Quoting claymisher: I'm going to make a Mark Schmitt solo mix of this one, so if you're a Schmitt fan you might want to wait for it.

LOL!

Quoting claymisher: I'm going to make a Mark Schmitt solo mix of this one, so if you're a Schmitt fan you might want to wait for it.

Well you sure ain't afraid of Aryeh. Props for the creative workaround though. Just not sure it is going to fly.

The face that lobbied a thousand reps?

Quoting TwinSwords: LOL!

Good lord, I've got 40 minutes left to do and this is sooo boring (I'm used to listening to these while walking or something). McArdles not even being that bad this time.

I gotta agree with McArdle, Maxine Waters is nuts.

Oh hey, this is in stereo. I should be able to write a program to do this automatically.

Halfway done. This is killing me. I've never done any audio programming before ... could I do it in less time than it will take me to finish this? Probably not. Grr. This was a bad idea.

I give up. It wasn't going to make any sense anyway.

FWIW, it took less than a minute to split the mp3 into two mono tracks in Audacity, a Free Open Source audio editor. Almost all of that time was spent uncompressing the data back to samples. The separation is not total, however; muting the right channel, you can still hear Megan at low volume on the left. I won't bother to post it. I have to agree with someone above, however; Megan's not that bad this time.

So, Megan doesn't care for my congressional representative, Maxine Waters. Like Mark I couldn't mount much a defense for her either. By the way, the district is majority Hispanic and presumably in the not too distant future will be represented by one. Hopefully, instead of studying finance she is brushing up on her Spanish. John

Did anyone know that Megan is smart and went to business school?

Quoting lamoose: Did anyone know that Megan is smart and went to business school?

Yeah pretty much everybody. She also used to write for The Economist. That's definitely not assurance of a lack of disingenuousness.

Quoting lamoose: Did anyone know that Megan is smart and went to business school?

You come back after a 15-month absence, and that's your opener? lol

turns out to be false.
Witness his reaction to Megan debunking his Palin used Canadian socialized medicine as a child. I wish Megan would have called him on the dishonest "wither on the vine" talking point.
Labor Goes Too Far In A Medicare Ad

That's just dishonest. What Gingrich really said was that the Republicans believed the Medicare bureaucracy would wither on the vine -- not Medicare benefits.

Here's the full quote: "What do you think the health care financing administration is?" Gingrich asked. "It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."

Quoting sirfith: turns out to be false.
Witness his reaction to Megan debunking his Palin used Canadian socialized medicine as a child.

No, you're wrong. (And so is Megan, in all likelihood, but I'm not even going to watch a dingalink of her.) Palin (via her parents) did take advantage of the Canadian health care system (by her own admission) and when they did, it was already far more "socialist" than anything we propose to do via HCR here in the US.

This is interesting: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/265...7:22&out=41:24

Quoting bkjazfan: So, Megan doesn't care for my congressional representative, Maxine Waters. Like Mark I couldn't mount much a defense for her either. By the way, the district is majority Hispanic and presumably in the not too distant future will be represented by one. Hopefully, instead of studying finance she is brushing up on her Spanish.

John

No justice, no peace

Quoting AemJeff: Yeah pretty much everybody. She also used to write for The Economist. That's definitely not assurance of a lack of disingenuousness.

or an assurance of disingenuous...what does this mean Obiwan?

Quoting badhatharry: or an assurance of disingenuous...what does this mean Obiwan?

Just what it says. Megan's educational background is now quite a bit less useful than her substantial record of public utterances in judging her own usefulness as a pundit.

Quoting AemJeff: Just what it says. Megan's educational background is now quite a bit less useful than her substantial record of public utterances in judging her own usefulness as a pundit.

I think there's a lot more meaning stuffed into the phraseThat's definitely not assurance of a lack of disingenuousness. than that. (such an interesting use of double negative!) But I could be wrong.

Quoting badhatharry: I think there's a lot more meaning stuffed into the phraseThat's definitely not assurance of a lack of disingenuousness. than that.

But I could be wrong.

I have an opinion, obviously.

After having seen Megan McArdle's previous BHTV appearance, in which she shouted down Dayo Olopade at practically every turn, I was reluctant to give her another chance. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see a very different McArdle here -- actually appearing to listen to Schmitt, and allowing him to complete his thoughts without her constantly interrupting him in mid-sentence. This respectful approach made for a truer and more intelligible exchange of views. As was pointed out earlier here, McArdle is intelligent and often well-informed. By maintaining civility and respect, she showed that she can be thoughtful, and thus was able to argue much more persuasively than she had in her previous diavlog.

Quoting look: This is interesting:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/265...7:22&out=41:24

Why?

Quoting badhatharry: (such an interesting use of double negative!)

That wasn't a double negative.

Quoting Ray: That wasn't a double negative.

you're right. It was a triple negative. That's definitely not assurance of a lack of disingenuousness. This turns out to be a net negative by my calculation, which means the writer thinks Megan is not being genuine. Interestingly, this is not the same as saying that Megan is disingenuous, it merely hints at it and somehow scoops up her education and writing assignments as ancillary information. It was really quite cryptic, but I swear I'll get to the bottom of it some day. Further, I grant you this is not the typical way one counts negatives "I can't get no", but the outcome is the same, sort of. So there, Raymond.

Quoting listener: However, I was pleasantly surprised to see a very different McArdle here -- actually appearing to listen to Schmitt, and allowing him to complete his thoughts without her constantly interrupting him in mid-sentence.

It is always wise to appear to be listening, even when that is not the case.

Quoting badhatharry: It is always wise to appear to be listening, even when that is not the case.

I must say, harry, you're firing on all cylinders today.

Quoting badhatharry: you're right. It was a triple negative.

That's definitely not assurance of a lack of disingenuousness. This turns out to be a net negative by my calculation, which means the writer thinks Megan is not being genuine. Interestingly, this is not the same as saying that Megan is disingenuous, it merely hints at it and somehow scoops up her education and writing assignments as ancillary information. It was really quite cryptic, but I swear I'll get to the bottom of it some day.
Further, I grant you this is not the typical way one counts negatives "I can't get no", but the outcome is the same, sort of.

So there, Raymond.

Send me some smoke signals, when you do.

Quoting badhatharry: Why?

I appreciated her thoughts that subsidizing COBRA would allay the panic of the newly unemployed. Also, I think she's correct about the false hope of some training programs. I also thought it was interesting that Scmitt echoed the charming sentiment popular 'round here that McArdle it too self-referential. Also, and most importantly, I was trying to tweak Brendan...lol...did it work, B?

Quoting look: Also, and most importantly, I was trying to tweak Brendan...lol...did it work, B?

No, for the first parenthetical reason given here.

Quoting look: I also thought it was interesting that Scmitt echoed the charming sentiment popular 'round here that McArdle it too self-referential.

That is interesting. However I'm not sure I would call it a "charming sentiment," nor would I suggest it's something only hear "'round here." Rather, it's a widely understood limitation of Megan's view of the world. Far beyond the BhTV forum, Megan has a reputation for generalizing from her own personal experiences and feelings to the universe at large. Criticism like Mark offered in this case can be helpful. It often takes input from other people to force us to accept that we should do some things differently. Megan should not just stop talking in terms of her own limited personal experience. She should stop believing that her limited personal experience is a valid frame of reference for understanding the entire world. Unfortunately, this seems to be a deeply ingrained feature of her thinking, as evidenced by the fact that on nearly every topic she discusses, she immediately relates it to the job she just had, the boyfriend she just had, the car she just bought, the dog she once had, her dad, her

Quoting bjkeefe: No, for the first parenthetical reason given here.

Just so ya know, I'm not clicking that link.

Quoting look: Just so ya know, I'm not clicking that link.

Up to you. I'll remind you that it was in answer to a question you posed, though.

Quoting bjkeefe: Up to you. I'll remind you that it was in answer to a question you posed, though.

No can do.

Quoting TwinSwords: That is interesting. However I'm not sure I would call it a "charming sentiment," nor would I suggest it's something only hear "'round here." Rather, it's a widely understood limitation of Megan's view of the world. Far beyond the BhTV forum, Megan has a reputation for generalizing from her own personal experiences and feelings to the universe at large.

Criticism like Mark offered in this case can be helpful. It often takes input from other people to force us to accept that we should do some things differently. Megan should not just stop talking in terms of her own limited personal experience. She should stop believing that her limited personal experience is a valid frame of reference for understanding the entire world. Unfortunately, this seems to be a deeply ingrained feature of her thinking, as evidenced by the fact that on nearly every topic she discusses, she immediately relates it to the job she just had, the boyfriend she just had, the car she just bought, the dog she once had, her dad, her apartment manager, her street in Manhattan. Etc.

Hey, if nothing else at least it's funny!

As you know, Megan does not care what a

I love Schmidt but had to turn it off after the 3rd repetition of "ummm ... uhhh... the senate has its rules ... ummmm ... and (looks off to the side again) ... uhh rules are important". This woman is so arrogant, so smug, and so completely devoid of anything interesting to say. Can't take it. Bring on the solo Schmidt mix please - and please delete the parts where he's fanning away the noxious clouds of stupidity.

Quoting look: As you know, Megan does not care what a bunch of underwear sitters think.

Now, if you've a mind to, please extend my dingalink above to play to the 47:00 minute mark. She explains that she was not trying to generalize her situation to the entire planet.

Coming up next: look defends Sarah Palin's grasp of foreign policy, Don McLeroy's views on science and history, George W. Bush's command of the English language, and the moral consistency of Roy Ashburn.

Quoting badhatharry: Further, I grant you this is not the typical way one counts negatives "I can't get no", but the outcome is the same, sort of.

So there, Raymond.

It's a single negative, Harold, and the outcome isn't anything even remotely like a double negative.

Quoting look: I appreciated her thoughts that subsidizing COBRA would allay the panic of the newly unemployed. Also, I think she's correct about the false hope of some training programs.

I also thought it was interesting that Scmitt echoed the charming sentiment popular 'round here that McArdle it too self-referential.

Also, and most importantly, I was trying to tweak Brendan...lol...did it work, B?

Having been self-employed for eons, I am not conversant about COBRA. But from what I have understood it is a mandate that persons can, if they wish, pay the cost of their current group plan for a certain number of months after they have been severed. Also from what I have heard and experienced, paying for COBRA is no bargain and it used to be (when I looked into it) cheaper to find an individual plan albeit with a much higher deductible. You mention subsidization....does this mean that Uncle Sam picks up some of the cost, now? In that clip, Megan said she was unemployed for two years but then went on to say she was working in some capacity at the World Trade Center, so that didn't quite add up. I wonder if anyone takes into consideration that lots of

Quoting Ray: It's a single negative, Harold, and the outcome isn't anything even remotely like a double negative.

You're just wrong about this. Open up your mind to the true nature of language and how we use it to make our points and communicate subtle messages. We're not in third grade any more. Well, at least I'm not.

Quoting TwinSwords: Far beyond the BhTV forum, Megan has a reputation for generalizing from her own personal experiences and feelings to the universe at large.
Megan should not just stop talking in terms of her own limited personal experience. She should stop believing that her limited personal experience is a valid frame of reference for understanding the entire world. Unfortunately, this seems to be a deeply ingrained feature of her thinking, as evidenced by the fact that on nearly every topic she discusses, she immediately relates it to the job she just had, the boyfriend she just had, the car she just bought, the dog she once had, her dad, her apartment manager, her street in Manhattan. Etc.

Everyone does what you describe Megan doing. The only difference is that some people delude themselves into thinking that they are so broad minded and unbiased, that their view is in every way superior to others'. Silly them! Humility is key and usually comes with age.

Quoting badhatharry: Everyone does what you describe Megan doing.

in the sense that we all learn from experience, yes.

Quoting badhatharry: The only difference is that some people delude themselves into thinking that they are so broad minded and unbiased, that their view is in every way superior to others'. Silly them!

some people realize that their own experiences may be idiosyncratic and not represent some universal truth. these people will often see if there is other information besides their own experience to use in gaining understanding about issues. this is in fact the position with of those with some humility about the value of their own experiences and perceptions. Megan speaks in a way which gives the impression that she thinks every one of her experiences is some sort of window on TRUTH - the exact opposite of humility in my opinion.

Quoting popcorn_karate:
Megan speaks in a way which gives the impression that she thinks every one of her experiences is some sort of window on TRUTH - the exact opposite of humility in my opinion.

I guess I haven't listened to her or grown to dislike her as much as some here have. She just seems like an attractive, successful and very confident young woman. If I were on the lookout for nefarious motives for dismissing her, I suppose the aforementioned could be cited....that, added to the fact that she speaks from the right. But I'm not.

Quoting badhatharry:
We're not in third grade any more. Well, at least I'm not.

Which is just the type of comment that, in third grade, would be used in what we called a "rank-out session."

Quoting listener: Which is just the type of comment that, in third grade, we used to call a "rank-out."

I went to Catholic school and they didn't allow that. :-) It's just that this particular commenter is constantly correcting my grammar. Having attended Catholic schools, I think I have a pretty good, though certainly not perfect, grasp of the language, so that particular commenter needs to back off or I'll tell.

Quoting timba: I love Schmidt but had to turn it off after the 3rd repetition of "ummm ... uhhh... the senate has its rules ... ummmm ... and (looks off to the side again) ... uhh rules are important". This woman is so arrogant, so smug, and so completely devoid of anything interesting to say. Can't take it. Bring on the solo Schmidt mix please - and please delete the parts where he's fanning away the noxious clouds of stupidity.

This site should have mixes that do not grate against your senses. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
Honestly, people are so easily annoyed, such fragile brittle creatures some of you are. I get it, we all have our limits, but if she is your limit it says a bit more about you I think.

Quoting look: As you know, Megan does not care what a bunch of underwear sitters think.

Sure. She was born rich and connected, and has further managed to con her way into a number of lucrative gigs, her lack of a clue notwithstanding. And airily dismissing hippies is the coin of her realm. But I wonder if she cares what her colleague thinks, because it looks like he's reached the end of his patience regarding the good corporate behavior of uncritically linking to another part of his home site.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sure. She was born rich and connected, and has further managed to con her way into a number of lucrative gigs, her lack of a clue notwithstanding. And airily dismissing hippies is the coin of her realm.

But I wonder if she cares what her colleague thinks, because it looks like he's reached the end of his patience regarding the good corporate behavior of uncritically linking to another part of his home site.

You link to a post that calls your Sullykins is a dum-dum, and that helps your case how? And McArdle was born well-off and connected? Do tell. Conned her way in, huh? Let's see, I wonder how many heads had a head-start in life?
Meditate on this for awhile:

Honestly, people are so easily annoyed, such fragile brittle creatures some of you are. I get it, we all have our limits, but if she is your limit it says a bit more about you I think.
-JonIrenicus

Quoting badhatharry: Having been self-employed for eons, I am not conversant about COBRA. But from what I have understood it is a mandate that persons can, if they wish, pay the cost of their current group plan for a certain number of months after they have been severed. Also from what I have heard and experienced, paying for COBRA is no bargain and it used to be (when I looked into it) cheaper to find an individual plan albeit with a much higher deductible.

You mention subsidization....does this mean that Uncle Sam picks up some of the cost, now?

In that clip, Megan said she was unemployed for two years but then went on to say she was working in some capacity at the World Trade Center, so that didn't quite add up.

I wonder if anyone takes into consideration that lots of people work under the table while collecting unemployment. I hope this isn't too self-referential, but I have actually known a few people who have done just that.

I think she meant that COBRA would be subsidized by the government if HC is passed, but I'm not sure. The people who need COBRA are the ones who cannot find insurance. As

Quoting timba: I love Schmidt but had to turn it off after the 3rd repetition of "ummm ... uhhh... the senate has its rules ... ummmm ... and (looks off to the side again) ... uhh rules are important". This woman is so arrogant, so smug, and so completely devoid of anything interesting to say. Can't take it. Bring on the solo Schmidt mix please - and please delete the parts where he's fanning away the noxious clouds of stupidity.

At least watch this...it's good, I promise: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/265...3:45&out=54:33

Quoting look: You link to a post that calls your Sullykins is a dum-dum, and that helps your case how?

Well, for one thing, it proves your ability to read is about on par with your ability to keep your verbs in order. For pretty much everyone else, I think the point is clear enough not to need further elaboration.

And McArdle was born well-off and connected? Do tell.

Start here.

Conned her way in, huh?

Yep. Please tell me anyone else as devoid of experience, intelligence, or intellectual curiosity who has ever been hired at the Economist or Atlantic.

Let's see, I wonder how many heads had a head-start in life?

Let's see, I wonder how many 'heads have spent one-hundredth as much time as she has pretending to be self-made and/or insisting that those poor people should just start working harder and STFU?

Meditate on this for awhile:

Meditate on this:

Honestly, people are so easily annoyed, such fragile brittle creatures some of you are. I get it, we all have our limits, but if she is the place where you're choosing to make a stand it says a bit more about you I think.

Quoting badhatharry:
It's just that this particular commenter is constantly correcting my grammar.

Well, as I always say, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should."

Quoting listener: Well, as I always say, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should."

You mean, like you always say. ;^)

Quoting bjkeefe: Well, for one thing, it proves your ability to read is about on par with your ability to keep your verbs in order. For pretty much everyone else, I think the point is clear enough not to need further elaboration.

Start here.

Yep. Please tell me anyone else as devoid of experience, intelligence, or intellectual curiosity who has ever been hired at the Economist or Atlantic.

Let's see, I wonder how many 'heads have spent one-hundredth as much time as she has pretending to be self-made and/or insisting that those poor people should just start working harder and STFU?

Meditate on this:

B, try the decaf and open some windows for cross-ventilation; you're getting into one of your moods again.

Quoting bjkeefe: You mean, like you always say.

;^)

I suppose so, if only for the sake of internal consistency. But hey, what do you want -- good grammar or good taste? (Personally, I'd opt for Kent with the tasty asbestos-laced Micronite Filter.)

Quoting bjkeefe:

Start here.

Thanks for the link -- interesting background on McArdle. Not being a political junkie, I only knew her from her appearances on BHTV. Though Ames' article seemed questionably over-the-top polemical to me (for example, are we all to be held so accountable for who our parents are?), it certainly raised some serious concerns for me about McArdle's bona fides, and went a ways toward confirming the sense I've often had while watching her that she was just makin' stuff up. To that end, it was also interesting to read Ezra Klein's response to McArdle's post about national health care that was linked to in the article.

Quoting listener: Thanks for the link -- interesting background on McArdle. Not being a political junkie, I only knew her from her appearances on BHTV. Though Ames' article seemed questionably over-the-top polemical to me (for example, are we all to be held so accountable for who our parents are?), it certainly raised some serious concerns for me about McArdle's bona fides, and went a ways toward confirming the sense I've often had while watching her that she was just makin' stuff up. To that end, it was also interesting to read Ezra Klein's response to McArdle's post about national health care that was linked to in the article.

Speaking of that post by Ezra Klein: he neatly makes his first graf a perfect summation of the general case against taking Megan seriously:

In my chat today, a reader asked me to respond to Megan McArdle's lengthy case against national health insurance. The problem is that, well, there's not a lot to specifically respond to. In 1,600 words, she doesn't muster a single link to a study or argument, nor a single number that she didn't make up (what numbers do exist come in the form

Quoting look: B, try the decaf and open some windows for cross-ventilation; you're getting into one of your moods again.

Funny how you try to make this about "one of my moods" when all I've done is respond, point by point, to your almost entirely emotional outbursts. I think if I were a wingnut, I'd be furiously typing out AD HOMINEM!!!1! right about now, but I'll just snicker at your response instead. Facts are troublesome things, aren't they?

Quoting listener: Thanks for the link -- interesting background on McArdle.

y/w

Not being a political junkie, I only knew her from her appearances on BHTV. Though Ames' article seemed questionably over-the-top polemical to me (for example, are we all to be held so accountable for who our parents are?), it certainly raised some serious concerns for me about McArdle's bona fides, ...

Just for the record: I am not going to pretend that counts as anything close to a scholarly biography. It does, I grant, have the smell of a hatchet job. But as a response to the question that look posed, about how I could characterize McMegan as coming from a rich, connected background, I think it holds up. That was really my only point in supplying that link.

Quoting listener: I suppose so, if only for the sake of internal consistency. But hey, what do you want -- good grammar or good taste?

Good humor! (In this case, I mean. I also value the other two.)

(Personally, I'd opt for Kent with the tasty asbestos-laced Micronite Filter.)

I was a Winston man for years, before switching to Camels and then royos. Never liked the taste of Kents. Always tasted like "grandma cigarettes" to me; i.e., the kind you'd get when you stole from the grups. Back in my roofing days, though, I did like the cool, cool flavor of fiberglass in Salems. Tasted like victory. ;^)

Quoting bjkeefe: Tasted like victory.

;^)

Hey, now there's a winning slogan: "Viceroys -- they taste like Victory!" (and I like that subliminal message: Kool Kool Kool)

Quoting listener: Hey, now there's a winning slogan: "Viceroys -- they taste like Victory!"

(and I like that subliminal message: Kool Kool Kool)

Oh, yeah. I'm totally Slackmeyer's father.

Quoting bjkeefe: y/w

Just for the record: I am not going to pretend that counts as anything close to a scholarly biography. It does, I grant, have the smell of a hatchet job. But as a response to the question that look posed, about how I could characterize McMegan as coming from a rich, connected background, I think it holds up. That was really my only point in supplying that link.

Point taken, and agreed to.

Quoting bjkeefe: Oh, yeah. I'm totally Slackmeyer's father.

Sorry, got a bit lost with that last comment, which sent me scurrying to Wikipedia to search for information about Mark Slackmeyer and his father, Phil. I've enjoyed Doonesbury from time to time, but have not followed it closely enough to catch on to the the reference you were making in your post.

Quoting listener: Sorry, got a bit lost with that last comment, which sent me scurrying to Wikipedia to search for information about Mark Slackmeyer and his father, Phil. I've enjoyed Doonesbury from time to time, but have not followed it closesly enough to catch on to the the reference you were making in your posssts.

Yeah, that was a bit obscure. I apologize for not having the patience to track down the strip I was thinking of, and instead taking the lazy way out and hoping you'd remember that moment back in 1987 or whenever it was that Mark's dad got "downsized," and so had to take a new job shilling for Big Tobacco. Good on you for knowing which universe I was living in at that moment, though.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah, that was a bit obscure. I apologize for not having the patience to track down the strip I was thinking of, and instead taking the lazy way out and hoping you'd remember that moment back in 1987 or whenever it was that Mark's dad got "downsized," and so had to take a new job shilling for Big Tobacco.

Good on you for knowing which universe I was living in at that moment, though.

Aha, I get it now. Thanks for the explanaysh.

You think MSNBC doesn't grate on liberal sensibilities?

Quoting kezboard: You think MSNBC doesn't grate on liberal sensibilities?

Also ...

Quoting bjkeefe: Also ...

These two people
Are so super hyper mega ultra mecha liberal, they blot out everything else on the station. Pat is a paleocon, and even with the less insane joe, their non liberal lights are as easy to spot as this lantern light against the backdrop of the blazing sun.

Quoting bjkeefe: Funny how you try to make this about "one of my moods" when all I've done is respond, point by point, to your almost entirely emotional outbursts.

I think if I were a wingnut, I'd be furiously typing out AD HOMINEM!!!1! right about now, but I'll just snicker at your response instead.

Facts are troublesome things, aren't they?

Your point by point responses were mostly clever (not) rewordings or hyperbolic responses to what I asked or posted. According to the Exiled article you linked, the Atlantic is a rag, so even someone

devoid of experience, intelligence, or intellectual curiosity

should be able to get in. Also, the usual potty humor you are so enthralled with was present. Megan's father's work history was used to damn her, all but calling her a mob princess. It couldn't be possible that she knows how things work first-hand, and that she thinks the less government intervention the better? Or that she has a mind of her own, and Libertarianism resonates with her. No, she's a hypocrite! Last night you reached the point where, rather than answering the questions asked, you became bored with the conversation and found it too taxing to continue civilly. Words are apparently a penny per

Olbermann and Maddow are liberal, obviously. I haven't spent too much time watching Ed Schultz because I find him super irritating, but I guess he's liberal too, and so are some other MSNBC folks like Lawrence O'Donnell and David Schuster. But if MSNBC were the liberal Fox, they would not have Morning Joe on for three hours every single weekday. The only thing these guys do is fall for Republican talking points, and then sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell shouts at somebody, and then they ignore him and go to a commercial break. Matthews just sucks up to whoever's in power. He's not a liberal. Before there was the tingle up the leg, there was the flight suit and the manly characteristic. "He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief?" "Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's

Quoting AemJeff: Speaking of that post by Ezra Klein: he neatly makes his first graf a perfect summation of the general case against taking Megan seriously:

In my chat today, a reader asked me to respond to Megan McArdle's lengthy case against national health insurance. The problem is that, well, there's not a lot to specifically respond to. In 1,600 words, she doesn't muster a single link to a study or argument, nor a single number that she didn't make up (what numbers do exist come in the form of thought experiments and assumptions). Megan's argument against national health insurance boils down to a visceral hatred of the government. Which is fine. Megan is a libertarian. That's, like, her journey, man. But her attack on national health insurance seems a lot more about libertarianism than it is about national health insurance.

Do we have any Megan defenders who'd like to refute any of that?

The bolded is all you need to know about the quality of Ezra's argument. Like Megan's, his is off-the-cuff, but includes unnecessay snark.

Megan: Now, maybe government institutions could be made to produce innovations; I certainly think it's worth trying Dean Baker's suggestion that we should

Quoting look: The bolded is all you need to know about the quality of Ezra's argument. Like Megan's, his is off-the-cuff, but includes unnecessay snark.

How would you answer the bolded, Jeff?

Jeff?

What do those questions have to do with the point I highlighted in Ezra's piece? To wit: Megan doesn't argue, she asserts from an airily fact free perch and engages in ostentatious thought experiments while mostly avoiding tarnishing her pronouncements with anything so mere and grubby as evidence. The first bolded quote section is a pretty spot on characterization of her point of view - which I would uncharitably characterize as college-junior-besotted-with-Ayn-Rand. I don't know what you mean about Ezra being off-the-cuff, since his posts are fairly often extensively data-driven - and the presence of snark doesn't move me, as long as it has a point; and in the case you highlighted I obviously think it does. I can't respond to your dueling quotes, because I have no idea what point you're making there.

look - are you seriously suggesting that megan's upbringing doesn't affect the way she sees the world? now, i hardly think megan is unique in this respect (EVERYONE's perspective is colored by their experiences, wouldn't you agree?) - but she does seem to be more blatant in self-referentiality. btw, schmitt is such a gentleman.

Does anyone watch these shows? I mean what percentage of the pop watches the highest rated cable political show? (which is probably O'Reilly or Beck). Obviously the MSM cares who is winning these wars because they are these wars but do they really represent public opinion the way they might have in the days of Walter Cronkite? I concede to not knowing how much wag the dog influence they have, but that has to be the only influence they have?

Quoting themightypuck: Does anyone watch these shows? I mean what percentage of the pop watches the highest rated cable political show? (which is probably O'Reilly or Beck). Obviously the MSM cares who is winning these wars because they are these wars but do they really represent public opinion the way they might have in the days of Walter Cronkite? I concede to not knowing how much wag the dog influence they have, but that has to be the only influence they have?

Some data here. Short answer: a small percentage of the population. However, I'd say a couple of things have to be kept in mind. First, there is likely a strong correlation between those who watch cable news and those who are politically active. Second, and probably more important, what is said on these shows matters a great deal to many people who have power, both directly and to further shape opinion. (Gobs more here and here, it looks like, although I haven't delved into it yet.) On a related note, this short article in the NYT about online news consumption patterns may be of interest. ========== [Added] I see now that following links from the NYT story will get you to

Quoting nikkibong: look -

are you seriously suggesting that megan's upbringing doesn't affect the way she sees the world? now, i hardly think megan is unique in this respect (EVERYONE's perspective is colored by their experiences, wouldn't you agree?) - but she does seem to be more blatant in self-referentiality.

btw, schmitt is such a gentleman.

As I said above in post #72, it's possible her up-bringing could have helped lead her to her belief in Libertarianism, or any number of other outcomes. I'm arguing that calling her a hypocrite for the way she was raised as a child, over which she had no control, is not logical. As far as self-referentiality, so what? It's just a conversational hook. There are other Heads with annoying habits that are indulgently over-looked. Oh, well, enough Megan talk for me. It should be obvious that polite people don't continually skewer someone, time after time, when they appear. Also, if you have the interest, go to the McArdle/Althouse vlog and listen to Megan's humorous take on internet trolls who hate her (found in the first couple minutes of the 'troll' section), and the first few minutes of the last section, where Megan muses on why she is

Hannity and Colmes Toots. Hannity and Colmes. Alan Colmes is a what?

Quoting bjkeefe: However, I'd say a couple of things have to be kept in mind. First, there is likely a strong correlation between those who watch cable news and those who are politically active. Second, and probably more important, what is said on these shows matters a great deal to many people who have power, both directly and to further shape opinion.

Matt Yglesias touches on these points, as well, in a post titled "The Cable News Problem." (h/t: Twin, via PM)

Thanks for the link.

This article in yesterday's NYT was very germane to a part of this discussion. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/bu...olleges&st=cse The point at which Schmitt became impatient with McCardle's egotism concerned the efficiency of government retraining programs. So in the case of these private technical-professional schools, which tend to be quite expensive, a case can be made that the schools are not really private, because they are highly dependent upon government student loan programs. But my main reaction is to think that government is backing the wrong horse, that these programs should be in nonprofit community colleges, for the most part. Cut out the middle-men. In San Francisco, one of the largest owners of commercial real estate is a family whose primary business is something called the Academy of Art College, a private professional school for artists, designers, computer-aided designers and artists, etc. I appraised a number of their properties. It was difficult to tell if the family was in the private college business or the real estate business, presumably it was a combination of the two things. Again, the fees for going to the art college are quite high. Parenthetically, I recently got an email from the Berklee College of

Quoting ledocs: The libertarians we get on bhtv are not real libertarians, as far as I can tell. Even Matt Welch does not strike me as a real libertarian.

Hell no. Not this. Libertarians excommunicate each other enough as it is, we don't need others joining in our game. Look it's like this. You are a libertarian if you believe in Individualism, or if you consider yourself aligned with or are a member of the Libertarian Party. When you have a group which is opposed to traditional structures and beliefs on the grounds that individuals should be able to go their own way and do their own thing, it's pretty hard to get them to work together under a higher personality, goal, or organization. It's surprising there's any consensus at all! This is why getting libertarians to work together is like herding cats. As Megan McArdle said,

Ask two libertarians to define libertarianism and you'll get three answers

Lindsey, Welch, Wilkinson, and McArdle are all libertarians. As is Sanchez. As is Kling. Even Barr is a libertarian. You'd be surprised just how much they agree upon. And it all comes from basically a similar idea: Individuals should be allowed

Quoting Alexandrite: Hell no. Not this. Libertarians excommunicate each other enough as it is, we don't need others joining in our game.

That's not my problem, is it? I just don't get a real sense of what the minimal level of government is which the various self-described libertarians on bhtv think is either possible or desirable under contemporary conditions in the US, and I mean that I don't have a good sense of this in any individual case: McCardle, Wilkinson, Welch. Then there are the heads with libertarian leanings or sympathies but who probably would not describe themselves as libertarians: Goldberg, Douthat, Salam. And part of the problem is precisely that they don't talk to one another on the site, but they are typically talking to someone who is not a libertarian. The more I think about it, and the more exposed I am to it, I am coming to think that the left v. right diavlog model is not a good one. I would probably have a better sense of the limits of Wilkinson's libertarianism if he spoke regularly to Welch or McCardle, for example.

Quoting Alexandrite: it all comes from basically a similar idea: Individuals should be allowed to live up to their own decisions and decide for their own life.

The trouble is that in its quest to encompass all of the Libertarians on bhtv, this definition is going to catch all sorts of people that clearly aren't Libertarians. I, for one, have no problems agreeing to this statement, but I'm certainly not a libertarian, nor would the policy preferences I derive from that statement remotely resemble Libertarianism.

Quoting ledocs: This article in yesterday's NYT was very germane to a part of this discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/bu...olleges&st=cse

The point at which Schmitt became impatient with McCardle's egotism concerned the efficiency of government retraining programs. So in the case of these private technical-professional schools, which tend to be quite expensive, a case can be made that the schools are not really private, because they are highly dependent upon government student loan programs. But my main reaction is to think that government is backing the wrong horse, that these programs should be in nonprofit community colleges, for the most part. Cut out the middle-men.

Community colleges are the best deal going. Not just for regular associates degrees and prep for transition to completion at four-year colleges, but there are also programs, often 18-month certificates, that are designed in conjunction with local businesses looking for specific skills. And of course, the classes taken toward these certificates can be added onto toward a degree.

By the way, I've heard McCardle refer to her father on bhtv, one gets the impression that she loves and respects her father, as many people do, that's fine, but she represented him as a private-sector

Quoting look: I don't think Hawaii is the best example of the benefits of universal healthcare...I assume those working 20 hours per week are actually being subsidized by a booming tourist industry, not their fellow Hawaiians.

That could be, but this is not something which occurred to the Republican interviewees depicted in the segment. How Hawaii finances its system is irrelevant to the humor, or the horror, of the segment.

Quoting ledocs: That could be, but this is not something which occurred to the Republican interviewees depicted in the segment. How Hawaii finances its system is irrelevant to the humor, or the horror, of the segment.

Dumb interviewees. I'm always ready to come up with cogent responses when a camera is shoved in my face.

Quoting ledocs:
Many may already have seen this bit of "The Daily Show," in which Republicans visiting Honolulu for an RNC meeting are interviewed by John Oliver about health care, but it's both hilarious and depressing:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...-apparent-trap

Yes, I remember that bit, and it was devastatingly funny (and alarming in showing the blithe ignorance of self-contradiction). You raised a number of really interesting points in your post that I was not aware of regarding the cost of higher education and governmnent subsidies.

Quoting look: I don't think Hawaii is the best example of the benefits of universal healthcare...I assume those working 20 hours per week are actually being subsidized by a booming tourist industry, not their fellow Hawaiians.

why is tourism so much different than any other industry? If they had factories making widgets in hawaii - would only hawaiians buy the widgets? probably not, so it would be the national or international group of people buying widgets that would "really" be supporting the system, right? i don't think your point holds any water.

Quoting Don Zeko: The trouble is that in its quest to encompass all of the Libertarians on bhtv, this definition is going to catch all sorts of people that clearly aren't Libertarians. I, for one, have no problems agreeing to this statement, but I'm certainly not a libertarian, nor would the policy preferences I derive from that statement remotely resemble Libertarianism.

You probably actually don't believe in individualism. This is not a failing! All individuals make stupid decisions and this can cause very bad effects for themselves and others. It is abnormal to hold the belief that others should be allowed to do their own thing without your interference. We want to interfere in the lives of others. Some do this because it makes everyone better off, and some do it because it makes most everyone better off, and some do it because it makes a few people better off. Everyone gets the first half of libertarianism, the part about no one interfering with your life, but it's always the second half they get caught up on. Almost every libertarian who has ever commented on their beliefs on BhTV has at some point

Quoting Alexandrite: You probably actually don't believe in individualism....Everyone gets the first half of libertarianism, the part about no one interfering with your life, but it's always the second half they get caught up on....Are you seriously telling me you have no qualms with people buying and using drugs? Or engaging in free sex? Or letting people make contracts that have unkind wages and prices? Because if you do, then you're a libertarian!

But this is my point. In your earlier post, you suggested that "libertarianism" means agreeing with the thesis that individuals should be free to make of their lives what they want, yet this statement is sufficiently vague as to include people that radically disagree about policy. I read that statement, and I say yes, that should be a core value of our political decisions. The trouble is that I think that past discrimination, information asymmetries, corporate power and social norms often limit individual choice more than government action ever can, so it is often necessary to have government liberate individuals from their circumstances and correct market failures. I don't expect you to agree with this assessment, but isn't it clear that my ideology

Quoting popcorn_karate: why is tourism so much different than any other industry? If they had factories making widgets in hawaii - would only hawaiians buy the widgets? probably not, so it would be the national or international group of people buying widgets that would "really" be supporting the system, right?

i don't think your point holds any water.

Okay, I think you're right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of....28Historic.29