Bitter Academics, Torture, Tom Friedman, and Political Discourse

I particularly enjoyed this Bloggingheads diavlog with Dan Drezner, and Megan McArdle, in which they discuss topics such as the bitterness of academics, whether John Yoo should lose his tenure, the torture debate, the wisdom of throwing pies at Tom Friedman, and the nature of our current political discourse. It's too good all around to excerpt, but I'll say that I agree with Dan that the best way to undermine Yoo is not to take away his tenure, but to undermine his ideas, which is a good rule in general, as it's also not a good idea to throw pies at people either.

I aslo agree with Megan and Dan about the complexities of the torture debate, and that we've really had less of a debate on these issues, then we've had a shouting match. THat really applies to our discourse in general. All good stuff, and worth a look.

The Tedious Task of Debating Glenn Greenwald

Via Kevin Sullivan of Independent Liberal, comes this post, on Dan Drezner's attempts to reason with the often insightful, but often- as-dogmatic-and-irrartional-as-his critcs Glenn Greenwald:

Greenwald’s rhetorical style in his column boils down to,”if you dispute anything I say, then you are objectively pro-torture.” This bears more than a passing resemblance to the position rabid pro-war advocates adopted in late 2002 — that opposition to war with Iraq rendered one objectively pro-Saddam. It was a disgusting tactic then, and it’s no less disgusting that Greenwald is using it now. It makes him no better than the ideological adversaries he so despises.

Read the whole thing.

The Writer's Strike and Iraq

On Bill Maher's show Friday night (his first show back sans writers), he offered up an interesting thought at the end of the show. He made a brief comment about the strike, talking about how important his writers were, and the importance of unions, but questioning certain aspects of the strike (timing, necessity, etc). He then compared what he saw as the prevailing attitude among many in Hollywood about the strike, and comapred it to the debate over Iraq, in that many had their patriotism questioned for opposing the war, and he saw a witch-hunt atmosphere brewing around the strike.

An interesting discussion to have, regardless of one's view of the war or the writer's strike, and I'm interested in hearing thoughts (particularly yours, Max) on this. I feel the need to point out though, that if any real discussion like this is to happen, particularly among liberals, then I think an issue that needs to be addressed is the way liberals who support the war are treated, by those that don't.

cross-posted from Stubborn Facts.

The Not-so-Long Story of My Experience with Democratic Underground

Per Pat's suggestion, and recent events, I've finally decided to expound on something I've been thinking about posting on for a while. With the far-left nutroots in a lunatic fever, there have been moments when I've reflected on my time with Democratic Underground. In case you haven't gathered the point yet, let me spell it out: I used to be a member of Democratic Underground.

Now, many will read this and be shocked. Hold on a second. Put down your keyboards, and don't change your blogrolls yet. I can explain:

Actually, the story really isn't that long. The fact is, in 2001, I was looking through liberal websites, and I came across DU. I knew even then that I was more moderate than most members (after all, the board was created out of the fury of Bush v. Gore), but I found that at least in the beginning, that wasn't a big deal. I could have thoughtful discussions with most people, and as long as I stayed away from certain topics, I'd be fine, and for the most part, I was. I comforted myself with the fact that comparable message boards on the right, like Free Republic, for instance, were worse. After all, they didn't even allow liberals into their site.

As I said, all was basically well on the site. I didn't post as frequently as others, but I had a pretty good relationship. Even after 9/11, things were pretty sane. Don't get me wrong, the antiwar and anti-Bush elements were out in force, but it wasn't as if intelligent conversations weren't possible.

Then came the war in Iraq, and everything changed. Now perhaps, I was just naive, and just didn't realize how extreme the site had already been. As I see it, as the war marched on, the anti-war Left began taking control of the whole place. A pro-war liberal like myself was pretty lonely. I even changed my username to reflect my lone wolf status. I must tell you, trying to argue war policy with the Reflexively Anti-War Left is like arguing with a brick wall. Sure the righties were just as bad, but that wasn't the point. It had gotten to the point where even non-foreign policy discussions were turning into discussions about Iraq. Towards the end of my tenure, I totally avoided most poilitical discussions, and stuck to the Lounge (the non-political board), and doing polls.

By late 2004, I had discovered the blogosphere, so I started broadening my options. I was looking for a spot on the web that didn't see American foreign policy as evil and imperialistic, but not done as if produced out of the Bush White House. I created my own blog in Feb. of 2005, and later, I discovered great blogs, center, left, and even right.

Another confession: I donated to DU twice. Keep in mind that for a long time, I felt that DU was one of the few places left-of-center online that I could have discussions. This was before the blogosphere. Heck, I even got an article published. Not my best work, by any stretch, but I'm not ashamed of it.

To make a long story short, it had gotten to the point where I couldn't hang there any longer, and I left. No scathing farewell posts. No hate mail. I just left, and never looked back. As it stands now, DU is leading the moonbat charge.

If I went back, chances are I could have an intelligent discussion, assuming it had nothing to do with Iraq, Bush, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, the DLC, or General Petraeus, et al. I'd rather not. Like I said, I've moved up, and moved on.

OK, I'm done. Like I said, not that long.

P.S. In the nigh-impposible chance that DU'ers might read this, know this: I don't hate you, but you guys decided a long time ago to turn that message board into a hotbed of moonbat hysteria, and I'm just not into that.

cross posted from Stubborn Facts

There's Bad Journalism, and Then There's Really Bad Journalism

You know what, I generally don't go out of my way to watch these debates, yet despite my belief that these debates end up becoming silly exercises in well, silliness, I find myself drawn to watching them. I missed Wednesday's GOP/YouTube debate on CNN when it was live, but I did catch the replay and a lot of the post-debate coverage. Most people should know about this by now, but there's been some question-planting going on again (HT: Pajamas Media), as the retired gay general asking the question about gays in the military was a Clinton staffer.

And, it doesn't stop there.

The thing is, this has to be a world-class embarassment for CNN. I don't really buy into the Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy meme, but this is one of those examples that righties will shove in the faces of liberals like me in order to make their case. I read this as systemic, world-class incompetence on the part of CNN. I don't think Anderson Cooper knew, but are you telling me, that after this same problem happened last time, on the same network, that no one in the mothership thought to do a little vetting of the questions, so they wouldn't be embarrased on the air by Bill Bennett, and a handful of righty bloggers? It makes you wonder how you can trust them as a journalistic outfit after this foolishness.

Joe Scarborough calls bullshit as far as CNN not knowing about this beforehand is concerned, but I have problems believing CNN even has the attention span, let alone the smarts to execute such a scheme. Who knows. A half-assed web search could've solved this straightaway. CNN, your internet kung-fu is weak.

This cannot be good for Hillary. One wonders if CNN really is smarter than we think, and they're simply in the tank for Obama?

RedState to Ron Paul Supporters: You're Not Wanted Here

There's an interesting bit of blogosphere fuss about RedState's policy of preventing new commenters from voicing their support for Ron Paul. RedState says that they're basically crazy people, and that they add nothing to the debate. Let me say this: I am the farthest thing from a Ron Paul supporter than you can possibly be. As a pro-war, center-Left liberal Democrat, I'm as far from Paul's constituency as Tokyo is from Texarkana, but I reject the idea of excluding certain groups of commenters without sufficient cause. I'm feeling a bit lazy now, so I'll let my comment over at Michael van der Galien's place speak instead:

Well, I’m coming at this from the perspective of a pro-war liberal Democrat, but let me add a couple of things. In my view, Ron Paul is something of a crazy person, embodying the worst of 1930’s isolationism, and Lew Rockwell-style hardcore libertarianism. His supporters are almost cult-like in their zeal. The way I see it, no self-respecting liberal would support him.

That being said, Paul’s candidacy is a legit phenomenon, and ought not be ignored. It’s bad form to exclude certain groups from the discussion out of hand. RedState can do what they want, but it’s bad form if you ask me. Meaningless cheerleader posts should be met with equal mental energy, which is to say, not much. Thoughtful and substantive posts should be encouraged. As I’ve said, throwing the whole bunch out is bad form, and I’ll leave it at that.

I'm not sure how likely this is, but if Ron Paul supporters happen to show up here, the door is open. I welcome open and honest debate, even from those with whom I vehemently disagree. Including those who support a bats**t crazy person who wants to basically hollow out the government, and thinks the Civil War was an unnecessary war. If you do show up though, prepare to have your arguments challenged openly, and as I see it, torn to pieces.

Also, I think Simon over at SF has a point about Andrew Sullivan extending a welcome hand to Paul supporters. Sully really does have to open up his blog to comments, if he's going to make statements like that.

HT: Stubborn Facts