PDA

View Full Version : Gossip about the 'heads


Pages : [1] 2 3

bjkeefe
11-17-2008, 11:28 AM
Figured I'd start a thread where we can dump interesting bits of news about the on-camera personalities.

bjkeefe
11-17-2008, 11:31 AM
Now David Frum, a prominent conservative writer who enmeshed himself in a minor dustup during the campaign by turning negative on Governor Palin, is leaving, too. In an interview, he said he planned to leave the magazine, where he writes a popular blog, to strike out on his own on the Web.

“The answers to the Republican dilemma are not obvious and we need a vibrant discussion,” he said. “I think a little more distance can help everybody do a better job of keeping their temper.”

[...]

Mr. Frum said deciding to leave was amicable, but distancing himself from the magazine founded by his idol, Mr. Buckley, was not a hard decision. He said the controversy over Governor Palin’s nomination for vice president was “symbolic of a lot of differences” between his views and those of National Review’s.

“I am really and truly frightened by the collapse of support for the Republican Party by the young and the educated,” he said.

The whole article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/media/17review.html) is about The National Review in general, and is worth reading.

bjkeefe
11-17-2008, 09:56 PM
Do not miss Wonkette's take (http://wonkette.com/404420/david-frum-leaves-national-review) on this.

bjkeefe
11-19-2008, 11:11 AM
Frum's NRO post (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGQ5YjVlYmFhZTFiZTU2YjExYmJlZDA1NGI0ZWRjZGY=) on his looming departure and plans for the next step.

johnmarzan
12-01-2008, 12:26 AM
so what's the real story behind mickey kaus' departure?

bjkeefe
12-01-2008, 07:06 AM
so what's the real story behind mickey kaus' departure?

That's a good question. I'm going to bet that he just lost interest. Maybe he didn't like the comment(er)s.

uncle ebeneezer
12-01-2008, 03:39 PM
I gotta say, Mickey's absence hasn't lowered my enjoyment of the site in the least (which was surprising, since I like Mickey.) Except for the fact that Bob never addresses our brilliant comments anymore :(

nikkibong
12-01-2008, 05:25 PM
It actually turned out that Mickey Kaus is an illegal alien from Mexico. Slate employed him for substantially lower wages than any of its other contributors. He was busted in a recent southern california raid, and is now in a detention center, where he is unable to diavlog.

bjkeefe
12-13-2008, 02:25 AM
... recently appeared on Bill Moyers Journal (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12122008/watch.html).*

Show blurb:

Bill Moyers sits down with political commentator and Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald who asks: Are we a nation ruled by men or by laws? A former constitutional and civil rights lawyer, Greenwald looks at the legacy of the Bush Administration, the prospects for President-elect Obama's cabinet choices, as well as the possibilities for government accountability.

==========
* Yeah, I hate that there's no apostrophe, too.

TwinSwords
12-13-2008, 12:29 PM
* Yeah, I hate that there's no apostrophe, too.

LOL. I noticed the same thing about The Writers Guild of America.

Shouldn't that, too, have an apostrophe?

uncle ebeneezer
12-13-2008, 03:07 PM
I'm guessing that it is because it is implied as THE Bill Moyers Journal but that the "the" was removed for efficiency. But I could be wrong.

PS Brendan, I just saw Baron Davis at Peet's coffee (with his incredibly attractive lady friend.) As a b-ball fan I thought you'd appreciate that.

bjkeefe
12-13-2008, 04:08 PM
LOL. I noticed the same thing about The Writers Guild of America.

Shouldn't that, too, have an apostrophe?

I sure think it should.

bjkeefe
12-13-2008, 04:10 PM
I'm guessing that it is because it is implied as THE Bill Moyers Journal but that the "the" was removed for efficiency. But I could be wrong.

That's one possibility, and if they included the "The," it'd be easier for me to let it slide.

PS Brendan, I just saw Baron Davis at Peet's coffee (with his incredibly attractive lady friend.) As a b-ball fan I thought you'd appreciate that.

Peet's Coffee and and seeing Baron Davis! Yeah, I'd call that a good moment.

TwinSwords
12-13-2008, 04:46 PM
I sure think it should.

A few years ago we created an online "Laptop Users Guide," and had long debates about whether "users" should have an apostrophe. Someone suggested checking the "Writers Guild" to see how they did it. Isn't there something ironic about the writer's guild not knowing how to write?

The only thing I can think of is that the s is plural, as in "the guild of many writers." Does that make any sense? Like "socks drawer" not "sock's drawer"?

bjkeefe
12-13-2008, 05:59 PM
A few years ago we created an online "Laptop Users Guide," and had long debates about whether "users" should have an apostrophe. Someone suggested checking the "Writers Guild" to see how they did it. Isn't there something ironic about the writer's guild not knowing how to write?

ROFL!

Truth be told, I'd say writers' guild, not writer's guild. Maybe the decision came not out of ignorance, but from there being too many people like me, on both sides of the apostrophe placement issue, who could make equally good cases and who got far too passionate about it, and someone in charge came up with the Solomonic solution which, the stakes being so low, everyone accepted just so the other side wouldn't get their way.

Having written guides for users in the past, I decided upon User's Guide, because I felt it suggested a personal touch -- "Here. I've written this helpful manual just for you."

I think what happened with Moyers is that half of those consulted wanted Bill Moyers' Journal and the other half -- the smart ones for whom Strunk and White are the last word, wanted Bill Moyers's Journal. And then someone pointed out that no matter what was decided, it would invariably be rendered elsewhere as Bill Moyer's Journal. I'd bet tall dollars this has been a pet peeve of Bill's his whole life.

The one argument against Moyers's that I sometimes make to myself, being a devotee of Strunk and White, is that one shouldn't use this formulation if the result is not going to pronounced that way. Here, no one would say "moyerzez." In that case, I'd be happy with Moyers', so that the spelling/punctuation reflected the way the word would be said. Sadly, I doubt there were very many on the team who were capable of my levels of magnanimity and reason.

(pause for derisive laughter)

The only thing I can think of is that the s is plural, as in "the guild of many writers." Does that make any sense? Like "socks drawer" not "sock's drawer"?

Yes, there's something to that. But to be consistent, it should then be The Writer Guild. (We say sock drawer, not socks drawer.)

I do remember living in California where the document that attested to your permission to operate a motor vehicle was called a driver license. Clumsy though it felt after a lifetime of living in states that referred to it with a possessive sense, I could see the thinking.

bjkeefe
12-13-2008, 06:10 PM
And speaking of the superiority of Peet's coffee and the other topic at hand, what do we notice about the browser title bars?

sp3akthetruth
12-31-2008, 05:43 AM
i was a fan of b davis until he got greedy and headed to la la land.

bjkeefe
01-07-2009, 06:51 PM
Jim Henley (http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2009/01/03/9035) reports:

Enemy of the State

I’m proud to report that my friend Kerry "The Female Filibuster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29)" Howley has been denied entrance to Burma (http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/willwilkinson/VeUZ/%7E3/501623957/) on account of the apparent danger she poses to their scuzzy regime. I’m sorry it screwed up her travel plans, though.

beren
01-15-2009, 06:31 PM
They got engaged.

bjkeefe
01-17-2009, 07:03 PM
Occasional TWiBer and full-time Clownhall wingnut welfare recipient Amanda Carpenter: pwned (http://world-o-crap.com/blog/?p=1220).

bjkeefe
01-19-2009, 03:48 PM
... made by a group of people for the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.obama.html), including several 'heads: Reza Aslan, Andrew Bacevich, Debra Dickerson, John Judis, Jim Pinkerton, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. Bacevich's is especially good.

(h/t: Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016506.php))

bjkeefe
01-19-2009, 09:30 PM
... is the second interview on today's Fresh Air (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13). Quite good. About 16 minutes.

If you've got time, John Lewis is the first interview. About 28 minutes. Listening to that now.

[Added] If you've heard Lewis interviewed before, some of the first part might be familiar. This may seem repetitious or especially poignant, depending on you. (I moved from the first mood to the second pretty quickly.) The last seven or eight minutes concentrate on the present. Do not miss the final two questions and answers, in any case.

bjkeefe
01-26-2009, 03:01 PM
Ana Marie Cox still partying with the McCain people (http://wonkette.com/405775/ex-mccain-reporters-hold-drunk-karaoke-party-with-ex-mccain-staff).

uncle ebeneezer
01-26-2009, 05:03 PM
Damn liberal media.

bjkeefe
01-27-2009, 06:33 PM
Looks like Bob Wright launched a new website: The Progressive Realist (http://www.progressiverealist.org/about-progressive-realist).

(h/t: Robert Farley (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/01/blog-launch-progressive-realist.html))

bjkeefe
01-29-2009, 07:07 AM
Culture11, a place for posting for 'heads such as Conor Friedersdorf, Radley Balko, and David Freddoso, is closing down (http://culture11.com/blogs/theconfabulum/2009/01/28/the-fate-of-culture11/).

(Mild liberal gloating available (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/01/these-no-longer-go-to-11.html).)

bjkeefe
01-29-2009, 08:18 AM
... forget about "reclaiming" (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f7ba0a7d-b1e5-4260-9f23-0053930e3394) the word liberal.

Just because he resents being labeled a "conservative" ...

P.S. New to me:

Upon his first sight of St. Paul's Cathedral, James II registered his approval by designating it amusing, awful, and artificial: All of these words were compliments in his day.

bjkeefe
01-31-2009, 12:42 PM
... i.e., not about any 'head in particular, but about the whole site. In a way. In any case, too funny not to pass along (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/01/epic-fail-utter-inevitably-edition.html). Be sure to follow the quoted links. [All ellipses original.]

EPIC FAIL, Utter Inevitability Edition
By Scott Lemieux

Pajamas Media. (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/01/30/roger-simon-is-pretty-much-a-back-stabbing-douche-so-this-was-probably-inevitable/) If I understand correclty, they're going to go from being a $7 million wingnut RSS feeder/wingnut BlogAds to a wingnut BloggingHeads. I'm sure that will be equally successful...

...whoa, whoa, whoa...is it true that the idea is that this wingnut Bloggingheads will involve a subscription fee? (http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/roger-hollywood-dumps-bloggers.html) That's twice as expensive as Showtime? Maybe there are people who would actually pay money to watch Glenn Reynolds interview Roger Simon. I don't know. Frankly, I don't want to know. They're the kind of market we could do without. (Hmm, maybe now I see the business model: compiling lists of leads for various sales enterprises. "Look, if you don't buy our list of extremely dumb people with way too much money on their hands, we're taking it across the street to Jerry Graff!" Alas, I think you need more than 5 names...)

bjkeefe
01-31-2009, 04:11 PM
Reactions to the demise of PJM gathered up for your reading pleasure (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/01/with-whimper-lots-of-them.html).

AemJeff
01-31-2009, 04:26 PM
Reactions to the demise of PJM gathered up for your reading pleasure (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/01/with-whimper-lots-of-them.html).

It's a little disturbing when you realize just how much fun a little Schadenfreude can be. I should be ashamed.

bjkeefe
01-31-2009, 04:29 PM
It's a little disturbing when you realize just how much fun a little Schadenfreude can be. I should be ashamed.

Ordinarily, I might, too. But with the amount of gloating they've been doing since their one coup of getting Dan Rather fired, plus the amount of unmitigated hate speech directed at everyone to the left of center over the past half-decade, I don't feel the slightest bit bad.

bjkeefe
02-01-2009, 07:00 AM
It's a little disturbing when you realize just how much fun a little Schadenfreude can be. I should be ashamed.

Maybe this'll help: the case for absolutely guilt-free schadenfreude from James Wolcott (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2009/01/were-there-a-mens-cologne.html).

bjkeefe
02-01-2009, 07:35 AM
Maybe this'll help: the case for absolutely guilt-free schadenfreude from James Wolcott (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2009/01/were-there-a-mens-cologne.html).

And more here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-pjm-reactions.html).

AemJeff
02-01-2009, 11:39 AM
Maybe this'll help: the case for absolutely guilt-free schadenfreude from James Wolcott (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2009/01/were-there-a-mens-cologne.html).

Wolcott is the absolute master of this particular artform.

bjkeefe
02-01-2009, 06:52 PM
One-time b'head examined in depth. Useful links and hilarious summary by davenoon/LGM (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/02/better-history-please.html).

bjkeefe
02-03-2009, 03:56 PM
In a story about Bill O'Reilly being outraged (not news) for being called on his racist remarks (not news) and responding by attacking the "far left NY Times" (not news), there was an interesting wrinkle: It looks like Jim Pinkerton is trying to whitewash his past by denying his well-documented involvement (http://www.newshounds.us/2009/02/03/bill_oreilly_declares_war_on_the_new_york_times_ag ain.php) in George HW Bush's Willie Horton ad.

uncle ebeneezer
02-03-2009, 06:51 PM
I found this to be the most pertinent quote from the 1990 Times piece:

While Mr. Pinkerton said he never thought it was certain that Mr. Horton would be used in racist ways -- "maybe that was naive," he said -- he now faults himself for running that risk. He says he should have found ways to discuss Mr. Dukakis's policy without focusing on Mr. Horton.

"I envisioned the possibility that it could play out this way," he said. "Others would jump on the issue, and others did, and use it in a racially divisive way.

"In some sense I'm responsible -- I won't try to evade that."

bjkeefe
02-03-2009, 07:04 PM
I found this to be the most pertinent quote from the 1990 Times piece:

My sense exactly -- back then, he owned up to his mistake, and I'd have been happy to let it go at that. Pity he isn't able to do the same.

bjkeefe
02-03-2009, 10:59 PM
... leaving National Review (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/02/byron-york-leaves-national-review-to.html)?

Added: Confirmed (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDIxYzFiZTRjODdiMGVhZDI5ZWYxZDlhNjllNTg1ZjQ).

uncle ebeneezer
02-04-2009, 02:02 AM
"In some sense I'm responsible -- I won't try to evade that."

Ah, but his fingers were crossed behind his back when he said that!!

Pink is probably the most mystifying diavlogger on BHTV. He can sound so intelligent and reasonable one minute, and then...

bjkeefe
02-04-2009, 07:12 AM
"In some sense I'm responsible -- I won't try to evade that." Ah, but his fingers were crossed behind his back when he said that!!

Heh. I can accept what he said there at face value. He was not fully responsible for that commercial, or at least not solely. But ...

Pink is probably the most mystifying diavlogger on BHTV. He can sound so intelligent and reasonable one minute, and then...

Yeah. Although I'd say the mystery has pretty much disappeared for me. I guess a lot of it went away when he went to work for Huckabee, and lately, unless he's paired with David Corn, I don't think there's any doubt left about where he's coming from.

bjkeefe
02-05-2009, 10:57 PM
Henry Farrell looks at arguments for (Josh Cohen) and against (Mark Schmitt) on the topic "Liberals and Campaign Finance Regulation."

One post, three 'heads! (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/02/05/liberals-and-campaign-finance-regulation/)

[Added] Some good comments, too. Unsurprising, considering it's Crooked Timber. I found Sebastian's (#6) a compelling case for the libertarian perspective.

bjkeefe
02-06-2009, 09:33 AM
One-time 'head and former Culture11 blogger Conor Friedersdorf (http://theamericanscene.com/2009/02/05/what-exactly-does-pjtv-do-well) reviews the recent Reynolds/Malkin/Wurzelbacher video, asks, "What Exactly Does PJTV Do Well?"

Shorter answer: Compared to BH.tv, not much.

(h/t: Scott Lemieux/LGM (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/02/oh-yeah-that-will-be-worth-15-bucks.html))

[Added] Commenters, both left and right, seem to concur.

bjkeefe
02-08-2009, 07:18 AM
... on "Partisanship, Ideology and Loyalty (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/02/06/partisanship-ideology-and-loyalty/)," prompted by Nancy Rosenblum's work.

bjkeefe
02-15-2009, 12:38 AM
One of my favorite 'heads did a Google Talk a while back that's just been posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxFfUsDgnaU&sdig=1). Here's the blurb:

Author Sean Carroll visits Googles Santa Monica, CA office to discuss his book Dark Matter and Dark Energy. This event took place on November 17, 2008, as a part of the Authors@Google series.

It's about 75 minutes long, probably part of which is Q&A. (I haven't watched it yet -- just got the ping from YouTube's subscription notification service.)

graz
02-16-2009, 09:28 PM
Here is an interesting defense of Mickey the contrarian:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/02/16/the-kaus-phenomenon-ii/

My sentiments lie with the excerpted comments:

#
conradg, on February 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm Said:

The problem with Kaus is almost purely a personality problem. There are lots of liberals who would agree with him on various policy differences with the standard “accepted” liberal position, if there really is one. I once defended Mickey against the charge that he’s a closet Republican by telling him that he was actually a self-hating Democrat, and that explains most of his problems with the left. He doesn’t just disagree with some of the standard liberal positions, he hates the fact that he’s a liberal Democrat himself, and he fights with himself over this fact all the time. It makes all his disagreements with fellow liberal Democrats into schizoid personality disputes with himself. There’s something in him which can’t break free of the self-hating pattern, that loves all the ambiguity and mixed messages involved, and simply being as irritating as possible. But at the end of the day he still self-identifies with being a liberal Democrat, and supports the general political project, while hating himself for doing so. It’s not his lack of orthodoxy that’s problematic, it’s simply his personality. He’d be a lot more effective on the issues he actually does disagree with many liberals about if it weren’t for his personality problems.
#
Tim Ross, on February 16th, 2009 at 1:52 pm Said:

conradg, yeah, it sounds like you’re onto something there. I remember listening to a Bloggingheads episode with Kaus and Robert Wright. It struck me that there was this weird dynamic between them: the two seemed liked they had some kind of friendship or rapport, but essentially Bob was a nice guy, and Mickey treated a lot of what Bob said with an undercurrent of dismissiveness. He was kind of a jerk. I found his tone way too contemptuous for the circumstances (because, really, Wright comes across as a friendly guy) and began to wonder what the deal was with Mickey Kaus.

So while Larison wrote a heck of a blog post - seriously, that was a good job - Freddie, Elvis, and conradg are right to say in re Kaus: the dude has problems.
#
Devizier, on February 16th, 2009 at 5:36 pm Said:

The difference between Daniel and Kaus is that Mickey is a cranky misanthrope.

bjkeefe
02-18-2009, 02:21 PM
... is a guest on this week's Poli-Sci-Fi Radio (http://www.poliscifiradio.com/?p=77). Primarily, he discusses his argument and recommended procedure for ending the filibuster in the Senate. He also discusses some SF.

If you're pressed for time, he's on starting at about 30 minutes in, for about half an hour. Good stuff.

nikkibong
02-18-2009, 06:22 PM
Longtime beloved 'head John McWhorther (nothing dirty intended there) has a new um, 'blog' at the website of the New Republic:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/mcwhorter/default.aspx

Now could someone tell John that in order to have a 'blog,' he should at least try to update it every few days?

TwinSwords
02-18-2009, 07:31 PM
... is a guest on this week's Poli-Sci-Fi Radio (http://www.poliscifiradio.com/?p=77). Primarily, he discusses his argument and recommended procedure for ending the filibuster in the Senate. He also discusses some SF.

If you're pressed for time, he's on starting at about 30 minutes in, for about half an hour. Good stuff.

That's cool that he stuck around to talk about both of the shows topics: poli-sci, and sci-fi. Thanks for the tip; I'll have to listen.

Did they talk about your favorite show, Lost? ;)

bjkeefe
02-18-2009, 10:09 PM
Longtime beloved 'head John McWhorther (nothing dirty intended there) has a new um, 'blog' at the website of the New Republic:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/mcwhorter/default.aspx

Now could someone tell John that in order to have a 'blog,' he should at least try to update it every few days?

Hey, thanks for the link, nikki.

I dunno about a frequency requirement. One of my favorite bloggers, Steve Yegge, is doing good if he posts once a month. He's an edge case, but there are plenty of others who only do a few per week. Think of it as more of an irregular column, and be thankful Al Gore invented RSS. ;^)

Besides, John will really have to slow down if he ever wants to match Ron Silver (http://pajamasmedia.com/ronsilver/).

bjkeefe
02-18-2009, 10:12 PM
That's cool that he stuck around to talk about both of the shows topics: poli-sci, and sci-fi. Thanks for the tip; I'll have to listen.

Did they talk about your favorite show, Lost? ;)

Heh. Yeah, but not with Ezra. Ezra actually made what sounded like a good argument for starting to watch Heroes again. (I've never seen it, but the consensus seems to be that after the first season, it turned into must-flee TV.)

claymisher
02-18-2009, 11:01 PM
Hey, thanks for the link, nikki.

I dunno about a frequency requirement. One of my favorite bloggers, Steve Yegge, is doing good if he posts once a month. He's an edge case, but there are plenty of others who only do a few per week. Think of it as more of an irregular column, and be thankful Al Gore invented RSS. ;^)

Besides, John will really have to slow down if he ever wants to match Ron Silver (http://pajamasmedia.com/ronsilver/).

One of Yegge's posts is 30 times the size of a regular post though. That guy goes on!

bjkeefe
02-18-2009, 11:42 PM
One of Yegge's posts is 30 times the size of a regular post though. That guy goes on!

Agreed. But that has never bothered me. In fact, it's a nice change of pace from reading most blogs, which after a while tends to make me feel like I'm doing nothing but aggravating my ADD.

claymisher
02-19-2009, 12:30 AM
Hey, did anyone notice that Will Wilkinson isn't a libertarian anymore?

bjkeefe
02-19-2009, 01:28 AM
Hey, did anyone notice that Will Wilkinson isn't a libertarian anymore?

I've always thought of him as somewhat less than zealous, but has he strayed even further lately?

claymisher
02-19-2009, 02:14 AM
I've always thought of him as somewhat less than zealous, but has he strayed even further lately?

Yeah, check out his blog. He's out.

bjkeefe
02-19-2009, 02:41 AM
Yeah, check out his blog. He's out.

Eh, I don't know. It all depends on what one's definition of libertarianism is, in the end. I note that in a recent post (http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/02/18/the-promise-of-liberaltarianism/) he quotes the following [excerpted] with wholehearted approval:

[I]n order for libertarians to more consistently act as political free agents, or even to sign on to a coalition with the political Left, something else will need to happen to free libertarian philosophy from the predispositions that have resulted from such a lengthy alliance with the political Right.

I would propose, then, that the “something” to which I refer is “liberaltarianism,” “soft Hayek” as Jim Henley calls it, or “actual Hayek” as I like to call it. The promise of this derivation of modern libertarianism is not that it attempts to paint libertarianism in a light that is palatable to modern liberals/Progressives, which our friend Kip rightly fears; instead, its promise is that it can help to rescue the fundamental worldview of libertarianism from the prejudices instilled in it by such a lengthy alliance with the Right.

and then adds, in part:

Right-leaning libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives are naturally very displeased with the idea of the de-rightification or re-liberalization of classical liberalism. And most contemporary liberals are indifferent or suspicious. But that’s okay.

And see also his post "Against Fake Libertarian Clarity (http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/10/against-fake-libertarian-clarity/)," which concludes:

If libertarianism is the view that coercion is never social or emotional, and that coercive limits to liberty are justified only in defense of private property, or in the enforcement of contracts, then libertarianism is false, and I am not a libertarian. If libertarianism is the view that human well-being is best promoted by ensuring “ that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty to every other man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law%20of%20equal%20liberty),” then I am a libertarian. If this is a libertarian view, then the goal to minimize or abolish wrongfully liberty-limiting social norms is a libertarian goal.

So, it sounds to me like the same situation as obtains with, say, Andrew Sullivan insisting that he is a conservative, and other conservatives, say, of the Red State Trike Force (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/01/watch-out-liberals.html) ilk, insisting he's not.

The above excerpts seem to me consistent with how I've understood Will for the past couple of years, based mostly on his BH.tv appearances. I'll concede that he seems a little more upfront about embracing the tag liberaltarian lately, but I don't think it goes beyond that. Did you have something specific in mind that makes you think he's changed more than that, recently?

bjkeefe
02-21-2009, 09:01 PM
Matthew Yglesias is interviewed in a segment on this week's On The Media. Here's the blurb:

Stopping the Press
February 20, 2009

Getting lost in the frantic search for a business model to save newspapers is a simple question: why? Would the death of the newspapers as we know them really be apocalyptic? Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Steve Coll (http://www.newamerica.net/people/steve_coll) and political blogger Matthew Yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/) take a step back to consider if newspapers are worth saving.

Not really a must-hear, but some interesting thoughts if you're into the topic.

You can stream or download (http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/02/20/05) the audio.

bjkeefe
03-01-2009, 11:47 PM
Been awhile since the Crunchy Con's been on, but this must not go unnoticed: Rod Dreher: against the Enlightenment (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/17968.html).

bjkeefe
03-02-2009, 12:38 AM
Been awhile since the Crunchy Con's been on, but this must not go unnoticed: Rod Dreher: against the Enlightenment (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/17968.html).

In fairness, however, this one (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/03/cpac-white-kids-on-dope.html) (via (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/03/rod-dreher-seems-to-get-it.html)) seems a little enlightened.

bjkeefe
03-07-2009, 01:00 AM
Hard to believe, but here's a 15-minute clip of David Frum on Mark Levin's radio show that will almost make you feel sorry for Frum.

I cannot believe Levin's behavior. He is beyond a parody of a hate radio host -- interrupting, cutting Frum's mike, more petty than a junior high schooler (e.g., "How many books have you sold?"), simultaneously arrogant and incredibly thin-skinned. It's like he's never before had to deal with someone talking back to him.

Links:

MP3 of the radio show (http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/ShowAudio/LEVINVSFRUM030409.mp3)

Frum's post that provoked the attack (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=d22fe4c9-6f8c-4c0d-93af-aed79ad3b467) from Levin that prompted Frum to call in to Levin's show.*

Frum's post after (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=c9f0a139-c96f-4a28-b81f-68fb14f7b2d8) the trainwreck radio show.

(h/t: Instaputz (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/03/wingnut-fight.html))

==========
* [Added] For the record: It may be that this column (http://www.theweek.com/article/index/93904/The_Limbaugh_schism) was what came to Levin's attention and provoked his ire. It's an elaboration of the post I mentioned above.

bjkeefe
03-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Hard to believe, but here's a 15-minute clip of David Frum on Mark Levin's radio show that will almost make you feel sorry for Frum.

In another thread, pampl (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=106104#post106104) passes along this link (http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279) to a follow-up piece by Frum, published in Newsweek, that reflects on the Levin encounter and continues with Frum's musings about the Limbaugh problem for conservatism/Republicanism.

bjkeefe
03-08-2009, 11:15 PM
From Instaputz (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/03/its-boy.html):

Please welcome our newest addition to the blogroll, Fire Mickey Kaus (http://firemickeykaus.blogspot.com/).

I have a deep respect for anonymity -- "no shit!" he says -- but I really wanna know who's behind FMK. Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh please let it be Bob Wright.

[via Kaus (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/03/06/kf-fails-stress-test.aspx). To his credit.]

bjkeefe
03-11-2009, 01:45 AM
... wins second prize (http://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1298967615) in science essay contest about time.

claymisher
03-11-2009, 04:24 PM
Hard to believe, but here's a 15-minute clip of David Frum on Mark Levin's radio show that will almost make you feel sorry for Frum.

I cannot believe Levin's behavior. He is beyond a parody of a hate radio host -- interrupting, cutting Frum's mike, more petty than a junior high schooler (e.g., "How many books have you sold?"), simultaneously arrogant and incredibly thin-skinned. It's like he's never before had to deal with someone talking back to him.

Links:

MP3 of the radio show (http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/ShowAudio/LEVINVSFRUM030409.mp3)

Frum's post that provoked the attack (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=d22fe4c9-6f8c-4c0d-93af-aed79ad3b467) from Levin that prompted Frum to call in to Levin's show.*

Frum's post after (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=c9f0a139-c96f-4a28-b81f-68fb14f7b2d8) the trainwreck radio show.

(h/t: Instaputz (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/03/wingnut-fight.html))

==========
* [Added] For the record: It may be that this column (http://www.theweek.com/article/index/93904/The_Limbaugh_schism) was what came to Levin's attention and provoked his ire. It's an elaboration of the post I mentioned above.

Oh my god, I'm 8 minutes into this, and this is the funniest damn thing I have ever heard. It's fucking batshit insane. It's hall of mirrors of irony. Levin is bullying Frum about Frum bullying poor widdle Rush. Unbelievable.

claymisher
03-11-2009, 04:27 PM
Levin, at:
9:58: "I'm ready to take you on on the substance"
10:04 "You're annoying [mumble] cut you off a long time ago"

Six seconds! Bwhahahahhaha!

claymisher
03-11-2009, 04:39 PM
Here's a happy little coincidence, after that played itunes played this next:

http://www.archive.org/download/mekons2004-03-21.shnf/mek2004-03-21d1t08_vbr.mp3

"You ain't goin' nowhere." Indeed!

bjkeefe
03-11-2009, 05:30 PM
Here's a happy little coincidence, after that played itunes played this next:

http://www.archive.org/download/mekons2004-03-21.shnf/mek2004-03-21d1t08_vbr.mp3

"You ain't goin' nowhere." Indeed!

Heh. And a good tune. I'd never heard that before. Thanks.

uncle ebeneezer
03-11-2009, 06:27 PM
Oh my freakin' God. Hysterical. Literaly. i only got about 4 minutes in because I just couldn't take listening to Levin's moron-itude. I actually wanted to defend Frum (gasp) since while I share almost no ideology with him, I think he's on the $ with his points about Rush. Talk radio at it's finest.

AemJeff
03-11-2009, 06:52 PM
Oh my freakin' God. Hysterical. Literaly. i only got about 4 minutes in because I just couldn't take listening to Levin's moron-itude. I actually wanted to defend Frum (gasp) since while I share almost no ideology with him, I think he's on the $ with his points about Rush. Talk radio at it's finest.

Mark Levin is a moron. This is an indisputable fact (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=95313#post95313). Something about regular exposure to a microphone on AM radio... OK, maybe I have the causality reversed there. Levin's posts on the Corner rival K-Lo's and Andy McCarthy's for sheer inanity and worthlessness. Frum at least tries, by his own lights, to approximate intellectual honesty. Personally I think he spends a lot of time lying to himself - and employment at AEI can't be good for anybody's moral compass - but I'll take David any time over the Levin's virulent, inchoate horseshit.

claymisher
03-11-2009, 07:38 PM
Naw, you guys got it all wrong ("A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side"). You got to fight that sympathetic feeling.

Frum's no better than Levin. He's just got the crazy dialed down a little bit.

Come on!

Fight! Fight! Fight!

claymisher
03-11-2009, 07:39 PM
Heh. And a good tune. I'd never heard that before. Thanks.

It's the Mekons covering a Dylan tune.

AemJeff
03-11-2009, 08:16 PM
Naw, you guys got it all wrong ("A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side"). You got to fight that sympathetic feeling.

Frum's no better than Levin. He's just got the crazy dialed down a little bit.

Come on!

Fight! Fight! Fight!

But then I don't get to ply my ideological ecumenism schtick!

bjkeefe
03-11-2009, 08:40 PM
Naw, you guys got it all wrong ("A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side"). You got to fight that sympathetic feeling.

Frum's no better than Levin. He's just got the crazy dialed down a little bit.

Come on!

Fight! Fight! Fight!

First, I did say almost makes you feel sorry for Frum. But much more importantly, at this time, I am all about promoting schisms on the right. We should be encouraging those who show glimmers of reasonableness, respect for intellect, and disdain for the Palin/Limbaugh/"Joe" the "Plumber"/Christianist wing. Frum and Levin represent a good spot to place the wedge and hammer on it.

nikkibong
03-11-2009, 09:39 PM
Ross Douthat got Bill Kristol's old NYT gig. (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/03/ross_douthat_new_times_rightwing_columnist.php)

bjkeefe
03-11-2009, 10:09 PM
Ross Douthat got Bill Kristol's old NYT gig. (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/03/ross_douthat_new_times_rightwing_columnist.php)

See also (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=106551#post106551), and responding posts.

[Added] Just noticed your link was to something I hadn't yet seen. Love Edroso. Thanks.

bjkeefe
03-11-2009, 11:18 PM
... at this time, I am all about promoting schisms on the right.

And to that end ... popcorn (http://wonkette.com/406918/southern-slave-owner-plotting-attack-on-michael-steele), anyone?

The Republicans' demand for immediate gratification, especially after two decades spent wrecking everything they could, is just hilarious.

Also, why aren't we hearing more conspiracy theorizing about the cancellation of D.L. Hughley's show, right after it hosted someone who insulted Rush Limbaugh???

claymisher
03-12-2009, 01:50 AM
But then I don't get to ply my ideological ecumenism schtick!

heh. :)

bjkeefe
03-12-2009, 02:09 AM
... wins second prize (http://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1298967615) in science essay contest about time.

On a related note, Michael Bérubé (p)reviews Sean's forthcoming book (http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/time_after_time/), also on time, which is a book by Blogginghead Sean Carroll, reviewed by Michael Bérubé.

nikkibong
03-12-2009, 04:18 PM
Just recieved this month's issue of The Atlantic. It features an article by the one and only Bob Wright, entitled " . . .One World, Under God"

bjkeefe
03-12-2009, 04:52 PM
Just recieved this month's issue of The Atlantic. It features an article by the one and only Bob Wright, entitled " . . .One World, Under God"

Thanks for the heads-up. For the print-deprived, here is the online version (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/globalization-religion). Reading now ...

[Added] The beginning of the article reminds me of the Bart Ehrman interview I mentioned (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=105929#post105929) elsewhere.

[Added Added] A good read. Thanks again, nikki. Looking forward to the book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0316734918/theatlanticmonthA/re%20%20f=nosim).

Ocean
03-12-2009, 07:16 PM
On a related note, [URL="http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/time_after_time/"]Michael Bérubé (p)reviews Sean's forthcoming book

Very funny! :)

I look forward to the book, though...

bjkeefe
03-15-2009, 08:59 PM
This one's a little old -- just noticed it in my feeds, and it may be that you feel that the main issue has been talked to death. Nonetheless, I always like listening to John McWhorter, so I figured I'd pass along the note that John was on Bill Moyers Journal (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02272009/profile2.html) in late February.

It's not all talk about Eric Holder and race. Some of the conversation is about linguistics. If you link hop from the above, you'll see a link to download the beginning of John's book, Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English. (Link reproduced here: PDF (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02272009/mcwhorter.pdf)).

bjkeefe
03-18-2009, 03:58 AM
Michael Goldfarb: still as classy as ever. First it was "the pedophile lobby (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/pederast_lobby_gets_behind_fre.asp)," now it's the latest in a series (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/03/one-mans-outrage-is-another-mans-recycled-hackishness.html) of attempts to smear by comparison to David Duke.

graz
03-18-2009, 09:42 PM
More momentum towards the Mickey/Ezra showdown?:

http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/03/18/two-choices/

bjkeefe
03-18-2009, 09:53 PM
More momentum towards the Mickey/Ezra showdown?:

http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/03/18/two-choices/

Heh. Mickey will never.

Moment of truth in his blog post (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/03/17/the-uninvited.aspx), which makes the rest read largely like sour grapes:

... my primary beef, which is that they didn't invite me ...

I'd also say he's being disingenuous to pretend that it's always better to discuss everything publicly (his ass-covering hedge "to the maximum extent possible" notwithstanding), especially when kicking around out-of-the-bix ideas that haven't yet been thought through. It's also hypocritical, given his repeated refusal to be upfront about everything he thinks, or, more to the point, his refusal to engage Ezra in a straight-up debate.

bjkeefe
03-19-2009, 01:12 AM
(Mostly for the benefit of people who stumble across this part of this thread a little ways in the future)

Link to original Politico post and statement from Ezra on the Journolist kerfuffle here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=107225#post107225). Links to comical reactions may be found in the same thread; e.g., here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=107232#post107232) and here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=107319#post107319).

graz
03-19-2009, 09:06 AM
Thanks for all the linkage. Bhtv should be grateful for your attention to posterity... Oh, wait a minute... in addition to moderator, which allows you to control content... now you are also controlling the future by tailoring the archives to suit your ideological ends.

Is there no end to your malign influence O'mighty one?

johnmarzan
03-20-2009, 12:32 AM
Heh. Mickey will never.

Moment of truth in his blog post (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/03/17/the-uninvited.aspx), which makes the rest read largely like sour grapes:



I'd also say he's being disingenuous to pretend that it's always better to discuss everything publicly (his ass-covering hedge "to the maximum extent possible" notwithstanding), especially when kicking around out-of-the-bix ideas that haven't yet been thought through. It's also hypocritical, given his repeated refusal to be upfront about everything he thinks, or, more to the point, his refusal to engage Ezra in a straight-up debate.

the reply
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/73865/

bjkeefe
03-20-2009, 01:09 AM
the reply
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/73865/

The irony of the king of the wingnutosphere saying there are risks to groupthink and an us-vs-them mentality cannot be overstated.

johnmarzan
03-21-2009, 12:04 AM
Ezra vs. Althouse

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/03/ann-althouse-sure-has-lot-of-anti.html

bjkeefe
03-21-2009, 01:10 AM
Thanks for all the linkage. Bhtv should be grateful for your attention to posterity... Oh, wait a minute... in addition to moderator, which allows you to control content... now you are also controlling the future by tailoring the archives to suit your ideological ends.

Is there no end to your malign influence O'mighty one?

Let us hope not, for the good of humanity!

;^)

And here is Roy Edroso's take (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/03/left-out.html) on the Big Funhouse of Wingnuts Fretting Over Journolist.

osmium
03-21-2009, 04:02 PM
More momentum towards the Mickey/Ezra showdown?:

http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/03/18/two-choices/

I thought Spencer's post was weak. One should try to maintain one's composure. He can disagree with Mickey without calling him names. (And if he is going to go there, he can at least be funny in the process.)

johnmarzan
03-21-2009, 11:34 PM
more on the juvenile prick

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/03/ezra-klein-smears-ann-althouse.html

bjkeefe
03-21-2009, 11:40 PM
more on the juvenile prick

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/03/ezra-klein-smears-ann-althouse.html

That is the most distorted piece of shit I've read all week. Hard to believe you'd waste your time with a crank like that, but whatever.

I'll tell you this, though: If your aim is to build momentum for the trashing of Ezra Klein, a blog post like that isn't going to do anything except make the already converted hoot. Everyone else will either be completely bored or more inclined to view Ezra favorably.

You've also undermined your own credibility on this site.

johnmarzan
03-22-2009, 01:05 AM
That is the most distorted piece of shit I've read all week. Hard to believe you'd waste your time with a crank like that, but whatever.

I'll tell you this, though: If your aim is to build momentum for the trashing of Ezra Klein, a blog post like that isn't going to do anything except make the already converted hoot. Everyone else will either be completely bored or more inclined to view Ezra favorably.

You've also undermined your own credibility on this site.

:rolleyes:

it's not over yet, bj.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/03/did-ezra-klein-post-anti-semitic.html

bjkeefe
03-28-2009, 07:59 PM
... plagiarist (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/19021.html)?

Some speculate this may be true! (Right, rcocean?)

johnmarzan
04-04-2009, 10:50 PM
Mister Althouse's identity revealed

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/fashion/05althouse.html

bjkeefe
04-05-2009, 05:16 AM
Mister Althouse's identity revealed

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/fashion/05althouse.html

Thanks for the link.

bjkeefe
04-06-2009, 09:53 PM
TBogg (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/04/06/youre-just-ruining-it-for-everyone/):

You’re just ruining it for everyone

Will Wilkinson does for pot smoking (http://www.theweek.com/article/index/94981/I_smoke_pot_and_I_like_it) what Michelle Malkin did for cheerleader-sex fantasies.

graz
04-08-2009, 11:17 AM
Why Megan McCardle is a blessing and a curse:

Megan whines so you don't have to. (http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/why_dont_we_have_more_green_products.php)

Even though commenter (amigammon) mistakes Drum for the Queen, he gets the general sentiment right:

amigammon April 7, 2009 1:31 PM
Kevin,
"Er..." Are you English or Australian? I didn't see many English idioms like "dodgy" or "Bob's your uncle." Or are you US born? In that case it is "Uh" No one actually says "Er". Either that or since you aren't actually quoting anyone but typing your own words, you can, uh, just delete it.
Anyway, if you think that using 1/6th the energy of a regular, mostly heat producing light bulb (remember Easy-Bake ovens?) is not helping things, then by all means, put a 60 watter near your bed, along with an aspirin bottle, just in case.
Your toilet problem? I have an "econo" low flow toilet, and when I perform an act that might clog it, I simply flush it more than once during the procedure. Yes, this uses more water, but 2 flushes on the new one use still less water than one flush on the old one.
One way to do a nice clean phosphate free wash is to use soap flakes with softened water and rinsed with the addition of vinegar. There are other ways, too.
I notice you use the terms, "sucked" and "annoying" in regards to the newer, more earth sustainable products. To me, unnecessarily aiding the demise of the environment sucks and is annoying.
Kevin, maybe what you could do is search for photos of what 300 million looks like visually. My WUXGA (1920X1200) laptop screen has about 2.2 million pixels on it, give or take. That makes 131 laptops' pixels to equal the no. of Americans using light bulbs, toilet water, and phosphate detergent for something that they wore one day or dried off with once. Now magnify each of those pixels into 15 gallons of water per day, or a cup of phosphate detergent or the fuel to power your heat giving light bulb for a year. For the entire Earth, that would be the pixels of 2,900 WUXGA laptops like mine. Granted, not all people produce the waste that we do, but I would like to do what I can to lean in that direction while not complaining about it. Civilized people produce way too much waste. Now that really sucks, wouldn't you agree, Kevin?
Gee, I didn't know that bellyaching like a spoiled child could get you a job at the Atlantic. I have read it for years and have never seen anything so pathetic.

jfxgillis April 8, 2009 8:50 AM

Megan:

Did they teach you about externalities in your Econ 101 class or did you cut that day?

Unbelievable. Used to write for the Economist. Now Business editor of the Atlantic. Doesn't get something a high school sophomore understands.

When an individual action is rational at the individual level but irrational at the collective level, it requires collective intervention. If we hadn't had this issue arise in dozens of ways across the last thirty years at least, on everything from California's emission standards to the congestion pricing in London, you might have an excuse. But it has and you don't.

Tradeoffs indeed. The cost of more Megan appearances on bhtv is having to be subjected to her stream of consciousness - which includes anecdotes that needn't be supported with evidence and the retelling of received wisdom from her small circle of influence. Who needs supporting data when a personal impression or the opinion of a friend trumps reality.

And her presence denies the slot to other voices. I for one am tired of hers.

bjkeefe
04-08-2009, 11:40 AM
Tradeoffs indeed. The cost of more Megan appearances on bhtv is having to be subjected to her stream of consciousness - which includes anecdotes that needn't be supported with evidence and the retelling of received wisdom from her small circle of influence. Who needs supporting data when a personal impression or the opinion of a friend trumps reality.

And her presence denies the slot to other voices. I for one am tired of hers.

You'll be thoroughly unsurprised to hear I agree, but you deserve a shoutout for how you said it.

graz
04-08-2009, 12:14 PM
Thanks. I'm sorry that I phrased it in away to suggest that I was a sole dissenter. Maybe these sorts of complaints will influence the booker? And of course it isn't a call for banning, but it isn't a critique against ideology either.
Nobody's credentials are checked at the door here. Yet bhtv finds itself in need of giving her thoughts a platform inside of twice in a week?
I have yet to see a spirited defense of her approach or ideas as opposed to her general presence. I bet her friends and family love her... isn't that enough?

AemJeff
04-08-2009, 12:22 PM
... Maybe these sorts of complaints will influence the booker?...

My guess is that the criteria used for bookings aren't quite the same as what these complaints assume. Traffic, relationships between decision makers at BHtv and guests, all sorts of hidden externalities - these probably have a lot more weight than any of our specific opinions about what a particular guest brings to the table.

How else do you explain Althouse, e.g.?

graz
04-08-2009, 01:04 PM
My guess is that the criteria used for bookings aren't quite the same as what these complaints assume. Traffic, relationships between decision makers at BHtv and guests, all sorts of hidden externalities - these probably have a lot more weight than any of our specific opinions about what a particular guest brings to the table.

How else do you explain Althouse, e.g.?

http://msspoken.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/thinker.jpg

Now that I have given it further thought... you make a good point mon frere.

bjkeefe
04-08-2009, 01:09 PM
Maybe these sorts of complaints will influence the booker?

My guess is that the criteria used for bookings aren't quite the same as what these complaints assume.

I suspect Jeff is largely correct, graz, but that should not stop any of us from complaining when we think a given diavlogger is a waste of a slot. I know that the BH.tv overlords read the comments, and I know that there's a reason that the squeaky wheel gets the grease is such a familiar saying. Registering discontent (offering constructive criticism) may not carry veto power over all the other factors that Jeff lists, but I have to think it doesn't have zero effect, either.

It is also true that being outspoken may encourage others, previously suffering in silence, to speak up.

AemJeff
04-08-2009, 01:12 PM
I suspect Jeff is largely correct, graz, but that should not stop any of us from complaining when we think a given diavlogger is a waste of a slot. I know that the BH.tv overlords read the comments, and I know that there's a reason that the squeaky wheel gets the grease is such a familiar saying. Registering discontent (offering constructive criticism) may not carry veto power over all the other factors that Jeff lists, but I have to think it doesn't have zero effect, either.

It is also true that being outspoken may encourage others, previously suffering in silence, to speak up.

Emphatically agree.

Added: It is, of course, possible that complaints will have the opposite effect. Either through simple cupidity, or via the perfectly rational idea that unpopular guests stimulate controversy and traffic.

bjkeefe
04-08-2009, 01:40 PM
Emphatically agree.

Added: It is, of course, possible that complaints will have the opposite effect. Either through simple cupidity, or via the perfectly rational idea that unpopular guests stimulate controversy and traffic.

Yeah, there is that, and I'd say it explains much of the reason for having Althouse on so much.

claymisher
04-08-2009, 01:52 PM
This sounds a little rude, but I imagine if more interesting folks were willing to do episodes, they'd be on. You know ... you do bhtv with the bh you have. I'm sure Bob would have Nobel prizewinners on every day if he could.

bjkeefe
04-08-2009, 03:22 PM
This sounds a little rude, but I imagine if more interesting folks were willing to do episodes, they'd be on. You know ... you do bhtv with the bh you have. I'm sure Bob would have Nobel prizewinners on every day if he could.

I don't doubt that, but even from what little I know of the blogosphere, it seems to me that we don't need to go to Stockholm to find plenty of new and interesting voices.

TwinSwords
04-08-2009, 04:13 PM
Yeah, there is that, and I'd say it explains much of the reason for having Althouse on so much.

You guys have covered both sides of this debate, but just to add: people in the comments complaining about a guest are about as effective as a few people walking into a McDonalds and saying "I don't like Big Macs, you should stop selling them." Big Macs will be made as long as they are sold in large numbers. If Megan generates traffic for BHTV, she's going to stay -- unless BHTV is run by people who are completely irrational.

And frankly, even if we don't like Megan (and actually, I don't have much of a problem with her; I disagree with virtually everything she says, but I can listen to her, and she doesn't annoy me like some of the others, e.g., Conn Carroll), we should be glad she's here because she's helping to sustain a site we all enjoy.

bjkeefe
04-08-2009, 04:49 PM
You guys have covered both sides of this debate, but just to add: people in the comments complaining about a guest are about as effective as a few people walking into a McDonalds and saying "I don't like Big Macs, you should stop selling them." Big Macs will be made as long as they are sold in large numbers.

At risk of pushing your analogy too far, I'd say a couple of things. First, McDonald's sells hundreds of millions of Big Macs. BH.tv attracts thousands of visitors. So a more appropriate comparison to a few commenters complaining in the comments would be tens of thousands of people saying "I don't like Big Macs."

Second, in fact individual/small group complaints do affect McDonald's. Why do you think they started selling Quarter Pounders, not to mention salads and chicken? Why do you think they stopped adding potato flakes to their shakes, switched to all vegetable oil in the Fry-O-Lators, and stopped selling super-size portions? And have you ever heard of Temple Grandin? If not, start here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1142532), for example.

If Megan generates traffic for BHTV, she's going to stay -- unless BHTV is run by people who are completely irrational.

Maybe. But in that case, why has Bob flatly stated that he refuses to have Ann Coulter on? That's certainly not rational.

And frankly, even if we don't like Megan (and actually, I don't have much of a problem with her; I disagree with virtually everything she says, but I can listen to her, and she doesn't annoy me like some of the others, e.g., Conn Carroll), we should be glad she's here because she's helping to sustain a site we all enjoy.

Again, maybe. If it really is the case that having Megan on is the only way this site can afford to do the stuff I like, fine. I can just continue to skip her appearances. But really, unless I see numbers to the contrary, I can't believe that Megan twice a week is really the best the site can do, even if all it cares about is driving traffic. And for the long run, the thing that's going to make or break BH.tv is offering superior fare, not the same sort of fluff you can get on every TV chat show on the dial.

bjkeefe
04-08-2009, 05:03 PM
... she doesn't annoy me like some of the others, e.g., Conn Carroll) ...

O/T, but speaking of whom, check out this new two-minute bit of fear-mongering propaganda from the Heritage Foundation (http://wonkette.com/407655/heritage-foundation-releases-terrifying-new-action-film).

Spackerman weighs in (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/08/missiles/), too, in case you miss the link at the above.

[Added] On a related note, see Brian Beutler (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/media-reports-major-defense-budget-cuts-as-obama-proposes-increase-in-defense-budget.php) (via Yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/obama_is_reorienting_defense_spending_not_cutting_ it.php)) for observations on the so-called liberal media's coverage of the new defense budget. You'll be unsurprised to see that rePubOLITICO is featured.

[Added 2] Links to more budget-related reading here (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/praise_for_the_new_defense_budget.php).

[Added 3] More from Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_04/017664.php) (via Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/407659/why-does-barack-obama-want-to-eliminate-all-defense-spending-by-increasing-defense-spending)). This says it all:

What I'm wondering now is whether, to paraphrase Twain, it's too late for the truth to get its pants on.

David Kurtz flagged this exchange (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/contessa.php) on MSNBC this afternoon, during an interview with former Defense Secretary William Cohen. The chyron told viewers that Gates has announced "deep cuts in military spending," even though that's clearly false. MSNBC's Contessa Brewer asked Cohen to address the administration's proposed "cuts" -- not "what some are calling 'cuts,'" just matter-of-fact "cuts," as if this were plainly true.

Cohen eventually noted, "By the way, it's not a cut. It's a four percent increase."

TwinSwords
04-09-2009, 12:24 AM
At risk of pushing your analogy too far, I'd say a couple of things. First, McDonald's sells hundreds of millions of Big Macs. BH.tv attracts thousands of visitors. So a more appropriate comparison to a few commenters complaining in the comments would be tens of thousands of people saying "I don't like Big Macs."

Point taken, but....

I might have one chance in a billion of finding a suitcase full of money. Or I might have one chance in ten billion of finding that suitcase. There's a huge difference in those odds, but my chances of finding such a suitcase is infinitesimal in any event. No one who read my analogy failed to get the point: a few squeaky wheels are extremely unlikely to influence decisions about who appears on BHTV. No responsibly run corporation would ever make decisions that way. Well run firms make decisions based on carefully measured metrics.



Second, in fact individual/small group complaints do affect McDonald's. Why do you think they started selling Quarter Pounders, not to mention salads and chicken?
Because they can make money doing so. If they stop making money selling those things, they will stop selling them. Did you really mean to suggest that people who buy chicken and salads and Quarter Pounders are a "small group"?



Why do you think they stopped adding potato flakes to their shakes, switched to all vegetable oil in the Fry-O-Lators, and stopped selling super-size portions?
Well, that is the beauty of free speech: the minority position can become the majority position. And if you mean to suggest that you hope to influence thousands of people through your comments to stop watching Megan, then I applaud your ambition. You may yet succeed! That's the best justification for calls for less Megan: you want to sway the opinion of the masses. It makes more sense than trying to sway the decisions made by the BHTV bookers, who undoubtedly will ignore your importunings until you actually affect traffic.

If you're going to expend that kind of energy, however, I would prefer you devote it to getting Althouse off the site. http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif



And have you ever heard of Temple Grandin? If not, start here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1142532), for example.
Hmm... Fascinating summary at the link. I'll have to listen to that story tomorrow.




Maybe. But in that case, why has Bob flatly stated that he refuses to have Ann Coulter on? That's certainly not rational.
Personal animus, I believe. And possibly a feeling that success isn't worth selling his soul. I think Bob also censors any point of view too far to the left of Peter Beinart. <-- Just a gut feeling/can't prove it.



Again, maybe. If it really is the case that having Megan on is the only way this site can afford to do the stuff I like, fine.
Just to be clear, that wasn't my argument.



I can just continue to skip her appearances.
Right. It's like someone else said (apologies to whomever; I forget who said it) the other day: game shows pay for serious programming on commercial television. Even our coveted newspapers are made possible with ads for Asian Massage and commemorative collector's edition coins. Not that I would compare Megan to those things.




But really, unless I see numbers to the contrary
I'm chopping your statement in half; forgive me. But you don't need to see the numbers. If you see someone repeatedly appearing on BHTV, then by definition that means the numbers are there. Unless, like I said, BHTV is operated by a crew of mad men.



I can't believe that Megan twice a week is really the best the site can do
Again, to be clear, that wasn't something I said.



even if all it cares about is driving traffic. And for the long run, the thing that's going to make or break BH.tv is offering superior fare, not the same sort of fluff you can get on every TV chat show on the dial.
But Megan's not like that, like "every TV chat show." I don't understand why she bugs you and a couple of others so much. Like I said before, I think libertarianism is a bereft philosophy, and I concur wholeheartedly will virtually all of the substantive criticisms made against her and her philosophy. But nevertheless, she's intelligent, she's friendly, she can present a fairly decent argument, etc.

Frankly, I'll take any conservative these days who's not an open hatemonger. If you can express a conservative point of view without obviously wanting to shoot border crossers, bash gays, etc., you're in a pretty exclusive club. In fact, I think this "reasonableness" is (part of) what makes Reihan and Ross and Brink Lindsey so appealing to the liberals on this board. Why doesn't Megan fit into that group, too? Megan's a conservative who doesn't hate you. That should count for something.

TwinSwords
04-09-2009, 12:33 AM
O/T, but speaking of whom, check out this new two-minute bit of fear-mongering propaganda from the Heritage Foundation (http://wonkette.com/407655/heritage-foundation-releases-terrifying-new-action-film).

Good God.

Thanks for the links. Very interesting. I imagine Conn gets a chill up his leg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4) when he watches that commercial.

bjkeefe
04-09-2009, 12:45 AM
[...]

If you honestly equate her with Reihan, Ross, and Brink ... no, forget it.

I've made the case against Megan at length so many times that now I can't even stand talking about why I can't stand her.

Let's just drop it.

TwinSwords
04-09-2009, 12:55 AM
If you honestly equate her with Reihan, Ross, and Brink ... no, forget it.

I've made the case against Megan at length so many times that now I can't even stand talking about why I can't stand her.

Let's just drop it.

I do see differences between she and them, but I think she's closer to them than she is to Jerome Corsi, Ann Althouse, Conn Carroll, Doughy Pantload, and the rest of the fulminating right.

Did you enjoy either of her appearances with Mark Kleiman?

I will say she has her better days and her worse days. On her better days, she treats her interlocutor with respect and lets them complete their thoughts.

I've already said I completely disagree with her philosophy, and I think the criticism of her reliance of anecdotes and her own small circle of friends is valid. But she doesn't drive me crazy the way the more mendacious and hatemongering wingnuts do.

bjkeefe
04-09-2009, 01:39 AM
I do see differences between she and them, but I think she's closer to them than she is to Jerome Corsi, Ann Althouse, Conn Carroll, Doughy Pantload, and the rest of the fulminating right.

I'd rather watch Conn than Megan. Other than that, I'll give you those.

Did you enjoy either of her appearances with Mark Kleiman?

Didn't watch either.

I will say she has her better days and her worse days. On her better days, she treats her interlocutor with respect and lets them complete their thoughts.

I'll take your word for it.

I've already said I completely disagree with her philosophy, and I think the criticism of her reliance of anecdotes and her own small circle of friends is valid. But she doesn't drive me crazy the way the more mendacious and hatemongering wingnuts do.

Okay.

bjkeefe
04-09-2009, 02:53 AM
... recommended by Eric Alterman (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/altercation/423994/slacker_friday):

I don't think there's been enough talk about how great Gershom Gorenberg's big piece in the Weekly Standard on why there's never been a Palestinian Gandhi. It's here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/329fvswo.asp)...

As someone who has immersed himself in the literature of this conflict, it's the best piece I've read in years. I sent it to my friend Kai Bird, who is finishing a memoir of his life growing up in the Middle East and so reading everything about the conflict everywhere and he said the same thing. Anyone with even the slightest interest in Israel and Palestine would not want to miss it.

And the fact that, whatever the circumstances, it is in the Standard is weird beyond words. It's the strangest thing since they published John Dilulio complaining that Bush stole the election from Gore, though of course it's a far more substantial piece than that.

I haven't read it yet -- hope someone will reply to this, which will remind me to.

popcorn_karate
04-10-2009, 02:11 PM
hmmmm

i like Gershom, but it seems to be a whole lot of verbiage to say "it'd be great if there was a palestinian gandhi so israelis could be shamed into stopping the occupation because, you know, you can't just expect the israelis to do anything decent of their own accord"

interesting history and psychology lesson, not much in the way of insight or hope.

I've been convinced for a long time that the people that run things learned some lessons from the success of gandhi and MLK - infiltrate and spark violence so the authorities have to "respond" and the public loses sympathy etc. I think it is extremely unlikely that popular movements like those will ever be allowed to happen again.

I'd like to see Gersholm use his critical faculties to suggest some action on his own side rather than wishing the other side was all saints.

bjkeefe
04-10-2009, 03:57 PM
hmmmm

i like Gershom, but it seems to be a whole lot of verbiage to say "it'd be great if there was a palestinian gandhi so israelis could be shamed into stopping the occupation because, you know, you can't just expect the israelis to do anything decent of their own accord"

interesting history and psychology lesson, not much in the way of insight or hope.

Thanks for the reminder. I agree with you in a general way about the article, but I don't really agree with your shorter.

I'd like to see Gersholm use his critical faculties to suggest some action on his own side rather than wishing the other side was all saints.

He has, on diavlogs here, and I suspect elsewhere. This was just one article about one specific topic, not a comprehensive review of the situation.

bjkeefe
04-10-2009, 04:04 PM
TNR has gathered up a number of baseball articles from their archives (What? Someone finally figured out how access the TNR archives???) in observance of the beginning of season. The articles are blurbed and linked to from within a slideshow starting here (http://www.tnr.com/gallery/popup.html?topic=mlb+greatest+hits).

One of the articles is by Bob Wright. It was written in 1994, in reaction to that year's strike: "Field Mice (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6b7e7f0c-8cd1-4bd4-88a7-bb9d9f0bdc8a)."

uncle ebeneezer
04-10-2009, 04:42 PM
Nice find. Unfortunately the strike and it's effects on the profits for owners may have aided in their reluctance to take seriously the steroid epidemic in the aftermath and the ensuing devotion to the "long ball" as witnessed by the McGuire/Sosa HR record-chase, and eventually big-head Barry. I can't help but wonder if baseball had been more quick to remedy the problem of performance-enhancing drugs, whether this statement would still be true rather than nostalgic:

As Henry Aaron (the Brookings economist, not the Braves' home run king)

bjkeefe
04-10-2009, 04:57 PM
Nice find. Unfortunately the strike and it's effects on the profits for owners may have aided in their reluctance to take seriously the steroid epidemic in the aftermath and the ensuing devotion to the "long ball" as witnessed by the McGuire/Sosa HR record-chase, and eventually big-head Barry. I can't help but wonder if baseball had been more quick to remedy the problem of performance-enhancing drugs, whether this statement would still be true rather than nostalgic:As Henry Aaron (the Brookings economist, not the Braves' home run king)

Good point. Hank Aaron was a boyhood hero of mine, and I've never been able to accept Barry Bonds because of that.

I have to admit I loved that year of McGwire/Sosa while it was happening, though.

uncle ebeneezer
04-10-2009, 05:29 PM
I have to admit I loved that year of McGwire/Sosa while it was happening, though.

Me too. It would be hard for any sports fan not to get caught up in the excitement of an athlete (let alone TWO) making a serious run at such a hallowed record. Wilt's 100 point game, the Dolphin's "Perfect Season", Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak. I don't care who is doing it, when somebody approaches those, I'm interested.

bjkeefe
04-10-2009, 06:10 PM
Me too. It would be hard for any sports fan not to get caught up in the excitement of an athlete (let alone TWO) making a serious run at such a hallowed record. Wilt's 100 point game, the Dolphin's "Perfect Season", Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak. I don't care who is doing it, when somebody approaches those, I'm interested.

I'd also say that McGwire and especially Sosa earned my undying admiration for the class with which they conducted themselves that season. Even if I stipulate that it was a combination of performance-enhancing drugs and a juiced-up ball that let them do what they did, they still were unflagging in being good guys that whole time.

Which, it has to be said, is not how I ever think of Barry Bonds.

uncle ebeneezer
04-10-2009, 09:15 PM
Yeah, although McGwire lost a lot of my respect in his dealings with Congress re: roids.

bjkeefe
04-10-2009, 09:56 PM
Yeah, although McGwire lost a lot of my respect in his dealings with Congress re: roids.

Oooo, yeah. Forgot about that.

Which shows the power of first impressions, doesn't it?

bjkeefe
04-11-2009, 10:13 PM
... on what sort of blog posts provoke lots of comments (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/25/what-do-yall-comment-on-and-why/), and what sort do not.

Seems to apply as well for diavlogs.

[Added] Lots of interesting comments there, too. No, really.

bjkeefe
04-14-2009, 11:57 AM
Will Doughy be the next one drummed out of Teh Movement, for apostasy???

Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/407743/jonah-goldberg-in-trooooooouble-for-loving-obama) and Wolcott (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2009/04/star-dreck-ii-the-wrath-of-rush.html) have reports!!!

uncle ebeneezer
04-14-2009, 05:01 PM
I, for one, applaud the wingnuts for their remarkable consistency. They seem to believe that the office of Commander In Chief has no connection to the actions of the military. Whether it's a Navy Seal rescue, signing off on torture policies or 4,000 dead US soldiers...the President really had nothing to do with it. The President's job is to put on a cod-piece and declare "mission accomplished" before the real war actually begins. To take credit for regional decreases in violence in Iraq (regardless of whether their surge actually is the cause.) Their job is to take credit for keeping us safe by pointing out the lack of attacks on US soil since 9/11*

The Navy Seals should be applauded for their brave work, but not the President, unless that President is a Republican in which case the bravery of the Seals is only evidence of Presidential toughness. Got it!

*Until January of 2009, at which point any lack of attacks will be assumed to be due to the previous administration's policies.

bjkeefe
04-14-2009, 05:12 PM
I, for one, applaud the wingnuts for their remarkable consistency. They seem to believe that the office of Commander In Chief has no connection to the actions of the military.

Just try to imagine how many draft posts there are out there, moldering away on the hard drives of Wingnuttia, written last week in anticipation of a less happy outcome to this pirate thing, all saying, "THIS IS TOTALLY OBAMA'S FAULT."

uncle ebeneezer
04-14-2009, 05:49 PM
And yet the country is largely behind the President in poll after poll. I was a bit young (and busy doing post-college partying) to notice, but perhaps you can tell me, were the hard-right-ers this disconnected from reality early on in the Clinton administration? I mean: bowing to Saudi officials, blaming America in his Europe speeches, teaparties etc., I have never seen such eagerness to emit sky-is-falling cries from any political party since I have been following this stuff. Especially from a party who is losing voter confidence steadily with each day of supposed outrage.

bjkeefe
04-14-2009, 06:52 PM
And yet the country is largely behind the President in poll after poll. I was a bit young (and busy doing post-college partying) to notice, but perhaps you can tell me, were the hard-right-ers this disconnected from reality early on in the Clinton administration? I mean: bowing to Saudi officials, blaming America in his Europe speeches, teaparties etc., I have never seen such eagerness to emit sky-is-falling cries from any political party since I have been following this stuff. Especially from a party who is losing voter confidence steadily with each day of supposed outrage.

I was not paying as close attention to politics back then, either. As I recall it, there was a decided hatred for Clinton that started becoming apparent at least during the 1992 campaign, but most of seemed to be top-down, being paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife and others (e.g. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project), e.g. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bossie)).

The other immediate irrational antagonism towards Clinton after he first took office seemed to me to come from DC insiders, who viewed him as a hick from the sticks.

Vince Foster's suicide seemed to be of great interest early on, but only to a truly fringe-y fringe.

I did get a sense later on of a more widespread derangement about Clinton, though it wasn't nearly as easy to track what the average idiot was thinking without the blogosphere. For all I know, the people listening to hate radio in the early '90s were as insane then as they are now about Obama, but I'm just guessing. You'd catch an occasional hint that there was something going on from the staying power of things like the myth of the haircut (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090015) at LAX tying up air traffic, but again, I can't say how much of this was coming from the bottom, as opposed to being driven by guys like Scaife.

Once the Lewinsky thing started, of course, it was everybody in the pool, but by then, it was the late '90s, so that doesn't really apply. Ditto for the slightly earlier events like Waco, Ruby Ridge, McVeigh, and the whole "militia movement" -- that didn't come to my attention till later, but I'd hesitate to say it wasn't around long before I noticed it.

My gut feeling is that there are a few compounding factors at work: Obama is black. He doesn't put on much of an aw-shucks-just-folks act as Clinton did, but rather, has an air of ("urban"/"coastal"/"global") cool. Add to that the in-your-face results from 2008: Obama won a substantial victory, along with the Dems taking a much stronger position in Congress, and unlike Clinton's predecessor, there's no way for the wingnuts to get away from the reality that their hero, George W. Bush, was an unmitigated disaster. (Except to deny that he was, or deny that they ever liked him, of course.) And finally, the economy is a lot worse, and ultimately for a lot of people, "it's the economy, stupid."

So, I get the feeling that there is more irrationality about Obama than there was about Clinton at the same point in the latter's presidency. I'd hate to have to bet on it or try to quantify it, since it's hard to say how much is being amplified by the Internet, both from the point of view of them egging each other on and me being able to easily watch what's going on. And it should also be recalled that Fox News didn't exist until late 1996, and wasn't really significant for at least another year or two.

So, the short answer is, I think they've reached new lows, and faster, with respect to Obama.

bjkeefe
04-14-2009, 07:47 PM
And yet the country is largely behind the President in poll after poll. I was a bit young (and busy doing post-college partying) to notice, but perhaps you can tell me, were the hard-right-ers this disconnected from reality early on in the Clinton administration? I mean: bowing to Saudi officials, blaming America in his Europe speeches, teaparties etc., I have never seen such eagerness to emit sky-is-falling cries from any political party since I have been following this stuff. Especially from a party who is losing voter confidence steadily with each day of supposed outrage.

Just came across an article by Juan Cole which speaks to this: "The great right-wing freak-out (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/13/obama/)."

He mostly concentrates on the name-brand pundits. Fairly devastating.

uncle ebeneezer
04-15-2009, 01:23 AM
Nice. Especially this:

The ever greater concentration on minutiae, and the investment of more and more passion in matters of no moment, signals the bankruptcy of conservative philosophy. Its proponents have stared transfixed as the ruthless implementation of their most cherished principles produced a series of economic, social and foreign policy calamities from which it may take decades to recover.

Lyle
04-16-2009, 01:31 AM
What's lowly about kicking and screaming about taxes? Conservatives are going soft on Obama from what I can tell. They're "mad" and having a "fit", but over legitimate stuff... like taxes, the economy, and foreign policy.

Rush Limbaugh's great white hope is Bobby Jindal for crying out loud. Very, very, racist. Things will be low when people start hanging effigies of Obama from tree limbs or burning crosses on the White House lawn. Until then, protesting about taxes and the economy simply doesn't strike me as below the belt kind of stuff. I mean, it's not exactly like spreading rumors about the Potus having murdered one of his closest associates and friends.

Lyle
04-16-2009, 01:33 AM
There's some truth to this I think, especially among the party hacks, i.e., those simply out for power and not "conservatism". There are Democrats like this too of course, but they're in power now.

nikkibong
04-16-2009, 09:47 PM
The busiest man in language-biz, John McWhorter, has a new collection (http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=2270) of audio lectures on linguistics, out now.

bjkeefe
04-17-2009, 01:11 AM
... a brain teaser (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/brain-teaser.html) from Number 49.

claymisher
04-17-2009, 12:35 PM
The wingers are going after our Ms. Brooks:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/attacks_on_rosa_brooks.php

You'd think their tantrums and hissy-fits would tire them out. I guess that's the difference between wingers and two-year-olds.

uncle ebeneezer
04-17-2009, 02:15 PM
That only makes me love Rosa even more!

Just wait until they point out that she "pals around" with extremists like Barbara Ehrenreich ;-)

bjkeefe
04-17-2009, 03:05 PM
The wingers are going after our Ms. Brooks:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/attacks_on_rosa_brooks.php

You'd think their tantrums and hissy-fits would tire them out. I guess that's the difference between wingers and two-year-olds.

A pity young Matthew did not see fit to instead type:

To be honest, given that she was a pretty regular newspaper columnist and occasional blogger AND DIAVLOGGER, ...

Sad when a overnight sensation forgets who gave him his start.

But seriously ...

Thanks for noting this. I remember seeing hysteria over Rosa's appointment ("not even a Senate confirmation!!!1!") in the comments sections of a couple of wingnut blogs, but I had no idea it was bigger than that.

I'm with uncle eb (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=110725#post110725) on this one -- only makes me love her more.

Of course it would do no good to collect a thousand quotes from the Weekly Standard and other sources from a few years back, howling that the Democrats should let President Bush pick the staff he wants.

claymisher
04-18-2009, 09:35 PM
Why is Reihan Salam trying to convince us that Reihan Salam is a gullible sap (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-16/a-palin-supporters-regrets/)?

bjkeefe
04-19-2009, 01:13 AM
Why is Reihan Salam trying to convince us that Reihan Salam is a gullible sap (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-16/a-palin-supporters-regrets/)?

Just started reading, and already I call bullshit (emph. added):

During the campaign, the fact that Bristol was pregnant with Johnston’s child sparked a minor culture war, with pro-lifers rallying to the Palin family’s defense while a coalition of censorious snobs from the left and the right blasted Bristol for her irresponsibility.

I would go along with a bunch of lefties saying, "See what happens when you believe abstinence-only works?" I would go along with a bunch of lefties fuming (though most were snickering) at the right's sudden embrace of unwed teen pregnancy. But I would really challenge Reihan to back up that claim regarding "censorious snobs from the left."

And this may be the single least believable statement he's ever made: (emph. added):

Palin also had a gift for communicating policy details in homespun language.

I suppose if he's only talking about in Alaska before August 2008 ... No, wait. What the hell am I saying? Based on everything I ever heard come out of her mouth since 8/08, plus everything I've read about her history, I'd say his assertion is the poster child for "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Oh, wait. Here's something stupider:

Palin’s campaign antics can be forgiven.

Yeah, there was nothing to all of that divisiveness, fear-mongering, and outright lying about Obama. Nothing wrong with labeling large portions of the country as not belonging to "real America." Smearing the media as conducting a witch hunt for asking questions like "What newspapers do you read?" Laugh it off! And totally NO WAY does any of this have anything to do with the wingnut hysteria we see today.

And it's a moot point now, but ...

Now, for example, Palin is raising hackles for naming colorful crackpot Wayne Anthony Ross to be Alaska’s attorney general. It turns out that Palin may have consulted with Ross over a state senate appointment, a move that would have been against state law. As a general matter, state law is something you might want your AG to be on top of.

Is that really the worst thing that could be said about Ross? You'd think Reihan, who claims to have known Palin for longer than most of us, would at least look in on the Alaska bloggers at Mudflats (http://www.themudflats.net/2009/04/13/leathers-and-lima-beans/) once in a while. He could even have found them through DC's premiere gossip blog, Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/407762/a-childrens-treasury-of-delightful-quotes-from-sarah-palins-attorney-general-nominee).

But really, your original point says it best. To ever have thought well of Sarah Palin is a huge mark against Reihan's credibility as any sort of intellectual. That he's just seeing the light now ...

Reihan's closing line:

What I’m wondering is: Has Sarah Palin undergone some kind of secret lobotomy?

What I'm wondering is: Has Reihan Salam just had a lobotomy reversed?

graz
04-19-2009, 01:38 AM
Maybe we should blame his editor at The Daily Beast.
I know you must have read this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-13/my-weekend-on-tigers-trail/

That webzine might just bring out the stoopid in people.

bjkeefe
04-19-2009, 02:33 AM
... is available for pre-order now (http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334/).

So you can save $9.16 by giving them your money now. And then sit around biting your fingernails until the middle of October. Which by when deflation will be so out of control that the book will the be listed for $2, new.

But if you "buy" it now, you'll be doing your bit to keep the economy going, and maybe it won't.

(Sean did not pay me to write this ad copy.)

bjkeefe
04-19-2009, 02:37 AM
Maybe we should blame his editor at The Daily Beast.
I know you must have read this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-13/my-weekend-on-tigers-trail/

That webzine might just bring out the stoopid in people.

Oh, good lord, no. I will not read that. It was bad enough catching the odd sentence or two on the snark blogs.

If I remember the gist (those gists?), she's happy about Augusta because her skin color no longer prohibits her from playing golf there. Provided she gets a sex change operation before teeing off.

Was there anything else? Did she call George Bush her husband again?

graz
04-19-2009, 02:54 PM
Blame Canada...

1) He's a Canadian.
2) He like beer.
3) He has completed a bhtv episode to be aired soon, hopefully.

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/04/17/canadian/

bjkeefe
04-19-2009, 03:14 PM
Blame Canada...

1) He's a Canadian.
2) He like beer.
3) He has completed a bhtv episode to be aired soon, hopefully.

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/04/17/canadian/

Thanks for passing that along. I don't know (can't be bothered to learn) about the details that may cause complications down the road, so for the moment, I'll only applaud the sentiment Will expressed in the article he linked to:

"It's exciting to me. I like the idea of just having a bigger community."

I, too, would like to see North America move in an EU-like direction on many fronts, and diminishing the either/or image of citizenship in Mexico/the US/Canada is certainly one of them.

bjkeefe
04-20-2009, 02:31 AM
... has a pretty good op-ed in the WaPo: "Why We Should Get Rid of the White House Press Corps (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041701900.html)."

Sort of obvious, but well said.

(h/t: Kevin K./Rumproast (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/white_house_press_corpse/))

bjkeefe
04-20-2009, 05:28 PM
... has a pretty good op-ed in the WaPo: "Why We Should Get Rid of the White House Press Corps (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041701900.html)."

Sort of obvious, but well said.

(h/t: Kevin K./Rumproast (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/white_house_press_corpse/))

Eric Boehlert (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904190010?show=1) did not share my reaction, and says among other things that she was "anxious to not offend her fellow Villagers."

bjkeefe
04-20-2009, 05:51 PM
... in the Omaha World-Herald on a strategy for getting a carbon-cap plan through the Senate (http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=3952&u_sid=10613569), given that "17 Democratic U.S. senators hail from the top coal-producing states, with another four representing the biggest oil-producing states."

Bill also posted some follow-up thoughts (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009041720/how-get-60-votes-carbon-cap) on the CAF blog.

bjkeefe
04-22-2009, 12:51 AM
... mocks his own inner glibertarian (http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/20/the-market-will-solve/).

claymisher
04-22-2009, 01:55 AM
... mocks his own inner glibertarian (http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/20/the-market-will-solve/).

That was hilarious.

bjkeefe
04-23-2009, 05:39 AM
... and also something to watch (http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/21/go-organic-no-artificial-blogging-support-marcy-wheeler/) as a case study for those interested in the evolution of the news media.

As I said elsewhere (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/bears-watching.html), I don't know Marcy Wheeler's work well enough to want to make a recommendation one way or the other. Just thought I'd pass this along because I found it interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is how it may inform this site.

Might be worth having Marcy on as a diavlogger to talk about this, and the larger issues involved with trying to move to life as a full-time, self-employed blogger. I wonder if she knows of other bloggers who subsist on a donation model with whom she could be paired -- I do know I've seen some in my surfing, but I can't remember any off the top of my head. Perhaps this would work as a special edition of TWiB?

Of course, it'd probably be good to hear from her about her recent scoops and other recent journalistic work, too.

graz
04-23-2009, 12:32 PM
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/ezra-klein-hired-by-washington-post.php

uncle ebeneezer
04-23-2009, 02:06 PM
(Kaus seethes)

And Althouse too.

Congrats to Ezra.

uncle ebeneezer
04-23-2009, 02:31 PM
Kindof a while back, but a great appearance by Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald on Bill Moyers:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02062009/watch.html

bjkeefe
04-23-2009, 07:02 PM
LOL at ...

(Kaus seethes)And Althouse too.

... and a strong hear, hear to this ...

Congrats to Ezra.

... but that said, I do share Matt (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/ezra-klein-hired-by-washington-post.php)'s mixed feelings. (When was the last time anyone on this site mentioned Garance Franke-Ruta, for example?) Let us hope Ezra does not sell his soul completely, and let us remember that the rest of us DFHs will have to work that much harder at holding the WaPo to account.

I see from an update in the Calderone post that Matt links to that Ezra has posted his own announcement (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2009&base_name=post_post). He makes a good point, albeit slightly tongue-in-cheek:

I'm hoping that associating myself with Woodward and Bernstein will convince academics and policy makers to return my befuddled calls more quickly.

To the extent that Ezra is able to keep himself from adopting the Villager mindset, this part is certainly a win.

On an unrelated note, I was interested to learn that Greg Sargent's blog (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/) -- indeed, the whole WhoRunsGov site -- is a WaPo subsidiary. I did not know that.

uncle ebeneezer
04-23-2009, 07:34 PM
Maybe Ezra can give somebody over there a lesson in responsible journalism:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2009&base_name=the_washington_post_attacks_it&6

Or maybe he can just fill George's office with some harmless CO2 as a first-day prank!

bjkeefe
04-23-2009, 07:49 PM
Kindof a while back, but a great appearance by Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald on Bill Moyers:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02062009/watch.html

Thanks for the reminder. I meant to watch that, way back when, and I will have a look when I am in a mood for video.

bjkeefe
04-23-2009, 08:05 PM
Maybe Ezra can give somebody over there a lesson in responsible journalism:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2009&base_name=the_washington_post_attacks_it&6

Or maybe he can just fill George's office with some harmless CO2 as a first-day prank!

A good post. Thanks for the link.

I'm reminded of another irritation. I think there's a parallel between Will's op-ed and the way it crosses the line from opinion to outright misinformation, and more importantly, the WaPo's irresponsibility in running it -- and worse, in letting it stand -- and Jim Carrey's recent piece in the HuffPo (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/just-in-case-you-werent-convinced.html) and that site's culpability.

Oh, and by the way: CO2 IS NOT HARMLESS. HAVEN'T YOU HEARD? IT'S A CARCINOGEN (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/straw-man-of-month.html).

bjkeefe
04-24-2009, 01:31 AM
Uh-oh. It looks like C-SPAN has stolen the dingalink. SUE THEM NOW.

Embedded example here (http://wonkette.com/408044/house-republicans-want-dat-dere-nippletini-woman-at-dhs-fahrred-fur-good). Note that what is presented is just a minute or so of what looks like a nine-hour (!) file.

uncle ebeneezer
04-24-2009, 03:37 PM
For the record, I was being ironic with the phrase "harmless CO2." Sometimes I like to purposely withhold the smiley face.

"Read between the emoticons" would be a great tee shirt!

Starwatcher162536
04-24-2009, 04:01 PM
I lost a little respect for Larry King when he did that segment with Carry,McCarthy and that one pediatrician who were all espousing that autism is exploding all across America, and that it is vaccines fault. Way to go with being fair and balanced Larry!

I won't go into why the idea that changing the timeline vaccines are administered by is ludicrous, as there is a plethora of information available out there on the subject.

I know you are not suppose to judge an argument by who is presenting it, but I am surprised that Jenny McCarthy's activism againt vaccines did not kill the movement out right. It wasn't all that long ago that she was going on about Indigo children's magical powers....

uncle ebeneezer
04-24-2009, 04:04 PM
I know you are not suppose to judge an argument by who is presenting it, but I am surprised that Jenny McCarthy's activism againt vaccines did not kill the movement out right.

Nice. I gotta agree with that.

popcorn_karate
04-24-2009, 04:17 PM
I won't go into why the idea that changing the timeline vaccines are administered by is ludicrous, as there is a plethora of information available out there on the subject.


as far as i know, the timeline for vaccinations is based on the idea that you want to get as many shots as possible as soon as possible because you don't know how many times you'll get the kid back into the doctor's presence. This makes sense from a "public health" perspective when looking at how to maximize the number of vaccinated kids.

however, it is not the optimal schedule of vaccinations for an individual child. It is safer and produces a better and longer lasting response to space the vaccinations out over time.

NOTE: this argument has no relationship to autism.

bjkeefe
04-25-2009, 04:57 AM
... has a new column in The Week, "Obama is no apologist (http://www.theweek.com/article/index/95755/Obama_is_no_apologist)," that gives high marks to Obama for how he conducted himself at the Summit of the Americas.

This line, in the middle of a section referring to Chavez and Ortega, made me laugh. It has to be the first time such a thing has ever been said about a president of the United States, and may be a measure of how much thinking in terms of life online has pervaded our consciousness.

What is interesting about Obama’s non-confrontational approach to both leaders is that it suggests Obama has learned not to feed the proverbial trolls.

(h/t: John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=20418))

uncle ebeneezer
04-25-2009, 05:16 PM
That was a great link.

Simply put, this was one of the main reasons I voted for the guy. So many on the Right loved to make fun of Obama's approach and claim that liberals were living in a fantasyland where Obama would just magically wave a wand and make everyone our friends. But no liberal that I know was that simple-minded. Most of us were hoping that he would simply take a humble and pragmatic approach as opposed to flexing the American hegemonic muscle every time he deals with countries that have different outlooks than our own. This link sums up precisely the kind of approach I had hoped Obama would take once he took office, and I'm very grateful that it wasn't just sloganeering for the sake of winning the election. He actually seems to "get it" as far as how to play well with others, friend or foe.

nikkibong
04-25-2009, 07:39 PM
Attention Northwest Bloggingheadheads! Michelle Goldberg will be appearing on Sunday evening (tomorrow) at 7:30 at Powells in downtown Portland.

Details: http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9781594202087-1

Hope to see you there - I'll be the guy that proposes to Michelle at the end!

bjkeefe
04-25-2009, 09:54 PM
[...] Hope to see you there - I'll be the guy that proposes to Michelle at the end!

You say that as though it will be a unique discriminator.

;^)

Have fun. I would stop by if I were closer.

nikkibong
04-27-2009, 12:21 PM
Michelle was great last night; she gave a 30 minute talk about her new book (http://www.meansofreproduction.com/), which discusses the global crusade for female reproductive rights. Michelle posits (correctly IMO) that the great worldwide fights are not between fundamentalists Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc., but between liberals and fundamentalists of all faiths. She then took questions for another thirty or forty minutes.

But the best moment came when I went up to get my book signed by her. (Although I had already told her I was a big fan when I asked her a question during the Q&A)

Nikkibong: Thanks for coming Michelle. Though I want to see you on bloggingheads tv more often! I'll pester Bob Wright.

Michelle: Oh my God: I'm so happy to hear that. I was wondering if anybody watched those.

Nikkibong: I'm sure dozens of people are watching them! It's where I first made your acquaintance.

Michelle: ::Laughs, signs book::

uncle ebeneezer
04-27-2009, 02:25 PM
Nice, did she say yes to your proposal?

Speaking of "dozens", I see we have ads from Ebay and FoxBusiness now. Good to see bhTv getting more ad revenue (presumably.) We're in the $.

nikkibong
04-27-2009, 02:53 PM
Nice, did she say yes to your proposal?



An attractive twentysomething girl accompanied me to the talk, holding my hand throughout. She even bought me The Means Of Reproduction!

Suffice it to say: the only proposal I got out to Michelle was, "can you sign my book, please?

uncle ebeneezer
04-27-2009, 03:34 PM
Carl Zimmer was at UCLA book fair Sat. I was really tempted to go and try to meet him, but it was 10:30 in the morning (I had a really late band rehearsal Friday night) and I heard that parking down there was going to be a complete clusterfuck, so I passed on that opportunity.

If anyone sees info on an Evolution of God book tour once Bob's book comes out, please make sure to let us know.

TwinSwords
04-27-2009, 10:53 PM
Michelle: Oh my God: I'm so happy to hear that. I was wondering if anybody watched those.

Nikkibong: I'm sure dozens of people are watching them! It's where I first made your acquaintance.

LOL! That's awesome that you got to meet her. Thanks for the update. So what was your question during the Q&A?

"I was wondering if anybody watched those." LOL....

kezboard
04-28-2009, 01:48 AM
If you've ever read either of Jenny McCarthy's books, you'll be even more surprised. You probably won't be surprised to hear that she's a terrible writer, and so self-absorbed that she actually makes herself out to be a pretty unsympathetic character.

uncle ebeneezer
04-28-2009, 01:50 AM
The only thing I wonder about Jenny McCarthy's books is whether the other 999,999 monkeys were given credit ;-)

bjkeefe
04-28-2009, 02:15 AM
The only thing I wonder about Jenny McCarthy's books is whether the other 999,999 monkeys were given credit ;-)

Nice.

Baltimoron
04-28-2009, 07:47 AM
I had to add this masterful brew of smear and slur to the assassination campaign against Brooks by Nile Gardiner (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nile_gardiner/blog/2009/04/16/rosa_brooks_the_pentagons_far_left_adviser) - cribbed all the way from the wingnuts in ROK (http://rokdrop.com/2009/04/22/george-soros-adviser-rosa-brooks-appointed-to-key-pentagon-position/)!

bjkeefe
04-28-2009, 08:39 AM
I had to add this masterful brew of smear and slur to the assassination campaign against Brooks by Nile Gardiner (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nile_gardiner/blog/2009/04/16/rosa_brooks_the_pentagons_far_left_adviser) - cribbed all the way from the wingnuts in ROK (http://rokdrop.com/2009/04/22/george-soros-adviser-rosa-brooks-appointed-to-key-pentagon-position/)!

That was hilarious. Thanks for the link. A masterpiece of pearl-clutching by Gardiner.

... most extreme ...most powerful ... central figure ... will wield an extraordinary degree of influence ... extreme views ... open-ended call for the politicization of the armed forces ... hate-filled talk ... fierce opponent ... belittled ... condescendingly ... defeatist, far-left rhetoric ...

Plus: SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS! SOROS!

nikkibong
04-28-2009, 12:27 PM
LOL! That's awesome that you got to meet her. Thanks for the update. So what was your question during the Q&A?


Nikkibong: First off, I wanted to tell you that I'm a huge fan.

::Michelle blushes cutely, laughs. The girl I'm with squeezes my hand jealously, glares at me.::

Nikkibong: Do you think there's any possibility for an alliance between people who may be somewhat morally ambivalent on abortion, and the pro-choice activists on at least improving access to contraceptives?

Michelle: You would think so, but there's no evidence of this . . .[etc.]

bjkeefe
04-29-2009, 03:45 AM
Oh, hey, what's this (http://wonkette.com/408152/408152)?

Head Wonkette Ken Layne bragging about a new thing where he'll be talking, on video? Week after week?? With someone else in the other half of the screen??? And he'll be holding up prop dolls in front of the camera while they talk??? And they'll be calling it Heads a-Bloggin’???

He was smart enough, at least, to make the other guy (vicious traitor Choire Sicha who should never be invited back and whose diavlogs -- okay, diavlog -- should be burned) post it on his new non-lucrative site (http://www.theawl.com/2009/04/talking-hats-video-blog-ken-layne-with-choire-sicha-on-wonkette-teabags-traffic-and-the-end-of-the-world), but that doesn't matter.

SUE THEM.

Lyle
04-29-2009, 09:39 PM
Professor McWhorter was on Sean Hannity's tv show this past week. Interesting to see.

bjkeefe
04-30-2009, 02:59 AM
... ugh (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/york-obama-is-actually-not-so-popular-because-some-people-who-like-him-are-black.php).

And see also (http://washingtonindependent.com/41127/investigative-reporter-byron-york-exposes-black-support-for-democratic-president). And this (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/04/african-american-exceptionalism.html).

(h/t: Juli Weiner/Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/408189/the-corner-reveals-the-secret-behind-nobamas-popularity))

bjkeefe
04-30-2009, 05:55 AM
... ugh (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/york-obama-is-actually-not-so-popular-because-some-people-who-like-him-are-black.php).

And see also (http://washingtonindependent.com/41127/investigative-reporter-byron-york-exposes-black-support-for-democratic-president). And this (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/04/african-american-exceptionalism.html).

(h/t: Juli Weiner/Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/408189/the-corner-reveals-the-secret-behind-nobamas-popularity))

Also (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2009&base_name=black_people_and_women_ruin_ev). And FTW: Also (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/20517.html). (via (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=20595))

bjkeefe
05-03-2009, 01:07 PM
... on why he gave up on Buddhism (http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/).

I thought that since another several-years-old article in Slate provoked such extended discussion (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=111720#post111720) ... ;^)

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/shedding-religions.html))

graz
05-03-2009, 03:14 PM
... on why he gave up on Buddhism (http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/).

I thought that since another several-years-old article in Slate provoked such extended discussion (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=111720#post111720) ... ;^)

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/shedding-religions.html))

As long as these are the priorities of moderate lapsed Buddhists intellectuals (let alone fanatics), I will remain skeptical about the compatibility of Buddhism and liberal democracy.

Eastwest... I'm talkin' to you!

claymisher
05-03-2009, 04:11 PM
... on why he gave up on Buddhism (http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/).

I thought that since another several-years-old article in Slate provoked such extended discussion (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=111720#post111720) ... ;^)

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/shedding-religions.html))

That's funny, I remember reading that before I knew who Horgan was.

uncle ebeneezer
05-06-2009, 02:36 PM
Good to see Ezra hasn't become a full-on "company man" yet (see first sentence:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=doing_nothing_on_climate_chang

bjkeefe
05-07-2009, 01:48 AM
Good to see Ezra hasn't become a full-on "company man" yet (see first sentence:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=doing_nothing_on_climate_chang

Indeed. A good post, too. Thanks for the link.

bjkeefe
05-07-2009, 04:56 AM
... often held up as an intellectual force on the right, is still Very Very Concerned About Those Black People She Knows So Well (http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1990). After spouting a bunch of statistics about the Negros and their love for killin', she then gets to her point:

If the black illegitimacy rate were not nearly three times the rate of whites’, I would have few qualms about gay marriage.

Yes, she actually typed that. Why it required an introduction filled with murder statistics I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Continuing ...

Or if someone can guarantee that widespread gay marriage would not further erode the expectation among blacks that marriage is the proper context for raising children, I would also not worry. But no one can make that guarantee.

Therefore, since you can not satisfy her impossible made-up request, she is fully justified in another aspect of her bigotry.

Why might it further depress the black marriage rate? There is a logical reason and a visceral reason. First, it sends the signal that marriage is simply about numbers: it is an institution that binds two (for the moment) people who are in love.

Because everyone knows Teh Ghey no likee the long-term commitment. Why else are They always going in the bushes at Griffith Park, amirite?

Or wait .. maybe "(for the moment)" is dog-whistle to people who are convinced that letting the same-sex couples get married inevitably leads to polygamy. Okay, whatever. What's next?

It erases completely the significance that marriage is THE context in which the children of biological parents should be raised.

Yes, when two men or two women get married (and we won't even address the horror of ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION OR THEM ADOPTING CHILDREN), the guaranteed consequence is that straight couples will forget why they ever had the urge to get married.

And there are undoubtedly many other subtle meanings and effects of gay marriage that we cannot even imagine at the moment—which institutional shift is something that conservatives should be most attuned to.

We cannot imagine them, but we know they are scary!

As for the visceral reason: ...

It's the ick factor, isn't it, Heather? Oh, no? More psuedo-intellectualizin'? Please, continue.

It is no secret that resistance to homosexuality is highest among the black population (though probably other ethnic minorities are close contenders).

And never mind the population of, say, white evangelical Christians. Wouldn't want to slice the population in any way except as it allows Heather to portray blacks as the worst, right?

I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals. Is the availability of homosexual marriage a valid reason to shun the institution? No, but that doesn’t make the reaction any less likely.

Shorter: straight black men won't marry women because they're afraid if they do, everyone will think they're fags.

In her defense, she eventually gets around to ...

What are the chances that gay marriage would further doom marriage among blacks? I don’t know.

... though this does raise the question of why she started writing this lunacy in the first place.

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/gays-cant-marry-so-blacks-will.html))

uncle ebeneezer
05-07-2009, 09:41 PM
Aye de mi!

Although she hit the nail on this part:

I don’t know.

Keeping gay people from marrying is clearly the best way to make sure that breeders (slang for straight people) will continue to get married, or lower crime, or something.

bjkeefe
05-07-2009, 10:11 PM
Aye de mi!

Never heard that one before. I like it.


Although she hit the nail on this part:

[...]

Keeping gay people from marrying is clearly the best way to make sure that breeders (slang for straight people) will continue to get married, or lower crime, or something.

Heh.

I do remember long ago when I first heard "breeders" used this way: I was badgering a gay friend, saying, "C'mon, you must have a derogatory term for straight people. Give it up." He finally did, a little shamefaced. I think he was embarrassed that was the worst they'd been able to do.

bjkeefe
05-10-2009, 11:06 AM
... was on Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday. He got off some good lines.

Other panelists: Matt Taibbi, Naomi Klein, and Seth MacFarlane, plus an interview with James Carville at the beginning. It's a real conservative lovefest. ;^)

Here is Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hS1xU64g08) (of eight, total).

Shoutout to YouTuber 0enlighten0 (http://www.youtube.com/user/0enlighten0) for helpfully adding in on-screen links near the end of each segment that let the viewer advance from one segment to the next with a single click.

graz
05-10-2009, 10:32 PM
Sullivan on Wright (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article6255785.ece)

nikkibong
05-10-2009, 11:13 PM
Sullivan on Wright (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article6255785.ece)

Oh goodie! Do we get to hear Simple Sullivan call Bob an "appeaser" again?

graz
05-10-2009, 11:48 PM
Oh goodie! Do get to hear Simple Sullivan call Bob an "appeaser" again?

I know that there is no love lost between you and Sully, but he reviews Bob's book kindly and treats him as an ally.

He has recanted...will you ever let him off the hook?

graz
05-10-2009, 11:56 PM
... was on Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday. He got off some good lines.

Other panelists: Matt Taibbi, Naomi Klein, and Seth MacFarlane, plus an interview with James Carville at the beginning. It's a real conservative lovefest. ;^)

Here is Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hS1xU64g08) (of eight, total).

Shoutout to YouTuber 0enlighten0 (http://www.youtube.com/user/0enlighten0) for helpfully adding in on-screen links near the end of each segment that let the viewer advance from one segment to the next with a single click.

Thanks. This was a liberal love fest. Reza was smart and funny. But for me it rekindled the thread that his last appearance here started. Bill Maher called him out in exactly the same fashion for the same contention: Radical Islam doesn't kill people - people kill people. I'm just saying... not hoping to reignite.

bjkeefe
05-11-2009, 12:20 AM
Sullivan on Wright (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article6255785.ece)

A good read. Thanks for the link.

LOLed @ this bit:

... Christopher Hitchens’s oddly persuasive massacre of a few fish in a small barrel ...

Don't agree with it, but it's still funny.

Good on Andrew (who identifies as a person of faith) for saying this:

Worse, perhaps, the response of organised religion to all this has been not to take some self-confident steps in debating the validity of these critiques, but to dig in deeper and re-fundamentalise.

P.S. For anyone who plans to be in the New Jersey area on 17 June, note this (http://store-locator.barnesandnoble.com/event/59484). (I'm sure there will be other dates and locations on what is certain to be a book tour that will only be describable as a global juggernaut.)

bjkeefe
05-11-2009, 12:28 AM
Thanks. This was a liberal love fest. Reza was smart and funny. But for me it rekindled the thread that his last appearance here started. Bill Maher called him out in exactly the same fashion for the same contention: Radical Islam doesn't kill people - people kill people. I'm just saying... not hoping to reignite.

You'll probably recall that I didn't participate in that last conflagration. My reluctance was/is due to my belief that both sides (as represented by Maher and Aslan) are right in a lot of ways. It's a complex issue, and I'm not interested in re-ignition, either, but I do wish both sides could agree on these two points: (1) Not all Muslims are radical or violent, not by a long stretch, and (2) whether you want to say that "Islam as practiced by some is a backward, violent, and dangerous religion," or "some backward, violent, and dangerous people cloak themselves in Islam," there is no denying the existence of the connection.

graz
05-11-2009, 12:50 AM
You'll probably recall that I didn't participate in that last conflagration. My reluctance was/is due to my belief that both sides (as represented by Maher and Aslan) are right in a lot of ways. It's a complex issue, and I'm not interested in re-ignition, either, but I do wish both sides could agree on these two points: (1) Not all Muslims are radical or violent, not by a long stretch, and (2) whether you want to say that "Islam as practiced by some is a backward, violent, and dangerous religion," or "some backward, violent, and dangerous people cloak themselves in Islam," there is no denying the existence of the connection.

Succinct, unemotional and spot on. Spockian even.

claymisher
05-11-2009, 01:50 AM
P.S. For anyone who plans to be in the New Jersey area on 17 June, note this (http://store-locator.barnesandnoble.com/event/59484). (I'm sure there will be other dates and locations on what is certain to be a book tour that will only be describable as a global juggernaut.)

Bob ought to do some meetups for the BH nation when he's on book tour. You know, drinks at a brew pub. That's where meetups always are. Must be the big tables.

bjkeefe
05-11-2009, 01:54 AM
Bob ought to do some meetups for the BH nation when he's on book tour. You know, drinks at a brew pub. That's where meetups always are. Must be the big tables.

Excellent idea!

uncle ebeneezer
05-11-2009, 02:16 AM
I'm in. When he hits LA he can even invite Mickey.

bjkeefe
05-11-2009, 06:21 AM
Thanks. This was a liberal love fest.

How one live-blogger (http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/05/rerunblogging_b.html) (they live-blog Real Time now? Apparently.) named Elvis put it:

Elvis : Oh The Gods™ : Taibbi, Resa Aslan AND Naomi Klein all on one panel? Excuse me while I disrobe and paint myself blue while masturbating to the tune of Glory, Glory Hallelujah.

Ocean
05-11-2009, 07:09 AM
P.S. For anyone who plans to be in the New Jersey area on 17 June, note this (http://store-locator.barnesandnoble.com/event/59484). (I'm sure there will be other dates and locations on what is certain to be a book tour that will only be describable as a global juggernaut.)

Great! I'll try to be there. Thanks for passing the information.

AemJeff
05-11-2009, 10:30 AM
Great! I'll try to be there. Thanks for passing the information.

Ditto.

TwinSwords
05-11-2009, 07:26 PM
It would be cool if it's on C-SPAN.

nikkibong
05-11-2009, 11:30 PM
I know that there is no love lost between you and Sully, but he reviews Bob's book kindly and treats him as an ally.

He has recanted...will you ever let him off the hook?

Just because Simple Sullivan and I happen to currently agree on more issues than we used to doesn't mean the way he approaches issues or reaches conclusions is any more worthy of our respect. It's the same overwrought emotionalism, the same venomous villifying of his ideological opponents, and the same constant stream of vapid bloggoreah day after day. Hell, Michael Moore and Tim Robbins are technically on our "side" as well, and I don't exactly respect their intellectual abilities - or honesty - either.

graz
05-12-2009, 10:00 AM
Coolio. To each his own on his value. I don't have a vested interest in his defense. But I am drawn to his site religiously (atheistically). I will concede that his emotionalism runs high, yet that needn't discredit his thinking - that's what blogging is in a way - thinking aloud. I don't necessarily agree with him on all issues, but I respect his take, without needing to understand his approach. Plus I like his web art links.

(Added): This is an example of a post that packs an emotional wallop:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/tortured-to-justify-a-war.html

He lays it all out, his thinking is clear, but no evidence of dishonesty or manipulation is present. And he welcomes dissent. O.K. in my book.

claymisher
05-12-2009, 12:23 PM
I check in with Sully once in a while. He's a really, really good aggregator (I guess he has a whole staff of people now putting it all together). When he's writing about gay issues he's really good. On torture too. On everything else he's generally loopy. On economics he's a DISASTER. He's basically Steve Forbes on economics.

Back when I got TNR I noticed that his longer pieces were usually really good. It was like they were written by a different person. I think he's a lot better when he puts the time into it.

nikkibong
05-12-2009, 12:45 PM
I check in with Sully once in a while. He's a really, really good aggregator (I guess he has a whole staff of people now putting it all together). When he's writing about gay issues he's really good. On torture too. On everything else he's generally loopy. On economics he's a DISASTER. He's basically Steve Forbes on economics.

Back when I got TNR I noticed that his longer pieces were usually really good. It was like they were written by a different person. I think he's a lot better when he puts the time into it.

don't hate me but i have my suspicions . . .


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26390.php

bjkeefe
05-19-2009, 05:19 AM
... is now up and running. Here is the first post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/introduction.html), here is the home page (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/), and here is his farewell post at TAP (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=my_last_post_at_tap).

So ... who wants to go in on a case of champagne, for Mickey Kaus?

(h/t: DougJ/Balloon Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=21390))

uncle ebeneezer
05-19-2009, 05:42 PM
Hey guys. Just stumbled across this. Carl Zimmer is looking for feedback on cover designs for a new book. Considering all he's done for us...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/08/a-request-for-the-design-hive-mind-vote-for-a-tangled-bank-book-cover/

Rock the vote!!

bjkeefe
05-19-2009, 08:14 PM
Hey guys. Just stumbled across this. Carl Zimmer is looking for feedback on cover designs for a new book. Considering all he's done for us...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/08/a-request-for-the-design-hive-mind-vote-for-a-tangled-bank-book-cover/

Rock the vote!!

Already did, days ago. Are you saying I should vote early and often? Chicago-style politics, one might even say?

Unit
05-19-2009, 09:51 PM
I'm kinda curious about viewing stats for the diavlogs. Are they public?

claymisher
05-22-2009, 01:37 AM
McMegan got a scoop! There's a first time for everything. Let's hope it's not the last!

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/22/a-public-service-announcement/

graz
05-26-2009, 11:24 PM
Ross Douthat must need a hug... unless getting called a weenie is the point of his punditry? :

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/yes_this_was_published_in_a_major_newspaper_in_the _year_2009/

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/05/26/traister_douthat/index.html

http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2009/05/dear-lord.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/has_feminism_been_bad_for_wome.html

bjkeefe
05-28-2009, 05:51 PM
Study abstract (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4VHS7P7-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b2f3ecbcd1b9831e76b60aa535c9cc9e):

Conservatism and cognitive ability
Lazar Stankov

Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.

Doughy (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTg2MDg5YzYzMjc4MGM2YzljZThmZDQ3YTM2N2ZhNTg=):

Here We Go Again... [Jonah Goldberg]

The calipers are out and, lo and behold, conservatives are stupid according to the latest scientific research. Study here, skeptical commentary here.

I haven't read the study yet, but ... [whereupon the rest of the post is an out-of-hand dismissal of the study, plus UPDATE!!! an email from a "reader"]

Can't make this stuff up. No one would believe it.

(h/t: Teh Sadlys (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/21579.html) <-- worth reading in full, to see the busting of another moran)

bjkeefe
05-29-2009, 09:12 PM
... continues to embarrass himself (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200905290015)."

(h/t: John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=21913))

claymisher
06-04-2009, 05:32 PM
You may remember Daniel Levy from his revealing conversation with David Frum (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/david-frum-the-west-bank-is-israel/). He's got a terrific post on Obama's big speech today

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/04/10_comments_on_obama_in_cairo_-_still_accumulating/

bjkeefe
06-05-2009, 02:59 AM
You may remember Daniel Levy from his revealing conversation with David Frum (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/david-frum-the-west-bank-is-israel/). He's got a terrific post on Obama's big speech today

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/04/10_comments_on_obama_in_cairo_-_still_accumulating/

Finally watched the speech (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/06/ive-come-here-to-cairo.html). Came back to read this. Yes, Levy's post was good. Thanks for the link.

Levy's point #5 touched on something that resonated with me, too. I don't care if you're the President of the United States -- standing up in front of a big audience in Egypt and giving that unambiguous and unapologetic a commitment to Israel, explaining why, and then rebuking the Holocaust and right-to-exist deniers was major league ballsy.

Lots of other stuff to like about the speech, too. Still sorta digesting it, so I'll just leave it at this: it was exactly what I was hoping for when I first started supporting Barack Obama for president.

Let the hysteria from the right-wing bedwetters begin.

[Added] On a closely related note (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/extraordinary.html) to all of the above ...

uncle ebeneezer
06-05-2009, 02:06 PM
I listened to it last night and I agree. Actions obviously must follow words, but this tone and message and the ability to deliver it convincingly was one of the reasons I knew this guy had potential to do things that Hillary or Edwards couldn't.

I thought Levy's list was excellent.

And if you needed proof that the speech was solid just ask Mark Kleiman about whose feathers were ruffled by it:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/all-the-right-enemies.php

bjkeefe
06-05-2009, 02:20 PM
[...] And if you needed proof that the speech was solid just ask Mark Kleiman about whose feathers were ruffled by it:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/all-the-right-enemies.php

LOL! No one could have predicted ...

The more those wingnut commentators "talk tough," the weaker they look.

bjkeefe
06-07-2009, 01:22 AM
John Wilkins, who did a SciSat with PZ Myers (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11305), has a post up on his new blog (he left the Science Blogs borg a couple of weeks ago) titled "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion (http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/06/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/)."

Intro:

Beneath the fold, I have stolen some text (http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/resources/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/) that lists 12 principles that make intellectual argument possible. In turn, this list was taken from Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacking_Faulty_Reasoning) by Edward T. Damer, which was recommended in comments (http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/05/31/how-many-ways-can-you-make-a-logical-mistake/#comment-23139) by G. Felis.

I have added in italics my own comments interspersing the more sensible and measured text of my sources. I am doing this because of a major confusion that I have recently and over the years encountered, thinking that argument is about winning. It is not. It is about reaching the best conclusion one can from the premises one has access to. In simpler terms, it’s about approaching truth.

Probably some useful lessons there for most of us. Ahem.

nikkibong
06-08-2009, 01:41 PM
Bob's got a big featured blogpost up on the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-wright/the-bibles-vindication-of_b_212599.html

Betcha he's gonna miss the comments section here!

bjkeefe
06-08-2009, 04:28 PM
Bob's got a big featured blogpost up on the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-wright/the-bibles-vindication-of_b_212599.html

Betcha he's gonna miss the comments section here!

Thanks for that.

Also, I just noticed (via (http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/06/08/new-at-cato-unbound-robert-wright-on-the-clash-of-civilizations-as-a-malfunctions-of-moral-imagination/)) that there's "an essay adapted from one of the later chapters of The Evolution of God" on Cato Unbound (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/06/08/robert-wright/why-we-think-they-hate-us-moral-imagination-and-the-possibility-of-peace/).

graz
06-09-2009, 10:41 AM
Ezra gives mickey a name: Conservative.
And he kicks it off by linking, and respectfully responding, to criticisms made by three conservatives who he "reads regularly": Virginia Postrel, Mickey Kaus, and Richard Posner.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/peter_orszag_responds_to_his_c.html

Where for art thou, Mickey?

nikkibong
06-09-2009, 07:39 PM
Are you sitting down? Seriously: are you?

The loathsome James Kirchick has a post up on New Majority called - I'm not making this up:

"CAN'T SHUT A BAD MAN UP" (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=4b430a3b-8185-4f41-978a-a63acf70792e)

LOL.

bjkeefe
06-09-2009, 08:10 PM
Are you sitting down? Seriously: are you?

The loathsome James Kirchick has a post up on New Majority called - I'm not making this up:

"CAN'T SHUT A BAD MAN UP" (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=4b430a3b-8185-4f41-978a-a63acf70792e)

LOL.

Heh. Except that Kirchick, for once, actually goes a whole post without saying something offensive. Is it the New Kirchick?

nikkibong
06-09-2009, 08:42 PM
Heh. Except that Kirchick, for once, actually goes a whole post without saying something offensive. Is it the New Kirchick?

Except that Kirchick has the ability to make me loathe him even when he's saying something I agree with . . .incredible.

(You won't be surprised to hear that Simple Sullivan has the same effect on me.) :)

bjkeefe
06-09-2009, 08:52 PM
Except that Kirchick has the ability to make me loathe him even when he's saying something I agree with . . .incredible.

(You won't be surprised to hear that Simple Sullivan has the same effect on me.) :)

There's something understandable about that -- when people spend long enough building a reputation, they're bound to have that held in mind by others, no matter how much of a course change they might be indicating.

Still, I don't think it serves you well to insist that whatever someone did in the past can never be diminished by later behavior. Essentially, you're denying people the right to make mistakes and the possibility that they might have learned from them.

bjkeefe
06-10-2009, 02:09 AM
I wonder if the eagerness displayed by Real Conservatives™ in striving to banish Ross Douthat has anything to do with the ease with which Teh Left is ripping apart his NYT columns. For a sampling of the latest, see the links gathered up by Scott Lemieux (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/06/douthat-again.html).

This is what we worried about. (And by "we," I mean those of us who hoped Ross would stay away from the abortion issue and write about things about which he has somewhat of a clue.)

[Added] Also, for a snarkier take, see TBogg (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/hand-over-your-uterus-and-nobody-gets-hurt/). The title alone is full of win.

graz
06-10-2009, 10:15 AM
From those links and others come some precious comments:
He wants to “democratize” the contents of my uterus.

I say we democratize some of his organs. Let’s start with his gastrointestinal system.

Every time he wants to take a shit he is gonna need to take a few weeks to think about it. After all, once that poo is out he will never be able to put it back in again and we all know that every poo is special and unique from every other dump in the history of the world. He should have to be read a statement to this effect at least 24 hours before he is granted acces to a toilet and also shown and ultrasound image of his special little snowflake that he wants to just flush away.

I am sure that he could depend on his friend Mr Saletan to pretend to support his desision to evacuate, but only if he made a proper show of weeping and gnashing his teeth and feeling REEELY bad about it.

I, for one, will sit here and tut tut about how he should have thought about the possible consequences BEFORE he opened his loose, slutty mouth for those two grande burritos.

He might argue that it is his body and he knows how it feels and he is the one who has to live in it so why should anyone else get a say in what comes out of it just because we desapprove of the choices he makes about what goes into it? Especially when eating is such a natural part of human existence. But really, if we as a whole society can decide that this is how it should be handled, then he has no reason to complain that his most basic freedom and autonomy are being shamelessly trod upon by people ho don’t even know him. If he even thought about that argument, society as a whole would judge him as terribly selfish. The process has been “democratized” and he has no reason to object just cause the consequences of these policies take place in his own lower abdomen.

I sat we all call our conrgesspeople and propose the “Ross Douthat Bowel Movement Reduction Act.” The only thing that could stand in its way would be a runaway activist court thwarting the will of the people!
GumbyAnne on 06/09 at 09:04 AM

is "dout' some old gothic german for "ass"?

this guy makes my skin crawl. his language, his arguments, ke-ripes, even his picture.

i remember dudes like him back in seminary... real damn convinced of their own personal interpretation of theology.

but in the final analysis, when mr. jesus doughboy grows a uterus i'll listen to what he has to say about abortion. until then, he's whatcha call a "secondary" resource -- and one with a very sad and tragic ideology...

where does the new unimproved ny times get this shit?
Posted by: neill on June 9, 2009 at 9:57 PM


Dear Douche-Hat,

Hate to tell you this, but the actual compromise position is free choice. Nobody is forced to have an abortion and nobody is denied the right to one. Your side on the other hand are simply terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Fucking asshat douchebag.



The Ross Recipe

A dash of what suspiciously sounds like common sense to draw in people with IQ’s over 80.

1 teaspoon of vague “facts” drawn from dubious sources.

2 tablespoons of generalizations with no supporting evidence drawn from the recesses of his sexually repressed teenage years (not that long ago).

Simmer at low heat for five minutes before stirring in 2 cups of faulty conclusions that haven’t been thought through, but fit preconceived worldview.

popcorn_karate
06-10-2009, 01:20 PM
wow. comments 1 and 2 are definitely more offensive than anything I've ever heard from douthat.

stephanie
06-10-2009, 01:33 PM
I wonder if the eagerness displayed by Real Conservatives™ in striving to banish Ross Douthat has anything to do with the ease with which Teh Left is ripping apart his NYT columns.

I doubt it. The response to Ross' column is basically what you'd get to any column expressing the opinions he had, and there's no genuine tearing apart. Just the strong expression of different opinions.

hilzoy's column is particularly unfair and unconvincing as she takes him out of context in order to make some cheap and misleading points. Specifically, when he talks about "regulating" early-term abortions it is clear in context he means in a way which would limit the circumstances under which they are available. That is precisely the type of "regulations" which are illegal -- those which would put an undue burden on abortion.

Similarly, she (and others) are snarky about his comment that such abortions can't even be debated when obviously he is not saying they can't be spoken about. He was speaking about them. His point in context, again, is clearly that restrictions on them are currently not up for debate by a legislature seeking to pass a law, since such laws would be unconstitutional.

I'm just not convinced that anyone could argue for some of the (mainstream conservative) positions that Ross does and get a different or more respectful reaction. Which is, of course, fine, but doesn't mean that Ross is to blame.

(I feel like I'm coming across as a Ross defender -- after all, I also think he's a True Conservative -- but in fact I've thought some of his columns and plenty of his posts over at The Atlantic were worth criticism as columns. This one, though, just seemed to express a view that a lot of people disagree with.)

bjkeefe
06-10-2009, 07:35 PM
[...]

Just wanted to let you know that I read your response, Stephanie. I'm not really up for debating Ross's column or the critiques of it.

For the record, just in case you want to know, I don't agree with your reaction to the critics on this one. I also think the hardest part to take about Ross's column, as with some of his other writings on the abortion issue that I've seen, is not so much that he's anti-choice, it's that he comes across as being shifty about his views. One gets the sense that he's trying to sneak things through.

But, as I said, I've been in too many abortion rights debates lately, so I'm going to leave it there.

pampl
06-10-2009, 07:46 PM
Oh, Matt..
Weekly Standard editor Matthew Continetti, who penned a book about Jack Abramoff in 2006, is working on a campaign biography of Alaska’s governor tentatively titled “The Persecution of Sarah Palin.” According to WritersReps, it will be “a defense of the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate who became an inspirational sensation for her party, only to be unfairly demonized by the media, the Democrats, and her own campaign.”

bjkeefe
06-10-2009, 08:09 PM
Oh, Matt..

"Oh, Matt" is right. While I've never had much respect for Continetti, this seals the deal. He's gone Full Metal Wingnut. He's reached the Wingularity. This is Jerome Corsi territory.

[Added] Sum lynx. (http://washingtonindependent.com/46046/weekly-standards-continetti-writing-bio-of-sarah-palin)

[Added2] No More Mister Nice Blog (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/03/some-forthcoming-books-as-reported-by.html) caught this back in March. And don't miss his link back to another post on MC (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2008/06/those-fiercely-independent-young.html), among others.

bjkeefe
06-10-2009, 08:20 PM
Oh, Matt..

Also, you know this calls for a Steel Cage Death Match between the young pip and the old gourd (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/03/hewitt_romney_m.html).

P.S. Hurry! Only 30 new (from $0.95) and 90 used (from $0.01) left!!! (http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-White-House-Things-American/dp/159698502X)

AemJeff
06-10-2009, 10:50 PM
Reihan has a new blog at NRO (http://agenda.nationalreview.com/). I'm not sure why the location should surprise me, but it does.

graz
06-10-2009, 11:47 PM
Reihan has a new blog at NRO (http://agenda.nationalreview.com/). I'm not sure why the location should surprise me, but it does.
Maybe because he plays the progressive (conservative?) at bhtv and on the internets as evidenced here:American Scene (http://www.theamericanscene.com/archive/?author=Reihan+Salam)

But he is a partisan at heart. And acceptance must go through NRO. His take on remedying health care is surprisingly fact free. But the point is really to obstruct and stand opposed while appearing thoughtful... much like Douthat:
Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-09/how-republicans-can-steal-healthcare/full/)

bjkeefe
06-11-2009, 01:25 AM
Reihan has a new blog at NRO (http://agenda.nationalreview.com/). I'm not sure why the location should surprise me, but it does.

Maybe because he plays the progressive (conservative?) at bhtv and on the internets as evidenced here:American Scene (http://www.theamericanscene.com/archive/?author=Reihan+Salam)

But he is a partisan at heart. And acceptance must go through NRO. His take on remedying health care is surprisingly fact free. But the point is really to obstruct and stand opposed while appearing thoughtful... much like Douthat:
Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-09/how-republicans-can-steal-healthcare/full/)

I somewhat concur with graz. Let's not forget that it took Reihan until April of this year to give up on Sarah Palin (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-16/a-palin-supporters-regrets/), for example. And I'm sure I disagree with him on any number of other issues. (Not up for reading a health care policy post at this time, sorry.)

Still, this country would be in much better shape if the conservative intelligentsia was filled with people like Reihan instead of people like most of the rest of the NRO crowd. So, who knows? Maybe he'll force a few of them into a little more intellectual honesty (if his blogging is like his manner here on Bh.tv), or at least, a little more pleasantness.

Or maybe they will ignore him, since he's on a blog separate from The Corner.

Anyway, congrats on the new gig, Reihan, even as I wish you had gotten one elsewhere.

claymisher
06-11-2009, 03:21 AM
Reihan has a new blog at NRO (http://agenda.nationalreview.com/). I'm not sure why the location should surprise me, but it does.

Let's take bets: will he quit, get fired, or sell out?

claymisher
06-11-2009, 03:52 AM
And let's give him the traditional NR welcome!

http://img.skitch.com/20090611-b1pye4x56ycdb3rj12r18nj6kq.jpg

Note: Reihan jokes about being from mars, so don't worry. It's not racist like a real NR cartoon.

bjkeefe
06-11-2009, 04:53 AM
And let's give him the traditional NR welcome!

That image is so full of win.

I hope Reihan sees it. I bet he'd get a huge kick out of it.

stephanie
06-11-2009, 12:39 PM
Fair enough. I don't need to argue, but just wanted to express my opinion. I don't think Ross is shifty on the abortion issue, though I disagree with plenty that he says (not all). I think he's trying to be honest and nuanced, and it's not an easy place for nuance.

But I get that plenty of people disagree with me.

AemJeff
06-11-2009, 01:18 PM
Fair enough. I don't need to argue, but just wanted to express my opinion. I don't think Ross is shifty on the abortion issue, though I disagree with plenty that he says (not all). I think he's trying to be honest and nuanced, and it's not an easy place for nuance.

But I get that plenty of people disagree with me.

I don't disagree with you, I have to say. On abortion, and on issues related to sexual mores generally, I think there's an additional factor for Ross, something that really looks a lot like Catholic Shame, that affects his ability to deal with these topics honestly.