"Oh Happy Day - George and John are back!!!!! That is a reason for hope. " Ditto. Couldn't have put it better.

The chat with Bob (John's involvement is not noted) will be tomorrow, Sunday, June 28, at 5pm eastern. Not real clear as to how you watch it. Anyone watch one of these before on firedoglake? Do you have to register and login?

I thought John was exceptional in this diavlog, on subjects about which I did not expect him to be so. Looking forward to his firedoglake.com chat.

Yay!

At the end of the section on George side-stepping the science and religion debate, John says that the Big Bang is a feather in the cap of monotheism. And, I vaguely recall that a good deal of the skepticism about the Big Bang theory when it was just a hypothesis was based on the feeling that it was motivated by religious views and that it would indeed be an argument in favor of religion. (I don't recall this directly, but from a lecture on the subject I listened to a while back.) For the most part, religious skeptics were expecting Steady State to be true, while believers were more likely to bet on Big Bang. On the standard of "who made the correct prediction?" the religious believers were right -- and in a rather spectacular way. To the degree that the religious prediction was confirmed and the non-religious prediction was not, doesn't the evidence of the Big Bang count as "evidence for (one tenet of) monotheistic belief (i.e., the religious views shared by the monotheistic religions)? Of course, it is not at all decisive evidence, since the Big Bang is consistent

Good grief. At 11:00 am it is over 90 degrees here in beautiful Austin, Texas. We have broken record highs for the past 4 days and will again today. It has already been over 100 14 times and the high yesterday was 105. No break in sight in what is already the worst drought since the dust bowl. The possibility of global warming is all too real here.

Quoting thprop: The chat with Bob (John's involvement is not noted) will be tomorrow, Sunday, June 28, at 5pm eastern. Not real clear as to how you watch it. Anyone watch one of these before on firedoglake? Do you have to register and login?

Unless they've changed things since the last time I looked (Eric Boehlert), it is nothing more than the author hanging out and monitoring the comments section of a blog post. And yes, you do have to register to post a comment/question. You can register for commenting privileges at FDL now or at any time. All you need is a working email address. Go here or to the bottom of any blog post on the site; e.g. On a related note, my jaw just dropped to hear both George and John sound like they'd never heard of FDL before today. I know they're not political junkies like me, but still, I would have thought anyone who spends time online would at least be familiar with the name, if for no other reasons than it's so memorable. Oh, well. We're all of us each in our own bubbles to some degree.

Quoting ohcomeon: Good grief. At 11:00 am it is over 90 degrees here in beautiful Austin, Texas. We have broken record highs for the past 4 days and will again today. It has already been over 100 14 times and the high yesterday was 105. No break in sight in what is already the worst drought since the dust bowl. The possibility of global warming is all too real here.

No, no, no. Global "warming" is a hoax. That heat you're experiencing is Patriot Jesus punishing y'all for your secessionist talk.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: At the end of the section on George side-stepping the science and religion debate, John says that the Big Bang is a feather in the cap of monotheism. And, I vaguely recall that a good deal of the skepticism about the Big Bang theory when it was just a hypothesis was based on the feeling that it was motivated by religious views and that it would indeed be an argument in favor of religion. (I don't recall this directly, but from a lecture on the subject I listened to a while back.)

I don't remember that exactly, which is not to say I'm disputing your recollection. I vividly remember, however, when I first heard about the Big Bang theory moving to some new plateau of general acceptance, thinking, "Ah! Now we can all stop bickering about science vs. religion. The religious people have their creation moment (according to science!), and the science people are all saying, 'We can't say thing one about what happened "before." Matter of fact, the question doesn't even make sense.' Peace in our time!" Youthful idealism was, needless to say, quickly crushed.

[...] John suggests that Steady State would be a fairly decisive blow to religious belief. George

Quoting bjkeefe: No, no, no. Global "warming" is a hoax. That heat you're experiencing is Patriot Jesus punishing y'all for your secessionist talk.

A whole bunch of the natives are pretty sure Jesus is a Texan. I know he can't be because you could never find three wise men and a virgin around here.

Quoting ohcomeon: A whole bunch of the natives are pretty sure Jesus is a Texan. I know he can't be because you could never find three wise men and a virgin around here.

LOL!

... is a sneaky-funny guy. From his Vatican-owned telescope article (emph. added):

Building on Mount Graham was a struggle. Apaches said the observatory was an affront to the mountain spirits. Environmentalists said it was a menace to a subspecies of red squirrel. There were protests and threats of sabotage. It wasn’t until 1995, three years after the edict of Inquisition was lifted against Galileo, that the Vatican’s new telescope made its first scientific observations.

Q for George: Did you address Corbally as "Father Doctor" or "Doctor Father?"

Quoting ohcomeon: A whole bunch of the natives are pretty sure Jesus is a Texan. I know he can't be because you could never find three wise men and a virgin around here.

Is it harder to find three wise men or one virgin?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/207...5:20&out=56:11 Now if that isn't an awkward moment...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/207...1:24&out=61:38

I think Horgan misses the point a little when he says morality is easy. I'm going off the following as the Golden Rule (IIRC he doesn't define it in his own words):
"Treat other people the way you want to be treated"
That papers over some of the biggest disagreements, namely what qualifies as a "person". Does a little kid? Does an infant? Does a fetus? What about an insane human? What about a chat program that passes the Turing test? What about an especially intelligent and human-like animal, e.g. the gorilla that learned sign language? What about a human severely handicapped to be less capable of communication and abstract thought then said animals? What about animals that can't think like us but can feel like us? Then there's also problems with "want". Do you treat people the way you'd want if you were in their shoes? Then what about a suicidally depressed person who wants to be euthanized? Isn't the alternative, though, completely patronizing and domineering? Christian missionaries wanted to be brought closer to God and thought everyone else should share that want. European imperialists thought that savage brown people across the globe

Quoting pampl: I think Horgan misses the point a little when he says morality is easy. I'm going off the following as the Golden Rule (IIRC he doesn't define it in his own words):
"Treat other people the way you want to be treated"
That papers over some of the biggest disagreements ...

Yeah. I have heard that the original form, which I like better as far as a less hole-filled fundamental principle goes, was more along the lines of this: Don't do to others what you wouldn't have them do to you.

Quoting thprop: Is it harder to find three wise men or one virgin?

Good question. My problem has always been with the lack of wise men but that could be just because I am relatively unconcerned about virgins.

A better formulation is the Buddhist principle: Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. It doesn't address all your objections, but it does tidy things up a bit. [added: I see Brendan just beat me to it. But I'm feeling defiant of the great BJ/BH police state...So I'm going to leave my superfluous response up just to annoy him, irregardless ;-)] Seriously I think Horgan's point was that the golden rule of: think about others and be considerate, before you act, is painfully simple and doesn't require supernatural roots or religious hand-holding.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: A better formulation is the Buddhist principle: Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. It doesn't address all your objections, but it does tidy things up a bit.

[added: I see Brendan just beat me to it. But I'm feeling defiant of the great BJ/BH police state...So I'm going to leave my superfluous response up just to annoy him, irregardless ;-)]

Seriously I think Horgan's point was that the golden rule of: think about others and be considerate, before you act, is painfully simple and doesn't require supernatural roots or religious hand-holding.

I will punish you, sir, with my bare hands.

How did you get red font?

Quoting Ocean: How did you get red font?

Police powers.

Quoting bjkeefe: Police powers.

Oh, dear!

Samuel Bowles! He's my favorite economist!* I only discovered him in the last year or so and I've been working my way through his stuff. I'll have to check out his paper. Fans of Cosma Shalizi will enjoy his write up one of Bowles's ideas:

English-speaking social science, especially economics, is dominated by a tradition going back to Adam Smith and the other late 18th- and early 19th-century British political economists and historians of civil society. It focuses on individuals, and sees their acts and choices as primary. Larger entities — markets, states, institutions, cultures, and classes — are shorthand ways of speaking about patterns in the acts of many individuals.

Partly because they lend themselves to precise, mathematical expression, individualist theories have proven theoretically insightful, practically useful, and surprisingly powerful. They are also basically unrealistic. The standard individual economic agent, Homo economicus, has been called a "hedonistic sociopath." He also has no culture at all, and is far too smart. Nobody, not even exponents of "rational choice" theories, is much like Homo economicus, which is good for humanity, but bad for those theories.

There is another social science tradition, going back to Herder, Hegel, and other German contemporaries of Smith, which evades these problems by focusing on collective entities

You guys have all of a sudden become a pretty important scientific anchor considering the waves of TF bullshit we've been awash in lately. Thanks!

Quoting pampl: I think Horgan misses the point a little when he says morality is easy.

I think Horgan meant that morality is easy in the sense that it is easy to explain the origins of the moral sentiments; that you don't need to posit God to explain the existence of morality. At least that's the sense I got.

Quoting claymisher: Samuel Bowles! He's my favorite economist!* I only discovered him in the last year or so and I've been working my way through his stuff. I'll have to check out his paper.

Fans of Cosma Shalizi will enjoy his write up one of Bowles's ideas:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...ciprocans.html

* I have more than one. It's a five-way tie for first place.

Yes, I am a fan of CS. Thanks for the link. What a great explainer. Who are the other four?

I'm just shocked that they seem to be suggesting that the ends justify the memes.

Hi All, Coincidentally I've been re-reading the first 15-20 (mostly Meccan) surahs of the Koran these past few days and they actually strike me as more political, less ethereal and more wrathful than what I'd remembered of the volume as a whole. I haven't re-read the whole thing yet, but I suspect that if one did an informal content analysis and searched for terms like "wrath," "fight," "war," "Jew," etc. they'd actually be skewed toward the early (Meccan) books, though I'm certainly no expert and I do know the Mecca/Medina argument is also made by the "Blogging the Koran" guy linked below: http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php Peace,
Del

Quoting del: Hi All,

Coincidentally I've been re-reading the first 15-20 (mostly Meccan) surahs of the Koran these past few days and they actually strike me as more political, less ethereal and more wrathful than what I'd remembered of the volume as a whole. I haven't re-read the whole thing yet, but I suspect that if one did an informal content analysis and searched for terms like "wrath," "fight," "war," "Jew," etc. they'd actually be skewed toward the early (Meccan) books, though I'm certainly no expert and I do know the Mecca/Medina argument is also made by the "Blogging the Koran" guy linked below:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

Peace,
Del

It's probably worth bearing in mind where that "Blogging the Koran" guy -- Robert Spencer -- is coming from. From his Wikipedia entry:

He is a contributor to the FrontPage magazine, directed by David Horowitz. [...]

[...]

[frequent guest on] ... numerous radio programs including Michael Savage's Savage Nation, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Andrew Wilkow Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Barbara Simpson Show, and Vatican Radio.

[...]

Those with a positive view of Spencer's works include Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, Ibn Warraq[12], Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Steven Emerson, Don Feder, Walid Phares, Michelle Malkin, R. James Woolsey, Jr., David G. Dalin[13] and Bat Ye'or,[14]. [...]

[...]

Michelle Malkin

Overly harsh words about Michael Jackson from John, but another stellar diavlog nontheless. George and John are one of the reasons I come back to bhtv again and again!

Hi BJ, Well, Ziuaddin Sardar made it through a "trans-modernist" reading of the first two surahs for the Guardian but IMO the smart, mean secular left commenters there absolutely demolished him . . . typical exchange (as I remember it): Sardar: "All Western misunderstandings of the Koran can be blamed on Aristotelian modernism."
Commenter: "Uh, weren't early Muslim scholars totally into Aristotle and almost solely responsible for preserving his work?" But here's a link, for what it's worth: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/ On the right-wing guy, yeah, he's a right-wing guy, but he did at least make it through the whole thing :-) I was just pointing out that IIRC he agrees with Bob Wright about the Mecca / Medina thing, whereas my impression is that you could make an equally good case for the opposite . . . i.e., Mohammad is actually more tolerant (or at least ethereal/above politics) once he gets a little power/success -- kind of a noblesse oblige thing. Best,
Del

Quoting del: Hi BJ,

Well, Ziuaddin Sardar made it through a "trans-modernist" reading of the first two surahs for the Guardian but IMO the smart, mean secular left commenters there absolutely demolished him . . . typical exchange (as I remember it):

Sardar: "All Western misunderstandings of the Koran can be blamed on Aristotelian modernism."
Commenter: "Uh, weren't early Muslim scholars totally into Aristotle and almost solely responsible for preserving his work?"

But here's a link, for what it's worth:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/

Thanks for the links, Del. I don't know if I'll get to reading them, since arguments over interpretations of the Koran are not among the most interesting discussions to me at this point, for a variety of reasons. But maybe I'll come back to them.

On the right-wing guy, yeah, he's a right-wing guy, but he did at least make it through the whole thing :-) I was just pointing out that IIRC he agrees with Bob Wright about the Mecca / Medina thing, whereas my impression is that you could make an equally good case for the opposite . . . i.e., Mohammad is actually more tolerant (or at least ethereal/above politics) once he gets a little power/success -- kind of a noblesse oblige thing.

Best,
Del

Sounds reasonable. In general, I wonder about the

Hi Brendan, Agree with your comments on noblesse oblige in the links, and I hadn't realized that Bob's book has already been discussed here several times before. My take (which I'm sure others have had too) is that while the world already has a Harris and a Hitchens and a Dennett and a Dawkins, Bob figured it didn't yet have anyone taking his (perhaps convoluted but certainly original position). So, Pragmatist Prophet that he is, I'm guessing he concluded, probably correctly, that his particular "mutation" of the atheists' arguments might be what was needed to move humanity forward to the next stage of history, etc., etc. Del

Quoting del: Hi Brendan,

Agree with your comments on noblesse oblige in the links, and I hadn't realized that Bob's book has already been discussed here several times before. My take (which I'm sure others have had too) is that while the world already has a Harris and a Hitchens and a Dennett and a Dawkins, Bob figured it didn't yet have anyone taking his (perhaps convoluted but certainly original position). So, Pragmatist Prophet that he is, I'm guessing he concluded, probably correctly, that his particular "mutation" of the atheists' arguments might be what was needed to move humanity forward to the next stage of history, etc., etc.

Del

Hmmm. I'd say there are swarms making a much more moderate, can't-we-all-get-along case with respect to religion than there are people like the Four Horsemen, but okay. I'll agree that Bob's position has its own unique elements, certainly. Still, I think it's also easy to see him as an "apologist for religion," as Sam Harris (via) has called him, and my own view is that he really is taking an unfairly simplistic view of the 4H.

Quoting pampl: I think Horgan misses the point a little when he says morality is easy. I'm going off the following as the Golden Rule (IIRC he doesn't define it in his own words):"Treat other people the way you want to be treated"

That papers over some of the biggest disagreements, namely what qualifies as a "person". Does a little kid? Does an infant? Does a fetus? What about an insane human? What about a chat program that passes the Turing test? What about an especially intelligent and human-like animal, e.g. the gorilla that learned sign language? What about a human severely handicapped to be less capable of communication and abstract thought then said animals? What about animals that can't think like us but can feel like us?

Good point. Even if we reformulate the golden rule negatively, as BJ and Uncle Eb do below, the scope of the command is unclear. Does it apply only to rational "persons" or should it be extended to all sentient creatures, as the Buddha (along with Rousseau and Schopenhauer) thought. (That would surely rule out a machine.... even if it did pass the Turing test!) The answer, I think, depends on whether you think morality

Quoting Francoamerican: Good point. Even if we reformulate the golden rule negatively, as BJ and Uncle Eb do below, the scope of the command is unclear. Does it apply only to rational "persons" or should it be extended to all sentient creatures, as the Buddha (along with Rousseau and Schopenhauer) thought. (That would surely rule out a machine.... even if it did pass the Turing test!)

I think it should apply to everyone (everything?) capable of understanding and obeying it. Of course, rigorously defining that group gets a little sticky, but certainly, it at least includes all sane adults and older children. It's also useful for younger children as a guiding principle when you're explaining why you're objecting to misbehavior.

The answer, I think, depends on whether you think morality is grounded in reason/rationality or in something more primal and emotional---like pity or compassion--which operates below the level of conscious reflection to forestall harm before it occurs. That seems to me the profound meaning of the Golden Rule when formulated negatively.

I think my idea about the application works no matter where morality is grounded.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hmmm. I'd say there are swarms making a much more moderate, can't-we-all-get-along case with respect to religion than there are people like the Four Horsemen, but okay. I'll agree that Bob's position has its own unique elements, certainly.

Still, I think it's also easy to see him as an "apologist for religion," as Sam Harris (via) has called him, and my own view is that he really is taking an unfairly simplistic view of the 4H.

Well, I should note that I haven't yet read Bob's book, but to me he's also unique in that he's a pro-Enlightenment teleological apologist for religion, which seems to me to have a little more coherence than the "all traditional religions are equally beautiful" crowd . . . that said, I agree with the comments in this diavlog re how one certainly doesn't need "design" for moral progress, and, in particular, I think Peter Singer's unfortunately out-of-print 1982 book THE EXPANDING CIRCLE makes a great case for the combination of reciprocity (a.k.a. golden rule) and reason.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think it should apply to everyone (everything?) capable of understanding and obeying it..

But that would exclude non-rational animals, who are capable neither of understanding a rule nor of obeying it. By "application," I meant, as I think Pampl meant, the object of the rule ("others) ---not recipient of the rule.

Quoting bjkeefe: Of course, rigorously defining that group gets a little sticky, but certainly, it at least includes all sane adults and older children. It's also useful for younger children as a guiding principle when you're explaining why you're objecting to misbehavior..

Of course, the rule has to be taught, but that is a different question from its range of application. I doubt if the average egocentric child would find the golden rule at all reasonable or rational. Have you ever watched 3 year-olds in a playground?

Quoting bjkeefe: I think my idea about the application works no matter where morality is grounded.

If morality is grounded in an emotion such as compassion, a repugnance to cause harm or suffering to another sentient being, then it has a wider application than if it just applies to rational beings.

Okay. I may have somewhat misunderstood what you meant by "applies."

Quoting Francoamerican: But that would exclude non-rational animals, who are capable neither of understanding a rule nor of obeying it. By "application," I meant, as I think Pampl meant, the object of the rule ("others) ---not recipient of the rule.

Again, I can't state a general rule, but certainly I like to conduct myself in accordance with the Golden Rule at least as far as how I relate to animals. (And yes, I eat meat. I would not say that other animals should not eat me.)

Of course, the rule has to be taught, but that is a different question from its range of application.

So now I really am not clear what you mean by "application."

I doubt if the average egocentric child would find the golden rule at all reasonable or rational. Have you ever watched 3 year-olds in a playground?

As I said, it doesn't matter that small children don't immediately get the GR and/or are unable to grasp it enough to apply as a general principle or whatever. It's a good thing to teach them -- they will pick it up in concrete instances, and eventually learn to think about it in the abstract before

Quoting del: Well, I should note that I haven't yet read Bob's book, but to me he's also unique in that he's a pro-Enlightenment teleological apologist for religion, which seems to me to have a little more coherence than the "all traditional religions are equally beautiful" crowd . . . that said, I agree with the comments in this diavlog re how one certainly doesn't need "design" for moral progress, and, in particular, I think Peter Singer's unfortunately out-of-print 1982 book THE EXPANDING CIRCLE makes a great case for the combination of reciprocity (a.k.a. golden rule) and reason.

Yes, I haven't read The EOG yet, either. I've been going on the half-dozen or so interviews I've heard where he's talked about it.

BJ I am not sure I understand what you don't understand. Pampl was asking: To whom does the golden rule apply? The negative formulation of the Golden Rule, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you," leaves "others" undefined. I said that the range of application of the rule depends on what you understand to be the ground of morality (=the reason why we are moral). Is it our unique human rationality, as many have thought? Or is it something else? If you think that only rational beings, i.e. beings like ourselves capable of understanding the golden rule and obeying it, are proper objects of moral concern, then animals, obviously, fall outside the range of moral concern. If you think, on the other hand, that the ground of morality is something like compassion, "an inborn repugnance to cause harm or suffering to any sentient being," then, obviously, animals (as well as children who are not yet fully rational because they are too egocentric to understand the rule) are also objects of moral concern.

Overly harsh words about Michael Jackson from John, but another stellar diavlog nontheless. George and John are one of the reasons I come back to bhtv again and again!

Yes, an interesting example of bias: John knows somebody who made an allegation against Jackson, and it's "good riddance" to an "evil" man. Similarly, some of us thought John and George would "demolish" Hagerty's book and general thesis, and both were at least as kind to her as Bob was. Shows you how incestuous the book review and blurb biz can be.

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, an interesting example of bias: John knows somebody who made an allegation against Jackson, and it's "good riddance" to an "evil" man.

On the other hand, some of us thought John and George would "demolish" Hagerty's book and general thesis, and both were at least as kind to her as Bob was.

Shows you how incestuous the book review and blurb biz can be.

I think you win the prize for false equivalence.

Quoting Francoamerican: [...]

Um, okay. Maybe I don't not understand after all. Thanks.

I think you win the prize for false equivalence.

I have edited for clarity. I would like to take the opportunity, however, to give you the Substantive Comment Prize

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, I am a fan of CS. Thanks for the link. What a great explainer.

Who are the other four?

Robert Frank for his work on status and positional goods,
Herb Gintis (Bowles's long-time collaborator),
George Akerlof for general awesomeness,
and Paul Krugman for lifetime achievement for The Order of the Shrill I had to throw PK in there to get it to add up to five. Other favorites include Axtell, Baumol, both Galbraiths, Shiller, Thaler & friends.

Apples and oranges wouldn't even begin to describe this analogy. In one case you have a probable child molester on the other you have a woman who wrote a hand-wavy book. George and John both defended Hagarty as a person and a journalist, but I thought their obvious hesitancy to support her thesis spoke volumes. As far as Jacko is concerned, if John knew the family of the victim, I would have been very disappointed if he had taken any other stance. We had an accused molester in my family. I didn't see the events and he wasn't ever convicted, but I heard the accounts of the victim and saw the accused's behavior in life and it became pretty clear to me whether proven or not, that the guy was sick. When he died I felt much the same way John feels about Jacko. Good riddance. The victim still suffers and struggles from whatever occurred, every day of their life and that one instance has effectively prevented them from ever being truly happy. While the courts have a burden of blindness towards the accused, society as a whole does not (although

Apples and oranges wouldn't even begin to describe this analogy.

The similarity lies in the bias, not the degree of offensiveness.

In one case you have a probable child molester on the other you have a woman who wrote a hand-wavy book. George and John both defended Hagarty as a person and a journalist, but I thought their obvious hesitancy to support her thesis spoke volumes.

I don't know. I thought Hagarty had sort of "bought" John and George's goodwill by networking with them at the conference and Hagarty using John as a friendly source in her book. It's very hard (it would be for me) to say, "She's full of shit" after that kind of relationship develops.

While the courts have a burden of blindness towards the accused, society as a whole does not (although in this case, the courts never got a chance since Jackson settled out of court.)

Courts are not blind. They just require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have been incredibly surprised at how little attention has been brought to MJ's allegations.

I agree on that. The media in general has totally caved in to MJmania. Compare this to the

Good points Wonder. It seemed to me that John confessed his personal reasons up front for both positions. I would say that, if anything, I'm more disappointed in his kid-glove treatment of Hagarty, because it directly ties into his reputation as a fine, science writer who's not afraid to call bullshit when he sees it. You know that's sorta his beat. I guess, I'm more surprised at how much people are willing to defend Jackson. While none of us knows exactly what happened, his behavior of sleeping with children (for whatever reason) would raise serious flags in almost any brain. And outside of the monetary loss and the never-finished trial, the actions that he took never really adversely affected him in the way that they did for say OJ. Our society definitely treated him like an outcast, but it didn't seem to stop his career or affect his freedom in a way beyond the restrictions already placed upon him by his own personality issues/phobias etc. So, in my opinion, he got precisely what you'd expect given his bizarre behavior and our natural tendency to be very careful with (even alleged) child predators. I'm

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Good points Wonder. It seemed to me that John confessed his personal reasons up front for both positions. I would say that, if anything, I'm more disappointed in his kid-glove treatment of Hagarty, because it directly ties into his reputation as a fine, science writer who's not afraid to call bullshit when he sees it. You know that's sorta his beat.

I guess, I'm more surprised at how much people are willing to defend Jackson. While none of us knows exactly what happened, his behavior of sleeping with children (for whatever reason) would raise serious flags in almost any brain. And outside of the monetary loss and the never-finished trial, the actions that he took never really adversely affected him in the way that they did for say OJ. Our society definitely treated him like an outcast, but it didn't seem to stop his career or affect his freedom in a way beyond the restrictions already placed upon him by his own personality issues/phobias etc. So, in my opinion, he got precisely what you'd expect given his bizarre behavior and our natural tendency to be very careful with (even alleged) child predators. I'm

Well we will agree to disagree on Thriller. The worst part is that my band was about to start working on covering "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" but now that Jacko died, it will look really obvious or like some sort of "tribute" (gag). Messing with the creative flow of my band is only slightly behind child-molestation on my list of unforgivable offenses ;-)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ... While the courts have a burden of blindness towards the accused, society as a whole does not

And how. Anybody else see the Martin Bashir program on Michael Jackson a few years ago? Yikes.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Well we will agree to disagree on Thriller.

The worst part is that my band was about to start working on covering "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" but now that Jacko died, it will look really obvious or like some sort of "tribute" (gag).

Messing with the creative flow of my band is only slightly behind child-molestation on my list of unforgivable offenses ;-)

Alright, let's have a serious music nerd discussion of MJ! Aside from "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" his albums are regarded as being pretty poor (not that I've listened to the others). I feel like his singing actually got worse over the years. I think he shrank as an artist -- by the mid-80s he was leaning really hard on just a few tics and vocal mannerisms. How often did he do that two-note falsetto "WOO-ooo" lick? The biggest stars (Madonna, U2, Springsteen) all seem like islands, but if you think hard enough you can follow the threads and locate their positions in musical traditions. Where does MJ fit in? In his J5 period was he a soul singer like Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, or Donnie Hathaway? Pop like Smokey Robinson? Or maybe he was

Quoting claymisher: Alright, let's have a serious music nerd discussion of MJ! [...] What do you guys think?

I thought his guitar solo on "Beat It" was pretty good.

Interesting question. I would say J5 Michael was similar to Smokey even though the music was more dance-party fun (the bass line alone on "Want You Back" was worth the price of admission.) Off the Wall was more disco than funk, in my opinion. Michael's vocal styling worked for that kinda vibe, but he was already resorting to the gimmicks (like the falsetto thing you mentioned) that would make him eventually become a parody of himself. I would never say that MJ's vocal style was funky. Though it was certainly rythymic it lacked the "soul" vibe that James Brown, Stevie Wonder and even Robert Palmer (see Sneaking Sally Thru The Alley with the Meters and Lowell George as his backing band) could summon. Where you could hear angst and blues and struggle and masculinity in the voices of Brown or Wonder, Michael always sounded much more like the candy-coated voice that made the J5 so famous. As he grew older he still sounded like a little boy playing dress up as a man. Thriller combined Quincy's excellent production sensibilities and some well arranged songs with a unique vocal style (which

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ... were cheesy beyond even a level Elton John...

Oh, no!!!! How could you say that about one of my old favorites? MJ? I never understood/liked his style (or him). Keep going music nerds. I'm learning.

To clarify: I love Elton and Billy's early stuff, but they both became unfathomably cheesy as they've "matured." Same goes for Rod Stewart.

Sheesh. You put up a couple of comments about Michael Jackson and now the Google ads at the top of the thread page are all about finding registered sex offenders.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ... Same goes for Rod Stewart.

Oh, no!!!! Rod Stewart is one of ... Just kidding. I have always liked Elton John, but haven't really followed since my younger years. A long time ago for sure.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: To clarify: I love Elton and Billy's early stuff, but they both became unfathomably cheesy as they've "matured." Same goes for Rod Stewart.

Speaking of Billy Joel, about a month ago it hit me how much he sounds like Paul McCartney (at McCartney's cheesiest). You'd think that MJ would have had more imitators given how insanely commercially successful he was. (How many Pearl Jam clones were there in the 1990s? Hundreds!) The only one I can think of is Justin Timberlake. And Janet Jackson.

Quoting claymisher: Speaking of Billy Joel, about a month ago it hit me how much he sounds like Paul McCartney (at McCartney's cheesiest).

You'd think that MJ would have had more imitators given how insanely commercially successful he was. (How many Pearl Jam clones were there in the 1990s? Hundreds!) The only one I can think of is Justin Timberlake. And Janet Jackson.

Every "Boy-band" there ever was. Prince (though he was actually at least as talented.) Most of pop R&B since the early eighties. Britney Spears. ad infinitum.

You put up a couple of comments about Michael Jackson and now the Google ads at the top of the thread page are all about finding registered sex offenders.

I rest my case. Even the robots are bigots. Innocent until proven perverted, Hal!

Quoting Wonderment: I rest my case. Even the robots are bigots. Innocent until proven perverted, Hal!

LMAO.

Can I just say that John is looking fabulous? What is it? The glasses? a tan? Did he lose some weight?

The haircut.

Quoting AemJeff: Every "Boy-band" there ever was. Prince (though he was actually at least as talented.) Most of pop R&B since the early eighties. Britney Spears. ad infinitum.

Naw, Prince's sound was established before MJ's. Boy bands, I'd have to take your word for it.

Quoting bjkeefe: On a related note, my jaw just dropped to hear both George and John sound like they'd never heard of FDL before today. I know they're not political junkies like me, but still, I would have thought anyone who spends time online would at least be familiar with the name, if for no other reasons than it's so memorable. Oh, well. We're all of us each in our own bubbles to some degree.

Just another data point: I spend countless hours online, and I am reasonably informed about politics. (Or, at least, I imagine myself to be.) But I am only aware of FDL because one of their guys was on Bloggingheads years ago. Were it not for that diavlog, I don't think I'd be aware of them at all, even accounting for my other BHtv watching.

Quoting Tyrrell McAllister: Just another data point: I spend countless hours online, and I am reasonably informed about politics. (Or, at least, I imagine myself to be.) But I am only aware of FDL because one of their guys was on Bloggingheads years ago. Were it not for that diavlog, I don't think I'd be aware of them at all, even accounting for my other BHtv watching.

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for weighing in. Out of curiosity, what are some of your regular sources for political information/gossip/opinion? What political or politically-tinged blogs to you read, if any?

Quoting Wonderment: The haircut.

Yep, I noticed it was a new 'do, too. Plus, I think he had different (new?) glasses.

Quoting claymisher: Robert Frank for his work on status and positional goods,
Herb Gintis (Bowles's long-time collaborator),
George Akerlof for general awesomeness,
and Paul Krugman for lifetime achievement for The Order of the Shrill

I had to throw PK in there to get it to add up to five. Other favorites include Axtell, Baumol, both Galbraiths, Shiller, Thaler & friends.

Thanks. Bookmarking ...

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Can I just say that John is looking fabulous? What is it? The glasses? a tan? Did he lose some weight?

I TOTALLY agree. I was going to post a similar comment but hesitated, so thanks for doing so.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for weighing in.

Out of curiosity, what are some of your regular sources for political information/gossip/opinion? What political or politically-tinged blogs to you read, if any?

I read the NYTimes to keep on top of the "real news". I watch this site for informed commentary on that news. I watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report to keep abreast of the media nonevents du jour. I also listen to a couple politics-or-policy themed podcasts, including * Forum, which is a podcast of an interview and call-in radio program out of a San Francisco public radio station; and * Planet Money, which is an economics podcast put out by NPR.

Quoting Tyrrell McAllister: I read the NYTimes to keep on top of the "real news". I watch this site for informed commentary on that news. I watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report to keep abreast of the media nonevents du jour.

I also listen to a couple politics-or-policy themed podcasts, including

* Forum, which is a podcast of an interview and call-in radio program out of a San Francisco public radio station; and

* Planet Money, which is an economics podcast put out by NPR.

Ah, okay, thanks. But in fairness, out of your "countless hours online," it does not seem that you spend much time in the political blogosphere. Not saying this is a bad thing, just that it explains why find it unsurprising that someone who spends a lot of time online would be unfamiliar with FDL.

That's true. I spend almost no time in the political blogosphere outside of this site. ETA: I may also be operating with a different definition of "countless" .

Sometimes designer eye-wear comes across as "ironic" or pretentious. John's last two attempts at frames (check the videotape) were unstylish and even iirc,
jury-rigged specs that were taped at the hinge after a hockey accident.
As much as he deserves to be treated to flattery and objectification, it is the strength of his intellect that allows such attractive frames to shine... maybe he has a new eyecare insurance plan?

Just as a reality check, I too had never heard of Fire Dog Lake until I encountered Jane on BHTV. I probably clicked on the site then out of curiosity (I like her a lot!), but haven't been back since. If it hadn't been for Jane's appearances here, I would have been as oblivious as John and George.

Quoting Wonderment: Just as a reality check, I too had never heard of Fire Dog Lake until I encountered Jane on BHTV. I probably clicked on the site then out of curiosity (I like her a lot!), but haven't been back since. If it hadn't been for Jane's appearances here, I would have been as oblivious as John and George.

Thanks for supplying another (surprising) datum. Maybe it's time for a poll!

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: The believer can still say that God creates the world, even though it exists eternally. He can say that the creation is itself eternal -- that at every moment, God sustains the universe -- that it only exists because God exists and eternally wills it to exist..

Maybe the believer can say this, but no one else can. How is the idea of the creation of the universe compatible with the idea of the eternity of the universe? The idea that God sustains the universe at every moment, that he eternally wills it to exist, might have satisfied Malebranche or Leibniz. Who thinks in this way today? Who thinks that it is possible to put oneself in the mind of God?

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: This removes the temporal element of the creation stories, so it is a retreat from the literal truth of the creation stories, but Christian thinkers going back all the way to Augustine at least recognized that they shouldn't interpret the Bible as one would a scientific text..

Except that St Augustine believed the universe was created ex nihilo, and said so many times.