#16820: — 02/23  at  06:42 PM
Actually (at the risk of drawing hate mail from the libs), I will point out that Michael Moore comes close to being a left wing Ann Coulter, IMHO.

Michael Moore isn't even on the same planet as Ann Coulter. Moore is certainly a polemicist, and he's played fast and loose with the facts when is served his political point. Coulter oozes malicious, bloodthirsty glee and is completely unapologetic about it. She *revels* in this, in her persona as a vicious harpy. She also routinely lies all while striking a strident and arrogant tone. At worst, Moore occassionally distorts, uses footage without permission, and--apparently--Photoshops newspaper headlines that never existed. He's not even that liberal. He's a traditional labor Democrat with some environmental sympathies. Big deal. That puts him to the left of most elected Democrats--who got where they are by "compromising"--but it hardly makes him the socialist revolutionary that the right-wing media like to fantasize that he is. Please. Moore is dead in the middle of the left side of the political spectrum. He's not radical. He's a muckraker who breaks rules and covets the spotlight. Coulter, on the other hand, has opined that we should murder or covert all Muslims, and has openly wished death on the staff of the New York Times.

When Moore is given a seat as a mainstream liberal commentator on half a dozen Fox New Shows, let me know.

#16829: — 02/23  at  07:20 PM
On the one hand we have "conservative" political commentators with a website featuring often lucid analysis of unethical goings-on down at the sausage-making factory -- and who then shoot their own feet by allowing their witless religious unthink to manifest.

On the other hand, we have "progressives" who, while accurately observing that "the overwhelming majority of scientists support evolution…as they should, since it is the theory best supported by the evidence", nevertheless skitter and evade, all Hindrocket-like, the glaringly obvious fact that Marxism (the principle underlying the various and sundry loot-&-redistribute government policies they endorse) is abundantly obvious to be the worst (social) "theory" lending toward human betterment since The Prophet began his bloody rampage out of the Arabian desert 1,400 years ago.

A pox on *both* your houses -- Justice is you and Powerline with your hands around each other's throats for all eternity in a linear-thinking limbo -- you *deserve* each other.

(Meanwhile, the Sphere floats over Flatland, marveling at the depths of imbecility it observes.)

#16831: — 02/23  at  07:23 PM
The powerline attack on PZ's logic was flawed, and I told them so- my reading of the logic to them went like this:

"
I think the way you phrase the argument pharyngula (PZ Myers) makes about Hindrocket is incorrect. It seems as if the argument is not "Hindrocket knows nothing about biology, therefore he knows nothing about politics." It is rather "Hindrocket is prone to state right-wing talking points about topics he knows nothing about. Biology is definitely one such topic. One would hypothesize that all topics could be considered similarly mastered by Hindrocket." This would not a priori be a false hypothesis, but one could argue that it is not true based on Hindrocket's actual expertise in other areas (this would be considered falsifying predictions of incompetence based on Hindrocket's demonstrated incompetence about biology with demonstrations of his competence in other areas). This is known as the scientific method, and is also logical. PZ Myers, while harsh is also logical. Your comment in response seems less logical."

#16832: Abiola Lapite — 02/23  at  07:29 PM

I can then proceed to get my mineralogy info and political info from someone without “odd psychology” and who doesn’t believe in Sasquatch, ESP, communication with the dead, and the healing powers of crystals.

And how is any of this worse than believing that there's a bearded guy in the sky who sent his son to die for our sins, resurrected him on the third day, and is going to come any moment now to send us all into a pit of fire if we've been naughty? Do you extend the same scepticism to the 90% of your fellow citizens who are religious? Their beliefs are no less nutty than those you list.

I think in general that it is valid to be suspicious of people who confidently espouse nonsensical theories outside their areas of expertise, but then again, I think it is valid to be sceptical about what people say outside their own domains whether or not it sounds nonsensical to the ear. The fact of the matter is that all sorts of people confidently state things that are at variance with the facts as generally understood by specialists within the field - P.Z. Myers himself has commented many a time on here about economic matters without betraying a shred of doubt that his answers were right - and while the "suspect anyone who spouts nonsense outside his field" rule of thumb is useful, there can be no substitute in the end for looking at what people actually say when their own areas of interest are at issue.

Looking at what Myers has to say about biological matters, it is obvious to anyone with a half-decent biological education that he knows his stuff inside and out, while looking at what the Powerline people have to say on international affairs, history or economics, it is clear that the contributors, while undoubtedly sometimes given to rhetorical excesses that are common everywhere people take their politics a bit too seriously (even here, where libertarians and conservatives have been condemned en masse as fools, knaves and liars several times in the past), they are anything but "idiots" or "extremists," whether or not one agrees with their positions. To insist that they must be such because of some admittedly boneheaded statements on evolution by Hindrocket is simply to give the impression to non-camp-followers that one's mind was made up from the start to think the worst, objective considerations be damned. If everyone who insinuated that all those on the other side of the aisle were the dregs of the earth were an extremist, then this site too would qualify, as would 90% of politically opinionated sites with the exception of unrufflable types like Matthew Yglesias.

Powerline's archives are hardly state secrets, and trawling through them, although I disagree with maybe 50% of what they have to say, I just don't see the "idiocy" or "extremism" that so many are talking about here. I can understand why P.Z. Myers would be ticked off by assholes sending threatening messages and making obscene phone calls - I'd be mad as hell too if it were me, and I'd definitely call the police no matter what - but if Atrios isn't to be held to account for allowing his comment threads to degenerate into a cesspool of bigotry and extremism (as if he couldn't just shut down said comments section) I fail to see how Powerline's authors can be held responsible for the nasty behavior of mannerless fools they haven't ever corrresponded with in any way.

NB - For what it's worth, as far as the Rathergate memos are concerned, the folks at Powerline and LGF (which I detest) did get their story right, and the evidence is so crushingly in their favor at this point that it only damages one's credibility to deny as much; Charles Johnson may be all too happy to play host to any number of "nuke em all" crazies, but he does know his typography, as anyone can easily confirm by picking up a book or two on desktop publishing. Sometimes one simply has to give the devil his due.

#16833: — 02/23  at  07:37 PM
Andrew Wyatt: "Moore occassionally distorts, uses footage without permission, and—apparently—Photoshops newspaper headlines that never existed. He’s not even that liberal. He’s a traditional labor Democrat with some environmental sympathies. Big deal."

Let's get something straight, here: Michael Moore is a loathesome narcissist whose Marxist overtures to the envy classes and reflexive anti-American classes are merely a calcuated pitch to slide through life without any heavy lifting. He's simply a traveling con-artist who has found his niche -- a dowser plying his crop of suckers.

http://tinyurl.com/28hjy

#16834: — 02/23  at  07:40 PM
Unless, of course, they are labeled "Rethuglican."

It is interesting to see how, on the basis of the stated opinion of 1/4 contributors to a well-known blog that the proprietor of this site extrapolates that the entirety of the blog is, perforce, crap.

Sometimes the utmost of book-smarts can be hidden inside a little mind.

#16836: Chris Clarke — 02/23  at  07:42 PM
How fortunate we all are, Mr Schneider, that you have arrived to inform us all with your ex cathedra pronouncements. This discussion was lacking a fundamentalist propertarian's contribution. We are in your debt.

#16837: — 02/23  at  07:43 PM
#54: For what it’s worth, as far as the Rathergate memos are concerned, the folks at Powerline and LGF (which I detest) did get their story right, and the evidence is so crushingly in their favor at this point that it only damages one’s credibility to deny as much; Charles Johnson may be all too happy to play host to any number of “nuke em all” crazies, but he does know his typography, as anyone can easily confirm by picking up a book or two on desktop publishing. Sometimes one simply has to give the devil his due.

-- One needn't know the first thing about typography to determine that those memos were obvious facts; of far greater utility are their improper dates and preposterous justifications.

Watching leftists mount stumbling defenses of Rather and Moore is like watch rightists selling Creationism.

#16839: — 02/23  at  07:51 PM
#57: Chris Clarke — 02/23 at 07:42 PM
How fortunate we all are, Mr Schneider, that you have arrived to inform us all with your ex cathedra pronouncements. This discussion was lacking a fundamentalist propertarian’s contribution. We are in your debt.

[Drumming fingers.... Well, now....]

Two questions:

1. What on earth is a "propertarian" (let alone a "fundamelentalist" one)? If I ASSume it may have something to do with property, and that your objection is over my disparagement of Marxist attitudes toward same, may I ask you your opinion as to who rightly owns the shirt on your back, and by what logic you assert so?

2. Who's this "We" and "us" you refer to? Do you have a gerbil somewhere?

#16840: — 02/23  at  07:56 PM
Let’s get something straight, here: Michael Moore is a loathesome narcissist whose Marxist overtures to the envy classes and reflexive anti-American classes are merely a calcuated pitch to slide through life without any heavy lifting. He’s simply a traveling con-artist who has found his niche — a dowser plying his crop of suckers.

Apparently calling the elite on their lies and their abuse of power makes one a "con-artist", not to mention "loathesome" and a "narcissist". Peddle the baseless mudslinging somewhere else, please. Using the term "Marxist" as if it were a slander won't score you any points with me.

#16841: PZ Myers — 02/23  at  07:56 PM
I suspect the "we" and "us" must be all us Marxist and Trotskyites hanging out here.

Hey! All you communists! Go hide, the John Birchers are here!

#16842: DarkSyde — 02/23  at  08:01 PM
BTW PZ mail is coming back as undeliverable ... You getting slammed or something?

#16843: — 02/23  at  08:03 PM
Doodedoodoo-doodedoodoo-doodedoodoo...

You are now entering the Fallacy of the Excluded-Middle Zone, wherein any criticism of Marxism will instantly shift your ideological position (even if you don't have one) to that identical to John Birch. Or, at least, from the parallex view of Marxists, at any rate....

Doodedoodoo-doodedoodoo-doodedoodoo...

#16844: — 02/23  at  08:06 PM
Abiola,

"Do you extend the same scepticism to the 90% of your fellow citizens who are religious? Their beliefs are no less nutty than those you list."

You know that religion != scriptural literalism. You've been decidedly debunked by people more erudite than me on this site previously for extolling the social virtues of indulging the teeming joe-average-citizens in their religiously inspired irrationalisms. I think this is just another variation on that same theme.

Look, we're not saying that if you are a scriptural literalist that it's therefore impossible for you to learn to drive a car, use google, or write a complex sentence. We're saying that such a belief structure is inconsistent with the person functioning as an reliable authority when matters are in doubt.

I think Scalia's behaviour in December 2000 is quite a good example of why one shouldn't do this.

#16846: — 02/23  at  08:09 PM
#60: Andrew Wyatt — 02/23 at 07:56 PM
Apparently calling the elite on their lies and their abuse of power makes one a “con-artist”...

No. Lying while accusing opponants of same makes one a con-artist.

And: If Moore isn't the very "elite" you disparage, by all means tell me how many hundreds of millions of dollars one must possess before one achieves such an august title. (Does George Soros qualify yet?)

Using the term “Marxist” as if it were a slander won’t score you any points with me.

I am already acutely aware of the world burgeoning at the seams with rank hypocrites who squawl like scalded cats when the government they've authorized to plunder others drops by to pick up a measure of swag from *them*.

#16847: Ben — 02/23  at  08:10 PM
My politics tend to lean center-right (with a libertarian streak), and guys like Hindrocket embarrass the heck out of me, as do blatherers like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin.

Me too, but the sad part is that you seem to feel obliged to point that out. The only qualifier for being embarassed by the existence of Coulter et al should be that you have two brain cells to rub together.

2. Who’s this “We” and “us” you refer to? Do you have a gerbil somewhere?

Noooo! It's "Who's we, you got a turd in your pocket?" A perfect opportunity to use a Cartman line and it's wasted. WASTED!!

#16848: Chris Clarke — 02/23  at  08:11 PM
PZ, he's only sayng that because he didn't understand what a fundamentalist propertarian is. It's a common failing of those who derive their Weltanschauung from the two-axis libertarian political quiz. He probably doesn't believe there's such a thing as libertarian socialism, either.

Mike, rest assured that there's plenty of nuance here to describe you. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just to blow your mind: I'm not a Marxist, I'm a libertarian socialist.

#16849: PZ Myers — 02/23  at  08:13 PM
Yes, somebody is trying to break through...it started in the early hours of the morning. I slapped up a fairly indiscriminate firewall; sometime in the next few days I'll take the time to puzzle out what's going on and fine tune it a bit.

#16850: — 02/23  at  08:18 PM
IDIOT, n.

A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. The Idiot's activity is not confined to any special field of thought or action, but "pervades and regulates the whole." He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a dead-line.

IGNORAMUS, n.

A person unacquainted with certain kinds of knowledge familiar to yourself, and having certain other kinds that you know nothing about.

Dumble was an ignoramus,
Mumble was for learning famous.
Mumble said one day to Dumble:
"Ignorance should be more humble.
Not a spark have you of knowledge
That was got in any college."
Dumble said to Mumble: "Truly
You're self-satisfied unduly.
Of things in college I'm denied
A knowledge -- you of all beside."
Borelli

Ambrose Bierce

The Devil's Dictionary

#16851: — 02/23  at  08:21 PM
#67: Chris Clarke — 02/23 at 08:11 PM
PZ, he’s only sayng that because he didn’t understand what a fundamentalist propertarian is.

It's rather difficult to "understand" an undefined term. By all means, proceed to do so.

It’s a common failing of those who derive their Weltanschauung from the two-axis libertarian political quiz.

Am I to understanding that you're accusing such of me?

He probably doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as libertarian socialism, either.

"Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron inasmuch as it has absolutely nothing to do with liberty.

#16855: — 02/23  at  08:28 PM
He sounds like an anarcho-capitalist, and probably can't define anarchy properly. Great blog, BTW.

#16856: — 02/23  at  08:28 PM
I am already acutely aware of the world burgeoning at the seams with rank hypocrites who squawl like scalded cats when the government they’ve authorized to plunder others drops by to pick up a measure of swag from *them*.

Let me provide an example of this: Marxist-redistributionists (some of whom now label themselves libertarian-socialists) egg on a government to tax the "rich" (defined: anyone with money) and give to, well, them as much as possible. Later, they realize, to their sudden horror and consternation, that a government based on mob-rule (AKA "democracy") will, as a matter of inevitable probability, come to support redistribution toward projects of which they intensely disapprove -- such as Creationist school textbooks.

Oh, well....

Fools.

#16857: Chris Clarke — 02/23  at  08:28 PM
QED.

#16859: — 02/23  at  08:33 PM
> Myers has demonstrated a lot more than name-calling expertise, Lee. He demonstrated that the Powerline commentator was a moron talking out of the wrong orifice.

Do you mean that if I can come up with a more clever way than you can of saying Myers is a moron talking out of his butt, I win the argument? Wow. I'm, like, overwhelmed by the sheer Aristotelian force of your logic.

> It’s too bad you can’t bring yourself to admit that, Lee.

Let's review the arguments put forth:

> "OK, you’re stupid."

Wow. Sheer genius. Let's look at another.

> "It’s the usual whimper of fragile right-wing egos demanding that they be treated better than they treat others, while still insisting on holding the line on the ran foolishness of the original post."

Wow. Fragile right-wing egos. Foolishness. Stop me when you hear a real argument of any sort.

> "Either he knows better, and he’s lying, or he’s completely ignorant of what biologists say, and he shouldn’t be pretending to have knowledge he lacks."

I think this one's called "begging the question", but don't stop him now, he's on a roll.

> "He’s a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur for acting as if he does."

It just gets more impressive. Okay, I take it back. Myers is a genius. I mean, it would be just name-calling if I behaved like that, but I never knew name-calling could sound so positively erudite in the hands of the right guy.

> Funny, that’s an unfortunate trait shared by many self-
proclaimed “open minded” rubes who frequent sad empty blogsites like Powerline.

Sounds like you frequent the correct web site.

#16860: — 02/23  at  08:39 PM
#71: borelli — 02/23 at 08:28 PM
He sounds like an anarcho-capitalist, and probably can’t define anarchy properly.
I won't accept that term (AC), on the (I confess purely pragmatic) grounds that it freights in the baggage of hundreds of years' worth of mangled concepts.

But you insist, I'm down with Roy Childs, as expressed here:
http://no-treason.com/wild/Childs_Open_Letter_to_Rand.html