The New LSD

How anyone could be stupid enough to actually post this, especially at a site that calls itself The American Conservative, is beyond comprehension. Add that to the type of character who becomes "obsessed" with that which he claims to loathe and a truly unpleasant picture of this apparent moron, Nathan P. Origer, begins to appear.

Oh geez, he owns a cowboy hat and wears polo shirts my Mother made me wear in 1967 and postures for pictures. That explains a lot. The dude's a cross between Bad Bart and Dennis the Menace, I guess. I think I've seen this show: Wyatt Earp with a cap gun fashions himself as the new sheriff in town. ::yawn::

A grad student all of 26 years old, versus Mark Levin's significant accomplishments in multiple fields - from Reagan's White House to the bestseller's list ... but Mr. Wilson's nemesis Dennis passes judgment without ever having listened to Mark's show??? Spare me, please. At least the guy is honest enough to tell us just how utterly stupid he is right upfront with that revealing bit of idiocy.

And these are people who expect to be taken seriously? Must be that new LSD - the Levin Syndrome of Derangement - currently making its way through the post-moronist movement on the Right. Don't take the Brown Acid Nathan, otherwise enjoy your trip to obscurity and be sure to send us a post-card when you get there. Your Momma would be proud. 

I concede that, just maybe, I have become a little too obsessed with Mark Levin and his antics, the wickedness of that is Happy Meal conservatism, and the entire kerfuffle that led to the coining of the term “prefabricon”, to the point that I now occasionally peruse Levin’s Website, looking to see what sort of silliness I may find and reading summaries of each day’s show. (I have yet, I admit, to subject myself to the intellectual-aural persecution that is listening to the program.)

Comments

[Rhod]

I subscribed to The American Conservative for a year...a special offer. Its a hangout for cranks - an ideological slurry of isolationism, New New Leftism, Randians, libertarian oldies and slapdash revisionists. Occasionally, a stable thinker gets through, but not often.

[SacTownMan]

Not another 20 something, punk assed, snot nosed, half-wit, know it all, wanna be, conservative like CoNar!

Hell, now this new trool tool will be here telling us how much smarter he is than the rest of us!

Wait, that was CoNar's friend J-Me!

Astroturfing is just not what it used to be!

Ah the NEW conservatism!!!

[seekeronos]

Now for a conservative with her head in the game, I give you Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, who is the subject of lefty ire here:

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/30/oklahoma-legislature-to-consider-proclamation-linking-the-economic-crisis-to-obamas-immoral-policies/

Good to know that we can still get under their skin.

[mark l.]

"Occasionally, a stable thinker gets through, but not often."
pretty much sums up our nation's electoral history.

?: bds...lsd v. lds...
avoiding the possible reading/infringement of "latter day saints"?
***********

The whole theme, or at least "consistency" of the people, who are declared 'conservatives' chasing after Levine?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do."
ralph waldo emerson.

there are two defining poles, conservative and liberal, that one must postition themselves between, in defining their positions. one can move further(or closer) between the two points, but the position should exclusively be fixxed around the larger ideals.

This latest incarnation of "LSD"?

rather than arriving at a position based upon the two competing ideologies, they must calibrate their position relative to the other's point on the line. It becomes a matter of defining their beliefs upon who they will not stand next to, rather than arrive at their locus based upon the primary, and only real, question.

The lsd thing makes me recall the donald sutherland scene in animal house. He is explaining to some students who have undergone mind altering substances, that just as they are in a universe, their finger could have a universe inside of it. This is much akin to the schema that this new branch of pseudo-conservative intellectuals is following. Rather than focusing on the macro, they are starting to obsess over the micro-the universe inside their thumbs. When they are setting thier own positions, based upon the microverse they specialize in, they cease to hold any relevance in the macroverse.

"little statesmen".

[Mrs. Peperium]

Well Bush Derangement Syndrome had to go somewhere. And if it did, it couldn't have focused on a more marvelous target - Mark Levin. You really do have to be deranged to think at 26 or 30 years of age you are in Mark Levin's league. Why a 40 year old would be hard pressed to be in Mark's league. Think about how many of Mark's accomplishments a 26 year-old would have to outright dismiss to believe this about themselves. Positively breathtaking. These * writers * really ought to consider applying for a White House Fellowship - Obama could use them-well.

Derangement factor aside, these little butterflies that are trying their best to peck Mark to death are recalling to mind something Victor Davis Hansen wrote last fall about young men today in his 10 Random Politically Incorrect Thoughts :

"6. Something has happened to the generic American male accent. Maybe it is urbanization; perhaps it is now an affectation to sound precise and caring with a patina of intellectual authority; perhaps it is the fashion culture of the metrosexual; maybe it is the influence of the gay community in arts and popular culture. Maybe the ubiquitous new intonation comes from the scarcity of salty old jobs in construction, farming, or fishing. But increasingly to meet a young American male about 25 is to hear a particular nasal stress, a much higher tone than one heard 40 years ago, and, to be frank, to listen to a precious voice often nearly indistinguishable from the female. How indeed could one make Westerns these days, when there simply is not anyone left who sounds like John Wayne, Richard Boone, Robert Duvall, or Gary Cooper much less a Struther Martin, Jack Palance, L.Q. Jones, or Ben Johnson? I watched the movie Twelve O’clock High the other day, and Gregory Peck and Dean Jagger sounded liked they were from another planet. I confess over the last year, I have been interviewed a half-dozen times on the phone, and had no idea at first whether a male or female was asking the questions. All this sounds absurd, but I think upon reflection readers my age (55) will attest they have had the same experience. In the old days, I remember only that I first heard a variant of this accent with the old Paul Lynde character actor in one of the Flubber movies; now young men sound closer to his camp than to a Jack Palance or Alan Ladd."

All I would add to VDH's keen observation is that this -" a precious voice often nearly indistinguishable from the female. " -has not just occurred with the voices of young men but with their writing as well. So much for compartmentalization.

These *conservative* boys are as catty as the girls I went to finishing school were.

[syn]

"organic" is just another way for idiot savants to pay 30% higher price for a conventional product which is offered 30% less and is a superior product.

This is why I am not into the organic crap:

" Its a hangout for cranks - an ideological slurry of isolationism, New New Leftism, Randians, libertarian oldies and slapdash revisionists."

And what is up with Ron Paul whining just like the wicked witch of the west; metal scratching chalkboard sounds better; one cannot have ears and listen to the man.

[E.D. Kain]

Seems odd, though, that you'd criticize Nathan for not listening to Levin's show and making judgments based on something he's largely not experienced, and yet you write a post making plenty of your own judgments without having actually read anything of Nathan's beyond this one post. Do you see the disconnect in that?

[Mark]

I like how you avoid personal attacks and actually grapple with the ideas and substance of those with whom you disagree.

[H.C. Johns]

I'll second E.D. on this, and add that I think it goes rather over the top linking to someone's facebook profile. It's public information, granted, but the man -has- several websites you could just as easily link to. Linking to his picture makes it basically nothing more than a plain-out personal attack, rather than an argument on substance. (And lest you be tempted to pull the tu quoque here, Nathan -never- insulted Levin's appearance. His arguments have been about ideas, albeit ones he may not have researched adequately.)

Particularly given the fact that you're clearly capable of real discussion (as in your discussion with Friersdorf), I'm puzzled that you would go the personal direction. If you disagree, pick a point, any point, that Nathan makes, and argue against that. There were plenty of them, many controversial, and yes, you are right to criticize him for not listening to levin's show. Nonetheless, what, in gods name, do you gain by making fun of a cowboy hat, except the praises of middling trolls and a slight uptick in hits?

[Rob Crawford]

Thank you, E.D. and H.C. Your opinions have been noted and will be given the attention they deserve.

[Sarah Elisabeth Martin (Go ahead and past my facebook link, I quite enjoy my fashion-forward looking picture, HAH)]

I know Nathan personally. However, I, like many young Republicans, disagree with him on many, many levels. However, he is a close friend and to use your blog to make completely BASELESS attacks on his intelligence, age, or FASHION STATEMENT? Come on.
I'm a 19 year old female, and from the start of my involvement in campaign work and other political activism I have had no disillusion that the Republican Party actually wants new members. It's truly an old mens club. This piece really completely proves it. Because, although true progress (I use that word only under the assumption that it will be taken not in an "Obama Progess sense") is really in the hands of the next generation, Republicans don't seem to want to include people until they are of age, and by "of age" I mean, past middle age. Because, God forbid, I, at 19, have an intelligent, fresh idea. Insanity!
So, I true believe that the first sentence of this blog, "How anyone could be stupid enough to actually post this" is more applicable to your writing, sir.
I guess, in finishing up, you should go pick on someone your own age, and stop impeding the flow of ideas (no matter how inane or useless) of those with less aged minds that might threaten your views.

[mark l.]

"However, he is a close friend and to use your blog to make completely BASELESS attacks on his intelligence, age, or FASHION STATEMENT?"

you're his friend...he wrote an "opinion" article on a person who he admits to have never listened to...what did you think was going to happen?

even stranger-before you clicked the link to visit the site, you knew the site was going to rip into him. You clicked anyway...

[Nathan P. Origer]

TO ALL WHOM IT CONCERNS:

At my home Weblog, I have posted a lengthy reply to Mr. Riehl's initial attack on me and to numerous comments in reply. I apologize for directing you away from here and to another site; it was not my intention to do so, but my reply proved to be far too long for this Website to load it easily. I welcome comments in response here or at my site.

http://nathancontramundi.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/a-reply-to-dan-riehl/

[mark l.]

"Obviously you don't comprehend that there is a difference between someone writing an opinion article and someone writing an ignorant article unabashedly attacking a person's whole being."

you must be right. I found little difference in the tone used to describe Levin and the response posted here. You can abhor both, or you can accept both.

glass house being what they are...

you maybe a late comer to the party, but there appears to be a concerted effort to go after levin much akin to a "philosphical circle jerk" via this site. nate strikes me as a guy trying to please his coworkers, so he to is pushing their arguments. I can't express much hope for someone who can pass judgment without the facts, but then the motivation was not really about facts, so much as supporting co-workers. probably a good thing if you are a cop or soldier, but not so good if you are hoping to be considered an open-minded person. don't worry, I'm sure he is a better person than the horrible, mark levin.

[Nathan P. Origer]

*mark l

Rest assured, appearances notwithstanding, there's no "concerted effort" going on here. Post Right is a very loosely organized, decentralized Weblog, and none of us, so far as I know, consult with each other in some smoke-filled dark room. As for the original agitators, as it were: I've never met nor even "e-met" Conor; I am familiar with his work, and have some respect for him, but I entered this whole fray because I thought he had made a good, necessary point that needed to be voiced again and again, and I also felt compelled to echo this after Mr. Schwenkler, whom I have met and for whom I have a great deal of respect, ended up on Mr. Levin's list for speaking some truth, too.

[Nathan P. Origer]

*mark l

To please my coworkers, I'd have to have some. But I ain't go a job, son, and no one's paying me to write these screeds. Contrary to your silly assertion, this is about facts. As I have repeatedly expressly admitted, until last night, I had not listened to Mr. Levin's show. Listening changed nothing; I only managed to confirm what I'd already known.

Notwithstanding tone — as you mention above —, this, as I have already noted, creates a distinction between my original post and Mr. Riehl's reply. One needn't accept both or abhor both.

[Nathan P. Origer]

*mark l

Let me analogize for a moment. Preparing for an essay or exam with the aid of CliffsNotes is not, perhaps, the best course of action. This prohibits the student from picking up some nuances, and may preclude him from drawing his own conclusions, rather than adopting those of the author of the Notes. How I went after Mr. Levin — in part (Note that I did also read articles that he has written and transcribed material.) — is akin to this. The daily summaries, on his Website, are something like CliffsNotes. Again, I admitted to as much as being limited by this. However — and this is crucial —, unlike CliffsNotes, these are prepared by Mr. Levin or someone working for him — on the same team, as it were. Without getting into minutiae and nuance, they spell out Mr. Levin's point-of-view, whether it regards "only 16 million people" who lack (adequate) health insurance or our president's "turning his back" on Iranian protestors.

[mark l.]

I suggested motivation was to curry favor-

"I entered this whole fray because I thought he had made a good, necessary point that needed to be voiced again and again, and I also felt compelled to echo this after Mr. Schwenkler, whom I have met and for whom I have a great deal of respect, ended up on Mr. Levin's list for speaking some truth, too."

I'll take it as a confirmation.

"Contrary to your silly assertion, this is about facts."
"Contrary to your silly assertion, this is about facts. As I have repeatedly expressly admitted, until last night, I had not listened to Mr. Levin's show. Listening changed nothing; I only managed to confirm what I'd already known."

you reviewed a movie without seeing it.

some cultural context that isn't present in levin's 'wiki' entry...

his show is largely based upon "Bob Grant". If you grew up in the tristate area, and heard the bob's show, you'd understand. The style and format of many of the current conservative talk shows is based upon the radio "personality" of bob grant. mark's show is just another version, but in many ways captures the spirit of the bob grant show. The best callers? The ones that absolutely got skewered by bob. If you grew up with talk radio, and even if you didn't agree with bob grant, the show was fantastic. Some of the callers would absolutely get under his skin and set him off like a crazy man.

even Howard stern pays some homage to bob grant, despite some major politcal differences.

I think you don't understand the basic nature of radio, particularily, conservative radio.
your view may be vaild to an outsider looking in, but the context you really need is region and age. your 19, I imagine you didn't grow up with much talk radio and you are probably not from the northeast/mid-atlantic area. Let levin pass with the phrase -"I don't get it"...

it would have been a much more honest analysis.

[Nathan P. Origer]

*mark l (FROM NATHAN, not from Sarah)

I'll take it as a confirmation.

Indeed, much favor is to be curried for someone in rural Indiana by this! If I gain some modicum of increased respect or attention amongst my fellow morons, so be it, but I neither did nor do expect to gain much from this in terms of favor. Perhaps we are merely of a different mindset regarding this; I saw something wrong and called it out; you see someone trying to "make friends". Let's not relive the horrors of middle school, please.

I'm not sure what Wikipedia has to do with anything. My "opinion-mining", if you will, involved my reading his Website, reading others' blog posts about him (pro and con), and reading his work at NRO and elsewhere. Nice try, though, slick.

[Nathan P. Origer]

*mark l (Again from Nathan)

you reviewed a movie without seeing it.

What? First, I've repeatedly acknowledged that I was taking risks, if you will, by doing what I did. That you find the need to bring this up yet again, without calling out Mr.Riehl for an even more negligent, primarily ad hominem attack suggests severely slowed mental-emotional developmental, ADHD, or both. Get a grip, man. At least I familiarized myself with Levin's opinions, whether or not I listen to the show. Actually, your statement is completely wrong. I did not specifically criticize his radio program; I criticized him. His opinions are not limited to the show, even if it is the primary outlet therefor.

Moreover, I finally did "see the movie", as you note but otherwise ignore, and found the criticisms I offered based on Mr. Levin's own Website to be no less accurate. Again, see here for my brief thoughts: http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2009/07/01/one-more-levin-post-someone-stop-me/

[mark l.]

you don't understand the audience, your don't understand the history, you don't understand the medium...

"primarily ad hominem attack suggests severely slowed mental-emotional developmental, ADHD, or both. Get a grip, man."

ad hominem=bad, and then you proceed to pursue the line of attack that you have just condemned?

I'm done with the discussion...you are like a pouting child.

I hold out hope for you, when you grow up in another 20 years.