"There Are Two Sides to Every Review"

[dan2100]

Go to http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2010/06/glenn-becks-libertarian-thriller-the-overton-window/ and then scroll down to the part where he lists stuff from his "There Are Two Sides to Every Review."

[Greybird]

Condescending nonsense, neatly making nearly every criticism of a book (and critic) into something (or someone) suspect. All part, unfortunately, of his turning that blog into a Glenn Beck fan club. (As, at times, seems to be happening over here.)

I admire Neil Schulman's work deeply, and have known him as a personal friend for nine years, but I call him on this kind of bull. ... Or I did until recently, anyway. As, for example, with how he made collective moral judgments in casting controversies over his movie-in-development. Yet now I'm losing the energy for it. Even jousting with erudite, expressive, intelligent people can wear you out.

[dan2100]

Condescending nonsense, neatly making nearly every criticism of a book (and critic) into something (or someone) suspect.

I wouldn't take it -- his list -- too seriously -- even if he's deadly serious about. In fact, I wouldn't take it seriously at all if he is deadly serious about it.

All part, unfortunately, of his turning that blog into a Glenn Beck fan club. (As, at times, seems to be happening over here.)

Why is that? I think of Beck as a mixed bag. Yeah, it's great he's promoting Hayek and the like, talking about ideas, etc., but he's also has some glaring flaws -- as I've pointed out elsewhere. Maybe some people are so desperate at this time that they won't question anyone who they feel is remotely similar to them. I think that's bad -- to support people out of sheer desperation.

I admire Neil Schulman's work deeply, and have known him as a personal friend for nine years, but I call him on this kind of bull. ... Or I did until recently, anyway. As, for example, with how he made collective moral judgments in casting controversies over his movie-in-development. Yet now I'm losing the energy for it. Even jousting with erudite, expressive, intelligent people can wear you out.

Didn't he go over to the Dark Side after the 2001 attacks?

[Martin Radwin]

Condescending nonsense, neatly making nearly every criticism of a book (and critic) into something (or someone) suspect.

I wouldn't take it -- his list -- too seriously -- even if he's deadly serious about. In fact, I wouldn't take it seriously at all if he is deadly serious about it.

All part, unfortunately, of his turning that blog into a Glenn Beck fan club. (As, at times, seems to be happening over here.)

Why is that? I think of Beck as a mixed bag. Yeah, it's great he's promoting Hayek and the like, talking about ideas, etc., but he's also has some glaring flaws -- as I've pointed out elsewhere. Maybe some people are so desperate at this time that they won't question anyone who they feel is remotely similar to them. I think that's bad -- to support people out of sheer desperation.

I admire Neil Schulman's work deeply, and have known him as a personal friend for nine years, but I call him on this kind of bull. ... Or I did until recently, anyway. As, for example, with how he made collective moral judgments in casting controversies over his movie-in-development. Yet now I'm losing the energy for it. Even jousting with erudite, expressive, intelligent people can wear you out.

Didn't he go over to the Dark Side after the 2001 attacks?

Well, that kind of depends on one's view of a proper US foreign policy. From the perspective of libertarian non-interventionists such as you, me, and various other posters on this site (I believe that Steve is among these posters), Neil certainly went over to the dark side. From the perspective of those who believe in an aggressively interventionist or even moderately interventionist US foreign policy, which I think includes the majority of self-identified objectivists, it is we who have gone over to or have always been on the dark side. In any case, regardless of Neil's views in this area, it is hard to take seriously someone who is convinced that he has spoken directly to God.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

I'd consider myself a moderate interventionist out of today's context with working for less and less interventionism going forward. I was against the second Iraq War and considered the first caused primarily by incompetent foreign policy representations made by the U.S. to Iraq which were interpreted by Iraq as permission to invade Kuwait. I was somewhat ambivalent about invading Afghanistan and thought the U.S. should have left eight years ago. My disdain for stupidity in foreign relations completely blankets out theoretical ideological considerations. I mean, WTF is the U.S. doing in Afghanistan today? No power on earth can turn it into a real country. The only way to subjugate it is with near genocidal warfare. Patty-cake won't do it.

--Brant

[dan2100]

I admire Neil Schulman's work deeply, and have known him as a personal friend for nine years, but I call him on this kind of bull. ... Or I did until recently, anyway. As, for example, with how he made collective moral judgments in casting controversies over his movie-in-development. Yet now I'm losing the energy for it. Even jousting with erudite, expressive, intelligent people can wear you out.

Didn't he go over to the Dark Side after the 2001 attacks?

Well, that kind of depends on one's view of a proper US foreign policy. From the perspective of libertarian non-interventionists such as you, me, and various other posters on this site (I believe that Steve is among these posters), Neil certainly went over to the dark side. From the perspective of those who believe in an aggressively interventionist or even moderately interventionist US foreign policy, which I think includes the majority of self-identified objectivists, it is we who have gone over to or have always been on the dark side. In any case, regardless of Neil's views in this area, it is hard to take seriously someone who is convinced that he has spoken directly to God.

Martin

This just gets better and better. Is he convinced that God spoke back to him?

[George H. Smith]

Even jousting with erudite, expressive, intelligent people can wear you out.

Yup, you definitely know Neil.

Ghs