The Fallacy of Assuming Everyone Thinks Like You (or “Fisking Keith Olbermann”)

Yeah, several posts ago I wondered if it was necessary to fisk Olbermann, but I am compelled to, here.

But first let me tell you a story.  Now I have said that I support affirmative action in a limited sort of way, based on the present reality of racism and other forms of bigotry.  And I remember saying that once in a Constitutional History class back when I was an undergraduate and a man vehemently disagreed with me that racism was a real problem.  He said something like this:

I don’t think racism is so bad.  At my fraternity, a black guy wanted to join.  And one guy said we shouldn’t let him join because he was black.  So I stood up and said that the fact he was black didn’t matter.  And we voted to let him in.

That’s a paraphrase, of course.  And this is what I said in response.

Really, is it Necessary to Fisk Keith Olberman?

Well, regardless, the Daily Caller has done an admirable job doing it.

For my money, the second clip, when he attacks these kids for joking about the Washington, D.C. blizzard is the most hilarious.  According to Olberman, you can’t make a joke about any bad weather in which anyone died.  Which means of course you can never joke about any bad weather, ever, in your whole life.

What a sour man.  But it makes the clip unintentionally hilarious.

A Lightweight and a Heavyweight Denounces Citizens United

It’s interesting.  The universal liberal condemnation of Citizens United marches forward, unswayed by massive ignorance about the decision.  Trolling around, I found two more critiques of the decision, one at Concurring Opinions, a left leaning blog of egghead professors. And I mean that in a good way.  I mean, I profoundly disagree, but it’s about as far from shooting fish in a barrel as you can get, without these people being right about everything.

And then you have E.J. Dionne Jr. at the Washington Post.

Let’s start with Concurring opinions, where Michael Kang gives his critique of Citizens United.

“Simply Not True” (Or “Fisking the State of the Union”)

“Simply not true” is supposedly what Justice Samuel Alito mouthed when Barrack Obama’s State of the Union speech turned to the Citizens United litigation.  You can find my opinion on the case here.  I’ll tell the truth, I can’t read lips to save my life, but I figured it was a good enough title for my fisking.  I mean I have to say I was more than a little taken aback by the rank dishonesty the president engaged in.  I mean Bill Clinton was more honest than him, if you can believe that.  And the intellectual blind spots the president had.  Yike.

I think the other thing that struck me was that Obama was really really loose in that speech.  I mean I felt like this was his “game day with the boys” voice, rather than him being president.  In most contexts, I would have found that charming.  In fact, to some degree I was charmed.  But...  it wasn’t particularly presidential.  His “law professor mode” is pretty presidential and frankly he should have stuck to that.

Now I am going to base this on the transcript here.  I don’t think it captured every word, I think it leans more toward his planned remarks.  But its what I have to work with, because its not like I am a court reporter in my spare time.

So let’s read through this together, shall we?

Calling Bullshit on Chemerinsky (or “Fisking a Law School Dean”)

Erwin Chemerinsky is a constitutional law professor and the Dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law. And you know, I have been exposed to his teachings twice. First, I purchased a bunch of tapes on the first year curriculum to give me a running start and then if memory serves he was in the Barbri course to help me prepare for the bar exam. Up until now, I considered him liberal, but basically fair.

But his op-ed on Citizens United is crap.

Of course you can read my argument on the subject, here. Or just scroll down, you lazy bastard!

So let’s start reading together, shall we?

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns...

Okay stop right there. This is dishonest. The FEC told Citizens United that it could not purchase advertising. So to frame this as being about spending, without noticing that the spending purchases speech is dishonest.

I mean imagine if we passed a law stating that the New York Times was forbidden from buying paper or ink. Would that be a restriction on commerce? Or would that be a restriction on the freedom of the press?

This isn’t a restriction merely on expenditures. This is a restriction on expression. Remember that.