Nick, You Ignorant Slut!

Not since the Fonz and Mork mixed it up on Happy Days has there been a contest in which the audience rooted with more intensity!

In response to my piece last week about the PATRIOT ACT comes a reply on National Review Online from Ramesh Ponnuru that concludes:

I would suggest that Nick Gillespie spend less time disputing issues about which he knows next to nothing, and go back to his regular work: running a magazine that used to have some merit into the ground.

Read the whole thing here and decide for yourselves. Me, I've got my marching--er, running--orders.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Ponnuru states: Surveillance law distinguishes between the "contents" and the "envelope" of a communication.

The fallacy in this is that an envelope with a name and address has only that on it. Few envelopes state the contents within on them (postcards are an obvious exception). In other words, most envelopes typically don't say "child Porn inside" or "terrorism instructions within".

Web searches are for contents, they are not merely communiques with an address.

[Russ D]

I'd like to call Ponnuru an idiot by association. Credit or discredit the PATRIOT act all you like, but the first statement at liveandliberty.gov is:

The Department of Justice?s first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Sorry, but this is not, never has been, and never should be the first priority of the Department Of JUSTICE.

[Jason]

Running REASON into the ground? Please.

As if NR has any room to talk, given the quality of what passes for argument on anything but economic issues in their pages these days, most of which consists of "Well, the Church said this right up until Vatican II, so it must be right," or, "Well, this makes Derb feel kind of funny, so it must be wrong."

There's a passage in The Right Stuff where Tom Wolfe describes jet pilots who have been left behind by space travel, having been reduced to the same status as old timers who coninued to insist that flying prop planes was still the true test of greatness. Seems to me NR got left behind about ten years ago, and they, like the jet pilots, can't figure out how they became geezers so quickly.

[C]

Hit and Run is the only blog that regularly makes me laugh (from the quality of its jokes).

The Corner is the only blog that regularly makes me laugh (from the quality[?] of its arguments).

[Anonymous]

And the whole point of the PATRIOT act to begin with was to help government agencies save face by blowing it on 9/11. If the law only allowed just a wee bit more leeway, they would have prevented it.

Sure.

[JDM]

At least Reason didn't come out looking as bad as antiwar.com in its dust-up with NRO. Whereas Reason looks amateurish, antiwar.com came off as all-the-way-crazy.

[tom b]

Nobody likes throwing things at the Corner and it's residents more than me, but even the nuts are entertaining and sometimes worth reading. Well, maybe K-lo is never worth reading, but there's a fascination even to her reliable vapidity. Stuttaford's the only one whose posts I'll always read, but others (Ponnuru among them) will hook me half the time. There's a dialogue aspect to the Corner that Hit and run might want to emulate, too. It's tiresome and hugely unfunny at times, but at least you get the sense that the posters there read what the other's are saying, not a feeling Hit and Run engenders.

I agree with another comment here. Ponnuru wins this debate on style points alone. Nick's we're-all-fools-and-no-one-notices-or-cares-what-we-say gambit is, of course, the age of irony fallback position when you know you've got the bad side of an argument. It is always to be avoided. Now if only I can keep my own advice.

And yeah there is something wrong with the magazine. The re-design was an empty failure from the start and now it seems that some elaborate denial mechanism has kicked in, with each issue trying to outdo the last in finding even less arresting images to insert into the re-design's already over-conceived and under-interesting template.

The hip injections didn't take either, Peter Bagge is a talented artist, but not one of his Reason panels has mattered in the least.

There are plenty of good people writing for the magazine, and it still hits the mark sporadically. It's harder to say what's wrong there than it is to see the failure of the new look. But Nick Gillespie's response to Ponnuru's criticism indicates to me that there's a lack of intellectual discipline at the top. All kinds of bad effects would flow from that.

I think the Kaddish Bonobo joke was funny though. Thanks to Baksheesh Uhuru for pointing it out, and making me find it in that Corner parody I bailed out on half-way through when it first appeared.

Ramesh might have been wiser not to tip his hat to that resentment boiling low, lo these many months. Or perhaps more honest not to fabricate a hurt he doesn't feel, but which comes in handy as a blunt object in his battle with Gillespie. Especially since his name reminded Tim Cavanaugh of a most solemn prayer no less than a cute monkey.

[Rick Barton]

"Reason didn't come out looking as bad as antiwar.com in its dust-up with NRO. Whereas Reason looks amateurish, antiwar.com came off as all-the-way-crazy."

The above makes no sense at all. Antiwar.com has disected Patriot to depths that NRO can't or just won't. Go back and read Reason's and antiwar.com's coverage and predictions concerning the Iraq war vs. NRO's Its NRO that seems silly.
For those who value liberty and scholarship both antiwar.com and Reason are valuble resources.

[Ignorant Slut]

I take offence to this title!

[Anonymous]

Thanks Rick! Between Reason editors making arguments based on false assumptions and Anti-War.com's daily dose of lies, we will no doubt defeat the evil Patriot act.

Remember kids, unless your name is Bush misinformation and lying are OK for politics.

[JDM]

Rick,

I was talking specifically about last week's dust ups. I need an editor.

The antiwar-NRO spat starts here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp

You'll have to scroll down to :
SEP. 3, 2003: THE LOONIES ARE HEARD

Folowing the links and reading through that exchange doesn't foster a lot of confidence in the critical thinking skills of aw.com.

[JKF]

Ponnuru's response is devestating. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that Gillespie couldn't rise to the occasion with another one of his hysterical, know-nothing responses.

[Gene]

I couldn't disagree more with the following from tim b: "There's a dialogue aspect to the Corner that Hit and run might want to emulate, too." No. No. No. "Is anybody awake? Jonah, are you talking to your couch again?" That stuff makes me puke. It's a step away from catblogging. The Reason folks that I've met are interesting people, but one of the things I like about H and R is that to their credit Reason's editors don't think *they're* the story--they know that what they're *linking to* is the story. The Corner is just too annoyingly cutesy and self referential.

[Jason Ligon]

Maybe I'm slow. This should be a simple thing to analyze.

Can someone provide me of an example of what I could do before without fear of government surveillance that I can no longer do as a result of patriot?

[Goaltender66]

"For those who value liberty and scholarship both antiwar.com and Reason are valuble resources."

I value both so much (particularly scholarship) that I spell it "valuable."

In the end, it's a quote from the Washingon Post that kind of says it all:

"[C]ritics ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Eagle Forum complain that the law is violating people?s rights but acknowledge that they cannot cite specific instances of abuse."

[Rick Barton]

"Between Reason editors making arguments based on false assumptions..."

Ha! If only what was problematic about the Patriot Act was limited to those points it would not be as much of a threat as it is and if only Ashcroft was as honest about the act itself as the editors of Reason are concerning their debate about it the general public would bettor understand these threats.

"... and Anti-War.com's daily dose of lies..."

Sure, when you can't come up with examples just make false accusations in general.

" Remember kids, unless your name is Bush misinformation and lying are OK for politics."

Double Ha!(also known as HaHa!) It was the neo-cons behind Bush who lied us into the war who do actually justify that "misinformation and lying are OK for politics" via argument from Leo Stauss and even Machiavelli!

[Pat Cameltoe]

Hey Rick! I hear Somalia doesn't have a Patriot Act in force. So there's always that escape route.

[Anonymous]

After 23 years as a Reason subscriber I've been so disappointed in the mag lately that I don't want to renew anymore. Ramesh's article helped me understand more clearly where Reason's gone wrong.

[Rick Barton]

Goaltender66,

Despite your keen eye for typos you had better come up with specific citation (although, coming from the Washington Post distortion such as this would not surprise me) or it will be not be just your esteem for scholarship, but your honesty as well, that I question since the ACLU has brought multiple suits against the government for abuse of peoples rights under Patriot. Also, Bob Barr and Dick Armey both joined the ACLU out of concern over the Patriot Act.

[Goaltender66]

Sorry, didn't think to post the link, the story being the lead in today's Post and all:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40110-2003Sep7.html

And I don't care who joined the ACLU over their "concerns," because I can be concerned that the government is being taken over by agents from NAMBLA...but that concern doesn't make such a danger real.

Finally, you should know that one can file a lawsuit over just about anything...but it is interesting that, despite those lawsuits (got any links?) the ACLU said what they said about a lack of specific cases of abuse.

[Rick Barton]

JDM wrote:
"I was talking specifically about last week's dust ups. I need an editor."

Thanks JDM, I'll check ot the links. There is such an abundance of good stuff at antiwar.com though.

[Brian]

Nick, I hate to tell you how to write, but Ramesh was just far more convincing without the barbs.

[Jason Ligon]

As long as we are all opining,

Reason is still the only periodical I read cover to cover every month.

I am not a Bagge fan.

I agree with the sentiment that there has been some loose argumentation over the last year or so. The stronger aspects of the magazine are the broad perspective pieces, and the weaker aspects center around policy analysis. The fact of the matter is that there is a decision to be made surrounding the level to which Reason is to be a microscope for law and policy. Maybe let Cato be Cato?

I also get the feeling that naturally clever writers are feeling pressure to be so clever that generalizations begin to dominate pieces.

Just tweaking we are talking about here.

[Rick Barton]

"the ACLU said what they said about a lack of specific cases of abuse."

Not True: But as I said, Its consistent with Washington Post liberal/pro big govrnment slant.

From the Wired piece:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59863,00.html

"This week's offensive against the Patriot Act is not a first for the ACLU. The organization has filed numerous lawsuits alleging civil liberties violations..."

Bob Barr has a mostly excellent record defending individual liberty. When he joins the ACLU because he thinks the Patriot Act is very dangerous to those individual liberties he deserves a hearing.

[Rick Barton]

Jason Ligon wrote:
"Can someone provide me of an example of what I could do before without fear of government surveillance that I can no longer do as a result of patriot?"

Check out books from a library and buy books from a book store.

[Bunnie Foo Foo]

I feel like I'm watching two lovers fight over me.

I like you both. National Review has meatier and more empirical articles about a wide variety of topics.

Reason has the hip articles with fresher reporting.

I don't like NR because it's boring, at times.

I don't like Reason because it (yawn) confuses libertarianism with libertinism.

But you're both good.

Now as for the tone of Reason's sniping at NRO, it always comes off BAD.

That parody was not funny. And stupid.

And if you like the way your blog is run, more power to you. I like Hit & Run and have recently begun reading it regularly.

But that in no way means that NRO's Corner and it's accompanying banter is bad.

Again, you're both good. Now kiss each other.

[Nick Hodges]

Nick, a stunning response. Your refutation of what Ramesh said was so succinct that I missed it entirely.

Try making a point instead of pointing me to Mork and Mindy links.

[Pete]

I tend to be more libertarian than conservative, though I sometimes describe myself as being either a "lapsed libertarian" or a "Reagan libertarian." My libertarian streak makes me suspicious of anything called the "PATRIOT Act" based on the name alone, if nothing else.

Nonetheless, it strikes me that Reason didn't come off particularly well in this exchange. This is not to say that I've been converted; aspects of the Patriot Act still worry me. But I'm simply not convinced that it's the End of the World As We Know It.

On another note, while I agree that The Corner is far too cutesy and self-referential for regular reading, there is something about Mr. Gillespie's writing that rubs me the wrong way. This is not to say that he's running Reason into the ground. Since he's taken over, Reason has continued to run some good stuff. All of it, I should say, written by people other than Mr. Gillespie. Work I've seen under Gillespie's name is seldom impressive and often childish. Witness his "hissy fit" comment.

Or consider Reason's awful parody of the Corner. Now, I don't if Gillespie was responsible for any of that, but, as Head Honcho, he should have vetoed it. Not only was it immature and obnoxious, it wasn't even very funny. If you're going to insult the folks at NRO, fine. But at least do so with some genuine wit and cleverness.

Plus, Virginia Postrel is hot.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Pete.

Virginia Postrel is hot.

[Anonymous]

This incident goes far towards highlighting the main shortcomings of both publications: National Review takes itself too seriously, and Reason doesn't take itself seriously enough.

Ponnuru made some decent arguments about the legal implications of the Patriot Act, but you can't help but cringe at the way he interjected them with sanctimonious barbs and ad hominen retorts. Note to Ramesh: it's a legal debate, not mortal combat, and adopting a holier-than-thou tone towards an adversary is bound to eventually boomerang on any reasonably prolific writer. Gillespie's repsonse, meanwhile, was a clear exercise of style over substance, resembling the attitude of someone who, to paraphrase Woody Harrelson (see, I can make pop-culture references too!), would prefer to look good and lose rather than look bad and win.

Maybe someday National Review will realize that the fate of the world isn't held mercy to the whims of every utterance put forth on its magazine pages or web site, and maybe someday Reason will realize that the talents of its writers aren't best utilized by trying to create a libertarian-leaning Rolling Stone. But I'm not holding my breath.

[joe]

I thought the Corner parody was hilarious. Especially Derb ranting about gay propaganda.

But after reading his comments after the Lawrence case was decided, I realized he was beyond parody.

[Eric]

But after reading his comments after the Lawrence case was decided, I realized he was beyond parody.

Don't forget the time he fantasized about blowing up (or was it shooting?) some Catholic Ulster sympathizers. Or the time he sung the praises of Oliver Cromwell, the 17th century's answer to the Ayatollah Khomeinei. Or most recently, the enthusiasm he showed for African boarding schools that practice corporal punishment. I don't think there's anyone on the left so thoroughly beyond satirization this side of Noam Chomsky.

And Chomsky doesn't get writing gigs at either of the country's preeminent left-wing magazines...

[Jean Bart]

Despite Kerr's article, I think that it can be fairly said that what PATRIOT requires, allows, etc. is likely still up for debate given the length of time laws generally take to be interpreted and enacted by the various organs of the government, and that said interpretations are always up for review and thus change (SEE Bush's recent change regarding New Source Review - section 111 - of the Clean Air Act).

[Jean Bart]

Also, I find Ramesh Ponnuru's apparent attitude - that we of course have nothing to worry about and that we should just trust the government - to be somewhat disconcerting (and disingenuous).

[Anonymous]

I thought the Corner parody was dead-on and hilarious too. But can't I read Hit and Run without being pummeled with the Gay Agenda?!

[Phil]

Oh, dear. Maybe if you hire your very own Kathryn Lopez and John Derbyshire, you can begin to approach the levels of thought that The Corner regularly attains.

[quaker120]

What a waste of electrons.

[fyodor]

I hate to admit it, but Ponnuru seems to make a good case that "Patriot brings the FISA standard into line with the traditional Fourth Amendment/criminal law standard." Can anyone say precisely how this is wrong? Or why the FISA standard should be stronger?

As for the internet envelope/content question, I must admit that I don't understand why Patriot necessarily circumcedes civil libertarians' day in court on the matter. If PATRIOT violates the Constitution, couldn't this still be argued in court? If it doesn't, wasn't the position it took somewhat inevitable? Or if not, again, why should the standard be stronger that what would be constitutionally allowed?

[PLC]

Nick, stop arguing with the grown-ups. You're just embarrassing yourself.

[Anthony]

Nick, your tone in your response, and the points you leave unanswered, lead me to believe Ponnuru more than I believe you. I'm not particularly a fan of PATRIOT, but it does seem that there's a whole lot more hysteria than facts in opposition to it. PATRIOT may have clarified some boundaries in ways that libertarians don't like, but it is entirely possible that an agressive federal prosecutor and a complaisant court could have drawn those lines in ways that libertarians like less.

The big change that PATRIOT seems to make is that prosecutors and investigators in terrorism cases now have the same powers they do in RICO cases. On the face of it, that's a net loss for liberty, because the powers the government has in RICO cases are excessive. But I'd rather see the government have those powers for real national security concerns, and not have them for domestic RICO cases than the reverse, which was true before PATRIOT.

[JDM]

Anthony,

Your leaving out that the Reason staffers don't really have areas of expertise. For example, in this instance can anyone at Reason match Ponnuru's legal knowledge? The answer was "no."

[September 8, 2003 02:59 PM]

Don't misnuderstand Rick! We are on the same team. I totally agree that the BEST way to promote civil liberty and libertarianism is to lie out of your fucking ass and totally misrepresent the subject of your argument.

That is the best sales tactic! And solid arugmentation! Bound to convert thousands to our cause! Well, cheering suicide bombers then blaming the Jews is a close second...

[Rick Barton]

When one has no arguments or evidence for refutation to offer, should he or she choose to resort to unfounded accusations of lying and throw in crude racial references to boot as the anon poster chooses to do?

[Russ D]

Ponnuru's "defense" of PATRIOT really looks foolish when you realize that the DOJ in March exempted the NCIC database from quality standards.

http://www.epic.org/actions/ncic/

No doubt data gleaned via PATRIOT will wind up in the database, but you have nothing to fear, remember. Apprently, Ashcroft does have things to fear, otherwise exempt the NCIC from quality standards?

Can't let the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt.

[Pete]

While we're conducting this deserved attack on Gillespie, let's not forget to assign Hit & Run blame where it truly belongs: Mr. Cavanaugh.

It's a lame old pun, but Suck really did suck. And in addition to carting along all the shallow smarm of that mercifully defunct site, he's also inserted all these not-so-Reasonable characters (the Matt Welches, etc.) into the mix here. Reason Online seems to have transformed into his personal playground of head-scratching pop-culture references, arcane literary allusions, and "libertarian" philosophy that's suspiciously not-so-libertarian. Cavanaugh himself rarely writes with clarity and precision -- he seems scared to produce clear prose, as if it might make him look like a dummy.

About the most I get out of Reason Online these days is the occasional link to some other site's interesting content. It's too bad. Reason used to be my first click with my morning coffee.

[Thorley Winston]

JDM wrote:

Your leaving out that the Reason staffers don't really have areas of expertise. For example, in this instance can anyone at Reason match Ponnuru's legal knowledge? The answer was "no."

I think the problem is, and Nick Gillespie's response illustrates it, is that we're starting to see too many people working for Reason without living up to the name.

There probably are legitimate criticism of the Patriot Act but there seems to be a real lack of people making them. I wish that Reason would do some decent and well thought out articles on the subject as they have on other topics in the past - preferably authored by people who have a clue about what they're writing about and are less concerned with trying to earn a badge of honor on some fictious "enemy of the state" list.

Come on you can do better than this, can't you?

[Anonymous]

Actually, no showing of probable cause is required. The usual practice in criminal cases is for an investigator to just subpoena library records without going to a judge or having probable cause. And the subpoena doesn't need to target any particular reader, either.

[Rick Barton]

I wish I was wrong but not so, the Patriots section 215 makes the following changes:
See:http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches. Post-Patriot Act, third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.

See:http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/ where the article also spells out the previous protections that were operable pre-Patriot

[s.m. koppelman]

This back-and-forth is starting to feel a lot like the sectarian bickering of that other all-or-nothing Western political movement.

And it's just about as interesting to people who aren't staffers at the publications involved. I look forward to news of a successful purge of the running-dogs of Rothbardian deviation. Onward to the Ultimate Victory of Millite-Friedmanism!

[Rick Barton]

Also from the piece:

"The difference they(the DOJ) don't acknowledge is that investigators may now do so secretly, and these orders cannot be contested in court. While the new DOJ Web site asserts that searches under 215 are limited to "business records," the act on its face allows scrutiny of "any tangible thing" including books, records, papers, documents, and anything else. The site also says U.S. citizens may not be subject to search, but the act does not differentiate. How can it, when a library or doctor's office is simply asked to produce a list of names?"

[Rick Blaine]

I'm not a fan of The National Review, but I've got to say that I agree with the assertion that Nick Gillespie is well into the process of running Reason "into the ground." A year after Virginia Postrel had relinquished her post, I could no longer read it and, with a great deal of sadness, allowed my long time subscription to lapse. Mr. Gillespie is a poor editor and a worse writer. On top of it all, he is a shallow thinker. The tipping point for me was his ridiculous piece on the Beatles, but that was by no means the only evidence of his unfitness for the job. I hope that the stature of this once important magazine is revived soon under more capable leadership.

[Lee Dise]

Disclaimer: I've been reading NR since 1970. I have never read Reason regularly, but have in the past enjoyed many articles, and it has done a lot of wonderful work in the past. To get the complete scoop on forfeiture law, for example, no one has covered this issue better than Reason.

Now you know where I'm coming from: I consider myself a conservative with a libertarian bent. I would have thought that it would be in Reason's best interest to court readers like myself who tend to agree with NR on economic issues, but at times question their stance on social and legal issues.

However, this is not the tack that Mr. Gillespie has taken. He has taken every opportunity to insult NR in unfair and, worse, unfunny ways (e.g., the parody) and has taken the joy of reading Reason out of me. Witty is good. Witty and nasty is hard-hitting. Nasty is just, well, nasty.

I like the Reason magazine that shone with writers like Virginia Postrel and the late Edith Efron, and still does at times through Jacob Sullum and Cathy Young. Mr. Gillespie's presence at Reason's helm fits like a double-wide in Beverly Hills. To say the least, he is occupying valuable real estate and turning Reason into under-utilized asset.

[Kirk Parker]

Rick Barton:

>> "Can someone provide me of an example...

> Check out books from a library and buy books from a book store.

Sorry, fella, but that's simply not true. You might have been
previously unaware that a criminal investigator could,
upon showing probable cause, subpoena records
about you that a library or bookstore might be holding, but that's
just a case of your being poorly informed. As many others have
already pointed out, PATRIOT merely clarified that national
security investigations weren't prohibited from using these tools
that have always been available to domestic law enforcement
agencies.

[fyodor]

I liked the Beatles piece for being provocative, though it suffered from some internal fallacies and from being based on attacking a strawman.

[Anthony]

While The Corner does sometimes descend to the level of catblogging (actually, dog-blogging), there is also a significant amount of dialog between the authors on matters of substance, as well. The Corner's authors have varying interests and field of expertise, and will frequently provide each other with additional facts or arguments to bolster their cases. That level of dialog and interchange would make Hit & Run a better blog.