I have doubts about how well Pierce captures the problem. The fact is that a dog like "Intelligent Design" (ID) tries quite hard to put on the trappings of knowledge, expertise, research, and impressive credentials, because these do impress people. In fact, the IDiots write books with heavy equations in them, not because any more than a handful of their readership will understand it (let alone the fact that it isn't based on sound empirical knowledge), but because math looks so official and smart.

They even have a list of "scientists who dissent from Darwinism," which is rather small, very light on biologists (who are the relevant experts), and has many whose identification as "scientist" is dubious. Most of these caveats escape their target audience, however, so the fact that they are said to be scientists impresses them.

That said, it isn't difficult to run across true believers in ID who will make the "argument" that not having the proper background knowledge makes them better judges of the issue. So of course the old anti-intellectual strains are there, but I'm not sure that constitutes any real change for the worse from earlier times. If anything, the presence of ID seems to indicate that "Satan put the fossils there to fool us" satisfies fewer in the population, and a new set of sciency-sounding canards is needed in their place.

The fact is that way too many people simply don't know enough to evaluate science and pseudoscience, hence they don't know enough to recognize who are the experts and who are not. And many of those do not wish to learn something that they want not to be true.

One only has to look at Archaeopteryx, coupled with a minimal amount of knowledge, to recognize that it by no means fits any "design" criteria. Compared to modern birds, it was not a good flier (bony tail and teeth weighing it down, and without later improvements in the mechanics of flight), not even because of "poor design," but rather because it was only partly modified from being a terrestrial dinosaur (hint, designing a wing out of a leg is a bad idea, while evolution had nothing but a leg to modify into a wing in this case). This is not even difficult for the layperson to recognize, yet one does not see it if one is committed to not see it.

Bias and lack of a good science education seems more important, and yet today "faith" is hardly a sufficient excuse for many. In that sense, there has been some progress made. Unfortunately, those who want more sophisticated-sounding excuses, and the smokescreen from the few PhDs who sold out their learning to make excuses for pseudoscience, create the demand for junk science.

Glen Davidson
http://6mb592

LAMBERT: Yet mainstream media continues to regard anyone's "faith" as sacrosanct, effectively indemnifying them from the most obvious, basic criticism.

Good place to focus, thanks for making these points.

In the related world of being led by idiots pandering to idiotic--
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081020_the_idiots_who_rule_america/
--this piece also spoke truth to power.

I myself have never applauded intellect and the value of intellectual curiosity until the past 8 years. Likewise I never valued our founding fathers more until seeing for my own eyes the effects of an out-of-control executive branch (likewise the value of true checks and balances on corporate executives, eh?).

And I certainly never considered myself an expert or sage--until I saw how stupid everyone else in the media and politics was talking and acting.

All being said--I do not think 'the Gut' itself is the problem, I think it is the over-reliance of people on politicians, celebrities, preachers, and pundits to think for them.

Yes, people need to find people who they trust to get advice, bounce issues and questions off, but why should we expect the wisest or most aware or most honest people happen to be a PCPPs? In fact, I think the percentage of wisdom is actually lowest among PCPPs...at least that is what my Gut tells me.

My Gut tells me PCPPs have agendas, and when I consider their words and actions, I must ask if their agenda truly is based on 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', and if not--my duty is to call them on it.

LAMBERT: I'm down with all that. I was going to roll in the PCPP clusterF**k at last weekend's White House Corrsepondents Dinner, but I had too many tangents going as it was.

Excellent post. Right along with that is what Colbert deftly labeled/described as "truthiness" - when you just FEEL that what you're being fed is right and factual regardless of evidence that should slap anyone with half a brain upside the melon with it.

After reading this post, following the Prejean thing, watching the tea bag hysterics, the purity tests the GOP continues with (and the worshipping of all-things Reagan), Rush race-baiting earlier this week, etc, etc, etc...I'm still dumbfounded that Obama ever got elected, let alone in such a big way.

Here's to hoping Pierce does a big press tour for the book. I'm sure he'll be on the Daily Show and a few other places, but I'd would LOVE to see him on Hannity, or any of the network pablum morning shows.

LAMBERT: The chances of that? ZERO.

Let me summarize your blog post: "the Right-wing is dumb ha ha!"

I find it rather ironic that someone who laments the growth of "Idiot America" chose to criticize with ad hominem attacks and insults. Not only is your likening of the Right-wing to a "cult" a cheap, pathetic shot - it is also laughable given the rise of "Obama-mania." I mean, clearly all the people crying in the streets over Obama have ZERO traces of a cult-like mentality.

If "Idiot America" is as stupid as you say, then it should be remarkably easy to pick apart their arguments and positions. Instead of intelligently critizing Miss Prejan's right to free expression, you call her "stupid" and "craven." You're only preaching to the chior and, looking like a jerk while you do it.

Furthermore, I would assume that someone as "learned" as you would have knowledge of Bill Ayers "Rules for Radicals" in which he describes the use of ridicule as the most powerful rhetorical weapon available. It seems to me you are well on the way to becoming one of his disciples. After all, why use your brain to critisize someone when you can just call them a moron and move on?

LAMBERT: Ummm, I'm not going labor too much here, except to cherry pick the business about criticizing Miss Prejean's "right to free expression". To this I say ... come on. Am I suggesting she be muzzled or censored? No. Blather away, girlie. I'm only wondering why we/the media bother amplifying her nonsense?

For those who don't know, the incomparable Pierce turns up from time to time in Altercation, Eric Alterman's blog at the Nation, and on NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me on Saturday morning.

There is an answer to the "on the one hand" model of objective journalism, and that is to have a journalist with stones enough to say, "Some people say that intelligent design is a science or global warming is a myth, but they're out of their tiny minds."

The other problem is the pundit, which is apparently a job that is beyond accountability. William Kristol goes from Time to the NY Times to WaPo with nobody apparently noticing that he's been writing the vacuous column about the future of the Republican Party since 1993; George Will still draws a paycheck despite a demonstrated contempt for fact or truth; thinly sourced, partisan hack jobs are thick on the ground, but pundits continue their employment and are still treated, at least by other pundits, as serious vessels of wisdom. Their predictions are never checked against actual events.

Anna Quindlan just did a valediction in Newsweek, saying basically that she was getting old, and it was time to make way for younger journalists. I would have been thrilled if the byline had read George Will. I'm an old white guy, but I'm getting sick of the number of old white guys droning on and on. Nothing like watching Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan and Mike Barnicle explaining that unless Obama picks a white male for the Supreme Court, the fix is in. If the media weren't run by a bunch of old white guys, maybe we would get interesting media figures who would attract larger audiences.

LAMBERT: And John Yoo gets picked up as a columnist ... for balance.

...and so your RESPONSE to me contains more ad hominem remarks? Way to prove my point. I suppose I will end my "blathering" by asking you just why you think "girlie" is an insult? For the record, Eugene is a male name and I am a man, but since when is being female bad? I am rather pleased to see more hypocracy on display when an "enlightened" and "progressive" commentator such as yourself resorts to using SEXIST insults.

LAMBERT: Uh ... it may just be possible that your gut belief that I am the sort dead set on offending you has inspired a misreading of my response. I was talking about Ms. Prejean -- now being brought on as a guest host on FoxNews -- when I wrote, "Am I suggesting she be muzzled or censored? No. Blather away, girlie. I'm only wondering why we/the media bother amplifying her nonsense?" Admittedly, my paragraph structure is, um, unorthodox, but "Blather away, girlie", is meant as reassurance to MS. PREJEAN that she has every right to ... blather. And since she seems to have made her play for the spotlight based on accentuating her gender assets, I added "girlie".

But if you have to diagram a joke ...

Your paragraph structure notwithstanding, how is that not insulting and sexist...? Whether you aimed it at me or her doesn't really matter.

LAMBERT: When I get to the point where is see something in Ms. Prejean other than a blathering girl -- as in not an adult woman, with an adult woman's coherent thought processes -- I'll take your point.

And to expand on this . . . That war on expertise is at the core of much of the idiot culture online, where everyone is a film critic, a restaurant critic, a weatherman, a sports columnist etc. Even some of the more celebrated local bloggers are woefully bad but when you dare to criticize, they circle the wagons, because you don't have to know anything to be published anymore and striking at the heart of their legitimacy is a threat to them all.

LAMBERT: If one of the primary criteria for critical thinking is considering the source, I'm going commend SOME of the on-line culture for having MORE credibility than their "credentialed" counterparts, people who frequently sneer at them for sins of what are often just unfettered thinking.

Personally, I have found, and bookmarked "uncredentialed" bloggers in almost every discipline I'm interested in who are equal to if not superior to anyone I can find in newspaper print. Although the pay -- for the time being -- isn't much, there is significant freedom in writing out from under the fetters of the institutional point of view, and institutional boundaries of taste and commercial interests ... and there's a rapidly growing audience that is seeking and finding precisely that kind of uncompromised expertise.

One example, both local film critics, Colin Covert at the Strib and Chris Hewitt at the PiPress, I regard as friends and good writers. But both have a responsibility to the institutional boundaries established by their employers, which means among other things, their task is to deliver a mainstream consumer opinion in 17 inches or less. Compare this to someone like "Moriarty" over on "Ain't It Cool News", who, while not on any publication's payroll produces thoughtful, well-written long-form copy on films that deserve it ... and sometimes those that don't.

In short, I'm just saying that the insinuation that expertise is the sole provenance of salaried writers is a thoroughly exploded cliche, circa 2009. But then you do have to consider the source.

(Mr. Platt is of course the superb food writer for Mpls./St.Paul magazine.)

I'd agree that there's good and bad bloggers, just like there's good and bad print journalists and doctors and cops and everything else. A goofy example of what happens when a writer loses his chains is Pat Reusse - his Strib columns are dull and predictable and he pulls punches while his blog entries on AM1500.com have an edge to them. (And he's a little old school. You can't call into his radio show and you can't comment on his blog entries. "You want to talk on the radio: get your own show").

LAMBERT: I give Patrick credit for questioning Brett Favre's sanity in print. Notice how many beat writers aren't daring to speculate on the obvious.

Prof/Dr. Roubini said in the NYT yesterday that the dollar has maybe 10 years left as the world's exchange currency. Meantime, American application developers think they are onto something with the Internet. Leaving their users without a shred of education, a la Ms. South Carolina and your cults. Push-button gratification isn't the same as going to school.

LAMBERT: Nothing beats skeptical reading, and lots of it.

I don't deny there are good voices in the blogosphere, some of them better than the credentialed voices at the local rags. The Strib has been a hotbed of deep mediocrity for years and never seemed to care about it. Beats were a lifetime appointment, deserved or no.

That said, there are plenty of voices in the blogosphere who could never get past the doors of the old gatekeepers and for good reason. Being an enthusiast is simply not enough to make you an interesting writer. Stringing together a set of opinions is not enough to make you a film critic or food writer worth reading.

And what I find interesting is that the blogosphere doesn't seem to want to call those folks out, because it begs the question of their own legitimacy. There was some modicum of expertise and salience required to earn a beat. Blogging is, alas, a fool's paradise.

LAMBERT: I think it goes without saying that probably 95% of the blogosphere isn't worth reading. But if the argument is over credentialed expertise, I'm saying that discerning readers -- who are hip to compromises institutional writers must make while caught in "the access trap" and other fundamental no-nos of mainstream journalism (what was the last time either paper dared published a bona fide consumer column, one that regularly ripped sacred cows like auto dealers and airlines?) have begun to find voices that don't operate under such restrictions. Moreover, discerning readers quickly move on if they find your "expertise" shallow or wanting.

I see. So because she has a different opinion than you, she's a "blathering girl?" I suppose the same goes for Joe the Plumber, huh?

I love to see such a proud display of progressive "compassion" and "tolerance."

I think you are not seeing my point: you are displaying ideological bigotry. You do not confront opposing viewpoints with facts or rational arguments, instead you jump to name calling and insults. This is pretty typical political hack behavior: take an enlightened, quasi-academic position and look down upon the poor, unwashed masses who cling to their "belief systems to the detriment of making progress." Yet when all the arguments presented by these "intelligent progressives" are boiled down, they are just as hollow, emotional and ignorant as those presented by members of so-called "idiot-America."

LAMBERT: Ok, shoot me some specifics.

For all the whacking of "political correctness" done by the Right on the media, it is they who have most practiced it. The goal of right wing media criticism is to get themselves a seat at EVERY political or discussion table, no matter how absurd their position is.

Thus we have dumbed-down media. The Strib is one of the worst offenders, as you say. This is pure speculation, but the Strib's fear of right wing criticism could be one of causes of its current predicament. The news pages are run by a right wing wacko (Doug Tice) and the op-ed pages were FORCED to run right wing crap just because, no matter how stupid the wing nuts are. The hiring of Katherine Kersten is just the most extreme example of this kind of nonsense.

This is politically mediated news, not news dictated by events and rational commentary, put through the filter of educated and practiced professionals.

So why read the Strib if every news story and editorial is measured against some false "balance" before they are allowed into the paper? This kind of editing in effect hollows out the product. In an era when citizens can circumvent, to a certain extent, the traditional media, papers like the Strib are stripping away any reason real news seekers might support them.

LAMBERT: I have a more generous view of Doug Tice than you, but I agree that far too much of the "credentialed" media is either politically or commercially mediated. The fear of offending -- the Republican base, for lack of a better name -- requires compromises where few if any need to be made. The irony here is that even with that "base" crowd so thoroughly marginalized it is unlikely that "credentialed" papers like the Strib and PiPress will adapt, since the "basies" are so vociferous (and over-represented in public echo chambers) their cries of victimhood at the hands of "liberal bias" sustains them as potent adversaries to common sense.

Funny how it's always the other side that's stupid, though. Doesn't that set off your alarm bells? How can it be that its just one party that is so dumb.

Who is smart, in your eyes? Would you say Larry Summers is smart? He's a pretty smart guy, right? Does he have the "expertise" that Republicans want to go to war against?

Here's a quote he made in October 1991 when he was chief smarty pants economist for the World Bank and telling the Russians how to reform their economy--
"Spread the truth, the laws of economics are like the laws of engineering. One set of laws works everywhere."
This was right before his policies led to an economic collapse that most historians will assert was much worse than our Great Depression. He was really, really sorry about it, but he's still not very popular over there. They think it's funny we're letting him have any say over here. Still, he's really, really smart.

Sometimes the best way to be smart is to be a little humble.

Yes, Conservatism is in fact a war on "smart people." On people that think they have all the answers. History has shown time and time again that they don't.

You can't predict who's gonna be right. That's why we need limited government, free markets, separation of powers, etc. Read Mamet's piece on brain dead liberals re separation of powers.

Conservatives take a very realistic, cynical view of the power of human beings to do good and do evil.

Democrat "experts" take a different view. "If I could teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony......" La la la. Liberal fantasy.

LAMBERT: If you're making a comparison between the examples I used -- Carrie Prejean, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity -- and ... well, I don't know what, other than Larry Summers ... I'm kind of at a loss for a response. Whatever he may be, arrogant, egocentric, no one has accused Summers of chronic stupidity. Anyone can be wrong, it's when you appear not to even care if you're being accurate, or your incidents of "wrongness" accumulate that there's no point listening to you that you risk getting hung with the "idiot" label. But for the sake of the argument, I'd be interested in a counter-list of idiots of the liberal persuasion. In your humble opinion.

There are various ways of establishing expertise: for academics, like Krugman or DeLong, the routine is to get the Ph.D., do well-reviewed research and develop a professional reputation for competence. This doesn't meant that the expert is always right, but it does increase the odds greatly. Nor is expertise portable; the world's leading expert on ablaut in Old Church Slavonic probably doesn't know anything special about economics or politics. This basically is why people who object to evolution or global warming should not be taken seriously.

For reporters and local columnists, expertise comes from getting things right over a long stretch of time. It helps to be able to write well and thoughtfully.

For commentators, expertise requires some knowledge of the field, but in general it's matter of obeying the canons of inquiry: the arguments should take account of facts--and the facts should actually be facts--deal with contrary evidence; they should fit in with the general understanding of how things work; they should be logical. Again good and thoughtful writing helps.

In the case of Ms. Prejean, it's hard to see what kind of journalistic expertise going topless with augmented boobs provides. Joe the Plumber isn't even a licensed plumber, so I wouldn't take him seriously talking about my toilet, let alone political economy.

In the "Oh, Lord, why do the wicked prosper" file, under pundit, Tucker Carlson just got a gig--it's with FOX, but it doesn't involve saying, "Do you want fries with that?"

LAMBERT: Again, it is just sad that there isn't a character like Bill Buckley in circulation these days. George Will is as close as modern conservatives can offer, but as far as I can tell even he has been marginalized by those insisting that they ... by God ... are the real, true conservatives.

I wonder whether toward the end Buckley sometimes felt the lunatics had taken over his asylum. I was looking at something at NRO and just for the hell of it clicked on to their book sales service to see what they were promoting and discovered a big stack of creationist tomes.

One of these days I'm going to take my grandchildren on my knee and say, "Your grandpa is sooo oooold that he can remember when George Will was interesting." Now he's a pretty good case for editorial euthanasia. When the Republicans hired Will's wife (#2 that is) they got a two-fer. The basic problem is that he's not honest. A story: a while back, during the reign of Anders G. at the strib, Will published a piece claiming Sen. Webb was uncivil to then President Bush and then went on to have the fantods about incivility in political life. The transcript of the exchange between Webb and Bush was available and it was clear that Bush picked the quarrel, but Will had dishonestly edited the transcript to claim the opposite. I wrote a letter laying out the readily available evidence to no response.

Steve Chapman is pretty good. He's a libertarian, so he avoided all the Bush worship and the attendant intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. And he apparently lives in Chicago, so he isn't frequently in the company with the usual gang of wankers. I don't often agree with him, but he does have a functioning brain and conscience.

LAMBERT: And there's David Brooks ... but the real issue I think is that the Republican machine -- circa Lee Atwater to Karl Rove -- became so consumed with the tactics for electoral victory, the means for achieving the end, that they have almost completely lost track of the fact that at some point a government is supposed to be of service to the people, not the reverse. I mean, the Bush crowd pandered to the religious zealots over and over again and then did squat for them once in office. With "making the sale" elevated to the sole rationale for existence the party stopped thinking about the details of governance, the fact that you really do have to make run the trains on time ... and have thought about the cost of health care.

You have to give me this Brian, we have idiots (heck I may be one of them) living on both sides of the spectrum. I like what Pierce wrote and our great divide as a country seems to only be getting worse.

Look at what is happening a Notre Dame. Obama is our president and even through I didn't vote for him, I believe he should speak there. Everyone should listen to both sides and more importantly, honor of office of the President.

I just finished reading Micheal J. Fox's last book where he discusses his beliefs on stem cell research and his well know public battle with Limbaugh. Fox has some good points regardless where someone sits in the debate, but many people won't even listen to them. It drives me nuts that we try to stop someone from speaking (Obama) because of his stance on stem cells and abortion. Are people afraid the hear the other side?

I also direct the same frustration at Hilton the pathetic idiot blogger. Someone had a different opinion and all he could do was act like a child. Appears he is afraid to let people listen to a differing opinion also.

LAMBERT: I'm all for a healthy interaction of opinions. But when it comes to science vs. "what I want to believe", as in the case of Intelligent Design, Terri Schiavo, stem cells, climate change ... I don't see the point in wasting time with people who haven't even bothered to educate themselves on the topic.

The next reality show: Whose Fringe is Dumber? Sara, Sean, Joe and Carrie against the All-Stars from Code Pink, The Commission to Establish the Truth About 9/11, and the HuffPo posters. George Bush vs. Al Gore for sweeps weeks. Have you ever seen Al unplugged? Be afraid, very afraid.

First of all, there is nothing new under the sun. It is the same anti-intellectual streak Hofstadter wrote about.

The body politic doesn't want to be experimented on. We would look more favorably on the wildly creative musings of intellectuals if they didn't wreak havoc when put into action. Stay in academia and do fun simulations on students, they're cheap.

And the "dismal science" is the worst. Roubini? Look for the website that lists all his predictions that never came true. The woman that "called" the '87 crash? Never made another right call. None of them have a clue. Krugman is an economic malaise waiting to happen, and we may not have to wait much longer now that he has broken bread with Barack and Michelle. Summers made a "mistake" in Russia? That's putting it mildly. My suspicion is that you don't think the neocons just made a "mistake" in Iraq and we should give them another go. I can't wait for nationalized healthcare.

Is it really wrong that among the republican yahoos Sam Walton would probably outpoll Nouriel or Larry or "it's pronounced Kroooogman you neanderthal"? Why not love the simple merchant who puts money in our pocket over the guy from Harvard that really thinks he knows how to spend our way out of this sucker without too much hyperinflation. What really is so bloody awful about a ne'er-do-well plumber asking for lower taxes or a beauty queen saying she thinks marriage is a man/woman thing?

LAMBERT: Well, as I was saying to Dave above, I don't see a point to this one. I mean if the Wal-Mart empire is your idea of a bunch of "simple merchant(s) .. put(ting) money in our pocket" where would I even begin? Try running the numbers on what Wal-Mart's employee health insurance (i.e. lack thereof) costs the states they're in, or the effect of them off-shoring every imaginable aspect of production (and they're the flag-wavers!). But hell, I'll have a debate over Waql-Mart, or if you want Al Gore vs. ... well, whoever you've got, and I'm damned well prepared to discuss universal health care vs. the Joe the Plumber plan, which as far as I can tell is virtually identical to the George W. plan and the RNC's today, which is to say unconsidered and unformed.

You're looking for and asserting qualitative parity on these issues where almost none exists. But for the hell of it, pick one and shoot me a diagram of liberal pandering to electoral/fund-raising base that matches the Palin/Plumber/Hannity axis of nonsense.

I'm going commend SOME of the on-line culture for having MORE credibility than their "credentialed" counterparts, people who frequently sneer at them for sins of what are often just unfettered thinking.

Clearly you are talking about me. Ya hear that Covert? Put that in your Transformers 2 and smoke it!

Personally, I have found, and bookmarked "uncredentialed" bloggers in almost every discipline I'm interested in who are equal to if not superior to anyone I can find in newspaper print.

Stop it, you'll make me blush.

And while I think there is some merit to the idea that bloggers have potentially as much knowledge and resources as their print counterparts, I'd argue that the vast majority of bloggers aren't very good writers. Well, except for the Neil Gaimon's, Eddie Campbell's, Wil Wheaton's et al that make a living writing. And make no mistake, Colin and Chris are writers, who simply happen to focus on films. And in a subjective medium like film criticism, being a good writer is typically far more important then what you like.

LAMBERT: My essential point is that Colin and Chris operate under well-understood constraints required by their employers, in terms of both tone and length of copy. But then everyone who works for someone accepts his employer's terms for such things. Point being that outside the copy-for-hire model you're free to say what you want any way you want and, in the case of film analysis, as long as you want. The intent isn't necessarily mainstreaming, but it is, or should be, free of anyone else's fetters on your thinking.

Matt Gamble edits and writes the Twin Cities film website: http://wherethelongtailends.com/ -- which I heartily recommend.

My word, Brian, you are incredibly patient dealing with your commenters. They have such a difficult time understanding that people on all sides of an issue are not necessarily equal in their degree of adhering to rational thoughts, evidence and reason. They must be all equal! We must respect all "opinions" even if they are irrational and do not adhere to known facts. A few years ago I was on a panel with Scott Johnson, one of the power stooges. I had to explain to the audience that Johnson was really full of crap, and much of what he said just wasn't objectively true. This is what we have come to: It is literally impossible to have a rational dialogue with most "conservatives" because we cannot agree with them on basic tenants of reality. "Faith-based" indeed.

LAMBERT: With people like Johnson, artful at Moebius-like legalese, there is at least the enjoyment of an intellectual challenge. Johnson's type, like the "neo-con" architects of Bush 43, are the people who create, sustain and exploit the cults. Though they may be committing intellectual fraud, they are adversaries worth engaging. But the roiling masses, the people dull-wittedly parroting the talking points and trying to pass it off as original thinking ... well, what's the point?

The concern I have is that the left doesn't really want to listen to experts, it just wants us to listen to leftist experts.

You're a GFM aficionado, have you read Niall Ferguson's piece in the NYT on financial regulation? He's a Harvard professor, an expert on the financial history of the world, author of a best-selling book, surely we should listen to him, right?

LAMBERT: You understand I'm being nice about this, right? The likes of Niall Ferguson bear no resemblance to the crowd I'm talking about. The issue here is that the modern conservative "base" keeps pushing people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin, etc. out as "experts" on ... something ... and people like Joe the (un-licensed, tax-dodging) Plumber as representative of themselves, the "average" people ... and Miss California (artificially enhanced and rule-breaking) as victims of liberal attack.

Loved the column. Especially good was this new persona you've created (beyond Randy the Ombudsman), Eugene Hamburger, to drive your point down to the hilt. Too funny. Nothing like some hilarious parody to augment the argument. More Eugene!

LAMBERT: I need to give Randy a call.

Niceness acknowledged.

It's not just the Republicans that push common man or other non-expert buttons for personal gain. It's part of every well-rounded political effort, sadly.

Here are some "average" or non-expert people that the left has pushed out as "experts" or in some way into positions way over their heads.

The left's particular expertise seems to be converting personal tragedy into political gain (although it usually fails because unfortunately misfortune doesn't just strike gifted people). They have also really capitalized on the fit between celebrity narcissism and the idea of a nanny state that saves people. You have to play to your own strengths.

-Cindy Sheehan--Was on Hardball as much as Rove is on Fox. Mideast affairs expert with unassailable backstory. Dumped because she forgot to veer back towards center for general election.

LAMBERT: She was an "expert" on grieving mothers, which she was. But she certainly wasn't a movement leader ... and now she's gone, while Rove lingers and lingers and lingers.

-Coleen Rowley. Popular guest editorialist on wide range of topics. Most recent incarnation is as expert on torture (?). Well she was in the FBI.

LAMBERT: Yeah, she was in the FBI, and did suss out terrorist irregularities. In my mind that counts for something. Not big on charisma, though.

-Patty Wetterling. Saddest story, but apparently 6th district thought even Bachman would make a better congressperson. That's a sad commentary. I winced when I saw the Katie Couric interview, but it was also excruciating listening to Wetterling and Rowley in their debates. I dare you to go back and listen.

LAMBERT: Wetterling should not have run a second time. She's not a politician. Bachmann on the other hand obviously understands politics, if nothing else.

-Graeme Frost--12 year old actually given official Democrat air time to rebut President Bush's weekly radio address on health care--a prodigy! Or, even a child can debate this idiot President!

LAMBERT: Wow. I completely forgot him. Will Carrie Prejean last as long?

-Any Hollywood celebrity--why am I supposed to be listening to actors/actresses or the Boss exactly? Man, their air time makes Joe the P. look like a recluse. Really, on this one just go down the list of HuffPo guest bloggers. Alec Baldwin has a really insightful piece on the auto industry today--I think we've found our new car czar if Rattner goes down. And don't even try to tell me the Dems don't play up this. Kerry was practically a Springsteen roadie by the end of that campaign.

LAMBERT: It's a sad fact of modern life that people listen to what celebrities say and some of these artists are actual artists with damned good brains and attached consciences -- Springsteen, for example. Are you comparing The Boss to Lee Greenwood or Chuck Norris?

I could come up with more but I need to go back to work or I'll have to rely on ScarJo to tweet the Twitterer-in-Chief about getting me some extended unemployment benefits.

LAMBERT: I've inserted my comments above.

My essential point is that Colin and Chris operate under well-understood constraints required by their employers, in terms of both tone and length of copy.

A fair point, to be sure. Though while most bloggers don't have as many restrictions, I feel pretty safe in saying that Colin and Chris' skills as writers allow them to be just as irreverent, entertaining and informative as their online counterparts, even within a more rigid structure. They may have limits, but they both do an excellent job of maximizing every inch they are given. A feat I don't think most bloggers could claim.

LAMBERT: Agreed.

Where do I even begin? I believe Carrie Prejean's quote was "I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody."

Your response was to state that her comment, and her subsequent comments defending it, were composed of "multi-faceted dimness" and "cynicism." You go on to state that she "press[ed] so many buttons on the "stupid/laziness/craven spectrum…" Is that not an attempt to sound academic while actually making childish insults?

As I reread your article, I see no intelligent attempt to rebut Ms. Prejean's remarks – only name-calling. This is why I find your article so humorous and, ultimately, ironic. You lament how Idiot America relies on its "gut" and how "Sarah Palin, Joes the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and on and on…" engender a "cult-like" quality. What you are actually talking about is how the so-called Idiot America relies upon axioms; well I have news: you are doing the exact same thing. You think the aforementioned personalities along with all the other opinions you dislike (such as equating Democrats with Socialists) are stupid. You do not explain this. You do not pick apart their positions, you do not give rational arguments. You only claim that Idiot-America "takes comfort in its belief systems" and how its icons are cult-figures. Bascially, you too are relying upon axioms. Your target audience thinks Carrie Prejean and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and right-wing thought are stupid, so you call them stupid and move on. You're doing exactly what the "intelligent design" advocates do: preaching to the choir.

In other words, your article is ironic because, if "Idiot-America" is as stupid as you claim, then it should be easy to defeat with intellectual argument. Yet I see no evidence of you trying. Joe the Plumber is stupid, why…? Because he doesn't want to "spread the wealth around?" Rush Limbaugh is stupid, why…? Because he advocates tax-cuts not bail-outs? Carrie Prejean is stupid, why…? Looking back over what you have written, I cannot find a single persuasive argument as to why her opinion is part of "Idiot America" and yours is not. I only see insults, axiomatic statements and personal attacks.

LAMBERT: I understand that that is all you see.

Sorry about the double post, but I just had to point this out: In a response to "Rob Levine" you said: "The issue here is that the modern conservative "base" keeps pushing people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin, etc. out as "experts" on ... something ... and people like Joe the (un-licensed, tax-dodging) Plumber as representative of themselves, the "average" people..."

I almost fell over laughing when I read this. "Un-licensed?" , "Tax-dodging?" How about PRESIDENT OBAMA pushing people like Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle (talk about tax dodging!) into OFFICIAL positions as OFFICIAL representatives of the "average" people? I'll take Joe the Plumber over those crooks any day!

This is the sort of hypocracy you are choosing to ignore - the Left is free to cherry-pick its "experts" but the Right is not? And I also particularly love the way you criticize the Right for holding up Carrie Prejean while you totally ignore the way the Left holds up Perez Hilton! I mean Keith Olbermann called him an "intellectual titan!" If he is one of the Left's greatest thinkers, no wonder you have to resort to name calling!

LAMBERT: Just guessing here, but I think Olbermann was probably being ... ironic ... about Perez Hilton.

Right on the money. Some months ago I created a list of policy topics for which expertise had been a disqualifier in the last administration, for a guest editorial in the Strib (rejected). Each is individually irritating. It's the breadth of expertise-rejection that's remarkable.

For whatever it's worth, here are the topics that occurred to me: Evolution by natural selection, climate change, education, military strategy, interrogation, teen sexuality, energy policy, and tax policy.

I'm sure I missed a few, though. Anybody care to fill in the gaps?

LAMBERT: Mmm, actual juris-prudence comes to mind.

Are we talking about the Brad Delong who’s now using his intellectual capital to tell us I.F. Stone was not a Soviet stooge? Just wondering… It’s a bit of a credibility buster.

I stated some sentiments about this very topic before. I think there’s even more irony in two urbane liberals without bachelor’s degrees passing emails back and forth comforting themselves in how stupid conservatives are.

Orwell explained this bigotry in the second half of The Road to Wigan Pier. Might be worthwhile for you to read it.

"In the first part of this book I illustrated, by a few brief
sidelights, the kind of mess we are in; in this second part I have been
trying to explain why, in my opinion, so many normal decent people are
repelled by the only remedy, namely by Socialism. Obviously the most urgent need of the next few years is to capture those normal decent ones before Fascism plays its trump card."

A more nuanced take on "The Road To Wigan's Pier" might find that Orwell was criticizing the socialists of his time per quod rather than socialism per se, 108. We could certainly have a vigorous discussion on that issue. But we would not draw a crowd.

Along a similar line, Brad Delong and Eric Alterman both offer a more nuanced view of I.F. Stone's alleged "spying" than does Commentary magazine, or you, arguing not that he was a man of unsullied wisdom and prescience, but that the acts of which he is accused rise to the level of "spy" are an affront to the actual craft of espionage.

I think the point is more that in American, 2009, crap is king, independent of its ideological vintage. And that it's not good for anyone of any political stripe.

Acting as a talent spotter and recruiter for the KGB for four years, but not a "spy"? Nuance or Newspeak? Orwell is rolling in his grave.

Ironic? Here is a link to the clip:

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/keith-olbermann-perez-hilton

Whether his statement about Perez Hilton being an "intellectual titan" and a "civil rights leader" was supposed to be ironic is irrelevant. Here we have a well-known spokesperson for the Left joining forces with Michael Musto - one of the "luminaries" at the Pulitzer-prize winning Village Voice - spending a full two minutes calling Carrie everything from a platic barbie doll to a Nazi to a transexual. If Carrie Prejean is such a total moron, how come no one can shut her down with intelligent arguments? How come the Left always resorts to name calling? Where are the "expert opinions" and "intelligent arguments?" If this is what a leftist expert sounds like, why on earth would anyone listen to him?

People like you, Olbermann and Musto look down on their fellow Americans with scorn because apparently we cling to the "safety of our belief systems... to the detriment of making progress." Did it ever occur to you that no one wants to listen to the Left's so-called "experts" because they treat everyone who disagrees with them like children? Maybe it's not the content of the message, but how it's presented?

America is a beautiful and diverse place and diversity of OPINION should be tolerated, not met with insults designed to shut down debate. If experts on the Left are so wise: let them prove it. Fight people like Carrie and Joe in the arena of ideas, not partake in a name-calling contest.

LAMBERT: There are times when I really am left speechless. And this is one of them. Did you actually WATCH the clip? Do you GET THE BIT? Wait ... don't answer that. Whenever the old discussion about, "Where are the right wing comedians?" comes up I'm thinking about moments exactly like this. Are Olbermann and Michael Musto -- Michael Musto for god's sake, the snarky gay society writer, he's been doing this for what? 25 years? -- are doing may be silly and sophomoric, but they concede it every time they do it. ... oh, never mind.

(A) So you think it's okay for, even in "jest," top liberal commentors to say extremely cruel and BLATANTLY sexist things about an 18-year-old girl? What if I made racist jokes about Obama?

(B) I love the way you excuse the two "luminaries" as simply being "silly and sophomoric" but that just brings me back to my original point: These are the people the Left is holding up, and their response to Carrie, by your OWN admission is "sophomoric" humor?

What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to do to get that to fit into your worldview? How can you possibly attack the Right-Wing for being "Idiot" America whilst simultaneously defending people whose idea of "intelligent commentary" is to call a young woman a transsexual, inhuman and a Nazi?

Here's my point, which you are trying so very hard to ignore: Idiot America is alive and well on the Left. The reasons no one on the Right listens to Left-wing "experts" is because they DO NOT make intelligent comments; they use insults and personal attacks. It's exactly what you did when you called Carrie "stupid/craven" etc. Between three liberals (you, Olbermann and Musto) there has been nothing but insults and cruel humor.

LAMBERT: Look, I did seven months of right wing talk radio, and this is way too reminiscent of "arguing" with that crowd. If you have a hard time grasping the difference between serious commentary and silly waggishness, I got nothing for you. But I will reiterate that this weird, hyper credulous literalism is a signature symptom of the kind of cult-like (un-)thinking I referenced in the original blog. If in your mind Keith Olbermann is the intellectual equivalent of Carrie Prejean, don't expect me to make your case for you.

I see. So apparently I just cannot pick out the "serious commentary" from the "silly waggishness" in all of the commentary about Carrie Prejean? Well then, enlighten me, where IS the intelligent commentary? Neither you nor Olbermann nor Musto have supplied a single study, a single statistic, a single poll or legal argument - just (what might generously be called) humor and insults.

The closest thing to a rational argument the three of you could come up with was when Musto said that Carrie's "stupidity" is helping the gay marriage movement - but that's just an opinion! Where are the facts? Where are the states passing pro-gay marriage propositions? Where is Obama's pro-gay marriage constitutional amendment? I'll tell you where they are: they don't exist.

Here's what's happening: the majority of America agrees with Carrie (even California passed Prop 8). The Left is upset about this and so they react by shouting about how "Idiot-America" (ie. the Right-Wingers) are not listening to "expertise" and are instead formed into a cult behind "dunces" like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. This is a perfect microcosm of how the Left handles all of its defeats: blame people for being stupid.

You have roundly avoided answering any of my questions. You have brushed off the idiocy and cruelty of the Left and you have ignored the facts that are inconvinient to you. In fact, the most you have done is tell me I "do not understand humor" and that I am merely displaying the "cult-like (un)-thinking" of "Idiot America." How on earth are you blind to all this? You are proving my point: you don't want to argue, so you resort to psuedo-academic name-calling.

Well, I ask again: You claim there is a "war on expertise" - well where is the expertise?

By-the-way: "hyper credulous literalism?" You mean like when Olbermann and all the other Leftists got angry when people used Obama's middle name? Or are you just going to ignore that fact too?

LAMBERT: Which "fact" are you talking about? The echo chamber insisting on inserting "Hussein" every time they mentioned Obama? Or Olbermann et al pointing out the corniness of their rabble-rousing intent? And when you demand studies, surveys, polls, blood tests and legal arguments ... what in the hell are you talking about specifically? A legal case judging Carrie Prejean's insipidness? Or climatologists and biologists explaining climate change and evolution? The problem my friend is that you will keep yelping for "facts" until your fantasies are validated.

Here, I will actually answer your questions:

(1) "Which "fact" are you talking about? The echo chamber insisting on inserting "Hussein" every time they mentioned Obama?"

I am pointing out that your accusation of "hyper credulous literalism" goes both ways. More than one Leftist (including Olbermann) stated that using Obama's middle name was racist. I mean, are you serious?

(2) "And when you demand studies, surveys, polls, blood tests and legal arguments ... what in the hell are you talking about specifically? A legal case judging Carrie Prejean's insipidness?"

My point here is that what you tout as "expertise" is merely opinion no more valid than Carrie's. She says she believes marriage should be a between a man and a woman. You and other Leftist critics shout insults at her and say she's wrong.

Is that expert analysis? Or is that just the other side shouting back its opinion? How can you criticize people for not listening to experts when the term "expert analysis" is a stand-in for "opinion and insults?"

How about a cool, lucid argument for pro-gay marriage that does not include the words "the other side is filled with stupid, religious bigots?" You can make a legal case for gay marriage and a legal case against it. You can cite the constitution and precedent. You can show statistics and polls of people for and against before and after Carrie's comments. THOSE things are facts. THOSE things would at least allow for a debate.

Wouldn't it have been cool if you or Olbermann chose to use rational arguements against Carrie and point out the equal-protection clause in the Constitution? Or shown polls which display people reacting more favorably to the idea of gay marriage after Carrie gave her statement?

But, alas. You, Olbermann and others settled for playing the schoolyard bully and hurling insults. Then you have the audacity to claim that those who disagree with defend her are not listening to "experts."

I may never agree with your standpoint on gay marriage (although I do not know precisely what it is) but if you were to lay out FACTS and practice what you preach by showing REAL expert analysis, I might actually respect you. If you had done that, we could have had a REAL debate and not just sat around trying to figure out why the Left hates people who have their own opinions so much.

Instead, you settle for calling a young woman a "craven" idiot and then accuse me of showing "(un)thinking" and "cult" mentality and insist I will "yelp" until my "fantasies" are fulfilled.

THAT qualifies as Leftist intellectualism...?

I don't know how I can get you to finally realize this: If there is a "war on expertise" - WHERE are the experts? ESPECIALLY with regard to this subject which just looks like a lot of Leftists whining about someone they dislike.

LAMBERT: Good God man, you are a dog with a bone. Miss California's thinking on gay marriage doesn't even make my list of problems with her, and I don't think I made a point of it. Rather it was her breaking almost all the rules of her competition and then complaining she was victim that got me most. But basically, I'm standing by my assertion of her "ditz" ness, all the "facts" you accumulate to the contrary. As for ... everything ... else , what "facts" do you prefer to base a "debate" over gay marriage on, exactly? Your belief that it is wrong? Miss California's? You seem to be saying there is some kind of science to this. IF ... and I say IF ... I was going debate the topic with you it'd be on a legal/moral basis, where most of the "facts" are matters of debate. Thankfully, I'm not getting into that. But finally ... and I do mean finally ... your basic complaint, which is word for word identical with most of the frequent listeners to talk radio ... is that lefty liberals are snarky, arrogant and rude, especially to people they deem less intelligent than them, which you seem to construe as just about everyone in possession of the true "facts" of Miss California, climate change, immigration, and God knows what else. Well, you may have me there. But let the record show I'm trying not to be rude.

Wow. Time for you guys to take this offline to a cage match somewhere. On the beach at dawn with Hanzo swords? Watch out for the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart move, Eugene!

LAMBERT: ... and none of that tag team stuff, pal.

I agree that this has gone on too long.

I just want to close by saying that my main point was not what you suggested, but it was: If there is a "war on expertise" - where are the experts?

As I stated, I do not see experts handing out expert opinions and facts, I only see people shouting insults. This incident with Carrie is just a microcosm of all debates with the Left - be it "global warming," the benefits of illegal immigration, the success of the New Deal etc. It always unwinds in the same way: the Left claim to have all the facts, but do not want to debate them.

I think you would be more effective if you argued your case against Carrie with exactly what rules she broke etc. not with insults.

Furthermore, the issue of gay marriage can be debated in a more thoughtful way than you suggest. It is possible to make a case against or for marriage as a "right" and a case for the people's ability to decide how their state is run etc. In other words, there are legitimate arguments that can be debated by intelligent people on each side. The problem is that this is all swept aside (by both Left and Right) and instead of experts, yes even on the Left, I just see axiomatic arguments (ie. "you're a bigot/religious nut/whatever").

LAMBERT: In my experience the right is pretty thin-skinned about being "insulted", and its a tough situation for liberals trying to argue points using bona fide experts like NASA's James Hansen or his PEER-REVIEWED colleagues all around the world. The rebuttals -- from non-scientists, economists and/or paid spokesmen from the oil industry -- strike me as "silly" and "fraudulent", which my opponents regard as "insults", and soon focus on the offense to their integrity and the arrogance of liberals, rather than the quality of the work done by the experts in question. As for Carrie Prejean, as I said a while back, if she's some archetype for conservative torch carrying, well, good luck with that.

Eugene, namzso, and our friend from the south ought to get together and have a tea party to discuss this. Enough already!

LAMBERT: You mean you don't respect what Miss California says about gay marriage?