I feel your pain Brink, sometimes it can get awkward conversing with socially conservative friends.

Watching this, the idea that popped into mind is the old wag that generals always prepare to fight the last war. Which is ironic given that these two individuals attempt to be among the more forward-thinking of their respective groups. Also what struck me is how both of these white, successful, highly educated professional males do not question some of the very basic assumptions they are bringing to the table. The act as if the Circus will forever keep on touring, and the discussion is about who gets to be the Ring Master this month, while the other is consigned to juggling balls while riding a pony around the ring over on the far side. Perhaps I wax too poetic? More concrete example: David's example of the airport in Chicago. He never asks why there should be another airport in Chicago.

Mmm. Or why immigrants without documents don't get college degrees. Unless Congress passes the DREAM Act. It's not lack of motivation or a poor work ethic that's stopping them.

I lived the better part of two decades in western Europe and experienced a very similar pattern to what Brink describes. Countries like Holland and Sweden, which have the reputation of wild liberalism in many folks minds back here in America, have social structures that deliver the things I hear conservatives over here championing. Intact families, even if not always in married couples, low crime rates, excellent work habits, evident pride in maintaining property, both private and public, respect for elders, high rates of school completion and learning, attention to civic responsibilities, effective public health regimes, etc. I tell friends this and they think I am nuts...."but pot isn't a crime and they give their childern explicit sex education and what about those prostitutes in the red windows?"

I'm not sure this will help you on that "real conservative" debate, Mr. Frum Ah yes, pulling the words-as-sweet-as-candy card Not exactly what I'd call 'mourning'

Some UCLA sociologists wrote a book on four generations of Mexican immigrants and their descendants called Generations of Exclusion. The takeaway is that assimilation is a multifaceted thing and so things like language, education and economic advancement may all proceed differently. I recall Brink Lindsey taking an interest and writing about the puzzle of more Americans not completing college or high school, so this is the kind of thing he should read.

I don't know where David Frum is going to end up. Lets see: 1) Novak and Buchanan are "unpatriotic;"
2) Limbaugh is a fat, drug addict;
3) Levin is beyond the pale;
4) Palin is an idiot; and now
5) Matt Lewis is awful. How much longer before Frum writes a "tell all" book about his friends at the NR and WSJ? Next stop, Media Matters.

Quoting mmacklem: I'm not sure this will help you on that "real conservative" debate, Mr. Frum

Ah yes, pulling the words-as-sweet-as-candy card

Not exactly what I'd call 'mourning'

And one more. Actually, this is a lowlight. Sheesh. The hatred! Good thing they were in different places, or the blood on the floor would have been ankle deep. ;^)

Be sure not to miss the link to Around The Sphere from Brink's "The Closing of the Conservative Mind" post (sidebar link repeated). Comedy gold. Plus, you get to listen to a Neil Peart drum solo while you're reading. (Don't worry, it will all make sense when you get there.) [Added] Brink's post is also good, albeit less hilarious. Last paragraph is especially well said. I'd blockquote it, but I don't want to step on his lines.

Quoting bjkeefe: And one more. Actually, this is a lowlight. Sheesh. The hatred!

Good thing they were in different places, or the blood on the floor would have been ankle deep.

;^)

Boy, I'm sure glad that wall was between them, or else that would have been ugly.

I agree with much of the assessment of current Talk Radio, much of it is literally pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I say this not as some hater liberal who just snarks at conservatives because it comes naturally, but as someone much more sympathetic to some of their stances.
But it is what it is. There are islands of good talk radio though David, I know he's been on Michael Medveds show before, and I hope he does not have the same opinion of him. More Michael Medved defense? Yes, because he is one of the good talk show hosts who is NOT a dumb conservative getting riled up over every little thing. But I am not most, I do not enjoy listening to dumb people, or people who make piss poor arguments. I think of Alan Colmes, who I believe was chosen because he was one of the few liberals even DIMMER than Hannity to make Sean look better. Listening to that guy on the radio when I had Sirius was like having your own flesh scraped clean, such was the state of his arguments. I did not even agree with most of what he believed and I could

Wow. Where to begin with the hand-waving and cherry-picking of our Mr. Frum? I wish I had watched this diavlog at the beginning of the day instead of the end. Let's just touch on one point: David tries to make some claim about the upper third of the population getting more socially conservative because their divorce rate is lower. Even if we assume he could back this up to some degree, it's hard to imagine a more in-a-vacuum statistic. What that number doesn't tell you, among other things, is anything about when people get married (I am under the impression they get married later now). It also does not tell you how many people choose not to get married ever (or at least not until after years of living together), compared to the early 1970s. In other words, perhaps there are fewer divorces because there are fewer candidate pairings for divorce. There are some other things that occurred to me when he said this, but I've forgotten them, so let's move on to the next step: How does this indicate anything about conservatism? For all we know, people could be staying married with

Quoting kidneystones: Welcome Brink, hello David.

Complete nonsense from one analyst who really should know better. America's intellectual right destroyed its own credibility. Any movement with Alan Greenspan at its head no longer has any claims to intellectual integrity. If David, Goldberg, and silly Sully are representative of the intellectual, non-libertarian right, a decade of sneers, attacks on liberal fascists, questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagreed, and relentless Bush ass-covering destroyed any credibility traditional intellectual conservatives might have once claimed. Why would anyone take either camp seriously? The only folks who stayed true to their roots are social conservatives, who at least have the 'integrity' of their beliefs.

UPDATE: Brink's final fifteen minutes is extremely good, especially his clear statement on the liberal home of free markets and limited government. Spot-on analysis on the move of the money-class from the Republicans to the Dem camp. That's the tension, and it's all taking place within the Democratic party. As bad as Obama is, the Republican party is hamstrung by its past, its current members, and its complete lack of vision about where America should go next. How bad is it? Contrast this clip of Jon Voight at the GOP dinner with

Quoting mmacklem: I'm not sure this will help you on that "real conservative" debate, Mr. Frum

LOL! Yeah, if his expulsion wasn't already sealed, that one did it.

Quoting bjkeefe: Wow. Where to begin with the hand-waving and cherry-picking of our Mr. Frum? I wish I had watched this diavlog at the beginning of the day instead of the end.

Let's just touch on one point: David tries to make some claim about the upper third of the population getting more socially conservative because their divorce rate is lower. Even if we assume he could back this up to some degree, it's hard to imagine a more in-a-vacuum statistic. What that number doesn't tell you, among other things, is anything about when people get married (I am under the impression they get married later now). It also does not tell you how many people choose not to get married ever (or at least not until after years of living together), compared to the early 1970s. In other words, perhaps there are fewer divorces because there are fewer candidate pairings for divorce.

I do think marriage, especially with children has a tendency to shift people towards a more conservative style of living. It is not longer just about individual freedom, there is more order that must be imposed with children. This setup does not

Quoting bjkeefe: I do want to state my happiness with hearing David speak out so forcefully against anti-intellectualism and reverse snobbery among "movement Conservatives."

Which reminds me ...

Quoting JonIrenicus: I do think marriage, especially with children has a tendency to shift people towards a more conservative style of living. It is not longer just about individual freedom, there is more order that must be imposed with children. This setup does not lend itself to wanton free wheeling Bill Maher type lifestyles.

There's something to this, although I think you're hurting your own point by introducing a caricature (who by the way is gainfully employed and has been for years, a self-made man who creates jobs for other people, who has never been arrested, is against many forms of excess, is stridently against kids dropping out of school, etc., etc., etc., so maybe it's worse that just saying this is a caricature). I also don't know that you can say "less about individual freedom" accords with the sort of litany I hear when Real Conservatives talk about "conservative values." I strongly reject the notion that being responsible in raising children counts as a conservative value. This is right out of the Frum playbook -- calling something "conservative" just because it's good.

I do not have the stats, but I believe single women are also more likely to be liberal, and

Quoting bjkeefe: ...

I also don't know that you can say "less about individual freedom" accords with the sort of litany I hear when Real Conservatives talk about "conservative values."

I strongly reject the notion that being responsible in raising children counts as a conservative value. This is right out of the Frum playbook -- calling something "conservative" just because it's good.

I think the introduction of kids, on top of a commitment like marriage in the first place increases ones focus in areas like authority, especially with kids. Kid does not want to clean up his mess... Most parents will not let that slide, and I think it reinforces the value placed on such a tool compared to a person who does not have any kids to necessitate the same level of authority in their own life. I see liberal as more free spirited, less concerned with issues of authority, but no matter where one starts out at, I think kids shift most people a bit more towards increased authority as a useful value, and that I take as closer to a conservative view.

...
You might be right about this. I don't know. I will say that I am uncertain how many

Quoting JonIrenicus: I think the introduction of kids, on top of a commitment like marriage in the first place increases ones focus in areas like authority, especially with kids. Kid does not want to clean up his mess... Most parents will not let that slide, and I think it reinforces the value placed on such a tool compared to a person who does not have any kids to necessitate the same level of authority in their own life.

I see liberal as more free spirited, less concerned with issues of authority, but no matter where one starts out at, I think kids shift most people a bit more towards increased authority as a useful value, and that I take as closer to a conservative view.

Fair enough. As I said before, I did think there was something to your point on this. Just picking at the edges. (And of course you know lefty parents love to be authoritarian, because that's how we liberals roll.) But seriously ...

Zsa Zsa is an extreme example, but even a person who was married twice with one previous divorce brings down the average divorce rate for the entire married population. I wish I had data

I _suppose_ that could be interpreted as a defense?

Quoting rcocean: I don't know where David Frum is going to end up. Lets see:

1) Novak and Buchanan are "unpatriotic;"
2) Limbaugh is a fat, drug addict;
3) Levin is beyond the pale;
4) Palin is an idiot; and now
5) Matt Lewis is awful.

How much longer before Frum writes a "tell all" book about his friends at the NR and WSJ?

I don't see the logic. You've listed people whom David has criticized based on their public speaking, writing, and actions. What's that got to do with a "tell all," which I take to mean airing private matters?

Quoting rcocean: Next stop, Media Matters.

Sounds like you're just choosing sides and picking a convenient demon from the side you don't like. Is it any wonder David is not too upset about being "banished" by the Real Conservative Inquistors?

David Frum isn't "banished" - no one (conservative) cares anymore. See Matt's Reply. Its gotten to the point where if David Frum hasn't attacked you - you're not a conservative.

Quoting rcocean: David Frum isn't "banished" - no one (conservative) cares anymore. See Matt's Reply.

Its gotten to the point where if David Frum hasn't attacked you - you're not a conservative.

I think it's more like "If you're a conservative and David Frum hasn't attacked you, there's a chance you're not a moron intent on killing ypur party and the movement."

Yeah, I forget which one, but one of them made the point that it is not really that minorites have low social mobility so much as it is just social mobility in general that is low. This lines up rather well with my own expierences. I have never verified it, but I have often heard that the by far best predictor of someones level of wealth in life, is the educational level of that persons parents (which presumably correlates with wealth). I also think the point about how Globilization affects skilled vs. unskilled workers differently was spot on. Though I think the role new tecknology played dwarfs libertarinism alot more then Brink does

This recent discussion of the meaning of the term "true conservative" is summarized at http://bit.ly/18XPtA

David Frum - The left's idea of what a conservative should be.

I agree with David Frum's critique of the auto bailout and of Pres. Obama's financial and economic policies. I agree that in three or four years there is likely to be a conservative political revival when the U.S. electorate eventually seeks more free-market-oriented approaches. It will be interesting to see what happens to the cost of credit in the next few years given what is happening to creditors' rights in current insolvency cases, and given the new and coming developments in financial regulation. Respecting conservative responsiveness to working class voters, I think Ross Douthat & Reihan Salam's book, Grand New Party, proffers many valuable policy ideas.

Good points, Brendan. I've started but still need to finish this diavlog, but wanted to second a couple of your comments in the meantime.

Quoting bjkeefe: How does this indicate anything about conservatism? For all we know, people could be staying married with higher frequency because women feel more like equal partners (thanks to those liberal women's liberation types). Maybe they stay married at a higher rate because they're able to choose more compatible partners, as taboos against various forms of intergroup marriage have continued to die away (another liberal win!). I don't know for sure about any of these things, but they all seem at least plausibly part of the mix.

In any case, this is an example of what bugs me so much about David Frum. His habit is to identify things he likes and either force them into his vision of conservatism, or worse, just see that they're good and arbitrarily call them "conservative."

Exactly. The only connection between getting divorced (as opposed to having divorce as an option) and liberalism was in the minds of a certain type of conservative. When David goes on about something like this, it

Quoting JonIrenicus: I see liberal as more free spirited, less concerned with issues of authority, but no matter where one starts out at, I think kids shift most people a bit more towards increased authority as a useful value, and that I take as closer to a conservative view.

So which one is the nanny state again?

>The only connection between getting divorced (as opposed to having divorce as an option) and liberalism was in the minds of a certain type of conservative. When David goes on about something like this, it sounds to me like someone who rarely speaks to anyone other than other conservative activists, so just assumes that liberals really are the straw creatures created for his propagandistic uses. Yeah, this is exactly what I thought when I heard that bit. I don't get where Frum was trying to go with that -- Brink was saying that increased affluence leads to increased social liberalism, which is why the conservative coalition didn't hold together very well. I agree with Frum that this point can be taken too far (and I don't know if the statistics show that more affluent people are more socially liberal, although that certainly is the David Brooksian stereotype) but he backs it up in a totally weird way, saying that Brink is wrong about the rich being socially liberal because they're less likely to get divorced and have children out of wedlock, etc. I mean, seriously, does anyone think that staying married and not

David Frum - The left's idea of what a conservative should be.

...Where "the left" means everybody who isn't a "true conservative". You keep drawing that circle more and more tightly, not realizing it's around the party's neck. There ought to be room for someone who thinks free trade and low corporate taxes lead to more freedom for more people, but doesn't believe that gun ownership is an absolute right. Or someone who thinks Obama's economic policy has been reckless and ineffective, but who recognizes that Sarah Palin's words are often rank nonsense. Or someone who thinks that cap-and-trade will be a corrupt disaster, but believes that climate change is a real problem that requires serious action. But no; the second half of those sentences will get you booted right out of the club. One could go on and on with these. And god forbid a "real conservative" drinks a latte or something. Please, go ahead explain why David Frum isn't a "real conservative". What is the dealbreaker here? It seems to me it's his unwillingness to suffer idiocy.

1) Novak and Buchanan are "unpatriotic;"
2) Limbaugh is a fat, drug addict;
3) Levin is beyond the

Quoting rcocean: David Frum isn't "banished" - no one (conservative) cares anymore. See Matt's Reply.

Its gotten to the point where if David Frum hasn't attacked you - you're not a conservative.

I am listening to the link from mats post to the Levin interview now, but as a side note, "conservatives" need to stop getting so butt hurt when anyone criticizes them from within. I have heard Mark Levins show, and many times he comes across as if he is doing shtick. With these fake sounding rants and tirades that I do not think he even believes himself half the time. He comes across as if he is playing a part to pander to frothers. And I am SICK of people shaking with fury over criticizing Rush Limbaugh and his role. I even remember Conn Carrol(sp?) or some person who mentioned something Frum said against Rush and he claimed he threw Frums books in the garbage... why? Because he did not crawl on the ground and kiss Rush's ring? What is he a conservative Mafia Don? Frum may be wrong, but the idea that his attacking Rush or any other talker or listeners means he is not really conservative, is

Quoting JonIrenicus: I am listening to the link from mats post to the Levin interview now, but as a side note, "conservatives" need to stop getting so butt hurt when anyone criticizes them from within.

I have heard Mark Levins show, and many times he comes across as if he is doing shtick. With these fake sounding rants and tirades that I do not think he even believes himself half the time. He comes across as if he is playing a part to pander to frothers. And I am SICK of people shaking with fury over criticizing Rush Limbaugh and his role.

I even remember Conn Carrol(sp?) or some person who mentioned something Frum said against Rush and he claimed he threw Frums books in the garbage...

why? Because he did not crawl on the ground and kiss Rush's ring? What is he a conservative Mafia Don?

Frum may be wrong, but the idea that his attacking Rush or any other talker or listeners means he is not really conservative, is a twisted fantasy.
Let me tell you a secret, the VAST majority of talk radio hosts HATED McCain as the nominee, they did NOT want him, including Rush, and guess what, he

Quoting AemJeff: Obviously, Jon, you're not a real conservative.

In my case, you are right despite the digg at the purists. I am far less conservative as a whole than many of you think I am. I just line up strongly on security issue and some economic issues and entitlements, but am with the left on many social issues.

Quoting rcocean: David Frum isn't "banished" - no one (conservative) cares anymore. See Matt's Reply.

Lewis' reply is great. He completely owns Frum. From pointing out simple errors in Frum's statements to some hilarious Frum quotes. One can hope that Frum will address all the errors without name-calling and making stuff up. Better yet, bring them on here together!

Quoting harkin: Lewis' reply is great. He completely owns Frum. From pointing out simple errors in Frum's statements to some hilarious Frum quotes. One can hope that Frum will address all the errors without name-calling and making stuff up.

Better yet, bring them on here together!

The confrontation between Frum and Levin reminded me of Frank Grimes vs Homer Simpson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DDAcz3KpcQ If you did not see the simpsons episode, you will not get it, but you will if you did. Frank Grimes was the less popular employee, but far brighter and smarter and more effective, the portion on the second part of the video talking about "how many books have you sold" was such a Homer Simpson type appeal, not if he was right, but if he is as popular.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't see the logic. You've listed people whom David has criticized based on their public speaking, writing, and actions. What's that got to do with a "tell all," which I take to mean airing private matters?

My next sentence is "next stop Media Matters" This is a reference to David Brock - Frum is going down the same career path.

Quoting rcocean: See Matt's Reply.

Wow. Talk about doth protest too much ...

Excellent response, especially this line:

Quoting skonny: But no; the second half of those sentences will get you booted right out of the club.

Quoting rcocean: My next sentence is "next stop Media Matters" This is a reference to David Brock - Frum is going down the same career path.

Actually, I did infer that.* I was being purposefully obtuse about this aspect, to make more clear the points in my previous response. ========== * [Added] To be clear: that I inferred it does not at all mean that I agree with it. As far as I can tell, Frum will never go down a Brock-like path. He is a true believer in conservatism and thinks only that the philosophy needs to be better articulated and more pragmatically implemented. Whether you buy his views on this or not, I think you will have to at least admit that Frum will never come anywhere near an attitude like "Blinded By The Right." He's all about change from within (to the extent that he's allowed, for the moment, to be "within"); he's never going to see the Republican Party, the conservative philosophy, or The Right as the embodiment of evil, the way David Brock came to think. I will say, though, that if you and others like you keep pushing him, one possible outcome for Frum could be a third party mentality. I guess

Quoting kidneystones: Make no mistake, as weak and empty as the national Republican leadership is now, their woefully inadequate leaders coupled with their lack of vision...

So far, so good.

Quoting kidneystones: George W. Bush seems to me to have more character and integrity in his middle finger than the cardboard cut-out now occupying the Oval office has in his entire, scripted persona...Loathsome, horrible people, they make Republicans almost seem civilized.

I'm sure that sort of lowest common denominator rhetoric plays well among the talk radio set, but do you REALLY believe that? Really? Or are you just trying to be incendiary for the sake of being incendiary? I like to think BHTV is a place where the more calm and reasoned members from the left and right can get together and argue the issues (well mostly... see Jonah Goldberg). So why are you here? I'd suggest taking that sort of content-free hyperbole elsewhere. Here are a few suggested spots where you'll find like-minded partisans: http://www.anncoulter.com/
http://michellemalkin.com/
http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Quoting kidneystones: The NYT reports that House Republicans may just have stumbled on a winning issue. There are many reasons I supported McCain in November, but McCain's plan to introduce the non-fossil fuel energy source used most widely in the industrial world is right up there. That would be real change.

Interested to see from your URL, though not surprised, that you're a fan of Glenn Reynolds. As to the NYT article, I'm fascinated to hear you think this represents "a winning issue" and "real change." To the former: good luck selling the American people on a crash program of nuclear power plant construction. To the latter: this is hardly any sort of change if, as you also say, it was a key plank in the McCain campaign. Seems more like rediscovery of an old talking point to me. As to the worth of the idea itself overall, I will say that whatever one thinks about the merits of fission power (I am not strictly opposed, although I'd like to hear a better plan for dealing with the waste), one has to admit that nuclear power plants are at best part of a longer-term strategy. We are not

Quoting stephanie: [...]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Stephanie. Nothing really to add, except, yeah, the Frum post reviewing those books on Rome was tedious, very tedious. Good thing no one dropped a match, what with all those straw men lying around.

Quoting kidneystones: There are many reasons I supported McCain in November, but McCain's plan to introduce the non-fossil fuel energy source used most widely in the industrial world is right up there. That would be real change.

I agree with you on the pro-nuke stance but this line is pretty dubious. The US already produces the most nuclear energy in the world (in toto of course, not in terms of market share or per capita). Fossil fuels account for around 85% of power so being the top non-fossil fuel is like being the prettiest girl in the burn ward. I couldn't find stats on only industrial nations but globally nuclear reactors get beat by hydro at 6% vs 6.3% And just to buck the trend I'm going to defend your complaints about Obama as being comparable to the Bush is a chimp/moron/hick stuff. People who don't like a politician are going to take some character trait or physical feature and spin it as a negative, c'est la vie. It just strikes me as fundamentally less pernicious than the accusations of secret gay Islamic socialism.

Quoting bjkeefe: [...]

On this issue, I side with the Republicans. Sure, there are problems with fission reactors, and some problems with waste, but at least the technology to start getting a sizable portion of our energy consumption away from coal actually exists. The truth is, despite all the politicians going on and on about renewable energy, fissions is as of now the only choice, and no matter what we do, we are going to just have to get used to the fact we will not be finding an alternative fuel source that is as cheap as coal (fission included). Sure, wind power still has alot of technological improvements coming in the near future (For instance, look at GE's 1.5MW XLE synchronous motor system that can act as a supplier of reactive power), but there is absolutely no reason to believe that a solution will be coming to wind turbines main problem, which is no easy way to meet your demand curve. As of now, and for the foreseeable future, Wind turbines will not be able to do anything but work at the margins. When planning for the future, one has to work with the tools

Quoting Starwatcher162536: On this issue, I side with the Republicans. Sure, there are problems with fission reactors, and some problems with waste, but at least the technology to start getting a sizable portion of our energy consumption away from coal actually exists. [...]

As I said, I am not in principle opposed to getting more of our electricity from fission power plants. I do maintain, however, that I see no way that building new power plants is anything better than a plan for the longer term, that we will not be able to significantly change the percentages of how we obtain electrical power in the next decade or two by focusing on building more fission power plants. I also maintain that the waste problem is not to be casually dismissed. I am aware that there are new designs that on paper at least suggest mitigation of that problem, but the problem is already real, and it will only get worse with each new plant built. Third, there are real political problems here. Call it a NIMBY problem, call it irrational hippie fears, call it whatever you like, but it doesn't change the reality that there will be strenuous opposition to a crash

The arch conservative Marty Peretz may have a bit of a different take on the opinions of Mr. Frum . I fear that President Obama may be opening Mr. Peretz's eyes.

So here's David Frum who always calls it like he sees it.

Quoting piscivorous: The arch conservative Marty Peretz may have a bit of a different take on the opinions of Mr. Frum . I fear that President Obama may be opening Mr. Peretz's eyes.

You "fear" Marty Peretz is (just now) having his "eyes opened" about Barack Obama? Were you asleep for the last eighteen months or something? Apart from that, I'm not sure what that post is supposed to show that we didn't already know. News flash: Long-Time Mindlessly Pro-Israeli Hawks Upset With Recognition By President Obama For Suggesting That Israel is Not Blame-Free and that Muslims Are People, Too!!!1!

In regards to handling the waste, France does a very good job with it. I'm not an expert in the field, but if I understand it correctly, they are able to reuse the waste, essentially recycling it. I know a nuclear engineer, so I could ask him about the specifics of France's techniques and if they're feasible for wide-spread use in America.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: In regards to handling the waste, France does a very good job with it. I'm not an expert in the field, but if I understand it correctly, they are able to reuse the waste, essentially recycling it. I know a nuclear engineer, so I could ask him about the specifics of France's techniques and if they're feasible for wide-spread use in America.

And can you ask him if he would suggest a Sancerre or Vouvray with Camembert?

Perhaps you should pay attention to the them of the thread which is esssentially, one that gets much play here, is the Mr. Frum is not worth paying attention to because he is ...... (fill in your favorite insult). I was merly point out that in some liberal circles Mr. Frum is slightly more respected than some here would portray, and no amount of blovating can hide the fact the the founder of TNR is wildly considered a liberal and TNR a liberal rag. Can Friends of Israel--and Jews--Trust Obama?

Obama's points, which he has made many times, should reassure anyone who is concerned about what his presidency would mean for the security of Israel.

Post Date Thursday, January 31, 2008. Not quite 18 mounts. If you can support you points with more than rhetoric I would be glad to continue. Barring that no Thanks.

And perhaps how he consoles himself over paying as much for that Sancerre or Vouvray as he did a while ago for a Grand Cru Chablis?

Quoting piscivorous: Perhaps you should pay attention to the them of the thread which is esssentially, one that gets much play here, is the Mr. Frum is not worth paying attention to because he is ...... (fill in your favorite insult). I was merly point out that in some liberal circles Mr. Frum is slightly more respected than some here would portray, and no amount of blovating can hide the fact the the founder of TNR is wildly considered a liberal and TNR a liberal rag.

No amount of wingnut footstamping makes your assertions objectively true, either. TNR is, in general, only a "liberal rag" in the eyes of conservatives. Actual liberals recognize that there is a mix of ideologies represented on the staff, that overall it is a centrist magazine on many issues, adopts a "liberal hawk" stance on others, and a few exceptions aside, has a point of view best characterized as "Villager." In particular, Marty Peretz's extreme hawkishness on Israel and related matters is not in any recognizable way "liberal." I'm sorry if I earlier misunderstood the point you were trying to make (that David Frum should be listened to because Marty Peretz says he should

On your demand curve point, that is, the question of storage and release of energy produced by wind and solar generation, since even with a widespread and nationwide net of small producers the output will not be constant 24 hours a day, every day, a few of the quickest and most obvious suggestions: In the shortest term, you store the energy the same place it is stored now, in the fuel tanks, gas pipelines, and coal bunkers of fossil fuel plants. The old plants ramp output up and down not just to meet all hourly demand as now, but to meet that reduced portion of the demand not met by new sources. This works whether we produce 5% of national needs with wind and solar or produce 99%. In an intermediate term for which we still demand to move a ton or two of private vehicle in order to transport a 120 or 180 pound person across town but are shifting to electric vehicles, store the energy in vehicle batteries, letting them supply power to the home for those late night web whine sessions. The home charges the car, the car supplies

Quoting cognitive madisonian: In regards to handling the waste, France does a very good job with it. I'm not an expert in the field, but if I understand it correctly, they are able to reuse the waste, essentially recycling it. I know a nuclear engineer, so I could ask him about the specifics of France's techniques and if they're feasible for wide-spread use in America.

I know they reprocess, but I'm pretty sure they don't have a closed cycle. See, for example, this and this. Excerpt from the first (emph. added):

France reprocesses its own spent nuclear fuel. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Japan also send, or have sent in the past, spent nuclear fuel to France for reprocessing. High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored at La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic disposal.

Intro from the second:

Since the origins of the French nuclear industry some 50 years ago, the management of nuclear waste has been largely neglected. Even today, large quantities of waste remain in unconditioned and unstable form, inventories of historical dump sites are lacking or were lost and one of the largest dump sites in the world near the La Hague reprocessing plant is leaking into the underground water. Now

Quoting bjkeefe:

Quoting piscivorous: Can Friends of Israel--and Jews--Trust Obama?Post Date Thursday, January 31, 2008. Not quite 18 mounts.

Sheesh, pisc, if you're getting a woody because my round number isn't exactly correct, you're really hurting for entertainment.

And what have we here? I glance at my feed reader and the second thing I see is Jonah Goldberg waddling onstage to call someone else's round number an ERROR!!!1!. Fax machine at Wingnut Central must be turbo-charged.

Quoting pampl: People who don't like a politician are going to take some character trait or physical feature and spin it as a negative, c'est la vie. It just strikes me as fundamentally less pernicious than the accusations of secret gay Islamic socialism.

I tried hard to wrap my mind around those last four words, trying out "gay Islamic", "secret gay Islamic," "Islamic socialism," "gay Islamic socialism," and found that only the second made any sense. So if there are Americans who actually believe such stuff, there are more morons in the US than I ever could imagine in my wildest dreams.

The rest of the world is waiting for the US to bring us all out of this depression.
I don't think Obama is the man to accomplish this but hopefully I'm wrong. Frum is getting a hard time from the right but he stood up for what he believed so he has a back bone.

If Brink were the standard definition of "conservative", I might actually vote for one every now and again.

To his credit, Brink rejected the secret government and torture of the Bush administration, but I don't recall him emoting anywhere near as much about those violations of the rule of law as he does here about those tragically wronged Chrysler bondholders. Unfortunately, Brink has been able to hyperventilate about this unopposed in two diavlogs -- Josh Cohen didn't know that much about it and Frum, of course, agrees. How about matching Brink up with Jon Chait or Noam Scheiber on this issue. Chait would be sufficiently pugnacious in person -- Noam might not be, though his tone in this post would be perfect if he'd bring it to a discussion with Brink:

Summers to Chrysler Bondholders: Quit Yer Bellyachin' This, from Larry Summers' CFR talk today, sounds about right to me:

Mr Summers defended the administration’s handling of the Chrysler bankruptcy – in which union creditors received better terms than debtholders who had more senior claims, alarming many investors who see the order of creditor seniority as a crucial underpinning of finance.

He said it was “standard practice” for providers of capital to bankrupt companies to favour some creditors whose goodwill was important

Quoting cragger: [...]
In the shortest term, you store the energy the same place it is stored now, in the fuel tanks, gas pipelines, and coal bunkers of fossil fuel plants. The old plants ramp output up and down not just to meet all hourly demand as now, but to meet that reduced portion of the demand not met by new sources. This works whether we produce 5% of national needs with wind and solar or produce 99%.

Somewhat true, the problem is that you can't just turn most power plants on and off like flipping a switch, for instance, there is a whole process you have to go through for Cogen plants that can take almost a week for some of your larger facilities. Ramping your power is indeed easier, but there are limits to which this can be done. I doubt current power technology can cover for most renewables unreliability.

[...]
Water. Low tech. Heat and store. Or simply pump uphill during excess generation and retrieve the energy as needed. Rocket science not required.

Just no way, there is a reason we do this sometimes with hydro and never with wind, in a nutshell, its geography. Wind turbines