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.