Mark Levinsane Strikes Again
So thanks to this half-assed attempt at humor, I seem to have joined my colleague Mr. “Friedersdork” on the list of guys with websites whom Mark Levin most loves to hate. So far as I can tell, though, the process that led to this decision involved little more than Levin – or an assistant, perhaps – doing a Google search for recent mentions of the Unmockable One, coming up with clever ways to make fun of my name and affiliation (Schmuckler! Perversative! OMGROTFLMFAO!), and then adding me to the roster straightaway. (Apparently the best way to combat the deranged is to drum up some free traffic for them.) To which I can only ask, really? I mean, we’re supposed to be putting together a list of The World’s Most Deranged Bloggers, and this is all that’s involved in the vetting process? Shouldn’t there be, like, a considered ruling by some sort of panel of experts on blogospheric derangement, or at least a more careful review of the potential candidates’ bodies of work?
I used to think inclusion on this list really meant something, but this kind of thing makes me wonder whether Rod is actually such a “Crunchy Conman” after all.
Why do your children? Why do you despise your country, and its puppies, and their puppies? Why do you seek to destroy the small of a woman’s back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, and good scotch? You haven’t even sold as many books as Mark Levin. NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!!
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 27, 04:28 AM · #
I note that most of the world’s most deranged bloggers are conservatives. Coincidence? I think not. Clearly conservatives all evil. Thank you, Mr. Levin!
— Justin · Jun 27, 05:30 AM · #
I see Levin is another one of these far right loons shilling for gold dealers. What’s up with that? Sorry if that’s a little OT.
— Kevin the Baker · Jun 27, 12:25 PM · #
Who has the time to listen to these guys? That is part of what confuses me. I certainly do not have time at work and have more productive things to do at home. If I am going to goof off or look into issues of interest, listening to radio is probably the least time efficient. That aside, I appreciate your efforts here to deflate the radio blowhards. Maybe as part of this effort you could advance a list of people on radio (other media also) who make serious, thoughtful and helpful arguments from the conservative POV.
Steve
— steve · Jun 27, 02:02 PM · #
Maybe you guys are deranged like the used car dealer is crazy—your commentary and reporting is so insightful and at such low prices that it proves YOU’RE TOTALLY DERANGED.
— Consumatopia · Jun 27, 04:37 PM · #
Dude, this post would be a lot stronger if you didn’t call him “Levinsane”… that’s almost as bad as “Schmuckler”… (or is it meta? commentary on how inane Levin’s ‘puns’ are? in which case I salute you…)
— rob · Jun 27, 06:12 PM · #
“Levinsane” is owed to Christopher Orr, and was indeed as meta as they come.
— John Schwenkler · Jun 27, 06:30 PM · #
For the others, the link goes to their blog front page, but for yours it only goes to the Prefab post.
Maybe he secretly likes your blog, but that one post was a step too far?
— Keljeck · Jun 27, 07:59 PM · #
Congratulations, Mr. Schmuckler. Now you’ve really arrived.
— william randolph · Jun 28, 12:08 AM · #
Well…. joo know, Conor……there just ain’t no rest for teh wicked.
— matoko_chan · Jun 28, 01:13 AM · #
I wonder, is it really as The Great One says; conservatism is a big tent; in which case it would appear acceptable for you so called conservative bloggers to bad mouth a fellow member of the conservative movement. Or, is it the case that many are simply, as I like to put it, self-hating conservatives. Those types that know conservative values and philosophical ideas are the right way, but still insist on liberal values and tendencies. In which case I would respectively ask for the lot of you to quite wearing the mantel of conservatism, it is rather bad form to so blatantly obfuscate ones true intentions, and kindly leave us (conservatives) alone.
While I admit, as an avid listener of Dr. Levin’s radio show, he is a bit on the course and rough side. I do on the other hand wonder; has anyone actually taken the time to read his books and actually listen to the man? Not just the words but the meaning behind them. He is not (and does not claim to be) a Hume, Locke, Sartre, or Rousseau, but he does speak of the conservative movement in rather modern philosophical terms, i.e. LIBERTY and what liberty truly means, and more importantly what it means to the conservative.
Keep in mind there are two basic ways in which to discuss politics.
Policy
Philosophy
Mark talks about Philosophy and how it applies to the modern conservative and by in large not policy. If you want policy I would suggest Boortz he is on from 8:30A.m.-1:00P.m. ET for those interested.
P.S. Thank you Mr. Friedersdorf, your post was well put.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 28, 01:32 AM · #
He is not (and does not claim to be) a Hume, Locke, Sartre, or Rousseau, but he does speak of the conservative movement in rather modern philosophical terms, i.e. LIBERTY and what liberty truly means, and more importantly what it means to the conservative.
There’s your problem Conor! You are one of those damn pointy headed elites! No wonder you and Schmuckler are scorned by Modrun Feelosphers like Levin! You are poseurs and cocktail sippers!
What LIBERTY! means to the conservative…..whining about regulations imposed on the Survival of the Greediest (aka freemarket capitalism) while frantically attempting to legislate penises and ovaries and murdering abortion doctors.
— matoko_chan · Jun 28, 01:16 PM · #
my bad….Modrun Feelosophers.
— matoko_chan · Jun 28, 01:46 PM · #
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” Benjamin Franklin
Regulations create markets, and conservatives recognize this. It may seem odd but contract law is one giant business regulation. This is one example of government regulation working to benefit the market. Patent, copyright, and trademark laws are other examples of regulations that assist and promote business. Conservatives are not about survival of the greediest they are simply opposed to the sacrifice of liberty and the ability to gain and maintain property for security. To put it another way conservatives prefer freedom to, rather then freedom from. We prefer laws that are based around what the government can’t do rather then what government has to do.
As far as regulating essential organs of the body, I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at? Rape, Statutory Rape, Molestation, Bestiality, Indecent Exposure, Incest; exactly which regulations are you talking about, please clarify.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 28, 10:26 PM · #
Your examples are all of proven harms to society, and established law protecting citizen rights.
Teh Unborn are not citizens, sowwy.
Opposition to SSM, and forcing women to be wombs of the state are examples of the oppression of citizen rights in a pluralist republic, as were anti-miscegenation laws and segregation academies.
Examples of purient spying into bedrooms and ignorant racism.
And yes, Ann Coulter is just Levin in drag as far as I can tell.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” —Thom Jefferson
— matoko_chan · Jun 28, 10:56 PM · #
I figure the longer that list gets, the better it is for conservatism in the long run. Congrats on making the hall of shame, John… ;)
— E.D. Kain · Jun 29, 02:28 PM · #
Alas, my employer has blocked Mark Levin as inappropriate. I’ll have to sit this one out. Boohoo.
— Ray Butlers · Jun 29, 04:37 PM · #
“Apparently the best way to combat the deranged is to drum up some free traffic for them.”
Looks like you’re getting the first wave of the free traffic and I must say, you get what you pay for.
Any bets on the next AmCon/TAS/grad student blogger to make it on Mr. Levin’s prestigious list? My money’s on Daniel “EuBLOWmia” GAYrison.
— Scott Shaffer · Jun 29, 07:41 PM · #
You seem to be making my argument for me.
I do suggest liberty but I do so in an organized manner. My examples are to simply point out that we do regulate certain human behaviors. As far as many of my examples are concerned, in earlier times they were not frowned upon. For example in ancient greece it was common to have relations with boys as young as 14, and sometimes younger (molesting them by our standards). Even as early as the early 20th century it was common to be married and have children at 14-16, both men and women alike. Yet today, as a value judgment it is 18. In our county we can send our young men and women to die at 18 but restrict them from having alcoholic beverages until they are 21. If you read even further into history, you will find that we have many established laws against polygamy, bigamy, and obligamy. Yet many of the more liberal movements seek not true equal liberty, but a kind of backwards series of freedom from rights, which is not the same as liberty.
It is the case here in America that two competing and opposite view points can be worked out. So while one state views certain laws in one way, the other states can allow the opposite laws (gun control is a good example). If not then there is always the amendment process to the constitution.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 29, 11:33 PM · #
There are a few different ways of looking at economics and the place regulations play or should play.
If you look at it from a capitalist point of view you don’t see the market as it should be you, see it how it is. The capitalist is the ultimate realist. He argues that there are certain laws that affect how people make decisions in the market place. This was in essence what Adam Smith argued in “ The Wealth of Nations.”
Next we get into what SHOULD the government do. The capitalist (aka most Conservatives) would argue that the government should regulate the market to make it ‘regular’ to optimize how it works. In essence the capitalist does not impose a moral judgment on the market, he simple tries to direct its natural forces in a less harmful way, and to make it work efficiently.
This is not to say that conversatives don’t have values that they associate with capitalism, but these are drawn out of the above principle they don’t hinder it.
As far as other regulations surrounding incest, gay marriage, abortion, etc these come from our commonly help belief systems. They are sometimes universal harms, (such as murder), but not always. For example, Universal health care comes from a belief system not an objective argument that is an economic benefit.
Liberal’s and socialist on the other hand believe that the market harms people and want to force it to behave in a way that it doesn’t naturally behave in. They want to use regulation to aid the poor, etc etc and all those other good intentioned programs that so often pave the way to hell.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” —Thom Jefferson
TO those that misuse the founding fathers……….stop. The founding fathers discussed a lot of issues, abortion was not one of them. They also did not discuss gay marriage. Thomas Jefferson was most likely referring to his states rights argument. While I definetly believe in states rights myself, it is important to note that his line of arguement was the same that helped begin the civil war. It is also important to note that he was in France when our Constitution was being written, so quoting him about the underlying purpose of government is helpful, but must always be done with that caviat.
— Cliff · Jun 30, 12:14 AM · #
Cliff, liberals believe that the market sometimes harms people.
The free-market system is the best economic system yet devised. It has done a world of good by fostering innovation, technology and creativity. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect or that it can be allowed to operate without constraint.
There is no such thing as an unfettered free-market system anywhere. Liberals and conservatives simply disagree as to the degree of restriction.
— Travis Mason-Bushman · Jun 30, 12:45 AM · #
I am not arguing that the free market system exists unrestrained anywhere, that is not what I am saying. I am simply arguing that liberals and conservatives approach the economic issues from different perspectives. It is also true that there is a spectrum on which different people land between these issues. That on the other hand does not invalidate the basic argument that people that are liberal or lean towards that side of the argument tend to have a love-hate relationship (at best) with the free-market. They accept certain aspects of it ( Creativity, innovation) but deride profit’s made by the same corporation that fostered the innovation. Every campaign cycle corporations are derided as evil, instead of making an honest attempt to understand their motivations or the risk they take when operating in the market. There are of course evil people making bad and incredibly evil decisions, but that’s not really the point.
— Cliff · Jun 30, 01:58 AM · #
Pfft
Look Thomas Hamilton, anyone in Ann Coulters and Mark Levin’s tribe just isn’t in mine.
I don’t need to work anything out with insane clowns and terrorist apologists.
Read my lips….68% of the country opposes overturning Roe.
SSM will be legal just like miscegenation became legal…through cultural evolution and the rule of law.
nah nah hey hey
Roe v Wade is here to stay
It don’t matter what they say
s’long as they don’t vote that way.
Its generational
— matoko_chan · Jun 30, 04:41 AM · #
First off, we have no idea how opinions are going to evolve over time- it does appear now that society as a whole is getting more liberal and more excepting, but we cannot tell how these things will change in 20 years. Who knows how today’s 20 year old’s will think when they are 40!
Secondly, these things change significantly. Most of the people in the country probably believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned (as it should be) then abortion would be illegal overnight. That is far from the case, it would simply become a state by state issue most likely. Each state would be free to adopt its own laws regarding the issue. Another note, the polls supporting Roe v. Wade are always higher then those supporting actual abortion. We are also noticing younger people dividing over these issues differently. We see young people supporting SSM and opposing abortion!
On a final abortion note, just because people support Roe does not mean the decision makes sense…
What is sadly the case is that Conservatism has not had a talented messenger since Ronald Regan! Who knows what could happen if we found someone like Obama for the conservative side, except this time he actually has a clue about what he’s talking about.
— Cliff · Jun 30, 06:21 AM · #
if Roe v. Wade were overturned
IF……aint gonna happen.
You have no clue about Obama’s mad skillz.
He is a bricoleur, and a subversive. Look what he just did with the Presidents council on Bioethics.
“Reid Cherlin, a White House press officer, told the New York Times that Obama saw the panel as “a philosophically leaning advisory group” handpicked by the Bush administration, and that he wanted to appoint a new bioethics commission that instead offered “practical policy options.”
The council’s mandate expired last September, so Obama could have just continued to ignore them. But he apparently didn’t want them around to comment on new guidelines for ESCR to be issued by the National Institutes of Health on July 7. The guidelines were requested by Obama when he lifted restrictions imposed by Bush.
Dr. Peter Lawler, chairman of the department of governmental and international studies at Berry College, was one of those terminated by Obama — via a note saying he would no longer be a member of the council by the end of the next business day.”
Obama sacked the bioluddites and fake-scientists, while retaining any authentic talent and co-opting them for his administration.
That is bricolage…..reusing or re-engineering structures for a different or enhanced function.
Obama is doing the same thing with the Faith Based Initiative….Bush intended it to fuel evangelical xian churches….Obama is making it into an all-faith program that will run local welfare engines and safety nets.
And conservatives are so busy screaming themselves hoarse and their audience deaf with faux outrage over Iran and anyother issue where they think they can get traction…….that they don’t even feel the blade going in.
— matoko_chan · Jun 30, 12:55 PM · #
These are not skills (and by the way, your spelling of skills is wrong it’s an “s” not a “z”) representative of an elected official who seeks to mend fences and build bridges (as he campaigned on). These are the types of purging tactics used by those who seek to grab mass amounts of power. As far a Roe v Wade; it would seem to me that liberals are more hung up on this issue then conservatives most of us find the decision appalling from a 10th amendment constitutional stand point, not necessarily from a simplistically moralistic stand point. Besides, conservatives have much more important things to deal with then the committee on bioethics, it is not that important.
Why not talk about something substantial rather then sighting the actions of a usurper?
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 30, 03:53 PM · #
haha, but Obama IS mending fences and building bridges…..with Olympia Snowe for example……but not with, say, Sarah Palin. ;)
It is bricolage again.
Discard the useless, co-opt the useful.
— matoko_chan · Jun 30, 06:07 PM · #
Matoko,
Where is my copy? I reiterate my demand for a biographical sketch. Feel free to change names to protect your anonymity. Suggested topics: upbringing, education, occupation, friends, contents of refrigerator, romantic interests, favorite films, most recent vacation. Inquiring minds want to know!
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 30, 07:32 PM · #
I dunno Conor.
Have you ever been stalked?
My footprint is pretty unique even with changed names.
I’ll think about it.
In the mean time, you can read meh at talkislam.
I’m shams.
That is my muslim name.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jun 30, 08:20 PM · #
haha building bridges? You have got to be kidding me! If you call letting Nancy Pelosi essentially write your legislative agenda and ram it down everyones throat outreach, or If you calling not letting members of the HOR read legislation before they vote on it building bridges then that is exactly what he is doing!
Obama has fired a council on bioethics, I actually do care about this. We live in an age where medical science is advancing at a rapid rate and instead of taking time to ponder what we should be doing this jackass of a President fires them with little notice! So now we are not going to consider the morality of our actions, instead we are going to exist in a very real relativistic end-justified world. Who cares who you hurt, as long as you get what you want!!!!!!!!! Reminds me of Nietzsche!!!!
I would also note that Obama also fired an IG for pushing his friends around…..seems like a lapse of morals to me…maybe he could of used some ethical council!
— Cliff · Jun 30, 08:55 PM · #
Cliff, the president gets to choose who advises him.
Obama fired a “Council on Bioethics” whose members were selected by the Bush administration and who were ideologically compatible with the Bush administration’s opposition to stem cell research.
Why would you be feigning shock that Obama replaced Bush political appointees with his own political appointees? That’s what happens when you win an election.
Also, using more exclamation points doesn’t make your point more persuasive.
— Travis Mason-Bushman · Jun 30, 11:38 PM · #
While it is true that using more exclamation points does not prove your point, it does make it sound cooler…
I am not shocked, shocked I say that he fired them,but I am disappointed that he did not replace them with his own advisers on bioethics. His press officer said that he instead wants a commission to give him “practical policy options” which to me says “no bioethics discussions” or “ I need someone to rubber stamp my ideas as ok.”
I would remind you that an IG ( I am assuminig your argument applies to his firing as well, if not please correct me) is not suppose to be a political appointee. They are suppose to be watch dogs for the people’s money.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/06/29/media-ignore-further-questions-obama-firing-inspector-gen-walpin
— Cliff · Jun 30, 11:57 PM · #
My point was….. he only fired the useless ones. he co-opted the useful ones for his agenda.
and that is how Obama is reshaping our culture and our government.
Quietly and subtly.
That was the Council of Bioluddites.
Useless waste of spacetime.
We need to be discussing technology egalitarianism for anti-senescence therapy for one thing….who gets it?
The rich? Can the rich buy designer babies when genetic diseases need to cured?
Instead of weaving bible quotes into a work product designed to spread more lies about stem cell therapy, which is all the council of bioluddites ever did.
;)
But that is just one small example.
— matoko_chan · Jul 1, 01:18 AM · #
And, yah, Obama can fire whoever.
If it was illegal, sue him.
— matoko_chan · Jul 1, 01:23 AM · #
haha technology egalitarianism, so socialism strikes again! Much of the research our society drums up these days is driven by a profit motive. That is why it gets done. Companies find markets, some small and some large, then produce product and sell. Making a successful drug takes many many years and many millions dollars. There is simply no motivation to make drugs for those who cannot afford to pay for them. In other words, there needs to be a market. This does not mean that only the rich get drugs and therapies, but they would perhaps get them first. This only makes sense sometimes, it may not be right, but its how a free-market works. This does not mean that companies will not treat ‘poor peoples diseases.’ There is often a large market for these kind of vaccines or treatments as long as they are cost effective, or government sponsored.
I hope someone does sue him. He violated a law that he helped sponsor as a Senator in the firing of the IG. He didn’t give 30 days notice or any credible cause, both of which are required to fire an IG.
On the bioethics panel…wasn’t Obama the one who wanted debate and different voices during the campaign…..
As far as reshaping our culture, you have got to be kidding me. Obama can wreck our economy and damage our national security but there is precious little he can do to our culture. Britney spears has had more of an impact on our culture then Mr. Obama has. People who see anything this man does as new are simply delusional. Just about ALL of his ideas are recycled liberal dogma that has been argued for many years. With Obama the liberals simply got someone who is good at speaking like moderate and acting like a liberal. Unfortunately for America, the media so far in the tank they don’t report any of it.
— Cliff · Jul 1, 04:43 AM · #
“wasn’t Obama the one who wanted debate and different voices during the campaign…..”
Yup, but sowwy, stupid voices will now be excluded.
;)
Obama is a machiavellian pragmatist with liberal tendencies.
You guyz are simply f*cked unless you can come up with a charismatic machiavellian pragmatist with conservative tendencies to oppose him.
And guess what?
It ain’t Palin
— matoko_chan · Jul 1, 04:27 PM · #
Well let me say this, Obama’s time being so popular is very limited. He knows this and that is why he is pushing so hard to get all this done now. If we waits his agenda will get slammed by the midterms. MOC are far less likely to support controversial bills during a campaign. Heck, some of them are already in danger because of his liberal tendencies. You have to remember that the democratic majority is made up of democrats from largely conservative districts, or districts that tend to swing back and forth. Pelosi got her majority by running conservative democrats. She has then legislated like a leftist. The risk this runs is endangering her newly elected majority….Obama may be popular but he is far more popular then his actual legislation, the reality of this will eventually hit.
Second Obama is not some political genius. He simply has not had a competent opponent. Nothing he has done surprising or revolutionary.
Yeah and I ain’t a Palin fan she can go to hell as far as I concerned,
Cliff
— Cliff · Jul 1, 07:44 PM · #
While I do concede that Obama (AKA Millhouse) is a maniacal politician, and if what you argue is true he is a despotic tyrant indeed (as the The Great One has mentioned on several occasions).
It is rather quire that the world is critical of the despotisms of Bush, and his nefarious tactics, and yet when Obama (as you argue) uses obfuscation, subversive, autocratic, and authoritarian tactics; it is to be praised.
Other than Millhouse’s perceived political brilliance; do you have a better argument for the justification of Millhouses’ repugnant political actions? Political actions in and of themselves do not make one great; in fact if used in the manner befitting a fascist, then they do only harm regardless of the outcome (i.e. the ends justifying the means).
— Thomas Hamilton · Jul 1, 09:42 PM · #
A Conservative Call to Arms
I Call to Arms my brothers and sisters
To fight the
Vengeful
Vicious
Violator
I Call to Arms those of like mind
To fight the
Scheming
Sadistic
Stateist
I Call to Arms the righteous
To fight the
Unjust
Unworthy
Usurper
I Call to Arms the independent thinker
To fight the
Lying
Lambasting
Liberal
I Call to Arms all those who enjoy Liberty
To listen to this
Uncompromising
Unrelenting
Unapologetic
Conservative Call to Arms
— Thomas Hamilton · Jul 1, 09:44 PM · #
Yawn.
Like the Prophet says, the ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr.
Go ahead and sacrifice yourself, Hamilton.
Obama is a subversive bricoleur, and you guyz are toast.
He’s playing chess and you are playing checkers.
There is nothing you can do about it.
B O H I C A
— matoko_chan · Jul 1, 11:20 PM · #
There is plenty to do and many ways of resisting, talk radio is one; and did you hear the news, Millhouse’s popularity is down, and his policy numbers are down as well. Everything that he has done is one election away from oblivion (2010 is on its way). I think you misinterpret America for a dictatorship, rather then the representative republic that it is.
HDD (Honor, Duty, Dignity) my fellow conservatives
— Thomas Hamilton · Jul 1, 11:41 PM · #
bricoleur- is not a word
(closest thing I could find) bricole- Billiards. a shot in which the cue ball strikes a cushion after touching the object ball and before hitting the carom ball.
?
Even your spelling doesn’t make sense.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jul 1, 11:45 PM · #
“the ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr”
it depends.
I challange you to name 1 thing Obama has done that is brilliant…
— Cliff · Jul 2, 01:53 AM · #
My personal favorite is getting rid of the bioluddites on the Bioethics Council.
That was sweet.
— matoko_chan · Jul 2, 04:09 AM · #