Especially pretentious, to me, is this bit:
Here's my main problem: Atrios has be lifted to where he is by readers like me and others who came to expect something from his blog. Now that he's in a highly visible position, you would think that he would thank his fellow Liberals and Democrats for putting him in that position by at least saying "thanks" first off, and then by listening to what his readers are saying and letting all of our voices be heard.
What, is he some kinda god to you, some rational, down-to-earth people's substitute for the extremist fringe's Hugh Hewitt? (And yes, folks, let's abandon the pretense that those who clamor around Hewit are anything but the extremist fringe. And I mean that with all due respect.)
I don't really think that much about Atrios, or really Hugh Hewitt, or any other bloggers other than those I personally interact with on a daily basis. On the other hand, I do try to be mindful of the fact that I am interacting with other human beings (as far as I can tell) on others' blogs.
As for the guy complaining about Atrios, all I gotta say is: biofuels are a nice idea, but only part of the solution. But I'll check my portfolio just to make sure and see if Archer Daniels Midland has good representation, JIC.
Yeah, I gotta admit, Joe Carter probably puts more thought into his posts than Atrios does. Take the above link, for instance. First he quotes Matthew Yglesias, whom I generally like, but frankly, Joe, he's a kid, and he doesn't even remember stuff before the 1990s (Yglesias has written that he thought Greenspan did a good job until recently.)
Joe Carter tales the following statement from Yglesias:
Legalizing gay marriage will be one more step down the road to dissolving these dual binaries and creating a more androgynous (or perhaps just gender-free) world. Unlike social conservatives, I regard this as a normatively good outcome, but I think their positive analysis is much more correct than the self-serving "nothing to see here" line coming from gay rights advocates who (understandably) are trying to upset as few people as possible. [emphasis added]
And thoughtful Joe Carter claims that would make a world of Ziggy Stardust clones.
But Carter doesn't realize that the Ziggy Stardust clone is merely itself a reaction to the dual binaries to which Yglesias refers; the Ziggy Stardust clone is a slave of the dual binary mindset, dependent on it, in much the same way that some atheists are atheists in a way that presupposes the existence of, is a reaction to, and is dependent on theists. Yglesisas is speaking about something else, but I think his post is simplistic at best. Even if there were such a dissolution as Ygelsias writes, it woudln't happen the same way everywhere, to the same degree to everyone; at least I suspect that, and I also suspect that is a normatively good outcome.
Carter doesn't even offer, I think a good response here, despite the wider verbiage than the average Atrios post, other than, I guess, liberals and conservatives should be nice to each other.
To which I agree, with the proviso and understanding to note when one or the other is full of feces, or their emperor is butt-nekkid.
As for the title of this bit here, all I have to say is: Atrios, In Search of Telford, Joe Carter and myself are all pretentious. But I think we're sincerely pretentious...