The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

[Bloggingheads]

[Starwatcher162536]

Elizabeth Warren? Journo-list? Andrew Breitbart? Wtf? It's surprising how fast not watching TV and having a no internet rule at the house makes one have no idea what most of these blogginghead diavlogs are talking about.

[popcorn_karate]

The conversation about Elizabeth Warren was a bit unsatisfying. Friedersdorf thinks that caring about who heads the new consumer protection agency is irrelevant, and if its not irrelevant that indicates that the regs are so bad that it was a flawed idea to begin with.

I think Mr. Friedersdorf has never actually dealt with a beaurocracy, or say, a cop before. Implementation is, if not everything, then most everything. I worked in the same office as a regulatory agency for a number of years. When the head of that department changed, the difficulty of getting projects done (for customers of the agency - not me) went from mildly painful to excruciating - and the rules all stayed exactly the same.

The gist of the difference was that one guy had the attitude of "how can we help you do things right" while his successor had the attitude that "we'll have to stop you if you're not doing things right". The difference is somewhat minor. neither of them would allow people to break the rules, nor would either of them try to stop things for no reason. But the small shift in attitude trickled down through everyone in the department and made a tremendous difference in how people were able to implement their projects.

people matter.

[cacimbo]

I am surprised Bill Scher sees the mosque issue as so firmly right vs left. I know quite a few hard core lefties in the five boros who are not happy about this mosque being built. The no build crowd has been trying to use existing laws to have site designated a landmark (first proposed back in 70's). Also quite a few unanswered questions about who is financing this.

[rcocean]

But good job Conor, you were very reasonable. I'm sure the liberals are pleased.

[eric]

Friedersdorf is supposed to be on the right? If so he reminds me very much of my impression of Weigel on Bloggingheads, subsequently exposed as disingenuous at best. There are rational arguments against building an Islamic center near ground zero, or pro-Breitbart, that Friedersdorf could not or would not articulate, making the right look like a bunch of reactionary, ignorant boobs. If you are going to have a political debate, have people with different views, otherwise it's not informative.

[Starwatcher162536]

What are these rational reasons? I myself can't think of any that don't revolve around people thinking Islam is synonymous with terrorism.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by eric

Friedersdorf is supposed to be on the right? If so he reminds me very much of my impression of Weigel on Bloggingheads, subsequently exposed as disingenuous at best. There are rational arguments against building an Islamic center near ground zero, or pro-Breitbart, that Friedersdorf could not or would not articulate, making the right look like a bunch of reactionary, ignorant boobs. If you are going to have a political debate, have people with different views, otherwise it's not informative.

What rational arguments? If you're going to accuse people of disingenuousness, you ought to be be able to articulate what you mean.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Why do people care about Journo-list? People have the right to convene in person and speak privately if they choose. This is simply a more modern way to do so.

Just as Conor referred to Ackerman's temper, I think it's useful for people on the same team to get together both to rant and to have productive discussions without the opposition there. I think it's juvenile for people like Tucker Carlson to feel left out, like they are not sitting at the cool kids table.

Get over it.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Why do people care about Journo-list? People have the right to convene in person and speak privately if they choose. This is simply a more modern way to do so.

Just as Conor referred to Ackerman's temper, I think it's useful for people on the same team to get together both to rant and to have productive discussions without the opposition there. I think it's juvenile for people like Tucker Carlson to feel left out, like they are not sitting at the cool kids table.

Get over it.

And when convening they come up with game plans to paint innocent people as racist to take the heat off a true story. That is ok with you?

[graz]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

And when convening they come up with game plans to paint innocent people as racist to take the heat off a true story. That is ok with you?

Cite?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by cacimbo

I am surprised Bill Scher sees the mosque issue as so firmly right vs left. I know quite a few hard core lefties in the five boros who are not happy about this mosque being built. The no build crowd has been trying to use existing laws to have site designated a landmark (first proposed back in 70's). Also quite a few unanswered questions about who is financing this.

a Burlington Coat Factory designated as a landmark?

But it's good that a few hard-core lefties aren't happy about this. This should give the opposition some credibility.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

The gist of the difference was that one guy had the attitude of "how can we help you do things right" while his successor had the attitude that "we'll have to stop you if you're not doing things right". The difference is somewhat minor. neither of them would allow people to break the rules, nor would either of them try to stop things for no reason. But the small shift in attitude trickled down through everyone in the department and made a tremendous difference in how people were able to implement their projects.

people matter.

I'm dealing with the planning and building department of the county I live in and I agree that the staff and their attitude is very important. But deep down I just hate the idea that they have so much power over what I do with my property and that when I have paid all the costs of my remodel, including all of their fees and requirements, they will be able to assess me higher taxes.

But then, I would, wouldn't I?

[eric]

Well, on Islam at ground zero, the issue relates to good manners: not taking, or giving, an unintentional offense. If you tell a black employee he is behaving niggardly and he gets upset, who is at fault? One should know better.

It seems like a direct provocation at the heart of Western culture, exposing the weakness outlined in Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind: we are for everything, including things that are against us. The 9-11 attacks were directly caused by extremist Islamic thinking that considered the West the enemy. This is minority Islamic thinking, but hardly as fringe as the KKK is in the USA, and hardly as violent as Pat Robertson's 700 Club.

Consider if a 'German Culture' museum were erected near a concentration camp. Most Germans, historically were not Nazis, but it's rather obtuse to think this was an appropriate place for such a center. Most Americans oppose the Islamic center, and thoughtful Islams should not try to rub average American opinion in a technicality ('it's a religion of peace to most'). For many Americans, including me, Islamic officials, through benign neglect, abetted the zeitgeist that led to 9-11. If the Left thinks the Tea Party encourages racism, this incident is several log-levels greater in terms of abetting one's worse elements.

As per Breitbart, I disagree with Lowry. The video suggests that many within the NAACP, which lectured the Tea Party on allowing racism, were enthusiastically racist during the initial segment where Sherrod told her audience the white farmer should see his 'own kind'. This is Breitbart's explanation. Like the movie Crash (which had all sorts of racists experiences epiphanies of trans-racial humanity), while she did experience an epiphany, she was clearly a racist for a large portion of her life. I am about her age and have always known that applying different standards or stereotypes to people based on race is morally wrong, but supposedly her admission merely highlights her honesty. I think it highlights she was a racist, but now perhaps not. And that still leaves the issue of all the positive audience response well before her redemption.

The initial video except was tendentious and this was misleading but only in so far as implying Sherrod was an active racist with governmental power. But it wasn't a smear like calling Karl Rove a racist circa the Jeremiah Wright kerfluffle. After all, given what was released, the NAACP and Obama administration agreed with Breitbart, that this was indefensible.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by eric

Well, on Islam at ground zero, the issue relates to good manners: not taking, or giving, an unintentional offense. If you tell a black employee he is behaving niggardly and he gets upset, who is at fault? One should know better.

It seems like a direct provocation at the heart of Western culture, exposing the weakness outlined in Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind: we are for everything, including things that are against us. The 9-11 attacks were directly caused by extremist Islamic thinking that considered the West the enemy. This is minority Islamic thinking, but hardly as fringe as the KKK is in the USA, and hardly as violent as Pat Robertson's 700 Club.

Consider if a 'German Culture' museum were erected near a concentration camp. Most Germans, historically were not Nazis, but it's rather obtuse to think this was an appropriate place for such a center. Most Americans oppose the Islamic center, and thoughtful Islams should not try to rub average American opinion in a technicality ('it's a religion of peace to most'). For many Americans, including me, Islamic officials, through benign neglect, abetted the zeitgeist that led to 9-11. If the Left thinks the Tea Party encourages racism, this incident is several log-levels greater in terms of abetting one's worse elements.

As per Breitbart, I disagree with Lowry. The video suggests that many within the NAACP, which lectured the Tea Party on allowing racism, were enthusiastically racist during the initial segment where Sherrod told her audience the white farmer should see his 'own kind'. This is Breitbart's explanation. Like the movie Crash (which had all sorts of racists experiences epiphanies of trans-racial humanity), while she did experience an epiphany, she was clearly a racist for a large portion of her life. I am about her age and have always known that applying different standards or stereotypes to people based on race is morally wrong, but supposedly her admission merely highlights her honesty. I think it highlights she was a racist, but now perhaps not. And that still leaves the issue of all the positive audience response well before her redemption.

The initial video except was tendentious and this was misleading but only in so far as implying Sherrod was an active racist with governmental power. But it wasn't a smear like calling Karl Rove a racist circa the Jeremiah Wright kerfluffle. After all, given what was released, the NAACP and Obama administration agreed with Breitbart, that this was indefensible.

How do you, within constitutional boundaries, prevent a mosque being built on a site because some people are offended by that? Regardless of any other consideration (and I don't think your argument here is reasonable) you can't rationally argue for doing something that is impossible. (Forbidden, in this case.)

In the case of the Sherrod video, the evidence seem to directly contradict what you're asserting. Breitbart's claims about the audience reaction seem pretty completely debunked. And the video is available - it's not like there's any real ambiguity in regard to its content.,

[graz]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

And the video is available - it's not like there's any real ambiguity in regard to its content.

They're part of a secret cabal Jeff. Not unlike journolist. Just on the other side of the divide. Also they communicate via smoke signals and carrier pigeons... I mean who's looking out for that nowadays? Their resolve may be too much for your good faith efforts with Queensbury rules debate tactics.

[badhatharry]

Quoting eric: It seems like a direct provocation at the heart of Western culture, exposing the weakness outlined in Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind: we are for everything, including things that are against us. The 9-11 attacks were directly caused by extremist Islamic thinking that considered the West the enemy. This is minority Islamic thinking, but hardly as fringe as the KKK is in the USA, and hardly as violent as Pat Robertson's 700 Club.

surely you must mean something else.

Consider if a 'German Culture' museum were erected near a concentration camp. Most Germans, historically were not Nazis, but it's rather obtuse to think this was an appropriate place for such a center. Most Americans oppose the Islamic center, and thoughtful Islams should not try to rub average American opinion in a technicality ('it's a religion of peace to most'). For many Americans, including me, Islamic officials, through benign neglect, abetted the zeitgeist that led to 9-11. If the Left thinks the Tea Party encourages racism, this incident is several log-levels greater in terms of abetting one's worse elements.

Unless, perhaps, the German culture museum included background about what led the German people to the holocaust crimes. Maybe this 'culture center' could include some kind of admission that the Islamic religion has some flaws which cause some members to go a little crazy. That could be very interesting but will never happen.

As per Breitbart, I disagree with Lowry.

The only solution to any of this is for everyone to shut up about calling people racist. That won't happen either. Good post.

[Jyminee]

Originally Posted by eric

As per Breitbart, I disagree with Lowry. The video suggests that many within the NAACP, which lectured the Tea Party on allowing racism, were enthusiastically racist during the initial segment where Sherrod told her audience the white farmer should see his 'own kind'. This is Breitbart's explanation.

You and Breitbart are wrong. Will Saletan goes through the video line by line and debunks this as a lie.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

How do you, within constitutional boundaries, prevent a mosque being built on a site because some people are offended by that? Regardless of any other consideration (and I don't think your argument here is reasonable) you can't rationally argue for doing something that is impossible. (Forbidden, in this case.)

In the case of the Sherrod video, the evidence seem to directly contradict what you're asserting. Breitbart's claims about the audience reaction seem pretty completely debunked. And the video is available - it's not like there's any real ambiguity in regard to its content.,

Where is he arguing that the building should be (as in legally) prevented? I believe he was addressing the unseemliness of the effort.

Not that it's that big a deal, but the audience was voicing approval.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Where is he arguing that the building should be (as in legally) prevented? I believe he was addressing the unseemliness of the effort.

Not that it's that big a deal, but the audience was voicing approval.

How is "unseemliness" an issue? Some people are bound to be offended by almost anything. Either we can do something about it or we can't. If we can't, what are we talking about?

And it seems pretty clear that the "approval" your citing has no relationship to racism. I just linked to Saletan's article elsewhere, and Jyminee just linked it in this thread. I recommend reading the piece. It certainly is important when allegations like Breitbart's are put on the table.

[eric]

Saletan thinks that when Sherrod says "I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. [Laughter.]" it was laughter about her power to help a guy with 'attitude'. Watch the tape. I disagree.

There's a lot of silence afterward and it then transitions into the redemption story. Yet the initial scene is rather inexcusable. It would be inexcusable for a white cop to mention how he treated black suspects stereotypically the 1980's, but then talk about how it's all about class. His record would be rightly tarnished for his admitted racism. As for Marxism, I guess that's still ok for most people, but as a Hayekian, I find it aids and abets a lot more cruelty than racism.

As per legally forbidding the Islamic center, I'm not for that. I just think it's a provocative move, not in good taste, and so I think it's counterproductive. There are many things I think should be legal but are still bad.

And yes, I should have said 'not nearly as violent as the 700 Club', but it's late, and Friday.

[cacimbo]

Nothing to do with credibility of argument, just surprised to see it labeled as a clear right/left issue when in personal conversations that has not been the case at all. NBC poll found 52% of NYC opposed to mosque despite fact that NYC is heavily democratic.
Coat factory landmark, who knows why orginally suggested back in the 70's, but- heh-this is NYC if you don't clean graffitti off your building fast enough eventually someone here will try to landmark it. Twisting existing laws to obtain a desired result is hardly unique to this case.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by eric

Saletan thinks that when Sherrod says "I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. [Laughter.]" it was laughter about her power to help a guy with 'attitude'. Watch the tape. I disagree.

There's a lot of silence afterward and it then transitions into the redemption story. Yet the initial scene is rather inexcusable. It would be inexcusable for a white cop to mention how he treated black suspects stereotypically the 1980's, but then talk about how it's all about class. His record would be rightly tarnished for his admitted racism. As for Marxism, I guess that's still ok for most people, but as a Hayekian, I find it aids and abets a lot more cruelty than racism.

As per legally forbidding the Islamic center, I'm not for that. I just think it's a provocative move, not in good taste, and so I think it's counterproductive. There are many things I think should be legal but are still bad.

And yes, I should have said 'not nearly as violent as the 700 Club', but it's late, and Friday.

I think you're reading into it a narrative that doesn't fit the context. As Saletan makes clear, there's a pattern to the responses. They're clearly responding to events in Sherrod's story in a way that doesn't fit your narrative. For example:

When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only. [Pause. Silence.] But, you know, God will show you things, and He'll put things in your path so that—that you realize that the struggle [Audience: Alright] is really about poor people. [Audience: Alright, alright.]

That holds true throughout Saletan's account. They don't respond to Sherrod mentioning race - they respond to ironic and redemptive moments. And she isn't speaking about treating white farmers differently, she's speaking of how she realized that them being white wasn't important. And considering where the murder of her father must have put her at one time, that's pretty remarkable. So I can't credit your white cop analogy - she didn't admit racism, she acknowledged the impulse toward it and recounted how she overcame that. That's exactly the opposite of racism.

[piscivorous]

Looks like Mickeys' judgment about Ezra Klein being a sniveling weasel was correct!

[Don Zeko]

And this judgment is based upon...what exactly?

[johnmarzan]

why are there two leftwingers this week?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

How is "unseemliness" an issue? Some people are bound to be offended by almost anything. Either we can do something about it or we can't. If we can't, what are we talking about?

And it seems pretty clear that the "approval" your citing has no relationship to racism. I just linked to Saletan's article elsewhere, and Jyminee just linked it in this thread. I recommend reading the piece. It certainly is important when allegations like Breitbart's are put on the table.

Unseemliness is the issue, Jeff. Whether you think it should be or not. You talk about a lot of things which you think are unseemly and aren't illegal...like the speech of Breitbart or Limbaugh for instance. Why do you talk about them since you really can't do anything about it? Eric was simply expressing his feelings about building the mosque where they want to build it.
But you want to make that irrational. It isn't.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by eric

There's a lot of silence afterward and it then transitions into the redemption story. Yet the initial scene is rather inexcusable. It would be inexcusable for a white cop to mention how he treated black suspects stereotypically the 1980's, but then talk about how it's all about class. His record would be rightly tarnished for his admitted racism. As for Marxism, I guess that's still ok for most people, but as a Hayekian, I find it aids and abets a lot more cruelty than racism.

It is interesting to note that in her 'redemptive' part of the speech she talks about class being the thing which divides not race, which I guess is the Marxist portion you refer to. What people need to realize is that these divisions lead to more trouble than they are meant to heal especially when they are abbetted by government largesse. They often keep people more 'enslaved' than they would have been had the market been allowed to function.

I've been reading The Road to Serfdom of late. It's so sensible and prescient. It's so sensible that no one will pay attention to it. It tells all about human nature. It's kinda like a Wealth of Nations condensed.

[Starwatcher162536]

That is a rather big technicality to brush off. Using percentages that are similar I could condemn many things that are a mainstay of American culture. Btw, don't you think the historical reasons the Arab world uses to justify not being "BFF's Forever" with the west are alot less nebulous and moronic then the KKK's justifications for their ideology? Not exactly a fair comparison.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I think you're reading into it a narrative that doesn't fit the context. As Saletan makes clear, there's a pattern to the responses. They're clearly responding to events in Sherrod's story in a way that doesn't fit your narrative. For example:

That holds true throughout Saletan's account. They don't respond to Sherrod mentioning race - they respond to ironic and redemptive moments. And she isn't speaking about treating white farmers differently, she's speaking of how she realized that them being white wasn't important. And considering where the murder of her father must have put her at one time, that's pretty remarkable.

I haven't read or heard the Saletan account because my computer goes crazy if I want to open another tab (gotta have that fixed) but I did hear the original offering by Breitbart and have heard the subsequent audio that elongated what she had to say. I definitely heard laughter in her first bit, but as I said, that doesn't shock me. The thing that I found interesting was her supposition that this farmer thought he was superior to her. Who knows what this guy was thinking? Maybe he was trying to impress her, whatever, but she characterized his attitude as superior which is completely subjective.

What really came home to me is the power that government employees have over the taxpayer.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by johnmarzan

why are there two leftwingers this week?

Isn't that cute? Passive/aggressive not-a-real-Republicanism.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Unseemliness is the issue, Jeff. Whether you think it should be or not. You talk about a lot of things which you think are unseemly and aren't illegal...like the speech of Breitbart or Limbaugh for instance. Why do you talk about them since you really can't do anything about it? Eric was simply expressing his feelings about building the mosque where they want to build it.
But you want to make that irrational. It isn't.

In this case, the goal is to prevent Mosque being built on a specific site.. But, in order to make that so, we'd have to abandon the First Amendment: we'd have to violated both the right of free speech and the Separation Clause. It's not me trying to make this seem irrational - it's the contradiction it represents to our founding principles. My wish to hold mendacious demagogues responsible for their lies does not violate those principles.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Looks like Mickeys' judgment about Ezra Klein being a sniveling weasel was correct!

I was going to say Welcome back! but that you broke your silence to say that pretty much killed the impulse.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Isn't that cute? Passive/aggressive not-a-real-Republicanism.

Heh.

Epistemic closure and purity police? What on Earth are you libtards talking about? Conservatives have a big tent, applaud people who aren't in lockstep on every issue, and welcome criticism from within!!!1!

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Isn't that cute? Passive/aggressive not-a-real-Republicanism.

I'm not a fan of "not a real republican" talk 99% of the time myself either. People like Ross and Reihan get it all the time, and I'll defend those guys conservative credentials to the bitter end. I don't even like it when Frum gets the "not a real republican" treatment. Frum annoys me a lot of the time, but he's still a conservative. Friedersdorf, however, gets very very close to the line to me. I honestly don't even know in which ways he is conservative. I always assumed it was because he was economically conservative, but I've never heard him talk about it. Despite misconceptions, Frum doesn't spend all his time attacking the right. Friedersdorf does, at least from what I can tell. Put it this way: leaving the talk about "real republicans aside", you can still be annoyed at asymmetry. Bill Scher is a pretty left wing guy, and Conor, whatever you think of him, isn't remotely his equivalent. It's just one week, and it's not a big deal, but if it was Mickey Kaus doing TWIB with Matt Lewis, I don't think liberals would enjoy that.

[carkrueger]

Why does Bill keep asking Conor what's happening on the Right? Conor is a hugh lefty like Bill and has no beat of what's happening.

I don't know a conservative who is not ouraged regarding the Mosque. Conors argument which he made from his recent Forbes article is nonsence.

And Conor sure has a beef with Andrew Breitbart. His seven minute animated video on him say's it all.

I missed Matt Lewis this week. Bill, could you really not find a conservative this week? I hate when the lefty speaks for the right as if they know.

[bjkeefe]

Newt Gingrich Makes Up for Being Late on Manhattan Mosque Thing by Being Extra Wrong and Hateful

Go.

[graz]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Looks like Mickeys' judgment about Ezra Klein being a sniveling weasel was correct!

Hey, at least you got your spellchecker fixed during the hiatus. Or was this a lucky break?

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

I'm not a fan of "not a real republican" talk 99% of the time myself either....Friedersdorf, however, gets very very close to the line to me. I honestly don't even know in which ways he is conservative. I always assumed it was because he was economically conservative, but I've never heard him talk about it. Despite misconceptions, Frum doesn't spend all his time attacking the right. Friedersdorf does, at least from what I can tell.

What bothers me about the "Not a Real Conservative" line is that it is always, always being put forward on the basis of criteria that aren't actually related to any philosophy of governance. To my mind, whether or not someone is a Conservative should come down to their attitudes about actual policies. Yet the NARC argument against Friedersdorf or Frum is always about other things: what he thinks of various Conservative media figures and politicians, how much time he devotes to criticizing Liberals vs. Conservatives, what he thinks of the political strategy of the current congressional leadership of the party.

This is a pretty unsatisfactory way to set these categories. For starters, it often leads to a bizarre situation in which people that disagree with every plank in the Democratic Party's platform are described as Liberals. More importantly, it dismisses even the possibility of internal criticism. If you think any influential figure in the Conservative media universe is behaving badly and say so, then you're no longer part of the club and can be safely ignored. When the party line holds that David Frum and Bruce Bartlett are Liberals and should therefore be ignored, you are working from an extremely distorted picture of the American political landscape, one that makes it very hard to pursue your own ideological goals, much less govern the country effectively.

[mrdomino]

Its unfortunate for Conor's argument that mainstream conservative sites have ignored the mosque story that today NRO posted a 3 page article subtitled "The Islamification of America starts at Ground Zero". Plus two blog posts on how Sharia is coming to the US at the Corner.

Of course these were all authored by Andrew McCarthy. For some strange reason I get the sense Conor doesn't respect McCarthy much. But the fact that McCarthy writes at the same publication as Reihan Salam undercuts what appeared to be Conor's attempt to divide the conservative blogsphere between "respectable" elements like NRO and "disreputable" sites like Biggovernment.