1) You have to be a little vain to be on Twit & think your opinion matters to others. That's ok.

2) Personally, I'm honored & flattered that even 10 of you would follow me, let alone the number who do.

3) So, with that in mind, it's been said that there is the "Evil Party & the Stupid Party."

4) Increasingly, I think that's wrong.

5) There is definitely the Evil Party, the DemoKKKrats. What I think we overlook is that they know their evil & just don't care.
6) But I don't think you get where Yertle, Tom Collins, Minion & some of the others in the GOP are by being stupid.

7) I think they are vain to the radical extreme.

8) They are the Vain Party, who really believe that 74m people voted for "them" in November; who really . . .
8) contd . . . believe that "they know what's best" & their pucksnorter consultants are intelligent & skilled.

They really believe we do NOT matter because they are so much smarter. We just "don't get it." We don't see "how the game is played."
9) Here is the important part: this vanity comes from believing they are morally superior to everyone. That they can "lose gracefully" because people will appreciate how moral & upstanding they are & credit them.
10) They not only believe they are smarter than us, but morally superior to us smelly, hillbilly, gun-clinging, bible-toting deplorables.

11) They, of course, are morally above fighting. They are morally above pointing out fraud, because, after all, THEY would "never do it."
12) The two best examples of this today are not the evil Minion or the calculating snake Yertle, but Pat Toomey and John Thune.

13) Read what these guys say: only THEY are moral enough to judge if there has been any fraud committed against Trump.

14) Moreover, if Trump . . .
14) contd . . . "hadn't said mean things" or "hadn't tweeted" or "played nice," then there wouldn't have been the need for fraud.

15) To the moralist Vain Party, Trump is the reason for the season of fraud.
16) For someone like Thune, who himself was a loser to fraud, well, "gool ol' DemoKKKrats, ha ha. That's just how they are, ha ha. Next time. Ha ha."
17) Just watch the video of the woman speaking to Minion in the airport & you can see the vanity & the condescension dripping from him. "Oh, it would take too long to explain my CONSTITUTIONAL position to someone like YOU, hillbilly."
18) Now the neverTrump Broken Kristols, the Benjis, the Frenchfries, the Bootlesses, and the Goldburgers make more sense. They not only were never conservatives, but they were VAIN Liberals!
19) The Sarlac Pit isn't good enough for these people.

More from Larry Schweikart

More from For later read

I shared this on my FB page and asked, can ya really blame him?

I was half kidding. I also assumed someone would think of what I did pretty quickly and waiting for the comment to mention what I assumed was obvious.

The timing. I was sure someone else had thought of it.


But no one did. 20+ comments in people discussed the morality or bad sense or libertarian perspectives. Someone even said I’m thinking about doing that. No one said what I thought was obvious. Have you thought of it? Is it obvious to you?

Here’s a clue...recognize it?


How about this?


The author discusses it with Mike Wallace in 1958
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like