What's O'Hanlon Been Handlin'

Mr. O'Hanlon has taken to the op-ed pages again to defend the op-ed that he couldn't defend when Glenn Greenwald asked him the relevant questions that the media as a whole couldn't come up with. Scary!
He's calling it "The Work Behind Our Iraq Views" and it is quite a work! In it he once again refers to himself as a critic of the administration's war policies in responding to an op-ed by Jonathon Finer ("Green Zone Blinders"), despite this statement to Greenwald:

if I'm being held up as a "critic of the war", for example by Vice President Cheney, it's certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself, as I will elaborate in a moment.

He is a critic. He's not a critic. What week is this? Did he forget his morning Kool Aid the day he spoke to Greenwald?

Mr. O'Hanlon has held himself out as an academic, a learned man drawing conclusions based on good data, albeit data supplied by those who profit from his positive conclusions. But he's shown himself to be a person willing to shade the truth and even to have different truths (about himself, no less) on different days of the week. But he's also shown himself to be one capable of the lie of omission to advance his preconception. He fails to address the more substantive critiques of his conclusions (if preconceptions can be graced with such a word).

He does not address the issue of seasonal adjustment of mortality data, which when applied erases the basis of his conclusions. He does not address the obviously fascist idea that the military has data that has to be secret but that contradicts the real data and shows that all is well in Iraq. In what sphere of academia does this pass for intelligent discussion?

The ony one I can think of is the sphere of public opinion where the public has been "softened" with the psuedo-science and anti-science that the bush administration has promoted for the past six and a half years. All of their attacks on science and suppression of facts and aspersions cast on those who believe data have been the air campaign, bombing the minds of America into submission, to prepare for the ground war, led by generals like O'Hanlon. The "shock and awe" of climate change denial, intelligent design, and the wonderfully effective "abstinence only" programs has come to its fruition and a landing has been made by the forces of "we don't need no stinkin' facts!" Inc.

Let me summarize for you the "work" that Mr. O'Hanlon did according to his latest op-ed. He did, in fact, briefly leave the green zone, he did, in fact, listen to the military's "data", he went to school, and he knows people who know people who told him things. Now if I said that I had found a cure for cancer and I should be believed because I have been to cancer wards, I have looked at "data" supplied by the people who want to sell the cure, I've gone to school, and I know people who know people who told me positive things about it...I would be laughed at by my colleagues. But in Mr. O'Hanlon's world, it seems to be something he is quite proud of.

It inspires me to write this FICTIONAL, SATIRICAL defense of his academic credentials in the style of the real Mr. O'Hanlon.

Interviewer: It has been alleged that you spent most of your time in the Rathskeller* while in school. Is this true?

O'Hanlon: Absolutely not! I was taken on several tours of the campus by the administration and I was able to confirm that classes in Political Science were actually going on.

I: And did you attend any of these classes?

O: No, but I did know several of the people who attended classes and they confirmed that they were quite informative. This was a good school, let me remind you! I spoke at length with several students who were directed to me by the administration and they all had wonderful things to say about the classes that they had attended. Let me remind you that some of these tours lasted HOURS! The amount of data I collected about Political Science in those tours was incredible!

I: But you didn't actually attend the classes or collect any actual data about Political Science prior to getting your degree?

O: You know I think there is much to much emphasis on this. I am an academic. I have a special mojo that allows me to take poor data and combine that with my vast social connections and come out with the right conclusions.

I: And in terms of Political Science, what are the "right" conclusions?

O: Why the ones that please my employer and get me airtime as an "expert". Any idiot knows that!

Can't argue with that logic!!

*Back in the olden days, when the drinking age was 21, colleges had bars, often in the basement and frequently called a Rathskeller.

The Long, Long Haul

I am aghast, as are many others, at the writings of Stu Bykofsky in a Philadelphia newspaper calling for another 9/11 to unite our country. There are so many things wrong with the article, not the least of which is the fascist idea that if we just had an enemy, real or imagined, to inflame our nationalist, stateist, xenophobic fears we could be the strong fatherland that god intended us to be and rule the world. Many people worry that the holocaust will be forgotten. Well, whether Bykofsky is a Jewish or Polish (or both or neither) name, it is sad to see that the rhetoric of the fascist state would win support under such a name.

I would like to focus, however, on an often repeated lie that appears in this column that points more directly to what is creating the rift that Mr. Bykofsky laments in our society. That is the lie that Americans just can't be in a war for the long haul. He writes,

"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years."

Being an Irish-American I have to control my effusive joy for the amazing success that the British occupation was for the Irish people and return to my point. This straw man first appeared (in my lifetime) during the Viet Nam war. Despite its utter lack of credibility, it still seems to have legs with those who support the never-ending-war-of conquest model of American unity.

Since this column appeared in a newspaper, may I be excused for thinking that it represents some form of journalism? If so, might Mr. Bykofsky supply some, oh I don't know, FACTS! Does he have anything to back up this position? Mr. Bykofsky seems to be under the impression that he is watching M*A*S*H II and ratings have declined since they killed off the very popular Saddam character. Can Mr. Bykofsky point to any evidence that those opposed to the war are also suffering under this delusion? Can he point us to the anti-war writings that declare that it's a wonderful war, it just can't sustain an audience for another season, so we oppose it? Are there any polls that indicate that the American people cite this reason for not supporting the war? Does he have anecdotal interviews to make the claim that even some people may oppose the war on this basis? If he does have any of this evidence, he fails to share even a shred of it with his readers.

In fact, if one looks around at the writings of those opposing the war, the reasons have to do with the lies that started the war, the incompetence of carrying it out once the ill-conceived debacle was initiated, the lack of reasonable plans to provide ACTUAL support (beyond bumper stickers) to the troops who were asked to carry it out, the distraction and diversion of resources from the ACTUAL war against the people who attacked us, the cronyism that insured that incompetent management would be the hallmark of the US occupation. Does any of this sound like we wanted the show canceled for lack of interest?

No, and if one takes the time to look for factual evidence to back up their opinion piece, one will find that those who speak of the public being "fatigued" by the length of the war are the very same people, like Bykofsky, who support the war or, worse still, those who started it. I am tired of being handed this straw man by people like him and being told that this represents my opinion. It most certainly does not.

The most ironic aspect of this charade (to me) is that I don't believe that people like Mr. Bykofsky (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this childish and specious argument from their child. Although a child might have a better excuse for an incomplete understanding of logical discipline and be more easily excused for such a lapse. If you had the misfortune to have a child who repeatedly broke the law and you pleaded with your child to take a look at their actions and the poor choices they have made, all in the hope that the child would see the effects their choices were having and reform, but the child replied that you weren't really concerned about them living a more productive life but actually just fatigued by the length of time they had been breaking the law, how would you respond? "Oh you're right! I really don't care whether you stop torturing the other kids in the neighborhood! I'm just tired of hearing about it every day! Brilliant!" By Mr. Bykofsky's logic, we would all drop our opposition to the child's transgressions and join in, as one big happy family.

Or maybe he would hire the even bigger neighborhood bully to attack his family and show them the joys of pulling together for the clan?

An adult, presumed journalist, ought to know something about logic. He ought to know a straw man when he sees one. He ought not to see his job as the distribution of scarecrows but more correctly as the distribution of fact. I look forward to his exposition of the facts that he uncovered to support his views on the motivations of those opposed to the war in Iraq.

Happy Birthday Menachem!