Coyne v Wells: it’s Obamarrific!


Now with 50% more props! And 50% less picture quality! My fault, that: we had to use my MacBook Air to record it, which whatever its other virtues, handles video awfully.

[wpvideo oU9pnpuo w=480]


Coyne v Wells: it’s Obamarrific!

  1. I vote for transcripts. Us heathans with only dial-up can’t watch video.

  2. Obama is not a University of Chicago Law School graduate. This has been “Obvious Corrections”, brought to you by Olaf.

    • I didn’t say he was a graduate of U of Chicago. I said he “came out of” it, which he did: he taught there for twelve years before running for the US Senate.

      • This has been “Embarrassing Olaf”, brought to you by Andrew Coyne.

        • Ha! you thought only saj major Wells never ceased to observe didn’t you? Just wait till commandant Aaron makes an appearance!

          • Did you mean Aaron or Andrew?

          • Oops – I just answered my own question. Kc must have been referring to Aaron after all, because he spelled ‘commandant’ with a ‘c’, not a ‘k’. ;-)

          • CR
            Guess who’s going to be getting a knock on their door at 4am?

  3. “The honey rather than the fly”?

    I’m a big fan, but Coyne did not bring his A-game to this discussion.

  4. Vorsprung durch Technik.

  5. Somewhere, Chantel Hebert and whoever that pollster is are desperately trying to figure out how their videoconferencing software works.

    • Allan Gregg! That’s it! I was thinking “Randy Gregg” but knew that was a hockey player.

    • Why do so many people call her “Chantel” Hébert?

      It’s Chantal.

      • I was hoping nobody would notice the egregious spelling mistake with the even-more-egregious “whoever that pollster is” sitting next to it.

        • Google — St. Anthony of Padua

    • But the 3 of them (Chantal, Andrew and Allan) are still the best combo on TV!

      • It should be great this week when Coyne tells Mansbridge what he thought of the coverage.

  6. Second episode was, contentwise, a bit smoother than the first – it seemed to me that Andrew regurgitated a bit more of his blog posts than Paul did, but the wonderful thing about the format is that with the other one there, each participant has the opportunity to expand on what they’d said previously, go in previously overlooked directions, and bounce ideas off a pretty smart guy.

    With that in mind, I hereby volunteer to buy Macleans a decent webcam if they promise to do a bunch more of these. :P

  7. Well, I, for one, was pretty amused.

    • Coyne of the Realm

    • Wells Far Go

    • Kady Didn’t

  8. A very Dionesque video.

    And Paul, has anyone ever told you that you look like David Frum?

    • Now that is low!

  9. Quality was ok. Who cares, really? Content was good, or as good it could get on the subject.

    Don’t be deterred by the quality/content critics. Keep cranking them out, undeterred. Watchers(numbers) will decide (not commenters)

  10. really? Cuz I was thinking the desperate need to be enviously onscreen like real TV is actually ONANISTIC – not that I would know anything about that…


  11. I like the video, discussion format – keep it up, expand on it.

    I agree with most in in the video, except;

    Andrew, why did you say you back Carbon Dioxide sequestration ??

    1) CO2 is a minor GH gas. A very minor one.

    2) CO2 conc has been much higher in the past with no detrimental effects.

    3) Plants (food) grow much better at higher atmospheric conc. (even 3 times today’s – as in Green-houses)

    4) CO2 is an essential gas for life on earth. It is odorless, harmless.

    5) CO2 sequestration is horrendously expensive and would be a huge drag on our economy and lifestyles.

    6) Contrary to Al Gore’s docudrama, CO2 conc changes FOLLOW temp changes.

    It puzzles me as to how Andrew and Paul can express so many well founded thoughts but then the CO2 thing. It is as if it was out of context.

    A) Is mankind causing global warming ?

    Probably not. Especially when considering that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. (the opposite of what the United Nations computer models predicted)

    B) If the earth is undergoing long term warming, is CO2 causing it ?

    Probably not. CO2 is a very minor GH gas. (The sun and orbital change have altered our climate many times in the past – think mile thick glaciers covering Canada and an ice free arctic)

    C) Is GW a bad thing ?

    Probably not – especially for Canada. (think -25C instead of -26C in January one hundred years from now. The arctic has been ice free before and the Polar Bears had a blast. (besides, arctic ice extent has recovered dramatically the last year or so. Antarctic ice is at recent historical highs )

    So why the CO2 thing ?

    • Well Ron we shoulda just listened to you and yr informed assertions rather then waste all the money on those unqualified, biased UN scientists shouldn’t we?

  12. >“The honey rather than the fly”?

    Andrew had a Jack Aubrey moment. You can make more vinegar with honey than with flies; even more if you stir with a carrot rather than a stick.

  13. Speaking of the visit media coverage raised by Coyne, I know our two correspondents would not have been guilty of using these two words, but two callers to Cross Country Checkup who didn’t seem to be talking point spin doctors but ordinary voters, noted how disrespectful it is for the media to call Obama a “rock star”. Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America.

Sign in to comment.