Lawfare: admitting you were wrong

The New Neo Posted on by

The Horowitz Report dealt a blow to Lawfare:

…[T]he ‘Lawfare’ blog…[is] a site that’s placed itself at the center of the operation to legitimize and push Trump-Russia conspiracy theories throughout the Trump presidency.

Their specialty has been to claim the Steele dossier is “mostly verified” and asserting it as a credible source of allegations…

To put it lightly, the recent IG report has not been kind to the Lawfare blog. People like Benjamin Wittes, who spent years trashing Devin Nunes’ correct memo, are left flailing about, desperately looking for a way to save face.

You can read one of Wittes’ statements here. It’s a good example of the genre of the very incomplete mea culpa – you might say it’s a mea minima culpa (forgive my unschooled Latin). It contains an admission of error along with fresh attacks on Nunes and tactical twistings of what Horowitz actually said, as the writer at Red State explains.

But this post isn’t really about Wittes himself. It’s about the entire phenomenon of being not just wrong but extremely and publicly wrong, and how a person deals with it. Admitting wrongdoing, even to the small extent that Wittes has done, is actually more than a great many people do. Maybe even more than most people do. But for many (most?) people, this small admission doesn’t usually lead to a lot of introspection and change, because all they do is go on to the next way of being wrong.

Or, as Winston Churchill succinctly put it: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”

Indeed. The profundity, depth, and breadth of their wrongness doesn’t seem to put a dent in their confidence in their judgment and in their politics. And the two generally go together because people often succumb to confirmation bias, if they’re not outright lying (which also can certainly happen).

In summary, a mind is a difficult thing to change.

Errors of this magnitude should spark a great deal of reflection, but they rarely change a person in any fundamental way – particularly pundits, who have gone on public record with their erroneous statements and are frantically trying to salvage their reputations and keep readers’ trust. Change is hard for many reasons, but here are some:

(1) Psychological – this applies to the political but also the personal. A lot of people want to protect their pride and save face, and excuses or rationalizations seem to them to be a better mechanism than admission of error or fault or stupidity or failure.

(2) Political – such errors (whether true errors or outright lies) are usually intertwined with the political goals of the person and what they want to be true. They are embedded in a belief system built of many separate elements going to make a whole and to determine the person’s political goals. The person still believes in all of this and doesn’t want to undermine those goals or to question them. It is too threatening to the sense of self and of life purpose.

(3) Financial – sometimes a person’s job would be threatened by a switch in viewpoint of any significant magnitude.

(4) Social – a real change of heart, a true mea culpa, could easily cause rifts with family, friends, and colleagues. Do not underestimate this factor.

For me, points one and two didn’t really matter; I’m not sure why. I was interested in the truth as best I could ascertain it. The third point was irrelevant; I was not employed in the pundit business at the time of my political change and had no intention of ever being in that line of work (which just goes to show you how wrong a person can be). As for number four, it was big – or would have been if I’d been aware of it, but I was so naive that I had no idea it would happen to me until the change cat was already out of the bag and I was faced with much conflict with friends and loved ones. If I’d seen it coming I don’t think it would have stopped me, but in fact I never saw it coming so I never had to consider it.

I’m surprised this critique of Rachel Maddow appeared in the WaPo

The New Neo Posted on by

From the opinion article:

The ubiquity of Horowitz’s debunking passages suggests that he wanted the public to come away with the impression that the dossier was a flabby, hasty, precipitous, conclusory charade of a document. Viewers of certain MSNBC fare were surely blindsided by the news, if they ever even heard it.

Name a host on cable news who has dug more deeply into Trump-Russia than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow…

…On the day Horowitz released his punishing report — with all its assertions about the dossier’s dubiety — Maddow chose not to focus on the integrity of the document that she’d once claimed was accumulating credibility on a nearly daily basis…

When small bits of news arose in favor of the dossier, the franchise MSNBC host pumped air into them. At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcasts thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flimflam, quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report. She seemed to be rooting for the document.

And when large bits of news arose against the dossier, Maddow found other topics more compelling.

She was there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings — a pattern of misleading and dishonest asymmetry.

I know people who watch Maddow religiously and think she’s a remarkable purveyor of truth. I don’t talk to them about politics, but I know they are fans of hers, and I also know that watching her has made them more and more rabidly against Trump and more convinced than ever that he’s close to being the devil himself. It’s led in some cases to increasing depression and fear, and why wouldn’t it?

While I’m at it, I might mention that one of the puzzlements of the entire Russiagate “narrative” has been the fanning of the flames against Russia – by the left. After all, Russia was the country about which the following exchange occurred not so very long ago – 2012, in fact. But because Obama was their hero, there wasn’t a bit of concern at the time (or later, as far as I’ve seen) by the WaPo or the rest of the MSM, just laughter at stupidhead Romney and oh-so-smart Obama:

But consistency isn’t required of leftists. Say whatever works in the moment, and count on the MSM to not point out discrepancies then or later. That’s why I’m surprised this critique of Maddow was published in the WaPo at all, even if it’s just a one-person opinion piece. Actually, it’s way too kind to Maddow, but for the WaPo it’s hard-hitting.

My theory on why they allowed it is that it’s an attempt to distance themselves from Maddow and her like and to draw attention away from their own misleading coverage of the same stories. It seems the Horowitz Report was so damaging to the FBI and the Steele dossier that even the WaPo can’t ignore that reality entirely.

Sneaky changes: Thomas’ English muffins

The New Neo Posted on by

When I was a child, Thomas’ English muffins were a staple of my breakfast. They had crisp nooks and crannies into which butter loved to slide, and they were just the right combination of textures of soft and hard.

I hadn’t had one in years and years and years. And so the other day, when a display of them caught my eye, I thought, Why not? It’s been a long time. I had some leftover butter, too, from all the lebkuchen I’d made, and so I bought a package of the English muffins. The label said “Original” in big letters.

The first hint that something might be awry was the size of the muffin. When I got home, opened the package, and studied one, it seemed to have a smaller diameter than memory would have it.

Next, it was more difficult to separate than I recalled from the past. One of the things about English muffins is that they are semi-cut already, a sort of tear-along-dotted-line thing that makes them easier to separate and assures that they will have the proper number of small hills and valleys that knife-cutting could never provide. But now it seemed that the two halves wanted to stick together, or they wanted to separate in such a way that one half was almost paper-thin in spots while the other was too thick.

I toasted them. Spread butter on them. And took a bite.

They tasted – different. What was it? Blander? More doughy? The texture was spongier and gummier than memory. These were almost pillowlike, although they had a veneer of crustiness.

I wondered if it was my memory or if they had really changed. First I found this discussion where some people were complaining about the muffins and others reassuring them that all was well. And then I found this from the company itself:

Recipe for Greatness

STAYING TRUE TO OUR METHODS SINCE DAY ONE

–We still use quality ingredients to make all of our products
–We have stayed true to our methods
–We listen to our consumers and are actively involved in initiatives to make healthier products
–We encourage environmental processes, such as water recycling, in all of our plants.

First of all, let me get this pet peeve out of the way: it should be “more healthful products,” not “healthier products.” People and other living things can be healthy, products that promote good health are healthful. Ancient history, I know.

But my main observation is that what they don’t say is more interesting than what they do say. They don’t say, “We have never changed our recipe or our ingredients.” They don’t say, “We have never changed the size of our muffins.”

And so I bet they’ve changed both. And definitely for the worse.

If I were one of those House Democrats in a Trump-friendly district who had been talked into voting against my better judgment for Trump’s impeachment…

The New Neo Posted on by

…I’d be hopping mad right about now.

To Pelosi and the leftist wing of the party: You made me put my seat at grave risk for this? And then you shelve the whole thing for an indeterminate time and a foggy reason?

I’m not at all sure how many members of Congress match my description. Originally there were said to be 31 such Democrats in the House who come from districts that voted for Trump and yet elected a Democrat – usually one who promised to be moderate and relatively independent – in 2018. One of them, Jeff Van Drew, voted against impeachment and has become a Republican since the brouhaha. Another, Collin Peterson, voted against impeachment as well.

The 29 others voted for impeachment. Of course, some of them may have felt that impeachment was justified and needed no pressure to vote that way. But I would bet (without knowing) that most of the 29 felt they were signing their own political death warrants, and did so reluctantly.

Or maybe not so reluctantly. Maybe they are already sick of Washington. Maybe they were promised good jobs from other Democrats if they get turned out of the House in 2020 as a result of their vote. But I bet a lot of them are spitting mad right now and feeling as though they walked into a trap.

Of course, I don’t know what Pelosi has planned at this point, if anything. She’s a politician who often has something up her sleeve. But I can’t imagine exactly what it could be at the moment. More Steele dossiers? More “whistleblowing” moles with reports of horrible things the president supposedly said?

Or is she at a loss herself about what to do next?

I know a lot of people will say that what the Democrats actually have planned is a lot of cheating in the 2020 elections. I assume, however, that’s rather difficult to accomplish in Trump-friendly districts. It would be much easier to do successfully in large blue cities, but the districts we’re talking about don’t tend to conform to that description.

Merry Christmas! (another golden oldie from the neo archives)

The New Neo Posted on by

holiday-cheer-christmas-tree.gif

On Christmas Day—blog?
I’d rather have grog,
Or maybe eggnog,
Then go walk the dog.
Or watch a Yule Log,
And eat like a hog,
Then go for a jog.
Blogging’s a bog.
My mind’s in a fog,
Or maybe agog
From much dialogue.
I’ll return to the slog
Tomorrow, and blog.

And Happy Chanukah!

[NOTE: On the words “the dog,” that’s a picture of the dog we had when my son was little.]

‘Twas the blogger’s night before Christmas

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This small poetic effort of mine has become somewhat of a holiday tradition at the blog. So here it comes again—just like the holiday itself. Merry Christmas Eve to you all!]

‘TWAS THE BLOGGER’S NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS

‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the ‘sphere
Bloggers were glad to see Christmas draw near.
Their laptops were turned off and all put away
The bloggers were swearing to take off the day.

Their children were nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of extra time danced in their heads
With a father or mom not distracted by writing
No posts to compose, and no links to be citing.

But we all know that vows were just meant to be broken
And the vows of a blogger can be a mere token.
There’s always a chance that some sort of temptation
Will rise up to make them of fleeting duration.

For instance, there might be found under the tree
A sleek Mac; well, what better sight could there be?
And who could neglect it and wait the whole day?
It cries to be tried out, one just can’t delay.

Or maybe somewhere there’s a fast-breaking story
Important, and possibly leading to glory.
It can’t be ignored, there’s really no choice,
So add to the din every blogger’s small voice.

And then there are some who may just like to rhyme
(I’m one who at times must confess to this crime),
And it’s been quite a while since Clement Clarke Moore
Wrote his opus (though authorship’s been claimed by Gore).

So it seems about time it was newly updated
And here’s my attempt – aren’t you glad you all waited?
Forgive if it sounds a bit awkward to read.
In writing, I set a new record for speed.

I had to get under the wire and compose it
Before Christmas Day. Now it’s time that I close it.
But let me exclaim (or, rather, I’ll write)
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!

Here’s a video of the original, with some 50s-type nostalgia for those who remember. There are a few odd anomalies (“safe in their beds” instead of “snug in their beds”). But it brought back memories of pincurls, and the days when parents were assumed to sleep in twin beds (even though I don’t recall that most people did).

I think I had the book on which this is based. The illustrations look very familiar:

The Times and the truth: the 1619 Project and the teaching of history

The New Neo Posted on by

The NY Times isn’t convincingly pretending that it’s in any business but that of disseminating propaganda:

The NYT refused to issue any corrections [to its pieces from the 1619 Project, its campaign to make it seem as though slavery was the true founding principle of the American enterprise], it announced Thursday, despite a letter written by five historians concerned about the project’s “misleading” and “factual errors.” Some of the historians that signed onto the original letter expressed frustration and concern to the Daily Caller at the NYT’s unwillingness to issue corrections…

“The Times has not addressed our many citations of factual errors,” Oakes said in an email to the Daily Caller Sunday. “I am particularly distressed by Matt Desmond’s essay. It is based on a body of scholarship that has been subjected to severe criticism by experts in the field, experts who San [sic] the spectrum from mainstream economists to Marxist sociologists.”

“As a result Desmond repeats claims that cannot be substantiated by the evidence.”

I applaud the letter-writers, and yet if they thought the Times had a particle of interest in what historians say (rather than what Marxist historians say) on the subject, they are demonstrating remarkable naivete. The Times can find people who say exactly what the Times wants the public to hear, and is completely uninterested in airing anything that counters that message:

The NYT declined to issue any correction, writing that they “welcome criticism” but “don’t believe that the request for corrections … is warranted.”

In the letter to the editor, the historians cited specific examples of what they believe are factual errors and misleading commentary currently published in the project. One notable issue is the project’s depiction of the American Revolution.

“On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain ‘in order to ensure slavery would continue,’” the historians’ letter to the editor reads. “This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false.”

The historians also took issue with how the “1619 Project” portrayed “Abraham Lincoln’s views on racial equality.” The project “ignores his conviction that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed universal equality,” according to the letter published in the NYT.

The NYT defended its decision not to issue any corrections, writing that “numerous scholars of African-American history and related fields” were consulted prior to the project launching.

The Times has always had its problems with truth (Duranty, for example). But for years now, it has been lowering itself further to engage nearly constantly in the enterprise Iowahawk (David Burge) has described on Twitter as one of the main tools of the left:

In this case, the Times is doing this to US history, as well as to the Times itself. And make no mistake about it, the Times’ project is not limited to publishing a few articles. The paper has an agenda involving education in the school system and elsewhere:

The project has gone on to include a five-episode podcast, a kids’ section of the print newspaper, and a broadsheet for the print newpaper that includes an article on how slavery is taught in U.S. schools as well as a history of slavery in 15 objects that was curated by the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The Pulitzer Center supported the project as an education partner, providing free reading guides, extension activities, lesson plans and physical copies of the magazine to educators across the country.

Teachers across all 50 states have accessed the Pulitzer Center educational resources since the project’s launch, and many have shared their students’ work by posting to Twitter and emailing student work to education@pulitzercenter.org. Educators from hundreds of schools and administrators from six school districts have also reached out to the Center for class sets of the magazine. Teachers are using the magazine in their classes to teach subjects ranging from English to History and Social Studies, and their engagement with the project has guided students in creating essays, poetry, visual art, performances, and live events that demonstrate their learning…

These events, which will continue into 2020, have been lively opportunities for both teachers and students to engage in the material and showcase their work. At Dunbar High School in Washington, DC, students interviewed Hannah-Jones, asking her about every aspect of her process from how she brought the idea to her editors to how she conceived of the audience for this project.

At one point, the conversation turned to Hannah-Jones’s own education and how she had come to the idea to commemorate the year 1619. A student asked: “At school, was this [year] really a topic, or were they trying to cover it up? Like, did you have to go and find it out for yourself?”

In response, Hannah-Jones described the one Black Studies class she had taken as a high schooler, and the book she read which described the significance of this year, called Before The Mayflower.

“I really started thinking about the year 1619 in high school,” Hannah-Jones said. But a lot of her knowledge since then, she said, came from her own research.

The theme recurred at the Smithsonian event, when Nikita Stewart asked a panel of educators to describe a lie about slavery that they learned as students, and how they unlearned it. As the panelists discussed the issue, several of them encouraged the students in the crowd to do their own learning.

Much much more at the link.

“The Democrats have made Trump a sympathetic character”

The New Neo Posted on by

I want to highlight this comment by “JFM”:

The Democrats have made Trump a sympathetic character.

That sums up something I’ve been thinking for quite some time, and especially since the impeachment hearings began.

Trump has always been a brash guy, a loudmouthed New Yorker, born in privilege (pardon the “woke” word, but it applies here) and wealth, and parlaying that wealth into more wealth by wheeling and dealing and writing books and generally promoting himself. You either liked him or hated him (or like me, were indifferent to him and pretty much ignored him) prior to his running for office.

But one thing you didn’t do is sympathize with him or find him to be some sort of victim. I just don’t think that would have entered anyone’s mind.

And that situation continued for a while after his election. He was definitely one to blow his own horn, and to give as good as he got to his enemies.

But over the years, the actions of the Democrats and what has come to be called the “deep state” have dramatically increased the number of people who feel Trump has gotten a raw deal. They have accomplished what would have been thought nearly impossible, which is to make Trump seem a persecuted person, the victim of unfair and powerful forces out to get him.

I haven’t seen a poll on whether this change of public opinion has really occurred, but it’s what I observe in comments around the blogosphere and elsewhere. And it can’t be good for the Democrats.

The desire to humiliate: they impeached Trump in order to make him wear the scarlet “I”

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve noticed that many of the justifications for impeaching Trump involve some sort of gloating that now he must bear the shame of having been one of the few presidents in our history who have been impeached. In other words, they want him to wear for all time a scarlet “I”.

But did it ever occur to them that it might look to a lot of people – even including historians of the future – like a scarlet “M” for “martyred”?

If you impeach someone for trivial reasons, or based on lies, or both, how does that make the impeached person look bad?

Hadn’t you better make sure that your accusations appear to be sound? Framing someone or over-reacting to something that person has done makes you seem hysterical, mendacious, scheming, histrionic, fake. And piously intoning how sad and reluctant you are as you do it, when it’s crystal clear that’s just a pose and you are joyful, doesn’t make you look good and your target look bad, either.

George Burns once said, “If you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made.” Well, the Democrats can’t fake sincerity, and I don’t think they’re got it made.

The impulse is the one so clearly stated by Robert de Niro, who recently said this:

“It would feel kind of good to punch him. Not hurt him. Just punch him in the face,” said [Michael] Moore. “Just cathartic.”

De Niro responded, “I’d like to see a bag of shit right in his face. Hit him right in the face like that, and let the picture go all over the world. And that would be the most humiliating thing.”

He added, “He needs to be humiliated. He needs to be confronted, and he needs to be humiliated by whoever his political opponent is.”

De Niro explained that he would like to see the 2020 Democratic candidate tear Trump down, even if it’s not in an “obviously physical way.”

“The people have to see that. For him to be humiliated,” De Niro said.

Yes, we get it: humiliated. What a primitive impulse De Niro is describing, that of the schoolyard bully. Why would we think less of Trump and more of De Niro and/or the thugs carrying out such a wish? Or even expressing such a wish? The only person De Niro is humiliating here is himself, but he can’t even see that.

And I maintain that public humiliation is a large part of the impetus behind all of this. And so far it’s just not working – except as a boomerang.