Ross Douthat spews all over himself in his political man-crush on Tom Coburn. "A Serious Man"? Not even close. A serious bat-shit crazy, antiscientific global warming denialist? A serious obstructionist of Congress less on idealistic principles than on gnat-straining for gnat-straining's sake? Check.
I would say Douthat hit a new low in shark-jumping, but this column isn't even that. Rather, it's a new low in intellectual laziness; he seemingly just mailed in this one.
December 13, 2010
December 12, 2010
Spare me the "Obama CAN'T get mad" because ...
He'd be seen as an angry black man. Unfortunately, the NYT let that craptacular idea run in its Sunday op-eds.
Ismael Reed needs to read the new book by WaPost columnist Eugene Robinson, "DisIntegration."
Ismael Reed needs to read the new book by WaPost columnist Eugene Robinson, "DisIntegration."
Memory, time and change
A poem on change, influenced by the book, "How Philosophy can Change Your Life."
Memory's malleability and time's tempo
Play out life in complex 7/8 rhythm
Like free verse that shifts mood, mode and meaning
Midstream.
An unconscious under-rhythm, more than mere backbeat,
Is each individual's I Ching
A changing round of changes on the them of change.
Nature is a humanist, with contradictions writ large.
Memory's malleability and time's tempo
Play out life in complex 7/8 rhythm
Like free verse that shifts mood, mode and meaning
Midstream.
An unconscious under-rhythm, more than mere backbeat,
Is each individual's I Ching
A changing round of changes on the them of change.
Nature is a humanist, with contradictions writ large.
Assange, the MSM, the Constitution and more
First, a British newspaper knows the Constitution of the United States better than many top-level American journalists, or politicians -- both of whom, in incestuous embrace, salivate over the possibility of us "getting" WikiLeaks mastermind Julian Assange.
Just one problem — any crimes allegedly committed by Assange are extraterritorial of the United States, therefore, as the Guardian notes, it would be unconstitutional to prosecute him.
Of course, with U.S. courts showing a fellatio-level degree of subservience to "executive authority," especially as part of the hyperinflationary "War on Terror," the theoretical is likely to have little effect on the actual.
Next, the latest WikiLeaks revelations roundup:
The U.S. has been even more active in bolstering authoritarian governments in Muslim-majority nations than previously revealed.
Two problems with this.
The first:
And the second:
AND, **big kudo** to McClatchy in this story for identifying the Brookings Institution as "center-left." (It's not that liberal.) Here's its WikiLeaks coverage webpage. Since it's better than general than most MSM newspaper companies on challenging the conventional Beltway wisdom, a good one to bookmark. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/wikileaks/
It gets worse ...
We had an Afghan drug lord on the CIA *and* DEA payroll.
If Amazon caved to the U.S. government (which it did, despite its denial), would it cave to China? Not sell certain books there? What does this say for cloud computing in the future? More questions the Guardian asks that U.S. media largely aren't.
Tying Pfc. Manning to Assange might be difficult. Plus, are all the cables from Manning anyway? http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/10/105110/wikileaks-tying-assange-to-manning.html
Additional thoughts from Australia's The Age on Anna Ardin and the allegations against Assange.
And from Feministing.com founder Jessica Valenti, who isn't as strident on this issue and gender feminism as a certain Stephanie Zvan.
Just one problem — any crimes allegedly committed by Assange are extraterritorial of the United States, therefore, as the Guardian notes, it would be unconstitutional to prosecute him.
It's well established that the due process clause places limits on such sweeping assertions of power. For example, when foreign monopolies manipulate prices overseas, it's not enough to show that they have hurt American consumers. Courts insist on evidence that they had fair notice that American anti-trust laws would govern their activity.
Of course, with U.S. courts showing a fellatio-level degree of subservience to "executive authority," especially as part of the hyperinflationary "War on Terror," the theoretical is likely to have little effect on the actual.
Next, the latest WikiLeaks revelations roundup:
The U.S. has been even more active in bolstering authoritarian governments in Muslim-majority nations than previously revealed.
Two problems with this.
The first:
"This kind of feeds the al Qaida narrative, that we're doing it everywhere," said Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington and a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration.
And the second:
Peter Singer, the director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the center-left Brookings Institution in Washington, said(this type and degree of support) illustrates the dangers of U.S. forces relying on local allies who have other objectives.
"There are no guarantees that our ally might not also use the tools against another of their enemies — indeed, they would be almost remiss not to," Singer said. "The end result is that you may get the action you may have wanted, but you also incur all sorts of unexpected side effects, including in these cases being drawn into local disputes that aren't fully in our strategic interests."
AND, **big kudo** to McClatchy in this story for identifying the Brookings Institution as "center-left." (It's not that liberal.) Here's its WikiLeaks coverage webpage. Since it's better than general than most MSM newspaper companies on challenging the conventional Beltway wisdom, a good one to bookmark. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/wikileaks/
It gets worse ...
We had an Afghan drug lord on the CIA *and* DEA payroll.
If Amazon caved to the U.S. government (which it did, despite its denial), would it cave to China? Not sell certain books there? What does this say for cloud computing in the future? More questions the Guardian asks that U.S. media largely aren't.
Tying Pfc. Manning to Assange might be difficult. Plus, are all the cables from Manning anyway? http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/10/105110/wikileaks-tying-assange-to-manning.html
Additional thoughts from Australia's The Age on Anna Ardin and the allegations against Assange.
And from Feministing.com founder Jessica Valenti, who isn't as strident on this issue and gender feminism as a certain Stephanie Zvan.
Salon's theater critic knows bupkis
First, on page 2 of a 10-page slideshow about the best Shakespearean movies, Matt Zoller Seitz insults Orson Welles in his weighty later life, apparently believing he was born fat:
But, it gets much worse.
Omitting Welles' Macbeth entirely in his discussion of best movie versions of that play?
Instead, Welles' Macbeth, with his excellent use of shadows, Jacques Ibere's excellent musical score and more, is head and shoulders above Polanski's version, with Seitz ignorantly tabs as his No. 1.
Add in the fact that he omits the Burton/Taylor version of Taming of the Shrew, even from his "Wild Card" (the wild card here being the fact of art imitating life) and he appears even more clueless.
I must acknowledge Orson Welles' 1966 epic "Chimes at Midnight," a low-budget labor of love that stitches together bits of several Shakespeare plays, including "Henry IV Parts I and II," "Henry V," "Richard II" and "The Merry Wives of Windsor." Welles wrote the script, directed and costars as Falstaff — pretty much the only great Shakespeare part that such a huge actor could convincingly play.
But, it gets much worse.
Omitting Welles' Macbeth entirely in his discussion of best movie versions of that play?
Instead, Welles' Macbeth, with his excellent use of shadows, Jacques Ibere's excellent musical score and more, is head and shoulders above Polanski's version, with Seitz ignorantly tabs as his No. 1.
Add in the fact that he omits the Burton/Taylor version of Taming of the Shrew, even from his "Wild Card" (the wild card here being the fact of art imitating life) and he appears even more clueless.
Libertarianism, skepticism shouldn't be mixed
A point for pondering: Maybe worries about conflating libertarianism and skepticism by some skeptics are of more concern in the abstract than in the concrete.
A second point for pondering: Specific to SkepticBlog and potential racialism issues, not libertarian ones, don't you think the NAACP, etc., and not just some of your readers, would vehemently protest an attempt at a PBS show, if they knew that?
A third point, which I won't try to cram in this blog is — let's not forget the third person of the unholy trinity, Pop Evolutionary Psychology. It, like racialism, IMO, has a fair amount of overlap with libertarian political beliefs.
The potentially extended about dangers of mixing libertarianism and skepticism? Look at SkepticBlog and some of its recent posts, especially by Michael Shermer and Brian Dunning.
Dunning first, to focus on him and the issue of whether or not he's a libertarian.
Brian Dunning is currently engaged in bald-faced denialism of his libertarian sourcing, especially Steve Milloy's JunkScience.
Of course, here's why Dunning's such a denialist — Milloy's blatant denialism on global warming is trumpeted on the front page of JunkScience:
It's clear from that that Milloy engages in pseudoscience. Dunning was busted on using this website as a source, so hides his embarrassment at his ideological bias being discovered by raging against critics allegedly engaged in conspiracy theories, distortions, not telling him his errors and more.
Steven Novella originally got snookered by Milloy years ago and refusing to weigh in on Dunning's defense of "accidentally using" Milloy now.
Regarding that:
Well, considering that Dunning refuses to pull in his horns, AND that Novella has yet to put up his own post on Skepticblog about this at all, I doubt Dunning would have "steered away." Shermer hasn't steered away from worse; rather, he's gone swimming in it again.
Now Shermer, on issues of both libertarianism and racialism.
Shermer has been a libertarian of long standing. Outside this blog, as editor of Skeptic magazine, he's been an "enabler" of racialist Frank Miele for what, more than a decade now. Fellow racialist and co-author of "Race" with Miele, Vincent Sarich, is on the editorial board; Miele is listed as "senior editor."
(Related to this, here's my review of the Miele/Sarich book "Race."
And, my post on how this relates to Shermer ... which in turn relates to the analogies I'm drawing in this post.)
And, in for a penny, in for a pound on racialism. Dunning's snarky comment, on his website, about U.S. white liberals' alleged pseudo-concern for sub-Saharan Africans, not only is to me incidental supporting evidence for him being a libertarian, it also raises the question, to me, of whether he has any racialist thoughts rattling around in his braincage. (See how racialism can at least piggyback on libertarianism in one of my comments below.)
That said, the snark goes less to raising the flag of what his stance on racial issues might be than it goes to support for his being a libertarian (other incidental support, I mention in another comment), but, in part given that Shermer's fluffing of Miele on SkepticBlog is what really set me off, it raises my antennae.
Add, speaking of that, Skepticblog partner No. 4 (more on "partner" below) Daniel Loxton claimed that Shermer was past that, on a comment to a skeptic friend's Facebook post about a month ago. That makes almost half of the group, four of ten, having some degree of question mark over their heads on conflating libertarianism and skepticism.
Now, about that "partner" talk?
With 10 different members, I say it's a legitimate analogy to compare SkepticBlog to a law firm, with each blogger a "partner" similar to those at a law firm.
And, based on my experience with a with a particular political blog, Daily Kos, we're going to take that analogy in a particular direction.
Back about four years ago, Armando Llorens-Sar was Kos founder Markos Moulitsas' right-hand man. But, many people including me, asked and kept asking why he was refusing to reveal the name of the law firm where he "worked." He claimed it was because it could hurt his business.
Not quite. It turned out he was a partner at the firm, as opposed to "working" there. It a corporate representational firm which had some clients, such as Clorox and Walmart, taboo to many liberals.
I noted on Kos, before being banned, that Armando could have sold out of his partnership or asked to be bought out and how he ignored this idea. Note that a similar analogy applies here, to getting rid of Shermer and Dunning, or else others starting a new group blog. The six "silent partners," or the six + two, if you count the "abetting" duo of Loxton and Novella, have their chance to stand up for skeptical credibility, principle and practice. (Note: The "abetting" is in scare quotes; per Leo's comment below, Loxton at least has spoken on SkepticBlog about this and been ridiculed. That, in turn, gets back to the "partnership" issue and whether, or not, he and Novella believe further action on their part is warranted.)
Next, I'm going to move beyond analogies to personal experience.
I can speak about the down side, or simply the "groups representation" issues, of group blogging from a personal perspective.
About four years ago, I was asked to become part of a joint political blog. But, on a number of specific issues and ultimately, on the rise of Obama, it became clear that others there, especially the co-founders of the blog, were "Democrats right or wrong" type liberals, who didn't to engage in critical analysis of politics and stances in general, or just who Obama was — or was not — in particular.
So, I was eventually "asked to leave." (The primary co-founder wound up becoming Steve Benen's "woman Friday" at Washington Monthly, illustrating just how much of a craptacular "Democrats right or wrong" person she was, and is.
Anyway, I realized I was a square peg in a Kos-type blog, and wasn't going to convert any other bloggers. And, especially not being a "senior partner," I accept that others had the right to boot me, etc.
So, the law-partnership analogy has a personal side.
And, that's the other place in which my observations are grounded. Ergo, by analogy with my group blogging experience, contra Loxton and Novella writings elsewhere, my observation is that the libertarian "issue" on SkepticBlog must not be THAT big of a deal to them there. Or, to put it another way, maybe the worries about conflating libertarianism and skepticism are of more concern in the abstract than in the concrete.
Yes, that is provocative beyond the original version of this post. And, it's meant to be, but NOT in a Brian Dunning way.
I'll now wrap up with a few final thoughts.
As it stands, this conflation of skepticism and libertariansim is bad for skepticism in a number of ways. Credibility, confusion of what skepticism is and more all result.
Specifics?
Some people may thing that there's a litmus test on political skepticism, i.e., you're not a good enough skeptic unless you're a libertarian. Others may think that the skeptical enterprise has an inherent bias. (Note the explicit libertarianism of Pop Ev Psycher Steve Pinker, for a parallel.) And more.
Now, if like Howard Gardiner apparently did on religious belief to a degree, if Shermer and Dunning want to compartmentalize their skepticism, fine. Just be honest about it!
And, if you ARE going to do that, then you can't judge other people's skepticism, either.
UPDATE, Oct. 29, 2011: Welcome, Skeptic's Guide to the Universe readers. I don't have a "vendetta" against Skepticblog, just against ideology masquerading as skepticism. Brian Dunning and Michael Shermer both do it regularly with their libertarianism. (So does non-Skepticblog Skeptic Penn Jillette, the magician.) Shermer also leaves himself "open" to critical purview otherwise, for having known racialists on his magazine's masthead.
Why pointing these things out should be considered a possible "problem," I don't know.
And, if you'll click either the skepticism or pseudoskepticism tags, you'll note that I take a skeptical eye at skeptics outside the magazine, like the above-named Penn and others who are Gnu Atheist evangelists, or even occasionally a Chris Mooney type.
UPDATE, Dec. 3, 2011: And now, claiming the Kyoto Accord was more politics than science, Dunning once again shows us why he's NOT a real skeptic. If we're lucky, a federal court will put him on ice for a few years.
A second point for pondering: Specific to SkepticBlog and potential racialism issues, not libertarian ones, don't you think the NAACP, etc., and not just some of your readers, would vehemently protest an attempt at a PBS show, if they knew that?
A third point, which I won't try to cram in this blog is — let's not forget the third person of the unholy trinity, Pop Evolutionary Psychology. It, like racialism, IMO, has a fair amount of overlap with libertarian political beliefs.
The potentially extended about dangers of mixing libertarianism and skepticism? Look at SkepticBlog and some of its recent posts, especially by Michael Shermer and Brian Dunning.
Dunning first, to focus on him and the issue of whether or not he's a libertarian.
Brian Dunning is currently engaged in bald-faced denialism of his libertarian sourcing, especially Steve Milloy's JunkScience.
Of course, here's why Dunning's such a denialist — Milloy's blatant denialism on global warming is trumpeted on the front page of JunkScience:
Now that the most absurd but potentially catastrophic junk science in human history is unraveling and we are preparing to declare victory over gorebull warbling we can devote more attention to neglected junk.
Taking Liberty -- How Private Property is being Abolished in America
Click here to jump straight to the global warming (a.k.a. "climate change", "global weirding", "people are icky, nasty, weather-breaking critters"... ) section if you so desire.
It's clear from that that Milloy engages in pseudoscience. Dunning was busted on using this website as a source, so hides his embarrassment at his ideological bias being discovered by raging against critics allegedly engaged in conspiracy theories, distortions, not telling him his errors and more.
Steven Novella originally got snookered by Milloy years ago and refusing to weigh in on Dunning's defense of "accidentally using" Milloy now.
Regarding that:
An irony in all of this is that if you go back and listen to early episodes of SGU, the Novella gang praised junkscience as a reputable website. They even had Milloy on to talk about his website (didn't discuss DDT, as far as I can remember). But you can tell that red flags were raised during the interview with Steve Novella, when Milloy was using language suggesting an ideological bias when discussing certain issues. And after that interview, SGU never mentioned junkscience again, except when criticizing it in an interview (I think, with Christopher Mooney). If only Brian had been privy to those early episodes, he may have steered away from the site all-together.
Well, considering that Dunning refuses to pull in his horns, AND that Novella has yet to put up his own post on Skepticblog about this at all, I doubt Dunning would have "steered away." Shermer hasn't steered away from worse; rather, he's gone swimming in it again.
Now Shermer, on issues of both libertarianism and racialism.
Shermer has been a libertarian of long standing. Outside this blog, as editor of Skeptic magazine, he's been an "enabler" of racialist Frank Miele for what, more than a decade now. Fellow racialist and co-author of "Race" with Miele, Vincent Sarich, is on the editorial board; Miele is listed as "senior editor."
(Related to this, here's my review of the Miele/Sarich book "Race."
And, my post on how this relates to Shermer ... which in turn relates to the analogies I'm drawing in this post.)
And, in for a penny, in for a pound on racialism. Dunning's snarky comment, on his website, about U.S. white liberals' alleged pseudo-concern for sub-Saharan Africans, not only is to me incidental supporting evidence for him being a libertarian, it also raises the question, to me, of whether he has any racialist thoughts rattling around in his braincage. (See how racialism can at least piggyback on libertarianism in one of my comments below.)
That said, the snark goes less to raising the flag of what his stance on racial issues might be than it goes to support for his being a libertarian (other incidental support, I mention in another comment), but, in part given that Shermer's fluffing of Miele on SkepticBlog is what really set me off, it raises my antennae.
Add, speaking of that, Skepticblog partner No. 4 (more on "partner" below) Daniel Loxton claimed that Shermer was past that, on a comment to a skeptic friend's Facebook post about a month ago. That makes almost half of the group, four of ten, having some degree of question mark over their heads on conflating libertarianism and skepticism.
Now, about that "partner" talk?
With 10 different members, I say it's a legitimate analogy to compare SkepticBlog to a law firm, with each blogger a "partner" similar to those at a law firm.
And, based on my experience with a with a particular political blog, Daily Kos, we're going to take that analogy in a particular direction.
Back about four years ago, Armando Llorens-Sar was Kos founder Markos Moulitsas' right-hand man. But, many people including me, asked and kept asking why he was refusing to reveal the name of the law firm where he "worked." He claimed it was because it could hurt his business.
Not quite. It turned out he was a partner at the firm, as opposed to "working" there. It a corporate representational firm which had some clients, such as Clorox and Walmart, taboo to many liberals.
I noted on Kos, before being banned, that Armando could have sold out of his partnership or asked to be bought out and how he ignored this idea. Note that a similar analogy applies here, to getting rid of Shermer and Dunning, or else others starting a new group blog. The six "silent partners," or the six + two, if you count the "abetting" duo of Loxton and Novella, have their chance to stand up for skeptical credibility, principle and practice. (Note: The "abetting" is in scare quotes; per Leo's comment below, Loxton at least has spoken on SkepticBlog about this and been ridiculed. That, in turn, gets back to the "partnership" issue and whether, or not, he and Novella believe further action on their part is warranted.)
Next, I'm going to move beyond analogies to personal experience.
I can speak about the down side, or simply the "groups representation" issues, of group blogging from a personal perspective.
About four years ago, I was asked to become part of a joint political blog. But, on a number of specific issues and ultimately, on the rise of Obama, it became clear that others there, especially the co-founders of the blog, were "Democrats right or wrong" type liberals, who didn't to engage in critical analysis of politics and stances in general, or just who Obama was — or was not — in particular.
So, I was eventually "asked to leave." (The primary co-founder wound up becoming Steve Benen's "woman Friday" at Washington Monthly, illustrating just how much of a craptacular "Democrats right or wrong" person she was, and is.
Anyway, I realized I was a square peg in a Kos-type blog, and wasn't going to convert any other bloggers. And, especially not being a "senior partner," I accept that others had the right to boot me, etc.
So, the law-partnership analogy has a personal side.
And, that's the other place in which my observations are grounded. Ergo, by analogy with my group blogging experience, contra Loxton and Novella writings elsewhere, my observation is that the libertarian "issue" on SkepticBlog must not be THAT big of a deal to them there. Or, to put it another way, maybe the worries about conflating libertarianism and skepticism are of more concern in the abstract than in the concrete.
Yes, that is provocative beyond the original version of this post. And, it's meant to be, but NOT in a Brian Dunning way.
I'll now wrap up with a few final thoughts.
As it stands, this conflation of skepticism and libertariansim is bad for skepticism in a number of ways. Credibility, confusion of what skepticism is and more all result.
Specifics?
Some people may thing that there's a litmus test on political skepticism, i.e., you're not a good enough skeptic unless you're a libertarian. Others may think that the skeptical enterprise has an inherent bias. (Note the explicit libertarianism of Pop Ev Psycher Steve Pinker, for a parallel.) And more.
Now, if like Howard Gardiner apparently did on religious belief to a degree, if Shermer and Dunning want to compartmentalize their skepticism, fine. Just be honest about it!
And, if you ARE going to do that, then you can't judge other people's skepticism, either.
UPDATE, Oct. 29, 2011: Welcome, Skeptic's Guide to the Universe readers. I don't have a "vendetta" against Skepticblog, just against ideology masquerading as skepticism. Brian Dunning and Michael Shermer both do it regularly with their libertarianism. (So does non-Skepticblog Skeptic Penn Jillette, the magician.) Shermer also leaves himself "open" to critical purview otherwise, for having known racialists on his magazine's masthead.
Why pointing these things out should be considered a possible "problem," I don't know.
And, if you'll click either the skepticism or pseudoskepticism tags, you'll note that I take a skeptical eye at skeptics outside the magazine, like the above-named Penn and others who are Gnu Atheist evangelists, or even occasionally a Chris Mooney type.
UPDATE, Dec. 3, 2011: And now, claiming the Kyoto Accord was more politics than science, Dunning once again shows us why he's NOT a real skeptic. If we're lucky, a federal court will put him on ice for a few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)