Home | Away

ABF Friday:  Very Arbitrary Edition!

Oh, all right.  Since you insisted, I’ll post a couple of arbitrary but fun things for the weekend.  First, a long-overdue thanks to Oaktown Girl, who, in this ancient comment thread, introduced me to the Simpson Crazy website, thus enriching my life immeasurably.  Sure, my DVDs of the first ten seasons of The Simpsons also enriched my life immeasurably, but you can’t compare immeasurablies, because they’re so immeasurable.  Simpson Crazy is always great fun.  Thanks, Ms. Girl!

Second, about Metatron.  This is for all of you who, in the course of demonstrating that I are in fact a total ignoramus, reminded me that Metatron is not only No. 1 Angel in Ye Olde Kabbalistic Tradition but also is played by Alan Rickman in Dogma:

The bit at 2:20-2:30 is just for me.  Dear Moloch, it’s amazing how much one forgets in the course of a lifetime.  I think the only thing I remember about this movie is Alanis Morissette singing the Canadian national anthem at the end.

Third, Sotomayor and Alito.  Adam Serwer’s response to Stuart Taylor’s and Pat Buchanan’s identity-politics shell game is absolutely perfect (even though, on my Internets, Ye Olde American Prospect usually takes about half an hour to load):

The conservative freakout over Sotomayor’s remarks, as opposed to the way Alito’s were marketed as a selling point for him as a judge, makes a remarkably salient case for why we still need affirmative action. Two judges made similar points--one was an Italian American man, the other was a Latino woman, both accomplished on the bench--but what was sold as a strength for Alito makes Sotomayor a racist. Taylor and Buchanan, while attacking Sotomayor, have inadvertently made the case for a policy they’d like to see eliminated, by proving that all things being equal, a minority woman is held to a different standard than the white man of similar background and experience.

And yet, upon further reflection, one wants to add (if one is me) that if we’re comparing Alito and Sotomayor, then it’s worth remembering Alito’s youthful involvement with the far-right Concerned Alumni of Princeton.  After all, as Jerome Karabel pointed out, there was a good reason those alumni were so concerned: “the animating force behind the alumni revolt at Princeton was the university’s decision in January 1969 to admit women.” Had they known, back then, that one of those women would soon show up eating mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir and would grow up to write in the Berkeley Loony Left La Raza Kill-the-Gringos Law Journal about her superiority to white men, those alumni surely would have been even more concerned!  Well, that’s what happens when you let those women of color play identity politics.

Fourth, more drumming!  This is for everyone who complained that my last selection was a mere snippet and that it came from the “we all know rock music attained perfection in 1974” set list.  This is a whole entire song, start to finish, and it comes from an album released in ought-five, though I think the kids today say “compact disc.” I first heard it on a “compilation compact disc” Nick made for Jamie, and halfway through, I thought, dang, this song makes me want to be in a band again. It’s not much on the bass drum, just twos and fours, but the rest of it is pretty distinctive, which is why it’s here.  (And yes, it’s supposed to stop abruptly on the floor tom like that, with no cymbal crash.) Though I have to say (a) I never tried to play it before yesterday, which accounts for a couple (though not all) of the mistakes here, and (b) it sounds lonely all by itself.  So, if you must know what song it is, you can go to YouTube and look at the comment I’ve appended to the clip.

Have a fun weekend, everyone, with plenty of patitas de cerdo con garbanzo and some of that la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito.

Posted by on 05/29 at 10:07 AM
  1. Pretty cool, Prof. Pretty cool.

    Posted by Pinko Punko  on  05/29  at  12:56 PM
  2. Sure, my DVDs of the first ten seasons of The Simpsons also enriched my life immeasurably, but you can’t compare immeasurablies, because they’re so immeasurable.

    So apparently you could take apart a Simpsons DVD and put it back together so that it’s as big as the sun.  Is there a licensed practical topologist in the house?

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  01:18 PM
  3. Alternatively, a licensed theological engineer?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Niemöller?

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  01:22 PM
  4. Thanks, PP!  If only I hadn’t messed up the thrashy bit on “And if you feel a little left behind.” And a couple of other things.

    mds, only Metatron could make a DVD as big as the sun.  It’s imposs ... no ... wait ... wait ... the licensed practical topology is coming from inside the house!

    Posted by Michael  on  05/29  at  01:27 PM
  5. This

    PressRelease1974.jpg

    gets linked to by the National Journal’s Stuart Taylor

    http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/05/sotomayor-as-student.php

    as: “Princeton allowed Sotomayor and two other students to initiate a seminar, for full credit and with the university’s blessings, on the Puerto Rican experience and its relation to contemporary America.”

    A sneer, but no foul.  That gets linked by Michael Goldfarb, Editor of _Weekly Standard_,

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/more_preferrential_treatment.asp

    and glossed: “I went to Princeton but somehow I never got to teach my own class, or grade my own work. One wonders how Sotomayor judged her work in that class, and whether the grade helped or hindered her efforts to graduate with honors.”

    And it hasn’t even hit talk radio yet.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  02:20 PM
  6. Sorry, man, looks like I broke your blog.  I didn’t realize the jpg link would display.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  02:22 PM
  7. Chavez takes over in April. By May we have our first Latino SCOTUS member. Coincidence? You be the judge.

    And just what were her SAT scores anyway?

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  03:04 PM
  8. Goddamn, Colin, this is even worse than when Metatron started that fire in the comments section back in April.  But let me highlight the relevant section of that press release:  so they did what scores of other Princeton students have been able to do for the past six years:  they initiated their own seminar—for full credit and with the blessings of the University.

    Now, will someone tell jackasses and nimrods like Taylor and Goldfarb that it’s actually more work to create your own seminar?

    Captcha:  neither.

    Posted by Michael  on  05/29  at  03:06 PM
  9. Holy Archangel Optimus Prime, Danby!  You really jpegged the Blog No-no Meter that time!

    And conducting a seminar?  For credit?  What’s next, credit for senior “honors” projects?  Masters students being given the option to write a “thesis”?  I find this very suspicious, especially given that Sotomayor apparently got 88 credit hours for her seminar, further demonstrating the complete meaninglessness of her summa cum laude.  Which, pace Fred Barnes, they award to anyone with better than a D+ average.  Combine these two talking points, and we are forced to conclude that without this seminar, she was looking at an “H” average.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  03:09 PM
  10. The drum beat is instantly recognizable.  That’s a good record....CD...mp3 download...whatever.  Are the other musical releases by this band worth checking out?

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  03:13 PM
  11. I went to Princeton but somehow I never got to teach my own class

    Belated self-discovery is a bitch.

    This is fast becoming a humanitarian crisis; these guys are going to start physically harming themselves if they insist on going through these contortions much longer. I call on the Senate to take action super-quickly, which they will do if they have any empathy whatsoever for the men who live that life.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  04:12 PM
  12. How can people actually be proud that they spent their time in college as mere consumers? Boggles the mind.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  04:37 PM
  13. Dammit, I forgot to change my signature back. Stupid internets.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  05:20 PM
  14. Dammit, I forgot to change my signature back.

    They won’t believe that for a minute, trust me.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  05:39 PM
  15. Wow, a .jpg as big as the sun!

    Posted by Nell  on  05/29  at  06:16 PM
  16. No one feels more empathy for the plight of the suburban white male than Stuart Taylor, as his 2007 magnum opus, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case, demonstrates. Thanks, Stu, on behalf of all of us, for having the courage to say enough is enough!

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  07:19 PM
  17. Do i read correctly that the WH is already caving and saying Sotomayor’s “word choice [was] poor” in her Berkeley speech)? WTF? I’ll repeat my guess that this nomination is going down the drain and we’ll get R. Posner instead.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  07:56 PM
  18. Well, Christian, as you recall, the Bush White House apologized for all the times Alito and Roberts chose their words poorly . . . oh, no, wait, they didn’t.

    Breaking:  the White House apologizes for Sotomayor’s association with “La Raza,” which is Spanish for “burn this mother down.”

    Posted by Michael  on  05/29  at  08:35 PM
  19. erm...My Sharona, or maybe the whole of side one of 2112 as a speeded up medley...?

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  08:39 PM
  20. No one feels more empathy for the plight of the suburban white male than Stuart Taylor, as his 2007 magnum opus, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case, demonstrates.

    Well, to be fair to Taylor, he was joined in that magnum opus by noted civil-rights crusader and unrepentant slimer KC Johnson, who, when confronted with the single most important violation of due process and the rule of law in the past ten years, dropped everything to expose the real culprits, namely, left-leaning faculty in Duke humanities departments.  But you don’t think much of that, do you, Venerable Ed?  Because first they came for the Duke lacrosse players who had hired a couple of strippers, and you did not object, because you were not a Duke lacrosse player who had hired a couple of strippers....

    Posted by Michael  on  05/29  at  08:50 PM
  21. The drum beat is instantly recognizable.

    Good to hear!  I was beginning to worry that I was the only person who heard things this way.  Like, when Nick was visiting, he’d go downstairs and practice, and I’d think, “ah, he’s playing ‘Roxanne’; I think he’s playing eighth-notes on the bass drum too often.”

    Are the other musical releases by this band worth checking out?

    This I don’t know.  You’d have to ask one of my offspring.

    Posted by Michael  on  05/29  at  08:53 PM
  22. Now you say it Michael, I distinctly recall… uhm… Bush apologizing for the things left-leaning faculty members in the Duke humanities departments had said. Sound about right?

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  09:30 PM
  23. Back in “aught five” you say??? That be Debussy then or Lang, Joplin or perhaps this? Biggest hits that year were In My Merry Oldsmobile and of course the great classic-to-be, In the Shade Of The Old Apple Tree.  In keeping with the theme i suppose you must be referencing the fine guitar work and maginificent singing of Juanito Pardo Miranda el Cantador de jota aragonesa.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  09:32 PM
  24. Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case

    I was doing some reading on the web trying to figure out WTF it was with Taylor and came across the fact that this book is on Alan Dershowitz’s list of top 5 books about “momentous” legal cases. Cases covered are Leo Frank, Scopes, Rosenbergs, David Irving libel trial and Duke lacrosse.

    Posting this in lieu of pondering the walkback.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  10:03 PM
  25. Gol-dang, that Alan Dershowitz is a Top Legal Mind!  I hope somebody at the Philadelphia Inquirer has the good sense to offer him a regular op-ed slot.

    And Christian, I do believe that Bush specifically defended Wahneema Lubiano, saying—with uncharacteristic eloquence—“I’m not going to let the voice of this radical woman of color be silenced by oppression, the way Bill Clinton tossed Lani Guinier to the wolves.” On a more serious note, I just watched the clip in which Obama addresses the Controversial Passage from Sotomayor’s speech/essay for the Berkeley Burn This Mother Down Law Journal, and it’s really not bad at all.  He actually performs calm reasonableness in a calm reasonable way—so if the Newtlings and Tancredistas want to keep digging, let ‘em.  Obama’s not going to pull a Clinton on this one.  But I’ll have more to say about that on Monday.

    Posted by Michael  on  05/29  at  10:17 PM
  26. Also, I just have to say that I love the fact that Colin’s blog-breaking comment @ 5 begins with the single word “this” and then opens out onto the vast empty space of a jpg as big as the sun.

    Posted by Michael  on  05/29  at  10:44 PM
  27. Wait a second! From that blow-up I can see that the document has a kerning problem. It could not have been written on any typewriter available in 1974. Seminargate! You heard it here first.

    And having now watched Obama, agree that it is not that bad, but then neither was the original speech. Watching Howard Fineman talk about it? Now that was bad.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  11:17 PM
  28. That is some pretty snazzy hi-hat work there.  I was grooving along just fine, but then I tried to read that dang gigantic memo, and moused over so grandly and sweepingly to get to the far side of the page that I dislocated my elbow socket. 

    This blog is dangerous!

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  11:44 PM
  29. JP is right!!!!11!!! The kerning is off. It’s definitely not a vault copy.

    Posted by  on  05/29  at  11:53 PM
  30. Wait, are you implying that rock music didn’t attain perfection in 1974?

    Posted by Dave Maier  on  05/30  at  12:02 AM
  31. Wow, a .jpg as big as the sun!

    Nell is now officially my new crush.  Never mind how heartbroken this makes Chris Clarke and our son.

    Wait, what were we talking about again?  Oh, right, MEChA and other giant robots, such as Metatron.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  12:13 AM
  32. Billy, don’t be a hero, don’t be a fool with your life.  Sunshine on my shoulder makes me happy.  You’re having my baby, what a lovely way of saying how much you love me.  I don’t like spiders and snakes.  They call him the streak.  We had joy, we had fun, we had seasons in the sun.  Midnight at the oasis, put your camel to bed. 

    I should start taking requests, no?  I heard my momma cry.  I heard her pray the night Chicago died.

    Captcha:  party, as in let’s get this Princeton Class of ‘74 ____ started right!

    Posted by Michael  on  05/30  at  12:19 AM
  33. spyder - dammit! Why did you go and post that super-secret image from the monthly Women of Color meeting Ms. Sotomayor and I attend? Now she’ll never get confirmed.

    Hey Michael - thanks for the shout-out!
    It’s a sure sign that there’s still at least some joy in the world if someone out there is taking the time to index all the key Simpsons episodes and quotes and post them in a very professional way on the Internets so the rest of us can reference and enjoy them. Without it, we’d all just be wandering around with onions on our belts without truly understanding the reason why.

    By the way, I’m not a trivia buff at all, but I do have what I believe is the ultimate Simpsons trivia question. I say “ultimate” because I’ve never seen or heard it mentioned anywhere else - ever - which I find rather surprising considering the number of Simpsons trivia experts there are out there. Also, it goes all the way back to Season 2, so that’s like 18 years and still no mention of what I think is a gem piece of trivia. Folks, let me know if anyone here is interested in such a thing, I’ll gladly share it tomorrow. (I don’t want to take up the space otherwise).

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  01:35 AM
  34. Nevermind - I spoke too soon. After I posted that last comment, I finally did find a reference to that piece of trivia. I knew it had to be impossible that it wasn’t out there somewhere. But here’s the question anyway: in the episode Simpson and Delilah, when Homer get the keys to the Executive Washroom, what piece of music is the live chamber ensemble playing? Here’s the link to the (very funny) clip:

    http://beta.sling.com/video/show/42714/19/Homer-Gets-the-Keys

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  01:45 AM
  35. How about playing this drumming?

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  06:12 AM
  36. The liberal moralist who gives her unqualified blessing to any member of black robe posse (aka judiciary) commits as egregious an intellectual sin as does the conservative amoralist.

    Perhaps peruseCockburn on Sotomayor as another BO-Admin. pro-business moderate. Whooop, there it izz.

    (Nearly Hawaii Five-O intro. worthy, but don-day estas the 16th note cross-stix?  Tempo needs a bit of work though Maestro)

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/30  at  10:30 AM
  37. Ezra, who gives “unqualified blessing” to anyone? I sure don’t. That doesn’t mean one should let racist attacks go unanswered.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  11:27 AM
  38. Paraphrasing VI Lenin’s comments regarding Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” you lack theoretical understanding (and by that, ah don’t mean to bless po-mo’s OR marxists across the board).  Whooop, there it Be. 

    Try tackling Alex Cockburn’s essay on Sotomayor (and his errors, if errors they be).  Anyone who pisses off both liberals and conservatives--and soi-disant leftist academics, for that matter--- cain’t be all bad.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/30  at  11:52 AM
  39. Hmmm - sounds like Janacek SQ #2, but I suppose it could be Ravel.

    (That would be re: Simpsons, not the ought-five drum thing)

    Posted by Dave Maier  on  05/30  at  12:15 PM
  40. Anyone who pisses off both liberals and conservatives--and soi-disant leftist academics, for that matter--- cain’t be all bad.

    I love the smell of argumentum ad temperantiam in the morning. Are you angling for David Broder’s place at the Post*? Oh wait, is it that he pisses them off because he’s too radical? I’m very confused. But you’re right! I read it and learned that Sotomayor is OF THE ESTABLISHMENT!!! Next thing you know I’ll find out that Bill Clinton was not a Socialist.

    *Go fo it if you are. It would be an improvement.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  01:10 PM
  41. Hey frat-Crow, did you (or can you) read Cockburn’s essay on Sotomayor? Perhaps tell Alex he’s a David Broder: or mo’ better, I’ll forward yr name and email to the Counterpunch crew.  Yr another centrist fraud, just like the rest of the Unfogged gals.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/30  at  01:19 PM
  42. Cockburn’s the best:  no one can regurgitate right-wing memes from the “left” like ol’ A.C.  When he’s not claiming Sotomayor is a quota pick (as here), he’s arguing that Obama got where he is only ‘cuz he’s black.  Some people look back fondly to the days when A.C. was repeating Clinton Chronicles tin-foil-hat material about cocaine smuggling in Mena, Arkansas, but my personal fave was his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:

    We all have to go one day, but pray God let it not be over Afghanistan. An unspeakable country filled with unspeakable people, sheepshaggers and smugglers, who have furnished in their leisure hours some of the worst arts and crafts ever to penetrate the occidental world.  I yield to none in my sympathy to those prostrate beneath the Russian jackboot, but if ever a country deserved rape it’s Afghanistan. Nothing but mountains filled with barbarous ethnics with views as medieval as their muskets, and unspeakably cruel too.

    “Press Clips,” Village Voice, January 21, 1980.  Now that’s the kind of thing that pisses off both liberals and conservatives--and soi-disant leftist academics, for that matter.

    Posted by Michael  on  05/30  at  02:08 PM
  43. Ah yeahh, like Bukharin-level gonzo.  Some of us w’d hang with a bolshevik, even bloody-handed ones, ‘fore a Hillarycrat, dude (and let’s not forget that Obama the supposed chi-town leftist chose Dame Hillary for like Policewoman of the western world, or the Bailout, Biden, Gates, etc.).

    For that matter, the “anyone who pisses off...” hyperbole was merely an add-on, and not the raison d’etre of my comments, which pertain to Cockburn’s assessment of Sotomayor as another BO-Admin. pro-business moderate, in brief. (not saying I completely agree, either). 

    Whether one agrees or not, the Counterpunch posse does at times provide a pungent alternative to the ID-politics-obsessed rhetoric of, like, east-coast beltway liberals.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/30  at  02:20 PM
  44. Hmmm - sounds like Janacek SQ #2, but I suppose it could be Ravel.
    (That would be re: Simpsons, not the ought-five drum thing)

    Dave - those are both really, really good guesses. Thanks for playing! I was soooo embarrassed last night to have finally found that trivia bit online after I posted at #33. Here’s the correct answer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVLTQh0BAG4

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  02:23 PM
  45. Magnifique! (though imagine some dread H-5-o trap-set intro, and bit less sucre) Debussy’s a Counterpunch type of dude--

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/30  at  02:54 PM
  46. Hey frat-Crow, did you (or can you) read Cockburn’s essay on Sotomayor? in response to a comment that includes “I read it and learned ...” should win some kind of self-referentially self-defeating comeback award.

    However Michael, AC actually got to the Mena stuff before the Clinton Chronicles folks; you know, back when it was a joint “Clinton-Bush I” smuggling black op (he accuses both sides, so it must be true!). Another one he pioneered was Kerry as an out-of-control war criminal while in Vietnam, a trope that the Swiftboaters picked up and which was (incredibly) still included in the book despite how well it (didn’t) play with the rest of the critique.*

    *Truly one of the all-time lows for the media. A 10-year old reading the book would have seen it for the amateurish “throw everything possible at the wall” smear job that it was. But, but, but it had footnote! ...sorry for dredging up past history, the media would never fall for crazy shit like that these days.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  03:16 PM
  47. You are deeply, deeply confused, EH. For example about what a “Bolshevik” is. Lenin and Trotsky were Bolsheviks, Cockburn - not so much. He’s nowadays basically a Eurocom mixed with a crank. He and Michael can duke it out over which invasion of Afghanistan was more liberating. (I’m not saying Michael is a crank, or a Eurocom for that matter.)

    And it’s Cockburn (and by extension you) whose theory needs some help. We are sadly living in a capitalist state, with a justice system based on law created to defend property rights above all else. What kind of judges do you think will be appointed? Read some Pashukanis to brush up on Marxist legal theory.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  03:16 PM
  48. No, you’re deeply confused, Xtian H.  Cockburn may have greened a bit compared to his earlier soviet-esque self, but he’s hardly a rightist-libertarian.  CP’s anarcho-socialist if you need some convenient label, though not PC, and not Israel-friendly--one reason why many liberal-moralists now consider AC a rightist may be his consistent criticism of Israel, AIPAC, wall street, etc. 

    CP features quite a multicultural group of writers, yet still focuses on labor, economic, and environmental issues--and civil liberties and cop/prison issues as well (like pointing out the police state aspects of Dems--say a POS like DiDi Feinstein-- as well as GOP). They’re not about some Oprah show like celebrity do-gooderism, or the obvious hick-GOP targets (no one needs to hear your predictable rage against Rush Limbaugh). 

    Indeed, I suggest the labor awareness and anti-elitism of CP the key factor for the Varsity Town democrat’s dislike of Counterpunch and Cockburn, and why he’s not syndicated.  Cockburn represents the old-school proletarian left, for most part: not the postmodernist hipster urban faux-radical.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/30  at  03:41 PM
  49. Thanks, OG!  That’s the tune I thought I heard, but for some reason I misfiled it as Janacek (d’oh!), even while those French harmonies were saying otherwise.  I’ve actually seen this quartet performed live, but I couldn’t concentrate on it because my mind was still blown from the blistering performance of Bartok #5 before intermission.

    capcha: point, as in H. Nilsson.

    Posted by Dave Maier  on  05/30  at  03:47 PM
  50. Some of us avoid chit-chat about object petite a’s, or boring PBS-style chamber muzak, or the some frat-boy BS session on Wittgensteinian language games, or Pynchon’s latest 1000 page wank-off, etc.  We discuss like the Petroleum market, or dwindling oil reserves, energy topics, the lending crisis. Or the most recent LAPD GPS gear put into action (probably by order of the Demo-controlled cop or prison guard unions).  Commodification, like.  Cockburn & Co. understand that, or did at one time.  Not real pretty or even “philosophical”, but that’s the nature of economic realism.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/30  at  04:10 PM
  51. EH, you really should read what others write before you comment on it. I obviously never claimed that AC is a “rightist-libertarian”. I wrote that he’s a Eurocomm (a degenerate state many former tankies attain eventually) and a crank. I also didn’t address CP in general, although how publishing various former Reagan administration officials is “anti-elitist” or “anarcho-socialist” is something you might want to explain in further detail.

    I agree that some of the liberal hatred for CP is a consequence of liberal support for Zionism (PEP - “progressive except Palestine"), but CP does make it easy by giving a platform to conspiracy mongers like Paul Craig Roberts and outright antisemites like Gilad Atzmon and even self-declared “ex-Jew” Israel Shamir. Principled antizionism and anti-racism (and you can’t be either without the other, imo) looks different.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  04:12 PM
  52. Debussy, first movement. (Nope, didn’t peek.) Great piece.

    Captcha: although, as in “although it would be refreshing if it weren’t always paired with the Ravel on one disc.”

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  04:27 PM
  53. A crank?  Rather pathetic criticism, if not the usual ad hominem. Quantify that, or at least substantiate.  “Crankness” or grumpiness, whatever doesn’t negate the writing. HL Mencken a crank as well. I’m not defending him anyways, just said he provides an interesting contrast--and not lacking economic/labor awareness-- to say some Molly Ivin BS, Greenwald little whines, or whatever pundit du jour. He’s also not a tenured UC/Ivy league/Stanford hipster, or guru ala Zizek, so the academic blogocrats generally don’t pay attention.

    Counterpunch taken as a whole generally out-performs about any of the usual leftist or academic pundits (Zizek the clown included) ranting about psychoanalytical BS or obvious ID-politics, or the polite Rorty-like aesthetic basura.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/30  at  04:33 PM
  54. Debussy, first movement.(Nope, didn’t peek.) Great piece.

    Excellent. But are you Simpsons “geeky” enough to have had that little tidbit just rattling around in your brain, or did you have to watch the hulu clip and then identify the music? Just curious.

    Captcha: although, as in “although it would be refreshing if it weren’t always paired with the Ravel on one disc.”

    Sure, but we both know why that is. Pretty much the best you can hope for on one disc is a good performance of both, plus an interesting third piece if you’re lucky.(The Hagen Quartett’s CD is quite nice).

    The reason why this Simpsons bit has always stood out for me is because the easy and obvious choice would have been something from the Classical era, typically Haydn or Mozart. But someone in the production made the brilliant creative choice to go with the darker and weightier Debussy, which compliments the Mr. Burns character much better anyway. It’s those little details that made those early <i<Simpsons</i> seasons so great.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  05:29 PM
  55. Oh, I was just teasing Ezra about Cockburn—christian is right (again!), he’s basically a Eurocom and a crank, and I didn’t even bring up his global-warming-denial shtick (it pisses off liberals, so . . . !).  Though I will take a few idle moments to ponder the question of which invasion of Afghanistan was more liberating.  OK, got it!  The US was wrong to jump in and help the Saudis fund the Islamists the first time, and should have done more to keep them from retaking the country (and Pakistan into the bargain) the second time.

    Anyway, Ezra, the reason I came back with the Traditional Alexander Cockburn Taunt, or T.R.A.C.T., is that you really should know by now that none of the regular readers of this blog is so befuddled or deluded as to think that Democrats are the saviors of democracy.  Nobody around here needs to be reminded of Clinton’s deregulatory agenda, because no one around here has a Billary shrine.  (Except for Ben Alpers, who hasn’t been back since I made fun of the fact that his Billary shrine requires him to sacrifice a Lani Guinier every six months in order to propitiate it.)

    And now for the world-historical matter before us.

    Zarquon @ 35:  How about playing this drumming?

    Thanks!  That’s a great tune, and I enjoyed hearing it first thing this morning.  But with all due respect, I think I should play something less floor-tommy next time around.  I spent some time last night messing with the cymbals, and might have something in that vein ready for next week.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  08:39 PM
  56. And JP @ 46:  However Michael, AC actually got to the Mena stuff before the Clinton Chronicles folks

    Quite true!  I stand corrected.

    And Oaktown Girl @ 34, I am, as ever, in your debt.  Though it’s kind of scary that that episode dates from 1990.  Has The Simpsons really been that good that long, after that warmup first season?  Even Shakespeare didn’t have that long a run—he only got going with Romeo and Juliet, after all, and nobody really counts Henry VIII or The Two Noble Kinsmen, so we’re really talking about only 17 or 18 years there.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  08:51 PM
  57. Anyway, Ezra ... you really should know by now that none of the regular readers of this blog is so befuddled or deluded as to think that Democrats are the saviors of democracy.

    On the other hand, we still have much to learn from Ezra about this Old Left vs New Left theory of his, which is his.*

    *statement not valid in the lower 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, and the space-time continuum as conceptualized by Sean Carroll.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/30  at  08:57 PM
  58. Well, I also learned today from EH that Lenin was a po-mo academic marxist. Don’t discount that.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  09:01 PM
  59. and the space-time continuum as conceptualized by Sean Carroll.

    What sort of space-time continuum conceptualization do you expect a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin to have?  (Despite their casually-stated desire to meet, I suspect that if the Seans ever actually crossed paths, both universes would end.)

    Well, I also learned today from EH that Lenin was a po-mo academic marxist. Don’t discount that.

    Well, once Ishmael Reed turned out to be more authentically red than the International Socialist Organization, it was only a matter of time before V.I. Warshawski Ulyanov got airbrushed out of YouTube videos.  Watch your back, christian h.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  09:43 PM
  60. I like the giant document that Colin dropped.  I was expecting it to be the Pentagon Papers or maybe a TANG memo.  I dare him to go larger.

    Posted by Pinko Punko  on  05/30  at  10:00 PM
  61. Well, I suppose I could have said “not valid wherever Hox genes are in evidence.”

    Actually, I really like the Wisconsin Sean Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful as a very nice intro to evo-devo. But I know MB’s broken the internet more than once discussion The Other Sean, so I thought I’d name-check him. Not that he needs my acknowledgment!

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/30  at  10:26 PM
  62. Well, I suppose I could have said “not valid wherever Hox genes are in evidence.”

    John Protevi is now officially my new crush.  Never mind how heartbroken Nell… etc.

    Wait, what were we talking about again?  Oh, right, whether Lenin ever read a book of Marx.

    Posted by  on  05/30  at  11:03 PM
  63. mds, there’s no way I’m risking Chris Clarke’s jealous rage! I might find myself up a creek running north without a paddle!

    Captcha, and I am not making this up: “love” as in “tainted”

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/30  at  11:21 PM
  64. The plethora of Sean Carrolls is confusing, I’ll say that.  I wonder if they snake each other’s dinner reservations?

    I’ll set the scene:

    SC: ”YOU again?”

    contemptuously

    “Butterfly wing Bob.”

    Other SC: “Nice to see you, Black Hole Barry.”

    SC: “Hox gene Harold.”

    Other SC: “Big Bang Bert.”

    SC: “DNA dilettante.”

    Other Sc: “Dark matter dabbler.”

    fin

    Posted by Pinko Punko  on  05/31  at  12:28 AM
  65. Glad to see Ginormica got a gig at the Princeton UP PR dept.

    @28, ditto on the hi-hat work. Mighty tasty.

    Michael@56, Or, in S’s case we have the early years about which we know zip. Who knows what he might have written then. Perhaps the true and secret text of The Da Vinci Code for Dummies, maybe the Protocols of the Elders of Islamofascism, or perhaps even I Was a Teenaged Roomba.

    Posted by Bill Benzon  on  05/31  at  01:30 AM
  66. He’s nowadays basically a Eurocom mixed with a crank

    He mixes his Euros with crank??? Well that would make sense in that he lives in the south part of Humboldt County and the surroundings of Garberville where crank and hashish are endemic to daily life. 

    What??? He is a Eurocom crank??? Oh, never mind.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  02:40 AM
  67. Michelle Bachman, closet fem-bot commie or false profit of doom???

    Inquiring minds need to read the first installment of the Michele Bachmann comic misadventure at:
    http://www.citypages.com/2009-05-27/news/a-michele-bachmann-comic-misadventure/ brought to you by biasedliberalmedia.com

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  02:57 AM
  68. 58: Re-read the post. You lack theoretical understanding. Not only that, you’re incapable of objective reading (like Cockburn. Oh, wow, not approved by like ZionCo.). And “Crank” is nothin’--the product of a bourgeois mind really.  It means something like “not invited to the westside/new haven/boston par-tay.”

    Sad, MB, that you’ve let the DNC take over yr site.  It’s not just Billary either.  Feinstein. Pelosi. Most of ‘em--all waved the flag.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  10:15 AM
  69. I didn’t even bring up his global-warming-denial shtick.

    Let’s bring that up-- Cockburn dared to diss........Al Gore, cuddly PC-liberal in charge! (and Occi man for years. Cockburn didn’t deny it. Counterpunch featured a group of AGW skeptics, including Dennis Rancourt, hardly some Fox news rightist. It was a debate, and the key point concerned the claims of man-made C02 as culprit. That remains an issue (Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has doubts of AGW via CO2 as well. As do others--not all yr dreaded GOP foes).

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  10:29 AM
  70. "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  10:35 AM
  71. GoreCo has been blessed, and all dissent against his views on AGW--the work of Fox News nazis! (or Eurocoms, working with nazis). 

    You don’t care for Dyson, try Rancourt’s rather devastating critique. Rancourt doesn’t deny AGW outright: he casts doubts on AGW as a global phenomena, questions the data, the methodology, the IPCCmodels. Counterpunch did a good job in bringing the AGW skeptics (including leftist ones) to the public, or at least the ones who don’t mistake the NYT, DailyKOS or ivy league postmods for reality. 

    Alas Big Al was not quite Freeman Dyson or Crichton, either, while drinking his way through a Harvard journalism degree. He managed like Cs in Physics-lite concepts for Dixiecrats or something.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  10:59 AM
  72. Sad, MB, that you’ve let the DNC take over yr site.  It’s not just Billary either.  Feinstein. Pelosi. Most of ‘em--all waved the flag.

    OK, Ezra, that’s a bridge too far. Say what you will about the Clintons, but how dare you smear this blog’s all-time favorite public figure, Nancy Pelosi? No one here has ever questioned her in the slightest, and by God, as long as I draw breath, no one ever will! What’s next, man, Harry Reid? Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

    We are all Nancy Pelosi now!

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  11:36 AM
  73. We are all Nancy Pelosi now!

    Except for those of us who are Al Gore!

    Posted by Michael  on  05/31  at  12:02 PM
  74. The Poodle bites.....The point wasn’t merely Demo hypocrisy, Doc JP though on most liberal sites, when someone does point out Dem-hyp. or a Feinstein’s voting record (about as liberal as say Trent Lott’s), the regs, even the faux-marxists, make the usual varsity-town chuckle, and say like, we didn’t know that, dude. Reading their smarmy-goy snark you wouldn’t know they knew it, or were particularly troubled by it.

    One notes this evasive tactic with most Demo scandals. The recent scandal with Harman (and DiFi involved as well). popped up for a few days, the TPM crowd indulged in their muckraking-lite, and it’s squelched. (other squelched stories: Feinstein awarding contracts to defense corps. with ties to her man Blum, or Billary’s war profiteering, etc.). 

    Counterpunch at least occasionally rakes muck the old-fashioned style, like with the rake swinging at the heads of chi chi suburban liberals AND rednecks.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  12:05 PM
  75. How about Nancy Drew, Sonia Sotomayor’s favorite girl detective?

    Posted by Bill Benzon  on  05/31  at  12:05 PM
  76. Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon Nancy Pelosi, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor, and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.

    But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Chávezistan is extinguished forever.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  12:11 PM
  77. Protevia, as Kornholio!  Save it for talent-nite, senor. 

    Again, to point out the obvious: it’s not that you or most mainstream Dem sites worship the Demo. leaders, Pelosia, Billary Feinstein et al.  More along the lines of you/they are too spineless to take ‘em on, probably for fear of offending Dept. chairs, blogger comrades, important femmes, wifeys, bathhouse palsies, etc.  The anti-feminist aspects of Counterpunch also rate as a Plus (no, that doesn’t imply some frenchy striped-shirt Phunn, Protevia).

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  12:42 PM
  78. I knew it was Bloc Party, just could not recall which song--in fact, I went through the album, and got stuck on “Like Eating Glass,” which has a great drum beat!

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  12:43 PM
  79. More along the lines of you/they are too spineless to take ‘em on, probably for fear of offending Dept. chairs, blogger comrades, important femmes, wifeys, bathhouse palsies, etc.

    Rather pathetic criticism, if not the usual ad hominem. Quantify that, or at least substantiate.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  01:00 PM
  80. Ah, that can be easily substantiated, V-Ed.  Merely gaze at the usual Demo-hack blog, grande o pequeno--KOS, DU, Salon, even down to CT, Unfogged, Ygglesia, Berube, etc.--taking the usual potshots at the good ol’ boys, while something like Harman spying for the Israelis or Feinstein’s war profiteering never appears. 

    Hey now, another reason for bolshevik nostalgia hour (or maybe me cliffsnotes to Nietzsche): one of their first acts in power was to like implement a STFU-order on booj-wah feminists.  Make friends with yr inner Al Jazeera, V-ed.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  01:10 PM
  81. Now, now, little puppy, don’t you have another move than the gender insults?

    But seriously, Hound, what makes you more angry: that we mock you, or that we have fun despite you? Is that it? You don’t have any friends and you hate it that others do? That’s just sad, dude, sad.

    But if that’s the way you want to play it, let us know, cause whichever one it is, that’s what I want to do more of. That’s the way we roll up here in Chávezistan.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  01:16 PM
  82. We? You mean you, Doc Poodletevia.  Yr usual evasion, again. Then, for a postmod, why ever bother with Twuth? Who cares about the facts of AGW, the lending crisis, big oil, AIPAC, etc, when you got the endless talent-nite online.  You’re another cowardly aesthete.

    (ah another Plus for Counterpunch: Dr. Bricmont posts there on occasion, with some wicked, hyper-rational, scientifically informed anti-zionism (that isn’t the same as some hick anti-semitism, either), guar-ann-teed to scare the F. outta the usual lit-twit or phraudosopher).

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  01:32 PM
  83. It’s true, Ezra, everyone else here* but me holds you in the highest regard and can’t wait to learn more from you about the evils of the DNC every time you post. You’re not really a sad lonely little puppy but actually a popular guy with a lot of friends who doesn’t hate communities of people who make jokes and have fun without you.

    *on all the intertubes in fact!

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  01:52 PM
  84. JP, zounds, I’m wounded. You’re not the counselor here. Like most of the berubean gang, you have yet to respond to one tangible point I have raised regarding Counterpunch/ Cockburn (care to take on Dyson or Bricmont--Or the other numerous points contra-DNC? Or critique of Gore/IPCC/oil biz? Harman, Feinstein? In other words, merely ignore/disregard, and the topic’s been addressed, according to chi-chi crat code).  Stick to like yr ebonics Foo-cault or whatever BS you truck in. 

    Rev. Hound’s sunday mornin’ service has concluded. Buena suerte, Basuristas

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  02:13 PM
  85. So that’s it, isn’t it? Little puppy cries himself to sleep every night: “who cares if I don’t have any friends? I’m smarter than all of them! Some day they’ll wake up to the DNC and Al Gore and Billary and Harman, yes, Harman! And all those creeps I was the only one smart and brave enough to take on! Al Gore’s fat and dumb! They’ll have to know I’m smarter than all of them then, and they’ll be sorry they laughed at me! I’ll show them!”

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  02:30 PM
  86. Protevia, you’d do well to STFU, punk. This isn’t about yr little pop-psychology hour (note the routine Ad homs and defamation, MB. Im making substantial points, and being defamed).  I’m about 200 lbs, few clicks under 6 ft, bench press over 400, curl with 130 or so, and quite a few years of Tae Kwon Do. You wouldn’t care to meet me in person.  Capiche?

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  02:49 PM
  87. A few links, as a public service:

    On AC as a crank.

    And here.

    And <a hre="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/06/alexander_cockburn_goes_quote.php#more">here</a>.

    Something on Dyson.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  02:50 PM
  88. You wouldn’t care to meet me in person.

    Truer words were never spoken.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  02:52 PM
  89. Ah Poodle boy, do you even know what AGW or CO2 is? Cockburn’s point regarding “two lines on a piece of graph paper” remains spot on (the dweeb on science blog--like a male nurse or something, not atmospheric physicist, chemist or even climate type--simply misunderstands it). Even the realclimate/IPCC/Gore clowns acknowledge it (the time lag problem), and have to deal with it.

    The IPCC’s own data does not at all prove a correlation between increased CO2 and rising temps (whether natural CO2, or man-made --the “A” in AGW genius). Many other variables--water vapor, wind, oceans, etc.  Temps did not rise with increasing man made C02 in 20s and 30s. Temps don’t all soar after volcanoes (which emit tons of C02). Chem. labs have not established AGW “science” (ie increasing CO2 leading to sig. temp increase. capiche??) The climate people know this (and thats assuming temp data even reliable. Oops, margin of error. Sorta deep for a Pomo), and time lag “science” not at all established.

    Besides, the Cockburn-bashers also ignore AG’s own sources, including some high-powered scientists (including Rancourt), and other AGW skeptics, like Dyson, or they try to tie a skeptic to some non-PC, or non-liberal. Uh oh Dyson, voted for Reagan--he’s a nazi, and definitely not pomo poodle par-tay material!  Yr tooo schtoopid for words.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  03:10 PM
  90. Besides, the Cockburn-bashers also ignore AG’s own sources, including some high-powered scientists (including Rancourt), and other AGW skeptics, like Dyson,

    Ah, yes, Dyson the theoretial physicist, famed for his highly-empirical spheres around stars.  I’m sure he’s brought the full force of quantum electrodynamics to bear on AGW.  If only “trees could simply be persuaded to drop diamonds instead of leaves,” as ocean chemist David Archer notes when pointing out that Dyson doesn’t appear to have seriously educated himself about carbon sequestration.

    And geophysicist Michael Mann is a male nurse only in his time off from being the director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center.  Though this is still nothing compared to a peer-reviewed political journalist when it comes to climate science, I know.  (Oh, you picked only the Hoofnagle demolishing of Cockburn to dismiss.  How convenient.)

    Perhap “Hound” should be replaced with “Pelican,” since I don’t think pelicans have any real understanding of what they reflexively regurgitate either*.  Of course, I’d still support having you replace David Broder.

    *Yes, yes, a dog returns to its own vomit.  I went with pelicans because this is a family blog.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  04:17 PM
  91. Deal with the points, not yr little character defamation game, mdschek.  Hoofnagle didn’t prove jack (and Mann produces climate models--simulations. Not really chemistry, or physics. So , yes, I’ll stick with Dyson with reservations). It’s not about Cockburn anyways--he’s not an isolated figure. Cockburn provided links to many AGW skeptics (though they are not cute Al Gore types in chevy hybrids headed to the eco-rock concert)

    Dr. Crichton--not quite a Dyson, but a bit more qualified than Gore is on these issues-- also mustered a wealth of info. demonstrating the implausibility of the IPCC/Gore models, especially in regards to AGW and CO2 (now, deep thinking time--does that mean Hound agrees with Crichton’s f-ed up political views?? Hint: nyet) Mann was also compelled to change his modelling by the US Govt. itself because of his careless use of temp. data.  Who the F. cares, though: naysayers ruin the par-tay--ah yeahh Mamacite Tipper in da house.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  06:13 PM
  92. Hound, I’m not the climate change expert you are. I’ll bet you’ve probably written 14 books on the subject, 6 of them published. So when you take your fight to those who do claim some expertise, but are on the other side from you: Tim Lambert at Deltoid for the stats, or the Real Climate people for the science, will you be sure to let us know? I’ll need a few minutes to make the popcorn.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  06:44 PM
  93. Let’s see the realclimater’s counterarguments to Crichton (they have yet to understand MC’s point on reliability of temp. data), or to Rancourt, or mo’ bettah, Dr. Hug. (don’t worry yr pretty head, Poodletevia--get that Ebonics Genet text together)

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  06:50 PM
  94. Dr. Crichton--not quite a Dyson, but a bit more qualified than Gore is on these issues

    Michael Crichton, the male nurse?  “Not quite a Dyson” is an interesting way of putting it.  Or are you thinking of the chicken magnate?

    A commenter on the article by the MD/PhD who is to be dismissed on sight as a know-nothing, especially compared to brilliant peer-reviewed polymath Michael Crichton, MD, notes the following:

    I think it’s interesting that Cockburn thinks this ad hominem will work. He seems to think that science derives at least some authority from the stature of scientists.

    Hence, the Arthur C. Clarke quotation I already provided.

    Seriously, Hound, if there’s a bingo card out there for AGW denialism, you’ve filled in virtually everything except “Jesus made the climate 6000 years ago.” Congratulations.  Now, don’t you have a bedroom shrine to Freeman Dyson to wank* off to?  The rest off us will stroke our pomo chins and carefully decide how much weight to give Cockburn’s belief in the abiotic creation of oil.  Then we’ll all break to watch the scientific documentary Jurassic Park.

    *I originally went with “jerk,” but this is a family blog.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  07:04 PM
  95. Real Climate on Crichton’s State of Fear: here. Bonus: Chris Mooney on the same.

    All Real Climate posts with “Crichton” in them.

    But really, Hound, you’re the expert. Why not just go over there and explain their errors to them? C’mon. If all else fails, you can tell them how much you bench. Though I had you figured for a master your own body weight kind of guy.

    And you know, Hound, you can still step to me on French philosophy or my work in general anytime. I just may not let you off the hook the next time, like I did <a href=http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/every_so_often/">here at 96-97</a> to your oh-so-evident relief.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  07:07 PM
  96. Oops. Here’s the last link from above.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  05/31  at  07:10 PM
  97. Well, at least it can be said that this Friday has indeed turned out “very arbitrary”. for what it’s worth, I think Cockburn has, throughout his life as journalist and activist, been on the right side of issues more often than not. But he’s embarrassingly wrong on AGW and related issues (like “peak oil").

    Captcha: “material” as in, historical -ism.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  07:32 PM
  98. What is he wrong about, Xtian--Care to point it out? You think if enough climate dweebs shriek Cockburn/AGW skeptics are wrong, they are wrong? Nyet. Not exactly how science is done (ie not about “consensus"). Counterpunch writing on petroleum biz usually on the money as well, and that it tends to piss off “liberal” capitalist types sort of proves the point (note that big Chevron icon on DailyKOS).

    Another thing: the central point of AGW skeptics concerns CO2 as culprit. Temps may be rising in SOME areas (as most skeptics would grant), but there is no hard data showing that CO2 led to that, or that it’s man-made, anomalous, or worth spending a few billion on to prevent. (Even that loudmouthed royalist Monbiot expressed doubts of CO2 as culprit).  Btw, Crichton was Harvard MD. Not Harvard O-k.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  08:23 PM
  99. Not exactly how science is done (ie not about “consensus").

    No, it’s done by journalists at Counterpunch, by individual professors in blog posts, and by MDs in works of fiction.  Thanks for explaining the scientific method to the pomos.

    Or, as Monbiot put it,

    Scientists in the United Kingdom sometimes satirise people who claim to know more about their own subjects than they do by imagining how they would respond if asked to provide their references. “Man I Met in a Bar, A. 2006. Why I am Right and Everyone Else is Wrong. Proceedings of the Inebriate Society, Vol 9991524, no4.” So far, Alexander Cockburn’s references amount to “Man I Met on a Ship, A. 2001.”

    Also, peer review is a conspiracy concocted by The Man.  Fortunately, Cockburn isn’t buying it, especially on the subject of where oil comes from.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  09:14 PM
  100. Sorry Ezra, but I’ll also refer you to sites by climate scientists, like realclimate.org. You are, of course, free to believe that they are all involved in a big conspiracy to invent AGW - a conspiracy that started more than a hundred years ago when people first noticed CO2 had a heat-trapping effect - just don’t expect everyone else to agree.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  09:18 PM
  101. Sorry, Xtian, but I already referred you to the scientists--like Dr. HUg. You just haven’t , or can’t read them. Realclimate is not the authority, anyway--they are modellers, for most part. See McIntyre as well (though Mc’s a bit techie and non-PC for the tofu, hybrids and buttplug crowd)

    Cockburn’s point re rising man-made CO2 in 20s and 30s and lack of rising temps (when IPCC’s own models themselves say temps should rise) remains an issue, regardless of the R-C isotope hype (CO2 is CO2, and it’s like 99% CO2/12) . Even Doc Hansen, AGW ueber-quack says CO2 not the real culprit, but probably methane, or other GHG. And that in itself defeats Gore’s eco-hype. 

    (Hey meds, like, xanax maybe).

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  09:44 PM
  102. I’m reminded of an adage about mud-wrestling a pig, but I’m not certain why.

    Regardless, even though someone is wrong on the Internet, it’s probably best to admit defeat.  After all, none of us here could handle the rigorous work of real scientists, like Michael Crichton’s novel.

    Also, Al Gore is fat.  That is all.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  10:44 PM
  103. No, that’s not all, phony. You simply don’t know what the real issues are (like CO2 is benign, more likely than not), just yapping away, following orders, probably from some gangsta.  Counterpunchers are not rightists, either--. You are, meds.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  05/31  at  10:51 PM
  104. You know, i am very tired of this crap you are spewing doggy boy.  Perhaps you should meander over to CalTech, for example (since you seem so fascinated by one of the former professors who has been dead for a while), and just do a simple search of the annotations of published material by professors of various departments--all of whom agree that anthropogenic global climate change is a fact and extraordinarily dangerous.  Until then, you have become nothing more than a silly tail-wagging puppy pooping in someone else’s spaces.

    Posted by  on  05/31  at  11:12 PM
  105. You know, before everyone gets all bent out of shape here, we need to step back and give thanks for this thread.  Because here we have someone who, over the years, has spent hours of time and thousands of blog comments skewering Pomo Theorists across the length and breadth of the Internets for (among other things) their ignorance of elementary facts about the physical world, and he’s going to the mat for Cockburn on global-warming denial.  You just don’t get wonderful stuff like this every day, people.  So before anyone hurls even one more insult, take a nice deep breath and say:  thank you.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/01  at  12:21 AM
  106. he’s going to the mat for Cockburn on global-warming denial.

    Hey! What about me?

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  12:40 AM
  107. Thank you.

    Because yes, as a physics undergrad I was annoyed by those spouting off that electrons were just a construct of the patriarchy*.  But now that I know that science doesn’t work by establishing consensus amongst scientists educated in a particular field or by peer review, I can abandon my arrogant ways and acknowledge that: (1) if it involves a model, it’s nonsense, and (2) if someone with a recognizable name pounds the table, they’re right.  So I appreciate the irony that a supposed critic of pomo has shown me the truth about the invalidity of the scientific method, thereby poppering my bubble.  Hey, why won’t this light switch work any more?

    *They actually used a terse version of “male genitalia science,” but this is a family blog.

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  12:55 AM
  108. You know, back in my day, scientific hoaxes had moxie.  Nowadays, it’s as if they’re not even trying any more.

    If anthropogenic global warming wants to be taken seriously as a hoax it needs to stop being all true and stuff.  Maybe it could glue on a pelican’s beak, or someting.  Stupid amateur!

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  02:38 AM
  109. Michael@105: Are you suggesting that EH is in the early stages of ICS, Internets Conversion Syndrome?

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  06:35 AM
  110. Thank you Metatron for bringing us this thread with the .jpg as big as the sun that warms us at an accelerating rate.

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  06:44 AM
  111. @Oaktown Girl:

    But are you Simpsons “geeky” enough to have had that little tidbit just rattling around in your brain, or did you have to watch the hulu clip and then identify the music? Just curious.

    I’m a mild “Simpsons” geek--Season Two is earlier than the episodes I know--but a more severe music geek. It knocks me out that Lisa’s favorite Miles Davis album isn’t “Kind of Blue” (the obvious choice) but “Birth of the Cool.”

    I haven’t heard the Hagen Quartet version but I like one by the Keller Quartet, a group from Hungary who have also recorded the six Bartòks and the Art of Fugue--terrific players.

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  09:55 AM
  112. Against all better judgment I post the following from here via Atrios:

    We can only hope that from this day forward, climate scientists, erratic British peers, faux-populist Fox News hosts, retired petroleum geologists, and undistinguished economists from conservatarian thinktanks will put aside all the name-calling and conspiracy theories, and meet each other as equals on the field of sober scientific inquiry. What could they possibly have to lose?

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  10:33 AM
  113. Numerous links were provided to scientists--not merely journalists--who have doubts about the Gore/IPCC model of AGW with CO2 as culprit.  McIntyre’s site indeed has some recent work suggesting flaws, and possible bias in Mann’s research (ie biased in favor of exaggerating dangers of AGW, and keeping millions in shekels going to.....grants for climatologists! no shocker there).

    I don’t think one of the literary geniuses of MB.com even bothered with any substantial points--even Cockburn’s points. (and as far as professors go Doc Spyder, the neo-con hippie, open up Dr.  Hug’s research and give it a go (the IPCC has not as of yet refuted it)).  This ugly but somewhat informative thread has revealed the lengths blog-boys will go to to avoid undermining the Vichycrat code, like Gore/IPCC’s flawed model of AGW (and Gore a pawn of oil biz for years)

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  06/01  at  10:37 AM
  114. Hound, I have to say that I will always treasure the fact that is was *you* who wrote the following: “this ugly but somewhat informative thread.”

    Posted by John Protevi  on  06/01  at  10:44 AM
  115. ie biased in favor of exaggerating dangers of AGW, and keeping millions in shekels going to.....grants for climatologists!

    Yes of course, the asymmetry of the economic rewards accruing to the “pushers” of the AGW myth as opposed to the clear-sighted penniless saints on the other side. Why didn’t I see it before? They blinded me with post-modernism.

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  10:48 AM
  116. Yes of course, the asymmetry of the economic rewards accruing to the “pushers” of the AGW myth as opposed to the clear-sighted penniless saints on the other side.

    Your gloss, Storm-cow. Crichton was not penniless, and while his politics were not great, his points contra-IPCC/Gore (like on reliability of temp. data/margin of error, for starters, and the CO2 hype) have not been refuted.

    Another MB gloss (repeated ad nauseum): the suggestion that anyone who doubts IPCC/Gore models sides with the Fox news nuts. GOP, and so forth. B f-n S. Dennis Rancourt canadian physics professor has written some quite powerful essays demolishing the Gore/IPCC models of AGW, and he’s even to the left of like paree-

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  06/01  at  11:18 AM
  117. EH, you simply lack the most basic self-awareness. Nobody here has claimed Cockburn’s position on AGW makes him a Republican. Rather, you are the one who claims that not agreeing with it makes one a “Vichycrat”. I don’t support Democrats, liberals etc. Never have, never will. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with Cockburn on everything (thank god!).

    You whine on about “substantive points” but you don’t make any - unless you count the assertion that Michael Crichton “hasn’t been refuted” when people have provided numerous links refuting Michael Crichton a “substantive point”.

    You constantly complain about “ad hominems” but your posts are full of the most childish name-calling.

    Let me ask your authentically red self something: when’s the last time you have joined a picket line? Been to a demonstration? Been tear-gassed by cops? When, in fact, have you last engaged in any political action beyond trolling blogs? If you don’t have a good answer at least to the last question, you better fuck off.

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  12:51 PM
  118. You whine on about “substantive points” but you don’t make any -

    Wrong.  Note the points against the Gore/IPCC models and the CO2 as culprit thesis, the great leaps of faith required by the AGW claim (as Cockburn had pointed out via the two charts) the links to scientists/writers who also doubt those models, etc.,(not outright denial, as insinuated by most berubeans) including my last post with a link to Dr. Rancourt.  So substantive points were made: you simply ignored them.

    I don’t have to answer your last irrelevant whine--which is, like most of yr faux-leftist writing, merely alarmist, moralist, an attempt to stifle dissent, and so forth--and anyways plus noir que rouge, so like phuck off yrself, phony (tho’ in fact have been to demonstrations, battled cops, and at times supported some union causes).

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  06/01  at  01:17 PM
  119. Yeah, Stormcrow, Denis Rancourt wrote a rigorous, peer-reviewed blog post.  It even got quoted by noted scientist James Inhofe.  And Rancourt is an anarchist, so there!  (Anarchism makes someone an impeccable source?  Someone let Chomsky know that EH loves his work.)

    Also, using “have not been refuted” as an equivalent construction to “have been refuted again and again, but I’ll just dismiss the refuters as not knowing as much as Crichton, because I’m merely cutting and pasting talking points with no actual understanding” is awfully postmodernist.  Not to mention terser.  So, thanks again for that.

    And so I close by referring to the words of Orac, who given that he’s an MD who doesn’t agree with Crichton, is presumably also merely a “male nurse”:

    I can’t recall how many times I’ve heard cranks exult that they “defeated” scientists who “couldn’t stand up to their arguments” simply because said scientists got tired of refuting the same stuff over and over. I myself have made the mistake of getting into prolonged e-mail exchanges with such people before (a mistake I most definitely do not make anymore), and I’m pretty sure that I’m probably right about this. I get tired of responding to the same canards again and again too, and I usually end up just dropping out of the exchange.

    So, Ezra Pelican wins again.

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  01:20 PM
  120. Rancourt is a real physicist, not merely a climate-simulator (Mann et al). His politics were mentioned only because it shows your typical claim (or at least snarky insinuation) that AGW doubters are rightists, was, like most of yr lame writing, uh, wrong.

    The usual peer-review byatch means little or nothing (in fact quite a few AGW scientists, and skeptics have been peer-reviewed, like Hug). It’s more pathological. Your fragile little world can’t handle the idea of dissent, disputation--much less the idea that like Big Al Gore, pal of corporate execs everywhere, or some simulation wanks, might be mistaken.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  06/01  at  01:36 PM
  121. Now I take it back. I thought that when Ezra Hound (!) wrote

    This ugly but somewhat informative thread

    that the internets would grind to a halt to mourn the final death of irony, which had been hanging on by a thread.

    But then he comes back with

    It’s more pathological. Your fragile little world can’t handle the idea of dissent, disputation

    and I realized that irony could in fact be disinterred, resuscitated, and then killed all over again.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  06/01  at  02:05 PM
  122. Now, here’s some rather impeccable DoubleSpeak from Mdsokov:

    Yeah, Stormcrow, Denis Rancourt wrote a rigorous, peer-reviewed blog post.  It even got quoted by noted scientist James Inhofe.  And Rancourt is an anarchist, so there!  (Anarchism makes someone an impeccable source?  Someone let Chomsky know that EH loves his work.)

    Note the emphasis on canadian “Denis"--like Richard Cohen type frenchy-bashing, perhaps? (not that the new, corporate MB seems to mind). No need to read this frenchy quasi-physicist who also happens to support some “anarchist” like causes (eeeek!), and then tie to Chomsky (another leftist hated by moderate dems), and then top it off that EH “loves” Chomsky (respect some of NC’s work, but no love). Bravo, mdsokov, you win the crypto-neo-con du jour award, without even bothering with one AGW issue/problem.  (I would think that might even offend a Poodletevia, but no)

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  06/01  at  02:30 PM
  123. Note the emphasis on canadian “Denis"--like Richard Cohen type frenchy-bashing, perhaps?

    Hound, you’re really on fire today! You really don’t see that he’s mocking *you* for having misspelled “Denis” as “Dennis” in 116?

    As for Rancourt, with respect to climate change, he’s just Some Guy With A Blog. But that can all change when you go over go over to realclimate.org and ask *them* what they think about Rancourt? They don’t have any posts on him, and this would be a real test of your mad skillz to engage them on Rancourt’s worth as a climate scientist. Be sure to tell them how much you bench while you’re at it. Cause that’s a real show-stopper.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  06/01  at  02:41 PM
  124. Ah yr feeelings are hurt, jp.  I don’t need to go anywhere, jp-ster--and I’ve been aware of realclimate--and their errors, and corporate AGW hype-- for like last three years or so. Why not, instead of blessing mdsokov’s Doublespeak du jour, instead read Rancourt’s informative essay (and the Denis riff not merely about spelling, except to a punk), or AC/Monbiot’s debate, or other AGW-doubters who were linked to--though you’d probably first have to finish that Stats 101 for Pomos to understand like margin of error or variance, etc. (Al Gore/IPCC is not progressive politics, either)

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  06/01  at  03:44 PM
  125. Man, irony is dying a thousand deaths today. After his performance at 85-86 above, Hound is talking about *my* feelings!

    Whattsamatter little puppy? Not enough love growing up? No friends now? Tell us how much you bench, man! That’ll show ‘em. You’re smarter, braver, AND stronger than all of ‘em!

    Posted by John Protevi  on  06/01  at  03:52 PM
  126. You know, every time I taunt an obviously sick person like Hound about the roots of his sickness I feel bad about it afterward. It’s like bearbaiting, and it’s really not an admirable side of my online personality. There’s this go for the jugular thing about me and trolls and I don’t like it really.

    So, MB and friends, sorry about that, and I will never engage Hound again.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  06/01  at  04:03 PM
  127. You’re sick, Putevi, not to say obsessed, seething with rage. I’m discussing matters of fact which you do not understand (like the Gore/IPCC claims of man-made CO2 as culprit). Then you attempt to pull some typical literary Ad Auctoritas (--ah realclimate, they look like....experts, and PC too!).  Realclimaters are not experts, certainly no more than Rancourt is (or Dyson, Hug, McIntyre, even Crichton, many others) Your discussing like your paranoid delusion of the hour. 

    The moderate blogocrats have decided that those who doubt the official AGW story via Gore/IPCC/realclimate shall be considered rightists, quacks, cranks, anarchists, etc. It has little to do with the specific problems of the AGW models, or the faulty research and data, chemistry, the stats issues, but with the ideology of dissent, more or less. That’s how Brave New blogs function.

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  06/01  at  04:17 PM
  128. I don’t know about Bloc Party as a whole, but “Banquet” is one catchy tune.

    What--did I interrupt something?

    Posted by Jason B.  on  06/01  at  07:26 PM
  129. I’m with you, Jason.  That chorus is positively catchy!

    What, were we talking about something else?

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  09:30 PM
  130. Oh my. The heat and dis-corum these drum-only trax generate.

    I for one refused to give up easily this time. I regret giving up easily on Rikki; had I only let your Rikki track wash over me a few times, surely the distinct tat-tat following the curlicue following “. . . change of heart” would have fired all sorts of groovy synapses. I mean, my band covered Rikki.

    There are only 5,936 trax in my iTunes, a couple dozen from 2005 and quite a few from c. 1905 (Satie, Ives). Not to sound all experty, but isn’t that a dance track? My only dance tracks from 2005 are by Brazilian Girls.

    Anyway, I give up. Is it Banquet? Sure sounds like (30 seconds of) Banquet.

    That is all. Oh, my friend Nelson has something to add.

    “Ha ha. Someone doesn’t know it’s spelled ad nauseam.

    Posted by David J Swift  on  06/01  at  10:08 PM
  131. “Ha ha. Someone doesn’t know it’s spelled ad nauseam.”

    Typical PC liberal spelling “consensus.”

    Also, does “Heinz Hug” sound to anyone else like something that would happen in food porn?  ‘Cause no one models the atmosphere as a single slab for radiative transfer purposes any more, except for Dr. Hug, incompetent modeler “peer reviewed” at an economic teacher’s personal blog.  So I was figuring he had to have another career on the side.  A sexy career.

    I know, I know.  Borges warned us that the whale shark, though of low intelligence, has an apparently bottomless appetite for well-diced chum, so good luck making one explode like Mr. Creosote.  But as Michael Corleone said in Godfather III: “Just when I thought I was out, someone else overuses this line.”

    Posted by  on  06/01  at  11:13 PM
  132. Sorry, folks. Ezra Hound is a figment of my deeply disturbed imagination, and I am afraid he is unable to prove otherwise.  Take that!

    CAPTCHA:

    Say, say, say, what you want, but don’t leave me with no direction, on Alex Cockburn and AGW”

    Posted by Pinko Punko  on  06/02  at  01:00 AM
  133. My last wordism is strong.

    Cf.

    Now your trip to the dark side is complete /CAPTCHA

    Posted by Pinko Punko  on  06/02  at  03:19 AM
  134. Bloc Party is fantastic, in pretty much its entirety.  You might also like The National—I don’t know much about drumming, but have noticed that their drummer is often doing beautiful, complex things in the background (e.g., “Fake Empire”; I think there is a better example, but it would take me hours to find it).

    Posted by Auntie Maim  on  06/02  at  07:21 PM
  135. Lot of funny stuff on that simpson website, thanks for showing me that one!

    Posted by Charles  on  03/29  at  06:28 AM
  136. I am doing a report on this subject. Your article is full of really useful information. I will make sure to come back to check out your posts for my next report.Pilates Gladesville

    Posted by  on  06/23  at  01:38 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Almost forgot!

Previous entry: Summertime!

<< Back to main