Ted

Be the first on the block to blog Condi Rice’s testimony, thanks to Stuart Benjamin of the Volokh Conspiracy:

Play bingo at home (or, if you want, make it into a drinking game: one drink for each iteration of one of these words).

Of her demeanor, Rice supporters will say she was: “poised,” “confident,” “authoritative,” and/or “polished.”

Of her demeanor, Rice detractors will say she was: “defensive,” “visibly annoyed,” and/or “brusque” ; bonus (if they feel strongly) “petulant” and/or “schoolmarmish”

On the quality of her arguments, Rice supporters will say: “persuasive,” “convincing,” “firm,” and/or “powerful”; bonus (if they feel strongly) “overpowering”

On the quality of her arguments, Rice detractors will say: “unpersuasive,” “weak,” “vacillating,” and/or “shaky,”; bonus (if they feel strongly) “incoherent”

Overall, Rice supporters will describe her performance as: “a home run,” “putting doubts to rest,” “answering all the questions,” “showing Clarke to be a liar,” and/or “letting us get on to the people’s business”; bonus (if they are really partisan) “refuting the demagogues on the other side”

Overall, Rice detractors will describe her performance as: “raising more questions than it answers,” “a missed opportunity to inform the American people,” “vindicating Richard Clarke,” and/or “raising troubling questions about this Administration”; bonus (if they are really partisan) “you’re the demagogue” (followed by: “am not!”; “are too!”; “am not!”; etc.)

Sasha Issenberg recently wrote an article in which he tried to fact-check an old article by David Brooks. Brooks wrote an article with a number of verifiable claims about Republican vs. Democratic areas, and specifically about his visit to Pennsylvania’s Franklin County. Issenberg found a number of factual errors; when confronted with them, Brooks explained that he was often joking, and that the main thrust of the piece (lower-middle-class communities are different from upper-middle-class communities) was accurate.

David Brooks wrote a piece in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine called “Our Sprawling, Supersize Utopias” that won’t be so easily tripped up. It isn’t because he’s done the extensive research and hard work to back up his arguments. Rather, it’s because the article is so breezy and rootless, any fact checker who was assigned to this piece would be finished by noon.

[click to continue…]

A few weeks ago, I was angry at National Review for publishing anonymous, unverifiable smears of prominent Democrats. In response, I ran a contest to “Punk the National Review“.

The deadline has passed, and to the best of my knowledge, National Review has not printed any more anonymous smear emails. That’s exactly what I was hoping for. I’m not a great admirer of National Review – I’ve got a post on this subject on the back burner – but I’m glad about how it worked out.

I was prepared to give out to $50 in prize money, if anyone had succeeded. Instead, I’ll be giving $50 in Jonah Goldberg’s name to Habitat for Humanity. If you’re reading, folks, congratulations and thank you.

In honor of Passover, I’m pleased to pass on an essay from Michael Chabon, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Wonder Boys and The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay. It’s a sad meditation on an absurd book, the phrase book Say It In Yiddish, for visitors to a country that never existed.

I dream of two possible destinations. The first might be a modern independent state very closely analogous to the State of Israel–call it the State of Yisroel–a postwar Jewish homeland created during a time of moral emergency, located presumably, but not necessarily, in Palestine; it could be in Alaska, or on Madagascar. Here, perhaps, that minority faction of the Zionist movement who favored the establishment of Yiddish as the national language of the Jews were able to prevail over their more numerous Hebraist opponents. There is Yiddish on the money, of which the basic unit is the herzl, or the dollar, or even the zloty. There are Yiddish color commentators for soccer games, Yiddish-speaking cash machines, Yiddish tags on the collars of dogs. Public debate, private discourse, joking and lamentation, all are conducted not in a new-old, partly artificial language like Hebrew, a prefabricated skyscraper still under construction, with only the lowermost of its stories as yet inhabited by the generations, but in a tumbledown old palace capable in the smallest of its stones (the word nu) of expressing slyness, tenderness, derision, romance, disputation, hopefulness, skepticism, sorrow, a lascivious impulse, or the confirmation of one’s worst fears.

Reader Ted Clayton brings an interesting article to my attention from the Chronicle of Higher Education. It’s about the fascist political philosopher Carl Schmitt. Just a sample:

Schmitt argued that liberals, properly speaking, can never be political. Liberals tend to be optimistic about human nature, whereas “all genuine political theories presuppose man to be evil.” Liberals believe in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions, but to Schmitt there is no such neutrality, since any rule — even an ostensibly fair one — merely represents the victory of one political faction over another. (If that formulation sounds like Stanley Fish when he persistently argues that there is no such thing as principle, that only testifies to the ways in which Schmitt’s ideas pervade the contemporary intellectual zeitgeist.) Liberals insist that there exists something called society independent of the state, but Schmitt believed that pluralism is an illusion because no real state would ever allow other forces, like the family or the church, to contest its power. Liberals, in a word, are uncomfortable around power, and, because they are, they criticize politics more than they engage in it…

If Schmitt is right, conservatives win nearly all of their political battles with liberals because they are the only force in America that is truly political. From the 2000 presidential election to Congressional redistricting in Texas to the methods used to pass Medicare reform, conservatives like Tom DeLay and Karl Rove have indeed triumphed because they have left the impression that nothing will stop them. Liberals cannot do that. There is, for liberals, always something as important, if not more important, than victory, whether it be procedural integrity, historical precedent, or consequences for future generations.

I certainly don’t agree with this point of view; it’s a little too David Brooksish and a lot too black and white. Liberals are certainly capable of playing ugly, a good portion of movement conservatives are disgusted with naked power plays, and so on. But it’s a better whetstone for political argument than much of what I’ve read lately. Check it out.

The Gadflyer version of Political Aims doesn’t seem to have a way to link to individual posts, which is a shame. This one from Amy Sullivan on the Medicare bill is a doozy:

Let’s review. The Medicare bill only passed the House after Republican leaders:

a) broke all institutional precedent and held the vote open for a record three hours, instead of the traditional fifteen minutes;
b) used the extra time to “convince” a handful of representatives who had already voted against the bill to change their votes;
c) possibly threatened and/or bribed at least one representative;
d) broke the additional precedent of barring non-Members from the floor of the House during a vote by allowing HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson to “have a little talk with” some recalcitrant representatives; and now
e) lied about what they knew the final cost of the measure to be.

No wonder they’re spending federal tax dollars trying to convince us all that it was such a great idea. There’s absolutely no way the thing would have passed if the truth had been on the table. This isn’t a little political spat. This is pattern and practice. And it’s important. So pay attention.

P.S. Another post worth reading on the subject. The punchline is that the actuary was ordered not to present his findings on the bill for two reasons. The first, of course, was that he showed that the costs for the bill were higher than the House leadership was promising. The second is that they showed that the Republican plan “could increase premiums for those who stay in traditional programs by as much as 25 percent.”

When Jim Treacher linked to the homepage of the imaginary horror writer Garth Marenghi, he found a real gem. Garth Marenghi is wonderfully done narcissistic hack, the page is hilarious, and the internet is a beautiful thing for hosting it. (Oh, the internet. How can I stay mad at you?)

From one of the interviews:

What, scientifically speaking, is the most frightening thing ever?

Garth: I’m not a scientist. I’m a fabulist, a shaman, a ferryman, a dreamweaver. But that’s not to say I don’t put forward scientific propositions. In Black Fang, I dared to suggest that if pollution kept progressing at its current rate, rats would soon be able to drive buses. This week, as I sauntered through Soho, I witnessed a rodent sniffing curiously round a discarded rollerskate. Are we really so far away from my apocalyptic vision? I fear not friend.

A description of one of his books, Afterbirth:

It’s the year 2050 and everyone can choose the perfect baby. Blue eyes, blond hair, and calcium-rich blood. Everyone, that is, who can pay. (Many people can’t pay). The West Country’s most beautiful woman, Silvie Mink, is certain her newborn will be as drop dead gorgeous as her. But when her baby drops dead, knifed by her own placenta, she knows her DNA modification program has gone too far…

TAGLINE: After birth, comes Afterbirth

(On a related note, happy Day-Before-Zombie-Movie, everyone.)

1. We enjoy the benefit of some very smart, very civil conservative commentators on this site. I’d be honestly interested in their answer to this question:

Regarding the war on terror, what policies or actions are you afraid that President John Kerry might actually adopt that could reasonably be described as “appeasement”?

2. For interested U.S. citizens, The Poor Man is holding a fundraising competition between former Clark supports (aka “the Jets”) and Dean supporters (aka “the far, far inferior Jets”). Give generously, or the terrorists win. (I kid!)

3. The Spainish election has been blogged heavily, not least by my my fellow Timberites. There have been a good deal of ignoble slurs on the subject that I’m pleased to ignore. On a more reasonable level, a number of people have made the argument that, even if we grant that Spaniards have done nothing wrong, the results will nonetheless incentivise terrorists. They will be convinced that terrorism can be effectively used to change the results of elections. This knowledge can only lead to more terrorism. (Jane Galt, for example, makes it here.)

This argument seems to rest on the premise that the terrorist attack did, in fact, change the results of the election. But for the train bombings, Aznar’s incumbent People’s Party would have remained in power.

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on Spanish opinion polling, so I can’t make a claim for the significance of these polls. But according to this post, the Socialists were in the lead before the bombings, so the terrorists didn’t change the results. Doesn’t the argument take a severe blow?

3b. The argument that the right is showing contempt for democracy by decrying the results of the Spanish election is silly. If I had had a blog when Jorg Haider or Kurt Waldheim enjoyed electoral success in Austria, I would have complained, and I wouldn’t have been alone.

4. September 11th, 2001, was the worst day for the United States in my lifetime. I’d have a hard time choosing second place. But we all remember the way that the nation, and the world, pulled together in sympathy and support. I don’t want to get too sentimental, and we all have enough memories of those terrible days. But I’ll never forget sobbing as members of Congress stood on the steps of the Capital and sang “God Bless America” off-key. We were at our best, and it was easy to believe that we were all basically on the same side.

Fundamentally, I still believe that. But watching how people reacted to last week’s events in Spain has been deeply depressing. If there is another major terrorist attack on the U.S. in the next few months, I suspect that it would tear this country apart. May God have mercy on us all if it happens.

I’ve written, revised and rejected a number of thoughts about the terrorist massacre in Madrid. I would have liked to have written something like this.

Nihon Break Kogyo Co’s company song smashed into the Oricon, one of (Japan’s) most influential music charts, on Dec 29. It is the first time that a “shaka,” or corporate anthem, has made the charts, according to Oricon Inc, a major Tokyo music information provider…

Unlike the stiff, propaganda-like nature of regular Japanese corporate anthems, the up-tempo rock tune, written and performed by a Nihon Break Kogyo demolition worker, sounds like themes from old Japanese animated films featuring superheroes.

But the humorous lyrics reflect the pure corporate anthem spirit of promoting the company — “We will destroy houses! We will destroy bridges! We will destroy buildings! To the east, to the west — Run, Run, Nihon Break Kogyo!”

I believe that I am the first person in history to point out that Japanese culture can appear somewhat baffling.

In what appears to be an attempt to defuse some of the controversy, NEWSWEEK has learned, White House officials have privately signaled to the commission that Bush will not rigidly stick to the one-hour time limit. When time is up, Bush won’t walk out if there are still more questions, an aide said.

That was his plan? After sixty minutes with two members of his own party, whom he appointed to investigate 9/11, he was planning on turning his back and walking out on them? [UPDATE: The co-chair is a Democrat appointed by Daschle. Sorry about that.]

Boy, that moment would look great on a National Review commemorative plate. Can you imagine such a scene? I can.

IMAGINING SUCH A SCENE

A play in one act

[click to continue…]

I’m in a social group called “Thinkers and Drinkers”, who meet every two weeks to debate. I submitted a question yesterday that I thought would be pretty controversial. I was surprised when it wasn’t, and I’d be very interested in thoughts from our readers.

It’s a two part question, with a hypothetical to set up the actual question. Here’s the hypothetical part:

There are a number of books with titles like “The Hitman’s Handbook”, which ostensibly tell you how to kill someone and get away with it. Let’s say that someone reads one of these books, takes its advice, and kills someone. That person is caught, convicted, and sent to jail. Then the family of the victim sues the publisher in a civil suit. The ACLU is defending the publisher on First Amendment grounds.

No one would doubt that the murderer, and the publisher, are morally in the wrong. The question is, given that there’s a world full of hurt out there, is it wrong for the ACLU to offer its time and money in support of the publisher?

The discussion group, which is largely made up of center/ center-left, religious, young female professionals, uniformly came down in defense of the ACLU. There was widespread agreement that publishers can’t be held responsible for the actions taken by people who read their books, and that a victory would set a dangerous precedent. We refused to see a distinction between fiction that could inspire people to commit crime and explicit how-to books. It would be easy to lightly mask a how-to book with a fictional veneer, and we didn’t want courts trying to interpret that distinction. We all agreed that this book doesn’t make anyone commit murder- that only the murderer, and people who actively aid him, could be held responsible.

[click to continue…]

Apparently, the new Bush ads — which use images of Ground Zero — have upset some of the relatives of the victims of 9/11 tragedy, or, as Karen Hughes calls them, “Democrats.”

Wonkette

When blogger and journalist Tim Blair discovers a Chicago Tribune reporter fibbing about a source, they look into it and fire the reporter. (Good job, Tim.)

When blogger and programmer Rogers Cadenhead discovers Matt Drudge fibbing about a source, that’s just another day at Drudge.

Advantage: old media.