Friday, April 23, 2010

Go Fuck Yourself, You Smug Fuckwad

Matt Yglesias writes:
Then Jim Manzi read Mark Levin’s book, focused his attention on its climate section, and discovered that Levin is a crank, liar, and/or know-nothing. The result? Manzi is savagely and hypocritically attacked by the staff of National Review. Because, after all, the crankery and the know-nothingness is the essence of conservative politics.

Bolding is FLG's.

This type of shit sets FLG the fuck off.  How about he turns it around?

Condescending assholery by elitist know-it-alls with Ivy League educations and a copious amount of intellectual hubris is the essence of liberal politics.

Are there cranks and know-nothings on the conservative side of the aisle?  Yes, but it isn't the essence of it and anybody with a Harvard education should fucking know better. Unless, of course, they are a smug douchebag.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your problem is that you are looking for truth here. Tom Friedman wrote stuff like that, was the lion at every party he went to, and ended up married to the daughter of a billionaire. It's a good road, and well travelled. dave.s.

Anonymous said...

Alright, because of last week's fight between conservatives -John Podhoretz and David Goldman with Jody Bottum and Michael Ledeen running interference- then the fight 2 weeks before between David Frum and his employers who were paying him a 100 grand to work, not blog about himself, then Frum's wife coming out again and attacking Sarah Palin as if we already didn't completely understand the Frums totally hate Palin, then there's the takeover of the financial sector by our government which is all in a day's work for O, I just have been on autopilot. I missed this latest street urchin fight. This one seems to be following O's maxim, if you bring a knife, we'll bring a gun. Manzi brought a gun to a street fight and he's shot himself in the foot. Let's see how, shall we?

I did not even know of Jim Manzi was until you mentioned in this space in the last 10 days. Have since learned he was at MIT and that explains why he was never on my radar. I just read what he wrote at NRO that started the streetfight, and frankly, do not even understand why he wrote it. He must have had issues in his private life and wanted to vent. This paragraph -the final one- is most telling:

"There are many reasons to write a book. One view is that a book is just another consumer product, and if people want to buy jalapeno-and-oyster flavored ice cream, then companies will sell it to them. If the point of Liberty and Tyranny was to sell a lot of copies, it was obviously an excellent book. Further, despite what intellectuals will often claim, most people (including me) don’t really want their assumptions challenged most of the time (e.g., the most intense readers of automobile ads are people who have just bought the advertised car, because they want to validate their already-made decision). I get that people often want comfort food when they read. Fair enough. But if you’re someone who read this book in order to help you form an honest opinion about global warming, then you were suckered. Liberty and Tyranny does not present a reasoned overview of the global warming debate; it doesn’t even present a reasoned argument for a specific point of view, other than that of willful ignorance. This section of the book is an almost perfect example of epistemic closure."

This is where conservatives -for the most part- are different than libs. Conservatives do get angry, very angry, at a breach in civility. Think of D'nesh D'souza and you start to understand what I'm talking about. His rudeness has flushed out Victor Davis Hansen. D'Souza now sits at Pat Buchannan's table at the Republican National conventions. Manzi's words are a classic breach in civility. It's obnoxious.

con'td..

Anonymous said...

...Ask yourself, how many people of the 17+ million who bought Mark Levin's book view Levin as a global science expert? The title of the book is what? Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. Where is the claim of global science expert in that?

Manzi is from MIT and so he should have more expertise at global warming however, I've done the math and he was at MIT when my uncle was the assistant director of admissions and so Manzi may not be as bright as you think...but let's accept that Manzi was actually qualified to get into MIT. Yes, no doubt the guy knows more than Levin on global warming science. Alright. Does that make Manzi more of an expert than Levin on Liberty and Tyranny, which is the book's topic?

Now yell at me all you like and tell me that Levin wrote a chapter on global warming where he *only* used the science that fit the premise of his book. Alright, fair enough. I agree based on reading Manzi's complaint. According to Manzi Levin did this. I have not read Levin's rebuttal because I don't care to. All I will add is how is this tactic different than most authors use? Think global wamrming expert and billionaire, Algore. If we are going to destroy Levin over it, then go after everyone, including Obama. O used to the same tactic to push through healthcare. There was a whole lot of ignoring of science, economics, facts and plain old constitutional facts with that government takeover. That willful ignorance will have a lot more effect on each American's daily life that Mark Levin's *flawed* chapter on global warming *science". Or is it man-made global warming *science*? The difference is people are free to buy or reject what Mark is selling. They are not free with Obamacare so that may just make it, dare I say it? tyrannical...which takes us back to Levin's book.

I do love how the American Scene characterized the NRO criticism of Manzi as "savage" and linked this as a prime example of savagery:

"Re: Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure [Andy McCarthy]
There will be more to say about this, and I imagine I won't be the only one to discuss it when time allows. But for now I would just observe that Jim Manzi's post on Mark Levin's widely acclaimed book is beneath him. No one minds a good debate, but Jim's gratuitously nasty tone — "awful," "Trilateral Commission," "wingnuttery," etc. — is just breathtaking. I've read a number of Jim's articles and posts over the years, including more than a few involving exchanges with other writers. He has always struck me as a model of civility, especially in his disagreements with the Left. Why pick Mark for the Pearl Harbor treatment?"

That is savage???? Hell no wonder young men are waxing themselves. They're a bunch of girls. McCarthy, who most days drives me nuts but I like him enough takes issue with Manzi's tone. Back to breach of the civility. But let's continue, shall we? Another savage attack on Manzi by NRO:

"Re: Liberty and Tyranny [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I love debate, as people here know, but to treat Mark Levin as a mere "entertainer" who was just looking for a bestseller is to not know Mark Levin or have taken his book seriously. Besides being entertaining, he's been a laborer on policy, legal, and political battles that have made substantive differences in the battle to preserve liberty from tyranny. There is heart and soul and years of experience in his book — and a heck of a lot more than cut-and-paste Google searching (!). He's heard a lot worse and can handle his own battles, but as one who has followed Mark's career, I found Jim's tone deeply disappointing. Especially at a time when Liberty actually is endangered and Mark Levin is not to blame."

Anonymous said...

...frankly FLG, you and I and others who comment here have been far more personally savage to K-J-Lo than she is being to Manzi. It is a gross to characterize this as "savage". If Ann Coulter had weighed in well then yes, we would have gotten savage.

But forget about that, the editor of NR has weighed in (like Jody Bottum had to) and he makes some excellent points as good editors should:

Re: A Long Reply [Rich Lowry]
Jonah, those are good points. I suspect three weeks from now the debate over "epistemic closure" will seem even more precious and overwrought than it does now. One last thing on the Manzi v. Levin business: The "epistemic closure" school says the kerfuffle proves there are things you can't say on NRO. But Manzi said a supposedly unsayable thing and Levin (and especially Andy McCarthy, who is always happy to hop into a foxhole with a friend) hit back and Manzi was free to reply however he wanted, which he did (engaging Andy at length and letting people judge his critique and Mark's response on the merits). This is called having a blog where people are free to disagree. As far as the merits of the global warming exchange, I'm at a disadvantage not having read Mark's chapter, but let me say this: 1) As a general matter, I've come to trust Jim's analysis on global warming over the years; 2) I'm sure that Mark nails where the other side is coming from on the issue, and that his skepticism about "the consensus" is even more justified than when he wrote about it a year-and-a-half ago"

"I'm sure that Mark nails where the other side is coming from on the issue,"

That is a succinct description of the topic of Mark's book, which is why 17+ million people bought it. After learning yesterday that Cap n'Trade will now regulate all the wood burning stoves in America - all of them - Mark is right on the money about statists and using global warming to accrue more power.

A global warming expert like Manzi ought to be thankful the truth about the power grab is getting out.


Mrs. P

Anonymous said...

Totally forget, s a former auto advertiser, this claim by Manzi is pure bunk:

e.g., the most intense readers of automobile ads are people who have just bought the advertised car, because they want to validate their already-made decision)


People don't read auto ads. They did back in the 50's. this is why auto ads no longer have any copy. But he a scientist and not an artist.


Mrs. P

Anonymous said...

totally forgot, Manzi is wrong here. totally wrong:

"e.g., the most intense readers of automobile ads are people who have just bought the advertised car, because they want to validate their already-made decision)"

I'm an old auto advertiser married to an auto advertiser who wrote auto ads that ran in the Superbowl as well as full page WSJ so he's really soup to nuts as far as experience. People don't read auto ads. That's seems to be from John Kenneth Gabraith's misguided understanding of the power of advertising. If people actually read auto ads, then there would be copy. But copy was gotten rid of decades ago.

The "the most intense readers of automobile ads" are dealers. Not those who just bought the car. Hell most of them didn't even read the ads before they bought the car.

Mrs. P

Anonymous said...

Oh $#@@$%&. I thought a comment I posred din't work so I posted again on same complaint. Delete if you wish. Fear not, I've had my say. not that you wanted to hear it anyway.

Mrs. P

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.