Third-Tier Pundits, Part 3

Goldberg seems to like embarrassing himself, so he won't let go.

---

Third-Tier Pundits, Part 2

JONAH GOLDBERG, BOTTOM FEEDER
by Justin Raimondo

Some excerpts:

The absolute evil of what passes for today's conservative movement may not shock my more liberal readers, but those of us on the Right who were brought up in a more salubrious time remember when things were quite different. Believe it or not, conservatives didn't always resort to smears instead of arguments – indeed, they were the most frequent recipients of smears (let the shade of Barry Goldwater testify on my behalf!). As a tiny minority during the 1950s and 60s, the organized right-wing in America was an ideologically diverse and intellectually exciting crowd – a far cry from the lockstep party-lining one-dimensional movement of war-bots we see today. ===== Much has been made of the lack of civility in public discourse, noted especially during the Clinton years, but no one has recently made the point that the public debates of a republican order differ qualitatively from politics in the age of Empire. In his 1992 lecture to the Heritage Foundation, Kirk cited Amaury de Riencourt, the author of a prophetic book entitled The Coming Caesars, published in 1957, widely discussed at the time and now forgotten: "Unless measures of restraint should be taken, Riencourt wrote – and taken promptly – the United States would fall under the domination of 20th century Caesars." Kirk went on to cite this passage from the text: "With Caesarism and Civilization, the great struggles between political parties are no longer concerned with principles, programs and ideologies, but with men. Marius, Sulla, Cato, Brutus still fought for principles. But now, everything became personalized. Under Augustus, parties still existed, but there were no more Optimates or Populares. No more conservatives or democrats. Men campaigned for or against Tiberius or Drusus or Caius Caesar. No one believed any more in the efficacy of ideas, political panaceas, doctrines, or systems, just as the Greeks had given up building great philosophic systems generations before. Abstractions, ideas, and philosophies were rejected to the periphery of their lives and of the empire, to the East where Jews, agnostics, Christians, and Mithraists attempted to conquer the world of souls and minds while the Caesars ruled their material existence." The money sentence: Everything becomes personalized. This is the substance and the style of the post-Clinton conservatives, whose polemics are reduced to drive-by smearing. Formerly obsessed with the sexual antics of the Arkansas Caesar, they are now employing the same tactics against their enemies on the Right – witness the really nasty and quite personal assaults launched on Taki, Buchanan, and myself. The drive-by smear technique, as perfected by Radosh, Goldberg, the National Review-Weekly Standard crowd – and their enablers in the Establishment liberal media complex, such as Howard Kurtz and Alexander Star – is their only weapon. Ideas don't matter, truth is irrelevant – if only they can have war in the Middle East, the ends will have justified the means. (read the entire article)

---

Third-Tier Pundits, Part 1

The Unbearable Lightness of Third-Tier Pundits
by Mano Singham

In the educational system that existed in Sri Lanka when I was growing up, students had to decide in the eighth grade what direction their future education would take, Since I knew I wanted to do physics, I chose to go in that direction and the rest of my education consisted of heavy doses of physics and mathematics with absolutely nothing in history, geography, literature, and social studies. Naturally, this created huge gaps in my own knowledge base that later in life I have had to fill in as best as I can on my own. This is not entirely a bad thing. One benefit is that I have not developed a hatred for the omitted subjects that those who have had heavy doses of formal education sometimes get. I actually like history and read about historical events for fun. And as I get older, I find that I know a lot of recent history by default, as I have actually lived through events that my children must learn about from history texts. But the benefit that I value most is that this awareness of my gaps in knowledge has made me cautious about cavalierly challenging those people who have devoted their lives to studying these subjects. It is not that I accept their knowledge and conclusions unquestioningly. It is that I realize that the burden of responsibility is on me to study the issue carefully and be reasonably sure of my facts before I challenge these authorities. But no such concerns seem to exist in the mind of Third-Tier Pundits™ in the media who think that they can voice any opinion on the flimsiest of knowledge and escape unchallenged. But they do not always get away with this. We saw in a previous posting how Jonah Goldberg went a little too far is asserting his superior knowledge and judgment about the middle east and got slapped silly by University of Michigan professor of history Juan Cole, someone who has devoted his life to studying that region. But unfortunately Goldberg is far from alone in over-reaching in this way. Ann Coulter, another distinguished member of the Third-Tier Pundits™ Hall of Fame, recently made some typically inane comment on an American talk show about how Canada is an ungrateful neighbor and should be very careful about annoying the US by not always siding with the US in its foreign policy, since the US could squash it like a bug, or words to that effect. Coulter’s comments were noted in Canada where, needless to say, they did not go over well. She was interviewed by Bob McKeown of the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s news show The Fifth Estate, in the course of which she condescendingly scolded Canada for not sending troops to Iraq. And it was at this point that Coulter, like Goldberg, got stopped cold because she had come up against an interviewer who knew the facts of the case and was not going to let her escape unchallenged, the way she gets away in the US media. The transcript below of the exchange comes from Direland. The actual video clip is well worth seeing, especially the part where Coulter looks desperate and flails around trying to salvage her point. (Thanks to commenter Cathi for the tip.) ******* Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam." Coulter: "I don't think that's right." McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam." Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?" McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No." Coulter: "I think you're wrong." McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam." Coulter: "I think you're wrong." McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada." Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops." McKeown: "No." Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that." McKeown tags out in script: "Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam." ********* Being wrong on the facts is sometimes excusable. We all make mistakes from time to time. What is interesting is that people like Coulter and Goldberg are brazen in their utterances, take extreme positions, are unapologetic about their ignorance (note that Coulter does not have the grace to later apologize to McKeown for wrongly challenging him repeatedly on the facts), and seem to have no internal sense that warns them that they are dealing with someone who might know more than them. I saw the interview clip. McKeown is a Canadian. He is a man in late middle age. He would have been in the exact age range to be eligible to be sent to Vietnam, if Canada had sent troops. He would have been acutely aware if fellow Canadians his age, including his friends and relatives, were fighting and dying in Vietnam. Surely warning bells should have rung in Coulter’s mind that this man might know more than her about this particular topic? But clearly she had no sense of caution and it is interesting to speculate as to why. I think it is because her kind of vacuous hit-and-run punditry has become commonplace in the US. People say absurd things on TV or in print, are not challenged by the interviewers in the conventional media, and then go on to make some new charge the next day. After doing this for years, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that one is untouchable. Should we be concerned about this phenomenon? After all, who cares what Third-Tier Pundits™ like Coulter and Goldberg and Michelle Malkin think, since there is no evidence to suggest that they have anything useful to contribute on any important topic? How do they get such access to the airways anyway? In a later posting I will discuss why we should care.

---

Fight the bully

NoSavage.org

---

Homosexuality is an attack on the American Family

---

Liberal Ronald Reagan?

Obama emerges as a liberal Reagan who can reunite America

by Andrew Sullivan

The historical analogies for the phenomenon that is Barack Obama have already stretched credibility. For a while pundits likened him to the effete loser Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic party’s 1950s version of Labour’s Hugh Gaitskell, the greatest prime minister we never had. But Obama doesn’t seem like such an airhead after his gritty, crushing defeat of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I long thought he’d win – but I never thought it would be by eight points, or that he’d push Clinton into third place. So now the favourite analogy is JFK: the young, hopeful rhetorician urging a New Frontier after two terms of conservatism. But that doesn’t work either: JFK won by out-hawking Nixon in 1960, and Obama is a clear antiIraq war candidate. Bobby Kennedy is more apposite: a mix of inner steel and an evolving moral candidacy. Just as a vote for RFK in 1968 was seen by many as a form of collective self-absolution for Vietnam, so Obama resonates among many Americans who do not recognise what their country has become these past few years. The analogy that worries Republicans the most is a more recent one. Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan? Could he do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans a quarter century ago? (read the entire article)

Adobe Acrobat copy of Obama emerges as a liberal Reagan who can reunite America

---

Lyall’s Law

The most important leg of a three-legged stool is the one that’s missing.

---