I was set to lament Conn's departure from TWIB on the grounds that Matt, while seemingly a nice guy, just doesn't seem quite as sharp. Then Erick the Red's name up, and with it the realization of just how poorly occupied some of the big seats in the Rightosphere are. Since there's a chance this post could be among the first five I'll defer to Tommy Franks' assessment of Doug Feith in trying to find a proper characterization for Erick the Self-Important. It should be pointed out that Erick's high opinion of both himself and his relative status is becoming a theme. I think what really distinguishes Erick from the Malkins, Coulters and Limbaughs of the world is that I think Erick has in fact convinced himself. Which seems like pretty good evidence for the theme I'm stealing from Franks. Given some of the available alternatives, I guess we could do worse than Matt, but I do wish he'd step up his game.

... from Rachel Maddow, featuring guest Ana Marie Cox. Hilarious. Almost as hilarious as Matt claiming that the big April 15th teabagging extravaganza is a "grassroots" thing.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... from Rachel Maddow, featuring guest Ana Marie Cox. Hilarious.

Almost as hilarious as Matt claiming that the big April 15th teabagging extravaganza is a "grassroots" thing.

I know you're not a huge fan of Wonkette the Former, but I have to dissent. Damn, she's good.

Too funny. Can't wait till the Republicans' children google "teabagging" and have to have a very uncomfortable conversation with mom and dad. As much as I'm completely repulsed by Michelle Bachman, I'd volunteer to teabag her if it means we won't have to listen to anymore of her incendiary nonsense.

Quoting AemJeff: I know you're not a huge fan of Wonkette the Former, but I have to dissent. Damn, she's good.

I liked her a lot in that interview, that's for sure.

Matt: I know you go on (to appear) to accept Bill's word after this, but just to be sure, you really ought to read up on this lest you are tempted make this ridiculous claim again. The Wikipedia article, which begins ...

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

... has a number of good starting links. [Added] Bradford Plummer has a nice essay, written in direct response to Will's column which you and Bill discussed, that also has some useful links. [Added 2] I see you go on to place great stock in that (1975) Newsweek article, so perhaps you don't really accept what Bill was telling you about how "global cooling" was really not scientifically accepted. So, I hope you'll follow the above links. [Added 3] And Starwatcher has some more links for you, below.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Too funny. Can't wait till the Republicans' children google "teabagging" and have to have a very uncomfortable conversation with mom and dad.

And right after that, they can ask about an even more recent Republican/conservative branding choice. [Added] More fail. Double entendre mistake aside, one fairly important thing for an advocacy group to do when pushing a new brand is ... register the domain, right? Oops -- registered yesterday, it appears. (via)

Wow bjk, Daniel Larison pretty much slapped the shit out of Matt Lewis. But since Matt Lewis' blog is pretty much nothing but a recital of his appearances elsewhere, we're stuck with him. Really, I think he's a near-perfect foil representing the core of contemporary conservatism. Of course, I probably won't watch very much of this crap.

Quoting brucds: Wow bjk, Daniel Larison pretty much slapped the shit out of Matt Lewis. But since Matt Lewis' blog is pretty much nothing but a recital of his appearances elsewhere, we're stuck with him. Really, I think he's a near-perfect foil representing the core of contemporary conservatism. Of course, I probably won't watch very much of this crap.

Hey! Don't make me do all the debunking work! ;^)

More on teabagging here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=teabagging and here: http://www.straferight.com/photopost...teabagging.jpg And, if you’re teabagging, safety first: http://tinyurl.com/3n7744

Quoting bjkeefe: Hey! Don't make me do all the debunking work!

;^)

but that's why we love you...

It's not just sabotaging the teabagging that the sinister ACORNs will do. According to Rush Limbaugh, the pirates are ACORN, too! (h/t: Steve Benen)

Just sayin' ...

Several liberal blogs today are showing a clip of Red Eye's Bill Schulz getting drenched in gasoline by Glenn Beck. (I have not seen any conservative blogs mention it yet, though I may have missed some).

Beck's apparent goal was to illustrate how he feels about Barack Obama's policies -- by imitating Obama pouring gasoline on the "average American".

Clearly, Beck is a smart man, and his points are legitimate. [...]

-- Matt Lewis

If you would like to see (video and transcript) what a "smart man" whose "points are legitimate" looks like, visit Media Matters/County Fair.

James Wolcott, freelance saboteur, hints at his plans. This is a truly great thing to read.

The argument that because there was a scientific consensus 30 years ago that was concerned about global cooling (A proposition I do not take as true btw), current climate models should be invalidated or mistrusted, is an argument again all scientific and intellectual progression. It is an argument I am used to only hearing from Creationists. Newsflash: We usually don't get shit perfect the first time! For a link talking about why the idea that there was a consensus about global cooling is highly mis-leading, follow the link below
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...g-in-1970s.php For a comprehensive guide debunking most arguments from a global warming skeptic, follow the link below
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere..._a_sceptic.php P.S.
btw, how valid current models are is a scientific question, not a political question. Until you can talk about basic things like Milankovich cycles, Solar Forcing, heat sinks,IPCC,etc.....quit saying "I'm right, all those proffesional scientific are wrong". If I hear Pinkerton say "...but it was cold yesterday!" again my heads going to explode

Every six years conservatives are told we must support Arlen because: 1) We need Arlen to control the senate, or
2) We need Arlen to get 55 votes (y'know so we can pass all that great legislation) or now,
3) We need Arlen or we'll give the Democrats a filibuster proof senate. Talk about scaremongering BS. Arlen has one seat out of a 100. No reason to believe he'll be the deciding factor - he wasn't in the past. Another Republican might win, or maybe 100 year old Arlen will lose anyway. This short-sighted pragmatism is why the Republicans are where they are. AllahPundit just likes Arlen. So do a lot of moderate Republicans. So why not be honest about it?

Quoting rcocean: ...Another Republican might win...

Don't bet on that. It's my state - Specter wins because he's a popular former Philadelphia prosecutor, a former democrat, and he's Jewish. Those three facts offset enough votes in Northeast Philly to provide a winning margin. Toomey is toast in Philly, and has too much of a loony far-right reputation to make any headway in the (increasingly Democratic) suburban Phila. districts.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: btw, how valid current models are is a scientific question, not a political question. Until you can talk about basic things like Milankovich cycles, Solar Forcing, heat sinks,IPCC,etc.....quit saying "I'm right, all those proffesional scientific are wrong".

If I hear Pinkerton say "...but it was cold yesterday!" again my heads going to explode

Starwatcher162536, with all due respect, you can stick your mathematical models where sun don’t shine. "Findings" of Climate "Science" do not have the same epistemological status as findings of natural sciences. Until that changes, Climate Science is just an organ of Democrat Party.

Starr, thanks for those links. Awesome!

Quoting JoeK: Starwatcher162536, with all due respect, you can stick your mathematical models where sun don’t shine. "Findings" of Climate "Science" do not have the same epistemological status as findings of natural sciences. Until that changes, Climate Science is just an organ of Democrat Party.

Joe, the word is "epistemic." Please explain to the class what the epistemic status of the findings of the natural sciences might be, generically. Scare quoting words whose meanings you don't understand doesn't change the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. With all due respect.

Quoting rcocean: This short-sighted pragmatism is why the Republicans are where they are.

An interesting attitude, which certainly matches the attitude many on the left have had regarding the Democratic Party. I myself have long been annoyed with the DLC attitude that threatens to make the party into Republican Lite. On the other hand, an excess of weight placed on purity practically guarantees minority status. People call you "out of touch with mainstream Americans." Got to be serious about the "big tent" sooner or later, don't you? Or is it your view that the GOP would be better to (continue to?) purify itself and wait until the Dems mess things up so badly that people will eventually vote them out of office?

Quoting JoeK: Starwatcher162536, with all due respect ...

What Jeff said. You might also have a look at Julian Sanchez's recent post on how we should treat the views of experts in a given field when we are not experts in that field. (I posted this link elsewhere, too, in case anyone's got a feeling of deja vu.)

Quoting bjkeefe: ...
You might also have a look at Julian Sanchez's recent post on how we should treat the views of experts in a given field when we are not experts in that field.

(I posted this link elsewhere, too, in case anyone's got a feeling of deja vu.)

Nice piece by that silly dancer with the Mexican name, but I'm afraid "fallacy" and "merit" do not have the same status as ideas expressed by Rush Limbaugh. "Logic" is a tool used by Democrats for brainwashing.

Quoting bjkeefe: An interesting attitude, which certainly matches the attitude many on the left have had regarding the Democratic Party. I myself have long been annoyed with the DLC attitude that threatens to make the party into Republican Lite.

On the other hand, an excess of weight placed on purity practically guarantees minority status. People call you "out of touch with mainstream Americans." Got to be serious about the "big tent" sooner or later, don't you? Or is it your view that the GOP would be better to (continue to?) purify itself and wait until the Dems mess things up so badly that people will eventually vote them out of office?

The problem with the GOP is they not only invite the moderates into the "Big Tent" they give them the leadership positions and the microphone. They never seem to understand - the only way to elect conservatives is to nominate them. You can't win if you don't try. And if you want say, smaller government - you can't get it by nominating Presidential candidates who want bigger government, just not as big as the Democrats. As for Arlen - guarantee me he'll win in 2010 and anyone

Quoting rcocean: ...

As for Arlen - guarantee me he'll win in 2010 and anyone will lose. Also, guarantee me he'll not go Jeffords in his last term of office. If can't do that, then we should nominate an actual conservative. We'll either win big or lose nothing or very little.

He's in a hell of a lot more trouble in the primary than in the general. If he squeaks past Toomey, and his health holds up, my neighbors will surely help him hold on for another term. I will vote against, once again. Check his record on close votes with Republican majorities by the way. Republican purity fanatics like rc underestimate the value to their party of hypocritical swingers like Specter. He gets all the benefits of voting against his party (in a district with a majority in the other party) by voting with the Dems when there's no risk they'll lose. When the Party leadership needs him, he mostly falls into line.

The Incredibles is a "conservative" movie??? Can someone explain?

"The Incredibles is a "conservative" movie??? Can someone explain?" Yeah easily. It celebrates family values, exceptionalism, fighting for a cause greater than yourself and believes there are evil people in the world that need to be defeated.

The moment of epiphany in "The Incredibles" is when Syndrome reveals his motivation: "If everyone is special, then no one is." Syndrome is representing Communism -- or I would argue, a distorted view of liberalism meant to make people think liberalism is a slippery slope to Communism. Further, the Incredibles have been forced to suppress their individuality (their superpowers) by the government -- after a bout with evil trial lawyers no less! Director Brad Bird has said that is one of the underlying themes of the movie, though he refuses to be pigeon-holed politically: http://www.timeout.com/film/chicago/...-crusader.html Anyway, great movie, with a horrible political message!

Quoting AemJeff: Nice piece by that silly dancer with the Mexican name ...

You know, when I was composing the post to recommend that piece by JS, I did remember that "Mexican name" thing, but I was too lazy to search for it. That it turns out to have been JoeK who said it is just priceless. Made my morning. Thanks.

Quoting bjkeefe: What Jeff said.

You might also have a look at Julian Sanchez's recent post on how we should treat the views of experts in a given field when we are not experts in that field.

(I posted this link elsewhere, too, in case anyone's got a feeling of deja vu.)

I especially liked one of the comments from that link:

I find my best solution is to evaluate the merits of arguments I can follow to determine the relative credibility of each side. For example, when people say “We’re experiencing Global Cooling.” It’s easy to look at the graph and recognize that, yes, since 2006 the last two years the temperature has dropped. However, it’s easy to spot that 2006 is a cherry picked date (much like the oft-used 1998), and that “Global cooling” conclusion is really quite ridiculous when you extend your endpoint to the beginning of recorded data.

The fact that people who reject the GW hypothesis try to claim there’s global cooling is mathematical ineptitude at best, and deceptive horseshit at worst. Either way, that side loses a great deal of credibility based on the poor merits of an argument I can comprehend.

After reviewing

I should mention, I can see why there would be intelligent skeptics of global warming. From my posts on this subject, some may think I am equating global warming skeptics with stupid, that is not my intention. There are arguments against global warming that at least at face value, seem credible even to those people that follow this subject closely. For example, much of the radiation that is reflected/emitted from the earth is long band radiation (about 2 to 100 um), however, CO2 will only absorb certain wavelengths (Don't remember these off of the top of my head). Only like 2 percent or so of the black body radiation is going to be absorbed by the CO2 and sent back down to the Earth. So if we were to double the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is somewhere around .05 of the atmosphere currently, we would multiply .045 (increase in CO2 levels) by .02(amount of radiation that will interact with C02), we will only see an energy increase in our system by about .001. Using this line of logic, the correlation between CO2 and temperature will be insignificant compared to other natural changes in condition.
Of course, the above argument has been taken

Quoting Bill Scher: The moment of epiphany in "The Incredibles" is when Syndrome reveals his motivation: "If everyone is special, then no one is." Syndrome is representing Communism -- or I would argue, a distorted view of liberalism meant to make people think liberalism is a slippery slope to Communism.

Further, the Incredibles have been forced to suppress their individuality (their superpowers) by the government -- after a bout with evil trial lawyers no less!

Director Brad Bird has said that is one of the underlying themes of the movie, though he refuses to be pigeon-holed politically: http://www.timeout.com/film/chicago/...-crusader.html

Anyway, great movie, with a horrible political message!

The idea of superheroes that have superpowers to fix societal problems affects both the left and the right. I don't see it as especially conservative. And what about Elastagirl isn't she a liberated woman?

Rachel revisits the tea-baggers (the next evening): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19jfGsvk40A I'll tell 'ya: this being in the majority is a lot of fun.

Quoting bjkeefe: an even more recent Republican/conservative branding choice.

Rachel Maddow on 2M4M: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1MGtULY73Y

Quoting TwinSwords: Rachel revisits the tea-baggers (the next evening):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19jfGsvk40A

Awesome. And thanks for the 2M4M clip, too.

I'll tell 'ya: this being in the majority is a lot of fun.

Heh. I know what you mean. On the other hand, it'd be a lot nicer if the opposition were a bit more reasonable. Rachel's point about the teabaggers most coherent (new record for generous use of term) gripe being about taxes, in light of the fact that Obama just pushed a middle class tax cut through Congress, speaks volumes about how deranged the loudest part of the anti-Obama crowd has become. It's fun to laugh at them, but on the other hand, it'd be nice to be able to get some support from across the aisle on dealing with the rest of our problems. Maybe this irrational Obama-hatred will burn itself out. Or maybe the continued craziness will further alienate the middle part of the country, leading to a midterm election that costs the GOP even more seats, leading to a further shrinking of the fringe. Or maybe it's just the uncertain times, and as soon as the economy picks back up, there will be less receptivity for

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I should mention, I can see why there would be intelligent skeptics of global warming. From my posts on this subject, some may think I am equating global warming skeptics with stupid, that is not my intention.

There are arguments against global warming that at least at face value, seem credible even to those people that follow this subject closely. [...]

Of course, the above argument has been taken into consideration and accounted for in current models. I just wanted to show an example of a criticism of global warming that doesn't make me lose faith in humanity every time I hear it (Like 95% of the claptrap you hear)

You might be interested in the Dyson links I posted in this week's Science Saturday thread, if I haven't seen them already. I have to say, though, there gets to be a point where insisting on certainty where we're already pretty darned sure strikes me as a waste of time. It seems more productive, and interesting, to take as given that AGW is real and will likely get worse, and focus on the questions of "How much worse? And how soon?" and "What are the best ways to deal with this?"

Quoting sheryl: "The Incredibles is a "conservative" movie??? Can someone explain?"

Yeah easily. It celebrates family values, exceptionalism, fighting for a cause greater than yourself and believes there are evil people in the world that need to be defeated.

This claim that only conservatives believe in these things is, in large part, hilarious. However, it is also somewhat offensive, and you might keep this in mind the next time you're wondering why you people get caricatured in response as bitter clingy mouth-breathers who are riddled with phobias, too dumb to understand science, and too chicken to deal with progress.

I think the problem is not so much agreeing with climatologists, but listening to them spout off solutions to the problem. This is where they lose a lot of people, because the scientists aren't businessmen, economists, politicians, or your average blue collar worker. Scientists understand what is going on, but finding a solution and implementing it is beyond their expertise. It also doesn't help when you have scientists and guys like Al Gore exaggerating the truth or simply making false claims.

Quoting Lyle: I think the problem is not so much agreeing with climatologists, but listening to them spout off solutions to the problem. This is where they lose a lot of people, because the scientists aren't businessmen, economists, politicians, or your average blue collar worker. Scientists understand what is going on, but finding a solution and implementing it is beyond their expertise.

It also doesn't help when you have scientists and guys like Al Gore exaggerating the truth or simply making false claims.

Climatologists "spouting" solutions? I think you're confused about "who"s and "what"s.

No. Some step beyond their field of study and go into activist mode. Maybe I should have used a nicer word than "spout"... but you "spout", I "spout", we all "spout".

Quoting Lyle: No. Some step beyond their field of study and go into activist mode. Maybe I should have used a nicer word than "spout"... but you "spout", I "spout", we all "spout".

It was, you're right, an imperfect verb. Add to that the generalization implied by your choice of noun ("climatologists") and you have a sentence that begs for an awful lot of support. Anecdotes won't do. And, keep in mind, prescriptive suggestions about mitigation would clearly be consistent with a climatologist's job description.

Quoting AemJeff: And, keep in mind, prescriptive suggestions about mitigation would clearly be consistent with a climatologist's job description.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Maybe it depends on how far they go with their prescriptive suggestions. It's debatable, I guess. I'd whether them stick to what evidence they generate and then give that information to the decision makers. Kind of like how lawyers and economists are supposed to act on a good day.

Quoting Lyle: I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Maybe it depends on how far they go with their prescriptive suggestions. It's debatable, I guess. I'd whether them stick to what evidence they generate and then give that information to the decision makers.

Yeah, 'cause that worked out so well with the Bush Administration.

Yeah, that's a good argument that can be made.

Ironically, in William F. Buckley's encounter with Gore Vidal, to which Matt Lewis referred, Buckley was being explicitly homophobic toward Vidal, saying: "Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered." A conservative Milk indeed!

Quoting bjkeefe: Almost as hilarious as Matt claiming that the big April 15th teabagging extravaganza is a "grassroots" thing.

Ahem.

Quoting bjkeefe: Almost as hilarious as Matt claiming that the big April 15th teabagging extravaganza is a "grassroots" thing.

And now this: $500/plate fundraising dinners for the "grassroots" teabagger movement. (via)

Quoting bjkeefe: Double entendre mistake aside, one fairly important thing for an advocacy group to do when pushing a new brand is ... register the domain, right? Oops -- registered yesterday, it appears. (via)

Here is a nice historical footnote in the comments at Wonkette, in which the domain registration was noted. (via)

Quoting bjkeefe: Almost as hilarious as Matt claiming that the big April 15th teabagging extravaganza is a "grassroots" thing.

More evidence of the Astroturf nature of the teabagger movement: orchestration by corporate lobbyists uncovered and still more on Fox News's promotional efforts. (via)

I have heard that not only is ACORN infiltrating tea parties, but also COBRA is going to make a big showing that day, too. Watch out, republican green party, bad guys are coming to stomp on your grass roots.

“This claim that only conservatives believe in these things is, in large part, hilarious. However, it is also somewhat offensive….” I didn’t so quit projecting. I simply stated the reasons why “The Incredibles” appeal to conservatives and stated nothing about those qualities being exclusive to liberals. Geez it doesn’t take much for you to go into a name-calling rant does it. Or you just caricaturing what a thin skinned, President Pantywaist voting statist might think.

Quoting sheryl: “This claim that only conservatives believe in these things is, in large part, hilarious. However, it is also somewhat offensive….”

I didn’t so quit projecting. I simply stated the reasons why “The Incredibles” appeal to conservatives and stated nothing about those qualities being exclusive to liberals.

Geez it doesn’t take much for you to go into a name-calling rant does it. Or you just caricaturing what a thin skinned, President Pantywaist voting statist might think.

But if you believed that those qualities were as prevalent on the left as they are on the right, then it would be nonsensical to call it a conservative movie.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... from Rachel Maddow, featuring guest Ana Marie Cox. Hilarious.

And now, David Schuster's take on the teabaggers. This is almost Daily Show quality. (h/t: Tom65, in a comment posted 04/14/09 at 01:35 PM on Rumproast)