PUMAs, in Their Own Words

Seriously (a PUMA) writing at The Confluence:

Seriously, on April 8th, 2009 at 3:50 am Said:

I think that for people who don’t have much going on in their lives, finding a sense of community on the Internet gets blown out of proportion. For some of the more obsessed Obots, first they felt validated by finding plastic Jesus, then even more so by finding other like minded people. And like myiq says, it creates a form of tribalism–this void in their lives has been filled by this virtual community, and they grossly overreact and man the barricades in response to any perceived threat. It was pretty clear how overrinvested and lacking in perspective some of these people were t during the primary when they were calling people’s bosses and so on

Oh wait, she was talking about us? Because it really seems to explain their community better…

I know that none of us “blogstalkers” seek each other out in real life to cry or commiserate. We enjoy laughing at the PUMAs, but that’s pretty much it. It’s not a community that shares anything other than a severe case of SIWOTI syndrome.

Showing Some Judgement

teresainpa, taking one small step for a PUMA, one giant leap for PUMAkind.

immediately I thought of a caption that is somewhat obscene and could be taken as racist…so I think I will pass.

Now, if only we could get PUMAs to not immediately think racist things.

But for now, well done teresainpa! Excellent self control you’ve exhibited.

Regency, OTOH, has a ways further to go.

Why are folks still lining up to see him? I don’t understand it. He’s is black as he was last time. I’d swear to it under oath. Nothing’s changed.

That was in response, of course, to several highly pertinent questions that resident “simple peasant lay-woman” sm77 thought of to ask any Obama canvassers.

1. Why is Obama handing out billions to the banks meanwhile NONE to us?
2. Why does Obama ALWAYS have to speak with a damn Teleprompter? Did he recite his wedding vows with a Teleprompter?i
3. If he’s so damn popular and loved, why is your azz out here trying to drum up support?
4. Why do you remind me of Nazi Germany Fascist brownshirts?

I’m tempted to travel the country, from MA, to NJ, to FL, and canvass all the prominent PUMAs’ houses (or tent cities). I love all their tough talk, but you know they’re not quick enough on their feet to actually win an argument if someone knocked on their door. It would go like this. (In the spirit of PUMA one act plays…)

Obot: Hello! I’m knocking on doors today in our neighborhood to make sure people are aware of the President’s push to reform our healthcare system. Are you interested in discussing it briefly?

sm77: Why do you remind me of Hitler?

Obot: Pardon me mam?

sm77: Did you know that Obama is so stupid that he uses a teleprompter to give speeches?

Obot: Uh, I think all politicians use teleprompters mam. The President makes long public remarks many times a day, and it’s not practical to memorize everything he would want to say in advance.

sm77: No he’s stupid. Why, the Irish PM read some of Obama’s speech off a teleprompter the other day by accident!

Obot: I’m afraid I don’t follow mam. I’m really just here to discuss the state of healthcare legislation.

sm77: We need better access to more affordable healthcare in this country! The insurance companies and the Republicans have been gaming the system while tens of millions go uninsured, and the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical costs, even among the insured.

Obot: Great! So you support efforts to reduce costs, improve access, and make healthcare work better for everyone.

sm77: Why do you remind me of Hitler?

The end.

A Treatise on the Finer Points of Stochastic Volatility and the Efficiency of Capital Markets

Just kidding. It’s really just sm77 shooting from the hip. Now, perhaps it’s not fair to critique someone who professes to be a “simplistic, peasant, lay-woman.” But it’s still fun. Sm77:

For example, if there’s a rumor that corn farmers are scared that next years crops aren’t going to be as plentiful as last year, suddenly you see corn stock (pun intended) plummet and by the end of the day thousands of workers are laid off. All based on speculation. There’s no gradual or incremental adjustment to curtail the possible loss of corn, no riding out the storm, none of those things. Actions are taken swiftly and severely in a matter of hours. You punch in at 8 am, rumor gets released at 9:30am, stockbrokers go bezerk on the trading floor by 10:00am and you walk out with a pink slip by 5:00pm. Who suffers? You and me. Who started the rumor? No one will ever know (because no one is held accountable anymore), maybe a sugar ethanol lobbyist firm, who knows? Then the fear/hope peddling cycle goes wash, rinse, repeat.

Now, I thought this was funny because obviously sm77 doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She clearly was cribbing from Cramer’s video-taped admittance of manipulating AAPL stock with rumors and options fomenting when he ran a hedge fund, but her example is hilarious.

The funny part is that of course there are lessons to be learned for regulators about the manipulation of markets by actors with sufficient capital and knowledge of trading mechanisms. However, sm77’s example of “corn stock” (ticker: ADM?) plummeting and turning an unsourced rumor about crop yields into thousands of layoffs in a matter of hours is hilarious.

She writes “There’s no gradual or incremental adjustment to curtail the possible loss of corn, no riding out the storm, none of those things.” What does this mean? At first I thought she was saying the markets react to aggressively to rumors. Fine, make that argument. If markets are inefficiently pricing assets by relying on non-credible rumors, then there should be plenty of opportunities for sm77 to profit by exploiting these inefficiencies. Next time corn stock’s plummet without cause, sm77 should BUY, hold it until the market realizes the overselling, and she’ll see a handsome profit. Then she can stop writing the unemployment chronicles. That would be a very easily exploitable market inefficiency.

Next, I realized that she hadn’t thought through that much. She was instead arguing that traders should hold assets above prices they deem fair, because falling shareholder value destroys companies. If these traders actually believe the present value of ADM stock is worth much less today because of future prospects of crop yields, they should suck it up and bid at yesterday’s price, because to bid the stock down would unfairly harm the employees at that company.

Of course, sm77 doesn’t seem to grasp that in arguing traders “ride out the storm” she is arguing explicitly for an inefficient market. Now, I wouldn’t mind that, because it would present lots of opportunities to profit. And wherever that opportunity exists, market participants will seek to exploit it. And they will, driving prices exactly where they would have been in the first place. The only difference being that those original, “ethical,” traders lost their shirts and got out of the business.

She then moves on to 6 questions that are so stupid, they’re not even wrong. Her second question is:

Why is it that Wall Street trading goes up when positive words are spewed by the President and the Cabinet, or it goes waaaay down when negative words are said, like “stimulus package?”

This demonstrates no comprehension of the arguments about how quickly or efficiently capital market prices reflect information. Perhaps sm77 should do less writing about markets and more reading.

Of course, none of this ignorance, acknowledged or otherwise, prevents sm77 from giving Larry Summers advice and advocating the abolition of central banks. Afterall, she’s a PUMA. Opinions first. Facts twisted to support them later.

Math is Hard…for Riverdaughter!

Back in December I briefly commented at The Confluence under the nom de plume “Obot3000,” and I had an interesting experience that Riverdaughter’s latest post reminded me of. Long story short, while trying to tease out why some PUMAs think Obama’s a Marxist, and others thing he’s a republican, Riverdaughter “explained” it to me, by way of how he stole the nomination.

Obot: you are right in that many PUMAs are as confused by Obama’s political philosophy as Obamaphiles are. However, what we are NOT confused about is Obama’s goodness, freshness, honesty or integrity. He has none of those characteristics. Don’t forget that while smoke got in your eyes during the primary, we were following the caucus fraud, registration irregularities, theft of Hillary’s delegates in Mi, not to mention his squelching of a devote in FL and MI and the most disingenuous, illogical argument for taking 59 delegates in a state where he wasn’t even on the ballot. You realize that he was only 17 delegates ahead of Hillary going into the convention don’t you? Oh, you didn’t know that? I’m not surprised because the media and the campaign didn’t want anyone to notice that that lead would have been eaily wiped out if MI hadn’t awarded all of the uncommitted delegates to him In fact, Hillary would have been the leader going into the convention and she would have been more than justified in insisting on a floor fight. But the FL and MI delegations weren’t restored to full strength, like it was planned all along, until the day before the convention started. That gave Obama the appearance of being the winner when he wasn’t/ And with Hillary’s campaign on mute in the media outlets, he stole the nomination. Then he topped it all off with delegate threats and intimidation and misinformation followed by a lopsided and humiliating roll call vote at the convention.

Emphasis added by me. I highlight that part because I actually responded that no, I hadn’t know that. Then I linked to several sources, including the RCP delegate count, to demomstrate that this claim of 17 delegates was disingenuous at best, and downright dishonest at worst. Don’t bother looking though, after that, Kim Haas, defender of democracy, scrubbed my comments lest any blissfully ignorant PUMAs read them and look it up for themselves.

So it struck me again when today, in the middle of rant about Jon Stewart as tedious and sanctimonious as it was wrongheaded, Km wrote the following.

And what does the RBC do? It takes delegates away from the real winner and gives them to the loser and gives him 59 delegates from a state where he wasn’t even on the ballot, so that he will beat her by a mere 17 delegates when the primaries finally end a few days later. Then, they make it sound like it’s a big landslide, giving him the edge all the way to the convention. She *should* have taken it to the convention

First, let us dispatch with this claim of 17 delegates.

According to the Real Clear Politics totals, if you were to count FL and MI at full voting strength, giving Clinton 73 delegates and Obama none from Michigan, Obama would still enter the convention with an 18 delegate lead (17 is close enough- maybe an edwards delegate switched at some point). This was the subject of much discussion last year, but this scenario was without doubt the single most undemocratic way to allocate those delegates.

Leaving that aside, though, look what Riverdaughter is arguing. UNder even the most contorted method of counting, her candidate fell short, more so when you count superdelegates (Prowl failure there…).

And what were the delegate counts after the RBC meeting but before the last 3 primaries? DemConWatch has this handy breakdown of the count under 5 scenarios.

1. Do not seat Florida or Michigan. Current Official DNC rules- Obama up by 155 pledged delegates.
2. Seat Michigan based on new the proposal 69-59 split, but not Florida. Obama up by 145 pledged delegates.
3. Seat Florida, based on January election, but not Michigan. FL Pledged get ½ votes, superdelegates get full vote. Obama up by 127 pledged delegates.
4. Scenario 4: Combine scenario 2 and scenario 3. FL 1/2 vote, MI 69-59 split and Super full vote. Obama up by 117 pledged delegates.
5. Scenario 5: Seat FL & MI based on the elections that have taken place. (Obama does not get MI 55 uncommitted). Obama up by 46 pledged delegates.

Hillary netted 20 additional delegates after the RBC in the 3 remaining contests.

Let’s be clear what Kim Haas is indignant about. She felt that Hillary should have been awarded all of the MI and Fl votes at full voting strength, and Obama none from MI. And then he still would have had a pledged delegate lead, so whe wanted Jon Stewart to help her make fun of the superdelegates until they tipped the scales for Hillary? And all this from the woman that wrote these things 2 years ago?

She’s entitled to her opinion that Hillary should have lost by slightly fewer delegates after a nasty and contentious convention battle. And of course, that opinion is why she’s a hilarious PUMA. But it’s downright bizzare to chastise Jon Stewart for not indulging her own narcissitic view of the world.

Stupid Stateofdisbelief!

Obatardia. Stateofdisbelief, expressing herself over the the Confluence.

Just when you think the inhabitants of Obatardia can’t get any more ridiculous in their defense of their amateur president, someone wins another sorry apologist award.

Just when you think the inhabitants of PUMAtardia can’t possibly contort the word “Obama” into any more perjoritives they get even more ridicuouls in their defense of, well, their right to be petulant children.

Stateofdisbelief continues.

Today’s award goes to Camila [sic] Paglia who makes a desperate plea for (someone?) to make it all better for Obama and get rid of those nasty people making him look bad. Is she talking about his critics? No. Is she talking about the republicans? No. Is she talking about PUMAs? No. Well then..who are these horrible people???

So now Camila Paglia is an inhabitant of Obatardia? You would think that PUMAs would be more understanding of a heterodox “feminist” who famously voted for Nader “Because I detest the arrogant, corrupt superstructure of the Democratic Party, with which I remain stubbornly registered.” What an Obamignorant Obamass inhabitant of Obatardia. Paglia supported Obama, but frankly, I wouldn’t mind one bit if Paglia emmigrated from Obatardia to PUMAtardia.

Stateofdisbelief goes on to shred Paglia’s column by quoting the whole thing and periodically inserting her trademarked blend of sarcasm and misunderstanding. Read the whole thing if you have 5 minutes to live and want it to last a lifetime.

“At that rate Obama will be under 50% by Christmas”

Myiq2xu is one of the more odious PUMAs out there. He is as clueless and stupid as any PUMA, but where he really excells is undeserved smugness and hypocrisy. On Friday he wrote a post, between 30 of his youtube posts, where he “debunked” Obama’s recent poll strength. He tries to mock the MyDD crowd for acknowledging the fact.

He writes;

While Todd is having an obagasm over an alleged 8 point jump in Teh Precious’ approval rating, he glosses over the part that shows Obama has dropped two points in just one month. At that rate Obama will be under 50% by Christmas. He also ignores the fact that the poll shows that Obama’s “support” is extremely volatile.

This is probably the biggest piece of PUMA stupid involving statistics since the election. Let’s begin!

First, the 8 point bump is alleged? Sorry clownboy, 8 points is a statistically significant swing. That you feel the need to add the qualifier alleged really displays how deeply in denial you are. Second, Todd doesn’t “gloss over” the fact that Obama’s rating is down 2 points from the January 25th. Rather, he didn’t say that at all because it would be a tremendously idiotic observation. To begin with, 2 points isn’t a very statistically significant movement, but rather well within expected variance of such a poll. Second, the 69% approval was from immediatley after his historic inauguration. Using that as a starting point is intentionally obtuse. It’s true that after the inauguration Obama’s poll number went down 5-10 points. Of course, if myiq2xu were a bit more skilled with teh google, he may have realized that this drop was due to a 14 point drop in support amongst conservative Republicans, while he actually gained ground amongst Democrats and Independents. Of course, that would conflict with the PUMA truth that Obama has been governing as a conservative Republican. Myiq2xu just kind of glosses over that bit. Oops.

Next, the assertian that “at that rate Obama will be under 50% by Christmas.” This is my single favorite bit of PUMA math ever. As long as he’s picking trendlines based on 2 data points, why didn’t myiq2xu pick Jan 25th and Feb 23? Obama had dropped 10 points in a month at that point, and if you ignore the internals and extrapolate linearly (which is apparently the extent of myiq2xu’s mathematical prowess), Obama will have a 0% approval rating by August. 0%!

Wow! PUMAs were right all along! In 8 months literally nobody in America will approve of Obama. And “at that rate” Obama will never get reelected, because he will have a -380% approval rating by November 2012! Even Sarah Palin could get elected against an opponent with a -380% approval rating (maybe)!

Myiq2xu’s swipe at Todd for “ignore[ing] the fact that the poll shows that Obama’s “support” is extremely volatile” is also laughable. Not only is myiq2xu not in any position to critique anybody elses poll analysis, but he’s pretty much wrong here as well. A 10 point drop and rebound in 1 month would be unusual, if not for reality. Obama’s spike in support amongst people who won’t actually aupport his policies around inauguration was as predictable as sunrise, as was losing some of that support once the actual politics started. There’s nothing about the volatility of public opinion here that prevents of from drawing conclusions, such as Obama got a really nice bounce from his speech, and clearly convinced some people.

Myiq2xu continues

Personally, I don’t pay much attention to polls at any time, but right now they are meaningless. Obama’s approval rating won’t matter until the November 2010 mid-term election, and even then they aren’t an indicator of what will happen in 2012. At the two-year mark George H. W. Bush had a 90% approval rating but he lost when he ran for reelection. Bill Clinton’s approval rating was low in 1994 but he was reelected in 1996.

Here he goes again, drawing trends from 2 cherrypicked data points. If he doesn’t understand how Presidents use their approval numbers and bully pulpit to push their legislative agenda, well, then I guess he’d be a clueless fucking PUMA.

I do agree wih myiq2xu about one thing though. Anything this stupid should hurt.

Oh, PS, whats with that stupid picture? “Animatronic is what they do with teleprompter jesus in between speeches?” Maybe if you’re trying to be snarky and criticize somebody as being so uncomfortable with language that they’re lost without a teleprompter you should, oh, I don’t know, use proper fucking grammer. Animatronic is an adjective fucknuts.

UPDATE: Please note that the comments contained a couple of references to a PUMAtard by her real-life name. Although this person may have done a crappy job of hiding her identity, I don’t think she’s “out” online, so I edited the comments to remove the name. If she is out, my apologies for the heavy-handedness. Let’s just be careful about revealing people’s identities — even if they are fuckheads. Several PUMAs use their real names online (Darragh Murphy, for example), and it’s okay to refer to them as such. But let’s make sure before we use real names, okay? Thanks! [bettycrackerfl]

You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

Astroturf. As per the infallible repository of cultural knowledge, Wikipedia, “Astroturfing is a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause.”

The braintrust over at The Confluence uses the term rather liberally to refer to Obama and his supporters, but they don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the word. The key to astroturfing is that it is done by a few to give the impression of a large movement. It imitates grassroots action. Now, regardless of our differing opinions of Obama, I’m sure that PUMAs would agree with me that Obama had a large number of actual grassroots supporters.

The Conflunuts acknowledge this every time they talk about the koolaid drinking Obama zombies. They just also like to turn around and pretend that the 200 Hillary Holdouts represent the true grassroots, not those 67 million people who voted for him, or the millions that donated or volunteered for him.

This is what grassroots looks like.

Of course, the PUMAs are fucking insane, and those that aren’t are stupid enough that you can’t tell the difference. Right, Cinie? Right, myiq2xu?

Stupid PUMA Physics!

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Riverdaughters grasp of physics is about as tenuous as her grasp of politics (among other things). In the middle of another tedious and contrived post, she slipped in this analogy.

Every conservative argument can be reduced to that goal like physics can be reduced to F=ma.

This wouldn’t be so risable if not for two things. First, Riverdaughter is apparently some type of research scientist, and never misses an opportunity to remind her followers that sit at home all day and PUMA-blog for hours on end (cough *Darragh Murphy* cough). Second, I’m a science nerd and they’d revoke my nerd license and electrical engineering degree if I didn’t correct such a stupid statement.

Those with even the most passing familiarity with college level (or high school AP, even) physics should recognize how incorrect it is to state that “like physics can be reduced to F=ma.” F=ma is one expression of Newton’s second law of motion. Beyond the fact that it is not even a comprehensive expression of classical Newtonian dynamics, classical Newtonian dynamics is itself something of a first order approximation of our reality.

Surely any research chemist should be familar with the refinement of our understanding that quantum mechanics brought us. Beyond that, (and this part is beyond my area of expertise), I understand that at high enough temperatures (ie far enough back in time close to the big bang) theoretical physicists have unified the electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces, but gravity still beguiles them.

Anyway, that’s all. Even if physics could be reduced to a single equation, and it can’t right now, it certainly wouldn’t be F=ma.

Perhaps I’m being too nitpicky. Afterall, there is so much stuff she writes that is even more stupid, and perhaps this was a throwaway line she used to make one of her typically vapid comparisons. Fuck it, though. It’s my blog, and I’ll make fun of whatever PUMA stupid I want!

Stupid angienc2! Stupid madamab!

Over at The Confluence in sm77’s bamboozle-palooza thread, angienc2 adds this cryptic “thought” to the conversation.

What women need to realize is that the ONLY Constitutional right that we have is the right to vote. What the f*ck is NOW doing about that? Nothing — all they care about is Roe. Well you know what? Let them have Roe. Meanwhile, the rest of us women with a tiny bit of sense in our heads need to work together, regardless of “party” (note, all the female Republican woman voted FOR Ledbetter & I bet $1000 cash money they would have voted FOR the Paycheck Act) to fix the root problem — the patriarchy.

Did I miss the penis clause in the first amendment? Or the second? Or any of them? What does this even mean?

It’s so obvious that the rights of the constitution are extended to women that it seems nit-picky to point it out, but then again, angienc2 capitalized “only.” Furthermore, “Roe” is not a right enumerated in the constitution. It is a right derived from the constitution by the supreme court, correctly in my view. It is also a right that is constantly under threat from one of the two major political parties in this country. I’ll give the PUMAs two guesses which one.

Right below, madamb demonstrates her research skills with this.

Downticket – I must have been confusing the Paycheck Fairness Act with a different one.

You are right – I can’t find any evidence that Obama was ever a co-sponsor of HR 12.

More lies from the NY Times.

This one is brilliant, really. Not to be missed stupid.

Ok. H.R.12 is the house version of the Paycheck Fairness Act that was introduced this year, on 1/6/09 to be precise. S.766 was the senate version that was introduced by Hillary Clinton in 2007 and co-sponsored by Barack Obama.

Notice anything? If you’re a PUMA, you might not have noticed that Obama only co-sponsored the version that was around when he was in the fucking senate. I know they’ve mostly blocked the election from their memories, but Obama resigned from the senate in November after he won the election, and as such it would be pretty hard for him to co-sponsor a bill introduced two months later in the house.

So, to summarize, when Obama was in the senate he co-sponsored the legislation. After he left the senate, he was unable to co-sponsor any new legislation. Was that really so hard?

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t notice anybody at The Confluence correcting this eggregiously stupid mistake by madamab. Paging angienc2…

Riverchucky’s Sexual Hangups

Could Riverdaughter possibly write something about Obama without bizarre and gratuitous sexual imagery? As if everything she objects to being viewed as forced fellatio wasn’t bad enough, she brings us this.

So, in the picture, he’s sitting with his legs spread like he’s practicing for some cheerleader split, junk dangling over the edge of the chair. I’m sorry but he just looks stupid.

Ah yes, those dumb black men with their slovenly posture and junk hanging all over everything. Nice touch, Kim. I’ll bet anybody that Riverchucky is the lonely author of volumes of Hillary Clinton slash fiction.