the 4th Amendment.

    You do not own your phone records; the phone company owns them. You have zero – nada – zippo expectation of privacy with regard to the information contained in them.

    Read Smith v. Maryland for greater clarity. This should be revisited in light of current technology.

  4. kenpruitt666 says:

    This post fails horribly. First of all, Paul Krugman doesn’t speak sincerely about anything; he’s an arrogant shill who demonizes anyone and everything that isn’t Paul Krugman.

    Secondly, The idea that the dollar is stronger now than it was when the Great Recession began relies heavily on bad logic and bad use of fallacious statistics.

    • dakinikat says:

      Well, thank you. I have a doctorate in Economics. And what are your qualifications. Fox news groupie?

      • kenpruitt666 says:

        You have a doctorate? And? What’s your point? Economics isn’t something relegated to a classroom or a laboratory… and by the way, I don’t have a religion (not currently, anyway).

        • dakinikat says:

          Economics is a science that uses the scientific method. It throws out hypotheses that are not based in evidence.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            Do I detect a case of Physics Envy here? Economics isn’t some laboratory experiment where you run all of these models and equations and policies and think that you’re testing something. These tests are absolutely useless.

            First of all, human beings aren’t atoms that can be predicted 100% of the time (or even 50% of the time really). Even if you document one reaction, there is no guarantee that you’ll get the same reaction next time. Humans don’t react to the exact same stimuli in the exact same way every time. So, long story short, on this front, these tests are adding apples to oranges.

            Secondly, and the single most important part, is that in all of your fascination with econometrics and cliometrics (yes, I actually know what cliometrics is), you’ve completely lost sight of the basics of economics. And of course your reliance on such faulty statistics as the official unemployment rate and the official rate of inflation doesn’t help your policy advocacy.

          • dakinikat says:

            Actually we use the same math as they use in physics and it depends on what you are measuring. Counting things is not exactly something that requires a sterile lab.

          • dakinikat says:

            There are dozens of labor statistics and inflation statistics. There is no one official rate for either. Only some who only reads popular press would even imply that let alone say it . You keep making my case and then tell me I am wrong.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            Actually, this might come as a shock to you, but I don’t read popular press. And if you have a doctorate in economics as you say you do, then you know exactly what I meant by “official”. Official in this case means whatever the government is currently touting.

            You just attempted to engage in a Krugman-style sleight-of-hand.

          • dakinikat says:

            Go to the bls and look at the hundreds of stats. There is no one official be all and end all stat there … they release hundreds of them. The press hones in on one and since you’ve not been taught that no economist does that you are a slave to one stat it appears.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “Go to the bls and look at the hundreds of stats. There is no one official be all and end all stat there … they release hundreds of them. The press hones in on one and since you’ve not been taught that no economist does that you are a slave to one stat it appears.”

            I love how you just completely ignored my last post. What did I say about this? Oh yeah. “Official in this case means whatever the government is currently touting.”

            Even the common man knows that the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out hundreds of labor statistics.

            So, I say again; you just attempted to engage in a Krugman-style sleight-of-hand.

      • janicen says:

        You know you hit a nerve when the sock puppets come out! Great post!

    • dakinikat says:

      oh for pete’s sake you’ve adopted that Austrian Nonsense as your religion … shoo, shoo go away

      • kenpruitt666 says:

        If you truly think that my economic philosophy is nonsense, take your shot at proving me wrong. Hell you have a doctorate, so it should be easy for you… right?

        • dakinikat says:

          You and I don’t speak the same language. You will set up straw man arguments and just say the numbers are being manipulated. It is like arguing with a flat earther on the shape of the world.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            Saying that the numbers are being manipulated isn’t a strawman argument, it’s a statement of fact. If you don’t believe me, look at how they’re measuring unemployment; they’re not counting people who’ve left the labor force entirely (excluding retirees and the disabled).

          • dakinikat says:

            Those people aren’t unemployed by definition and are in another category. That isn’t manipulation. And you never examine any one stat as a measure of price changes or employment changes. Those folks can’t be unemployed if they are not in the labor market. You just made point perfectly.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “Those people aren’t unemployed by definition and are in another category. That isn’t manipulation. And you never examine any one stat as a measure of price changes or employment changes. Those folks can’t be unemployed if they are not in the labor market. You just made point perfectly.”

            They’re not in another category, they are, in point of fact, unemployed. And here’s the proof of your manipulation; if people who’re not in the labor market can’t be unemployed, and more people leave the labor market for whatever reason (most likely because they can’t get jobs), you tout the latest unemployment statistic, which will show that unemployment has gone down, as a sign of a strengthening economy, even though we don’t actually have more people working!

            What more proof do you need of out-right manipulation than that?

          • dakinikat says:

            Because there is a strict definition of unemployment so that we can keep the numbers consistent and meaningful. You have to be in the labor force in order to be unemployed. They don’t meet the criteria of that. So, they are in another category … like displaced in the military in prison whatever … it is precise and logical and not based on your fuzzy logic

          • dakinikat says:

            You don’t just look at the unemployment rate to determine these things. It is like trying to diagnose all diseases using only temperature as a guide.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “it is precise and logical and not based on your fuzzy logic”

            You know, I would like for you to show exactly how my logic is fuzzy and not just repeat the nonsensical definition of unemployment.
            According to you, you can’t be unemployed if you’re not in the labor market. So if our unemployment is at 8% and enough people leave the labor market to where unemployment drops to 6%, are you going to say, “No, this is nothing to get excited about. Unemployment went down because more people are leaving the labor force. Our economy isn’t actually strengthening”, or are you going to say, “As a result of the government’s policy, unemployment dropped from 8% to 6%. This shows our economy is strengthening and that we have to stay the course”?

            Now, tell me what in the world is precise and logical about saying that our economy is strengthening even though the unemployment rate went down because people left the labor force (especially if you follow the Keynesian idea that we should strive for full-employment). There is absolutely nothing clear, precise, or logical about any of this. It is completely and utterly insane, incomprehensible, and illogical.

          • dakinikat says:

            I cant have a meaningful conversation with some one who makes up their own definitions of words. I will point to the sky and say blue and you will immediately tell me it isn’t blue by your definition. Might as well have a conversation with a parrot.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “I cant have a meaningful conversation with some one who makes up their own definitions of words. I will point to the sky and say blue and you will immediately tell me it isn’t blue by your definition. Might as well have a conversation with a parrot.”

            You know, it’s worth noting that in my “fuzzy” logic, I’m using your definitions and just walking through the logic of it. And as you quite clearly see, even though you choose to completely ignore it, it takes you to very silly places.

            That’s called Reductio Ad Absurdum, and it proves your entire contention to be false.

    • RalphB says:

      Sounds like a Paulbot after the 5:01 minute mark. Nuts!

  5. List of X says:

    Republicans do not actually have an economic policy. All they hope to attain is tax cuts. If anyone ever doubts that, think what GOP’s reaction would be to any proposal meant to address any economical problem if it would raise taxes too. “Get unemployment rate to 5% but the taxes would rise?” or “bring debt to GDP ratio to 70%, but the taxes would rise?”

    • kenpruitt666 says:

      You think Republicans want tax cuts? Let me let you in on a secret; Republicans have a long history of cutting social programs and reallocating that revenue to military/pentagon spending. Even if they cut the official tax rate, it’s not an actual tax cut because A) spending hasn’t been cut and B) “Tax cuts” always means that one tax will be lowered and another tax will be raised. Tax cutting in today’s political atmosphere is nothing more than a shell game.

      • List of X says:

        To be even more specific – it’s cuts to the effective taxes for top 2%-5% only. Do you actually think if Republicans would agree to more military spending if taxes on top 2% had to rise to pay for it?

        • kenpruitt666 says:

          Actually, it doesn’t even cut taxes for them. You can’t have any sort of tax cut without a cut in government spending, since government spending is itself a tax that has to be paid for, and of course we know that Republicans won’t actually cut government spending.

          • List of X says:

            In a Republican-controlled goverment, you absolutely can cut taxes and increase spending – that’s exactly what G W Bush and Dick “Deficits don’t matter” Cheney did in 2001 & 2003.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            Sure, and we’re paying for those deficits now, aren’t we? Also, if you’re going to decrease your revenue stream but increase your spending, it stands to reason that the only way to make up the difference is to either borrow the money or to print more money (usually it’s a combination of both). In the case of money printing, we pay for it through inflation, and in the case of borrowing, we pay for it due to the lost of other opportunities that could’ve been had if the government not borrowed the capital in the first place.

          • dakinikat says:

            Printing money doesn’t de facto create inflation. It depends on velocity and the growth of real GDP.

        • kenpruitt666 says:

          “Printing money doesn’t de facto create inflation. It depends on velocity and the growth of real GDP.”

          Printing money does in fact, de facto create inflation. Inflation means an expansion of the money supply. Now how much that inflation effects the economy depends on how much of the newly printed currency is circulating in the economy, but you can’t say that there is no inflation just because the government printed money.

          • dakinikat says:

            You are inventing definitions yet again. Inflation is a general increase in the overall price level. That definition has nothing to do with the definitions of money supply.

          • dakinikat says:

            Seriously, go take an introductory economics course. You just keep digging a deeper hole. You really don’t even have a grasp of the most primitive concepts. I am off to do something more useful and intellectually stimulating like throwing out trash.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “You are inventing definitions yet again. Inflation is a general increase in the overall price level. That definition has nothing to do with the definitions of money supply.”

            You said you have a doctorate in economics, but from the above quote, I’m now convinced you don’t. If you did, you would know as well as I do that the term inflation originally meant an increase in the supply of money, and you would also know that some economists still use this definition. You would also know that in light of the change of definition of inflation, many economists use the phrase MONETARY INFLATION to refer to an increase in the supply of money. For myself, I use the old-school definition of inflation.

            Long story short, that definition of inflation was around long before I was born.

          • bostonboomer says:

            When and where were you born? Yesterday on a turnip truck?

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “When and where were you born? Yesterday on a turnip truck?”

            Yep, pretty much, although I always thought that I was raised by wolves personally….

          • bostonboomer says:

            That would explain the rudeness. When you’re invited to a new persons’ house, do you insult him/her, call her a liar, and then trash the place?

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “That would explain the rudeness. When you’re invited to a new persons’ house, do you insult him/her, call her a liar, and then trash the place?”

            When did I actually insult anyone here, exactly? And if you have read any substantial literature on economics, you will understand perfectly why I’m calling dakinikat’s claim of having a doctorate in economics into question. Example; she accused me of inventing definitions when I said that inflation means an expansion of the money supply, when in reality that is what the original definition of inflation was and there are some economists even today who still use the word inflation to mean an expansion of the money supply.

            If she has a doctorate in economics, it stands to reason that she’s at least moderately well-read in economic literature, so therefore there’s no way in hell she couldn’t know this.

          • dakinikat says:

            I am actually a financial economist with one masters in monetary economics, a second in finance and a PH.d in financial economics. I have worked for the fed and my research area is monetary policy and currency unions. I don’t teach or study dead hypotheses. You seem stuck in the 19th century. You probably argue man can’t possibly fly too …

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “I am actually a financial economist with one masters in monetary economics, a second in finance and a PH.d in financial economics. I have worked for the fed and my research area is monetary policy and currency unions. I don’t teach or study dead hypotheses. You seem stuck in the 19th century. You probably argue man can’t possibly fly too …”

            Ok, so with all of those impressive credentials, and you not only don’t know that inflation means an expansion of the money supply, you accuse someone who uses this definition as someone of invention definitions, and you even go a step further and argue on top of that that I’m somehow stuck in the 19th century… and to make things even worse, you can’t even work with your own system, as shown by your complete inability to walk through the logic of your own arguments.

            I’m sorry, but unless you provide a name that I can look up and verify, I have to call BS on your claim that you have a doctorate in economics.

          • dakinikat says:

            An expansion of the money supply does not necessarily mean inflation. Check on the Quantity theory of mine and all of Milton Friedman’s work notably the things for which he won the Noble Prize and quit wasting my time with your drivel.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            “An expansion of the money supply does not necessarily mean inflation. Check on the Quantity theory of mine and all of Milton Friedman’s work notably the things for which he won the Noble Prize and quit wasting my time with your drivel.”

            The Quantity Theory of Money was debunked in 1912 by Ludwig von Mises’s work, “The Theory of Money and Credit.” And as for Milton Friedman, almost everything Milton Friedman says regarding monetary theory, Irving Fisher said in a much clearer fashion. All Milton Friedman did was take the works of Irving Fisher and slapped some sophisticated statistics and mathematical equations on it.

            And again, you’ve completely dodged the fact that inflation, despite your objections, does in fact mean an expansion of the money supply by simply repeating your objection without actually proving your case… wait, what happened to all of that empirical evidence stuff that you were talking about earlier? What did you say about me way before regarding my interest in Austrian economics? Oh yeah, you said that I chose that as my religion. I’m sorry to say but your sounding more and more like a Young-Earth Creationist….

            You can find the aforementioned work by Ludwig von Mises here.

            http://mises.org/document/194/The-Theory-of-Money-and-Credit

          • dakinikat says:

            See … you are stuck in the 19th century
            And Mises was one seriously mistaken NAZI …. sorry none of that stuff stood up to empirical tests and was dismissed years ago … like flat earth and the earth at the center of the universe.There is no reason for me to revisit completely discredited hypotheses.

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            Alright. What was Mises’s theory and how was it discredited? I ask because I’m not sure you’ve read anything he’s written, especially if you seriously consider Ludwig von Mises, a man who fled to the United States to escape Adolf Hitler, a Nazi.

          • dakinikat says:

            And keep that cult crap off of my blog

          • kenpruitt666 says:

            You sound far more cultish than I do.

  6. bostonboomer says:

    I missed all this last night, but I read through “Ken Pruitt’s” comments pretty carefully and I still can’t find any specific criticisms of Dakinikat’s post on John Boehner or any specific evidence to back up any of Pruitt’s points. He doesn’t seem to have a point. As soon as someone pins him down on something, he switches the topic. Very odd “logic.”

    • I think it is logic that springs from the watering hole of that of which we do not speak.

      • bostonboomer says:

        His blog sounds the same. Vague criticisms of ideas without specific evidence. He doesn’t even offer clear explanations of what is wrong with the ideas he doesn’t like.

        • kenpruitt666 says:

          “His blog sounds the same. Vague criticisms of ideas without specific evidence. He doesn’t even offer clear explanations of what is wrong with the ideas he doesn’t like.”

          I can acknowledge your criticism of my posts regarding the John Boehner post (that kinda got thrown off into some other discussions), but I would love to see some hard proof that my blog is nothing more than vague criticisms of ideas without specific evidence. What about my blog is vague, specifically? Please note that this means that if you try to name something without a direct quotation from my blog, I won’t acknowledge it.

    • dakinikat says:

      It is a hallmark of Austrian school. their nonsense was disproven decades ago when we got the ability to do complex empirical studies. they refuse to believe any statistic is valid and like to say they argue “logically” when they always start from bad assumptions and odd definitions. It is why they are mostly a cult of neoconfederates and modernity deniers like the Paultards. Just one disproved hypothesis after another followed by straw men arguments and claims of logical consistency. very sad and predictable.

      • kenpruitt666 says:

        “It is a hallmark of Austrian school. their nonsense was disproven decades ago when we got the ability to do complex empirical studies.”

        If Austrian economics is nonsense and if it was disproved, how come YOU (Keynesians) are wrong 8/10 times in your predictions?

        “they refuse to believe any statistic is valid and like to say they argue “logically””

        Strawman. No Austrian believes that any statistic is invalid. It has everything to do with the purpose, method, and interpretation of the data (which I’m sorry to say you’re terrible at).

        “It is why they are mostly a cult of neoconfederates and modernity deniers like the Paultards. Just one disproved hypothesis after another followed by straw men arguments and claims of logical consistency. very sad and predictable.”

        Neoconfederates? Seriously? You’re going to stoop that low? It’s sad that a supposed Ph.D in economics has to demonize someone by calling them a Neoconfederate.

        • bostonboomer says:

          Look, asshole. We don’t need to put up with your garbage. Saying you don’t believe Dakinikat has a doctorate is an insult. Get it now? You’re a jerk, and you think you can show up and troll our blog endlessly. No, you can’t. I’m putting you in moderation. If you can post comments that make any sense and aren’t rude and insulting, we’ll let you through. Otherwise, go back to your pathetic blog and interact with your own scarce commenters.