Gossip about the 'heads, part 2

[bjkeefe]

The original "Gossip about the 'heads" thread was starting to bug me in how long it took to load and what a pain it was to navigate, due to the number of posts within. Hence, this new one. Hope that's okay with y'all. If not, you're of course welcome to continue posting in the old one.

Anyway, here is a fresh thread for more news, etc., about our beloved diavloggers.

[bjkeefe]

One-time B'head and Academy Award-winning director (Taxi to the Dark Side) Alex Gibney has a new documentary out, Casino Jack and the United States of Money, according to Dennis G., the newest Balloon Juicer.

(Jack, in this case, is Abramoff.)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

One-time B'head and Academy Award-winning director (Taxi to the Dark Side) Alex Gibney has a new documentary out, Casino Jack and the United States of Money, according to Dennis G., the newest Balloon Juicer.

(Jack, in this case, is Abramoff.)

More here: a short vid of Alex explaining why the subject is important.

[bjkeefe]

... builds upon some of the things he talked about in his last diavlog with Mickey, concerning the coming <strike>apocalypse</strike> pay wall at the NY Times.

[bjkeefe]

Guess who's once again advocating for ... you'll never guess ... regime change!

Shorter Robert Kagan:

[bjkeefe]

"The Return of the Mother of 'Such Is Blogging'"

[bjkeefe]

A momentary brush with the commoners ends about how you'd expect:

* McArdle was apparently too busy being outraged at the post office -- which has outraged me in the past, too, but leave it to McArdle to put me in sympathy with the P.O.:

Oh, what are the odds?

[bjkeefe]

DougJ calls attention to a MoJo piece on Ross Douthat. Probably not a lot of new information there for Bh.tv regulars, but it's a pretty good read. Doug's post is probably more on point, from a liberal perspective, at least.

[bjkeefe]

... has a post up that I'm tempted to say provides plenty of food for thought, but then I'd hate myself, so just go read it, because it's interesting.

(h/t: Atrios)

[bjkeefe]

... rebutting a claim made by Ezra Klein:

It occurs to me that the arguments for recent GOP successes are rather like Republican arguments concerning our wars abroad. Bear with me. What I mean is that Republicans have been treating temporary, tactical political victories as if they were far more significant, strategic victories, when, in fact, they have no political strategy worth mentioning. This is how many Republican hawks have approached problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially in Iraq, the strategy has always been unclear, unrealistic or even non-existent, so there is great emphasis on finding tactics that “work” to make a basically incoherent policy seem successful on the surface.

The Republican glorification of the “surge” is a case in point. A change in tactics was widely hailed on the right not only as a “new strategy,” which showed that the people saying this did not understand what strategy was, but most Republicans took it to be a vindication of the entire war. Tactical success later matters more to them than the strategic folly they committed earlier. It is almost as if resisting Obama tooth and nail counts for more to them than the utter failure of their time in government, and they fully expect to be rewarded with a new chance at governing on account of their blocking maneuvers. As time goes on, however, the limits of this approach become clear. Having no understanding of strategy and no definition of the long-term goals to be achieved, they are ultimately not going to succeed in any remotely enduring way. Tactical victories simply delay the final reckoning and prevent the recognition that the policy or agenda is bankrupt and useless.

[...]

Is the GOP in a worse position than a year ago? On the surface, no, it isn’t. Once we get past the surface, however, the same stagnant, intellectually bankrupt, unimaginative party that brought our country to its current predicament is still there and has not changed in any meaningful way in the last three years. Why would it? The party’s leaders have no clue, its pundits are reveling in the luxury of opposition, and its rank-and-file has been whipped into such a state of agitation over their own impotence that they cannot see that they are led by people who will ignore and abuse them the moment they are no longer needed to win elections. It may seem that the GOP has derailed the majority’s agenda, but in reality it is the GOP that went off the rails long ago and has yet to begin to recover.

Posted on NotARealAmConMag.

(h/t: DougJ)

[bjkeefe]

Your favorite NYT columnist is out with his latest.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Your favorite NYT columnist is out with his latest.

He is becoming important! Proof: he's getting Shortered!

[uncle ebeneezer]

And Bob wraps it up nicely:

Postscript: I run a Web site — Bloggingheads.tv — that aims to transcend the balkanizing tendencies of the Internet by hosting video dialogs that feature an ideologically diverse array of commentators. Leaving aside the question of whether the site has achieved transcendence, it has lately featured a number of dialogs that touched on the subject of this column and therefore informed my writing of it. So, as a kind of bibliography:

Joe Klein of Time magazine and Joan Walsh of Salon discuss how interest groups on both the left and the right complicated passage of health care reform.

Tim Carney, who covers lobbying for the Washington Examiner, discusses how corporate lobbyists shaped health care legislation; Tim Noah of Slate and Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic explore much the same theme.

Bloggers Reihan Salam and Matthew Yglesias discuss whether even a more modest health care bill could have gained significant Republican support.

[bjkeefe]

B'head Dave Weigel advises via the Twitter:

BTW, follow my coverage of the Tea Party convention at http://bit.ly/dqQfu0

That mysterious URL actually expands to this (for your paranoid mouse's hovering pleasure).

[bjkeefe]

Ambinder, via Thers:

Randy Scheunenmann remains [Sarah Palin's] policy maestro, with informal assistance from his Orion Strategies colleague Michael Goldfarb, the former Weekly Standard writer and McCain campaign rapid responder. (Goldfarb did not return an e-mail seeking comment about his future in Palin's world.)

I'm curious that Ambinder calls him "former." As of late January, he still claimed in an interview with CJR to be working at the WS. On the other hand, I don't see anything posted by him later than 26 January, so maybe right after that CJR interview, Continetti told him the office wasn't big enough for two fanboys?

It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate.

I suppose there's always hope, too ...

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I'm curious that Ambinder calls him "former."

— Goldfarb Leaves Weekly Standard

Apparently they got sick of his emptying the vending machines by Monday afternoon of each work week.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

— Goldfarb Leaves Weekly Standard

Thanks. I guess that interview with CJR must have been conducted well before it was posted.

Apparently they got sick of his emptying the vending machines by Monday afternoon of each work week.

LOL!

No, I'm sticking with my hypothesis: that Continetti didn't want the competition when it comes to writing paens to Palin.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

— Goldfarb Leaves Weekly Standard

Apparently they got sick of his emptying the vending machines by Monday afternoon of each work week.

And guess what he's doing to keep himself in Cheez Doodles now? No, c'mon ... guess.

Nope, it's worse.

Give up?

Yep.

Next time you hear "al-Qaeda Seven" or "Dept. of Jihad," odds are it'll be coming out of the Goldfarbian cakehole.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

And guess what he's doing to keep himself in Cheez Doodles now? No, c'mon ... guess.

Nope, it's worse.

Give up?

Yep.

Next time you hear "al-Qaeda Seven" or "Dept. of Jihad," odds are it'll be coming out of the Goldfarbian cakehole.

Important update: "Starbursts" now has a synonym: "Goldfarbs," as in "I watched Liz Cheney on my teevee talk about torturing brown people because Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win, and it sent little goldfarbs through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America."

But why does Michael Goldfarb now hate Sarah Palin? (Good thing he still gets excited by Dick, though.)

(?)

[bjkeefe]

New NYT column up, in which he joins with Sarah Palin in urging President Obama to commence bombing Iran immediately.

Okay, not quite.

[bjkeefe]

In which he reveals himself to be a corporate stooge, in the tank for Toyota.

Also, why does Bob Wright drive a planet-killing SUV? Is he a global-warming denialist, or does he just hate America?

Worse, he appears to support the violent death of Harvard professors. (I suppose this last is understandable, given his connection to Princeton.)

[bjkeefe]

A short piece about the possibilities of getting rid of the filibuster. By turns wonky and entertaining. About six minutes.

(Chris dresses way better here than we're used to seeing him, but sadly, does not employ the eerie blue light.)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

A short piece about the possibilities of getting rid of the filibuster. By turns wonky and entertaining. About six minutes.

(Chris dresses way better here than we're used to seeing him, but sadly, does not employ the eerie blue light.)

Some cold water (from last month) from Thoreau:

As long as Joe Biden is formally the leader of the Senate, I doubt the rules will be changed in any way that makes it harder for a Senator to talk and talk and talk and then talk some more. Besides, even Dick Cheney himself was unable to bring about the “nuclear option” and end the filibuster. We’re talking about a dude so hard-core that he shot an old man in the face, got the old man to apologize for being shot, and then shot dark force lightning at him while cackling maniacally about his plans to blow up a planet. And HE couldn’t end the filibuster. What chance do Biden and Reid have?

[bjkeefe]

... is simply not the Wright choice.

[claymisher]

The trick to being the smart/thoughtful/nice Republican is to pretend actual Republicans don't exist:

Robert Waldmann Smacks Down Jonathan Chait as Soft on Reihan Salam and Soft on the Causes of Reihan Salam...

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

The trick to being the smart/thoughtful/nice Republican is to pretend actual Republicans don't exist:

Robert Waldmann Smacks Down Jonathan Chait as Soft on Reihan Salam and Soft on the Causes of Reihan Salam...

Heh. Nice.

Good post by DeLong, too. Thanks for the link.

Great line that he lifted from Yglesias, too:

I wish it were the case that these were straw man views, invented by liberals to make the right-wing look bad. But if you listen to what the most powerful conservative politicians and media figure in the land say, these are the things they offer as the basis of conservative policy on macroeconomic stabilization, on climate and energy, and on the long-term fiscal challenge. Is it nuts? Well, yes it is. But there you have it. If you want to find what counts as a fringe position, you can find tea party leader Richard Mack talking about states’ rights to secession.

P.S. I was delighted to see reference made to "the Conn Carrolls." (Sadly, it was not "the Conn Carrolls of the world.")

[bjkeefe]

The incestuous nature of the 'heads, exposed!

Ackerman responds to Yglesias, via Farley.

[bjkeefe]

... really has gone off the cliff, hasn't he?

The only remaining question: thoroughly dishonest shill, or sincere bed-wetter?

[bjkeefe]

A tweet of note (via, obvs.):

nprfreshair On tomorrow's show: @daveweigel talking about #CPAC10 & explaining what Ron Paul's straw poll victory means for conservatives.

Depending on when you see this, "tomorrow" may no longer be operative. In that case, you probably will be able to find the show here.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

A tweet of note (via, obvs.):

Depending on when you see this, "tomorrow" may no longer be operative. In that case, you probably will be able to find the show here.

It now being "tomorrow," the interview is indeed posted: "CPAC, The Tea Party And The Remaking Of The Right."

Well worth a listen -- about 32 minutes.

[bjkeefe]

Someone let Jonah near a keyboard again, and not having any Star Wars figurines to write about, he decided instead to banish Teddy Roosevelt from Teh List of Real Conservatives for insufficient purity.

Beck/Goldberg 2012!

[bjkeefe]

Blog Reporter Dave Weigel Is President Of John Birch Society

[bjkeefe]

... has come to the attention of our man in Indiana.

Devastating.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

... has come to the attention of our man in Indiana.

Devastating.

But that was last month. What about this month?

Well, for one thing, today he got triple-shortered!

(h/t: Uncle Eb)

And see also Susan of Texas for a lengthier response.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

But that was last month. What about this month?

Well, for one thing, today he got triple-shortered!

(h/t: Uncle Eb)

And see also Susan of Texas for a lengthier response.

TBogg calls attention to four more worthwhile responses to Ross's latest public expression of his problems with the sexytime, including one from a B'head. (The other three should be.)

And then he points out some facts of which Ross seems not to be aware. Or was too uncomfortable to address. Imagine that.

[Added] Oh, and look! Mr. Riley also weighs in:

And listen: I'm sorry. Writing about Ross Douthat writing about sex is like singing about Celine Dion's mastery of nuance. Don't shoot the messenger.

In fact, preteritio alert, let's not even talk about Douthat's problem with sex, and concentrate on his problem with constructing an argument.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

[...]

TBogg calls attention to four more worthwhile responses to Ross's latest public expression of his problems with the sexytime, including one from a B'head. (The other three should be.)

And then he points out some facts of which Ross seems not to be aware. Or was too uncomfortable to address. Imagine that.

[Added] Oh, and look! Mr. Riley also weighs in: [...]

Still more notice taken! Susie Bright: "Why Lying About Monogamy Matters— Ross Douthat's Happy Ending."

(h/t: @bluegal, via RT)

[bjkeefe]

... from Eric Alterman on the American public and their media-driven perceptions of AGW: "Think Again: A Hard Week on the Planet."

An upside:

Interestingly, for all the attention inspired by recent polls demonstrating an actual reduction in the public understanding of the issue since the Obama presidency began, it’s notable that despite the claims that all these revelations have seriously damaged the public’s confidence in “climate science,” 54 percent of voters in Republican pollster Frank Luntz's poll, released on January 21, 2010, believed that climate change is either “definitely” or “probably” occurring, compared with just 18 percent who believed that it is “definitely” or “probably” not occurring. An even larger majority, 63 percent, say they believe climate change is likely caused by humans. So far, at least, the skeptics have lost the larger battle, despite the irresponsible reporting of it in the media.

A downside:

And yet politically this may not matter. As Luntz’s poll also shows, climate change itself isn't important for most voters. A mere 5 percent pick “ending climate change” as the single most important environmental and economic goal. Alas, it falls far behind ending dependence on foreign fuels, halting air and water pollution, saving the planet from destruction, and creating new energy jobs. American politics today is all about passion and, of course, money. And unfortunately, almost of all both appear to be lining up on the side of doing nothing.

I'll note that there's somewhat of an upside to the downside: "ending dependence on foreign fuels, halting air and water pollution, saving the planet from destruction, and creating new energy jobs" all seem to me to be part of what we should be doing to mitigate AGW.

The whole thing is well worth reading.

[bjkeefe]

... is one of ten people ...

... selected for the sixth annual Templeton–Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science & Religion.

[...]

In the fellowship program, a diverse group of eminent journalists examine key areas in the broad field of science and religion through independent research as well as seminars and discussion groups, led by some of the world’s foremost physicists, cosmologists, philosophers, biologists, and theologians, at the University of Cambridge. Fellows are provided a $15,000 stipend, a book allowance, and travel expenses.

Accommodationism FTW!

Full list:

1. Qanta Ahmed, Contributor, Huffington Post, and Broadcast Commentator
2. John Farrell, Freelance Journalist
3. Zeeya Merali, Freelance Journalist and Documentary Producer
4. Chris Mooney, Science Journalist and Reporter
5. Lisa Mullins, Chief Anchor and Senior Producer, BBC’s The World
6. Jane Qiu, Correspondent, Nature
7. Francis X. Rocca, Vatican Correspondent, Religion News Service
8. Carlin Romano, Critic-at-large, Chronicle of Higher Education
9. Ron Rosenbaum, Cultural Columnist, Slate
10. Peter Scoblic, Executive Editor, The New Republic

The press release is a Microsoft Word .doc file (just for extra evil?).

(h/t: PZ)

[Added] Also via PZ: ERV reacts. (That's B'head Abigail Smith, to us.)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

... is one of ten people ...

Brief post from Chris Mooney here.

Longer, and much more worthwhile, post from Jerry Coyne here. Bonus: includes excerpt from a 2006 John Horgan post on the TF.

(h/t: PZ)

[bjkeefe]

More on the TF and science journamalism.