After listening to Glenn and Helen interview Firefly writer Tim Minear, and reading a bit more of this conversation (much like a car wreck, it’s hard to pull your eyes away), I began to wonder about pop culture.

Among the Crunchies, there’s a serious, deep, aversion to pop culture. A sample:

The “conservatives” will not oppose promiscuity because sexual discipline would reduce the profits of corporations, which in their advertisements and entertainments encourage sexual self-indulgence as a way of selling merchandise.

This is a more detailed exploration of a view that, as another NR contributor once put it, “Pop culture is filth.”

I’m not there, frankly. And I don’t find these kinds of blanket denunciations terribly compelling. So let me offer a differing cultural critique: Our popular entertainment is not too ‘pornified,’ but it is too dumb.

For the last few years in a row, when the new fall schedules have come out, I’ve read about the new shows and had next to no interest in them. Nor the midseason replacements. An enthusiasm for the television offerings has gotten rarer and rarer; it’s a very similar effect at the Multiplex. But for now, let’s focus on television.

Looking back on my favorite shows – 24, Firefly, on and off the works of Joss Whedon, Coupling (the BBC version), Twin Peaks, Max Headroom, Young Indiana Jones Chronicles - I observed that the common theme was that they were all pretty complicated. You had to pay attention to these shows, and you probably wanted to tape them and maybe rewatch them. You want to get the season on DVD. If you missed a week, you were probably lost. Sometimes the full ramifications of an action or a comment wouldn’t be fully understood until weeks or even years later.

(Interesting aside – a couple of shows that I ought to like and don’t – X-Files, Alias, and Lost, have this detailed, intricately-plotted week-to-week format, but never have any payoffs. The writers appear to be making it up as they go along, a shaggy dog story in the form of a vast conspiracy, spy vs. spy, or stuck on a deserted island.)

I know why my most of my beloved shows have gotten canceled after a season or two. The average TV viewer doesn’t want to watch a show that requires them to pay attention, or be a bit in the dark whether this guy is a good guy or a bad guy or wait for a payoff in a week or two. They – generally – want short, simple, one-episode stories. Television networks also want cheap programming – thus, the explosion of reality shows. No reality show has kept my attention; the closest was “Murder in Small Town X,” and basically, that was reality contestants trying to solve a very Twin Peaks-style mystery. Eating bugs, team challenges, sucking up to the Donald – just not my bag.

I don’t begrudge television networks for pursuing the tastes of a majority of viewers. But I do observe that fare for those of us who like some complications, moral ambiguity, long storylines, and something to think about after the credits roll seems to be getting rarer and rarer.

So I’ll let the Crunch Crowd enjoy PAX; the keep-it-simple crowd enjoy reality shows, and those who want to see the Mom from Family Ties endlessly get beaten by a prostitute-addicted scummy husband can watch the Lifetime Network. But can I please get a television network to cater to my tastes?

“Dammit, I don’t have time to explain! You will pay attention to this storyline, or I will make you pay!”

“Diane, I’ve deduced that a network television audience may not have the capacity to follow an investigation this complicated. We might have had a prayer if we had been on cable.”

Cam: This is another example of me disagreeing with the crunchy cons as well. Conservatives don’t oppose promiscuity? Apparently Rod never heard the story of me making my 14-year old daughter return a bunch of clothes she bought at the mall because they were too revealing.

And I’m right there with you on television, Jim. I watch a grand total of two shows on television every week, “House” and “24″. Both are generally intelligent, well-written shows with a great deal of substance to them. When I want to be mindlessly entertained, I a) watch one of the “I Love the…” shows on VH-1, b) play baseball on my X-Box, or c) read a book.

I’m actually surprised that “24″ has lasted five seasons. I guess there must be some audience for shows like it, but I’m not convinced that we’ll ever have the great problem of having too many of these types of shows to choose from.

I’d be curious to know what each of you think the worst show on television is right now. I’d have to go with “Skating with Celebrities” (can you tell I watch a lot of Fox programming?)

Marshall: Do you think that the Crunchy Cons would agree that the only thing worse than today’s pop culture is their incoherent and idiotic arguments (like, for example), the one above?

Seriously, today’s TV sucks. Is there too much sex? Too much violence? I don’t know. But I know there’s not enough creativity — not enough risk taking. And, for the most part, the writing is attrocious.

Like Cam and Jim, there are about three or four shows that I watch consistently: CSI (the original, because I like the cast and the dialogue); Battlestar Galactica (which may be the best show on TV right now); and the Amzing Race (because it’s always well-cast and fantasically produced). I miss shows like SportsNight and the first two seasons of the West Wing, where you had to pay attention. The story moved quickly and the dialogue was the best.

Cam: Oooh, SportsNight! Even though it was undeniably liberal in its viewpoint (hello Aaron Sorkin), it was a great show. There was real chemistry between all of the characters, the storylines were pretty good, the quips were witty, and the women were hot.

I never watched the West Wing. I make it a point to never watch overtly political shows on television. The sight of seeing Republicans eating small children for dinner just annoys me. In fact, if I were watching “24″ for the first time this season, I would probably be turned off by it.

Jim: Ah, Sports Night. That was a great show, for about the first twenty minutes, and about the last three or four. In between, inevitably, one of the storylines would trigger a patented Aaron Sorkin Inspiring Speech(TM) about the evils of hunting, the evils of the Confederate flag, the evils of sexual harassment, etc. We would get about two minutes of speechifying, it would become abundantly clear that none of our lovable, clear-thinking characters could ever possibly disagree with Aaron Sorkin’s Weekly Diatribe, they would all nod their heads, and go back to work.

I have a like/hate relationship with West Wing. In some ways, it’s a pretty realistic depiction of how Washington operates - I think the non-speech dialogue is pretty damn accurate. And I loved their standard storyline: The President is faced with a choice, stick to his principles, or compromise to avoid painful political consequences.

The problem with the West Wing is that they always make the same choice (stick to principles) and they rarely, if ever, show the consequences. The Bartlett Administration always had its cake and ate it too; they always stood their ground and the American people always came around and agreed with their view. It was a truly Hollywood version of Washington politics. Somehow, we can do nuance, shades of gray, and moral compromises on a show like “24,” but Hollywood can’t show that politics is the art of the possible and requires compromises.

Also, the show had something of a weekly “reset” button, in that they would have these tremendous policy victories (we came back to find the votes and pass the bill!) but the following week, they were back to being the underdogs again.

By chance, I started tuning in to the West Wing during the season that was the Democratic Presidential Primary, with inspiring underdog Bail Organa - er, Jimmy Smits, taking on well-meaning but uninspiring Gary Cole and designated evil villain Democrat Tim Matheson. It was actually pretty good - the writers actually had to acknowledge that some Democrats are better than others, and that not all of them think the same. Cole got to make an argument for waiting ten years to legalize gay marriage, instead of forcing the fight now, that was very un-West-Wing-like.

Woman in Red: I agree guys. I haven’t watched an adult TV show other than CSI the original, in at least a year. The rest of prime time TV seems to be preoccupied with trying to out-do the competition in raunchiness, inanity, duplicity or offensiveness…or all of the above, in a jam-packed super hour!

Even glancing at shows like “The Simple Life”, “Survivor” or “Desperate Housewives” (gag) make me feel like my brain is shrinking.

The problem I find, seems to be that most shows on TV pander to our lowest qualities and baser instincts, reducing us to animalistic simplicity. All mindless sex, survival-at-all-costs competition and irresponsible fun at others’ expense. Virtues like honesty, integrity and generosity are objects of ridicule or patently ignored. If I want to be entertained by morons with none of these qualities, I’ll throw in “Spaceballs” for the millionth time — at least its more entertaining, and it’s not masquerading as quality programming.

But Jim is absolutely right, TV has become a forum where they refuse to challenge the viewer to think. Its called the boob tube and WE are the boobs - mindlessly watching any old crap they put up, as long as there is lots of fighting and all the sex the censors will allow. Pardon me, but if I’m going to watch that, I’ll just put on a porno - I prefer my sex and violence without an attempt at a plot. Not that prime time makes much of an attempt these days.

Unattainable: I am an unabashed viewer of VERY BAD TV, so I’m not sure I’m going to have a lot to offer, but give me a shot. I’ve always had a thing for TV that’s so bad it’s good. It just delights me. Of course, to be soooo bad, you loop all the way back around to good again, you have to be really bad– like, 7th Heaven or Laguna Beach or Beauty and the Geek (ok, that one’s actually endearing) or The Dukes of Hazzard. Now, that’s a line-up (hold on, I promise I’ll redeem myself!).

Yeah, I know. I have a problem. I also watch some decent shows, though. Grey’s Anatomy and Scrubs are both pretty clever, even if Grey’s is slipping into soap opera terrirory now that it’s got me hooked. I like Firefly, and I used to watch Alias, but truth be told, J.J. Abrams kind of ruined me on the get-emotionally-involved-in-an-intricate-series front. For about a month last year, I spent much of my life catching up on three seasons of Alias with friends. I’d never watched it before, but they had stumbled on it, and I was down with Michael Vartan, so I kicked back on the couch. I got totally hooked. We’d wait at the curb for the next installment to come from NetFlix and 4-man-relay it back into the house so it would be in the DVD player as quickly as possible. Seriously. Hooked.

So, I watched three seasons, donated large chunks of time and several of my heartstrings to Sydney and Vaughn and Rimbaldi and other nonsense, only to find in Season 4 that Jim is exactly right about Abrams. He’s making it all up as he goes along. There is no pay-off, and none of the questions you thought would be answered will be. That made me mad. Grrrrr. That’s why I don’t watch Lost, also written by J.J., and I ponder whether I should break the news to my friends who are Lost-addicts.

But enough about my bitterness. My point in writing this was to trumpet a little hope for folks who enjoy some noggin calisthenics with their TV. Sure, I can exist on Full House alone, but others cannot. The hope lies in DVDs and videos on iTunes.

The nature of an intelligent, intricate series is that you can’t jump in late. It’s very difficult. The show is not fun unless you’ve been there from the beginning. On one hand, this means there’s a certain level of camaraderie between fans of the show. It feels like a club you join, which intensifies fans’ feelings about the show and makes them more dedicated. On the other hand, it makes creating new fans of these shows well nigh impossible. The more dedicated the long-time fans become, the more intricate the show is, the more insider secrets are hidden in each script, the more left out new viewers feel. That’s why you see shows like Firefly ending up with rabid fans, but not in great enough numbers to make the show…er…fly. But the technologies of the 21st century, as is so often the case, have brought us a fix for this problem.

I would not have enjoyed any of Alias had I come into the show halfway through the second season, but because I saw it from the beginning, I got all hooked. But I didn’t get hooked watching it on TV, did I? I got hooked when a friend of mine got the DVDs. Because we could order/rent the DVDs, Alias earned a couple new fans. In the past, there was no way to bring people into an intricate show, to initiate them, to get them to understand unless one of the show’s fans was dedicated enough to listen to “now, who’s that guy?” “why did he kill her?” “is that the same box?” all. the. dang. way. through. a. show.

Now, you just hand your friend a set of DVDs. A couple weekends and a butt-printed couch later, he’s in the club. Initiated. Dedicated. A friend of mine watches Battlestar Galactica– another show that doesn’t mess around intellectually. I’m sure I’ll get into that, but it’s only because he has the DVDs on hand, so I can catch up.

So, I think DVDs (and downloadable episodes on iTunes) give intricate, intelligent shows a shot at success they’ve never had before. If they can last through a season, and get decent DVD sales (often driven by word-of-mouth and buzz advertising done by the aforementioned rabid fans), they’ve got a shot at a much better second season than first. I don’t think that was the case before. My hunch is that the audience for intelligent programming is much bigger than it appears right now, and it will start showing itself as more and more intelligent folks start learning they can Netflix their way into the 24 or the Battlestar club instead of moping on the outside.

What do y’all think? I mean, if you can bring yourself to respond to someone who watches Laguna Beach.

Jim: A brilliant and optimistic take on the subject, Unattainable. (I think I’m starting to see why you’re so unattainable.) I think you’re very accurately describing the phenomenon of how “cult hit” shows build their audiences today.

Unfortunately, we’re still at a weird not-quite-there stage. In his interview with Instapundit and Dr. Helen, Tim Minear said that some of his fans are speculating that Fox keeps picking up brainy, quirky, shows (Firefly, Wonderfalls, The Inside) cancelling them quickly, and then selling them on DVDs. Unfortunately, because the Fox television show producer and the Fox network are different entities, the conspiracy theory doesn’t quite add up.

So we’re at a point where a popular show can have a second life on DVD, and the popularity of the “Firefly” DVDs helped persuade Paramount to make the feature film, “Serenity.” (The movie didn’t do so hot at the box office, but now DVD sales have made it at least a marginal money-maker for Paramount. Come on, Little Show That Could!)

And yes, DVDs are a much better way to watch a show. No commerical breaks! “24″ is so much easier to bear! I have a suspicion that Hollywood’s creative class is picking up on this. Minear said he definately had it in mind when making “Wonderfalls.” (In a similar vein, one of the funner comments on the Firefly set was one of the creators saying that the first shot they filmed was designed with two actors so far apart that Fox would have no choice but to show it in widescreen.)

So I can see, five years down the road, DVDs becoming a serious alternative revenue stream for the creators of television shows. Unfortunately, for now we still need the TV shows to get picked up by somebody.

And the networks are, by and large, more comfortable with the predictable cop show, doctor show, lawyer show… (This is not to rag on any of those genres; House and Bones are growing on me and Law and Order Classic still has it most episodes. But when you’re doing the same old storylines and workplaces, you need a good cast, some hot writing and chemistry.)

By the way, regarding the crew of Grey’s Anatomy, I just want Dr. Gregory House to come in one week and kick all of their asses.

Wow.

This, a link to a music video featuring the Muslim world’s Madonna, Deeyah. Dales at RedState has the lyrics. A sample:

We dont take it lightly when you threatinin women,

how you have so much hate and faith in religion.

Fake in the system, need to take a break wit the dissin,

before you end up in the lake where they fishin.

Hearin bout the Muslim Madona, Asian J Lo, lookin for drama

(ok) if you say so. If you that religious and not wit trendy clothes,

then what you doin even watchin videos.

We need heavier artillery in our cultural war against jihadism; this brave, easy-on-the-eyes young Muslim woman just brought out the Big Bertha howitzer.

Finally, a Tipping Point™ sign that gives me a bit of hope.

Of course, I’m sure this crowd would hate it.

Marshall: I agree that it’s brave and makes a strong and compelling statement. I just hope the kids in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Syria are able to see it.

Cam: Never underestimate the power of the black market, Marshall. Kids in the Soviet Union found a way to listen to heavy metal and buy Levis. Those in the Muslim world will find a way to listen to Deeyah. In fact, I’d say the more these countries try to crack down on her music, the more kids will want to listen to it.

Woman In Red: Cam’s right. Between internet, satellite and black market - not to mention the kerfuffle this is bound to cause, generating heightened interest - it won’t take long to fan out to all the corners of the kingdom.

I’ve got to give this gal credit. She rocks! Wouldn’t it be the height of irony if the decadence the West is condemned for, personified by a glistening, scantily clad Muslim woman, were one of the catalysts that shattered the influence of repressive traditional Islam?

I realize that the traditional media has dropped the cartoon mess in favor of the seaport kerfuffle. But it’s still a big deal to me and, I think, many others around the world. Plus, I have a thing for editorial cartoons and the creative geniuses who draw them. Even though I almost always disagree with their politics and their point of view, cartoonists have a way of capturing the essence of issues that mere words can never match.

And so it is again. This one really got to me…

by John Cole, The Scranton Times-Tribune, February 8, 2006

EclectEcon has a complete collection called “U.S. Cartoonists Fight Back.” Check it out.

Jim: Can I be a bit bitchy? The cartoons on the link are great. But none of them would have been as powerful as running the Danish cartoons that started the controversy in the first place. I’m glad the Washington Post ran an op-ed by William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz ripping the media for not running the cartoons - but I’d rather they had run the cartoons.

The way I see it, there are three moral, or at least honest, courses of action:

• 1) Publish the cartoons, concluding that no group, no matter how aggrieved or upset, can dictate what a newspaper may or may not print.
• 2) Do not publish the cartoons, and refrain from ever publishing anything offensive to Christians, Jews, or other group, because the new criteria of “sensitivity to readers/viewers” is now paramount.
• 3) Do not publish the cartoons, and admit that the reason is not “sensitivity to readers/viewers” but fear of violence to your employees and workplace.

Instead, every major newspaper except the New York Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, Austin-American Statesman and the Rocky Mountain News has chosen option four: Refuse to print the cartoons, keep their readers in the dark, claim that it is out of “sensitivity to readers,” but continue to publish works like “Piss Christ” or the Virgin-Mary-in-dung painting that offends other groups that don’t object with violence. From that Bennett-Dershowitz op-ed:

So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.

So I’m glad these cartoonists are taking on the controversy. But I would rather they had used their positions to make the case for running the Danish cartoons.

Marshall: Amen! Preach on Brother Jim. Preach on.

The Evening Standard in London reports that a three-man “Adjudication Panel” for England has suspended London Mayor Ken Livingstone from work for four weeks for being “unnecessarily insensitive and offensive” to an Evening Standard reporter.

The Mayor’s response strikes me as on point: “This decision strikes at the heart of democracy. Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law.”

Just to be clear, I’m not excusing what the mayor said. But this all just sounds a little too much like big brother to me: An unelected panel removes an elected official from office (albeit it temporarily) for something he said. Hmmmm.

HT: Volokh.

Jim: You gotta be kidding me. A couple years back, a colleague claimed that a certain lawmaker gently slapped him in response to a question. Calling a reporter a “Nazi guard,” obnoxious and disgraceful as it is, ought not to be a crime. Leave it up to the voters.

I can’t quite get my head around the laws in Europe and England regarding freedom of speech. For example, in some countries, there are laws on the books making Holocaust denial a crime. I can hate what these folks are saying, but I don’t like the idea that they can be convicted in a court, or in this case, temporarily removed from office for saying something. (Besides the usual exceptions for slander, libel, threats, etc.)

Cam: Imagine if he had drawn a cartoon of Mohammed. He’d probably be drawn and quartered in the public square.

Marshall: The Washington Post picked up the story this morning. Best coverage I’ve seen. If you’re interested, read every word.

Over at his personal blog, Krempasky says that reporters from the traditional media who have run ins with bloggers are “a lot like the wide-eyed college kid who still drinks tequila.”

Traditional reporters who have had that “run in” tend to become one of two people:

1. The cautious but respectful one that realizes that there’s fire in that there bottle. One? Two? No problem. Life of the party and all that. Five? Call your office, you won’t be in today.
2. The villan at the end of every Scooby Doo episode shaking his fist at the sky (or in handcuffs) saying, “if it wasn’t for those damn kids…”

Seems to me that the vast majority end up in the fist shaking category. Maybe it’s time to hold a blogging seminar at some major newspapers.

Jim: Interesting - I know a lot of old media folks in the second category, but I’m not quite sure what Mike’s describing with the first one.

I do see how mainstream media folk could totally ignore the blogs, though. When you work at a publication, you tend to see the world through the eyes of that publication. You read the competition. But you don’t spend a lot of time reaching out, looking for new sources of information. When I was at CQ, the world was CQ, National Journal, The Hill, Roll Call… When I was interning at the Dallas Morning News, the news intake was national media, their paper, the Austin American-Stateman, the Fort-Worth Star Telegram (?) and the Houston Chronicle… I can see how a lot of newspaper/radio/television folks, so consumed with their daily beats, could completely ignore the growth of a new media format…

Cam: Oh, I think the media almost has an unhealthy obsession with the blogs. But it’s a love/hate relationship. They love the fact that they can peruse the blogs and find an interesting story before it gets on the national radar. But they hate the fact that the bloggers are becoming the new gatekeepers of information, and they really don’t like the disdain that bloggers have for the media.

I’m going up to Boston to speak at a college next month, and I’ve been looking for some good “nanny state” stories to talk about while I’m there. I struck the motherlode (no pun intended) when I found this story about the debate over free formula for new mothers.

When it comes to breast-feeding, do mothers really know best?

Officials are facing that question in Massachusetts, which is debating whether to become the first U.S. state to ban hospitals from handing out free samples of infant formula, provided by formula companies, to new mothers.

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney says he believes mothers should decide how to feed their infants and has asked the state’s Public Health Council to repeal the ban that it announced in December and set to take effect in July.

The council, which is part of the state’s health agency, voted on Tuesday to suspend the ban and study the issue for three months. They will decide in May whether or not to go ahead with the ban.

I’m not a mother (heck, I couldn’t lactate if I tried), but this annoys the hell out of me. Why should the state care whether or not a new mom gets free formula or coupons for formula?

When our twins were born 11 months ago, my wife nursed them. It was a gigantic pain for her, but she did it. However, she had to supplement with formula, and we eventually switched them over to formula full time when they were about five months old.

Mitt Romney has it right. It’s not the state’s job to decide whether or not mothers should breast feed or formula feed their babies. Stay out of it.

Oh, this also kinda pokes a hole in the Crunchy Cons argument that the language of choice is the language of liberalism.

Hey lefties, hey righties, hey old guys in tighty whities… quit telling me how best to live my life. I do not need a nanny (unless she’s Swedish and gives back rubs in addition to watching my brood of children).

It really is cold outside, so I thought I’d pop my head into this little dive to warm my tootsies and cause a little harmless mayhem. I figured at least I’d get a drink.

Now, I’m not a beer kind of gal. My choice is usually Bailey’s on the rocks. So I grab my drink (for tonight it’s a double) and I stride on over to the table next to a pair of handsome gents who look just desperate enough to keep a gal like me company A couple of saucy looks and a strategically crossed leg, and I manage to secure myself an invitation to be a regular at this haunt.

Marshall is a quiet kind of sexy, and Cam has that adorable grin that a geek-lover like me, just can’t get enough of. How could a girl not jump at the chance to share a drink with these guys? The appreciative glances and intelligent conversation are the perfect recipe for keeping warm on a cold winter night.

I am the Woman in Red at the next table, and it is a pleasure to keep such fine company with Marshall, Cam, Jim and that Unattainable Girl at the end of the bar. I usually don’t like the competition, but I figure since she’s unattainable and I am a saucy vixen, things will work out just fine.

I’d have more to say, but Marshall’s flattering introduction was a fine start, and due to a stiff cold breeze up my skirt on the way in, I think I may be catching a chill. Time for a hot toddy and a snuggle….

Thank you boys and girl, for welcoming me to the bar.

Cam: Damn. Is it just me, or is it a little hot in here? I will have you know, however, that it’s not just “geek-lovers” who like my smile.

Okay, maybe it is.

Marshall: Okay. Well. That distracts only slightly from the rivetting discussion of sea-port management that appears just below.

Jim: (dumbfounded look, then takes a shot) I will have a witty rejoinder to that for you… in about twenty minutes.

Woman in Red: Sorry, Marshall. I didn’t mean to bump you down, Pumpkin!

Take. A. Deep. Breath.

The current kerfluffle about ports is revealing, yet again, the profound impact of 9/11. And none of us should like what we see in ourselves.

Here’s the story: a British company held a contract to manage operations at many of America’s commercial ports. The Brits are good at that. They’ve been the masters of the high seas since most of Europe was paddling around the Mediterranean in dingies. But, as often happens in our global economy, the Brit company got bought out — by one owned, in part, by the government of the United Arab Emirates. Because of the change of control, the Bush administration, which hasn’t yet found a security question it couldn’t overreact to, has to sign off on the deal. After careful consideration by the appropriate port security experts, they approve it.

Everybody flips out.

And we all know why. Deep down, the idea of an arab country having anything to do with our ports is just a little disconcerting, isn’t it. After all, why didn’t it matter when the Brits did the work? They’re our oldest and most trusted allies. Of course we can trust them. But those Arabs — we’d better keep an eye on ‘em. They might bushwhack us.

Give me a break.

I actually heard one Congressman today reminding us that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. Of course they were. Do any of us really think that the two baboons who hastened their way to hell on that September morning are representative of their entire nation? I sure hope not. Imagine if business leaders in Tokyo or London believed that Tim McVey was a representative American.

Really. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. If this is what we’ve become as a result of 9/11, the terrorists really have won.

A corporation was hired to do a job — manage some ports. They have the expertise and ability to do the work. (Folks who have spent their lifetimes pushing oil around the world in tankers know a thing or two about ports, after all.) Dubai (in the UAE) is one of the great up-and-coming business centers in the world. And there’s a reason why.

It’s time to stop being paranoid and start acting like Americans.

P.S. — I know this is going to be an unpopular view. After all, it’s a lot easier to light your hair on fire and run around screaming about homeland security. But demagoguery is always the easy way out. Let’s stop and think before we make ourselves look like bigger jerks than we already have.

Cam: Welcome to the tipping point, Marshall. In light of the way Muslims are behaving in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, can you really blame people for thinking this is a bad idea?

Yes, I know all the reasons why you (and others) think this is no big deal. But why take a chance? I mean, our port security is already pretty abysmal. Do we really want to risk making it worse?

I realize the Ugly American in me is coming out here, but I understand the reluctance to see this happen.

Marshall: You said:

Why take a chance? I mean, our port security is already pretty abysmal. Do we really want to risk making it worse?

Your question perpetuates a myth about this whole deal. There’s a business being hired to manage the ports’ operations. They don’t do security. The Coast Guard, Customs Service, Border Patrol, FBI, and all the rest do the security. Period. And that doesn’t change. Indeed, almost nothing changes. The ports are managed. The feds do the security.

If the security sucks now (and I’m not conceeding that it does), why isn’t anyone worried about the Brits running the ports? Answer: they’re not Arabs.

Marshall, updating: I just noticed that Jim had a few thoughts on this issue over at TKS. Care to add anything Jim?

Jim: Marshall, five thoughts in response.

Thought One: When this story was first reported and mentioned on the blogs, a lot of facts were unclear – such as who exactly would be managing the security within the port facilities. It’s reassuring to hear just how much the security would be in American hands. Having said that, I think most Americans have their doubts about homeland security in general. This is partially because many of the efforts are unseen (usually for good reason) and the most visible example of new post-9/11 security is having your shoes taken off at the airport and watching TSA frisk grandma and confiscate her tweezers. There is a broad bureaucratic mentality within the federal government, even at the agencies with the duty to protect us, and Americans have their doubts that the government has their eye on the ball.

Thought two: So – what would the new UAE company learn from this new management position about U.S. security procedures and methods? How many guards are stationed where? How the badges are distributed and where they can access? Where the weak spots are? Remember, the issue is not whether this UAE company is in league with terrorists; obviously, they aren’t. The issue is whether any one of its employees could, at some point in the future, be in league with a terrorist. Yes, a British company employee could come in contact with al-Qaeda, but are you really willing to say that a Brit is every bit as likely to come in contact with an al-Qaeda terrorist as an employee of a UAE company? (Recall that al-Qaeda’s membership roster does not resemble the diversity of a Benetton ad.)

Part of the problem is that this sounds like a scenario out of a Tom Clancy novel. The bad guys always have somebody working at the port (see Sum of All Fears, The). Since 9/11, Americans have gotten more skilled at thinking like a terrorist, and have concluded that they would have an easier time infiltrating a dock full of UAE workers than one full of Brits.

Thought three: Replace “UAE” with “Saudi”, and see if your reaction would be the same. Indeed, they too have “spent their lifetimes pushing oil around the world in tankers.” I suspect much of the reaction to this story is a reflection that many Americans don’t know much about the UAE, and thus their default setting is “suspicion” when they hear “Arab company”. And there is nothing wrong about drawing conclusions about countries based upon their reputation. While I agree that the UAE is more reliable than it is being treated in this manner, not all Arab countries deserve this level of trust. I would trust the Jordanians to manage an American port. I would not trust the Egyptians.

Thought four: Cam kinda beat me to this point – the port story is not occurring in a vacuum. For the past weeks, Americans have been horrified as they have seen threatening protests and outright violence over the Danish cartoons in just about every corner of the Muslim world. I don’t know how the mood is in your neck of the woods, but judging from my e-mailbag and what I’m reading on the blogs, we have, as I’ve been repeating into a cliché in recent days, reached a tipping point. Many, many Americans flat-out no longer trust Muslims.

Thought five: The President’s vehement defense of this program yesterday, without further explanation, was his biggest mistake since Harriet Miers. I’ve seen another blogger speculate that perhaps the U.S. got some sort of intelligence-sharing bonanza as a result of helping the UAE on this deal. If that’s the case, somebody at the White House had better get on the phone PDQ and start putting out the brushfires that flared up from this deal.

And furthermore, Marshall, I think… Marshall? Marshall! Ah, damn, he’s distracted by the entrance of the Woman in Red above.

Marshall: Jim, you raise some interesting points.

On the first, if Americans are concerned with port security, they need to take it with their own government. That’s why we have Congress. You know — to represent us.

Your second point is, I think, the most compelling. But let’s remember a practical fact — it’s not like Dubai Ports (that’s the company) is going to send thousands of employees over here to manage the ports. The actual work will still be done by the same Americans who have been doing it for years. To be sure, there will be a few actual Arabs (gasp!) running around. But presumablky, if they’re going to be exposed to anything secret, they’d have to go through the same background check and security clearance process that everyone else does.

On the third, I can honestly say my reaction is the same. There are about 26 million Saudis. Do I think all of them want to kill. Uh, no. Let’s be security concious. If a Saudi or anyone else wants to come here from overseas, let’s make sure they’re not a terrorist. Then, let’s embrace them and show them all that’s good about America.

On the fifth, (going out of order for a sec) I agree that the President didn’t handle this well at all. If there’s an argument to be made, he needs to make it. Just asserting that it’s going to be as a decrees plays into his opponents’ hands and makes him appear out of touch. But that doesn’t make the decision to move forward any more or less correct.

And finally, on the fourth, I think this is the greatest problem of all. The cartoon controversy, the French riots, and the other incidents leave many of us (including me) wondering if all Muslims are violent extremists who want to kill us. Clearly, the answer is “no”. And we’re not making any friends — or dissuading any young Saudi from joining the extremists — by behaving like a bunch of jingoistic paranoids.

Jim again: Marshall, you write:

…If Americans are concerned with port security, they need to take it with their own government. That’s why we have Congress. You know — to represent us.

Interesting, because if there’s one area of government the American people have even less faith in than TSA, it’s probably Congress. As a forthcoming book will tell you, the first actions of Congress after the 9/11 attacks included:

• On Sept. 12, Sen. Bob Torricelli pointed the finger at the CIA for failing to stop the attacks; he was, of course, the author of the “Torricelli Rule” a policy change that required that a top CIA official — not a field officer – to approve the hiring of an informant with ties to human-rights violations. The resulting “scrub” of agents removed about 1,000 clandestine sources from the CIA’s roster, about one-third of the total.
• On Sept. 12, Senator Tom Daschle cautioned Bush about his rhetoric, saying “war is a powerful word” (and therefore perhaps should not be used).
• On Sept. 12, Senator Robert Byrd warned Bush that he should not expect a Tonkin Gulf-style “blank check” to conduct war.
• On Sept. 13, Byrd won Senate approval for a new $2-million West Virginia University computer network serving the Robert C. Byrd Regional Training Institute, arguing that this constituted vital spending in the new war on terror.

Since 9/11, the executive branch has been focused and serious about the threats facing us; I’m not sure the same can be said about the legislative branch. I’d like to think Congress can fix and improve our homeland security, but the record is spotty. In fact, I wonder how many statements can stir panic like “It’s up to Congress to protect us.”

2. I guess it would be good to know how many UAE employees will be coming to the U.S. under this new arrangement. I’m sure the employees with have to go through a security clearance process. Of course, Robert Hanssen, Aldrich Ames and Jonathan Pollard went through extensive security clearance processes, too. In their cases, their ability to slip through the cracks resulted the leak of classified information to foreign states. If an al-Qaeda sympathizer slips through the cracks of a UAE-managed port security, how dire are the consequences?

3. Interesting. My attitude to the Saudis would be a no-go. At the very least, I would be demanding extraordinary cooperation from them in mutual goals before approving this deal. The House of Saud is a long way from earning an assumption of good faith in my book.

4. You are correct that this deal can be the right decision and bad politics. Having said that, if this really is such a good deal for American interests, one might think that the arguments from Bush and other deal-defenders would be a bit more detailed and compelling. (Wasn’t the last time we got such a “trust me” defense from Bush… the Harriet Miers nomination?) Why am I hearing a more compelling defense of this decision from you and Instapundit’s readers than I am from the White House?

5. You write:

The cartoon controversy, the French riots, and the other incidents leave many of us (including me) wondering if all Muslims are violent extremists who want to kill us. Clearly, the answer is “no”. And we’re not making any friends — or dissuading any young Saudi from joining the extremists — by behaving like a bunch of jingoistic paranoids.

First, I agree that it is false that all Muslims are violent extremists who want to kill us. The question now is, what percentage are violent extremists? Unfortunately, I think we’ve seen in recent weeks that the number is higher than we thought.

I don’t think opposing or raising questions about this deal is the mark of a “jingoistic paranoid.”

And I really question whether it’s up to us to “make friends” or to “dissuade any young Saudi from joining the extremists.” To quote one of our favorite movies, “I don’t want the fucking power! I don’t want the guilt, I don’t want the shame, and I don’t want the responsibility!” Some Saudi’s going to join the extremists if I express suspicions of a UAE port management company? Some Afghan’s going to join al-Qaeda if I run a Danish cartoon? When did their actions become our fault?

I’m tired of being told how understanding, diplomatic, and sensitive I have to be to avoid agitating somebody on the other side of the world. Maybe it’s time the United Arab Emirates got a bit more understanding, diplomatic and sensitive and realized that their involvement with U.S. ports would stir up some inevitable concerns among the American people. Maybe instead of complaining about anti-Arab discrimination they could demonstrate their strong safety and security record in other ports they manage, and try persuading the American public.

Unattainable, here: First, a couple of links to people who aren’t freaking out about the port deal. Sean at The American Mind doesn’t find the opponents of the deal convincing:

This is a payoff to the United Arab Emirates for being an ally in the Islamist War. In the Middle East we need as many friends as we can get. Plus, connecting the region into the Core is vital for U.S. security. Hopefully the administration will be watching Dubai Ports World closely just to assuage concerns. Opponents of the ports deal will have to find something of substance, a pattern of security lapses for example, to kill the deal.

Lakeshore Laments, a blogger with work experience in this area, addresses the security issue:

Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, he said. Both sets of security measures are enforced in the United States by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Lorie Byrd thinks Dubai Ports’ economic incentives would keep Americans safe.

As for me? I think the chillin’ point of view is interesting, though my first reaction is to feel iffy about turning over control of six major ports to the UAE. That was my first reaction. Then, my first reaction was reinforced by the fact that, as Jim noted, the best arguments for the port deal are coming from Marshall and Instapundit’s readers. Serious echoes of the Harriet Miers situation, which I also had a terrible feeling about from the start. I want to believe the administration is making this decision because the benefits outweight the risks. I want to believe the administration has our national security under control, as it usually does, and that Bush knows more than I do about the situation.

But then I hear that Bush didn’t know about the deal until after it was approved. Still more reinforcement of my initial gut feeling.

And, this is why this is a problem politically. A lot of Bush-supporters are supporters precisely because he is unwavering on national security. Whether we like it or not, many of those supporters take in news in shorthand– in snippets, not in 300-page, highlighted transcript form like bloggers do. Those supporters hear only that the Bush administration is giving over control of six major American ports–New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia– to an Arab firm, and they are understandably concerned.

They don’t always take the time to make the distinctions between safe, allied Arab countries, middling allies with iffy terror-prevention plans, and terror-harboring nations. Those distinctions, as illustrated by this discussion, are hard enough to make for those of us who devour national security news like a late-night order of Scattered, Smothered, and Covered. Why should we expect regular Americans, busy living regular lives, to read about the UAE and automatically jump on board with this plan? They are right to err on the side of caution, and Bush should have known that they would.

I imagine many of them thought to themselves, a little warily, “well, Bush is the national security guru. He knows what he’s doing, and he’ll explain it.”

But then he didn’t explain it. It turns out he didn’t know about it much before the rest of us did. That’s when you get a reaction like the one Rod Dreher got from his family. They feel a little betrayed and a little dismayed by this. But there’s a way to fix it. I’m sure Bush’s supporters could get on board with this, and might indeed, if he spoke a little more openly about it, made the arguments for it, and maybe got behind the idea of briefing Congress a little more thoroughly and putting the deal on hold for a while. I’m one of those who has a gut feeling this isn’t a good idea, but I am willing to concede that I don’t know much about this kind of thing. I could be convinced (that’s a big maybe), but I’d like the administration to at least try to convince me.

Many of Bush’s supporters simply want to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of national security, and they have counted on Bush to do the same for six years. He should take the time to prove to them that that’s what he’s doing now or he could lose them. I mean, we’re dealing with New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, here. Shouldn’t we talk about this a little more?

Marshall: Not sure why, but I feel compelled to add one quick point: My view on this seaport issue has nothing to do with wanting to get behind the President. Though I certainly count myself a supporter of his, I was out early and often against the Miers nomination because it was a major mistake. (Though the administration’s PR mistakes in both instances are remarkably similar in nature.)

One other thing: the fact that President wasn’t in on this decision until this weekend actually makes me feel better about my position that this whole mess is much ado about nothing. If it had been important, someone would have put it on his desk. Instead, the decision got made by the people who are supposed to make it in the their normal course of business.

Cam: Or it could signify that the President is out of the loop on important issues. I have a feeling that’s how the Kos Kids will be playing it.

I’m still torn here (a bad position for a blogger to be in, I’m aware). On one hand, I completely agree with the idea that this just feels bad. I don’t like the fact that Jimmy Carter loves the idea. And I’m not impressed with the administration’s answers to some of these questions.

On the other hand, security for the port will be handled by the Coast Guard. The UAE is an ally in the war on terror. And I think the blogswarm is responsible for a lot of the knee jerk reactions we’re seeing from politicians.

Sigh. I just don’t know where I come down on this. Maybe after a beer (Sam Adams, in case the endorsements start coming in) things will look a little clearer.

Marshall: Okay. Here’s the bottom line. I’m not sure any of us knows for sure if this is a smart deal or not. But what is certain is that a whole lot of bloggers and other opinion leaders on the left and right are acting like raving idiots, and they should stop.

Marshall, again: A good friend with expertise in port security writes:

As someone who has looked at the security issues and current procedures regarding container security at [a whole bunch of] ports … you ought to go ahead and just concede the point that port security sucks.

Too much stuff going through with too many demands for on-time delivery and too few people and other resources looking at what’s actually in the boxes. It’s a faustian bargain we’ve struck in the name of getting cheap imported [stuff] fast and in stores on-time.

I’m always happy to concede to someone who actually knows what they’re talking about, so I will acknowledge that it is so. And if seaport security sucks, we ought to fix it, whether Dubai Ports is managing the operations or some other outfit. But the fix is up to the government. Not the management firm.

Marshall, updating: Welcome, Instapundit readers. We hope you’ll stay a while. Join us for a tall, cold one. Meet the Unnattainable Girl at the End of the Bar (But she won’t talk to you. Trust us.) and Woman in Red at the Next Table. Also, make sure to check out our Manifesto. You’ll be entertained. We promise.

So one of my NR brethren’s books hits stores today, Rod Dreher’s “Crunchy Cons”. I’m a fan of Rod, but not the concept, so I’m going to try to whack this idea around like a piñata without stirring up trouble within the company. I’m also going to buy the book, digest Rod’s whole argument, and then weigh in on NRO’s Crunchy Con blog. But for now, there’s a big, glowing review of Rod’s book by George Nash in today’s Wall Street Journal, and I have a couple of thoughts in reaction to that review.

“Rod Dreher, a columnist and editor at the Dallas Morning News, is a self-confessed member of the vast right-wing conspiracy… He has little use for the morally relativist and libertine tendencies of modern liberalism. Too often, he says, ‘the Democrats act like the Party of Lust.’”

I’m a big fan of lust, I’m just not a big fan of Democrats. Although there are some Democrats that I lust.

Dreher is “a proponent of the New Urbanism, an anti-sprawl movement aimed at making residential neighborhoods more like pre-suburban small towns.”

I am instinctively suspicious of anti-sprawl groups. Often underneath their environmental and aesthetic arguments is the core value, “I have my house, now you can’t have yours. My need for a view of the bucolic countryside outweighs your need for the house you want.”

“He dislikes industrial agriculture, shopping malls, television, McMansions and mass consumerism.”

In New Jersey, if you dislike malls, we issue a fatwa calling for your death. Actually, I don’t begrudge anyone not liking any of these things. I just instinctively reach for my metaphorical sidearm when I suspect someone is going to try to make the case as to why I shouldn’t be able to have them either.

“In Mr. Dreher’s view, consumer-crazed capitalism makes a fetish of individual choice and, if left unchecked, “tends to pull families and communities apart.” Thus consumerism and conservatism are, for him, incompatible, a fact that mainstream conservatives, he says, simply do not grasp.”

Let’s define what consumerism is. Because if he means what I think he means, he’s griping about things that I like – such as the fact that just about every book ever written in the English language is now available to me through Amazon.com, and that I can find just about any object in the world on E-Bay. What’s great about these services is that, like Fruity Oaty Bars, they are “not mandatory.” If you don’t like them, you can ignore them.

“It is not politics and economics that will save us, he declares. It is adherence to the “eternal moral norms” known as the Permanent Things.

And the most permanent thing of all is God. At the heart of Mr. Dreher’s family-centered crunchy conservatism is an unwavering commitment to religious faith. And not just any religious faith but rigorous, old-fashioned orthodoxy. Only a firm grounding in religious commitment, he believes, can sustain crunchy conservatives in their struggle against the radical individualism and materialism he decries.”

Good luck to ya on that. I’ve been through enough dark nights of the soul to realize that everyone’s spiritual journey proceeds at their own pace; life is a great big theological Montessori school. You can call for a society-wide return to “rigorous, old-fashioned orthodoxy” as much as you want, but people will only turn to that when they’re ready. Actually, “rigorous, old-fashioned orthodoxy” is actually selling pretty well in America’s religious marketplace today. (I know, I know, marketplaces are part of that bad consumerist culture…)

If I recall correctly, Dreher’s original cover story on Crunchy Conservatism came out in fall 2002, prompting Ben Domenech to observe, “I just find it odd that it’s a nail-biter of an election year, there’s a war against terrorism, we’re about to jump into Iraq… and there’s a granola bar on the cover of NR.”

Look, if corporate farms aren’t your bag, bang the drum all you like. I’d just observe that while you’re taking the fight to Archer, Daniels and that little punk Midland, protesters in Afghanistan are pledging that if they see another cartoon mocking Muhammad, they’ll join al-Qaeda. Pardon me if I hesitate about signing up for the Granola Crusade, because from where I sit, right now much bigger fans are getting pelted with much bigger pieces of shit.

Finally, I’m smelling an awful lot of “nanny state” coming off of this plan. I’m already irritated with Islam having a decree and fatwa detailing the proper and good way to deal with every minute issue in modern life. Now here’s a whole new brand of conservatism to declare “the personal is political” and that there’s a proper and moral choice in my selection of footwear, snacks, vegetables, housing developments and where to shop. Frankly, this may be the wrong time to make that sales pitch, particularly to conservatives. The 1994 GOP revolution was fueled by the tired-of-big-government-and-nagging “leave us alone” coalition; an ad man who worked on Bush’s 2004 campaign observed that an end-of-our-rope frustration with a hostile media and inane antiwar moonbats is turning the GOP base into the “get the fuck out of my face” coalition.

I generally find libertarians to be unrealistic, idealistic, Ayn Rand-quoting idiosyncratic types who really want to smoke dope and not pay taxes on it. But put me in a room with Dreher’s vision of a better world, and suddenly I’m channeling Ryan Sager.

By the way, I wonder how prominently the marketing for “Crunchy Cons” will feature this quote:

“I heretically came to realise that Hillary Clinton was right: it really does take a village to raise a child. We conservatives, with our exaltation of consumer choice and the sovereign individual, were dismantling that village as effectively as the statist libertines we opposed.”

–Rod Dreher, The London Times, January 1, 2006.

Much like Fruity Oaty Bars, modern consumer culture is “NOT MANDATORY.”

Cam: I certainly have my libertarian tendencies (although they really lose me with the open-border nonsense), and I’m probably a failure as a “cultural conservative”. I watch South Park without getting offended, I can see a naked woman dancing around a pole without fainting, I can even see the logic behind same sex marriage (although I still don’t support it).

I’m hoping what Rod was going for is the idea that the idea of conservatism is a fairly big tent these days, but what it sounds like from the review and selected quotes is that Crunchy Conservatism trumps “leave me the hell alone” conservatism. I’m definitely in the “leave me the hell alone” camp. I don’t need to be lectured about the evils of consumerism, corporate farming, etc. And I certainly don’t need to be told that unless I repent, this country will go to Hell. I’ve never liked books that lecture rather than inform, and from all appearances this tome looks like a lecture to me.

I guess my biggest fear is that Dreher’s book is going to make conservatives look like the sanctimonious pricks the Left already thinks we are.

Cam again: How can I take this argument seriously when Rod is saying stuff like this:

It seems to me that modern conservatism, in the main, pays lip service to virtue, but is really more wrapped up with economics and libertarian concerns. Do you agree? If so, where, and why, did the Right lose touch with traditionalism?

Say what? Ah yes, these darn conservatives in Washington are too busy cutting spending and limiting the role of government in our lives to pay attention to traditional values. I know Rod works at a paper, but I wonder if he ever reads one.

Seriously, this is starting to look more and more like some horrible mishmash of philosophies. One scoop of the worst of Wavy Gravy, one scoop of the worst of Pat Robertson, blend until crunchy. The only problem is crunchy things are hard to swallow.

Roger Simon, reacting to a very hoity-toity essay on neoconservatism by Francis Fukuyama in the New York Times magazine:

The larger intent of the essay, however, is not professorial, but to announce the political economist’s withdrawal from the N-crowd. Those dreaded neos are, after all, responsible for the war in Iraq and that war, we all know, is a disaster. Well, maybe. Fukuyama not much more than a decade ago announced “the end of history.” In this article he says he was misread on that score and he really meant liberal democracy would lead to the end of history. Again: Well, maybe. Fukuyama seems to be a man in a hurry. The Iraq War here he declares to be a failure after only three years… In my own way, I sympathize with Fukuyama. The opinion game is ruthless. You have no time to wait for history and must make pronouncements based on thin and fleeting evidence. Still, it seems very early to close the book on Iraq. I suspect there are many twists and turns yet to come. Even Germany and Japan took a while to settle down after WWII - and that wasn’t the Middle East. Sometimes I think people like Fukuyama (I’m being mean here) write these things to get their New York Times cards back, to be welcomed home into the fold and not to have to spend the rest of their lives writing for the Weekly Standard. Or worse yet, blogging.

When I was a mere baby political geek, punditry was cool. Other kids aspired to hitting home runs in the World Series or being a movie star, I longed for the day I could opine in a syndicated column, sell books, and make bold, outrageous predictions on The McLaughlin Group after shouting “wrooooong, Eleanor!” You may think this is strange, but there’s actually a whole city full of grownup political geeks, called Washington, D.C..

Blogging has both a boon and a blow to the world of political opining. The Kerry Spot/TKS brought me an opportunity and an audience (and now this lovely hangout), but it has also meant the competition has grown exponentially. When everybody’s a pundit, then nobody’s an influential pundit – or at least it’s harder to break through the cacophony.

And I can’t help but suspect that part of the extraordinarily nasty tone of political debate these days is a reaction to extraordinary competition in what was once the protected field – dare I say, guild? - of punditry. If you’re a top dog with the syndicated column, book deal, regular TV gig, radio appearances, etc., you have to say something shocking and outrageous to remain on the political world’s radar screen. If you’re an up-and-comer, then bland, cautious, safe statements will never get you attention and buzz.

Thus we have guys like Joel Stein saying he doesn’t support the troops, and folks speculating that Dick Cheney’s hunting accident wasn’t an accident. This is what it takes to stand out in the punditry world, to get people reacting to what you write and say, forwarding your column and talking about you. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan diagnosed the phenomenon of “defining deviancy down”; I suspect today we’re “defining outrageous and noteworthy further out.”

Cam: Punditry isn’t worthless, but you’ve hit on one of my pet peeves: people opining about things they know nothing about. Watching the MSM cover the Cheney hunting story was like watching me talk about nanotechnology. They had no idea what they were talking about, and yet they couldn’t. shut. up.

Yes, in order to stay on top you have to stay in the public radar, and yes to get to the top you have to get noticed. That does lead to a lot of idiotic statements (and people like Ann Coulter). But I believe there’ll always be an audience for knowledgable discourse instead of random bomb-throwing.

And if you don’t agree with me, then the terrorists have won.

Marshall adds: I think Jim is on to something here. I was in college — hanging around with a bunch of political science professors — when Fukuyama declared the end of history — on the op/ed page of the New York Times. It was a big deal because he had the megaphone. Now, everyone has their own megaphone. And the way ideas are floated, discussed and transformed has changed dramatically. As Jim says, everyone is a pundit.

And the limited (if annoying) downside of some pundits behaving more like apes seeking attention is more than outweighed by the vastly expanded market of ideas. Indeed, I seem to say a lot that the Internet generally and blogs specifically are the ultimate free market for ideas. The people who can write, frame an idea, make an argument, and support it with evidence and sound thinking, tend to attract readers. The people who suck — like Joel Stein — get ridiculed and lit on fire so many times that no one can (or does) take them seriously. The problem with the old way was that competition among columnists and pundits was limited. And newspaper op/ed editors got to play gatekeepers.