« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Epistemic Nonsense – Count Me on Team Levin

Yesterday, our good friend Mark Levin was attacked on The Corner over at National Review Online by one of his fellow contributors there, Jim Manzi. I am not going to link to his hit piece. I found it to be beneath what I thought I knew of him and beneath The Corner. That said, Mark certainly dishes it out pretty hard on his radio show and otherwise, so I am not worried about his feelings in this instance.

What I am concerned about, however, is the extent to which those who fancy themselves conservative intellectuals – folks like Manzi, Frum, Douthat, Brooks, Sullivan and others – believe they are the second coming of Bill Buckley (hardly), but dismiss talk radio show hosts (and forums like RedState) as nothing more than blowhard hacks who pour out their own koolaid for the slobbering masses, too stupid to know the difference.

I have neither the desire and time nor the expertise to analyze in detail Manzi’s specific criticisms of Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny – most of which centered on the chapter on what Mark calls Enviro-Statism. What is striking about his burn-the-forest-down-to-find-the-tree approach is that it dismisses Mark’s book in entirety because he disagrees with some of the sourced (Mark’s book is well documented with numerous footnotes) material Mark provides in this one section in particular. And Manzi does so rather violently… accusing Mark of “epistemic closure.”

Now, I had to look that term up. Cuz I ain’t as smart as those guys who sit around in circles over at the New Republic, the New York Times, and increasingly, sadly on occasion, the National Review, and blather on endlessly about topics that would make even wonky professors’ eyes roll, much less a regular-old American like me who enjoys watching the DIY network and American Idol after getting back from the driving range and playing with my son.

Look – reasonable people can disagree about dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. And I would, prior to yesterday, have said I was glad a guy like Manzi was out there trying to sift through some of the nonsense out there on global warming to put it all in context, even if I thought him a little squishy for my taste. But, I am sorry there Jim, no matter how much research you’ve done or no matter the extent to which I might even agree with you at times, while you are sitting in your little circle with a bunch of other self-indulgent asses that no one else in the world gives a rip about putting out posts like yesterday’s nonsense, Mark is out on the front lines inspiring a generation of Americans to fight back against statism.

Mark recognizes that when you are at war, while it is important to get facts right (and I think Mark did a darned fine job sourcing his book, giving you the chance to criticize it), it is also important to inspire the troops and to do so by distilling the realities of the fight into useful information. I frankly don’t know if every statistic in Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative was correct or not. Nor do I know if every statistic or number in Reagan’s A Time For Choosing speech in 1964 was correct. I DON’T CARE. I know the facts were in the ballpark, and more importantly, the principles were timeless and correct. I have read Mark’s book, and I know a little about the topics in question – and it’s a good book, with good citations and a lot of good facts.

The entire global warming debate is one of hysteria and deserves the mocking it gets from Mark. It’s filled with lies and scare-mongering, resulting in less freedom, higher taxes, more expensive energy, a worse economy and a lower standard of living for tens or even hundreds of millions of people – for absolutely no good reason. Those who want to make nice on this topic – be it Newt Gingrich sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, be it Lindsey Graham yet again saddling up with democrats to pass a misguided and disastrous cap-and-trade bill, or be it “intellectuals” trying to appear reasonable on the subject – are setting conservatives up for failure cloaked in compromise.

Come 2014, I will continue to use the stockpile of incandescent bulbs I plan to amass in the coming 4 years – and will gladly pay the electric bill so I can have the light I prefer to have. Forgive me for wanting the freedom to have a frigging light bulb of my choosing. I will continue to drive a gas-guzzling Jeep Wrangler if I have to hand-build an engine to replace it, because I freaking like to drive it. I will continue to flush my toilet however many times it takes to get the job done – and I will continue to take a long hot shower.

The facts are fairly clear – environmental nuts are sticking it to America and those who indulge their nonsense are living in their own bubble, while the rest of us focus on the simple truths of freedom, limited government and wanting Washington the hell out of our backyard. It is once again a time for choosing, and I choose to fight the statists – enviro and otherwise. And I will happily fight with Mark by my side while you, Mr. Manzi, keep talking in circles.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Woo_girl

    I loved your article. We too are stocking up on the light bulbs and I had our plumber take out the flow regulator on our shower!!! I put the cans in the correct bin, if I don’t drink all of the bottle water I put the rest in the dogs dish. I bundle my errands so I’m not heading out in the car a bazillion times a day. And I’ll get a smaller car, when I’m darn good and ready cause I WANT to (and the kids are all out of the house!) I try, but I won’t have my freedom taking away from me! No way, no how!

    • Woo_girl

      and you’re right, they are a snooty bunch over there. Spent a week on a cruise with em. Could count the nose hair. :)

      Some of em are very nice, but some of em…. well, let’s just say those who hung out in the bars after all the sessions were the best!!

  • wilfranc

    For surely, it should make a thinking man (not necessarily an intellect) realize just how small man is on this planet.

    I read something interesting the other day in that if we see as much super volcanic and earthquake action as we did in the 19th century (and we are overdue for at least one volcano), we won’t be so worried about light bulbs.

    I cannot control the weeds in my little tiny garden, much less the cubic feet of air above it.

    I always thought that those that bought into the global warming theory liked the idea of controlling others most of all. It is a perfect hangout for intellectuals of any political persuasion because it suffers from setting up an experiment in real time. The projections are made to happen years after the current players are dead.

    Maybe I have a dumb way of looking at this debate, but as a Christian, the parable of the oil in the lamps teachesus to be prepared for Christ’s return, not to manipulate his return. I would rather be prepared for the climate than try to manipulate it.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …he was not reaching out to the intellectual community. If he had, he’d have sold 200 copies.
    WFB, above all, was able to not only make the handshake with the masses, but understand the significance of it. A mark of true leadership, among many other things.

    I think your note is a good reminder about what it’s all about. Besides, getting invited to Brook’s house isn’t quite the same as cocktails at the Buckley manse. Never will be, either.

  • renny

    among the activists on the Right that is too much like the litmus-testing Left–if everyone doesn’t agree with the latest trend, discovery, philosophizing, yadda, that person, group, movement should be ostracized, demonized, or voted out of office.

    If we are truly a “broad tent,” then we all have to take a deep breath on some issues or practices and be united against the true enemy–the ultra-liberal wing of the Dems. who are producing the ideas and themes for the Dems. and all Dems. currently in office, as they have the leaderhip and administrative positions of power for being in the majority nearly everywhere.

    Instead, we have a trememdous amount of noise about print media v radio (and tv), net v magazine, moderates (RINOS) v conservatives, even conservatives v cons. Opinion should be aired and debated but not imposed or extirpated.

  • libertyatstake

    The Conservative Ascendancy needs more leaders like Mark Levin and pseudo-intellectuals like Manzi (who I never heard of before) to get out of the way.

    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    [For a light hearted take on our present peril]

    • peg_c

      to the ilk of faux-conservative intellectuals that contains Frum, Brooks, Noonan, Douthat, etc. Some of them definitely are suffering from permanent and debilitating envy of Mark Levin, whom SO MANY conservatives and virtually the entirety of the Tea Party movement revere. We listen to him, we read him, we BUY his books, and we don’t know who Jim Manzi is or if we do we don’t care. (I do read NRO regularly, BTW.) Goes double for Frum and Brooks.

      Mark will have a joint book signing with Hannity on or around May 8th in Virginia. The line will probably rival the totality of the lines for the Porta-potties at the Capitol last Sept. 12th (I was there; I remember those lines!). Who would line up for anything from Frum, Brooks, or this Manzi guy? I know that’s not what being an intellectual is all about, but OTOH Mark can be intellectual AND popular. Again, envy has pickled their brains, thus the pettiness and ankle-biting.

  • redcometchar2010

    National Review is the preeminent conservative magazing out there. I read the Corner daily and will acknowledge SOME (mainly Derbyshire) of the contributors say things I disagree with. However, National Review is a lot more wonky than a place like Redstate. I love both and both have their place, but National Review tends to have people disagree with each other a lot more frequently than sites like Redstate, so I would be loathe to attribute Manzi’s opinion of Levin with the official editorial position of NR. I’d also be careful of comparing National Review to The New Republic and especially the NYT. Natioanl Review is heads and shoulders above both. Sorry to quibble, but one has to stand up for friends and allies.

    • hogan

      and have no intention of “canceling my…… own……. subscription.”

      I have many friends there. And they have long been and remain critical to what we are trying to accomplish. Guys like Steyn, McCarthy, Jonah, and a number of others, are invaluable to the movement.

      My point is that, increasingly (and sadly, as I said) National Review seems to indulge a great deal more of these guys who like to hear themselves talk more than offering helpful “wonky” articles and thoughts. And, worse, too many folks who, frankly, are not always that conservative.

      • http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible

        Please stop kicking sand in each others faces when we’re all in the same sandbox trying to capture the other sandbox’s flags. We’ve got a mission to tend to.

        I will try not to commit the same error spilling ink in Red vs. Red. The Corner is supposed to be more of an open forum where people disagree. The real question, that Manzi skipped over, to his fault, is when is it productive to be critical of the puffery that comes from the right and gets popular attention? (I just read a book by one of the biggest voices in media and it was as superficial as an Obama promise.)

        The Corner is where I go for all my wonky stuff. It’s probably my third favorite site behind Redstate and Ace of Spades.

        None of the NRO folks are aligned with me politically. But good G*d, where would we be with the yeoman’s work done by Thiessen, Goldberg, McArthy, et al??? The poor NRO saps have the misfortune of delving into the bowels of the Federal Kraken and highlighting the more egregious bits of refuse.

  • RedBeard

    On the left or on the right, whenever people set themselves up in plush ivory towers, disconnected from the realities of day-to-day life, they have no justification in adopting an intellectually superior position over those laboring in the trenches.

    I’m not sure that is happening here (Manzi’s ivory tower may have leaky plumbing for all I know) but it certainly seems like there is an element of it at work.

  • jsmiddleton4

    Remember the more folks who may have read these guys in the past learn and grow in terms of real conservative ideas the smaller and smaller these guys market becomes.

    Many of these guys are going the way of MSNBC, CNN, Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report.

    As the light shines brighter and brighter on these clowns the more and more we see they are no different than leftist elitist who think they are the only ones qualified to run our lives because left unto ourselves we conservatives will all have gun racks in our trucks, go to KKK meetings and keep our women bare foot and pregnant.

    Its quite sad actually.

    But don’t forget these clowns see what’s coming and what’s coming for many of them is having to get a real job or be unemployed.

  • reddog53

    They can both be effective in their respective areas.

    I was caught by Manzi’s criticism of Levin’s book, as were most of the folks on the Corner (given the relative silence of others and the note from Kathryn Lopez).

    Not sure what’s going on here, but it is evidence that we don’t all think alike — which should help deflate the MSM’s ‘mind numbed robots’ line.

  • texasgalt

    but the truth is they couldn’t imagine a single use for baling wire if their lives depended on it.

  • JSobieski

    is a common malady for people working as professional writers and commentators. In some ways, Manzi is an example of that.

    That being said, the climate chapter in Mark’s book was pretty weak. I agree with the conclusion, but the analysis on global warming was superficial and shallow.

    That being said, Manzi went over the top in his criticism—totally out of proportion. Moreover, the book as a whole was excellent.

    • BA Cyclone

      I’m not saying L&T is the Bible or anything, but there is a real baby-bath water problem here.

      I think the book as a whole is fantastic, especially in the context of the intended readers – the public at large. In particular, the chapter on climate might be light, but a lot of the serious commentary (and especially post-IPCC criticism) has come about since the book’s release.

      I think the chapter sets the stage quite well in its own right. The book isn’t about the subject at large, but how it dovetails into the topic of the book – how it relates to STATISM. And I think that point is made soundly – in the context of the rest of the book.

      What Mark Levin accomplishes in L&T is partly welcome and powerful due to its brevity and simplicity on every individual topic. For any conservative to attempt throwing the book out on any particular individual point calls into question conservatism and intelligence of the critic, not the book.

      • JSobieski

        My criticism was limited to the climate chapter, which was the weakest chapter.

        Definitely not in favor of throwing the book out!

    • peg_c

      and come up with something petty and picayune with which to dismiss the entire book? One would almost suspect he’s made this his life’s mission. He’s not friends with Conor Friedersdorf (Mark’s bete noire), is he??

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    he accuses Mark.

    “Epistemic Closure” occurs where:

    “P and Q are propositions, if we know that P, and know that P logically entails Q, we know that Q.”

    http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/epistemic-closure-principle.php

    Following that rule, Mazis’ reasoning is like this.

    Mark’s *Proposition P*, that we’re living in an era of soft tyranny and statism, is not enough to claim that the religion of environmentalism/global warming controversy is being run by statists, therefore equaling Enviro-statism, *Proposition Q*

    What Manzi essentially did with his NRO article is entirely discredit Mark’s book, Liberty and Tyranny by establishing his own “Epistemic Closure.”

    Manzi attempts to establish his own *Proposition P*: Mark has it all wrong on Enviro-Statism and assuming *Proposition Q*, “This is Wingnuttery.”

    In other words, Manzi says since Mark’s wrong on enviro-statism, his entire book is flawed (P = Q).

    By attempting to discredit Mark’s Envirostatism, Manzi’s direct assaulting Liberty and Tyranny:

    If you think that’s debatable, consider his title: “Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure.”

    Manzi should have named his piece “Enivro-Statism and Epistemic Closure” and not lead others to believe, with this stature as an NRO writer and the prominence of NRO in Conservatism, that Mark’s Liberty and Tyranny is filled with “wingnuttery.”

    Manzi’s a punk and seeking prominence by attacking a Big Gun. Calling Mark an “entertainer” isn’t even the half of it.

    What’s next? Attacking Mark’s Presidency at the Landmark Legal Foundation?

    http://www.landmarklegal.org/

    • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

      “I started to read Mark Levin

      • shadowtax

        How could Manzi possibly judge the global warming bit without reading the book to see how it attached to the main thesis. The purpose of the chapter was to show the influence of statists on environmental policy and science. Mark was not setting out to disprove global warming. Rather he condemned the manipulation of data to promote an ideological agenda.

        I can’t wait to read Mark’s response. He posts in the Corner from time to time…

        • Aaron Gardner
        • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

          And then a THIRD Epistemic Closure fallacy via McCarthy’s post:

          Manzi posits that *Proposition P* The Goracle and his minions (minus his Oscar? was that ever resolved?) have drawn the line in the sand regarding global warming, and all state-sponsored science is irrefutable, therefore *Proposition Q* the global warming idea controversy is closed.

          Any refutation is null and void, even every obscure chapter ever written, every posting in the blogosphere, ever comment on any blog ever in the whole wide world, the whole earth, in the earth, under the earth, through the earth and into the universe!

          I can’t wait to hear Mark tonight.

          He’s having minced Manzi meat for dinner.

          • shadowtax
          • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

            Then my husband and I will go out into the sunshine, find our bags of charcoal and cords of firewood, and have a hugeTexas-style bar-b-que for our huge family to celebrate God granting us all stewardship over the Earth and the creatures that live upon it.

            :)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Man should be informed, lest he worship man or devolve back to paganism worship of the heavens and the earth by reading Genesis 1:1

          • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

            that we have to be wary of

            such as: worship of movies, radio (“we only ask for 3 hours” +3 hours of another radio host + 3 hours of another radio host + 3 hours of another radio host, as hubby and I were discussing), worship of social media (10,000 friends!)

            And if these are discounted as obsessions, at what point does these obsessions (for some) become worship? Especially in light of people not attending worship services on Sunday? 3 hours for Hannity, how many for God?

            An interesting point before I leave:

            It would be worth re-reading Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism (as we’re doing now) in light of what’s occuring now w/ Obama and Environmentalism, especially Chapter 1 on Mussolini where Goldberg talks about the fusion of marxism and fascism.

            Mussolini was influenced by Sorel who said:

            “Taken literally, Marx’s Das Kapital… had little merit. But, Sorel asked, what if.. you looked at ‘this apocalyptic text .. as a product of the spirit, as an image created for the purpose of molding consciousness, it .. is a good illustration of the principle on whoch Marx believed he should base the rules of the socilist action of the proletariat.” In other words, Marx should be read as a prophet, not as a policy wonk. That way the masses would absorb marxism unquestioningly as a religious dogma.”

            Goldberg continues:
            “Englighented revolutionaries would act as if Marxism were gospel in order to bring the masses under their control for the greater good. Today we might call these aspects of this impulse ‘lying for justice.’

            ..This is where another of Sorel’s major contributions comes in: the need for “revolutionary elite” to impose its will upon the masses. .. that a small cadre of professional intellectual radicals — who were prepared to reject compromise, parliamentary politics, and anything else that smacked of incremental reform — were indespensible to any successful revolutionary struggle. This avant-garde would shape ‘revolutionary consciousness’ by fomenting violence and undermining liberal institutions.. ‘The mass wil simply follow and submit.’ ”

            Church of global warming is marxist phenomena. So is the Brand of Obama.

            And every other “crisis” in this nation manufactured by his Administration.

            “The utility of terror [heightened problems] was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendencey to maintain a permanent sense of crisis. Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.”

            Good ole Obama & Rahm et al, following the fascist-marxists playbook to the “t.”

            So, getting back to your point of worship, Mike, — yes, Americans are at risk of losing their souls first, and I add, their country, second, via the mechanisms of progressives.

            And, yes, I am fighting my own battles with social media. Hubby got us broadband to replace the crappy aircard. I have already failed my self-imposed limits and promises and am obviously spoiled!

            We can’t wait to hear you tonight, Mark. Manzi, at this moment, there never was a sillier man — McCarthy, you were brilliant in extolling Manzi’s idiocy. Very eloquent. Thanks for the forum, Redstate.

            Long live liberty.

          • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

            Liberal Fascism – $17.00 in paperback with a new Obama afterward.

            Chapters 1 and 3 = wonderful precursors to understanding today’s progressive (Nazi, socialist, fascist, enslaving!) environment.

            From our friends at NRO!

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            more later

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • chaney

    Can someone help me out here? I gather from context and some googling that “epistemic closure” just means closed-mindedness, an unwillingness to entertain arguments and evidence against the view you hold. I also assume that this phrase, with this meaning, was coined fairly recently. But why? Isn’t “closed-minded” a perfectly good phrase? Who is the pinhead responsible for this desperate attempt to introduce a technical sounding phrase to describe a simple phenomenon that already has a perfectly good name? This is the heinous crime of a pathetic pseudo-intellectual.

    Furthermore, as I confirmed before posting (took some epistemology a long time ago), and hogan no doubt discovered when he looked up “epistemic closure”, the phrase already means something different in (fairly) common parlance. It refers to the principle that an individual’s knowledge is closed under entailment, that is, if S knows P, and P entails Q, then S knows Q.

    So, for goodness sake, if you want to accuse someone of closed mindedness, do it; but let’s leave the epistemic closure to the epistemologists.

    To the guilty party: Remember, gratuitous use of technical phrases, though it may seem to you display your spectacularly agile mind, makes your writing worse, not better.

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    ANY one who wishes to become a good writer should endeavour, before he allows himself to be tempted by the more showy qualities, to be direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid.

    This general principle may be translated into practical rules in the domain of vocabulary as follows:

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      of a piece with “gravitas,” writ large.

      (That was sarcasm.)

      Thank you.
      ColdWarrior, PC
      Conservatives, UNITE! CHANGE the Republican Party and the world by UNITING INSIDE the Party as precinct committeemen. NOW!

      • blooch

        If I may borrow from coachcarter’s recent comment, wherein he reproduced this wonderful bit of academic excrement:

  • romeg

    http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2010/04/20/global-warming-what-are-the-chances/

    I don’t know of a single individual within my circle of acquaintances that would oppose SENSIBLE legislation aimed at maintaining a clean environment. At the same time, I cannot find a single sensible such suggestion in any of AlGore’s drivel about how we are doomed if we don’t cease all economic activity TODAY!

    The nail-biting, bed-wetting liberals posing as conservative writers are more concerned with what their other liberal friends think about their associations than they do about actually addressing REAL problems. In other words, they want to be liked by their enemies. We all know how well that worked for Dubya when he sidled up to Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy.

  • notinkansas

    People like Mark Levin, Jim DeMint, the people of AZ, the gov of NJ……THOSE are the people that are sticking up for the ‘average’ Americans like me – they give us hope and remind us that we really are the majority. I think most people want to get back to the Constitution and get back to what our founding fathers meant for this country. Please stay in the fight! Keep the faith and stay the course!!

  • justfedup

    True conservatism is rising. RINO’s & other faux conservatives are gasping for a last bit of the spotlight. Liberty & Tyranny is well written & easy reading. Perhaps Mr Manzi thinks if it isn’t complicated or confusing or eco-friendly, it isn’t factual. Oh yeah, I too am stocking up on my Thomas Edison incandescant lightbulbs. The EPA won’t be pestering me about putting mercury tainted CFL’s in a landfill.

    • peg_c

      CFLs make me nauseous. And they’re ugly. And I can’t look at them without thinking of the ManBearPig. That’ll do.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        I am going to switch over to LED’s which are now very expensive, but they use much much less energy even than the cfl’s and better yet they last about ten times longer.

        The price drops on them by 20% every six months, so they ought to be just about the right price by 2014.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Between the false global warming hysteria created by “academic” manipulation and liberals attempt to regulate C02 one might think- Manzi would ask: What is the goal of such actions? Accordingly, when government conspires with so-called “science” to enforce legislation/regulation that limits or diminishes your individual rights vis a vis powers of the state- that is called Enviro-Statism. How you frame the aforementioned with Mr. Levin’s entire enviro-statism argument is beyond basic intellectual reasoning.

    Manzi might do well to consider empirical evidence not even cited in Mark’s book that support the very real existence of enviro-statism. Notwithstanding the frail argument he makes against it, his failure to fully consider all the evidence reveals his attack as nothing more than a contra-intellectual, ad hominem disquised as a pseudo intellectual exercise. In the end, it simply discredits Manzi using his own ill-reasoned “arguments”- if you can call it such.

  • jimmuy8

    and have done so for quite some time. The conservative movement is well past the point where we are in dire need of a sharp mind who can appear in the media and argue our case. The WFB time has come and gone, an era where there were no conservative think tanks and only 3 or 4 outlets for news. Today, we have thousands of outlets and thousands of sharp minds.
    To continue to cling to an outdated model of war is to plan to surrender. We don’t need intellectuals to explain our ideas to us any more, that foundation has been laid, re-laid, buttressed, reinforced, etc.–we have 30+ years of intellectual foundation, we don’t need a centralized core leading the way.
    What we need are leaders who don’t have to worry about an out-dated faculty room bull session sniping from the rear about “true” conservatives and “true conservative ideas” and whether such are acceptable to the enemy.

    Look, we could replace a whole plank of the GOP platform with the script of Al Gore’s movie and books followed by “We agree 100% with the above” and the left is STILL going to call conservatives “mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, anti-science morons.” It’s who they are, it’s what they do and no amount of nicey-nice or “we got smart guys too” is going to change that.

    • peg_c

      They are all oh-so-smart but just do not get it. Meanwhile we’ve all moved on and way beyond. The faux conservative elites are stuck in neutral.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      just as is the magazine, (I have had a subscription since the late 1970′s) But they always were a forum for differing views.

      Personally I think that is a strength, not a weakness, they allow people to write articles that are differing from the views of the editorial staff.

      Take them for what they are worth, form your own opinions, but to me, I enjoy reading them, even if I don’t agree.

  • XOT

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBimZPBdgoc

  • jackbauer24

    Just thought I would share this…

    I would like to inform you that I will not be renewing my subscription after reading the following article.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTMzMTY2ZmU2ZGY1YzQ3N2Q0MWY4M2M4OTMyZGRjMjY=

    The way that this article defamed the entire book has done a disservice to Liberty & Tyranny, Mark Levin, The Corner, and National Review. The main reason I chose to subscribe to National Review was the balanced reporting and opinions your writers give. Jim Manzi has completely thrown that to the wind with this piece. He has concluded that they entire book is nothing more than “comfort food” that us poor drones just suck up and spew out at the water cooler the next morning. I would beg to differ with that notion.

    One line is this whole piece sums up what I have been trying to explain…

    “It was awful. It was so bad that it was like the proverbial clock that chimes 13 times

    • peg_c

      n/t

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      you will no longer be their friend? I know that is not an exact analogy, but it is close. Look, NR is an opinion journal, they allow all sorts of opinions which are in the same general right leaning direction.

      That does not mean that the entire staff agree with every article, it means that they value a variety of opinions.

      • RedBeard

        It’s his arrogance, his dismissiveness, and his rudeness.

      • streiff

        this thread at your own peril.

        Make of tht what you wish.

  • Bill S

    Now that Manzi has outed himself as a clown, I don’t have to waste my time reading his stuff any more.

  • thundar

    It is not up to the skeptics of AGW to disprove the theory, but the responsibility of the proponents to provide proof. Instead, the advocates of AGW have spent the last decade and more not merely failing to provide that proof, but also mounting a public relations campaign to denigrate and destroy the reputations and lives of any who had the gall to question the acknowledged wisdom of our betters. Tthe Left and its willing accomplices in Media, Government, Academia, Entertainment, and Education sought to stifle intellectual dissent as “inauthentic and unscientific” and to present a de facto “Consensus” that brooked no contradiction. Mark’s book smashes that assumption and returns us to where scientific inquiry begins and ends: questioning all known “facts”.

    Climategate showed that it was the proponents of AGW that were contemptuous of science and scientific method. As a base, scientific method involves starting from original data, protecting that data, making it available to all along with your methods and reasons for adjusting that data. East Anglia and other AGW proponents did none of this. They zealously guarded, withheld, and destroyed their data. They provided little to no information on how they modified their original data, much less the reasonings behind those modifications. Consequently, the entire house of cards on which their theory was built has come crashing down, and rightfully so. It is now up to those same acolytes of AGW to abandon the religion of AGW and start providing some scientific foundation for their theory (if any exists). It may be possible, but the onus is on them, not the skeptics. That’s scientific method in a nutshell, but something that’s been absent from this process from the beginning.

    As Mark points out, before we abandon our fates to a massive government intrusion in our lives based on the theory of AGW, science must show that:
    1) The world is warming in ways previously unheard of in the hundreds of millions of years life has existed on this planet
    2) This warming is entirely or mostly blamed on human activity
    3) This warming is adverse to future of the planet and/or human life
    4) Human activity can be modified in such a way to prevent or reduce the effect of the expected warming
    5) The cost and effects on human liberty that result from (4) would outweigh the costs/risks associated with (3)
    AGW proponents have not even accomplished (1), much less any of the other items. And based on their prior contemptuous treatment of scientific method, they have a long way to go to earn our trust. Jim Manzi seems entirely too willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Mark Levin is not. I’m also in Mark’s camp.

  • henrybrooksadams

    Anti-intellectualism on Right should be deplored not celebrated. Hogan is flat wrong for saying that he doesn’t care if his allies are telling the truth or not, but just that they’re on his team. We should care. We should police our own. Hogan is happy to call out other self-professed conservatives in pissy terms; there’s no reason why Levin doesn’t deserve the same treatment from conservatives who are actually interested in learning the relevant subject matter. If you look at Levin’s response in NRO, he basically says he was not. He never should have written the chapter at all.

    Just because Mark Levin yells the loudest on his radio show, putting Savage to shame, doesn’t mean we should pretend that he isn’t a blowhard.

    Our ideas are right. Our policies are superior. But we aren’t perfect. We don’t have to tolerate half-assed analysis from people spouting off outside and beyond their expertise. Some things are actually hard and call for some thinking that goes beyond just capitalizing Liberty. You drive the Jim Manzis away and all you’re left with is …. nothing but words.

  • Pingback: URL

  • Pingback: e cigarette comparison

  • Pingback: Nida Mull

  • Pingback: Building Material

  • Pingback: Hysterectomy

  • Pingback: click here